Quote
RockRam
I want in on your surveillance techniques.
Because publicly, and without equivocation, both McVay and Snead say that Snead makes the final decision, but you and ZN speak about "consensus". How do you know its a consensus? I haven't heard that word used by either one in this context.
ANYTHING done by committee or majority rules means nobody has accountability. IMO that's why Fisher constantly talked as though everything with personnel was a committee or "consensus" decision because it shielded him from accountability. But clearly Fisher was in charge; he even hired Snead. This time around, Snead hired McVay (so to speak). And Snead acts like, and says, he's in charge of personnel acquisition, and McVay backs it up.
It is any GMs job to find the players that fit with the system the HC has implemented or he's a poor GM. Priority, need, exactly which college prospects project to that system, prospect value, etc., is certainly something not done in a vacuum by the GM, but unless McVay and Snead are two bodies sharing one mind, consensus has to be pretty hard to reach very often. Agreement yes; consensus no.
If this is at all like running a decent sized business (I suspect, but don't know, that it is), then Snead weighs out 3 basic streams of info: his scouts, his coaches regarding need and fit, and his own observation and evaluation of the pool of players and the current roster. I would imagine it is infrequent that a GM would force a player upon an HC unless it was more about off field issues. In other words, that they couldn't come to an agreement.
I'm a bit puzzled by your post, Rock.
In it, you seem to ask and then answer your own question about consensus. Nothing much in your (or zn's) post to disagree with.
