What's more valuable: The owner or the player?
by David Fucillo on Mar 14, 2010 7:46 AM PST
in San Francisco 49ers News
Email
PrintOver the last few weeks, primarily since drummer came on board as a front page writer, we've danced around, over, and through the topic of 49ers ownership. It's a hot-button issue that ignites a variety of passion on both sides. While there are not a lot of answers to many of our questions, it is still a useful exercise in getting thoughts out on the table.
I mention this because A couple days ago, one of the writers over at SBNation.com put together an article looking at this topic in a broader sense. Andrew Sharp asked the question "What's more valuable: Owner's Money, or a Money Player?" Does a franchise get built thanks to an owner with deep pockets, or does it have to have the player to build around?
This is a difficult question to answer in a general sense because each sport is different in its financial structure. Accordingly, Sharp broke down each sport, considering arguments on both sides, and issuing a verdict one way or the other. Among the results, baseball and basketball went with the owner, while hockey and football went with the player/high pick. For football it certainly makes some sense given the salary cap in place and the developmental level of many first round picks.
However, there were some interesting arguments on the player end. The easiest argument is that the NFL Draft is nowhere near an exact science. Sharp made the other argument that a deep pocket owner is often more inclined to be less patient, which can be a big problem. Whether that's always true is another question entirely, but it's certainly something to consider. And the argument I found interesting was this:
Wouldn't you rather have an owner that's willing to spend money every offseason, pays for a staff of salary cap experts, and shells out millions for the best coaching staff around? Owners can't buy the players, but they can buy the best people to pick the players, and in the NFL, that's the biggest variable left.
There's always the money for free agency, but just as important is getting the right guys in your front office and coaching staff, which often can require a certain amount of money.
So, what do you think? Obviously people could easily say they want both. But considering all the arguments, what is more important for a football team?
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Owner, hands down.
Because once the player’s gone, he’s gone, but with a good owner, you’ll have a nearly neverending supply of good/great players.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Yea i would have 2 say owner 2
because of all the shots that snyder gets ( owner of the redskins ) he only wants 2 win and is willing 2 spend money 2 get the best .Yea some of these super rich owners sometime needs 2 play more of the back round but i can’t fault a owner who’s willing 2 dish out whatever it takes 2 win i think some owners mess up is when they don’t know football as much as the people they hire and end up rolling the dice on some one who’s not ready 2 coach.
in the long haul, it is the owner for sure
look at how consistently good the Raiders were when Davis was on top of his game, and how consistently bad they have been since he lost it.
Look at the consistency of the Patriots since Craft came in. Look at the Cowboys with Tex Schramm and Steelers with the Rooneys.
It isn’t just money, it is a combination of money, will to win, and ability to get out of the way and let the best football people do their job. The owner’s job is to find good football people and help them attract other good football people. And then help close the deal with community and players to attract them.
They're called RUNS for a reason.
Very well said!!
It seems to me that perhaps the most important single issue is the size of the owner’s ego! If he is willing to hire great people, then get the hell out of their way and let them do their jobs, you can achieve a winning franchise (e.g., Bob Craft and the Rooneys). On the other hand, if he either fails to hire great people because he doesn’t want to be challenged or is constantly meddling when he doesn’t really know the football business, you get a failed franchise, regardless of the size of the owner’s wallet (e.g., Dan Snider and Ralph Wilson, although for different reasons).
In the case of the 49ers, it would appear that Jed is willing to learn and seek counsel (like from Eddie), but it isn’t clear that he yet knows how to seek, find, and hire the very best football people. In any event, he is miles and miles ahead of his father, possibly because he has far fewer issues to focus on. Eddie made some TERRIBLE hiring decisions (e.g., Joe Thomas as GM) when he first owned the club; over time he learned better. Let’s hope that the same will be true for Jed.
by 49erFanSince1950 on Mar 14, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
It's the owner....by far
Look at what a good owner can do for a franchise (deBartolo, Kraft, J Jones, Cuban, Lakers) while a bad ownership can sink a franchise for years (Al Davis, Cohan, Snyder, the Clippers, etc). A good owner is hands off & smart enough to hire the right people & put them in position to succeed. Those in turns will draft the right players. So, when you are the right ownership in place, you can succeed for years. You can be lucky & draft a great player but it’s a team game & you’ll need a good ownership to surround that player with other talents (see what happened to B Sanders in Detroit).
3 out 5 coaches you named
don’t have a problem signing max contracts and even eddy.b did a little the money was’nt event close 2 todays contracts but i would be intrested in seeing where the niners pay roll back lets say the top 10. highest salaries during eddy.b tenure .I would appreciate if someone could look that up 4 me and post it in this forum appreciate it uf you can and post the top ten team names 2 ?
by jayjonna415 on Mar 14, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
The owner can BUY opportunity in the NFL
You can get by with 2nd string talent if you get the green light to dominate your opponent.
The most recent example I can think of was the Seattle Seahawks in the 2005 season. The only worthy person on that team was Matt Hasslebeck. Everybody else was overrrated. The defense was allowed to hold and get away with any penalty they wanted— even pass interference. The receivering core was sub-par and you had receivers that dropped the ball all the time. Even when he broke the running TD in a season for a running back, Shawn Alexander was a fraud— due to the fact that the OL was holding all the time. You pretty much had referee Ed Hochuli throwing every game to the Seahawks thru the regular season to the the NFC Championship game. In redemption, the Super Bowl was the only fairly called game the NFL had that year. The Seahawks forgot how to play fairly and were committing flagrant penalites and were be caught with their pants down.
What does this mean? It means you can cheat your way to the Super Bowl with owner-assisted opportunity.
"Proving 2nd class ownership is profitable"
by More False Hope on Mar 14, 2010 10:59 AM PDT reply actions
As Bill King would say, "holy toledo!"
If you really believe this diatribe, you need SERIOUS HELP. First, your scenario couldn’t happen even if anybody was dedicated to try to make it happen. Second, you certainly don’t know either Paul Allen or Mike Holmgren (I know both); they are both honorable men and simply don’t do business that way. Get control of yourself!
by 49erFanSince1950 on Mar 14, 2010 1:33 PM PDT reply actions
Mike Holgren is a great coach. Seemingly unknown to you… the 2005 Seahawk season was given on a silver platter to them. Unfortunately, that 2005 Seahawk team couldn’t play a clean game against a more battle-hardened Steeler’s team. The Seahawks choked in the end.
"Proving 2nd class ownership is profitable"
by More False Hope on Mar 14, 2010 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
actually
the Seahawks got robbed in that super bowl by a blatant PI the Steelers got away with in the end zone.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
The blatant pass interference call in the end zone by the Seahawks is all I remember.
"Proving 2nd class ownership is profitable"
by More False Hope on Mar 14, 2010 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions
It was a pretty big/important play.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Mar 14, 2010 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions
This quote here...
From the NFL Verdict says a lot:
More than anything, the most successful franchises in football have a common theme: continuity. When you’re team’s constantly shuffling front office people and the coaching staff, it affects the product on the field. It’s just simple logic: A guy breaking the bank every single year is less likely to be patient. The most successful teams in football aren’t the ones with the richest owners, but the ones with front office people that have been in place for years.
There are plenty of reasons why John York became impatient with Steve Mariucci (a lot of that also due to Mooch’s own impatience at wanting greater control of the team, but with both Walsh and Donahue never giving that to him also), but since his dismissal, the 49ers haven’t had a sound organizational structure until last year, outside of the continuity of Marathe. I’ve been distrustful of Marathe in the past, but he really has the 49er books balanced. Now I have come to speculate on if the 49ers hired Jim Schwartz instead of Nolan, and how Marathe could be the 49ers GM if they had since both Schwartz and Marathe share a common philosophy of football. IMO, the 49ers simply picked the wrong guy to spearhead a rebuild, and they already had a GM in place that already had a relationship with Schwartz. But hey, a suit on the sideline looks good, right?
Well, we're waiting....
I have to vote for the player.
Whether it’s the all pro defensive player or offensive player. No fans buys owner’s jerseys and no fan pays a ticket because they have a great owner. Players are the cornerstone of the league and Owners are cornerstones of their franchise, after the player. No matter what a team does when it concerns moving players the fans make the league work and they want to see football, which is played by the players. Owners make site decorum without fans. The 49ers have had poor management and coaching for a long time, but the fans still come to see players, even when they were losing, hey, and we’re still losing. A lot of fans don’t like the ownership but they still love the team. Even though our HOF’s are gone, what they did here has a lot to do with fans loving the 49ers, no one cares about an owner. Of course they appreciate a good one, but the player will always mean more to the fans, and fans will always matter MOST to the league!!!
Equation= 1,2,2,3,3 is a lot better than 1,1,2,3 in a deep draft, especially when your 1 nets you E berry.
Alex Smith is not a bust, he is a product of poor management and coaching.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
