Quote:The two biggest examples I can think of as far as a "Total Control" Head Coach were Coughlin when he got here and Holmgren when he moved to Seattle. Both had good success early, but could not sustain it over the long-term. To me, the two jobs of a General Manager and a Head Coach are simply way too much for one person to do alone. You can have input back and forth, but you need more than one guy to oversee things.

 

That and the general conflict of interest that exists between a GM that should be building the roster with an eye toward the future and a Coach who is trying to win right now.  

 

 

Not directed at the above quote, but in general I don't think granting final say on the 53 to a Coach is the same as "full control".  And I'm also not suggesting that you take granting that power to a coach lightly either.  At least you would still have a separate person making final decisions on who to bring in in free agency and who to draft.  And you still have someone with hopefully less of an emotional attachment to certain players when it comes time to negotiate a new deal.

 

In the end, I think a scenario where the Coach and GM see eye to eye on most things is the best and to have some system in place for arbitrating disagreements on personnel.  I believe Coughlin or any other coach with a similar resume is going to get final say on the 53 wherever they end up though.

---