McKenzie next on the GM search list

[aj.]

I ran across the article below which provides more support for my weak GM theory. I was looking to add it to the McKenzie thread which I expected to see somewhere- but I couldn't find anything on it. In the immortal words of Vince Lombardi, "what the hell is going on around here?" You guys are slipping.

On a side note, who still faxes?

GB Post Gazette offering (with insight - or at least opinion):
http://greenbaypressgazette.packersn...26107704.shtml

New coach Gary Kubiak, hired this offseason, wields strong influence in the organization, and it appears unlikely the new GM will have more power than Kubiak, though whether he would be on an equal level or subordinate to the coach is unclear.

Chronic hit (wire copy Ctrl C - Ctrl V):
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...t/3877641.html

[Hardcore Texan]

I don't know much about either of these guys, mostly what I just read, but both candidates come from a long tradition of winning. That has to be a good thing. Sounds like Smith from Denver has the inside track.

[aj.]

I like Smith better than McKenzie or Ron Hill.

[TwinSisters]

I hope they just ride this season out with Sherman as acting GM and then make a move. ( hopefully go without one )

There is nothing that says you have to have a GM and it is rare that a rookie Head Coach is going to have any credit in the bank to be able to stand next to a GM that is over him. It just seems like adding to much to the pot right now ... and will potentially brew up some unwanted trouble.

I think Kubiak is bound to hit some bumps and it's better not to have a guy like Casserly around to make for trouble in the FO. I remember seeing a lot of BS coming out of the papers last year that resulted in a bunch of finger pointing that didn't seem all that productive ( although we did get a #1 pick overall out of it... but that crap is like getting a Blue participation ribbon, nice but who really wants that? ).

Casserly is gone. Delegate whatever the hell he was doing to some assistants and let Kubiak ride solo until he has some wins underneath his belt.

That's what I hope they do.

[ArlingtonTexan]

Originally Posted by TwinSisters

I hope they just ride this season out with Sherman as acting GM and then make a move. ( hopefully go without one )

There is nothing that says you have to have a GM and it is rare that a rookie Head Coach is going to have any credit in the bank to be able to stand next to a GM that is over him. It just seems like adding to much to the pot right now ... and will potentially brew up some unwanted trouble.

I think Kubiak is bound to hit some bumps and it's better not to have a guy like Casserly around to make for trouble in the FO. I remember seeing a lot of BS coming out of the papers last year that resulted in a bunch of finger pointing that didn't seem all that productive ( although we did get a #1 pick overall out of it... but that crap is like getting a Blue participation ribbon, nice but who really wants that? ).

Casserly is gone. Delegate whatever the hell he was doing to some assistants and let Kubiak ride solo until he has some wins underneath his belt.

That's what I hope they do.

Interesting concept, but everyone I have ever talked about Sherman in Green Bay feels like the Sherman the GM was horrible. They are little more mixed on his coaching ability.

[TexanFan881]

Originally Posted by KFFL

Packers | McKenzie to wait and see about Texans' job
Sun, 21 May 2006 16:55:29 -0700

Lori Nickel, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports Green Bay Packers director of pro personnel Reggie McKenzie said Sunday, May 21, he has not been contacted by the Houston Texans about their general manager position and no interview had been arranged, but his interest is obvious. "Right now, I love working for the Packers," McKenzie said. "I'll have to wait and see if they call me, wait and see what the next step is. I'm more than ready. If it is to be, it will be. Right now I am just flattered. If it happens I'd be honored and would go in there with my hard hat and give it my best shot." When McKenzie's name began to circulate as a candidate for the Texans job about two weeks ago, Packers general manager Ted Thompson was also complimentary of McKenzie's abilities. McKenzie doesn't know Texans' head coach Gary Kubiak, but that potential working relationship didn't seem to send up any warning flags.

Seems like we're getting people that know the coaches on our team. First we had Rick Smith come in (Kubiak) and now McKenzie (Sherman).

[mexican_texan]

Originally Posted by aj.

I like Smith better than McKenzie or Ron Hill.

Wasn't Smith a puppet for Shanahan?

[ensign_lee]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

Interesting concept, but everyone I have ever talked about Sherman in Green Bay feels like the Sherman the GM was horrible. They are little more mixed on his coaching ability.

Having lived in Wisconsin for a year, that was what a LOT of packers fans thought. Case in point: that punter that they drafted in the third that they then waived.

[aj.]

Smith and Ted Sundquist are responsible for player personnel with titles of Asst GM and GM. They report to Shanahan. I've read some good things about Smith.

I expect Smith's role here would be the same as Casserly's was this year. Run the scouting operations, grade and rank talent at the pro and college level, develop the draft board, interface with other teams on free agency, and be the spokesperson for football ops. Ferens would be at an equal position and be responsible for cap and negotiations. Kubiak would probably have 51% of the vote on most draft day decisions other than high #1 picks where the owner might also be involved.

[mapleleaf]

I though the Texans were going to be vacant for 1 year on the GM position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Texans

[aj.]

That's completely bogus. Read the part about citation needed.

[TwinSisters]

Originally Posted by ArlingtonTexan

Interesting concept, but everyone I have ever talked about Sherman in Green Bay feels like the Sherman the GM was horrible. They are little more mixed on his coaching ability.

Yeah absolutely. You have to remember though that Sherman is filling in right after Holmgren and the Super Bowl Packers ( nothing less then a Super Bowl would make folks happy ). I wouldn't want Sherman as the GM either, but he can hold the fort down until Kubiak gets some legitimate credit to his name.

I guess I am saying I actually believe Kubiak is going to do well without having the extra distractions. Meaning the risk of having some type of FO power struggle outweighs just letting Sherman do the deeds under Kubiak, until Kubiak can devote the extra energy to the critical GM duties ( player management ).

harmony in the Front Office means something and I don't want to see the Capers/Casserly thing again in <insert GM>/Kubiak. It can get really messy.

See Holmgren Seattle:
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...ic.php?t=58067

[Bobo]

Originally Posted by TwinSisters

Yeah absolutely. You have to remember though that Sherman is filling in right after Holmgren and the Super Bowl Packers ( nothing less then a Super Bowl would make folks happy ). I wouldn't want Sherman as the GM either, but he can hold the fort down until Kubiak gets some legitimate credit to his name.

I guess I am saying I actually believe Kubiak is going to do well without having the extra distractions. Meaning the risk of having some type of FO power struggle outweighs just letting Sherman do the deeds under Kubiak, until Kubiak can devote the extra energy to the critical GM duties ( player management ).

harmony in the Front Office means something and I don't want to see the Capers/Casserly thing again in <insert GM>/Kubiak. It can get really messy.

See Holmgren Seattle:
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...ic.php?t=58067

Just because you have two different perspectives doesn't make it a bad thing at all. If you know anything at all about business, one guy who makes all the decisions without someone to give him honest, adversarial input is a recipe for disaster. Especially when the guy is as green as Kubiak.

[aj.]

McKenzie insists he's the man

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printsto...sfront/3887264

[OzzO]

McKenzie is the man? I thought Smith was the man? I don't know much about either, but I see either one of them before Hill (Falcons - correct?) Smith and McKenzie seem to have a good past and have had good Texan feedback from their visits.

[TexanFan881]

Originally Posted by KFFL

Texans | McKenzie would have taken M. Williams as well
Wed, 24 May 2006 18:31:26 -0700

During a press conference Wednesday, May 24, Green Bay Packers director of player personnel Reggie McKenzie was asked where he stood on the debate between Houston Texans DL Mario Williams and New Orleans Saints RB Reggie Bush. McKenzie said, "Mario Williams. Even from day one when a lot of the mock drafts were saying that Mario Williams was going to be at No. 5 to Green Bay, half the mock drafts were saying that Green Bay was going to have Mario Williams before all his pro days and everybody figured out that this guy is an unbelievable football player. But that lasted all of a couple of days, thinking that we were going to have a chance to get Mario. If he would've landed at the No. 5 pick, I'd still be dancing in the streets of Green Bay. He's the one guy that we think that could turn a defense around. He's a young guy and he's got a lot to learn, but I think that's the type of player that you're willing to learn with." McKenzie interviewed for the Texans' general manager vacancy on Wednesday.

Of course he's going to say Mario was the right pick for the Texans. He does want to be the GM of the Texans doesn't he?

[nunusguy]

I dunno....but could McKenzie relate better to the players, which is important
when it comes to recruiting FAs to the Texans ?
Smith struct me as someone who was awfully busy trying to impress you with
his vocab, which might leave potential prospects considering signing a contract with the Texans uncomfortable and feeling as if they were being talked down to.

[GP]

Here's the link to a thread that already has McKenzie in it--The thread title even has McKenzie's name in it, too.

http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zon...ad.php?t=23564

I would have started a McKenzie thread, but every time I do something like that...it gets merged with another thread that's already there. I scanned the threads (last night at about 10 pm) and saw that someone had already brought up news about McKenzie...thus, I added my espn.com link about him to the already existing thread. I followed the rules, but had I not...I'm sure my thread would have been merged with the already existing thread that I am linking you all to.

One of my minor (please note I said "minor") gripes about thread merging, at least for me, is that I (and others) often come up with newer and more pertinent information that will help people to not have to wade through sometimes hundreds of posts just to find the newest skinny on the topic. To me, there comes a time when a newer thread needs to be allowed so that board members don't have to wade through tons of posts that have become very irrelevant due to a major shift in the developments of a story (i.e. Moulds trade confusion, which had everyone playing "who's on first?" for about 125 posts).

Allowing a new thread that has the title "Moulds trade officially NOT completed yet" and having it in conjnction with the older thread helps people to see that someone has discovered more relevant and timely information on the topic. In addition, in that sort of situation, the OLDER thread should be merged into the newer thread (in my opinion) and not the other way around. I know we want to reward people for getting the scoop and starting the thread...but to me, I think most board members would appreciate thread merging that's more in line with us getting the news faster, easier. While I like scanning posts along the way to the most recent posts about the topic, there's a lot of "news" items that I just want to get right to the heart of and find out the most up-to-date information on.

Been wanting to discuss this for awhile now (as you can see ) and I think the timing is good for it. Thanks for al you guys do, we appreciate your work and dedication. I'm not making a huge gripe, just a suggestion.

[edo783]

IMO, we have two winners in either Smith or McKenzie to choose from. Not a bad thing.

[Ibar_Harry]

Originally Posted by nunusguy

I dunno....but could McKenzie relate better to the players, which is important
when it comes to recruiting FAs to the Texans ?
Smith struct me as someone who was awfully busy trying to impress you with
his vocab, which might leave potential prospects considering signing a contract with the Texans uncomfortable and feeling as if they were being talked down to.

I agree with you. I thought there was too much I in his speach and his personality ruffled my feathers. I know its a 1st impression, but 1st impression is often important in an interview. He really came off as a non-team player for some reason. I didn't feel he would blend in with what we already have.

For example, despite what people thought Casserly and Kubiak sat down, rolled up their sleeves, and they developed into a complimentary relationship. Each brought something different to the table. I don't get that with Smith. Seems like he emphasizes that he and Kubiak are two peas in a pod. I think a different perspective is important in this situation. I don't want a yes man.