Spags wants his old job back as Giants DC and gets it

[MrMotes]

He wasn't talking about Spagnuolo anymore. He's talking about the philosophy of constant change.

My bad, meant to reply to the paragraph above the one i quoted, this one:

Yeah, this is an old argument, and if anyone was going to be convinced by now, they would have been. And as I've said, if we got anyone else BUT Fisher, it would have been a CLEAR downgrade, and I'd be much more angry about it then.

We cool now?

 

[MrMotes]

You could argue that Spags was a dead man walking when he took the job because NO ONE was going to turn the team around from nothing to contender in 3 years.

Then you might as well argue Spags was a fool to take the Rams job. He also could've had the Jets job. He was the hottest coaching prospect that year.

Ryan took the Jets job, had a checkered 6 year run and was immediately hired by Buffalo after the Jets fired him. Spags, on the other hand, can't even get an interview.

If you don't like "You are what your record says you are," how 'bout, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing?"

 

[Boffo97]

Then you might as well argue Spags was a fool to take the Rams job. He also could've had the Jets job. He was the hottest coaching prospect that year.

Ryan took the Jets job, had a checkered 6 year run and was immediately hired by Buffalo after the Jets fired him. Spags, on the other hand, can't even get an interview.

If you don't like "You are what your record says you are," how 'bout, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing?"

Not a fool... just a guy who thought he could rebuild from pretty much as near nothing as you can get. He did leave the team better than he got it though.

I still think your second statement is just as foolish as the first. Still only looking at one number. But if I haven't convinced you by now, nothing I say is going to.

As to Spags not getting any interviews for HC positions (if that is true. We really wouldn't know), I'd say it's more about getting let go from the Rams than people taking his W-L record as gospel and refusing to consider any other factors in it than coach performance/ability.

 

[-X-]

Not so much constant change... just still against the abysmally stupid "You are what your record says you are" cliche.

Well, Parcells is gonna Parcell, isn't he. He coined that phrase in his usual blunt and unsentimental way. Which is fine. People need cliches I guess, and he's notorious for supplying them. I guess during the times where he had QB issues due to injuries to his starters (Bledsoe, Sims) and had to play scrubs at QB (Secula, Rutledge, Brunner, Lucas, Mirer, Testaverde), that his record pretty much defined who he was as a coach at the time. Because he had 6 losing seasons with those guys and ended his career in Dallas with some pretty lackluster signal callers while going one and done twice. That's not indicative of the SB winning coach he's been in previous years. It just reaffirms the old adage that you can't win without players.

 

[Boffo97]

Well, Parcells is gonna Parcell, isn't he. He coined that phrase in his usual blunt and unsentimental way. Which is fine. People need cliches I guess, and he's notorious for supplying them. I guess during the times where he had QB issues due to injuries to his starters (Bledsoe, Sims) and had to play scrubs at QB (Secula, Rutledge, Brunner, Lucas, Mirer, Testaverde), that his record pretty much defined who he was as a coach at the time. Because he had 6 losing seasons with those guys and ended his career in Dallas with some pretty lackluster signal callers while going one and done twice. That's not indicative of the SB winning coach he's been in previous years. It just reaffirms the old adage that you can't win without players.

For our next dissection, we'll take apart "It's a QB driven league."

 

[-X-]

For our next dissection, we'll take apart "It's a QB driven league."

I think that one has some merit now. Especially since most rule revisions are now catering to that position.

 

[Boffo97]

I think that one has some merit now. Especially since most rule revisions are now catering to that position.

Maybe a little, but QBs still need a number of elements in place to succeed.

An earlier Bradford or even later Bulger plugged into the current support cast would have resulted in dramatically different results than what they had.

 

[-X-]

Maybe a little, but QBs still need a number of elements in place to succeed.

An earlier Bradford or even later Bulger plugged into the current support cast would have resulted in dramatically different results than what they had.

It's an interesting discussion to be had, for sure.

As it relates to importance on a team, I'd have to put QB at #1 as a position or unit. Obviously a good QB with a bad OL will struggle, but a bad QB behind a bad OL will likely die.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Yeah, there's a lot of hearsay about Spags taken as gospel by some. Not only the false pictures story, but Hewitt's side of his non-renewal and the whole "control freak" thing I felt were either highly exaggerated for the sake of a story or out and out falsehoods. (Hewitt I still think was a locker room leak.)

Come on. You think there was hearsay about Spags, then you say you think Hewitt was a "locker room leak"?

Pot, met kettle.

And what did Rick Smith do to get forced out? Jim Anderson? John Oswald? The Amumni coordintor? The security guy? the team photographer? Director of player relations?
I get it, you like Spags so these people are all pieced of shit.

I wanted Spags for the coach in 2009. So I was a Spags-backer, and I thought he had it turned in 2010. Had we help at goalline at Tampa and not allowed the 3rd and 29, then 4th an 18 versus 49ers, we win both games and are in playoffs (all lost on poorly executed zone blitzes)

Even though I think he is definately a control freak, more than most coaches because to some degree a HC has to have control, but he was over the top, and installing buddies in some of those jobs.

However, in 2011 I didn't think it was his fault, with the injuries to OL and CB and the amazing number of drops by the WRs, and Sam's ankle . . but he'd lost the building due to off-the-field stuff.

With the Saints, though, he ran a scheme that did not fit the players, "I'm being brutally honest in that there absolutely were issues with the scheme," Shanle said. "Guys no matter how many years they played, there were things I was being told to do in this scheme that I've never heard of, and I've played for four different defensive coordinators."

Spags is a scheme-coach, not a coach than can run a 4-3 or a 3-4 or any sort of hybrid, he's a desciple of Jim Johnson and the zone blitz and double A-gap pressure. And with Giants, it may work again. But with Saints it sure didn't.

But throwing Hewitt into the grease isn't fair and you don't have any evidence. There ARE actions that show Spags was not ready for a HC position. I am happy for hum getting another shot after the Saints gig. I happen to think he's a nice guy, but getting upset with Hargbaugh and a challenge was odd, and that mized with the widespread cannings of people who all were good enough for Vermeil, Martz, and Linny was just a guy wanting to change the culture and ended up making it worse than it was under Linny and 2004-2005 Martz.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Seems pretty true to me:

Picture this: A Rams Park minus (some) photos
By Jim Thomas
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. _ So what about those pictures, or lack thereof, on the walls of Rams Park? Marshall Faulk's comments earlier in the week, bemoaning the fact that photos of Rams greats have been taken down, struck a nerve with Rams Nation. While making the rounds Friday at the Super Bowl media center, coach Steve Spagnuolo and general manager Billy Devaney were only too happy to explain the interior decorating decision.
We've got pictures of Faulk all through the building, Devaney said. There's a ton of pictures of Kurt Warner, Isaac Bruce. Torry Holt. Ricky Proehl, and deservedly so. We've got the Hall of Fame players. I'd love to give people a dadgum tour of the building to show them how we recognize it.

There's just none in the team auditorium, where the walls remain bare one season into Spagnuolo's tenure.

When we first got there, there were a lot of pictures, Spagnuolo said. And in my opinion, a lot of pictures up there were just individual pictures. And you know the gist of what we do: Team First. So we changed it a little bit. We took ˜em all down at the beginning, and then put ˜em back up in the hallways _ all team-oriented pictures.

Now up in the second floor, there's still a lot of pictures of Kurt and Marshall and all kinds of former Rams.

(That's an area of the building where the players normally don't venture.)

But in the auditorium, in the actual room where we meet with the players, we have not re-put pictures up yet,Spagnuolo said. We're still kind of contemplating what we're going to do. I didn't think (the lack of pictures) had a big effect on anything either way.

The mindset is that (the team auditorium) was a work area. . . .We're just trying to interject nothing but team. Everything in that building was going to be a vision toward: It wasn't about one person, not about one guy, not about one area. But just completely team. But I have a tremendous amount of respect for the history, the tradition of the Rams. The players that have come before. What they did. Certainly 10 years ago, the anniversary (of the Super Bowl championship team).

Amen

 

[Blue and Gold]

Belichick will go to the Hall of Fame. He doesn't deserve to. He's a cheater. Just because he wins games doesn't mean his team is better.

Shouldn't the above be in blue ink?

 

[Boffo97]

Come on. You think there was hearsay about Spags, then you say you think Hewitt was a "locker room leak"?

Pot, met kettle.

It's my theory, not hearsay. To me, it makes sense with how much the P-D tried to force it into being a story, especially given that before it broke, they basically said "Why should we care about the L.A. history of the team? We're in St. Louis." then made a big deal about Hewitt dating back to L.A. Why would they do that? One sensible theory is that the guy was a leak.

And what did Rick Smith do to get forced out? Jim Anderson? John Oswald? The Amumni coordintor? The security guy? the team photographer? Director of player relations?

Don't know, and don't really care about these minor decisions.

I get it, you like Spags so these people are all pieced of crap.

If you can decide for me what I think, you don't need me to participate in this argument, do you?

but he'd lost the building due to off-the-field stuff.

Your opinion. I disagree.

Shouldn't the above be in blue ink?

Absolutely not.

 

[Boffo97]

Also, another item to look at to disprove this inane theory: Dick Vermeil in 1998.

The "You are what your record says you are" theory is that he's a .281 coach, and thus the only explanation for the following year is that he magically got better.

Common sense tells us instead that the answer is that there were other problems on the team and that he WASN'T the problem (although he did make some minor changes) and thus he WASN'T what his record said he was. He was better.

 

[Prime Time]

More on Todd Hewitt and Spags in this thread. The OP is about a different case but the discussion eventually gets to Hewitt and Spags.

http://www.ramsondemand.com/threads...rimination-claim-against-st-louis-rams.23583/

 

[-X-]

More on Todd Hewitt and Spags in this thread. The OP is about a different case but the discussion eventually gets to Hewitt and Spags.

http://www.ramsondemand.com/threads...rimination-claim-against-st-louis-rams.23583/

All roads lead to Spags.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Don't know, and don't really care about these minor decisions.

Very telling. These "minor decisions" disrupt an organization. But you throw out some theory with no proof about Hewitt. Also very telling, The things about Spags have been shown in this thread, capped off by Scott Shanle. But not only him, but others.

You remind me of the extreme views on Martz, both the lovers and haters. Something these things are in the middle. But you defending Spags at all costs shows that you care more about one guy than the organization as a whole.

Spags, by the accounts here and elsewhere was the poison. And he took a bad situation from Linny and made it worse. And that's coming from me, who wanted him to be hired, he was my #1 choice in 2009. And I think he did SOME good things. But overall, he needed to get fired and he did.

Then he went and took a bad defense in NO and made it the worst ever. Telling, again.

Spags was a good DC in NY and I hope he does well again. I've not nothing against him personally, but the evidence shows he got drunk on power in his firt gig as a HC on any level and that control-freakishness ran amuck and it cost him.

The job now in NY is a chance at redemption and I hope he's learned from his mistakes.

 

[Boffo97]

OK, I'm not even going to quote that mess. You need to make the argument about Spags, not about me. Okay? Just because I don't believe the same "accounts" that you believe doesn't mean there's anything wrong with me. I'm certainly not doing that crap to you. Knock it off.

For me, the subject of Spags is simple. He came in and inherited as close to nothing as a coach can get. After a pretty understandable bad rookie year with no talent, the team jumped up to 7-9. Some got mad at Spags because it wasn't one more game. I thought that kind of jump was impressive as it is. After that, there was definite hope of turning the corner, but no one, repeat NO ONE, repeat NO ONE was going to win very many games with that level of injuries and their concentration on certain units. Let's take out both the starting CBs and 4 of the OL on any of Fisher's team and replace them with street free agents. Fisher's going to lose a lot of games too then.

That's what I care about. What happened on the field, not counting what was beyond his control. I don't care about some disgruntled former employees (that do not even come close to "disrupting the organization") and their one sided stories. (And no, me having a THEORY about Hewitt isn't the same thing. Even if he wasn't a leak, his own statements made it clear that he butted heads with Spags when Spags wanted it done X way and he always did it Y way. For that alone, he was lucky he wasn't outright fired instead of just having his contract not renewed, which Spags had every right to not do.) To say he made things worse than Linehan did is utterly absurd. Linehan lost the team. The way I remember it, Rams players had nothing but good things to say about Spags.

Is that true in his Saints gig? No. But he did inherit a very bad situation with the team, particularly the defense, being distracted by the Bountygate fallout and losing both the coach and the best defensive player. But, I don't really care because it's not the Rams. Had Spags done well in New Orleans, that wouldn't have made those who disliked him here change their minds either.

 

[Blue and Gold]

OK, I'm not even going to quote that mess. You need to make the argument about Spags, not about me. Okay? Just because I don't believe the same "accounts" that you believe doesn't mean there's anything wrong with me. I'm certainly not doing that crap to you. Knock it off.

For me, the subject of Spags is simple. He came in and inherited as close to nothing as a coach can get. After a pretty understandable bad rookie year with no talent, the team jumped up to 7-9. Some got mad at Spags because it wasn't one more game. I thought that kind of jump was impressive as it is. After that, there was definite hope of turning the corner, but no one, repeat NO ONE, repeat NO ONE was going to win very many games with that level of injuries and their concentration on certain units. Let's take out both the starting CBs and 4 of the OL on any of Fisher's team and replace them with street free agents. Fisher's going to lose a lot of games too then.

That's what I care about. What happened on the field, not counting what was beyond his control. I don't care about some disgruntled former employees (that do not even come close to "disrupting the organization") and their one sided stories. (And no, me having a THEORY about Hewitt isn't the same thing. Even if he wasn't a leak, his own statements made it clear that he butted heads with Spags when Spags wanted it done X way and he always did it Y way. For that alone, he was lucky he wasn't outright fired instead of just having his contract not renewed, which Spags had every right to not do.) To say he made things worse than Linehan did is utterly absurd. Linehan lost the team. The way I remember it, Rams players had nothing but good things to say about Spags.

Is that true in his Saints gig? No. But he did inherit a very bad situation with the team, particularly the defense, being distracted by the Bountygate fallout and losing both the coach and the best defensive player. But, I don't really care because it's not the Rams. Had Spags done well in New Orleans, that wouldn't have made those who disliked him here change their minds either.

What crap? I've said you're views are telling. Whet they tell me is you're still kind of a Spags backer. And I compare it to those who are still Martz-backers or even the Martz-haters. That is not personal against you. Everyone can like who they want, for any reason they want.

Perhaps you are being a little too sensitive for this kind of exchange of viewpoints? You seem like a good guy and you and I often agree, but this Spags things seems to put you on edge. Nothing I am doing is causing that?

But what you seem to be angry about is that there are people who speak out against Spags' actions and you've really personally attacked them. You called one a leaker, and the others "disgruntled". Is that fair? No. You don't know them and you seem to be dismissing their experiences because, as I said in the first paragraph that you're choosing to believe the guy you like over the others.

Look at it not from a "beyond all reasonable doubt" but from a "preponderance of the evidence"

Even you would have to admit their are far more accounts that back up the failings of Spags, both on and off the field than there are from your opinions. You can choose not the believe the critics, yet you've offered no real objective accounts that back up Spags' point of view.

And in your explanation of Hewitt v Spags, you one the one hand object to people labeling Spags and control freak and that you don't care about minor things, but you say "Even if he wasn't a leak, his own statements made it clear that he butted heads with Spags when Spags wanted it done X way and he always did it Y way. For that alone, he was lucky he wasn't outright fired instead of just having his contract not renewed, which Spags had every right to not do."

But you seem to fail to recognize that a head coach wanting equipment things "X way" is the very definition of a head coach getting too involved is minor things. So, you may not care about "minor things" which is fine, that's your right. But Spags, too, by your own example IS concerned with minor things. And that involvement contributed to the failures he had as a head coach, both as an on-field guy and as the face of the organization.

He was not liked in the Rams offices. Now, I know for sure, that the front office does not have to walk on pins and needles while doing their job because the head coach isn't going to second guess things that they are experts in.

 

[-X-]

And he took a bad situation from Linny and made it worse.

Of course he did. He, along with Demoff and Devaney had to completely purge that team of everybody. There were TONS of backloaded contracts on that team and they were upside down in the cap. The only way to make it better was to make it considerably worse, and that's what they all did. And it certainly wasn't anybody's fault in the Organization that the CBA was being negotiated and all UFA's had to become RFA's, thus making the free agent pool extremely shallow. Couple that with the dire cap situation, and it subsequently limited their ability to add *quality* free agents that first year.

Poison though? Yeah, I don't buy that either. People who were fired from the Organization and cut from the team obviously felt compelled to air their grievances, but there was nobody in the media or on the team who said a cross word about him after he was let go here. Nobody. All the way up to the end of the season, Bernie and Balzer defended Spags from irrational arguments until Bernie had some sort of epiphany about records being indicative of a Coach's worth, and then he flipped. But he never said anything bad about Spags as a person, and if anybody would, you'd think Bernie would have no reservations about doing so.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Poison though? Yeah, I don't buy that either. People who were fired from the Organization and cut from the team obviously felt compelled to air their grievances, but there was nobody in the media or on the team who said a cross word about him after he was let go here. Nobody.

Not publicly because there is no reason to. I know for sure that many of those who survived the purge felt the mistrust in the building and were pleased when Spags was gone. It just was not covered in the media because it was no longer story. You don't have to believe me, but what I am saying on this accurate on this particular story.