Pragidealist

Titans were predictable, rather boring but solid in the draft. Looks like a decent foundation- we'll have to see if it translates on the field. Not much interesting to talk about til season starts now imo.

Well there goes 90% of the mock drafts lol

Was it a playbook in an rental car?

Wait.. what year?

That's about where I am. https://www.turfshowtimes.com/2024/4/14/24130451/rams-draft-joe-alt-mike-martz-jc-latham Alt will/would not be a bad pick. He might not be a great pick though- Hopefully having Bill C gives us an edge on that determination.

I mean... have you been on this site before? lol Semantics are everything is like the site motto...

Wait what?!? I'm old now. It's going to be 8pm by the time the Titans pick. How much longer do I have to stay up?@!?!?

Says the team that has 5 playoff wins in 24 years.

Well - you just jinxed the hell out of that. Kicker here we come!

He’s “higher up” but both report to Amy. So Brinker’s paid more. That’s about all I get from that.

I think he was more referring to this one. The point of both posts though is you really can't tell a person's role or level of influence/control by their title a lot of the time. Only exception might be CEO (though I know orgs who have both CEO's and separate Presidents that are equally confusing).

They mentioned they can do a lot more zoom meetings. We likely don't know their true "visit list" because of that. I think they said they can do up to 3 hours of zoom meetings. That is uber convenient and is great for both sides; but it means fans have less transparency/visibility on who they are looking hard at than they used to.

Those are usually not over general operations. They are usually "shared services" and supportive of.. Ops usually has the most power in decision making bc that's where the money is driven from. "Strategy" (for example) in most businesses isn't someone dictating a high level strategy to operations but someone responsible for leading a process, data insights and maybe special project execution for and with operations. Often though- strategy titles are soft titles given to either smart ppl execs want in a room but don't have a specific (finance, ops, marketing) role or ego titles to keep someone happy. I've seen A LOT of former CEO's be given a "strategy" title in a merger only to have them gone in less than 2 years bc it really had no meaning. It gave them an important sounding title to save face/land during the merger process. There are really so many possibilities and so little information that speculating won't get you much. (Not that ever stops us on any other topic lol)

From the way I read the culture change going on in the org, I'd actually say they've decentralized a good bit.

I'm going to back oldschool on this one. Titles do have meaning and they are chosen for reasons but not usually for the reasons you can see on the outside. There's really no way to look at some titles and know where they "rank" in the organization. I can site as many examples as Oldschool. It could be as straightforward as it looks but its equally likely it isn't. Power in an organization is about three things. Authority (reporting hierarchy), relationships, and control over process/agendas. Titles are just one type of power. Who they each report to is more important than their titles. I don't carry a C-level title but report to our COO and work as a "fixer" and problem solver across the org. I have as much authority as most of our C's. I also have good relationships with most of our C's that are not directly in my chain. That gives me a lot of power and influence. You would not know that by my title. Orgs are complicated. That he introduced Ran and BC, does say that someone wants to show that he's a key player in that team. That kind of thing can be an ego trip by the individual, a sympathetic bone cooperative colleagues offer, or something a supervisor does to help balance egos. There's just no way to tell from the outside - at least not without a lot more information/examples.