Paylor: Communication, management style were factors in firing of Dorsey

[Quesadilla Joe]

A lot of new information/quotes in this article...

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/nfl...158155634.html

Spoiler!

The Chiefs have compiled a 43-21 record the last four years thanks to the work of coach Andy Reid and general manager John Dorsey, all while publicly and privately painting a picture of internal harmony and teamwork.

They managed to stay unified and on message even during tough times, like the NFL’s tampering investigation into the free-agent signing of Jeremy Maclin that led to fines and the forfeiture of draft picks.

But behind the scenes, the Chiefs’ front office did not always run smoothly under Dorsey. Team chairman Clark Hunt’s decision to fire Dorsey was fueled, in part, by concerns about his internal communication and management styles, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation who spoke to The Star on condition of anonymity.

As one of the sources said while describing how Dorsey had removed two front-office executives without much explanation: “John does stuff and doesn’t tell people why.” Another source said Dorsey’s management style “could wear on people.”

A message left with Dorsey seeking comment for this story was not immediately returned.

Dorsey’s firing was announced Thursday, the same day Reid received a contract extension. Both men had a year left on their contracts and report separately, but directly to Hunt. That structure will remain when a new GM is hired.

While sources have consistently maintained that Reid and Dorsey worked well together — “You never got the impression they were sparring,” one source told The Star — the two also had different approaches to their jobs.

While Reid has a reputation for being structured and process-oriented, Dorsey was described by those who know both men as looser.

“He goes with the flow,” one source said of Dorsey.

That style didn’t always mesh in situations outside of Dorsey’s undeniable strengths, picking and evaluating players. The other areas Dorsey oversaw were contracts and salary cap management — and the Chiefs have been in cap trouble for a while — in addition to the general, day-to-day management of the team.

“He’s not a big disciplinarian or big on chain of command,” a source said, “so people did what they wanted.”

“It’s more about his management skills,” another source added.

For instance, the typically stable Chiefs also made waves this offseason when Dorsey released director of football administration Trip MacCracken and director of pro scouting Will Lewis. Each man had been with the team for at least four years, and not only were their dismissals surprising, there weren’t many answers to be found, even inside the organization.

“Those decisions were totally John’s,” a source said. “That’s the kind of stuff he does.”

Sources also critiqued Dorsey’s management style, noting that while he was often friendly and jovial, the same tongue-in-cheek manner he used to win over most people over eventually wore on others.

“It could rub people the wrong way at times,” a source said.

Dorsey still has fans inside the Chiefs organization. They cited his passion for the game, constant availability and eye for talent as respected strengths.

“Loved working for him,” one source said. “Great dude.”

“He was always great to us …,” another source added, “You hate to see something like this happen.”

Dorsey also has a number of supporters across the league, as an overwhelming amount of league sources who dealt with him on a regular basis — approaching a dozen — told The Star.

“He was always a guy that would listen, was a pro, good to work with,” one league source said.

“One of my favorite people in 20 years in the business,” another source said. “Honest and straightforward. Man of conviction. Was shocked and sad to see the news.”

Multiple sources also called Dorsey a friend on a personal level, noting that it was not unusual for him to call just to say “hello,” even when on vacation.

“A consummate pro’s pro in negotiations,” one league source said. “Always up front and straight, and a super talent and football evaluator.”

Other league sources agreed with that notion, adding that Dorsey’s standing as an evaluator of talent remains peerless.

“He is a dyed-in-the-wool scout, loves the element of watching college players, loves breaking down film,” said Andrew Brandt, who spent 10 years as a Green Bay Packers vice president alongside Dorsey and writes for TheMMQB.com. “That always seemed like that’s what he was most happy, and most comfortable, doing.”

It’s a trait that, communication and management issues aside, many league sources believe will be difficult for the Chiefs to replace, especially on the heels of the club losing Dorsey’s talented and respected right-hand man Chris Ballard to Indianapolis five months ago. Ballard is now the Colts’ GM.

“I loved him,” one league source said of Dorsey. “Blunt, honest and a great talent evaluator. Losing him and Ballard in one offseason is insane.”

Brandt said he wouldn’t be surprised if the Chiefs prioritized talent evaluation, along with leadership and communication, with their next hire. The Chiefs are already over the projected 2018 salary cap, but there’s a widely-held belief around the league that whatever cap issues they have can be rectified in a year or two.

“We have this traditional version of an NFL GM coming from a scouting background, like John — and that’s the most popular GM model,” Brandt said. “Then there are a few coming from more of my background, which is from the financial side, about business and cap contracts. The third model is one Andy had in Philly, which is coach/GM.

“To me, the real underappreciated trait you want from a GM is leadership and communication, because the GM will be coming from one of those backgrounds and will need to communicate seamlessly with what he’s not an expert at. Teams sometimes rush to sign an expert in one area while maybe not taking into account the necessity for communication in other areas.”

[Meatloaf]

From all of the info that's been slowly released, it still sounds like a cumulative effect of everything, from personality clashes to salary cap management and the contract.

The bottom line is that if they owner doesn't like you, you're not going to be employed for long.[/QUOTE]

Dane, if this is the case, then why in the world was Clark negotiating with Dorsey on a contract extension? That's the part that has me stumped. I mean, you certainly wouldn't be trying to extend a guy who just barely passes muster, would you?

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

I'd say it's tough to expect that when you're dealt a Mike Vick/Alex Smith hand over the last six years.

If Mahomes is the guy I think you'll see Reid's teams have the success they had with McNabb. If not then maybe you have a point.

Sure. Between the years of 2000 and 2004, with McNabb in his prime and some loaded teams, he had some degree of postseason success. That was a long time ago. Turning 14 years in Philadelphia into 1 super bowl appearance and 0 titles is not that great, overall.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by Meatloaf

Dane, if this is the case, then why in the world was Clark negotiating with Dorsey on a contract extension? That's the part that has me stumped. I mean, you certainly wouldn't be trying to extend a guy who just barely passes muster, would you?

Maybe the contract extension was contingent on him making changes to his management style and he was unable/unwilling to make those changes? There are a lot of possibilities and the only certainty is that none of us know the truth.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Meatloaf

why in the world was Clark negotiating with Dorsey on a contract extension? That's the part that has me stumped. I mean, you certainly wouldn't be trying to extend a guy who just barely passes muster, would you?

It's clear Dorsey had some warts, but Clark wanted him back. But only at a reasonable cost.

Clark wants to win, but he doesn't want to sacrifice too much precious Hunt money to do it. He just wasn't willing to overpay for a GM who was bleeding dead money left and right year after year apparently.

Clark is too focused on $. Dorsey's wild spending habits (wild to Clark, anyway, this isn't Snyder-level spending we're talking about) overshadowed his status as the best talent acquirer in the league, and that's probably going to cost this team long term.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Meatloaf

Dane, if this is the case, then why in the world was Clark negotiating with Dorsey on a contract extension? That's the part that has me stumped.

No one has leaked the state of the contract negotiations.

Have you never been in a situation before with someone you work with that does a good job, but you can barely tolerate on a personal level?

Unfortunately, I have and it ended up the same exact way: I fired that person.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

Dorsey's wild spending habits (wild to Clark, anyway, this isn't Snyder-level spending we're talking about) overshadowed his status as the best talent acquirer in the league, and that's probably going to cost this team long term.

Can't disagree with that.

[Meatloaf]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No one has leaked the state of the contract negotiations.

Have you never been in a situation before with someone you work with that does a good job, but you can barely tolerate on a personal level?

Unfortunately, I have and it ended up the same exact way: I fired that person.

Not to be argumentative, but isn't it generally best practice that you pay for performance, not personal appeal? Of course, if someone is barely tolerable on a personal level, that.likely points out some underlying flaw(s) in the incumbents make-up that might affect performance. But still, if the performance is good, it's good regardless of said flaw(s), and so wouldn't you would proceed with an extension even if you didn't care for the individual?

In your case Dane, how do you know that good performance wouldn't be forthcoming from your employee? Or are you saying that you kept the person even though you didn't care for them, and eventually performance waned and you had to fire the person? The way I see it, employment should be based on performance, not personality.....and yes, personality may have something to do with performance (based on the job at hand), but again, if the overall performance is good.....

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Meatloaf

Not to be argumentative, but isn't it generally best practice that you pay for performance, not personal appeal? Of course, if someone is barely tolerable on a personal level, that.likely points out some underlying flaw(s) in the incumbents make-up that might affect performance. But still, if the performance is good, it's good regardless of said flaw(s), and so wouldn't you would proceed with an extension even if you didn't care for the individual?

In your case Dane, how do you know that good performance wouldn't be forthcoming from your employee? Or are you saying that you kept the person even though you didn't care for them, and eventually performance waned and you had to fire the person? The way I see it, employment should be based on performance, not personality.....and yes, personality may have something to do with performance (based on the job at hand), but again, if the overall performance is good.....

John Dorsey reports to Clark Hunt. If Clark Hunt has a difficult time, personally, with John Dorsey, that's a negative.

If Clark Hunt has difficulty with the ongoing issues with the Salary Cap, overseen by John Dorsey, that's another negative.

If Clark Hunt has difficulty with John Dorsey cutting a 3rd rounder that was selected just months before, that's another negative.

If Clark Hunt has difficulty with John Dorsey signing Dwayne Bowe to a $55 million dollar deal and cutting him two years into the contract, that's another negative.

If Clark Hunt has difficulty with John Dorsey signing Jeremy Maclin to a $55 million dollar deal and cutting him two years into the contract, that's another negative.

I can go on and on and on about this but it's pretty clear that Hunt's decision was based on the cumulative effect of Dorsey's decisions and with the contract impasse, decided to cut the cord and move on.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No one has leaked the state of the contract negotiations.

Which in and of itself is amazing. Clark isn't Pioli, I doubt if this is because people are afraid of him. I think it indicates that he hasn't told many people (a good manager wouldn't) and the ones he has told respect him enough not to talk.

[Kiimo]

Not to mention losing money by waiting on Houston, Smith and Berry's contracts that was a gamble that lost Clark's money on all three.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

It sure is.

Thanks. I really liked the stunning examples you provided.

Originally Posted by Lex Luthor

I guess I missed all of those Super Bowls that Dorsey delivered here.

You'll miss the unseen talent that came from under rock #532.6, which along with better than average drafting provided Reid the kind of deep roster one needs to make it all the way to a ReidSmith pants-sharting in the post season.

So there's that.

[Meatloaf]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

John Dorsey reports to Clark Hunt. If Clark Hunt has a difficult time, personally, with John Dorsey, that's a negative.

If Clark Hunt has difficulty with the ongoing issues with the Salary Cap, overseen by John Dorsey, that's another negative.

If Clark Hunt has difficulty with John Dorsey cutting a 3rd rounder that was selected just months before, that's another negative.

If Clark Hunt has difficulty with John Dorsey signing Dwayne Bowe to a $55 million dollar deal and cutting him two years into the contract, that's another negative.

If Clark Hunt has difficulty with John Dorsey signing Jeremy Maclin to a $55 million dollar deal and cutting him two years into the contract, that's another negative.

I can go on and on and on about this but it's pretty clear that Hunt's decision was based on the cumulative effect of Dorsey's decisions and with the contract impasse, decided to cut the cord and move on.

Since Hunt was engaged in negotiations to extend Dorsey, the cumulative effect of Dorsey's "transgressions" must've still been positive. Heck, maybe it just all boiled down to something in the proposed contract that Hunt and Dorsey could not agree on. I just don't see how Dorsey's prior performance would be viewed as negative by Hunt if he was all about extending him. Or, I guess it could've come down to Hunt just not wanting to mess with Dorsey and his ways anymore -- of course, if that was the case, he shouldn't have been negotiating with him in the first place.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Meatloaf

Since Hunt was engaged in negotiations to extend Dorsey, the cumulative effect of Dorsey's "transgressions" must've still been positive. Heck, maybe it just all boiled down to something in the proposed contract that Hunt and Dorsey could not agree on. I just don't see how Dorsey's prior performance would be viewed as negative by Hunt if he was all about extending him. Or, I guess it could've come down to Hunt just not wanting to mess with Dorsey and his ways anymore -- of course, if that was the case, he shouldn't have been negotiating with him in the first place.

It's pretty clear that it came to a point where negotiating with Dorsey was at an impasse. Something occurred that made Clark Hunt just say, "Forget it, I'm moving on".

That does happen in negotiations, all the time. It's just that they're usually not as visible as firing the GM of an NFL franchise in June.

Furthermore, it would be Hunt's representatives vs. Dorsey's reps, not Clark Hunt sitting down with Bob LaMonte (who is also Reid's agent).

[beach tribe]

Man.

I just can't help but put let this put a huge damper on the expectations of the team.

You don't fire a guy who drafts like Dorsey...

Your 1st contract players are the best value in football.

I don't see being able to just find a guy to do what Dorsey has done.

Hire a capologist. Get more help. But for God's sake, don't let the guy get away.

[Chiefshrink]

Originally Posted by splatbass

We don't know what happened. We do know that we have probably the best 53 in the league and lots of reason for hope. I'm also pretty sure this is a prime job for any GM candidate. Most have to take over a bad team. It isn't very often that a new GM takes over a team this good. I think the GM position is fine. I also think they will hire from within, so it probably won't matter anyway.

There is no reason to panic (although that never stopped CP before). I believe we will be fine.

Well, if I am a top GM candidate and Clark wants to interview me, I darn sure want to know the details as to why Dorsey was fired because I don't want to have that knife in my back as well down the road. Not saying CHunt did this but.....you get my point. With that said, Veach knows why and knows what he is getting into or not into which does make it safer, but if you are an outside guy I would definitely be curious for sure.