Do you all trust these guys?

[Sothron]

Any vision that does not have the end result in a championship team in Atlanta is the wrong one.

[Alex]

33 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Damn....they've been on their current jobs for 8 months.  

They may come from Pop's and Ferry's tree, but they will have to set their own part.  They have to reset what their vision is for the Hawks.

They don't know what their vision is though.  That's the problem.  Most sane people and even a few here :) understand the Hawks are vey flawed and aren't going to compete for the east in the near future.  The roster is decent, but need basically a makeover from the ground up in order to be a threat.  

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, AHF said:

That's why I don't like the change even if I don't think Ferry walks on water.  Teams that are constantly resetting their vision (think Cleveland Browns) fail.  I hope we can have stability in our management team and time for them to play out their vision.  I thought we were getting that with Ferry and now we are 'resetting' again.

Well, yeah teams that don't make changes are teams that do well. And teams that keep changing their roster/vision usually suck. But I think the causation runs in the opposite direction. If you're a good/great team, then you don't make changes. Kinda don't make sense to stay the course if you, yaknow, suck. Well, except for the 90s Clips but that was more likely because Sterling was trying to make money by keeping costs low.

(Not saying we suck or anyone in particular sucks, it's just an annoying observation I see all the time to claim "continuity is important!" or what have you. Sund was big on saying that, but I don't think he or others are interpreting the observation of continuity correctly.)

[hawkman]

27 minutes ago, Sothron said:

Any vision that does not have the end result in a championship team in Atlanta is the wrong one.

Just having a 'vision' or 'plan' is not enough. BK had both for whatever that was worth. Before you establish continuity, you have to verify that the path you're on is the correct one. After last season's ECF beat down, I'm not sure if the Hawks are on the correct path.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, hawksfanatic said:

Well, yeah teams that don't make changes are teams that do well. And teams that keep changing their roster/vision usually suck. But I think the causation runs in the opposite direction. If you're a good/great team, then you don't make changes. Kinda don't make sense to stay the course if you, yaknow, suck. Well, except for the 90s Clips but that was more likely because Sterling was trying to make money by keeping costs low.

(Not saying we suck or anyone in particular sucks, it's just an annoying observation I see all the time to claim "continuity is important!" or what have you. Sund was big on saying that, but I don't think he or others are interpreting the observation of continuity correctly.)

For me continuity isn't about the roster, it is about the management team - ala the Steelers and Patriots.  They change their team all the time but have a core driving vision that doesn't change.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

For me continuity isn't about the roster, it is about the management team - ala the Steelers and Patriots.  They change their team all the time but have a core driving vision that doesn't change.

OK, how does that differ from what I said before? You're still not changing your management team when they, yaknow, are good? And you make the moves when they suck. It is one of those problems with observational data and trying to determine what is it that drives the success.

I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or what. I think you are, so now we're in a fight. Poophead.

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, hawksfanatic said:

OK, how does that differ from what I said before? You're still not changing your management team when they, yaknow, are good? And you make the moves when they suck. It is one of those problems with observational data and trying to determine what is it that drives the success.

I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or what. I think you are, so now we're in a fight. Poophead.

We're not in a fight.  Sund's past comments to me were more about the players ("we're not making changes because WLOC!") so I wanted to distinguish WLOC from my interest in GM independence and stability for a substantial length of time.  (Of course, Sund also was under Gearon's thumb so there is that difference in regimes as well).  

With our team under Ferry, I feel like our management team had a good record and we made a change when they didn't suck.  That is what I don't like.  

The current management team needs time to develop enough of a record that we can evaluate - and then we can debate about causation and drivers.