#1 is all that's important. The rest is just overblown tripe that gets thrown around by people with an agenda who want to sound like they know more than they do about about the inner-workings of a football team's front office. Hell, #3 is a flat out lie as AJ Smith is not the one who fired Marty. It's also a dumb spin as it plays up Marty's 14-2 regular season record even though Norval practically duplicated that season to a tee in 2009.
I hear what you are saying, and to a point agree. But lets not pretend that Marty and AJ were profesionals with each other. They both refused to talk to the other and were poisoning the well. Dean had to make a move when he did and made his choice based on the interactions of the two. Lets not say AJ had no input, he and Marty forced the issue and I am sure that AJ and Dean had discussions on replacing Marty, just and I am sure (hypothesising) that Marty discussed the need to get rid of AJ to allow him more player control. Dean pulled the trigger, AJ helped aim the gun. That said, I was never a Marty fan, and the only issue I had was that it happened right before the draft.
Good points. Personally, I have no problem with HC and GM not seeing eye to eye. Wasn't the first time. And that situation usually gets resolved quickly once ownership lines up with one side or the other. I think in the 20-20 hindsight world, dumping Brees will ultimately be seen as a bigger snafu than axing Marty (....wait, there must be a thread around here addressing that particular issue )
The timing was the key....Dean should have made them work it out for one more year... professionally they were both paid to make it work....
No arguments. But clearly they were not making it work, not either acting profesional in my opinion. Not speaking to one another for over a year is rediculous when they should be working together! IMHO...
I didn't forget about it nor did I pretend anything, I just didn't mention it because it's irrelevant. I'm sure Marty wanted AJ fired just as much as AJ wanted Marty fired but the irrevocable fact remains that neither had the authority to pull the trigger or make the decision. That was Dean's decision. Right. I'm sure both wanted the other fired. That doesn't give either the authority to do so. Dean chose AJ, not the other way around. Incorrect. AJ helped create the need to use the gun with equal help from Marty. Neither had any control whatsoever in which direction Dean chose to aim it.
Marty made sure it was a head shot by pushing to bring in his .... I forget now .... brother?son?mama?
Yeah. If anything Marty was the one who helped aim the gun....at himself by first allowing the mass exodus of coordinators then trying to bring his brother in for DC. But I really try not to use that argument because at the end of the day it was Dean Spanos and Dean Spanos alone who made the decision of which one to keep. To suggest AJ Smith had any control over it short of equally contributing to the need to choose one is just silly. Anybody who fails to grasp this concept try running a social experiment to test it. Go to work, find the coworker you dislike the most, then go to your boss and ask him/her to fire that person. Tell me what kind of response you get.
Irrelevant perhaps to you. Cause and effect doesnt change with our opinions. I highly doubt that Dean was not influenced or did this in a vaccum as your post indicates you see it (to me)... That said... Dont care. Bring on the 2012 Lombardi Trophy!
What is your line of work? This actaully occurs in corporate America and is common. It happened when I worked in a company of 9 people. Mayhaps it is you who should look into social experimentation.
Of course he didn't do it in a vacuum. I'm well certain he considered AJ's side of the issue. I'm also well certain he considered Marty's. None of that changes the irrevocable fact that it was Dean and Dean's decision alone.
I never stop. I just mix it in with my other material. Drugs have gotten too expensive to be used as an escape mechanism.
What happens a lot in corporate America? People asking their boss to fire somebody else? Does that complaint grant that person the authority at these other places of work? Or is it still the bosses' decision as I suspect?
Why dont you figure out just what it is you are arguing about, and please dont make it "I just wana win" and we can hash this out. Or get some experience in it before rolling your 20-sider for a disbelieve check. Umkayh? Umkay!
What makes you assume it's "I wanna win"? because that's never what it's about for me. Why don't you actually respond to my arguments and we can hash this out, or just not put words and intent in my mouth. Umkayh?
Concudan logic: If he continues to argue his point with actual argument instead of blindly accepting my opinion he's obviously only in this debate to win it and not to debate it.
1) because you arguments are usually about wanting to win more than open discussions. 2) I dont think you have the experience to argue this, nor is it clear what you are arguing as you are jumping from people working their bosses to achieve a goal of having someone fired to asking if that grants authority at other places of work. Your arguments are unclear, and the topic is rather juvenile to begin with. You wont 'win' the argument because I have been there and seen that. If you havent fine. I can agree to let you work with your perception. I can agree to disagree. Umkay!
Leo argument: if he continues he will eventually wear te opposition down and can claim interweb warriorship dominance... Ahh always a pleasure posting with you young man...
1) Because that's the exact opposite of what my arguments are about. Just because I'm strongly opinionated doesn't mean I'm not willing to accept an opposing argument. I have many many times in the past. 2) My argument is very clear: The boss has the hiring and firing authority, not the employee. Just because there is no "winning" to the argument doesn't mean that's what I'm in it to do. I'm just backing up my opinion. If you want to accept it and move on I'm all for it, but don't insult my intelligence and tell me what I'm in a conversation for. THAT is the childish and juvenile thing going on in here.
Concudan argument: If he completely ignores actual points being made in favor of ad hominem argument he can paint the opponent as a childish individual who likes to "win" arguments on the internet and come out looking better because he doesn't like to win arguments, all the while hitting the reply button just as much. I almost forgot how much I hate conversation with Concudan over the internet. Everything steers completely away from the actual topic at hand in favor of condescending tripe about how much of a child somebody is for having an opinion and doing more than just blindly stating it.
It is good to know that you think your argument is very clear. I disagree. There is a saying that goes 'perception is reality'. My perception is that you are in this just to win as has happened every time we do this, you have even posted you have never seen an argument you havent liked in the past. That is my reality. If that insults your intelligence, so be it. You can chalk it up to just me, or ask yourself why I would think that. Either way it is all the same to me.
Okay guys. I think its time we let this one go... Marty's gone, Dean fired him and AJ rejoiced (regardless of how much or how little influence he had on the decision). Back to relevant football discussion funtimes pleeeeeeease
