Thoughts on Fisher

[Moostache]

This is a bleacher report but I choose it because of their description of our D. I bolded it.
The Rams still managed 28 points, but as many expected, were let down by their defense, which allowed the winning points to score on a field goal in overtime.

uh, that's NOT what happened...Saints a 31–7 lead with 11:57 remaining. Rams came all the way back to 31-28 and Az-zahir Hakim fumbled a punt that prevented the offense from getting one last possession with a truckload of momentum and a chance to win the game. I will NEVER forget that play or the Vinaterri FG. They both still hurt the heart of the fan in me. That fumble prevented a miracle comeback from materializing, but it also prevented what could have been the most hyped Super Bowl in history if the Greatest Show on Turf had made it to the Super Bowl and faced off with the 2000 Ravens Defense and Ray Lewis. I believe the Rams would have beaten that team, just as they had in 1999 (27-10 in the season opener and the first act of the Warner/Faulk/Bruce/Holt/Pace HOF offense).

The pain of those 2 playoff losses - the 2000 Wild Card and Super Bowl XXXVI - don't kill the joy of '99 and Super Bowl XXXIV, but they just make me think of what could have been for that group of players and that offense. I know that the league has changed and the numbers are starting to get skewed; but for fans of a certain age - anyone who grew up in the 60's or 70's and was accustomed to the NFL being something more akin to Woody Hayes than Chip Kelly - that Rams offense from '99 to '01 was like nothing anyone had ever seen for a sustained period. There had been Air Coryell and the San Diego Chargers (who were the spiritual and actual forerunner of the GSOT) and a few explosive seasons in the AFL, but just like the '85 Bears exploded into the NFL like a comet on the defensive side of the ball, the '99 Rams were a revelation on offense.

Faulk averaging over 5 ypc, setting the all-time yards from scrimmage record, winning Offensive Player of the year multiple times and MVP...Warner/Green eclipsing 5,400 yards a decade before Brees would top Marino's best....Holt/Bruce going over 1,000 each...the 3 straight years over 500 points...the highlights that are etched in everyone's memory (too many to do justice to here, but oh my god the moves, the explosiveness, the accuracy, the pass routes and throws into windows the size of a suitcase....for those who only read about it or only see the highlights I feel bad that they did not get to live it and see it in-person at the time it happened.

What has made this entire process with the Rams so much more painful to me as a fan is the continued success of the Patriots after Super Bowl XXXVI and the subsequent disappearance of the St. Louis Rams - first from the playoffs and that NFC divisional loss in '03 to the Panthers in 2OT???, then from the discussions of great teams in the decade, then from competitiveness of any kind and 15-65, and now to the very real threat of the team disappearing back to Los Angeles. When taken in total, it's almost too much to bear...the St. Louis Rams built a dynasty that died in its infancy and the team that killed them went on to become the NFL legends...even now, with 3 additional Super Bowl wins and 6 total appearances since that day in New Orleans, in my heart and at their best I know that Rams team was BETTER than the Patriots. But history will tell the story differently. History says the Patriots were under-rated and their win over the Rams should not be seen as a shock...but it WAS a shock and should never be viewed differently.

Man, it still feels like we got to smell a gourmet meal, taste the first course and then watch the rest get fed to the dogs in front of us...and now, at least in St. Louis, where it all happened, we are faced with the prospects of being thrown out of the restaurant and barred from ever coming back inside. The whole saga makes my stomach hurt.

 

[jrry32]

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

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.

I didn't. Read my prior posts in this thread.

Go ahead and "expose it" but I'm only asking questions.

 

[Stranger]

Saints a 31–7 lead with 11:57 remaining. Rams came all the way back to 31-28 and Az-zahir Hakim fumbled a punt that prevented the offense from getting one last possession with a truckload of momentum and a chance to win the game.

Ugh, that's right up there with the NFCC games in Minnesota - where a 1st and goal turned into a blocked FG returned for a TD.

 

[jrry32]

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.

Because that's my opinion of Martz. Norv Turner went 56-40 in San Diego. Wade Phillips went 63-41 in his last two true HC jobs in Dallas and Buffalo. Would you call either good head coaches?

 

[blue4]

Because that's my opinion of Martz. Norv Turner went 56-40 in San Diego. Wade Phillips went 63-41 in his last two true HC jobs in Dallas and Buffalo. Would you call either good head coaches?

I would say yes. Great, no. Good, yes.

Comparing them to Fisher, Spags, and Linehan?
Certainly. After all, that's what started this discussion.

 

[jrry32]

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.

A roller coaster? A few losing seasons spread across two decades isn't a roller coaster.

As I already said, great coaches aren't going to win with a bad roster. But great coaches build great rosters. It's what makes them great.

So yes, give me two decades of a great coach vs. 4-5 years of a great team.(because great teams don't last two decades) Because when that great team is gone, they're gone. That great coach will be able to build you great teams and then rebuild them when the time comes.

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.

We saw that, though. Bill Belichick in New England vs. Peyton Manning in Indianapolis. I think we both know who had more success.(as much as I hate to admit it)

 

[jrry32]

I would say yes. Great, no. Good, yes.

Comparing them to Fisher, Spags, and Linehan?
Certainly. After all, that's what started this discussion.

You would say yes? If they're good HCs, why don't they have a HC job right now?

I'd take Fisher over both those guys in a millisecond.

 

[Alan]

Moostache setting the record straight:
uh, that's NOT what happened...Saints a 31–7 lead with 11:57 remaining. Rams came all the way back to 31-28 and Az-zahir Hakim fumbled a punt that prevented the offense from getting one last possession with a truckload of momentum and a chance to win the game.

Thanks Moostache. I did mention it was the Bleacher Report yes? I didn't pay attention to that part because it wasn't pertinent to the topic but it's hard to believe they could get it that wrong isn't it? :eek:

 

[blue4]

You would say yes? If they're good HCs, why don't they have a HC job right now?

I'd take Fisher over both those guys in a millisecond.

I can think of a bunch of coaches who were good who don't have jobs. That doesn't prove anything.

As I said, we aren't going to agree on Martz. This derailment onto other coaches proves nothing in regards to whether or not Martz was a good coach.

 

[Rmfnlt]

In 2000, the DC was Peter Giunta who was also the DC in 1999.

Rams had co-defensive coordinators in '99: Giunta and Bunting.

Maybe you could tell me what the split was.
The fact that Martz decided to stick with Giunta tells me he probably had more responsibility than Bunting when they were "co-Coordinators".
Given what happened, perhaps Martz made the wrong decision on who to keep.

The 2000 team scored the most points of the 3 GSOT teams.

Well, this has nothing to do with what I wrote (it was about the defense), so I'll just leave this as being confused.

 

[jrry32]

I can think of a bunch of coaches who were good who don't have jobs. That doesn't prove anything.

As I said, we aren't going to agree on Martz. This derailment onto other coaches proves nothing in regards to whether or not Martz was a good coach.

Okay...who are they? And I hope you're not counting coaches that are choosing not to coach or retired.

 

[blue4]

Okay...who are they? And I hope you're not counting coaches that are choosing not to coach or retired.

For God's sake let's just end it on we agree to disagree.

 

[MrMotes]

Well, this has nothing to do with what I wrote (it was about the defense), so I'll just leave this as being confused.

This is what you wrote:

In 2001, the score got a lot closer for the most part and the defense was exposed more.

I think you meant 2000. But why was the score closer? The 2000 squad scored more points than the '99 or '01 squad. So what could it be that made the games closer except the worst defense in the NFL (dead last in points allowed)?

 

[RamFan503]

This is a bleacher report but I choose it because of their description of our D. I bolded it.


The defense, however, was absolutely dreadful.

Although cornerback Dexter McCleon intercepted eight passes and defensive ends Grant Wistrom and Kevin Carter each posted double-digit sack totals, the Rams ranked dead last in the NFL in points allowed, with 471. Seven times the Rams allowed 30 or more points, including 54 to the Kansas City Chiefs. The Rams ranked near the bottom in every major defensive category, after finishing near the top the year before.

Despite starting the season 6-0, the Rams struggled to reach the postseason, winning in New Orleans in the season's final game to secure a wild-card berth.

In the postseason, the Rams faced the Saints for the second consecutive week. Kurt Warner, who had healed from his broken hand, closed out a season that saw him finish second in the MVP voting by throwing three interceptions and losing a fumble. Marshall Faulk was held to a season-low of 24 yards rushing. The Rams still managed 28 points, but as many expected, were let down by their defense, which allowed the winning points to score on a field goal in overtime.

Is that because they lost players making them dreadful? Or was it because they lost their defensive minded HC and their new offensive minded HC didn't have enough of a clue on the other side of the ball to recognize when his DC was not getting people in position to make plays? They had a crap load of players from the '99 team on both sides of the ball. Their offense continued to flourish while their defense tanked. My opinion is that DV held it all together while letting Mad Mike run wild with the offense.

Sorry - but you could see Martz was in over his head with his game management skills. To me - that can't help but be a sign of his overall management skills.

Add to all of that, the clown show going on in management and ownership and voila - very good to great OC yet not so good HC + totally dysfunctional front office = lots of finger pointing.

I'm not sure how anyone can look at Martz history before or after his GSOT OC gig and say he was a good HC. The GSOT was a thing of beauty. The rest surrounding him? Not so much.

It will be interesting to see how our team looks this year. I'm more in the defenses win championships camp. The GSOT was a rarity at the time that people thought was going to be the future. The GSOT helped the defense look better by making the other offenses one dimensional. But we barely made it into the SB and also barely won the SB with that record setting offense. Good defenses were almost our demise in '99. Since then what have we seen? Record setting offenses getting beat in the playoffs and SB. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I like how Fish is building this team. I just hope he can make that transition to the winning side of the ledger. I personally hate coaching carousels and thing some stability will suit us well in the future.

 

[Alan]

RamFan503 with this:
Is that because they lost players making them dreadful? Or was it because they lost their defensive minded HC and their new offensive minded HC didn't have enough of a clue on the other side of the ball to recognize when his DC was not getting people in position to make plays? They had a crap load of players from the '99 team on both sides of the ball. Their offense continued to flourish while their defense tanked. My opinion is that DV held it all together while letting Mad Mike run wild with the offense.

It will be interesting to see how our team looks this year. I'm more in the defenses win championships camp. The GSOT was a rarity at the time that people thought was going to be the future. The GSOT helped the defense look better by making the other offenses one dimensional. But we barely made it into the SB and also barely won the SB with that record setting offense. Good defenses were almost our demise in '99. Since then what have we seen? Record setting offenses getting beat in the playoffs and SB. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I like how Fish is building this team. I just hope he can make that transition to the winning side of the ledger. I personally hate coaching carousels and thing some stability will suit us well in the future.

I'll respond to a few of your points but I'm not in this thread to talk about Martz. I was responding to the comments that jrry made about the 2000 D. I do have some views about Martz but nothing that various other posters haven't already talked about. I rarely join in on long threads unless I have something new to add or something I feel I need to correct (OCD issues ) that has an effect of the conversation that I'm reading.

I don't know which players we lost after winning the SB (your table probably said something about that but I couldn't read it and my daughter isn't around to decipher it). But I don't thank the losing DV had much to do with that since we kept the same DC. If you're trying to say that our DC was just a figurehead and Dick was in charge then why wasn't that true with his OC (Martz)? Plus, I watched the games in 2000 and my immediate and long term view of what the problems were with our D had to do with age related problems. Thinking that Martz couldn't recognize what the problems with our D were doesn't jibe with what happened after the season was over. The wholesale turnover and revamping of the D obviously meant he saw the problems. Multiple problems. Huge huge changes were made everywhere on the D including the DC. Was he capable of fixing those problems himself? No but then that's why you hire a Lovie Smith right?

I think it's way too complicated to say that defenses or offenses win championships. I think you need both. I think you can win if you O is better than your D and vice versa.

I'm not a fan of Snisher's rebuild strategy. It's not so much that I don't like how our team looks now, it's that I don't like his priorities. When the most important player on your team is your QB, my preferred priority is putting together an O-line to protect and develop him. His priority is the the D-line and the D in general. Lets do a quick review of how that's worked out. Lost our "franchise" QB to injury. Have yet to develop a decent O. Have yet to have a winning season. We're the proud owners of what the majority of the "experts' consider to be a ho hum WR corps at best. Our D has yet to make the top 10 despite all the resources devoted to it. Not an impressive resume IMO.

Do I think our D will be top 10 this year? Yes. Do I think this regime has made significant progress? Yes. Am I pessimistic about our season this year? No. Do I think a different HC/GM would have done as well or better? I see no reason to think a different tandem couldn't have done as well or better. I consider Fisher to be an average HC. I like Snead but that may be because his hair looks just like mine did when I was younger.

 

[jrry32]

I don't know which players we lost after winning the SB (your table probably said something about that but I couldn't read it and my daughter isn't around to decipher it). But I don't thank the losing DV had much to do with that since we kept the same DC. If you're trying to say that our DC was just a figurehead and Dick was in charge then why wasn't that true with his OC (Martz)?

That's normally how it is when a HC is running a unit. HCs are typically offensive or defense-minded. So a defensive-minded HC would likely run the defense while giving the OC carte blanche and vice versa for offensive-minded HCs.

But I think it's better to have a HC that surrounds himself with great coordinators and lets them do their job.

 

[MrMotes]

I don't know which players we lost after winning the SB (your table probably said something about that but I couldn't read it and my daughter isn't around to decipher it). But I don't thank the losing DV had much to do with that since we kept the same DC. If you're trying to say that our DC was just a figurehead and Dick was in charge then why wasn't that true with his OC (Martz)?

We had co-defensive coordinators in '99. Losing Bunting may well have had an impact. Also, seems a lot of our players on the defensive side of the ball were at the end of their shelf-life.

The 2000 defense was atrocious but how impressive was the total rebuild in one year to the 2001 defense?

We also lost special teams coach Frank Gansz Sr. and the special teams suffered.

But the offense was all Martz's, Vermeil has said so on many occasions, that it was hard for him to give up control but he had faith and it paid off...

 

[Alan]

jrry32 with some insight:
That's normally how it is when a HC is running a unit. HCs are typically offensive or defense-minded. So a defensive-minded HC would likely run the defense while giving the OC carte blanche and vice versa for offensive-minded HCs.

But I think it's better to have a HC that surrounds himself with great coordinators and lets them do their job.

Can I assume you mean the HC sets the tone and the priorities for the D and hires a like minded DC when you say he's "running a unit?" Because if you're saying they actually do the job of the DC then what does the DC do? Assistant coach? Do you think that DV was running our D and when he left the D was rudderless without him? I'm just trying to get a handle on this.

MrMotes seeing it like me:
Also, seems a lot of our players on the defensive side of the ball were at the end of their shelf-life.

The 2000 defense was atrocious but how impressive was the total rebuild in one year to the 2001 defense?

Yeah, that's how I saw it too.

As you said, that total turn around for the D was very impressive! I don't know if that was Lovie's doing or what but it was certainly night and day. I still liked the 2000 regular season better than the 2001 version. The season started off with that Bronco game I posted earlier and it set the tone for the whole season.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXSVHKt-FwQ



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGlsl9177q0

 

[Rmfnlt]

Can I assume you mean the HC sets the tone and the priorities for the D and hires a like minded DC when you say he's "running a unit?" Because if you're saying they actually do the job of the DC then what does the DC do? Assistant coach? Do you think that DV was running our D and when he left the D was rudderless without him? I'm just trying to get a handle on this.

Like most things in any kind of "management" (business, sports, etc.)... it could be any of the above.

For example, when the defense was not performing up to what Jeff Fisher felt it ought to under Tim Walton, Fisher literally took over as DC (very widely reported).

I think the best HC's set the tone and stay very engaged on BOTH sides of the ball.

Yes, a HC can be successful leaning heavily to one side of the team (offense/defense)... but that requires that his selection of Coordinator on the side that he isn't very engaged in, is very strong.

I think that is what happened when Martz decided on Giunta... he wasn't strong enough to take on that much responsibility... I always got the impression Vermiel stayed engaged on BOTH sides. So, between that, Guinta and Bunting, it worked well.

When Martz took over and Bunting left and Guinta was basically left alone (and, yes, some of the players aged a year ), it was a bad recipe for success.
In comes a strong Coordinator (Lovie) and a new scheme he installs... and voillah! Interesting, huh?

Back to Fisher... to me, it's a bit lopsided. He's not really an offensive minded coach. Interestingly, his coaching strength is on the side that he is strong.

Schottenhiemer was in sort of the Guinta situation, IMO and it wasn't working. Now, we have Cigs... and Weinke... and Garcia. All new to their coaching positions in the NFL. Maybe he decided to go the "more is better" route. The coaching staff on the offensive side of the ball is one of the question marks for this season. How will that all work out?

 

[Alan]

Rmfnlt with his overview:
When Martz took over and Bunting left and Guinta was basically left alone (and, yes, some of the players aged a year ), it was a bad recipe for success.
In comes a strong Coordinator (Lovie) and a new scheme he installs... and voillah! Interesting, huh?

That's an interesting take on Guinta and probably spot on as he doesn't seem to have been hired to be an OC by any other team after he was fired by the Rams. I agree with most of what you said although I think the huge influx of new talent might have helped Lovie out a little bit.

Still, I don't think that says anything about Martz's ability to to see and react to the defensive problems the Rams experienced in 2000. He saw them, couldn't do anything about them until the season ended and when it did, he handled it in an exemplary fashion. Considering the final results, probably better than almost any other HC could have. An almost worst to best performance. I don't see how you could do any better. What ever else you can say about his performance as a HC, in this instance, he was superb.