ImageImage

Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job/Interviewing With Colts - Page 4

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25

User avatar
MickeyDavis
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 48,488
And1: 4,586
Joined: May 02, 2002
Location: The Craps Table
     

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#41 » by MickeyDavis » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:13 pm

The sign of a dysfunctional organization.
My friend asked me if I wanted a frozen banana, I said "No, but I want a regular banana later, so, yeah."
RRyder823
Veteran
Posts: 2,954
And1: 806
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: RE: Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#42 » by RRyder823 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:59 pm

humanrefutation wrote:I think the fact that the 49ers are hiring a GM after offering their coaching job to Shanahan is ass backwards. If I'm Wolf, Gutekunst, or Paton, I'd be annoyed that I couldn't bring in my own guy.

There's one of at least two things that could be surmised once they hire a GM after the coach...

1: The new GM is looking at the coach as if he has a short leash tied around his neck and the moment he has a reason to sell to the fans he's moving on to hire "his guy" as a coach.

2: The new GM will never have the authority to dictate who the head coach of his team and will allways be needing to spend his time convincing the owner of any important decision that needs to be made.

Neither of those are good signs for a franchise and really makes a point to emphasize of lucky we've had to have someone like Murphy running the show. You HAVE to empower your guys to make the right decisions from the top down and trust you've hired the right guys to do so. Even in the situations where it doesn't work, (see Sherman), you HAVE to give allow them to sink or swim on their own without meddling

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
WeekapaugGroove
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,868
And1: 1,679
Joined: Feb 07, 2010

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#43 » by WeekapaugGroove » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:22 pm

RRyder823 wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:I think the fact that the 49ers are hiring a GM after offering their coaching job to Shanahan is ass backwards. If I'm Wolf, Gutekunst, or Paton, I'd be annoyed that I couldn't bring in my own guy.

There's one of at least two things that could be surmised once they hire a GM after the coach...

1: The new GM is looking at the coach as if he has a short leash tied around his neck and the moment he has a reason to sell to the fans he's moving on to hire "his guy" as a coach.

2: The new GM will never have the authority to dictate who the head coach of his team and will allways be needing to spend his time convincing the owner of any important decision that needs to be made.

Neither of those are good signs for a franchise and really makes a point to emphasize of lucky we've had to have someone like Murphy running the show. You HAVE to empower your guys to make the right decisions from the top down and trust you've hired the right guys to do so. Even in the situations where it doesn't work, (see Sherman), you HAVE to give allow them to sink or swim on their own without meddling

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

I hate when teams pick a coach before a gm. Its just a bad recipe for success. But with that said i get why gm candidates would still consider taking the job. There are only 32 of these jobs and teams change gms far less than coaches so if the opportunity is there i get why they take it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming Wow! What a Ride!-H.S.T.
User avatar
ReasonablySober
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 64,808
And1: 7,168
Joined: Dec 02, 2001
Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
Contact:
       

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#44 » by ReasonablySober » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:59 pm

I generally agree with you guys that this is usually a bad sign, but in this case I don't mind it. Shanahan is such a brilliant coach and such a great hire if San Francisco can land him that I don't have an issue of ownership saying, "You're going to handle the 53 man roster, but Shanahan is the guy we want to coach the team."
User avatar
Rockmaninoff
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,823
And1: 650
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
   

Re: RE: Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#45 » by Rockmaninoff » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:48 am

El Duderino wrote:
th87 wrote:TT has become overrated and is living off of Rodgers now. His drafts haven't yielded as much as it had in the past. How many home-run offensive players do we have now, who can take it to the house? Janis and Michael maybe? In the past, we had Jennings, Nelson, Grant (surprisingly). And on defense, we've wasted years starting McMillian, MD Jennings, and still get destroyed over the middle of the field.

With Rodgers, there is no reason the Packers shouldn't get at least a first round bye more often than not. It doesn't stop the Patriots with a lesser QB, and before I hear how the AFC East sucks, so does the NFC North.


My issues with Ted of late reside almost entirely on the many mistakes made on defense.

On offense though, you need to mention the top notch offensive line he's built which only includes one first round pick. During most of Ted's tenure there has been enough talent on offense to reach the Super Bowl. It's been to many mistakes in building defenses which has by far hurt the team most.

Why he's been so much better drafting offense instead of defense is hard to understand and frustrating.


Just a guess, but it might be tougher for him to find impact players with the high character traits he favors on the defensive side.

Another thing is he's sunk a lot of high picks into the defensive line without much to show for it. I find that odd because defensive line personnel in this scheme have minimized value, and he generally has had more success picking playmaker types higher.
MilBucksBackOnTop06 wrote:The fight for civil rights just like for liberty and justice and peace won't be won by man. It will take a god...so lets move on to sports.


Magic Giannison wrote:Giannis is god but even god's cannot save our **** team.
User avatar
th87
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,330
And1: 955
Joined: Dec 04, 2005
   

Re: RE: Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#46 » by th87 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:54 am

Rockmaninoff wrote:
El Duderino wrote:
th87 wrote:TT has become overrated and is living off of Rodgers now. His drafts haven't yielded as much as it had in the past. How many home-run offensive players do we have now, who can take it to the house? Janis and Michael maybe? In the past, we had Jennings, Nelson, Grant (surprisingly). And on defense, we've wasted years starting McMillian, MD Jennings, and still get destroyed over the middle of the field.

With Rodgers, there is no reason the Packers shouldn't get at least a first round bye more often than not. It doesn't stop the Patriots with a lesser QB, and before I hear how the AFC East sucks, so does the NFC North.


My issues with Ted of late reside almost entirely on the many mistakes made on defense.

On offense though, you need to mention the top notch offensive line he's built which only includes one first round pick. During most of Ted's tenure there has been enough talent on offense to reach the Super Bowl. It's been to many mistakes in building defenses which has by far hurt the team most.

Why he's been so much better drafting offense instead of defense is hard to understand and frustrating.


Just a guess, but it might be tougher for him to find impact players with the high character traits he favors on the defensive side.

Another thing is he's sunk a lot of high picks into the defensive line without much to show for it. I find that odd because defensive line personnel in this scheme have minimized value, and he generally has had more success picking playmaker types higher.


Dorsey probably wouldn't have that problem since he went after Tyreek Hill.

And not only is the draft not delivering, we have no CB depth whatsoever. In the past, we didn't go into the season with 2 proven CBs and one young guy: Woodson/Harris/Williams; Woodson/Williams/Shields; Williams/Shields/Hayward, etc. Now we were reliant on two young, unproven guys, one given the starting job before we knew for sure he'd be ready. And so now with one injury, we're trotting out UDFAs.

Rodgers deserves better.
RRyder823
Veteran
Posts: 2,954
And1: 806
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#47 » by RRyder823 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:23 am

th87 wrote:
Rockmaninoff wrote:
El Duderino wrote:
My issues with Ted of late reside almost entirely on the many mistakes made on defense.

On offense though, you need to mention the top notch offensive line he's built which only includes one first round pick. During most of Ted's tenure there has been enough talent on offense to reach the Super Bowl. It's been to many mistakes in building defenses which has by far hurt the team most.

Why he's been so much better drafting offense instead of defense is hard to understand and frustrating.


Just a guess, but it might be tougher for him to find impact players with the high character traits he favors on the defensive side.

Another thing is he's sunk a lot of high picks into the defensive line without much to show for it. I find that odd because defensive line personnel in this scheme have minimized value, and he generally has had more success picking playmaker types higher.


Dorsey probably wouldn't have that problem since he went after Tyreek Hill.

And not only is the draft not delivering, we have no CB depth whatsoever. In the past, we didn't go into the season with 2 proven CBs and one young guy: Woodson/Harris/Williams; Woodson/Williams/Shields; Williams/Shields/Hayward, etc. Now we were reliant on two young, unproven guys, one given the starting job before we knew for sure he'd be ready. And so now with one injury, we're trotting out UDFAs.

Rodgers deserves better.


You really can't be seriously with that "one injury" line? Literally our only CB who hasn't been hurt this year is Hyde and he's our #5 CB. That's why we've been reduced to trotting out players like Hawkins.

CB depth was the least of this teams concerns going into the season. No team, and I'll repeat no team, can withstand the onslaught of injuries we've had to the position and expect to trot out a solid group or even just average one.

This is where luck comes into play



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
ReasonablySober
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 64,808
And1: 7,168
Joined: Dec 02, 2001
Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
Contact:
       

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#48 » by ReasonablySober » Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:26 pm

Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter
RRyder823
Veteran
Posts: 2,954
And1: 806
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#49 » by RRyder823 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:31 pm

Well Wolf is out. One less worry in the offseason even though I never expected him to leave

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
humanrefutation
RealGM
Posts: 17,333
And1: 2,697
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
       

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#50 » by humanrefutation » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:54 pm

ReasonablySober wrote:
Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter


AKA Wolf wasn't going to get the 49ers job.
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 23,435
And1: 771
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#51 » by Kerb Hohl » Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:59 pm

Other theory is that he knows he's going to get the GB job in a year or two and got himself a nice little raise in the meantime.
RRyder823
Veteran
Posts: 2,954
And1: 806
Joined: May 06, 2014
   

Re: RE: Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#52 » by RRyder823 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:00 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:
Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter


AKA Wolf wasn't going to get the 49ers job.

More along the lines of here's a pay raise and a promise your taking over for TT in a year to turn it down

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
humanrefutation
RealGM
Posts: 17,333
And1: 2,697
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
       

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#53 » by humanrefutation » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:08 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:Other theory is that he knows he's going to get the GB job in a year or two and got himself a nice little raise in the meantime.


He would have known that before he decided to interview for the gig, IMO. I doubt the Packers went into panic mode over the past couple weeks in order to establish a transition plan and offer him a GM-in-waiting deal. That's not TT's style, and I don't think it's Murphy's either. The Packers have always fairly deliberative in their approach, and for a decision like that, they would have discussed this well before the 49ers process began, and likely would have informed Wolf of that decision prior to risking him last week. Otherwise, if they were THAT sold on Wolf that they were going to proceed with him no matter who else is available out there, it would be asinine to let him interview with SF for the gig without letting him know that was on the table.
User avatar
crkone
RealGM
Posts: 18,485
And1: 1,879
Joined: Aug 16, 2006
     

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#54 » by crkone » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:11 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:Other theory is that he knows he's going to get the GB job in a year or two and got himself a nice little raise in the meantime.


He would have known that before he decided to interview for the gig, IMO. I doubt the Packers went into panic mode over the past couple weeks in order to establish a transition plan and offer him a GM-in-waiting deal. That's not TT's style, and I don't think it's Murphy's either. The Packers have always fairly deliberative in their approach, and for a decision like that, they would have discussed this well before the 49ers process began, and likely would have informed Wolf of that decision prior to risking him last week. Otherwise, if they were THAT sold on Wolf that they were going to proceed with him no matter who else is available out there, it would be asinine to let him interview with SF for the gig without letting him know that was on the table.


I think the Packers just let it play out however it would. They let him go to the interview, he gets a second, he tells the Pack their offer, and they decide to give him a bump in pay and a new contract with probably some wording in it about future interviews.

Code: Select all

         -|
       -' |
     -'   | __().
==========|'\/   `.O__
                    \ `,
                   _-^.
                   `.  `---,
                     :

____________________________________
///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 23,435
And1: 771
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#55 » by Kerb Hohl » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:19 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:Other theory is that he knows he's going to get the GB job in a year or two and got himself a nice little raise in the meantime.


He would have known that before he decided to interview for the gig, IMO. I doubt the Packers went into panic mode over the past couple weeks in order to establish a transition plan and offer him a GM-in-waiting deal. That's not TT's style, and I don't think it's Murphy's either. The Packers have always fairly deliberative in their approach, and for a decision like that, they would have discussed this well before the 49ers process began, and likely would have informed Wolf of that decision prior to risking him last week. Otherwise, if they were THAT sold on Wolf that they were going to proceed with him no matter who else is available out there, it would be asinine to let him interview with SF for the gig without letting him know that was on the table.


Why would he have gotten a raise/new deal then? If the Packers weren't set on him being the next guy and SF turned him down, what's the point of giving him a new deal within like 5 minutes of his "name off the list" announcement?
User avatar
humanrefutation
RealGM
Posts: 17,333
And1: 2,697
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
       

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#56 » by humanrefutation » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:31 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:Other theory is that he knows he's going to get the GB job in a year or two and got himself a nice little raise in the meantime.


He would have known that before he decided to interview for the gig, IMO. I doubt the Packers went into panic mode over the past couple weeks in order to establish a transition plan and offer him a GM-in-waiting deal. That's not TT's style, and I don't think it's Murphy's either. The Packers have always fairly deliberative in their approach, and for a decision like that, they would have discussed this well before the 49ers process began, and likely would have informed Wolf of that decision prior to risking him last week. Otherwise, if they were THAT sold on Wolf that they were going to proceed with him no matter who else is available out there, it would be asinine to let him interview with SF for the gig without letting him know that was on the table.


Why would he have gotten a raise/new deal then? If the Packers weren't set on him being the next guy and SF turned him down, what's the point of giving him a new deal within like 5 minutes of his "name off the list" announcement?


In order to help him save face and to reward his loyalty to the Packers. That does not mean they're offering him the GM-in-waiting deal.
User avatar
Iheartfootball
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,470
And1: 360
Joined: May 09, 2014
Location: Yay area
       

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#57 » by Iheartfootball » Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:32 pm

He had no leverage for a new deal or raise prior to the SF interview.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app
Oh man. Milwaukee. Damn.

Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs. And take them down.
User avatar
Kerb Hohl
RealGM
Posts: 23,435
And1: 771
Joined: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Hmmmm...how many 1sts would Jason Richardson cost...?

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#58 » by Kerb Hohl » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:24 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:
He would have known that before he decided to interview for the gig, IMO. I doubt the Packers went into panic mode over the past couple weeks in order to establish a transition plan and offer him a GM-in-waiting deal. That's not TT's style, and I don't think it's Murphy's either. The Packers have always fairly deliberative in their approach, and for a decision like that, they would have discussed this well before the 49ers process began, and likely would have informed Wolf of that decision prior to risking him last week. Otherwise, if they were THAT sold on Wolf that they were going to proceed with him no matter who else is available out there, it would be asinine to let him interview with SF for the gig without letting him know that was on the table.


Why would he have gotten a raise/new deal then? If the Packers weren't set on him being the next guy and SF turned him down, what's the point of giving him a new deal within like 5 minutes of his "name off the list" announcement?


In order to help him save face and to reward his loyalty to the Packers. That does not mean they're offering him the GM-in-waiting deal.


Given that Wolf got the new deal, there are 2 plausible scenarios:

1. He wants to stay in GB or didn't want SF but did it for leverage and succeeded.
2. He was a serious candidate for the SF job and we lured him back with a raise. This would at least suggest a little bit to me that we want him around enough to be our next GM. If not, he's eventually going to get lured away so why bother trying to keep your #2 or #3 guy around so hard when TT probably has 1-2 years left? If someone else takes over, Wolf is not going to just happily sit at his secondary post.

Now, there's the chance that SF rejected him and said he "took his name out of consideration" as a token of respect to Wolf. If that was the case, you really think the Packers would just say, "ah, Elliot, sorry to hear about that man. Here's a raise."

The raise very likely came before he pulled his name out of the race for SF's job. That's why the announcements came at basically the same time.
User avatar
humanrefutation
RealGM
Posts: 17,333
And1: 2,697
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
       

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#59 » by humanrefutation » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:41 pm

Kerb Hohl wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:
Why would he have gotten a raise/new deal then? If the Packers weren't set on him being the next guy and SF turned him down, what's the point of giving him a new deal within like 5 minutes of his "name off the list" announcement?


In order to help him save face and to reward his loyalty to the Packers. That does not mean they're offering him the GM-in-waiting deal.


Given that Wolf got the new deal, there are 2 plausible scenarios:

1. He wants to stay in GB or didn't want SF but did it for leverage and succeeded.
2. He was a serious candidate for the SF job and we lured him back with a raise. This would at least suggest a little bit to me that we want him around enough to be our next GM. If not, he's eventually going to get lured away so why bother trying to keep your #2 or #3 guy around so hard when TT probably has 1-2 years left? If someone else takes over, Wolf is not going to just happily sit at his secondary post.

Now, there's the chance that SF rejected him and said he "took his name out of consideration" as a token of respect to Wolf. If that was the case, you really think the Packers would just say, "ah, Elliot, sorry to hear about that man. Here's a raise."

The raise very likely came before he pulled his name out of the race for SF's job. That's why the announcements came at basically the same time.


Those are fine theories. My only point was that none of this implies he was offered the GM-in-waiting, as you seemingly alleged. You're making a leap based on a series of facts that can be interpreted in different ways.

Yes, he didn't proceed with the SF job. Maybe he didn't because the Packers offered him the GM-in-waiting, as has been expected for a while now.

Or, maybe he went through the first round of interviews in SF and decided that he didn't really like York and wasn't particularly thrilled about not having a say in his coaching hire. So, getting a second round interview selection enabled him to go back to the Packers and use it as leverage for a raise. Maybe the raise isn't big, maybe the Packers think he's a valuable piece of this front office, but that doesn't mean they guaranteed him the GM job.

I'm inclined to believe the latter is more likely, because I find it hard to believe the Packers would let him go to SF for the first interview before offering him the GM-in-waiting gig. That's a risk that doesn't seem particularly prudent. If they wanted to offer that to Wolf, you do so before he can leave. You don't let him dip his toes in the water elsewhere and risk losing your #1 GM target.
User avatar
humanrefutation
RealGM
Posts: 17,333
And1: 2,697
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
       

Re: Elliot Wolf to interview for SF GM job 

Post#60 » by humanrefutation » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:01 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
Kerb Hohl wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:
In order to help him save face and to reward his loyalty to the Packers. That does not mean they're offering him the GM-in-waiting deal.


Given that Wolf got the new deal, there are 2 plausible scenarios:

1. He wants to stay in GB or didn't want SF but did it for leverage and succeeded.
2. He was a serious candidate for the SF job and we lured him back with a raise. This would at least suggest a little bit to me that we want him around enough to be our next GM. If not, he's eventually going to get lured away so why bother trying to keep your #2 or #3 guy around so hard when TT probably has 1-2 years left? If someone else takes over, Wolf is not going to just happily sit at his secondary post.

Now, there's the chance that SF rejected him and said he "took his name out of consideration" as a token of respect to Wolf. If that was the case, you really think the Packers would just say, "ah, Elliot, sorry to hear about that man. Here's a raise."

The raise very likely came before he pulled his name out of the race for SF's job. That's why the announcements came at basically the same time.


Those are fine theories. My only point was that none of this implies he was offered the GM-in-waiting, as you seemingly alleged. You're making a leap based on a series of facts that can be interpreted in different ways.

Yes, he didn't proceed with the SF job. Maybe he didn't because the Packers offered him the GM-in-waiting, as has been expected for a while now.

Or, maybe he went through the first round of interviews in SF and decided that he didn't really like York and wasn't particularly thrilled about not having a say in his coaching hire. So, getting a second round interview selection enabled him to go back to the Packers and use it as leverage for a raise. Maybe the raise isn't big, maybe the Packers think he's a valuable piece of this front office, but that doesn't mean they guaranteed him the GM job.

I'm inclined to believe the latter is more likely, because I find it hard to believe the Packers would let him go to SF for the first interview before offering him the GM-in-waiting gig. That's a risk that doesn't seem particularly prudent. If they wanted to offer that to Wolf, you do so before he can leave. You don't let him dip his toes in the water elsewhere and risk losing your #1 GM target.


Like, look at it this way. Recently, a colleague of mine found out that a company had an opening that would be a promotion for her. She decided to go interview for that promotion, and came away disinterested in the position for whatever reason. She was offered the job, but she knew she didn't really want that gig. So, she used the offer as leverage at her current job for a raise - which is easier for a company to swallow because it costs money to hire and train a replacement anyway. She didn't get a promotion, because that job was filled at my employer. But she got a raise, and that's valuable enough.

Return to Green Bay Packers