Jeff Fisher is expected back as Rams coach next year

[Mojo Ram]

Janoris Jenkins disagrees

To be fair, no one team can keep all of it's best players. One could argue that locking up Tavon over Jenkins is questionable, but at the same time the defense is loaded compared to the offense here.

 

[blackbart]

They won 7 games with Spagnolo and Fisher cant do better?

At least Spags had Bradford

 

[dieterbrock]

At least Spags had Bradford

So did fisher. And won the same 7 games.

 

[jrry32]

You know @jrry32 you are never going to change my opinion either and calling me stupid because you don't agree with me is just being an icehole.

The piece of crap he inherited had to be completely rebuilt and you know it. You also know that it was impossible to do a complete rebuild with quality players in less than 4 years. Additionally you know that Bradford's injuries caused that timeline to take another hit.

So acting like a baby who isn't getting their way, spinning your logic to back you opinion and calling other posters stupid because you don't agree is just unacceptable.

There might still be room on the Jags bandwagon.

Bart, it seems like you aren't reading my posts if you think I insulted you. I'll repost it here:

I wanted to see Mannion last year because I thought he would be as good as Keenum and then we'd be able to tell if we really needed to draft another QB. Tough it wasn't the way they wanted to do it.

Which was stupid. I have never thought highly of Mannion, but they should have played him last year.

That's agreement, Bart. I'm agreeing with you that they should have played Mannion last year. It really feels like you didn't take the time to read my post before responding. That tells me we're at the end of useful discussion here. Not much to be gained. Best to call it an impasse and move on.

 

[jrry32]

It's Fisher's fault for Bradford's injuries? It's not like he didn't try. Fole's was a mistake. He realized it and that's why we have Goff. Plus you evaded my questions. You keep harping on about how Goff isn't starting and it shows Fishers Incompetence. Stubbornness? Yes. Incompetence? Not really. Not with all the talent he has brought in. So yeah jrry we have tremendous talent and Goff is the key to this big rebuild. If Goff fails then Fisher has failed.

Foles was a mistake. So we drafted Goff...and then Fisher promptly made no effort to get him up to speed for Week 1 and chose to start Keenum until he gets us eliminated from playoff contention. That's unforgivable. He made the same exact mistake, except he actually has a #1 overall QB on the team right. But he still continues to do what he always does.

That says enough for me. Fisher isn't going to change. These aren't mistakes. They're simply Fisher's flaws as a coach showing.

I ignored your questions because they weren't relevant. Fisher didn't lose his starting QB. He had his starting QB in 2015. He has his starting QB in 2016. He's still losing. The lack of a top QB on this team falls directly on Fisher's shoulders. He's been here for 5 years. He actually brought in a guy who could be a top QB, but he refuses to play that guy.

Instead, he starts a limited backup caliber QB over him. Why? My opinion is that he is doing it out of self-preservation. He knows that he has no excuse if he plays Goff and loses. He can use Goff as a bargaining chip if he doesn't play him this year until we're out of the playoff hunt. Why? Because one of two things happens:
1. Goff plays well and wins which allows Fisher to claim that he should be brought back because we'll win with Goff in 2017 and we shouldn't hurt Goff's development by bringing in a new staff; or
2. Goff struggles and Fisher gets to claim he was right to bench Goff.
This is a move that isn't for the benefit of the Rams. It's for the benefit of Jeff Fisher.

Fisher's stubbornness is incompetence. He's hurting the team by taking the course of action he has. That is incompetence as a Head Coach.

Which comes right back to the same issue from before. There's only two options here:
1. We have tremendous talent, and Fisher is underachieving by only winning 6-7 games a year; or
2. We don't have tremendous talent.

Teams with tremendous talent don't lose more games than they win unless their coach is incompetent. You can't insist that Fisher is good at his job and has tremendous talent when this team can't put together a winning season. That reasoning doesn't hold up.

 

[blackbart]

So did fisher. And won the same 7 games.

Even with a new OC, that Bradford guy must be pretty good

 

[blackbart]

Bart, it seems like you aren't reading my posts if you think I insulted you. I'll repost it here:



That's agreement, Bart. I'm agreeing with you that they should have played Mannion last year. It really feels like you didn't take the time to read my post before responding. That tells me we're at the end of useful discussion here. Not much to be gained. Best to call it an impasse and move on.

I read it as it was stupid for me to want to see Mannion last year. I stand corrected

 

[Young Ram]

Foles was a mistake. So we drafted Goff...and then Fisher promptly made no effort to get him up to speed for Week 1 and chose to start Keenum until he gets us eliminated from playoff contention. That's unforgivable. He made the same exact mistake, except he actually has a #1 overall QB on the team right. But he still continues to do what he always does.

When Goff plays and he shows he is a franchise QB its forgivable to me.

That says enough for me. Fisher isn't going to change. These aren't mistakes. They're simply Fisher's flaws as a coach showing.

Since when is trying to develop a QB a flaw? There are examples of rookie QBs who sat for some games or a year and developed to be Franchise QBs, just as there are examples or rookie QBs playing week 1 and end up being franchise QBs. Just because you or I don't agree with fisher choosing the former option doesn't make it a coaching flaw.

I ignored your questions because they weren't relevant. Fisher didn't lose his starting QB. He had his starting QB in 2015. He has his starting QB in 2016. He's still losing. The lack of a top QB on this team falls directly on Fisher's shoulders. He's been here for 5 years. He actually brought in a guy who could be a top QB, but he refuses to play that guy.

Instead, he starts a limited backup caliber QB over him. Why? My opinion is that he is doing it out of self-preservation. He knows that he has no excuse if he plays Goff and loses. He can use Goff as a bargaining chip if he doesn't play him this year until we're out of the playoff hunt. Why? Because one of two things happens:
1. Goff plays well and wins which allows Fisher to claim that he should be brought back because we'll win with Goff in 2017 and we shouldn't hurt Goff's development by bringing in a new staff; or
2. Goff struggles and Fisher gets to claim he was right to bench Goff.
This is a move that isn't for the benefit of the Rams. It's for the benefit of Jeff Fisher.

Or maybe he isn't worried about politics and, instead, is actually trying to get his #1 pick ready to handle the hardest position in all of sports.

Fisher's stubbornness is incompetence. He's hurting the team by taking the course of action he has. That is incompetence as a Head Coach.

So choosing to let Goff develop on the bench for some games or a year and we not agreeing with his approach is incompetence? Yea, no.
Let me ask you the same question I asked somebody else but they refused to answer.

If Fisher returns and Goff starts and we go on to be perennial winners does it really matter if Goff sat on the bench his first year? Will fisher still be incompetent?

Which comes right back to the same issue from before. There's only two options here:
1. We have tremendous talent, and Fisher is underachieving by only winning 6-7 games a year; or
2. We don't have tremendous talent.

Teams with tremendous talent don't lose more games than they win unless their coach is incompetent. You can't insist that Fisher is good at his job and has tremendous talent when this team can't put together a winning season. That reasoning doesn't hold up.

It goes back to my previous point. A top team can have tremendous talent all around, but take away their franchise QB and tell me how many games they win?

Fisher has built a talented roster. He has his franchise QB waiting in the wings. I don't like it, you don't like it, but we don't have a choice. I want to see what Goff can do before I get out my pitchfork.

 

[Ballhawk]

It goes back to my previous point. A top team can have tremendous talent all around, but take away their franchise QB and tell me how many games they win?

The Pats went three and one without Brady. Just saying,

 

[dieterbrock]

Even with a new OC, that Bradford guy must be pretty good

What does Bradford have to do with it? Moving the goal posts? I'm not chasing you down the rabbit hole Alice.
Spags won 7 games, and that's the best Fisher could do even with a dramatically improved roster. Other coaches have faced equally poor situations and turned them around quickly. Fisher is on year 5, which is the definition of "not quickly"

 

[dieterbrock]

Since when is trying to develop a QB a flaw? There are examples of rookie QBs who sat for some games or a year and developed to be Franchise QBs, just as there are examples or rookie QBs playing week 1 and end up being franchise QBs. Just because you or I don't agree with fisher choosing the former option doesn't make it a coaching flaw.

Except this is disingenuous in thinking that they became Franchise QB because they sat for a year or two.
Not true at all. What is true is in the few examples in the last 20 years the team had a viable option to play in lieu of the rookie QB. Be it a Brett Favre, Drew Brees, Kurt Warner or even a Jon Kitna. The Rams don't have a viable option, instead they have a journeyman QB who has the 2nd highest INT and amongst lowest QB rating

 

[Young Ram]

The Pats went three and one without Brady. Just saying,

Yeah and if you had read my previous posts you would have known that I mentioned bill belichicks pats were probably the only exception.

 

[Young Ram]

Except this is disingenuous in thinking that they became Franchise QB because they sat for a year or two.
Not true at all. What is true is in the few examples in the last 20 years the team had a viable option to play in lieu of the rookie QB. Be it a Brett Favre, Drew Brees, Kurt Warner or even a Jon Kitna. The Rams don't have a viable option, instead they have a journeyman QB who has the 2nd highest INT and amongst lowest QB rating

All you do is try to start arguments on points I'm not even making. I never said that they became franchise QBs because they sat on the bench. I said there are examples where franchise QBs have sat some games or a year and ended up becoming franchise QBs. Whether sitting on the bench is what made them franchise QBs is irrelevant. Having a viable option before Goff starts is also irrelevant because I wasn't arguing that.

Look man I know you want fisher gone and you are always tying to spin things to fit your opinion. I understand why people don't want to see him back. I get it. I just want to see Goff play before I jump on that wagon. If he succeeds then Fisher succeeds simple as that.

 

[iamme33]

You are conveniently forgetting how bad this team was and the hit that Bradford's injuries made on the rebuild timeline. You expected the rebuild to happen in 3 years? 4 years? Who was the QB you expected to lead this team in years 2-5? How many quality 1st team players did you expect to get drafted in years 1-4? How many quality FAs did you expect to come to the Rams before they started winning?

Instead of calling for the head of the guy rebuilding this garbage you need to re-evaluate your expectations. The NFL is not a Madden game where you get to pick whichever players you want for your team.

Reality

but on the other side of this discussion. fisher had a big budget to spend on his coaching staff he had extra picks from rg3 trade. he had 2 more years then most coaches get. so the good cancels out the bad. we can think he should be extended or fired but that is just an opinion but here is a fact he is about to become the all time most losing coach and the coach he will pass has far more wins. that alone tells me we should replace him

 

[iamme33]

The Pats went three and one without Brady. Just saying,

also the cowgirls are 7 and1 with a rookie qb

 

[dieterbrock]

All you do is try to start arguments on points I'm not even making. I never said that they became franchise QBs because they sat on the bench. I said there are examples where franchise QBs have sat some games or a year and ended up becoming franchise QBs. Whether sitting on the bench is what made them franchise QBs is irrelevant. Having a viable option before Goff starts is also irrelevant because I wasn't arguing that.

Look man I know you want fisher gone and you are always tying to spin things to fit your opinion. I understand why people don't want to see him back. I get it. I just want to see Goff play before I jump on that wagon. If he succeeds then Fisher succeeds simple as that.

I'm not trying to spin anything. Fisher is on his way to his 5th straight losing season and no coach in 50 years has kept his job after 3 straight. That's a fact. Now coming up with reasons why he should get another shot? THAT requires spin.
And the idea that recent qb have sat on the bench for a season and became franchise qb is just not true. At least Not top 5 1st rounders and not first rounders who teams traded the farm for.
So spare the accusations of "spin" when someone is supporting their assertion with fact.

 

[VegasRam]

Which is ignoring the fact that Carroll could have easily left Wilson on the bench and started his "veteran QB" (that the team paid a ton of money for in FA)
Only reason why Carroll has his franchise QB and Fisher doesn't is because Carroll PLAYED his rookie QB

Yes he did - based on what he saw in camp/pre-season.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm not trying to spin anything. Fisher is on his way to his 5th straight losing season and no coach in 50 years has kept his job after 3 straight. That's a fact. Now coming up with reasons why he should get another shot? THAT requires spin.
And the idea that recent qb have sat on the bench for a season and became franchise qb is just not true. At least Not top 5 1st rounders and not first rounders who teams traded the farm for.
So spare the accusations of "spin" when someone is supporting their assertion with fact.

View: https://youtu.be/rWIcubkPaxo

 

[My Sources]

I really have a difficult time understanding why anyone would want Fisher back. As far as I'm concerned, Snead needs to go as well. The stubborn way that management utilized its bounty of draft picks is deplorable. Moreover, this team remains boring and unwatchable. The only thing worse than watching a perennial loser is watching a BORING perennial loser. That's all on management and needs to change quickly or they will lose their fan base.

 

[Young Ram]

I'm not trying to spin anything.

You said

Except this is disingenuous in thinking that they became Franchise QB because they sat for a year or two.
Not true at all. What is true is in the few examples in the last 20 years the team had a viable option to play in lieu of the rookie QB.

and now

And the idea that recent qb have sat on the bench for a season and became franchise qb is just not true. At least Not top 5 1st rounders and not first rounders who teams traded the farm for.
So spare the accusations of "spin" when someone is supporting their assertion with fact.

I never said they became franchise QBs because they sat on the bench, I never brought up having a viable option, I never said recent QBs, 1st round QBs, or QBs who's team traded the farm for. All I said was

There are examples of rookie QBs who sat for some games or a year and developed to be Franchise QBs

That is indeed a fact.

So who exactly is trying to spin the argument? Your straw man fallacy is strong with this one.

Fisher is on his way to his 5th straight losing season and no coach in 50 years has kept his job after 3 straight. That's a fact. Now coming up with reasons why he should get another shot? THAT requires spin.

So its OK to come up with reasons why Fisher needs to go but on the contrary its not?