Thoughts on Fisher

[fearsomefour]

Interesting that this years team is almost in the reverse situation.
Hoping an elite top level D sets the table for an average O.
Wins are wins and there is more than one way to get them. If the Rams O can generally avoid turnovers and pick enough first down to help the D out with field goals (the thought here being that lack of TO and any scoring will keep the team in games, cheap turnovers and short fields....handing a 14-0 lead to other teams will offset the attacking nature of the D) and field position in a consistent way the D could really excel and control games.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Wins are wins and there is more than one way to get them.

Absolutely!

 

[…..]

I hope you realize that the Socratic method that you're being taught is nothing more than a tool that was developed and used to co-opt the minds of Greek youth, making every argument seem feasible through the use of carefully crafted questions.

Brilliant comment.

I need to commit this to memory.

 

[jrry32]

Yep. The Rams defense in 99 was decent, not great. Seemed like every game the Rams were up 14-0, 21-0 before anyone knew what was going on. Then they pinned their ears back with a lead. I said it then and I'll say it now, they were incredibly over rated as a unit but were carried by such superior D. Heck Kevin Carter asked off the field at the end of the Superbowl with that famous Vermeil tirade
In any event, Martz kept the offense going even with Trent Green and Marc Bulger, transitioned the RB position from Marshall to SJ. So yeah, as expected, the OC in him excelled. But we all also saw Martz bring in Lovie and revamp the defense. So he revamped the offense and the defense. All in his 5 seasons.
Marmie was a terrible hire and that haunts his career.
I know for me, watching the offense in 2006 with Bulger and SJ having their career best years, I couldnt help but wish Martz was still running the show. And then, off the cliff they fell

I'd definitely rather have Martz than Vanillahan.

Still gotta disagree on the 1999 defense. They were top tier by every measure. They were #6 in turnovers forced, #2 in points per drive allowed, #4 in points per game allowed, #6 in yards per game allowed, #1 rush defense, #2 defense in QB Rating Allowed (2nd best), and #1 in sacks.

I know these are all just stats. I know the offense being great as it was helped. But those are insane numbers.

There's no question that good coaching adds to the success of any team... but there's only so much that the greatest coach in the world can get out of any player. Great coaches can get the most out of their players... no doubt about it.

Give the greatest coach in the world a group of 53 average to below average players and the result will never be winning championships.

That's like saying, "Take away Randy Moss's athleticism and he wouldn't be a special player."

Elite coaches build elite teams. That's what make them so special.

Look at Bill Walsh. Brought in a ton of talent and then went out and secured his future by trading a 2nd and a 4th for a young QB that struggled immensely on a bad team (Steve Young). It wasn't luck. It's what made him great.

Great coaches are typically great evaluators, great motivators, and get the absolute most out of their players.

Both players and coaches are important. But, aside from an elite QB, players are replaceable. Great coaches can replace them and continue to be successful.

No doubt that you need both players and a coach. But if I were planning for the future and you offered me a great team with a mediocre head coach or the best coach in the game with a mediocre team, I'd take the latter.(for the purposes of this hypothetical, neither team has a HOF QB...both have good but not great QBs)

Interesting concept.

I remember going round and round years ago about this.

I was with you in that, ultimately, it's the players who make the difference. I mean, I've never seen a coach actually play in a real game while they are coaches.

But I kept being told that it was the coaches that mattered. They were the ones that made the difference.

It's probably on both (the coaches and the players).

But the players come and go and yet the best coaches continue to win.

 

[jrry32]

Where the heck is this line of thought going? If it continues, I'm afraid you'll be posting the question: "was the entire GSOT a fluke?"

I hope you realize that the Socratic method that you're being taught is nothing more than a tool that was developed and used to co-opt the minds of Greek youth, making every argument seem feasible through the use of carefully crafted questions. (see I.F. Stone's book, which provides completely different perspective on Socrates' than the traditional spin.)

Nope. It's a very straight-forward question. Our defense was elite in 1999. They were terrible in 2000 with much of the same personnel. How does one put the entirety of the blame on the personnel?

And I'm not sure why you're going on about the Socratic method. Every (rational) argument is feasible if you craft it correctly.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 with a bullet:
But the players come and go and yet the best coaches continue to win.

Hard to explain that without giving more credit to the HC. Kind of a chicken or egg thing though. If the HC brings in great players through trades, FA or the draft, it's still the players who win the games but who gets the credit? Probably depends on who has control of player acquisition. Is Baltimore's success due to Ozzie?

I have no answer and I'm getting a headache thinking about it.

 

[Merlin]

Nope. It's a very straight-forward question. Our defense was elite in 1999. They were terrible in 2000 with much of the same personnel. How does one put the entirety of the blame on the personnel?

And I'm not sure why you're going on about the Socratic method. Every (rational) argument is feasible if you craft it correctly.

It's not really even an argument tbh. It is a fact that by every measurable the Rams had an elite defense in 99 when they won it all. It is a fact that in Martz's first year that defense dropped like a rock. Martz made a great hire in Lovie and got it back on track, but it demonstrates how quickly a unit can dip. Also as a fan who has a great deal of respect for Mad Mike I don't see why it's so hard to acknowledge the guy was learning on the job as a head coach.

As I read the comments I just can't believe you guys are actually arguing about it. What is worth arguing over is WHY the defense dipped in Martz's first year. Was it because the offense was his baby? Did he promote the wrong DC of the dynamic duo who DV had in place in 99? Should he have brought in some new blood for that defense in the draft instead? And so forth and so on.

Oh and btw... I recall Vermiel being quoted right after the SB win and before his retirement decision that the defense needed focus (paraphrasing). So my personal belief is he would have drafted some fresh blood early on in that draft vice going with Canidate and probably would have done better than Shepherd in round two. We'll never know, but one thing that is undeniable is Vermiel's teams all drafted very well (going back to the Eagles who he built without top picks btw) which makes me think things would have been very different had Vermiel stayed for one more season.

 

[Rmfnlt]

But the players come and go and yet the best coaches continue to win.

I dunno... seems some of these great coaches rode a roller coaster... why would that be?

Maybe because the roster gets churned due to free agenacy and the like? The quality of the roster declines and, guess what? The coach's record declines as well.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/ParcBi0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/CougTo0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/GibbJo0.htm

All of these great coaches encountered roster deterioration at various points in their careers and suffered. Most get it back... but that's probably due to good drafting, which may or may not be all their doing.

Fact is, when their rosters deteroriated, all their great coaching acumen wasn't enough to overcome the lack of talent and the records reflected as much.

A great coach can draw up the best plays, but if the players aren't physically gifted enough to actually execute them? Losses ensue.

 

[JonRam99]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/oti/2003.htm

Do we think that the current Rams have more talent on their roster than the above 2003 Titans? Defensively, you might have an argument, but you are going to have to admit that it is close. Offensively, you have no argument. Offensive line, quarterback, and running back are positions we simply do not know enough of right now to be better than this Titan squad.

Jeff Fisher is going to win some games he probably shouldn't and loose some games where the other team has less talent every year. Not that he needs my endorsement on any level, but I am glad he is the coach of the Rams. Is this the most talented team he has ever coached? I don't know.

Good night, look at all those players drafted by the Oilers & Titans!!! Only 3 starters were F/A's.

One thing I think this shows & what seems to be special about Fisher is his commitment to player development. I don't think it's so bad being a "player's coach", because if players want to play for him, and even his assistants want to follow him around like groupies, it means he does something for them that a micro-manger doesn't--schemes to their abilities, and makes sure they advance in their abilities. His hiring of Garcia & Weinke, in an effort to coach up the WR's & QB's on the roster, is proof of this. Once, this team was anethema to F/A's & good coordinators; now, it's a place where good players WANT to go. Foles & Fairley are good examples of this, and to some extent Jake Long (who wasn't all that bad for us when he was healthy).
People often talk about the 'Bellicheck' coaching tree or the 'Parcells' coaching tree--how about all the DC's & OC's that used to coach for Fisher who are now HC's?? (excluding Schotty of course.) Spag's hiring of McDaniels was lauded at the time, but how far did that go towards improving a 7-9 team the season before? not much (2-14). I don't think McDaniels cared about this team--for him, I think it was just a landing place for him to rehab his reputation after his disatrous tenure at Denver.
Instead of super-imposing schemes on players & cramming square pegs in round holes, Fisher seems to have a comprehensive view of player drafting, development & deployment, along with hiring coordinators & assistants who are all on the same page. That said, ownership & GM's have a lot to do with this also; so far, Snead is doing pretty good for a GM--if Pead becomes a blue-chip player this year & Jenks goes to a Pro Bowl, & Brockers becomes an unstoppable MMA-crazed DT, I think Snead will be one of the best GM's we've had (in the St. Louis era at least, the best).
Is Fisher going to take this team to the SB every year, like Bellicheat?? Is he as talented a schemer as Martz was?? Prolly not on both, but Martz's drafting (after he was granted full drafting powers) was disastrous, and his player development fairly weak. Fisher has been a HC for decades; where's Martz today? and don't get me started on Bellicheat. Fisher's on the "hot seat"???? don't get me started on that either. I'm just glad we're able to have an honest discussion on this board about where this team's headed, as opposed to all the koolaid we had to choke on with Lineham & Spags.
I love this team that Fisher & Snead have built--both players and coaches. I absolutely can't wait to watch them this season. And I fully believe that if Bradford wouldn't have re-injured his knee, we'd have been in the playoffs last year--even with Schotty calling plays. With a healthy starter-grade QB in Foles & a competent back-up in Mannion, and with a defense that's ascending to greatness, I'm pretty confident we'll make it THIS year; and if Gurley gets to 100%, we may well have a super-worthy team.

 

[Selassie I]

I'd definitely rather have Martz than Vanillahan.

Still gotta disagree on the 1999 defense. They were top tier by every measure. They were #6 in turnovers forced, #2 in points per drive allowed, #4 in points per game allowed, #6 in yards per game allowed, #1 rush defense, #2 defense in QB Rating Allowed (2nd best), and #1 in sacks.

I know these are all just stats. I know the offense being great as it was helped. But those are insane numbers.



That's like saying, "Take away Randy Moss's athleticism and he wouldn't be a special player."

Elite coaches build elite teams. That's what make them so special.

Look at Bill Walsh. Brought in a ton of talent and then went out and secured his future by trading a 2nd and a 4th for a young QB that struggled immensely on a bad team (Steve Young). It wasn't luck. It's what made him great.

Great coaches are typically great evaluators, great motivators, and get the absolute most out of their players.

Both players and coaches are important. But, aside from an elite QB, players are replaceable. Great coaches can replace them and continue to be successful.

No doubt that you need both players and a coach. But if I were planning for the future and you offered me a great team with a mediocre head coach or the best coach in the game with a mediocre team, I'd take the latter.(for the purposes of this hypothetical, neither team has a HOF QB...both have good but not great QBs)



But the players come and go and yet the best coaches continue to win.

Give me the best QB and an average coach and my team will be more successful than the great coach and his average players. That's how I see it.

Let's keep in mind that most coaches wouldn't be at the NFL level if they weren't at least average in their craft. There have been a few examples of coaches who were and are horrible at their jobs... but an NFL coach usually didn't arrive at that level on his 1st ever coaching gig.

Again, great coaches are able to get the most out of their players... but you'll never find a coach who can get Brady/Manning results out of Dieter Brock. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[MrMotes]

It's interesting that in all of this discussion about Martz, in the Fisher thread no less, but no credit is given to Lovie Smith. It seems Martz was not only an offensive genius but a defensive one also. Lovie was just riding on his coat tails. The truth is we got some people healthy, added a couple pieces, drafted mediocre and promoted a damned good DC.

Not at all, Martz had the smarts to hire Lovie and pretty much let Lovie run the show from there. One of the big things they did (and it's been said that this was Martz's idea) was to move Little from Linebacker to DE. Whoever's idea it was, it was huge. Then again letting Fletcher go for Jamie Duncan (who Lovie coached in TB) and then Robert Thomas were not good moves.

 

[MrMotes]

Give me the best QB and an average coach and my team will be more successful than the great coach and his average players. That's how I see it.

It's 1998, you have Kurt Warner and Tony Banks on your team and you go with Tony Banks.

Who's that on exactly?

Coaches have a big say in who their players are and who's on the field at any given time...

 

[Selassie I]

It's 1998, you have Kurt Warner and Tony Banks on your team and you go with Tony Banks.

Who's that on exactly?

Coaches have a big say in who their players are and who's on the field at any given time...

True...

But there's no coach who would be able to get Warner results out of Banks.

 

[MrMotes]

In 2000, the DC was Peter Giunta who was also the DC in 1999. But I think the defense in 1999 was hard to evaluate, given the leads they were handed early in games.
In 2001, the score got a lot closer for the most part and the defense was exposed more.
2002, in came Lovie and a complete scheme change and things improved.
But after the 2003 season, Lovie earned his chance and Martz hired his friend, Larry Marmie. The defense went from 17th to 23rd.
That move helped seal Mike Martz's fate.

Besides getting your dates a little mixed up, you might want to double check some of your other facts.

The 2000 team scored the most points of the 3 GSOT teams. The games were closer and the wins fewer because the defense was terrible that year.

Also, the Rams had co-defensive coordinators in '99: Giunta and Bunting. Martz chose Giunta and let Bunting go so the DC situation was not the same from '99 to 2000.

 

[MrMotes]

True...

But there's no coach who would be able to get Warner results out of Banks.

And it's up to the coaches to figure out who can produce and who can't...

 

[blue4]

As I read the comments I just can't believe you guys are actually arguing about it.

What I can't believe is that some are actually arguing that a HC who went 56-36, rebuilt a D than an O, and made it to the playoffs more often than not wasn't a good HC.

 

[Stranger]

Brilliant comment.

I need to commit this to memory.

Thanks, but not really very brilliant once you've read I.F. Stone's book. Here's what an Amazon review had to say, which summarizes it well:

I.F. Stone, one of the few honourable journalists in recent US history, wrote this book in his retirement as an attempt to answer a question that had dogged him for years: How could Athens, a genuine democracy, condemn a man like Socrates to death? I mean, this was Socrates, the first major hero of western philosophy (if you don't count the pre-Socratics), the master of dialectic, the hero of all those who value intellectual independence, right?

Wrong. Stone's initial puzzlement hardens into a damaging case against Socrates. He never defends the Athenians' decision to execute him (because he finds it indefensible), but he produces a case for the prosecution that's hard to answer. If, like me, you'd always vaguely considered Socrates to be a model upholder of free thought, free speech and liberty in general, you're in for a shock. Socrates' contempt for democracy and the democratic process was all but a gauntlet thrown in the Athenians' faces. He claimed at his trial to be a gadfly, a reminder of uncomfortable moral truths which the polis was inclined to forget, but on the occasions when Athens was faced with tough moral decisions, Socrates was nowhere to be seen, and had nothing to say. His favourite disciple, Alcibiades, was a right-wing thug. He never ceased to praise the totalitarian government of Sparta, and to heap contempt on the participatory government of Athens (okay, women and slaves didn't have the vote in Athens, but it would be a couple of thousand years before they got it _anywhere_.) He especially hated Pericles, one of the greatest statesmen of all time, because Pericles was popular, and Socrates hated the power of popular opinion (he considered anybody who didn't have philosophical training to be simply unworthy of having a say in how the state ought to be organised. He was, in short, the first great elitist of western political theory.)

Stone shows how Socratic dialogues are frequently weighted in Socrates' favour - the game is rigged. Socrates is constantly arguing with dimwitted yes-men who can't come up with the obvious counter-arguments. This is a sobering and a sweetly rigorous book; for many years, Stone applied his intelligence to sorting out the manifold lies from the grubby truth in American politics (he was no more a Communist than John Milton) and it's a pleasure to see him apply that intelligence to another great untouchable.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2WKIGE8SGVQ6S/

 

[OldSchool]

Not at all, Martz had the smarts to hire Lovie and pretty much let Lovie run the show from there. One of the big things they did (and it's been said that this was Martz's idea) was to move Little from Linebacker to DE. Whoever's idea it was, it was huge. Then again letting Fletcher go for Jamie Duncan (who Lovie coached in TB) and then Robert Thomas were not good moves.

Leonard Little didn't start a game with the Rams until his fifth year with the team which was 2002. In 2001 he only played in 13 games after playing in 14 in 2000.

 

[Stranger]

Nope. It's a very straight-forward question. Our defense was elite in 1999. They were terrible in 2000 with much of the same personnel. How does one put the entirety of the blame on the personnel?

So, why put the entirety of the blame on Martz as HC? It could have been a myriad of factors, and probably was.

And I'm not sure why you're going on about the Socratic method. Every (rational) argument is feasible if you craft it correctly

I'm going on about it because: (1) it's what law school teaches you - which you are learning; (2) you're using the method in this thread to try support your position; (3) law school doesn't teach you any of the real history behind the method, it's purpose, why it was originally used, nor it's limits or downside. In short, it's a dialectical technique for achieving a desired answer. Hence, I'm exposing the method before it's allowed to proceed too far down it's path.

 

[MrMotes]

Leonard Little didn't start a game with the Rams until his fifth year with the team which was 2002. In 2001 he only played in 13 games after playing in 14 in 2000.

Still, he led the team with 14.5 sacks in 2001 so it's not like he wasn't on the field very often...