Moves that led to building a very good defense (positivity time)

[…..]

Or....we gambled with a pretty good idea that the odds were in our favor. Maybe we took control of our draft and made it our bitch.

Either/Or

 

[FRO]

And the topic of this thread is why I totally disagree with the "blow it up/clean house" mentality so pervasive on the board today. Virtually all of our major problems are on one side of the ball. Our biggest problem on D right now is injuries. We are pretty well stocked at all three levels and have good defensive coaches from the DC on down. They can bring in a player like Barron and figure out how to use him where the team that drafted him didn't. There is not a single coach on the D side I would replace. Our draft picks on that side of the ball have worked out very well. Why the hell would anyone want to blow up the whole thing and lose that?

Does Fisher need to be replaced? Maybe, and absent a complete change to his approach to offense, yes. But our defense is solid in terms of both coaches and players, and if we do replace Fisher I really hope there is some way we can keep the defensive staff intact.

The problem is the current leadership cannot find and/or develop offensive talent. They are absolute money on the defensive picks. They have been horrible when it comes to drafting offensive players. That's why I feel a change needs to be made.

 

[FRO]

Or....we gambled with a pretty good idea that the odds were in our favor. Maybe we took control of our draft and made it our bitch.

Either/Or

Luck is always involved, but we took educated risks. We took an educated risk in Wagoner and lost miserably. The thing is these guys absolutely know how to identify defensive players that fit their system and are very good in it.

 

[thirteen28]

The problem is the current leadership cannot find and/or develop offensive talent. They are absolute money on the defensive picks. They have been horrible when it comes to drafting offensive players. That's why I feel a change needs to be made.

The change should be confined to the side of the ball where things are not working. And I suspect that a lot of our offensive problems (outside of the injuries, which can't be controlled) have a lot to do with coaching issues, in terms of scheme, game planning, pay calling, and overall,philosophy. Chang should focus on what's not working without damaging what is working just fine.

 

[Alan]

Dog calling out my inappropriate change of subject:
Congrats, you almost derailed the thread in the very first response.

But I'm flipping your flip, and gonna ask you what you think was key in our resurgence in the defensive backfield?

Sorry about that Dog, I've got a bad head cold to go along with my regular maladies and I made a mistake doing that. I'll try not to let that happen again.:baghead:

Defensive backfield resurgence? If you're talking about how it looks now versus how it looked before he became our HC then obviously it's all about our drafting. As you pointed out in your original post. That and their great luck in having Donald fall to them when he did. But, as I've mentioned before, they had a lot of help with that as a result of the RGme trade. I gathered from the tone of your post that you think they're great at that and I'll go so far as to say they are very good at recognizing defensive talent if not in drafting in general. With a former S as their HC I would be surprised if they weren't.

Yep, I didn't even read the it all. It was just the next thread I hadn't read. I often don't read something if I don't have to. Sorry about that @RamFan503 .

I'll try and cut down on my posting until I fell a little better.

 

[FRO]

The change should be confined to the side of the ball where things are not working. And I suspect that a lot of our offensive problems (outside of the injuries, which can't be controlled) have a lot to do with coaching issues, in terms of scheme, game planning, pay calling, and overall,philosophy. Chang should focus on what's not working without damaging what is working just fine.

You against Fisher going then? He is the guy that controls everything. He failed to get a new OC last offseason when there were quality guys to be had. Fisher and Snead picked every player in this offense outside of Saffold and Kendricks.

 

[blackbart]

Good thread thanks!

Can you imagine this D if Tree was still in there and Quinn healthy? They might be scoring enough to win games without the O. Obviously Fisher has a great defensive mind, he played and has coached it for nearly his entire life. He and Williams together along with the rest of the staff have been awesome. Now if we can just fill some more depth this unit is on course to be great for years to come.

 

[thirteen28]

You against Fisher going then? He is the guy that controls everything. He failed to get a new OC last offseason when there were quality guys to be had. Fisher and Snead picked every player in this offense outside of Saffold and Kendricks.

Mixed feelings because of the defensive side of the ball.

If Fish was willing to hire a better OC and give him the control he needs, and generally loosen up his offensive philosophy, I could be convinced to keep him. If he could be replaced by someone like Adam Gase while keeping the D staff and players largely intact, I'd go for that as well.

It's the thought of blowing up this defensive staff that gives me a lot of hesitation. They are a great stuff. If we get rid of them and replace them with incompetents or someone that wants to change the D scheme to something that doesn't fit our talent, we won't be happy with that either. We have a potentially elite D. It's not broken (well, save for injuries which are not the staff's fault). As such, I don't want to "fix" it.

 

[FRO]

Mixed feelings because of the defensive side of the ball.

If Fish was willing to hire a better OC and give him the control he needs, and generally loosen up his offensive philosophy, I could be convinced to keep him. If he could be replaced by someone like Adam Gase while keeping the D staff and players largely intact, I'd go for that as well.

It's the thought of blowing up this defensive staff that gives me a lot of hesitation. They are a great stuff. If we get rid of them and replace them with incompetents or someone that wants to change the D scheme to something that doesn't fit our talent, we won't be happy with that either. We have a potentially elite D. It's not broken (well, save for injuries which are not the staff's fault). As such, I don't want to "fix" it.

I agree that we need to keep the defense in tact. I just have zero faith Fisher and Snead can build an offense. So I would rather try my luck at getting a new HC and GM while trying to keep the defensive staff in place.

 

[Mojo Ram]

So I would rather try my luck at getting a new HC and GM while trying to keep the defensive staff in place.

Has that ever happened in the history of history? I don't think we can have it both ways. If a change is made the defense will be thrown into flux mode. I for one don't think i could handle that. IMO we don't know how good we've got it there. We're set up defensively.

My only hope is that Fisher is forced to concede offensively and get with the modern program. He is stubborn but not stupid. If he allows himself to be fired HERE i doubt he gets another HC job anywhere else.

 

[HometownBoy]

We've got one hell of a defense, that's for sure. Lots of good, talented guys who wear their hearts on their sleeves and play like every day is their last. Kind of reminds me of the dark ages, but with even more talent, but still equally wasted by offenses so inept that even the Three Stooges could produce more on a game to game basis.

 

[thirteen28]

I agree that we need to keep the defense in tact. I just have zero faith Fisher and Snead can build an offense. So I would rather try my luck at getting a new HC and GM while trying to keep the defensive staff in place.

I don't have a problem with Snead. I think he's done a great job. Before the RG3 trade, the consensus was that he might get an extra first rounder and maybe one more late rounder. Instead, he got two extra first rounders and a second rounder, and he's parlayed those picks into a lot more. Irrespective of the way Foles has worked out, he got a second round second round pick (which looks better every week) and offloaded a huge salary for a QB whose talent may never be realized due to injuries. He knows how to draft, he knows how to work and maneuver in the draft, and knows how to trade. He's not the one making thenplaycalls on Sunday, he's not the one setting the limits on what the offense can and cannot try to do, he's not the one responsible for working on the QBs mechanics or telling him where he can and cannot throw on the field.

Snead is an asset, not a liability. He's taken potentially generational talents two years in a row in the draft. You don't get rid of a guy like that.

 

[A.J. Hicks]

I would kind of be interested to see what it would look like if Fish was absorbed into a Co-GM role with Snead and they sought out a coach together. Then again who knows who they might hire - probably Rob Ryan.

 

[Memphis Ram]

And the topic of this thread is why I totally disagree with the "blow it up/clean house" mentality so pervasive on the board today. Virtually all of our major problems are on one side of the ball. Our biggest problem on D right now is injuries. We are pretty well stocked at all three levels and have good defensive coaches from the DC on down. They can bring in a player like Barron and figure out how to use him where the team that drafted him didn't. There is not a single coach on the D side I would replace. Our draft picks on that side of the ball have worked out very well. Why the hell would anyone want to blow up the whole thing and lose that?

Does Fisher need to be replaced? Maybe, and absent a complete change to his approach to offense, yes. But our defense is solid in terms of both coaches and players, and if we do replace Fisher I really hope there is some way we can keep the defensive staff intact.

If Fisher is replaced, I'm not a fan of forcing any of the current coaching staff on the next head coach for chemistry reasons.

Besides, maybe someone else can take the defense to another level. Or keep it at a similar level without as much capital expenditure (free that up for the offense). I don't know

 

[FRO]

Has that ever happened in the history of history? I don't think we can have it both ways. If a change is made the defense will be thrown into flux mode. I for one don't think i could handle that. IMO we don't know how good we've got it there. We're set up defensively.

My only hope is that Fisher is forced to concede offensively and get with the modern program. He is stubborn but not stupid. If he allows himself to be fired HERE i doubt he gets another HC job anywhere else.

It's either that or expect something that hasn't happened in 4 years will happen in year 5 with the same leadership. They had 2 extra first round picks and an extra second round pick to build this thing. They turned that to a bigger bounty of picks. I say lets risk it by bringing in new leadership because current leadership has lead this team to a worse record every year here.

 

[…..]

Sorry about that Dog, I've got a bad head cold to go along with my regular maladies and I made a mistake doing that. I'll try not to let that happen .....

I'll try and cut down on my posting until I fell a little better.

Don't be silly Alan....we know where your heart is. Post away my rambrutha, the season has stressed all of us into submission at various times this year. You certainly are not alone in that!

Hope you feel better soon!

 

[nighttrain]

make Williams our HC, the defense will stay elite,. but only if he lets Snead hire a competent OC with control of the offense

train

 

[dieterbrock]

Then there's the 2 UDFA in Ethan Westbrooks and Matt Lonacre who have proven to be solid NFL players.
Eye for D talent no doubt