Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Who Needs A General Manager?

Do the Raiders need a new GM, in practice if not in title? Call it a football "czar" or "personnel guy" or whatever.

Whatever you want to call it, do we need it?

Well, that depends on whom you talk to. Around here at Raider Take, my persistent agitation for executive assistance has caused quite an outcry. Which is puzzling, because the desperate need for added executive assistance is rather self evident, is it not? Even John Madden admitted as much.

Can you give me one priority that trumps our need for added executive help? Crickets, baby. Crickets.

So are you for or against the executive status quo in Alameda?

It's a simple question that some refuse to answer. Yes, they agree that a GM is needed...until you say that a GM is needed. Then it's: How dare you suggest such a thing!? We're fine!

Into this bizarre state of cognitive dissonance walks Scott McCloughan, the now former GM of the 49ers, who was dismissed for undisclosed personal reasons unrelated to performance.

McCloughan has family ties to the Raiders, and the Raiders (allegedly) need executive help, so it's not hard to connect the rumor dots with regard to his potential candidacy as a Raiders executive.

Personally, I'm all for it. At this point, I'll take any legitimate candidate with a pulse over the snail-like pace of our current executive search, which was supposedly launched many moons ago.

I'd prefer a search that is proactive rather than reactive. Waiting for someone like McCloughan to get axed from his job for personal reasons doesn't exactly scream "master plan in effect," but again, beggars can't be choosers.

So are you for McCloughan joining the Raiders? Or do you prefer the executive status quo?