I really want to put this one to sleep, because it's just flat out wrong. Changing head coaches does
**NOT** equal starting all over. The Harbaugh-49ers example has already been given (and as correctly pointed out above, it was Baalke who ruined their roster, not Harbaugh).
Another example is the Bucs after firing Tony Dungy. Gruden came in, left the defense largely intact (and I think he even retained much of the defensive staff), and focused on fixing the offense - the result being Tampa Bay getting over the hump and winning the Super Bowl.
Another even better example is our very own Rams. In 1972, under Tommy Prothro, they finished a very Fisher-like 6-7-1. Prothro was fired. Chuck Knox was hired. Did he blow things up? No. He largely kept the same defensive personnel that Prothro had - including Jack Youngblood and Isiah Robertson, both drafted by Prothro. The offensive line was kept intact. There was a change at QB, as fading star Roman Gabriel was traded to the Eagles, while John Hadl was brought in from San Diego. At WR, we netted Harold Jackson in that trade. The results? Rams finish 12-2 in 1973, the first of 7 consecutive NFC West titles and 8 consecutive playoff appearances. Four of those years they made the NFC Championship, in one of those years went to the Super Bowl. In only one of those 8 years did they fail to win 10 games, finishing 9-7 in 1979.
We can probably find many more such examples, enough to prove that changing coaches need not mean starting all over.
They need more than a field general. I think Goff can be great, but they need a decent offensive coordinator, which is something they have not had under Fisher, largely because of Fisher. We've had one that was very mediocre (Schotty) and two that are downright awful (Cigs and now Boras).
Moreover, what we really need is an overall change of philosophy from Fisherball, i.e. keep it close and win with your defense. We are in a league where the rules are overwhelmingly in favor of offense. Fisher's philosophy leaves very little margin for error while absolutely failing to take advantage of the fact that the rules favor scoring. That's just insane. If you try to rely on your defense to win by 3 every week, your defense has to be damn near perfect, and your offense is at a disadvantage because you have already slowed them down before they even take the field. If you can score points in sufficient quantities, your margin for error increases - dramatically with a defense like the one the Rams currently have.
This team desperately needs a change in philosophy, as noted in the previous item - not just to give them more margin for error to win games, but also to make sure that Goff is developed to his fullest potential. The Rams gave up a significant amount of draft capital for the right to draft Goff, it would be foolhardy to expect him to be nothing more than a game manager.
As far as the draft strategy, I see no need to change it on defense, although I do think there needs to be some adjustments with offensive drafting. I have defended GRob quite a bit this year because I still think he can be a quality OLinemen in this league with the proper coaching. That being said, this strategy of drafting raw athletes and trying to coach them up hasn't worked and at least needs to be scrutinized heavier, if not scrapped. Some of that might be a function of Fisher's overall team philosophy, which is to put the brakes on the offense and win with defense in the 4th quarter. Either way, I think as the Rams move forward, they might be better served by a draft strategy which focuses on guys that are more polished and ready to play. I reserve the right to change that opinion though, in the event we ever have an offensive coaching staff that is good at developing players
I would add that the change in philosophy is needed not only for sound football reasons, but for business reasons. The Rams are now in the entertainment capital of the world, they have to be entertaining. Winning more games would obviously be more entertaining, but not only that, having a dynamic offense (and no, please don't strawman me with GSOT comebacks) is entertaining. The Lakers didn't merely win with Kobe, they entertained - and Kobe told Snead as much, saying something to the effect that this is the way sports are in LA.
This is the one thing (in bold) that I just have absolutely no confidence in happening, because I just can't see Fisher having the necessary epiphany to realize he needs to change his approach to the game and implement a more dynamic offense, and ditch the whole "keep it close and win with defense" philosophy. It's been painfully obvious for at least three years now that this team is an offense away from being good. We've had excellent special teams during Fisher's tenure. The defense was above average his first two years, very good the next two, and (Sunday's debacle notwithstanding) excellent this year - in the top 10 despite the added pressure of carrying an offense that is dead last in the NFL. But that last part means something - despite the fact that he has been here and has had 5 years to run around the offense, not only has it failed to improve, but it has sunk to rock bottom. This despite having been given a significant amount of draft capital to improve it. It hasn't improved, and that is a direct result of Fisher's overall philosophy, which leads to him hiring guys like Cignetti and Boras instead of getitng a guy like a Sean McVay, an Adam Gase, or someone of that like (i.e. innovative).
Given the history he has with the Rams, as well as with the Titans, I just don't see Fisher truly having the necessary epiphany in any scenario short of him being fired/not extended and being explicitly told during the meeting that the reason he will no longer be the Rams coach is that despite building a defense and special teams that are among the league's best, his failure to build and offense and his desire to win with defense has failed. It's failed to win, it's failed to get the Rams to .500 even once in his tenure.
That's what it takes for some coaches. It's what it took for Tony Dungy. I can still hear his soft, droning voice saying "we'll play good defense, we'll run the ball, and we'll win it in the 4th quarter" ... much the same as Fisher's philosophy. And in fairness to Dungy, at least his teams in Tampa Bay got to the playoffs, but they would always lose because they didn't have a good enough offense and couldn't score enough points against teams who may have had a lesser defense but always had a better offense. So he got canned from Tampa Bay. But at least he learned from it - when he went to the Colts, a team with an established elite QB, he left his old philosophy behind. Under Dungy, if the Colts were able to lay 40 points on you, then 40 points would be laid on you. If they could effectively win the game by halftime, they would. And eventually, with that approach, Dungy got a ring, and did so with a team that was probably no more talented than his Bucs teams, but was definitely more talented at the most important position. And most importantly, he didn't handcuff that guy.
How you try to win is important, because some ways are more successful than others. Fisher's chosen path is one that has been outdated for at least a decade now, probably more. And he shows absolutely no awareness that this might not be the best way, even as the atrociously bad offense and the losses provide a continuous stream of evidence to the contrary. It's time for something new.
