It's Kind of Telling ....

[drasconis]

Of course I want wins - I should have alluded to the 'win now or else" mentality. I just think it's too soon to blow-up everything Fish has built and start over just cuz he hasn't gotten over the .500 hump.

BTW, maybe the Nuggets haven't won BECAUSE they've had 7 coaches.

But 4 years is not "win now or else". In theory a 5 year contract should not be 5 years to make the playoffs it should be 5 years to show success and consistency. Ideally you would want to see year 4 and 5 be playoff years so that you know making the playoffs isn't an abortion. So say JF misses the playoffs this year, we end up at 8-8 again or such, then what happens if he does make the playoffs in year 5? Extend him cause we "made it", is 1 year in 5 enough? So after he makes the playoffs in year 5 you do what, no coach takes a year to year deal so you presumably have to extend him- lets say standard 3 year extension. So you extend him and in year 6 he goes 8-8 again or around there and fails to make the playoffs. So now you have a coach that has 1 playoff appearance in 6 years, but he has 2 years left on the contract ...so you likely aren't cutting bait...does year 7 then become the make or break year? Now we are 7 years in and have what to show for it...

This is why I really feel he needs to make the playoffs this year, that way we can use year 5 to determine if year 4 for was real or an abortion. There was no pressure on him to do anything year 1-2, I really wanted progress last year and was bothered by the slide back (in record), if he gets a pass this year also then really we are making the decision on him based on a single year 5 with no proof he can reproduce it consistently.


You may be right about the Nuggets, I was simply using that to show that SK hasn't shown as an owner that he is a model of success or great management....or that he actually believes in a mantra of "continuity"

 

[drasconis]

It is foolish in my opinion to bring in a guy with no head coaching experience, a bad cap situation a depleted roster and tell him you gotta win by year 2 or you're gone....see Spags. I don't think Spags was going to win no matter what, but, you get my point. At some point there needs to be a commitment to a direction, to a vision for the team. That may take 3 years, it may take 5 years. It may be an up and down proposal like in Cincinnati or Pittsburgh. So, we have a guy with experience, there is a plan and a vision. This is year 4. Would I be patient enough (if I was in the owners chair) for another year or two if it meant building a team that could compete for 10-12 years....damn right I would.

The thing is CIN did change direction, though they kept Lewis. Marvin was on the hot seat, many thought he was going to get cut. He sat down with the owner and talked about the mistakes he had made and the direction he wanted to take the team. The owner agreed and the team got flushed (rather than flushing the coach)...but what occurred was a major change in direction and philosophy by the organization. The closest thing I can think of to it was the reorganization/change of direction in the rams from 98 to 99.

 

[VegasRam]

I actually like your argument. I said in another post, imo (while I wouldn't do it), looking for another coach would be justified with less than 9 wins.
And while it is "year 4", (although only 5 games in), imo again, he get's a small pass due to the OC, DC and QB carousel he's had to deal with, (albeit some of his own making).
To your point that this year is critical to his possible extension - totally concur. But again, this team, essentially 3 years in, is light years ahead of what he inherited, and I want him here through year 5.

 

[jap]

I thought we had great chances of making the playoffs in 2013 and 2014 IF Sam the ex-Ram had stayed healthy. His successive injuries killed those two seasons. We probably would have had winning seasons the past two seasons with a healthy Bradford.

 

[blue4]

IMO it's always unfair to look at W-L records in a vacuum. And Fisher is a very good example of why it shouldn't be viewed that way.

Look what he had to deal with and obstacles he had to overcome at various times with the Oilers/Titans. All things considered he did well IMO.

Now in STL he is putting Humpty Dumpty back together. It's on the brink.

You're right that we're on the brink. Now we see if he's the guy who takes it over the line to playoff contender or if he's the guy he was in Tennessee just feeling his way around from year to year. You're right that he had ownership challenges in Tennessee that he doesn't have here. So that's just another thing that tells me if he's the coach we think he is, than playoffs shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise, I'd say it's the rare example of "you are what your record says you are" being correct.

 

[blue4]

I thought we had great chances of making the playoffs in 2013 and 2014 IF Sam the ex-Ram had stayed healthy. His successive injuries killed those two seasons. We probably would have had winning seasons the past two seasons with a healthy Bradford.

The reason we didn't win those years was Bradford's injury. We now have hand picked and resigned Foles to alleviate that. Excuse no longer applies IMO. The OL and QB was addressed exactly like he wanted and he has Gurley which he didn't have last year. This IMO is a better team all around than last year. To me it's shit or get off the pot this year. That's just my thoughts, I'm fairly sure Fisher could finish 4-12 and be here in 2016.

 

[jap]

The reason we didn't win those years was Bradford's injury. We now have hand picked and resigned Foles to alleviate that. Excuse no longer applies IMO. The OL and QB was addressed exactly like he wanted and he has Gurley which he didn't have last year. This IMO is a better team all around than last year. To me it's crap or get off the pot this year. That's just my thoughts, I'm fairly sure Fisher could finish 4-12 and be here in 2016.

I am not sure what all the implied emotion is about. I thought I was being more matter of fact than anything else. In a QB-driven league, Fish initially hitched his wagon to Sam's arm. When Bradford's knee gave out . . . twice . . . Fish went with another QB.

There will be growing pains with the young OL as we are seeing, and some of our young talent will have to step forward. However, unless there are major injuries upcoming, I want to believe we will make the playoffs this year. My concern is seeing this team grow to the point where they can make some serious noise in the post season. Although everyone needs to grow, it is especially urgent at QB, the OL, and the receiving corps.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I got an idea...

I don't think there's anyone who would say Jeff Fisher is an offensive-minded head coach.

He's built a top ten defense - that's his real expertise. So, the defense is set for a few years.

We need an offensive-minded head coach who can fix "the other side" now.

Another trade with Philly... straight up:
Fisher for Kelly

 

[drasconis]

I actually like your argument. I said in another post, imo (while I wouldn't do it), looking for another coach would be justified with less than 9 wins.
And while it is "year 4", (although only 5 games in), imo again, he get's a small pass due to the OC, DC and QB carousel he's had to deal with, (albeit some of his own making).
To your point that this year is critical to his possible extension - totally concur. But again, this team, essentially 3 years in, is light years ahead of what he inherited, and I want him here through year 5.

I think year 5 really depends on this year. I agree this team is greatly ahead of where it was. I also fully agree this team has an identity which is important (though I believe a coach needs to be able to change to meet his talent - as much as I hate it Bilicheat is a perfect example...considering his teams of the last 8 years or so, would you have him pegged as a defensive minded coach?).

I also think teams, when they switch often go too far...this team is set on D for the next few years, a new coach would have to be able and willing to work that, you be more looking for a guy that would do something with the O with the limited resources that will be available there (the reality is unless there was a major rebuild - and this team doesn't need it- the D is going to eat up massive amounts of cap room....kinda scared of AD upcoming payday, and JJ has made it clear he will get market value at the end of this year).

it is always a risk changing coaches, but since the goal isn't "average" it may have to happen (it may not also).

 

[blue4]

I am not sure what all the implied emotion is about. I thought I was being more matter of fact than anything else. In a QB-driven league, Fish initially hitched his wagon to Sam's arm. When Bradford's knee gave out . . . twice . . . Fish went with another QB.

There will be growing pains with the young OL as we are seeing, and some of our young talent will have to step forward. However, unless there are major injuries upcoming, I want to believe we will make the playoffs this year. My concern is seeing this team grow to the point where they can make some serious noise in the post season. Although everyone needs to grow, it is especially urgent at QB, the OL, and the receiving corps.

What implied emotion? I thought I was being more matter of fact than most as well. My concern is that if we still don't have enough to make the post season this year than we will never get past the excuses stage with this coach. I'm not saying he can't succeed, or that I hope that he doesn't. I'm saying IF he doesn't, it's time to move on. I can assure you there's little emotion involved in what I see as a black and white year for the HC.

 

[LesBaker]

You're right that we're on the brink. Now we see if he's the guy who takes it over the line to playoff contender or if he's the guy he was in Tennessee just feeling his way around from year to year. You're right that he had ownership challenges in Tennessee that he doesn't have here. So that's just another thing that tells me if he's the coach we think he is, than playoffs shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise, I'd say it's the rare example of "you are what your record says you are" being correct.

The division isn't as daunting as it has been the last few years which is good. The Cardinals are holding court right now as the 49ers crumble and SEA looks like the big contracts and SB hangover is putting downward pressure on them, and that will continue as is IMO.

In order to make the playoffs the Rams may well have to win the division because it seems every year a 10 win team is on the outside looking in..........

One HUGE positive is that the Rams are rising up and two powerful division foes seem to be falling down. SEA has lost it's aura of invincibility, especially at home and the 49ers aren't even a dumpster fire, they are worse than that.

 

[fearsomefour]

The thing is CIN did change direction, though they kept Lewis. Marvin was on the hot seat, many thought he was going to get cut. He sat down with the owner and talked about the mistakes he had made and the direction he wanted to take the team. The owner agreed and the team got flushed (rather than flushing the coach)...but what occurred was a major change in direction and philosophy by the organization. The closest thing I can think of to it was the reorganization/change of direction in the rams from 98 to 99.

Good point.
In the case of Lewis and Vermeil they were both willing to let go of some thing and change. Most coaches and GMs (or business owners/directors ect) are not able to do this....their egos will not allow for it.

 

[fearsomefour]

The thing is with Fisher you've got 20 years of tape so to speak. We've a good indication of what the direction could look like. A lot like .500. So in my mind if he doesn't win this year the tiger hasn't changed his stripes.
And really what direction are we going in that wouldn't play with a new HC? We've a talented defense for him to lean on, full of young ascending talent. Nobody would get rid of Quinn, Donald, McDonald, JJ, and so on. Gurley and Mason would fit in any offense. Foles is experienced and cheaply signed for a little bit. You've got Austin. And an extra pick to find your WRs. The OL, while sloppy so far, is young and wouldn't take a lot to flesh out. The Rams of next year is a pretty soft landing for a new coach if it comes to that.

I get the "Fisher factor" and I agree with you....he has a lot of years hovering right around that .500 mark.
Most coaches, imho, are not great football minds, not brilliant at the game and adapting to things. Most coaches (OCs and DCs) are very good at implementing the O or D that they run. They are experts in a scheme. Greg Williams is an example of this....he has said over and over he will never change what he does. That is partly because it can work well and probably partly because he is not comfortable coaching and game planning other approaches. So, a coach has the scheme he coaches and he needs certain kinds of players to run that scheme.
There are certainly other head coaches who could come in and be fine with talent level the Rams have. My concern is a coach bringing in assistants that have a different approach. A coach who has always run and coached a 3/4 may very well want to make a change if he was hired....that would be foolishness of course. But we have seen it before. Kevin Greene moving on cause the Rams were switching to a 4/3. Bettis, nearly the only bright spot on offense, getting traded because world class idiot Rich Brooks wanted to move him to FB. What kind of person would look at one of the best RBs in the NFL, a future HOF RB and want to move him to a very limited FB role? A typical coach is who. This is the rule, not the exception. They coach schemes.
So, while it would certainly be foolish and idiotic for someone new to come in make a major shift in approach it could also happen and set things back where they were 4 years ago. That is my concern.

 

[blue4]

I get the "Fisher factor" and I agree with you....he has a lot of years hovering right around that .500 mark.
Most coaches, imho, are not great football minds, not brilliant at the game and adapting to things. Most coaches (OCs and DCs) are very good at implementing the O or D that they run. They are experts in a scheme. Greg Williams is an example of this....he has said over and over he will never change what he does. That is partly because it can work well and probably partly because he is not comfortable coaching and game planning other approaches. So, a coach has the scheme he coaches and he needs certain kinds of players to run that scheme.
There are certainly other head coaches who could come in and be fine with talent level the Rams have. My concern is a coach bringing in assistants that have a different approach. A coach who has always run and coached a 3/4 may very well want to make a change if he was hired....that would be foolishness of course. But we have seen it before. Kevin Greene moving on cause the Rams were switching to a 4/3. Bettis, nearly the only bright spot on offense, getting traded because world class idiot Rich Brooks wanted to move him to FB. What kind of person would look at one of the best RBs in the NFL, a future HOF RB and want to move him to a very limited FB role? A typical coach is who. This is the rule, not the exception. They coach schemes.
So, while it would certainly be foolish and idiotic for someone new to come in make a major shift in approach it could also happen and set things back where they were 4 years ago. That is my concern.

It would need to be the right hire for sure, but that's with any team somewhat.

In defense of Brooks, there was a thread about this very thing on here not too long ago. Brooks maintains that Bettis wasn't in football shape and not the same back because of it, and IIRC Bettis made some comments alluding to that as well. I believe he said an old coach called him out on it too. I don't know the particulars, I started with the Rams in '95 and all I remember of it was thinking Bettis was overrated. And then of course he went to Pittsburgh and did well.

 

[fearsomefour]

It would need to be the right hire for sure, but that's with any team somewhat.

In defense of Brooks, there was a thread about this very thing on here not too long ago. Brooks maintains that Bettis wasn't in football shape and not the same back because of it, and IIRC Bettis made some comments alluding to that as well. I believe he said an old coach called him out on it too. I don't know the particulars, I started with the Rams in '95 and all I remember of it was thinking Bettis was overrated. And then of course he went to Pittsburgh and did well.

Brooks was a moron.
Bettis was clearly the best player on the team. He wanted more money and deserved to get paid. Cheap ownership and a stubborn coach led to him leaving. The fact that he was another HOF player the team had no issue parting with shows the mentality.
I remember Brooks crowing about drafting the Rams version of the big 3, Banks, Phillips and Kennison. Yeah, a real talent evaluator. How about another throw back on a punt return to Todd Kinchen.
Where ever Brooks is I hope he is haunted in his dreams.

 

[Rmfnlt]

So, while it would certainly be foolish and idiotic for someone new to come in make a major shift in approach it could also happen and set things back where they were 4 years ago. That is my concern.

I just don't think Jeff Fisher will ever get above 23rd or so in the league in offense... I just don't.

The defense is all set... the special teams are all set... maybe get an offensive minded HC to fix that side of the ball and - voillah - a complete team that can win it all!

I posted this the other day and was kind of joking... but, the more I thought about it, the more sense it made.

We don't need a HC that has to fix all three phases of the team... we just need one to get the offense above middle of the pack... a feat I just don't believe Jeff Fisher will ever accomplish.

Not a knock on him... it's just not his area of expertise... really never has been.

All that being said, he's not going anywhere IMO... so, I guess I just hope he has an epiphany on offense.

 

[fearsomefour]

I just don't think Jeff Fisher will ever get above 23rd or so in the league in offense... I just don't.

The defense is all set... the special teams are all set... maybe get an offensive minded HC to fix that side of the ball and - voillah - a complete team that can win it all!

I posted this the other day and was kind of joking... but, the more I thought about it, the more sense it made.

We don't need a HC that has to fix all three phases of the team... we just need one to get the offense above middle of the pack... a feat I just don't believe Jeff Fisher will ever accomplish.

Not a knock on him... it's just not his area of expertise... really never has been.

All that being said, he's not going anywhere IMO... so, I guess I just hope he has an epiphany on offense.

Who knows?
Vermeil had enough of an epiphany to get Martz and get the hell out of the way. Vermeils O before Martz was lame and ineffective. Fisher does seem pretty conservative overall.
It will be interesting to see how the O progresses as the line grows.

 

[blue4]

Brooks was a moron.
Bettis was clearly the best player on the team. He wanted more money and deserved to get paid. Cheap ownership and a stubborn coach led to him leaving. The fact that he was another HOF player the team had no issue parting with shows the mentality.
I remember Brooks crowing about drafting the Rams version of the big 3, Banks, Phillips and Kennison. Yeah, a real talent evaluator. How about another throw back on a punt return to Todd Kinchen.
Where ever Brooks is I hope he is haunted in his dreams.

I can't find the thread and honestly I don't really care enough to look further. I just thought it was an interesting discussion at the time. I will say this, the Bettis LA Rams fans knew was not the same Bettis the new St Louis fans saw. He was not the same player, IDK why, coaching, bad attitude, out of shape, whatever.

Back OT, I don't think a new coach would jettison this DL. I think maybe McLeod might have something to worry about, being replaced by a true FS. But the rest are too young and too talented. Now the offense aside from Gurley.......

 

[Rmfnlt]

Vermeil had enough of an epiphany to get Martz and get the hell out of the way. Vermeils O before Martz was lame and ineffective.

IIRC, Vermiel was told he had to make changes... and Martz was - more or less - thrust upon him.

Fisher has no one to answer to, really. Kroenke isn't going to meddle that much and I think it's fair to say Cignetti will never be a Mike Martz.

Gurley may be the X-factor that changes everything. But I don't believe we're going to see a highly productive offense under Fisher.

The good news? All we really need to get to is about middle of the pack, given the excellent defense and special teams. Average anywhere between 21 and 24 PPG and this team will be very hard to beat.

But, could you imagine if we had a high octane offense to go along with the D? Oh my....

 

[fearsomefour]

IIRC, Vermiel was told he had to make changes... and Martz was - more or less - thrust upon him.

Fisher has no one to answer to, really. Kroenke isn't going to meddle that much and I think it's fair to say Cignetti will never be a Mike Martz.

Gurley may be the X-factor that changes everything. But I don't believe we're going to see a highly productive offense under Fisher.

The good news? All we really need to get to is about middle of the pack, given the excellent defense and special teams. Average anywhere between 21 and 24 PPG and this team will be very hard to beat.

But, could you imagine if we had a high octane offense to go along with the D? Oh my....

You are right about Vermeil, however, a lot of guys would have walked or promised changed and then not made it.
Yeah an O that averaged 30 points a game with this D would be a scary ass team.