Frazier Hints Freeman Didn't Get a Fair Shake

[PurpleHalo]

Okay, thanks for volunteering... now where do we find that young stud?

Right here my man!

I can reel the chicks in!

[Mothman]

Right here my man!

I can reel the chicks in!

Sold! You're on the team, my friend.

[PurpleHalo]

Sold! You're on the team, my friend.

Whooohooooo

[Just Me]

I compare pretty much every thread on this board to the classic, stalemated, endless tug-of-war. That ribbon/rag in the middle of the rope dances one side of center or the other. Threads in forums are very rarely "pull everyone on the other side into the pit" slam dunks. So IMO all we are doing here is asserting whether that ribbon is one side of middle or the other. No one is asserting full-on factual basis for whatever we type.

Fair enough. I think that is an accurate position to take.

So, what DO we know about the classic role of a HC in the NFL? They pick the starters. They ALL get inputs from ownership on down, but the HC picks the starters. Plain and simple. If you want to assert that Frazier started Freeman while he was dead set against it, they I have no clue how one (and I don't mean you specifically) can assert Frazier was a good HC who got screwed by the GM in this context.

I'm glad you can see I'm not asserting that. My only purpose in responding in the thread was to respond to those who seem to imply (or outright assert) that because the Head Coach is responsible for the personnel who play that somehow equates to a 'smoking gun' and excludes any possibility that he [the head Coach] may not have other superiors that are influencing (perhaos even, for all practical purposes, mandating) his decision(s). My purpose in sharing my anecdotal story was to draw a possible parallel on 3 points.

1) While the decision was mine and I was responsible, for all practical purposes to exercise that "discretion" would have cost me my job assignment (demoted - if you will). As a purely technical matter, it was my decision. I would still make that statement today (and so would my former boss) but it doesn't mean that it is as simple as it was "my decision."

2) Positional Power does not always equate to Actual Power. In the example I used, I had Positional Power, but my boss had the Actual Power in the situation. Just because the HC has the authority (Positional Power), doesn't mean he is free to exercise it (Actual Power). Childress learned that lesson fairly abruptly when he cut Randy Moss. He certainly has the Positional Power to make the decision and as Head Coach he makes the call as to who can play. Wilf obviously honored that positional authority, but that was one 'of the 'nails in Childress's coffin' if you will. This doesn't have to be a comparison between bosses either. There were times when in conflicts I still held Positional Power but the unions held the Actual Power depending on the situation.

3) That specific boss was capable of doing (and had done to others) what he was indicating/implying would happen to me. He also worded it in such a way, that I knew he really wasn't going to 'defer to my authority' should I choose to name another candidate. I would have won the battle and lost the war. Another boss I had (previously) in the same position could provide his input and I knew to take them as what they meant: "just suggestions". He also did not deliver veiled threats with his input. His advice would be more along the lines of: "Have you given any thought to this person?" He would then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of that person. So even the "influence" is somewhat situational. Rarely is life that simple. But to assert that it never happens (or even is unlikely) is not accurate.

A good HC would not have ended up in that spot, IMO. It is really that simple. It's called holding the HC accountable.

If you mean that a good head coach does not make poor decisions that perhaps precipitates the management/ownership to feel the need to step in and take control of some of the "head coach's responsibilities" then I agree with that premise. If you are asserting that "No good head coach" would allow Management/Ownership to "micromanage" for any reason, then I disagree. The meddling by the GM/Ownership can occur if they want it to irrespective of the Head Coach's talents (or lack thereof). Jerry Jones of the Cowboys is one such example that comes to mind. At the end of the day the Head Coach is held accountable, regardless of whether not external factors played into it. That may or may not be fair, but that's the way it is.

I don't know whether it was 82% Frazier's call and 18% Spielman's or 45/55 - how could I possibly know that? I see zero evidence that it was "Spielman's call", not matter how many work situations you and I can come up with.

Agreed. I don't know that it wasn't 85/15 Spielman-Wilf/Frazier nor do I know that it wasn't 100% Frazier when Spielman would have "suggested" Freeman get more acclimated with the team before playing him. (Heck, in another thread I stated I hoped that the Vikings didn't "rush" Freeman into action to early). However the decision was made, it was a poor one. There is no evidence that it was Spielman's call, nor would there be, even if it happened to parallel my situation. I'm not even asserting it happened that way. What I am saying is that to say it didn't happen that way is almost as much of a supposition as asserting it did. (I lean more to the HC being responsible side of the argument, because absent any management influence, he is the one making the calls.)

So I would not assert in a million years that Frazier was "forced" into starting Freeman - there is absolutely zero proof - it is a "supposition". The issue I have is with posts that use supposition as some kind of "factual basis" to assert Frazier was not accountable for the QB situation ON THE FIELD. Of course he was, he was the HC. His vague verbal dances around "auditioning mid-year" are just plain silly.

I agree on this. The fact that Frazier did not "evaluate" Ponder more than he did in Pre-season and other questionable personnel decisions throughout the year make it easy to believe Frazier made a poor decision on the selection of Freeman to play against the Giants. But...to treat the fact that the HC is "normally" the guy responsible for these decisions as some sort of "smoking-gun" evidence that there is no way the ownership/GM "leaned" on Frazier to play Freeman, is equally a stretch. There may be other factors that lead one to the conclusion that Frazier just "messed up" but the fact he's the HC and responsible for those decisions (in and of itself) is no "slam-dunk" that he wasn't influenced by others. If people want to believe (on one side or the other) that doesn't say the same thing as Frazier was the guy (100% - no way any other scenario is plausible) or "I'm sure it was all Spielman (or Wilf)." If you accuse Spielman of doing this, that is unfair to him as there is no observable evidence he exerted that influence.

Note I am not referring to wins and losses nor am I saying "we would have won/lost more" if such and such happened. The organization wins and loses as a team. While IMO some members of the organization contributed greatly to whatever success we achieved, I do not think Frazier did his part - the part EXPECTED of a good NFL HC. He was not a zero. He was a C-. And C- coaches have no business being an NFL HC IMO.

I would disagree. I would like C- coaches for all the other teams in the NFC North, but want better for the Vikings On a serious note, I think that's accurate and I agree.

[NextQuestion]

Wonder what flavor he likes? Strawberry? Peanut butter?

[psjordan]

2) Positional Power does not always equate to Actual Power. In the example I used, I had Positional Power, but my boss had the Actual Power in the situation. Just because the HC has the authority (Positional Power), doesn't mean he is free to exercise it (Actual Power). Childress learned that lesson fairly abruptly when he cut Randy Moss. He certainly has the Positional Power to make the decision and as Head Coach he makes the call as to who can play. Wilf obviously honored that positional authority, but that was one 'of the 'nails in Childress's coffin' if you will. This doesn't have to be a comparison between bosses either. There were times when in conflicts I still held Positional Power but the unions held the Actual Power depending on the situation.

Snipping out remainder of good stuff and responding to above ...

I do think that our jobs are wholly and distinctly different than that of an NFL HC though, even in the anecdote you share.

It's fairly rare that a billion dollar business has what, 150 employees? (I have no idea the average number of employees on NFL teams?). Using 150, that equates to over six million per head in revenue. That is a very distinct corporate model which I am sure is much different than most of our personal experiences (in my business for instance, if your company revenues are over $250K per head you are doing pretty well).

So I do think it is different for an NFL HC who is making say $4-5M to "simply do what the GM tells them". They absolutely understand that WINNING will save their job no matter HOW many times the GM puts "does not play well with others" on their review. Childress cutting Moss without telling anyone is a special brand of nuts that probably should not be used as an example of anything other than Childress' hubris. Although that act made his firing a fait accompli, the team did actually fare better after that as I recall.

Although I work for myself, those of us with bosses would tend to absolutely side with the boss rather than worry about the "revenue per head", i.e., the "number of wins" that the organization achieves. After all, a favorable review from a boss for 98% of the country is 75% of job security. I just don't see that parallel in the NFL.

HC's typically report to GM's for a reason, and I understand a lot of the decision making on the big stuff involves GM and Owners. However I simply cannot imagine Spielman in a meeting (in front of the Wilfs) telling Frazier to start Freeman. And I simply cannot imagine the other scenario of Spielman running down the hall to tell Frazier that after NOT saying anything in the meeting.

I would be almost positive that the last thing said in any such meeting was NOT a veiled "it's your decision Leslie". Everyone in the room only cares about winning games, and Leslie would not have been the man he seems if he did not say "guys, I'm starting Billy Bob because he gives us the best chance to win".

Folks may not like Spielman for lots of reasons, I'm on the fence with the guy. But suggesting he helped lead Frazier's demise by telling him to start Freeman? Eh. I don't buy a second of it.

[Just Me]

I do think that our jobs are wholly and distinctly different than that of an NFL HC though, even in the anecdote you share.

It's fairly rare that a billion dollar business has what, 150 employees? (I have no idea the average number of employees on NFL teams?). Using 150, that equates to over six million per head in revenue. That is a very distinct corporate model which I am sure is much different than most of our personal experiences (in my business for instance, if your company revenues are over $250K per head you are doing pretty well).

When placed in that context, you'll get no argument from me. I could try to argue that the dynamic is not that dissimilar regardless of the income, but I don't know that (having not worked in or for the NFL) so that truly would be a supposition on my part if I were to attempt it.

So I do think it is different for an NFL HC who is making say $4-5M to "simply do what the GM tells them". They absolutely understand that WINNING will save their job no matter HOW many times the GM puts "does not play well with others" on their review. Childress cutting Moss without telling anyone is a special brand of nuts that probably should not be used as an example of anything other than Childress' hubris. Although that act made his firing a fait accompli, the team did actually fare better after that as I recall.

In this aspect I'm not sure I see a distinct difference between a head coach's performance and a division director's performance. Both are ultimately tied to results but the immediate supervisor has a lot more "face time" with the Head of the Organization (or Owner) than Frazier does. It's not impossible to make an argument (even if the HC (or Director) is successful) that it's the personnel and not the leader leading to wins/performance. A winning record does not necessarily equate to retention either (Schottenheimer with the Chargers). I'll grant you that even in Schottenheimer's case it was still tied to "winning" in the post season which Schottenheimer failed to consistently do, but he was 14-2 the year he got fired. So I'll concede that Frazier would have been more likely a Viking coach had we went even as mediocre as 8-8, but I'm not sure the Freeman decision was the tipping point for that to happen anway.

Although I work for myself, those of us with bosses would tend to absolutely side with the boss rather than worry about the "revenue per head", i.e., the "number of wins" that the organization achieves. After all, a favorable review from a boss for 98% of the country is 75% of job security. I just don't see that parallel in the NFL.

Point made, and I agree on the parallels not matching up in this area. To be clear though, I have disagreed with my boss(es) on more than one occasion, and even once asked the question if my boss wanted a "nodding head" or if really wanted my opinion on the issue he was soliciting input. So even then, it's not that you always agree with your boss (nor were you suggesting that) just because he is your boss, but circumstances can arise that give him "leverage' if you will, over you. I don't have any solid reason to think Spielman is that machiavellian, but he still possesses the cards to deal Frazier a "raw hand" (future employment opportunities) if he was that manipulative and vindictive.

HC's typically report to GM's for a reason, and I understand a lot of the decision making on the big stuff involves GM and Owners. However I simply cannot imagine Spielman in a meeting (in front of the Wilfs) telling Frazier to start Freeman. And I simply cannot imagine the other scenario of Spielman running down the hall to tell Frazier that after NOT saying anything in the meeting.

I would be almost positive that the last thing said in any such meeting was NOT a veiled "it's your decision Leslie". Everyone in the room only cares about winning games, and Leslie would not have been the man he seems if he did not say "guys, I'm starting Billy Bob because he gives us the best chance to win".

I agree. FWIW I don't think Spielman is a "loose cannon" that decided on his own to have Freeman start. I suspect all three of them talked-it-out and all three probably agreed (in a non-threatening way similar to my "good supervisor's" methods I previously mentioned), and then Frazier made the call (with the tacit support of Spielman and Wilf). But the "veild threats" could be made in a round table that are just as innocuous sounding but still having a subliminal message (especially if they started to lose confidence in Frazier as a coach after the abysmal start).

"Leslie - we really like how the players respond to you and want to keep you around, but we are a bottom line business, so it comes down to wins. Now, if you're sure Ponder gives us the best chance to win and you're right, we'll be OK with that. It just seems that we seem to know we have in Ponder and we think Freeman may give us that extra help to win games. We really want you to consider giving him a 'hard look' at starting for your own sake. We think he gives you the best chance to win. Let us know what you decide."

Quite honestly, that could be taken multiple ways (so it depends on how Frazier's relationship is with the Wilfs/Spielman to determine if he is really just offering "friendly advice" or if the key words of:
"win and you're right - we'll be OK" and "hard look at starting him for your own sake" are veiled references to the consequences of not going with the recommendations. Again, this is speculation beyond what I can know or authoritatively assert, but I find it hard to believe that an owner/GM could not have any or only minimal influence (even a multi-million dollar head coach) in making a decision he may not normally make without that owner's/GM's influence.

Folks may not like Spielman for lots of reasons, I'm on the fence with the guy. But suggesting he helped lead Frazier's demise by telling him to start Freeman? Eh. I don't buy a second of it.

You're probably correct if only from the standpoint that I don't see Spielman getting that influence over Frazier "in a vacuum" without the Wilfs knowing about it. In that case, Spielman metaphorically shoots himself in the foot as presumably it would reflect negatively on Spielman as well when Freeman does poorly in the game. I actually like the job Spielman does and would prefer we make him responsible (which seems to be how we're going about it) for the team's performance. Zimmer bombs as coach? Spielman is still responsible as he is the one making the recommendations. He needs to get Zigi to "sign off" on his recommendation, but I get the feeling the new regime is for Spielman to sink or swim. I'm OK with that. I think Spielman deserves his chance.

[psjordan]

Zimmer bombs as coach? Spielman is still responsible as he is the one making the recommendations. He needs to get Zigi to "sign off" on his recommendation, but I get the feeling the new regime is for Spielman to sink or swim. I'm OK with that. I think Spielman deserves his chance.

Agree with almost all, especially this. Here's hoping we are singing Spielman's praises this time next year.