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

[-X-]

Which is pretty much what i'm saying: you are your record.

I seriously doubt anyone has ever gone 10-38 and not gotten fired. Not even Tom Landry and Chuck Noll were quite as bad in the first three years of their expansion teams. And in the modern era? Forget it...

Well, you've officially beaten this to death, so....

Good job?

Back to the topic. I still maintain that Spags will be a successful DC if he's able to keep his ambitions at bay and remain a DC for a long time, and this was a good hire by the Giants (again).

 

[Boffo97]

But you claim the 10-38 record isn't a fair way to judge Spagnulo. So why did they fire him then? You think Demoff and Kroenke are morons?

No. I assert that they didn't just look at the record and automatically assume it was his fault.

Personally, I think it was just new owner wanting to bring in his own guy and Fisher being available. Anyone else we could have gotten would have been a downgrade. Fisher was an upgrade... but I'm starting to be afraid he's not the answer. Spags took a 2-14 team and made them 7-9 in two years. Fisher took a 7-9 team (if you give 2011 a mulligan for the massive injuries) and has kept them 7-9 despite having the benefit of a massive trade

It was because of the record, but also with the acknowledgement and understanding that it likely couldn't have been much better given the circumstances. When asked point blank, Demoff said that if they had reached 8-8 that year (or anywhere close to it), that he wouldn't have been fired. So that leaves a 16-32 record, and he's retained. So the record, in and of itself, was the primary reason. But the firing was likely motivated by declining ticket sales or some other monetary consideration.

IMO.

I still think that quote from Demoff was just hot air. Who precisely was going to go 8-8 with that situation?

Spags record isn't ALL there is but it's enough,one notable poster from back in the Spags firing dust up use to challenge anyone to name a coach who succeeded in spite of the degree of injuries experienced during Spags last year , I would say Bruce Ariens did just that this year ,fact is more often than not success in the league is defined by how well you deal with injuries.

Um... other than QB issues, where else did Arizona face massive injuries?

And even there, he had his starter in place until the first game vs. us. So I don't see those situations as comparable. When you're bringing in multiple guys who weren't good enough to be on an opening day roster just so you can put certain units on the field, you're not going to win.

 

[MrMotes]

Fisher took a 7-9 team (if you give 2011 a mulligan for the massive injuries)

That's some crazy spin right there. But the thing is Kroenke clearly didn't give Spags a mulligan for 2011. He fired him for it.

Of his 3 years, one was a 1 win season and one was a 2 win season. His home run was the 7 win season. A truly pathetic 3 year performance by any measure.

What amazes me though, is after 3 straight losing seasons Jeff Fisher has won twice as many games as Spags did and we're rightly wondering if Fisher is up to the job. It's mind boggling really, to me anyway...

 

[Boffo97]

That's some crazy spin right there. But the thing is Kroenke clearly didn't give Spags a mulligan for 2011. He fired him for it.

Of his 3 years, one was a 1 win season and one was a 2 win season. His home run was the 7 win season. A truly pathetic 3 year performance by any measure.

What amazes me though, is after 3 straight losing seasons Jeff Fisher has won twice as many games as Spags did and we're rightly wondering if Fisher is up to the job. It's mind boggling really, to me anyway...

Yes... "crazy spin"... because it looks at what was inherited and what circumstances occurred.

Hey, if you want to pretend record is the be-all, end-all, nothing I can say will ever stop you. I suppose those Patriots were a great football team from 2000-2007... their record was great and that's all that matters, right?

 

[MrMotes]

Yes... "crazy spin"... because it looks at what was inherited and what circumstances occurred.

Hey, if you want to pretend record is the be-all, end-all, nothing I can say will ever stop you. I suppose those Patriots were a great football team from 2000-2007... their record was great and that's all that matters, right?

Crazy because you're saying Fisher essentially took over a 7 win team and hasn't really improved it. I find that, darn near, preposterous.

The Patriots weren't good? They won 3 SB's in that period. Their coach and QB are locks for the HOF. What are you trying to argue? Winning, and now SB's, aren't the measure of success in the NFL?

What is then?

 

[Boffo97]

Crazy because you're saying Fisher essentially took over a 7 win team and hasn't really improved it. I find that, darn near, preposterous.

It's actually not far from your argument. All you have to do is grant for the sake of argument that 2011's record was not a true indicator of the team's talent and thus Fisher inherited a 7 win team.

Once that's granted, the rest, that Fisher hasn't improved the team beyond 7 wins, becomes very obvious.

The Patriots weren't good? They won 3 SB's in that period. Their coach and QB are locks for the HOF. What are you trying to argue? Winning, and now SB's, aren't the measure of success in the NFL?

What is then?

So you find nothing wrong with Super Bowl 36 then? Because the record just shows they won... nothing else.

You can train a monkey to determine which number is better than which. I believe people who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to think about this stuff do more than just look at that one number.

 

[HometownBoy]

Crazy because you're saying Fisher essentially took over a 7 win team and hasn't really improved it. I find that, darn near, preposterous.

The Patriots weren't good? They won 3 SB's in that period. Their coach and QB are locks for the HOF. What are you trying to argue? Winning, and now SB's, aren't the measure of success in the NFL?

What is then?

I think he's implying that the ulterior circumstance of Spygate is counted against the Patriots then the injuries for the Rams should count for Spags.

I don't agree myself and think that that argument in itself is ignoring any and all circumstance that Fisher faced, I.E. losing his starting QB twice in a row among other things, but this isn't my argument to fight.

 

[Boffo97]

I think he's implying that the ulterior circumstance of Spygate is counted against the Patriots then the injuries for the Rams should count for Spags.

I don't agree myself and think that that argument in itself is ignoring any and all circumstance that Fisher faced, I.E. losing his starting QB twice in a row among other things, but this isn't my argument to fight.

I'm not saying that Fisher's circumstances should be ignored either. When Bradford went down, I expected the Rams to do a lot worse than they did.

That said, 2014 (or 2013) were not even close to the horrific injury situation (both in terms of number and concentration on certain units, here the DBs and OL) that 2011 was. If NO ONE could have won that year, then it seems irrational to me to assert that Spags is a terrible coach because he didn't. In 2009, it was a similar situation, but there it was talent depreciation rather than injuries. Spags inherited Steven Jackson, a very green Chris Long and... not much else.

I just object to the idea that one should look ONLY at the record, or the concept that NFL professionals do so because a team is supposed to ALWAYS "be what their record says they are". To me, there are SO many other things that can cause a team to have a bad record than one individual's talent/performance and a few other things to cause a bad record other than whole team talent/performance.

 

[MrMotes]

All you have to do is grant for the sake of argument that 2011's record was not a true indicator of the team's talent and thus Fisher inherited a 7 win team.

Once that's granted, the rest, that Fisher hasn't improved the team beyond 7 wins, becomes very obvious.

It's true, if you ignore all the losing, Spags' record improves.

But what can i say? I strongly, strongly disagree...

 

[Boffo97]

It's true, if you ignore all the losing, Spags' record improves.

Not even close to what I said, but whatever.

But what can i say? I strongly, strongly disagree...

Guess we're at an impasse then. You think my way of looking at things is crazy. I think your way is incredibly simplistic.

Both of us think NFL professionals tend to share our view. Neither of us can prove it.

I guess we agree to disagree.

 

[MrMotes]

Both of us think NFL professionals tend to share our view. Neither of us can prove it.

Spags was fired. Billichek is going to the HOF. Your way of looking at thing is a little off the beaten path...

 

[Boffo97]

Spags was fired. Billichek is going to the HOF. Your way of looking at thing is a little off the beaten path...

Spags was fired. I disagree with your assertion as to why because I don't just look at the record and assume it's the fault of whoever I don't like, I ask "WHY did the Rams get this record?" I don't (and can't) believe that Demoff or Kroenke do either, otherwise this team has no hope.

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.

I'm not off the beaten path... just off the simple one.

 

[Thordaddy]

Um... other than QB issues, where else did Arizona face massive injuries?

And even there, he had his starter in place until the first game vs. us. So I don't see those situations as comparable. When you're bringing in multiple guys who weren't good enough to be on an opening day roster just so you can put certain units on the field, you're not going to win.

John Abraham their best pass rusher Andre Ellington their best RB and missed games by Calais Campbell their best remaining d-lineman and double digit lesser players ,you asked.............. the Giants also had massive injuries .
I think Spags does a good job at NY but was in way over his head as a HC and FWIW the footnotes won't be relevant as time goes by that he was 10 -38 as a HC will be his enduring legacy , every one who fails as a HC in the league has a story as to why he compiled a crappy record at this level no excuses ,if ya can't stand the heat,many are called, no country for old men,pick your platitude .

So far of the two "mistakes" the Rams have made in trying to replace Martz , Linehan has IMO enhanced his chances the most of returning to the HC ranks considering the Cowboys resurgence but more the collapse of the Lions offensive numbers since he left ( I BTW was highly skeptical about the Cowboys hiring him and wouldn't want him back in any capacity), I'd add this Spags should have declined the DC position in Nawlins , ANOTHER of his questionable decisions ,WHAT? was he thinking?
I shudder to think what Spags record would have been playing in the current NFC West I'd surmise the 3 games he did win would have been likely losses ,IOW he was fortunate to be 10-38 instead of 7-41 and was presented with the chance to go to the playoffs by beating a team that made it with an 8-8 record ,ALL he had to do to WIN his division was go 8-8 ,let's hear the excuse for that failure we've beaten the injury one as X says to death.

BTW we played the Cards in week 10 it was Palmers 6th start he had missed games 2-5 with a dead arm from a pinched nerve and did not finish that game nor play again which means he played in 6 games , Sam played in 10 in 2011 .

 

[-X-]

I just object to the idea that one should look ONLY at the record, or the concept that NFL professionals do so because a team is supposed to ALWAYS "be what their record says they are". To me, there are SO many other things that can cause a team to have a bad record than one individual's talent/performance and a few other things to cause a bad record other than whole team talent/performance.

Few people are interested in analyzing things beyond their face value, and there's not much you can do to sway an already etched-in-stone opinion in these circumstances. FWIW, I agree with your assessments here. Historically -- yes, historically -- the Rams' offense had the worst run of injuries (to that point) in the last decade according to a PFF article I read shortly thereafter. That should account for something. Then when you add in a run on injured corners that exceeded what all teams even take into camp, then you have a losing formula. Add onto THAT a revised offense with no off-season to tune it, rookie receivers (Pettis, Kendricks, Salas) and your primary receiver (Amendola) injured in the beginning of the season after losing Jackson in your first game, and ending with starting offensive linemen who weren't even in the league at the beginning of the season, then I guess it's just an example of "all teams have injuries" and that's that. Just tilt on this one and say Spags sucks and it's all his fault. You'll save yourself the frustration.

 

[Selassie I]

This Spags talk is giving me flashbacks and dry heaves.

 

[Thordaddy]

I just object to the idea that one should look ONLY at the record, or the concept that NFL professionals do so because a team is supposed to ALWAYS "be what their record says they are". To me, there are SO many other things that can cause a team to have a bad record than one individual's talent/performance and a few other things to cause a bad record other than whole team talent/performance.

Well when it IS the first thing looked at when defining success in the league it's unrealistic to expect it not to be the first thing considered when defining failure, AND when it is so remarkably abysmal as 10-38 to insist upon looking deeper is an exercise in attempting to "prove" a preconceived/ desired conclusion.
In total Spags had his starting QB 30 games and won 10
In the same number of games Fisher has had his 23 and won twice as many with much younger teams .

We aught to all celebrate that and thank God and Greyhound Spags is gone

 

[Boffo97]

John Abraham their best pass rusher Andre Ellington their best RB and missed games by Calais Campbell their best remaining d-lineman and double digit lesser players ,you asked.............. the Giants also had massive injuries .
I think Spags does a good job at NY but was in way over his head as a HC and FWIW the footnotes won't be relevant as time goes by that he was 10 -38 as a HC will be his enduring legacy , every one who fails as a HC in the league has a story as to why he compiled a crappy record at this level no excuses ,if ya can't stand the heat,many are called, no country for old men,pick your platitude .

So far of the two "mistakes" the Rams have made in trying to replace Martz , Linehan has IMO enhanced his chances the most of returning to the HC ranks considering the Cowboys resurgence but more the collapse of the Lions offensive numbers since he left ( I BTW was highly skeptical about the Cowboys hiring him and wouldn't want him back in any capacity), I'd add this Spags should have declined the DC position in Nawlins , ANOTHER of his questionable decisions ,WHAT? was he thinking?
I shudder to think what Spags record would have been playing in the current NFC West I'd surmise the 3 games he did win would have been likely losses ,IOW he was fortunate to be 10-38 instead of 7-41 and was presented with the chance to go to the playoffs by beating a team that made it with an 8-8 record ,ALL he had to do to WIN his division was go 8-8 ,let's hear the excuse for that failure we've beaten the injury one as X says to death.

BTW we played the Cards in week 10 it was Palmers 6th start he had missed games 2-5 with a dead arm from a pinched nerve and did not finish that game nor play again which means he played in 6 games , Sam played in 10 in 2011 .

That's still not whole UNITS being decimated the way the Rams were in 2011... sorry.

And of course you shudder to think how Spags would do against the NFC West. Me, I think he could do as well as Fisher did, possibly better. Of course, that's just total guesswork on both our parts based on our existing opinion of Spags.

Few people are interested in analyzing things beyond their face value, and there's not much you can do to sway an already etched-in-stone opinion in these circumstances. FWIW, I agree with your assessments here. Historically -- yes, historically -- the Rams' offense had the worst run of injuries (to that point) in the last decade according to a PFF article I read shortly thereafter. That should account for something. Then when you add in a run on injured corners that exceeded what all teams even take into camp, then you have a losing formula. Add onto THAT a revised offense with no off-season to tune it, rookie receivers (Pettis, Kendricks, Salas) and your primary receiver (Amendola) injured in the beginning of the season after losing Jackson in your first game, and ending with starting offensive linemen who weren't even in the league at the beginning of the season, then I guess it's just an example of "all teams have injuries" and that's that. Just tilt on this one and say Spags sucks and it's all his fault. You'll save yourself the frustration.

Honestly feel I should copy that and just paste it whenever this comes up. It sums up the arguments beautifully.

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.

But I truly hope none of the Rams' execs have the mindset that only the record matters. It's WAY too easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and with that kind of basic mental mistake when it comes to team evaluation, we will never succeed under the current administration.

 

[MrMotes]

But I truly hope none of the Rams' execs have the mindset that only the record matters. It's WAY too easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and with that kind of basic mental mistake when it comes to team evaluation, we will never succeed under the current administration.

It's not just the Rams. Nobody wants Steve Spagnulo to be their HC. All these job openings, and not a single interview. Whether it's his top line W/L numbers or something below the numbers, he's not an attractive candidate, to anybody...

 

[-X-]

It's not just the Rams. Nobody wants Steve Spagnulo to be their HC. All these job openings, and not a single interview. Whether it's his top line W/L numbers or something below the numbers, he's not an attractive candidate, to anybody...

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

 

[Boffo97]

It's not just the Rams. Nobody wants Steve Spagnulo to be their HC. All these job openings, and not a single interview. Whether it's his top line W/L numbers or something below the numbers, he's not an attractive candidate, to anybody...

That's not uncommon in the League for someone's rep to be at least temporarily ruined by taking a bad job. After Belichick left Cleveland in 1994, it was 6 years until he was a head coach again and started cheating. 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. That said, he would be apparently the only "bad" coach in NFL history to manage a +6 game improvement in one season.

But your argument doesn't prove the obviously false claim that the NFL *only* cares about W-L record and never looks at anything else. Think about it. If you were getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions to make professional decisions, you'd have to be not too attached to that job to make all your decisions based on a single number.

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

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