I respect Tony Grossi, and know that he has some contacts. I do feel he's not always objective, but know that he tries to be.
I finally read this old article of his on why Chud was fired.
Like a lot of Tony's stuff, it reads like a Soap Opera, but I had to look in the mirror and try to be objective myself, and separate myself from my preconceptions.
And much of what he wrote rings true. That is, it's plausible given the various parties, how they operate, their agendas, and what happened.
I suggest you read the article if you haven't already, because I won't rehash it here. Rather, I'll do a summary:
Per the article, which I can't say for sure is true, there was friction between Chud and the front office. Banner did monkey around with Chud's personnel against his wishes. This part is true, since it was a Banner decision:
He de-activated CB Chris Owens. Tony concludes that he was pushing his own draft pick, Leon McFadden, who until then the coaches hadn't used. That's plausible.
I'm not sure where Tony got the idea that Banner suggested that Chud cut either Luavao or Little from the roster in order to send a message to the other players, and remain unconvinced. But it is possible. At any rate, Chud did not.
I think what's more plausible is that Chud was asked to BENCH Little, and he refused. And I'm not even sure who's side I'm on here! Little early on resumed his Braylon Edwards imitation and I felt he should be benched---only who would replace him?
I wonder if this was before or after Benjamin was injured. I also wonder what the other unknown recievers might have done. I just don't know (and don't pretend to).
But accountability was the watchword from the firing to the hiring of Mike Pettine, and one of the first questions the front office probably asked Pettine was "If you've got a reciever who keeps dropping balls and cost you at least one win, what do you do with him?"
...Ya know?
I think Tony wants to side with Chud, and know that most of those who read the article did.
But I'm not influenced by where Chud came from, or the fact that he's a genius (he really is). All this article did for me was explain some things.
Joe Banner wants to build a lasting dynasty, which means go young and maximize the draft now. Accept a disappointing season now, just looking for improvement through the first year.
He traded two lower draft picks last draft for two higher ones this time, and then traded an unproductive back for another first round pick with this in mind.
He may well have forced Chud to use McFadden before he wanted to (before he was ready--he's widely considered very talented), and discarded the much older Owens. He wanted the guy to get experience.
He may well have asked Chud about it: "I want Leon to get some reps. I know he's still learning, but we're playing for 2014 here, and Owens is probably gone then." And maybe Chud said "I've got to go with my best players. Leon will get his shot, but he's not ready yet--he'll get exploited."
As the GM, I would have accepted this. Banner did what he did, and Chud probably complained about it.
Joe is sitting next to Jimmy, watching the games. Little drops a perfect touchdown pass which would have won a game. He drops more. What is Jimmy saying to Joe?
"Why is he still playing!?!"
Suggestions were made, and it sounds like Chud rejected all of them. I'm not knocking him, since in his place I would have done most of the same things. I wouldn't have cut Weeden (I seriously doubt that Banner wanted him cut in the middle of the season). I wouldn't have replaced a shaky Campbell with Weeden...I'd seen enough of Weeden my own self...
And you know, Tony, I really doubt that Banner suggested that move too. Where did you get that? It doesn't make sense. At his WORST, Campbell was better than Weeden, who Banner inherited.
In the end, the team did get worse instead of better in the second half. As I've said before, that's irrefutable. A fairly healthy defense started rolling over in the fourth quarter, game after game. What was that about?
WHY did Campbell start sucking? COULD Chud have done anything about it?
So ok, Banner interfered a little on the personnel side. But I can understand why he did. Here Lombardi AND FARMER had to have been consulted, so this isn't about Banner thinking he's a football guy. Most likely, the personnel people felt that McFadden was mature enough to be okay.
OK so they were wrong. McFadden sucked. Owens was better.
I could go on with this all day, but at the end of it it's this: The front office and Rob Chudzinski were not on the same page, and an adversarial situation occurred. The team regressed, and Jimmy and Joe (more Jimmy than Joe, I'll bet) decided to take the PR hit now rather than let the situation grow worse.
I think the biggest reason the coaching search took so long is because the front office wanted to spend some extended time with the candidates to MAKE SURE they shared the same vision and were on the same page.
Now, I'm reading from others who are several rungs below Grossi all sorts of irrational crap about this.
I don't believe that any of the coaches was really upset about the TRich trade, or that it undermined the team even a little. If you don't believe me, ask the Colts.
I don't care about Jimmy's legal troubles, and don't think that pleading guilty and going to prison is required for him to use the word "accountability". He can be a crook, but he still owns the team and if he thinks a guy who drops passes or allows sacks should be benched he's right, period. You people watch too many bad movies.
Joe Banner a hypocrite, passing the buck? What buck? What the hell are you talking about? It's his fault because he traded the two draft picks and TRich? Because the converted defensive end got only five sacks playing part time as a rookie? Because Hoyer got maimed? Because the QB he inherited was a bust? Because of a heart condition?
Another genius pointed out that all five Pro-Bowlers were inherited. So Joe Banner is refusing to be accountable because none of his ROOKIE draft picks made the Pro Bowl now! The bar keeps getting higher and higher!
You could have said that they missed on Paul Kruger. Pick on him about Bess being some sort of head case. About McFadden vs. Owens (a little). I'd say "Yeah he blew those all right!".
But nooooooo!
You're like my freaking ex! You keep going and going and going and making it up as you go along! Reality means nothing to you--you go all psycho when you start bashing somebody!
Aw crap I give up.
Anyway, Tony's article was pretty good. Thanks Tony.
No comments:
Post a Comment