Rapoport: Indications Are Fisher/Snead Safe For 2016

[jrry32]

Nope. It surely doesn't.
I just wanted to clarify that this is a narrative and not a fact.

And like Stu said, he turned down a few head coaching jobs as well. If he's looking for the perfect situation, he might be disappointed.

He turned down SF. But can you blame him?

It is a narrative. Just my interpretation of what I'm seeing.

 

[RamFan503]

As I recall, his contract expired on the 26th. His new contract was announced on the 26th or 27th. Had he wanted to interview with the Rams, there was nothing the Colts could have done. He could have just not signed the new contract and interviewed for the Rams position since his prior contract expired.

That's simply not reality. If you are in negotiations on a contract and are still under contract, you are to be negotiating in good faith. The only way Chud would have realistically been able to do what you are saying is if he walked away from the table. If you are at all interested in remaining with your current company (team), you are not going to create that kind of obstacle. As it was, he obviously had worked out a deal with the Colts in order for the two contracts to be contiguous. There is no reason to speculate beyond that. The Colts blocked other teams from interfering with their negotiations as is their right. Maybe Chud didn't want to test the waters elsewhere. OK. To say that he didn't want to work for Fish is pure speculation that has no basis. By that criteria, he apparently didn't want to work for much of anyone else.

Several years back, I got offered a job for a fair increase in salary. I told the guy thank you but no thank you because I liked my current bosses at the time. I didn't know much about the other guy besides that he had been in the industry for several years and owned some pretty cool properties in Telluride. It was nothing against the other company - in fact it looked like a pretty cool opportunity. I just liked where I was at the time and the partners treated me well. For someone to draw the conclusion that I didn't want to work for the other guy would have been untrue.

Now if I had gone to interview with the other company, I'm sure there would have been some hard feelings with the company that was cutting my checks. Not only did I not want that, I didn't want to put them in that position.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't know, I think it says more that we wanted those guys, and not because we wanted them here to suffocate them. I'm sure our QB situation, at the time, had something to do with it, as well as wanting to stick with coaches that they were familiar with.

Spags did, actively, stifle our OC's. I showed proof on several occasions, while it happened. Fisher, IMO, has a philosophy, but those are two very different things. If Foles would have played better, and not God awful, I'm not sure we'd be having this conversation, at all.

That is an interesting point as well. Why would we be interested in an OC just to bring him here and stifle his creativity? It makes no sense really. The very fact that we were interested in these high profile OCs would indicate that Fish liked what they did.

As @-X- was saying - it's a narrative and I'm just not buying into it.

 

[jrry32]

That's simply not reality. If you are in negotiations on a contract and are still under contract, you are to be negotiating in good faith. The only way Chud would have realistically been able to do what you are saying is if he walked away from the table. If you are at all interested in remaining with your current company (team), you are not going to create that kind of obstacle. As it was, he obviously had worked out a deal with the Colts in order for the two contracts to be contiguous. There is no reason to speculate beyond that. The Colts blocked other teams from interfering with their negotiations as is their right. Maybe Chud didn't want to test the waters elsewhere. OK. To say that he didn't want to work for Fish is pure speculation that has no basis. By that criteria, he apparently didn't want to work for much of anyone else.

Several years back, I got offered a job for a fair increase in salary. I told the guy thank you but no thank you because I liked my current bosses at the time. I didn't know much about the other guy besides that he had been in the industry for several years and owned some pretty cool properties in Telluride. It was nothing against the other company - in fact it looked like a pretty cool opportunity. I just liked where I was at the time and the partners treated me well. For someone to draw the conclusion that I didn't want to work for the other guy would have been untrue.

Now if I had gone to interview with the other company, I'm sure there would have been some hard feelings with the company that was cutting my checks. Not only did I not want that, I didn't want to put them in that position.

That is literally the definition of reality. His contract was expiring or expired. He had the choice. He could have interviewed with the Rams. He chose not to. He chose to stick with the Colts.

The Colts would have happily kept the guy regardless of what he did if he wanted to stay with them in the end.

I'm basing my opinion on more than just Chud's choice to stick with Indy. It's the totality of the circumstances that resulted in us having to go with an in-house candidate at OC.

 

[jrry32]

That is an interesting point as well. Why would we be interested in an OC just to bring him here and stifle his creativity? It makes no sense really. The very fact that we were interested in these high profile OCs would indicate that Fish liked what they did.

This is circular reasoning. It applies to any coordinator hiring. Which means that you're essentially saying that if the hiring the OC was the HC's choice, he never will interfere and stifle creativity. After all, why would he bring that OC in if the HC planned to do that?

I don't find the point particularly convincing. But that's only my opinion.

 

[DR RAM]

This is circular reasoning. It applies to any coordinator hiring. Which means that you're essentially saying that if the hiring the OC was the HC's choice, he never will interfere and stifle creativity. After all, why would he bring that OC in if the HC planned to do that?

I don't find the point particularly convincing. But that's only my opinion.

And I think it means that if a HC wanted to do this, he'd hire someone he could control. I don't see these guys as guys he could control. He could try, I guess, and it is the HC's prerogative, being that he is ultimately responsible for the direction of the franchise. Watching Coach Fisher, he only steps in when something is going really bad. I want my HC to do that.

 

[jrry32]

And I think it means that if a HC wanted to do this, he'd hire someone he could control. I don't see these guys as guys he could control. He could try, I guess, and it is the HC's prerogative, being that he is ultimately responsible for the direction of the franchise. Watching Coach Fisher, he only steps in when something is going really bad. I want my HC to do that.

That's a fair point. But I still don't see it the same way. Saw Will Muschamp hire sought after OCs while at UF and then still try to control them.(and ultimately stifle their creativity and the offense)

 

[Memphis Ram]

From what I understood, the Chudzinski hire was made by the GM and not the head coach. Given all the turmoil going on between the GM and HC, it wouldn't shock me to later find out that Chudzinski had been promised the head coaching gig in 2016 since the HC never got his contract extended.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Gase interviewed for the Jaguars and Ravens OC positions. In addition to interviewing for the Broncos and 49ers HC jobs.

I don't know if any of this is accurate, but if so, the preference could have probably had a lot more to do with the QBs on those teams (Bortles, Flacco, Manning, Kaepernick vs. a lesser Bradford who had only played in 7 of the teams last 32 games). Chances of getting a head coaching shot improves with success and the chance of success probably looked far better elsewhere.

Plus, none of those teams are rumored to be moving anything soon. But, these guys are human and have family considerations.

Finally, there's a chance that an OC had no problem working with Fisher but was still disgusted by Greg Williams.

Who knows?

 

[RamFan503]

This is circular reasoning. It applies to any coordinator hiring. Which means that you're essentially saying that if the hiring the OC was the HC's choice, he never will interfere and stifle creativity. After all, why would he bring that OC in if the HC planned to do that?

I don't find the point particularly convincing. But that's only my opinion.

As someone who has done a fair bit of hiring, you choose talented people for their talent - not to take that talent and hold it back. Sure there are company specific policies and guidelines that you expect them to follow but the idea that you are going to bring in a talented OC with the goal of not letting him demonstrate that talent just isn't sound logic. That is actually more taking what you view of how Fisher runs things and sculpting it to fit your premise. Telling them to grind the clock at the end of a game in which we have a pretty big lead while our defense had held the other team to 6 points is not holding any decent OC back. It is logical game management. And that is possibly the biggest job of the HC.

 

[jrry32]

As someone who has done a fair bit of hiring, you choose talented people for their talent - not to take that talent and hold it back. Sure there are company specific policies and guidelines that you expect them to follow but the idea that you are going to bring in a talented OC with the goal of not letting him demonstrate that talent just isn't sound logic. That is actually more taking what you view of how Fisher runs things and sculpting it to fit your premise. Telling them to grind the clock at the end of a game in which we have a pretty big lead while our defense had held the other team to 6 points is not holding any decent OC back. It is logical game management. And that is possibly the biggest job of the HC.

Goals are irrelevant. I am not arguing Fisher's intentions. You can hire people with the best of intentions and still micromanage them.

 

[RamFan503]

Goals are irrelevant. I am not arguing Fisher's intentions. You can hire people with the best of intentions and still micromanage them.

Sorry. Goals are never irrelevant. But surmising that Fisher is doing what you say may very well be.

You don't bring someone in that has a proven track record just for window dressing. You do it because you believe he gives you a better chance to win. You are essentially saying Fisher values control over winning. I'm not buying that.

 

[blackbart]

I think if we look at the way Fisher handled Walton vs Cigs we can see Fisher thinks he needs someone else calling the offense vs taking the defensive calls himself.

We can all presume things, from "he got his players and coaches" to "he is dictating the play calls" to his coordinators. But there isn't a person posting here that has all of the details or is inside the office where the decisions are made or on the headsets during the games hearing the calls.

I realize it is still fun to speculate and formulate opinions but we are all just guessing.

 

[DR RAM]

Sorry. Goals are never irrelevant. But surmising that Fisher is doing what you say may very well be.

You don't bring someone in that has a proven track record just for window dressing. You do it because you believe he gives you a better chance to win. You are essentially saying Fisher values control over winning. I'm not buying that.

I'd buy it, if we were talking about Spagnuolo.....but that is digressing.

 

[Alan]

DR RAM seeing no shades of gray:
I don't see these guys as guys he could control. He could try, I guess, and it is the HC's prerogative, being that he is ultimately responsible for the direction of the franchise. Watching Coach Fisher, he only steps in when something is going really bad. I want my HC to do that.

I agree with the first part part but that's not what I see Fish doing. Just exactly what was "going really bad" in the last quarter of the Bucs game"? Are you contending that Boras wanted to call those plays? Possibly you look at the decision to rely on the run game to run out the clock differently than the play calling during the rest of the game?

 

[jrry32]

Sorry. Goals are never irrelevant. But surmising that Fisher is doing what you say may very well be.

You don't bring someone in that has a proven track record just for window dressing. You do it because you believe he gives you a better chance to win. You are essentially saying Fisher values control over winning. I'm not buying that.

Has nothing to do with values. Some people have controlling personalities. Some don't. You can value anything you want over control...doesn't mean much if you have a controlling personality and can't get out of your own way.

 

[DR RAM]

I agree with the first part part but that's not what I see Fish doing. Just exactly what was "going really bad" in the last quarter of the Bucs game"? Are you contending that Boras wanted to call those plays? Possibly you look at the decision to rely on the run game to run out the clock differently than the play calling during the rest of the game?

I was talking more in the sense of major decisions, like the coordinators doing a poor job, in general. He has acted in those instances, going back, and this season.

I mean, if we are talking game time decisions, then is it also his fault that our defense went into the mode they did? Is he controlling GW? I believe the coaches are trying to execute his philosophy, which some don't agree with, but a large majority of coaches in this league, would try to burn clock with a lead, if they had a Todd Gurley. Shoot, just today, the undefeated Panthers, did not take their foot off the pedal on offense, after a big lead, and the Giants still came back, and almost beat them.

As far as the last game, we won. We won, we won. That is good enough for me. I hate prevent defense, and I think that is more of a problem, than our offense, in that particular game. If we are talking "specifically" about that game. I didn't think we were. My comments that you highlighted, were in reference to problems that he had to change at the root. He even said about the OC change, that he needed an OC that held the players more accountable, for their actions/mistakes.

We've won 2 games since that move. How about the defense, since he hired GW? Better? I don't know, Alan. We could pick apart every play, of every game that every team plays. Where does that leave us? These could all be hypothetical questions.

This is what I know. We have depth, like we haven't for a decade. The players are still playing their hearts out for Fisher. Fisher still has passion for the game, and his players. I don't believe that he likes losing, but he hasn't shown that he will sell out to keep his job. He is still doing what is in the best interest to this franchise moving forward, which doesn't always jive with keeping your job. I respect that.

Shades of gray, I can see shades of brown....in shit. Lol.

 

[Ramlock]

Plus, none of those teams are rumored to be moving anything soon. But, these guys are human and have family considerations.

Finally, there's a chance that an OC had no problem working with Fisher but was still disgusted by Greg Williams.

Who knows?

Lots of reasons not to have taken the job

 

[Alan]

DR RAM nuancing control:
I mean, if we are talking game time decisions, then is it also his fault that our defense went into the mode they did? Is he controlling GW? I believe the coaches are trying to execute his philosophy, which some don't agree with, but a large majority of coaches in this league, would try to burn clock with a lead, if they had a Todd Gurley. Shoot, just today, the undefeated Panthers, did not take their foot off the pedal on offense, after a big lead, and the Giants still came back, and almost beat them.

As far as the last game, we won. We won, we won. That is good enough for me. I hate prevent defense, and I think that is more of a problem, than our offense, in that particular game. If we are talking "specifically" about that game. I didn't think we were. My comments that you highlighted, were in reference to problems that he had to change at the root. He even said about the OC change, that he needed an OC that held the players more accountable, for their actions/mistakes.

We've won 2 games since that move. How about the defense, since he hired GW? Better? I don't know, Alan. We could pick apart every play, of every game that every team plays. Where does that leave us? These could all be hypothetical questions.

This is what I know. We have depth, like we haven't for a decade. The players are still playing their hearts out for Fisher. Fisher still has passion for the game, and his players. I don't believe that he likes losing, but he hasn't shown that he will sell out to keep his job. He is still doing what is in the best interest to this franchise moving forward, which doesn't always jive with keeping your job. I respect that.

Shades of gray, I can see shades of brown....in crap. Lol.

Is he controlling GW? I don't know, but I suspect he doesn't because he thinks it's doing well. There's a fine line between asking them to adhere to your philosophy and micromanaging the play calls. I don't think he dictates the plays but I do think he frequently handcuffs the offense to "fit" his philosophy. Look at the end of the first half. Even though we had very good field position he decided not to take any chances. That's not micromanaging the OC, that's just saying we shouldn't keep doing what we did to get the lead because it's not "safe." But we won and maybe we wouldn't have if we threw a pick six right before the half.:shocked: I think that type of thinking is counterproductive in the long run and your example of what happened to the Panthers is a great one. I think he goes overboard with it to say the least. Really hard for me to watch too.

Our defensive depth is the best its been in a coon's age. But without Donald to make those key stops and sacks we'd be in big trouble. Still, night and day better than before and we DO have Donald. Offense? :baghead: