Old story, but in lull . .. could be intereting discussion

[Blue and Gold]

Saints player: Steve Spagnuolo a 'control freak' with 'zero personality'
Nate Davis, USA TODAY Sports6:39 p.m. EST January 2, 2013
11TWEET 2LINKEDIN 13COMMENTEMAILMORE
By nearly all accounts, the New Orleans Saints' 2012 season was an unqualified disappointment that seemed destined for failure the moment it was marred by the NFL's bounty investigation and subsequent league-mandated penalties.

But one unnamed player is laying plenty of blame at the feet of defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, who watched his unit surrender 7,042 yards (breaking the 1981 Baltimore Colts' record for season-long ineptitude by 249 yards).

According to the anonymous defender, Spagnuolo's personality was as problematic as his work on the whiteboard.

"He does have that good-guy persona, but he is a control freak and treats people like crap," is how the player described his boss to The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune's Larry Holder. "No patience and zero personality. Has a way of pissing players and our defensive coaches off with how he says and does things. (I) think it's even harder after having (former defensive coordinator) Gregg (Williams), who guys enjoyed."

The unit appears to have a solid pedigree with former Pro Bowlers Roman Harper, Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma and rising talents such as Curtis Lofton (who supports Spagnuolo), Cam Jordan and Malcolm Jenkins.

"It was his first year putting it in, and everything we went through, yeah, I'm a firm believer in the system," Lofton said. "I think it's a complicated system, but at the same time it has an answer for everything an offense does. We will be successful in the future. ... Yes, there is some thinking that goes into it before the play and during the play, but once you've got a grasp to it, I really think this is a great system."

Lofton's disgruntled compatriot clearly disagrees.

"To give up what we gave up can't be all talent. Look at where his units (have) been ranked before. I think one top 10?" said the player, who offered that Spagnuolo should be fired.

"Players have no say in anything," he added. "It was (a) complete opposite from before where it was a simple D that players had lot of control and say. We couldn't suggest (expletive). ... Nothing ever changed. It was his way only.

"Don't even get me started on lack (of) ability to adjust during games. Bad, bad, bad."

Spagnuolo has been on a bad run since famously devising the defensive game plan the 2007 New York Giants cited as instrumental in their upset of the previously unbeaten New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.

But Spagnuolo hasn't experienced a playoff victory since and joined the Saints in 2012 after presiding over a three-year head-coaching tenure in St. Louis when the Rams went 10-38. After his departure from the Rams, he also was accused of heavy-handedness.

Vilma actually scolded Holder for reporting quotes from an unnamed source.

"I'm bothered you reported it. We're not the Jets who run to the media for everything," he told Holder.

"If (the player is) man enough to tell you, he should be man enough to put his name on it. And you should do the same."

Though the extent of the Saints' defensive struggles was certainly surprising, it's not unusual to see a team underperform when a drastically new playbook is installed, and Spagnuolo's philosophies and pressure packages contrast starkly with the gambling, blitz-happy Williams. And with suspensions hanging over Vilma and Smith for most of the season, distractions probably were inevitable.

Spagnuolo probably deserves one more year to get everyone on the same page ... and to know whom his unmuzzled detractor is.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...layer-control-freak-zero-personality/1804997/

 

[Boffo97]

Disgruntled player who doesn't even have the guts to back his comments. For those who dislike Spags, they'll want to believe him. For those who liked him, it's just empty air.

 

[Blue and Gold]

How do you know it was disgruntled play? I think of disgruntled player as one who was benched or cut or something. This player may be a starter, and saw his defensive go from competitive to the worst in history of NFL. So, if you mean a disappointed player or perplexed player, I'd agree. But the ax to grind here is a suck defense. And Spags was called a control freak in StL . . . kind of a head case.

So, to me, it's a smoke-fire thing.

 

[Boffo97]

How do you know it was disgruntled play? I think of disgruntled player as one who was benched or cut or something. This player may be a starter, and saw his defensive go from competitive to the worst in history of NFL. So, if you mean a disappointed player or perplexed player, I'd agree. But the ax to grind here is a suck defense. And Spags was called a control freak in StL . . . kind of a head case.

So, to me, it's a smoke-fire thing.

Seems obvious to me he has some ax to grind. With him being anonymous, we don't know if it's really because the defense sucked or because he was unhappy with Spags for some other reason.

Like, say, if you heard some that some anonymous player was bagging on Fisher, you might pay attention. If you learned, hypothetically, that said player was Chris Givens, you'd suddenly pay it a lot less attention given that his role on the team has diminished because he hasn't been good enough.

Frankly, I think all head coaches have to be control freaks to some degree or another. All I really care about is that he brought us back from the sucktitude of Linehan to 7-9 in 2 years after inheriting close to nothing, then had 2011 wiped out by injuries.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Okay, here is Shanle, who said same thing openly

Linebacker Scott Shanle said he has no problem saying it was the right decision.

"It's better to make a change than not make a change. ... I'm being brutally honest in that there absolutely were issues with the scheme," Shanle said. "Guys no matter how many years they played, there were things I was being told to do in this scheme that I've never heard of, and I've played for four different defensive coordinators."

Shanle said the Saints were more multi-dimensional in the past few seasons than they were in Spagnuolo's scheme where the Saints were strictly a 4-3 defensive scheme. He said staying so strict in a 4-3 defense obviously hurt the production.

"You sit there and look and Junior Galette and Martez Wilson and think, 'Man, if we could get these guys on the field as outside linebackers, we could have a 34 front and we could have Will (Smith) at defensive end.' We just had so many combinations that a 34 package would make sense. Obviously, Steve wasn't going to do that. That's what he's never done."

 

[Boffo97]

Okay, here is Shanle, who said same thing openly

Linebacker Scott Shanle said he has no problem saying it was the right decision.

"It's better to make a change than not make a change. ... I'm being brutally honest in that there absolutely were issues with the scheme," Shanle said. "Guys no matter how many years they played, there were things I was being told to do in this scheme that I've never heard of, and I've played for four different defensive coordinators."

Shanle said the Saints were more multi-dimensional in the past few seasons than they were in Spagnuolo's scheme where the Saints were strictly a 4-3 defensive scheme. He said staying so strict in a 4-3 defense obviously hurt the production.

"You sit there and look and Junior Galette and Martez Wilson and think, 'Man, if we could get these guys on the field as outside linebackers, we could have a 34 front and we could have Will (Smith) at defensive end.' We just had so many combinations that a 34 package would make sense. Obviously, Steve wasn't going to do that. That's what he's never done."

See, at least that's something more than some cowardly anonymous remarks. I personally felt Spags' tenure with the Saints was mostly hurt by inheriting the Bountygate mess and having his best player suspended for quite a while. Huge distraction.

Then again, I don't really care how former Rams do for other teams if they did well here, other than wishing them well unless it hurts the Rams in any conceivable way.

But I'll bow out. We really don't need to fight the Spags battle again, and my feelings are definitely on record.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Well, it does not have to be a battle, reasonable people can disagree . . . but I'd caution about using a term like "cowardly". That is such an ugly term, and many people have helped their organizations or even their country by speaking to the press off the record. When powerful people use power to control and suppress comment, even in a insignificant thing like sports, it's fair game that it is exposed.

Some may like Spags, others not so much, but it could be said it's cowardly to be a control freak and not allow imput from players and assistant coaches . . . because maybe the reason for that is nto wanting their own weaknesses or wrongdoings exposed.

So, the C-word can cut both ways.

 

[Thordaddy]

The gas is all out of that horse for me , can't change the past , apparently the current coach thought the talent was a problem here as well cuz he replaced so much of the roster,we can quibble about who's fault that was , for me the desperation guys ( coordinators) accept HC jobs with 4 year contracts so you have to produce in three or you get fired and never see the 4th creates a situation where you load up with too many old players to keep the job instead of doing what Fisher is doing drafting and developing assured he'll get that 4th year. IMO when a coach turns a team around in 3 or less years the talent wasn't the problem if it takes longer then it probably was.

 

[Boffo97]

Well, it does not have to be a battle, reasonable people can disagree . . . but I'd caution about using a term like "cowardly". That is such an ugly term, and many people have helped their organizations or even their country by speaking to the press off the record. When powerful people use power to control and suppress comment, even in a insignificant thing like sports, it's fair game that it is exposed.

Some may like Spags, others not so much, but it could be said it's cowardly to be a control freak and not allow imput from players and assistant coaches . . . because maybe the reason for that is nto wanting their own weaknesses or wrongdoings exposed.

So, the C-word can cut both ways.

When Deep Throat exposed the Watergate scandal, yes, that was still brave.

An athlete doing so, and thus hiding any kind of circumstance outside of Spags' performance that might explain his remarks? Yeah, that's cowardly. While trying to apply that to Spags' alleged behavior is quite a stretch. Unprofessional, I might buy if it's true. Cowardly, no.

I'll just note this: The two players I've seen go on record criticizing Mike Martz? Jay Cutler and Kyle Turley. If those remarks came anonymously, we'd give them more credence than we do now that we know it's them.

 

[Blue and Gold]

When Deep Throat exposed the Watergate scandal, yes, that was still brave.

An athlete doing so, and thus hiding any kind of circumstance outside of Spags' performance that might explain his remarks? Yeah, that's cowardly. While trying to apply that to Spags' alleged behavior is quite a stretch. Unprofessional, I might buy if it's true. Cowardly, no.

I'll just note this: The two players I've seen go on record criticizing Mike Martz? Jay Cutler and Kyle Turley. If those remarks came anonymously, we'd give them more credence than we do now that we know it's them.

well, we'll just have to disagree . . . Spags' control freakiness was pretty well reported and it continued to NO. And I was on record as t owanting Spags in 2009, my top choice in 2006 was Rex Ryan, and in 2009 it was Spags. I was likely wrong on both. But I've heard varying things about Martz, some like him others don't. Spags . . . maybe his Giants like him, for good reason, but his StL and NO stops were riddled.

As for atheltes going off record as opposed to politicians? It's the same principle . . .one is significant the other is not, but if we fans have a right to know, we have to get off-the-record comments from those in the know. Otherwise. it's the 1960s and 1970s and about all we got media-wise was Street and Smith and Sports Illustrated. Now, we have year-round entertainment with lots of access. It's better now.