A good point here, I think:
View: https://twitter.com/friscojosh/status/1337078719328862208
"The knives are out. Easterby comes off as a classic ladder climbing film-flam artist. But it’s always worth considering who wants him taken out. The cocoon has strong self defense mechanisms.
"If that argument is that Easterby is bad, cool. If the argument is that any non-standard path to the top of an NFL org is untoward and suspect, skip me."
How much of the criticism is valid and how much is the NFL resisting change?
It's funny - I read
another article today that makes the point that there's a lot more to being a GM than we think:
If the job isn't as much about traditional football stuff as we think, it's more viable to have a candidate from a non-football background. Easterby isn't the first, either (Sashi Brown, Marty Hurney, Howie Roseman, Jerry Jones, Mike Brown didn't come from traditional paths). But it doesn't sound like Easterby is doing an effective job running the non-football side of things.