MMQB - Oopsed when I merged. This is Den's Dysfunction thread.

[MadGoat]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. We saw how bad it can get with the last election.
It's funny how we never heard any of this when they were in Stl. and the second they come to LA they blow up and the stories start flying.

I think it has a lot more to do with timing than location. This is basically turning into a replay of the dysfunction at the end of the Mike Martz era.

 

[JIMERAMS]

Damn, these guys move to LA and all this drama pops up. Unreal. I just want to watch a fun and promising football team. We don't need this crap.

this state is full of drama queens. it wont get any better

 

[DCH]

Not unfair but myopic.

With the team Fisher came to what year do you think they should have had their first winning season?
Who was the QB that year? Who were the skill players? OC? What kind of injuries happened that year? How do you think the pending and evental move to LA would affect offseason preparations and practice/development of players?

There's a hell of a lot more involved than just wins and losses.

Absolutely there is, but where have you seen growth and improvement that tells you the team is moving in the right direction? You can lose a bunch of games but see improvement on the field, and that's dramatically different than losing a bunch of games and seeing no real growth.

My observation is that the offense gets worse every year, the weapons they bring in to improve it seem to peak quickly and then regress, and a defense with all the talent in the world remains middle-of-the-road year over year.

Ideally, you'd look at the Rams and see a plan being executed, with the effects showing on the field as seasons wear on. From an outsider's perspective, I see no plan, no synergy between management and coaching, and no progression in any phase of the game.

Extenuating circumstances are certainly to be considered, but this is a league in which your talent sticks around for a handful of years and then retires or moves on. I truly believe that Jeff Fisher and his staff are the biggest thing holding your team back from having actual sustained on-field success.

 

[blackbart]

All teams face different schedules and venues on a year-in year-out basis. Good teams win, and grow, and develop players into more than they were before. Bad teams don't.

What should the measuring stick of a coaching staff's success be, then, if not wins and losses, and also not statistical on-field improvements?

I would think all of those things and what the organizations plan and expectations are have to be considered not just some of them.

What did Stan and the Rams brain-trust expect out of this season? Did they hire Fisher 5 years ago thinking they would win a SB by now or was it more let's see what we can scratch out and get the team to LA? Have their expectations changed in the past 3 years? When did they really know they were moving?

 

[MTRamsFan]

 

[Merlin]

These are the type of things you will see before people start getting fired. Finger pointing, tbh both of them deserve to go based on their 1st and 2nd round draft picks over the last 5 years especially on offense.

Robinson
Quick
Mason (3rd round)
Austin
Pead

GM's and HC's have been fired for far less.

Right now those picks are probably center stage in discussions between Demoff and Kroenke. The issue at large is how they can whiff on so many offensive picks but hit on so many defensive picks, and if it comes down to a Fisher vs Snead one year retention that is going to factor into who takes the fall.

I believe Fish is trying to blame the failure of the offensive picks on Snead in order to buy himself more time.

 

[DCH]

I would think all of those things and what the organizations plan and expectations are have to be considered not just some of them.

What did Stan and the Rams brain-trust expect out of this season? Did they hire Fisher 5 years ago thinking they would win a SB by now or was it more let's see what we can scratch out and get the team to LA? Have their expectations changed in the past 3 years? When did they really know they were moving?

Good questions to be sure. I will say that if Stan Kroenke chose Jeff Fisher solely for the purpose of a move four years after his hiring, then Kroenke is and will remain an anchor on the Rams' franchise.

 

[Stl2La]

Not unfair but myopic.

With the team Fisher came to what year do you think they should have had their first winning season?
Who was the QB that year? Who were the skill players? OC? What kind of injuries happened that year? How do you think the pending and evental move to LA would affect offseason preparations and practice/development of players?

There's a hell of a lot more involved than just wins and losses.

Almost all the factors you listed fall back on Fisher though(OC, skill players, QB). He dropped the ball on all of those.

The sample size isn't small. We have 5 years of data and info to analyze and draw conclusions from.

Literally reread your post and just look at how many excuses you are making for this subpar coach. I get it you're a fan and I respect that but you are going out of your way to defend Fisher, despite being presented with overwhelming statistics and facts that contradict your argument. I find it strange lol.

 

[blackbart]

Absolutely there is, but where have you seen growth and improvement that tells you the team is moving in the right direction? You can lose a bunch of games but see improvement on the field, and that's dramatically different than losing a bunch of games and seeing no real growth.

My observation is that the offense gets worse every year, the weapons they bring in to improve it seem to peak quickly and then regress, and a defense with all the talent in the world remains middle-of-the-road year over year.

Ideally, you'd look at the Rams and see a plan being executed, with the effects showing on the field as seasons wear on. From an outsider's perspective, I see no plan, no synergy between management and coaching, and no progression in any phase of the game.

Extenuating circumstances are certainly to be considered, but this is a league in which your talent sticks around for a handful of years and then retires or moves on. I truly believe that Jeff Fisher and his staff are the biggest thing holding your team back from having actual sustained on-field success.

Defensively they are light years ahead of where they were before Fisher got here. Even this year with a first time MLB and losing a couple of veteran leaders and a good CB they have been a lot better than middle of the pack most of the year.

Special Teams, again no question they are better and in fact are considered one of the best. Coverage teams alone have made a huge difference, they used to give up big returns nearly every week.

Offensively Gurley may end up in the SJax range maybe not. Goff seems to be maybe better than Bradford and maybe the best QB since Warner, still WAY to early to tell. WR's have not been great Quick has had flashes but also a devastating injury. Britt has been serviceable. They are not Bruce and Holt but they aren't Robinson and Gilyard either.

 

[blackbart]

Almost all the factors you listed fall back on Fisher though(OC, skill players, QB). He dropped the ball on all of those.

The sample size isn't small. We have 5 years of data and info to analyze and draw conclusions from.

Literally reread your post and just look at how many excuses you are making for this subpar coach. I get it you're a fan and I respect that but you are going out of your way to defend Fisher, despite being presented with overwhelming statistics and facts that contradict your argument. I find it strange lol.

You didn't answer the first question when was the first year you thought they should have had a winning record?

 

[raised_fisT]

Sure there are plenty factors that come into play... But this is a big boy league. Wins and losses are they only thing that matter at the end of the day.
Fans dont pay good money to watch their team LOSE week in and week out. (Or year in/ year out for that matter)

I can just picture a car salesman about to get fired for poor performance and he pleads with his boss that, "hey, its not JUST about how many sales I got". Boss: "Ok, sure, you have some great water cooler chatter and your wife makes a killer peach cobbler at the company Xmas party. You can stick around one more year." Smh

 

[Stl2La]

You didn't answer the first question when was the first year you thought they should have had a winning record?

By year 3 or 4.

I'm guessing you're prepared to give him 10-20 years after all the "factors" poor Jeff has had to face?

 

[baconandbread]

IMO, this really feels like Fisher throwing Snead under the bus in an attempt to save himself (maybe as a talent evaluator/higher up office job). I don't think that the roster is currently devoid of talent..I mean we've even seen glimpses of what Tavon, Robinson and Quick could/can do, even if they are considered to be Snead's "misses". It doesn't seem like a coincidence that our strongest assets on the team coincide with our best coaches..special teams and defensive line.

 

[DCH]

Defensively that are light years ahead of where they were before Fisher got here. Even this year with a first time MLB and losing a couple of veteran leaders and a good CB they have been a lot better than middle of the pack most of the year.

Special Teams, again no question they are better and in fact are considered one of the best. Coverage teams alone have made a huge difference, they used to give up big returns nearly every week.

Offensively Gurley may end up in the SJax range maybe not. Goff seems to be maybe better than Bradford and maybe the best QB since Warner, still WAY to early to tell. WR's have not been great Quick has had flashes but also a devastating injury. Britt has been serviceable. They are not Bruce and Holt but they aren't Robinson and Gilyard either.

Defensively they are better than before Fisher arrived, but do you believe they've gotten better over the course of his tenure? I don't think that's the case at all. I think, performance-wise, they've stayed roughly the same - middle of the pack. With their talent levels they should be top 5 consistently.

ST coverage is a position where they excel, sure - and much of that is because you have the best punter in the game. But the return game is not threatening at all, nor has it been.

As to the offense, it should concern you tremendously that your two best weapons - Gurley and Austin - have regressed, and that your offensive line that looked last year like it was coming together has gone backwards again.

Goff is a big question mark. I won't really comment on him until he has at least 16 starts under his belt.

I want to know, from your perspective, what defines success or failure as a coaching staff, and what defines it as a front office?

 

[blackbart]

By year 3 or 4.

I'm guessing you're prepared to give him 10-20 years after all the "factors" poor Jeff has had to face?

Who was the QB that was going to do that in year 3 or 4?

 

[DCH]

Who was the QB that was going to do that in year 3 or 4?

Did they not hand choose Nick Foles?
Did they not pass in multiple drafts on guys like Jimmy Garoppolo and Derek Carr?
Fisher controls the personnel on his team, and a lack of a viable second option behind Sam Bradford shouldn't be used to excuse the record of the head coach who made the decision not to invest in such an option. Nor should the failure of Nick Foles.

 

[Stl2La]

Who was the QB that was going to do that in year 3 or 4?

Fisher CHOOSE to go into year 3 with a brittle Bradford. He got what he deserved for not addressing the position before that season. He also CHOOSE to go into year 4 with Foles as his qb.

Instead of drafting 10 different running backs over the years maybe he should of drafted a qb to develop. Just a thought.

 

[blackbart]

Defensively they are better than before Fisher arrived, but do you believe they've gotten better over the course of his tenure? I don't think that's the case at all. I think, performance-wise, they've stayed roughly the same - middle of the pack. With their talent levels they should be top 5 consistently.

ST coverage is a position where they excel, sure - and much of that is because you have the best punter in the game. But the return game is not threatening at all, nor has it been.

As to the offense, it should concern you tremendously that your two best weapons - Gurley and Austin - have regressed, and that your offensive line that looked last year like it was coming together has gone backwards again.

Goff is a big question mark. I won't really comment on him until he has at least 16 starts under his belt.

I want to know, from your perspective, what defines success or failure as a coaching staff, and what defines it as a front office?

Simply meeting the owners objective is the bottom line. Since we don't know what that is we can't quantify if that has been done or not.

As a fan I want to win as bad as the next person. I want every pick to be a stud 10 year contributor or diamond in the rough that no one saw coming. But I also know those things are unrealistic and I'm able to separate the two.

 

[dieterbrock]

Who was the QB that was going to do that in year 3 or 4?

The QB that Fisher selected to be on the team? Shaun Hill was his guy, as was Nick Foles and now Case "woulda made the playoffs with him" Keenum
If QB is the Achilles heel of the team, and Fisher brought in his guys and they failed, he has to take the hit for that

 

[blackbart]

Did they not hand choose Nick Foles?
Did they not pass in multiple drafts on guys like Jimmy Garoppolo and Derek Carr?
Fisher controls the personnel on his team, and a lack of a viable second option behind Sam Bradford shouldn't be used to excuse the record of the head coach who made the decision not to invest in such an option. Nor should the failure of Nick Foles.

No they really did not choose Foles, what they did choose was to dump Bradford because he would not restructure. I thought the Foles extension was ridiculous, FWIW.

They passed on those other players because they had Bradford.