Wait, what...did I just hear that right???

[Ram Quixote]

I have believed with reason for about 6-7 weeks now that Spags and Devaney were done here. I don't know that it is totally fair or the right call but it just is what it is.

What a lot of comments miss is that Spags would be a lame duck next year and there is little way that Kroenke can justify an extension.

But to address the defense and what would be lost in a change....why not just keep Flajoe?

What's the big deal about a lame duck HC? He can get the players to play (not quit) during such a disappointing, post-high expectation season, but he won't be able to command their respect because his contract has just one year left?

I don't see that as a major issue; a Spags-is-gone-because-of-it issue. If Stan has the faith in Spags to keep him for one more year, then the inevitable turnaround next season will get Spags a new contract.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I have believed with reason for about 6-7 weeks now that Spags and Devaney were done here. I don't know that it is totally fair or the right call but it just is what it is.

What a lot of comments miss is that Spags would be a lame duck next year and there is little way that Kroenke can justify an extension.

But to address the defense and what would be lost in a change....why not just keep Flajoe?

What's the big deal about a lame duck HC? He can get the players to play (not quit) during such a disappointing, post-high expectation season, but he won't be able to command their respect because his contract has just one year left?

I don't see that as a major issue; a Spags-is-gone-because-of-it issue. If Stan has the faith in Spags to keep him for one more year, then the inevitable turnaround next season will get Spags a new contract.

That's my thought as well. Plus I'm not thrilled about any potential replacements at this time, so if he does end up doing poorly next year then maybe a new coach will stand out worthy enough to be the HC, because at this point I do not feel anyone is out there that would excite me.

 

[Anonymous]

Curious isn't it? [b]You can watch this D during the course of the game and they start out pretty decent against the run then it seems to evaporate. [/b] Big gashing runs sprinkled in during the course of the game although 4 out of 5 plays seem to be played pretty well. All the while, a banged up, patch work secondary has played pretty respectable. So damn curious.

But it's so clear WHY it goes like that.

1. Last year Robbins had a great year; this year, he is much diminished. It's OLB too, but that was less of a problem last year with Robbins playing well. Truth is of course they need to fix both DT and OLB and that's no matter who the coach is.

2. This year the Rams offense is 28th in time of possession and dead last in 3rd down conversions. Plus of course the offense can't score. That means the defense not only has to stay on the field, it constantly has to defend pass and run both because they're playing from behind.

Here's what you have to say about that defense.

It is short-handed. It is injured. It can't compete 4 quarters when they don't have a lead.

Given all that, the fact that it plays as well as it does is a testimony to coaching.

Just on-paper talent alone, they should not be that competitive for most of a game.

 

[Ram Quixote]

I have believed with reason for about 6-7 weeks now that Spags and Devaney were done here. I don't know that it is totally fair or the right call but it just is what it is.

What a lot of comments miss is that Spags would be a lame duck next year and there is little way that Kroenke can justify an extension.

But to address the defense and what would be lost in a change....why not just keep Flajoe?

What's the big deal about a lame duck HC? He can get the players to play (not quit) during such a disappointing, post-high expectation season, but he won't be able to command their respect because his contract has just one year left?

I don't see that as a major issue; a Spags-is-gone-because-of-it issue. If Stan has the faith in Spags to keep him for one more year, then the inevitable turnaround next season will get Spags a new contract.

That's my thought as well. Plus I'm not thrilled about any potential replacements at this time, so if he does end up doing poorly next year then maybe a new coach will stand out worthy enough to be the HC, because at this point I do not feel anyone is out there that would excite me.

One additional thought: The assumption is that Spags is gone after this season, right? If so, that makes him a lame duck now. By all accounts, he has handled this situation without losing the locker room. So how would being a lame duck next season be any different?

 

[Anonymous]

I have believed with reason for about 6-7 weeks now that Spags and Devaney were done here. I don't know that it is totally fair or the right call but it just is what it is.

What a lot of comments miss is that Spags would be a lame duck next year and there is little way that Kroenke can justify an extension.

But to address the defense and what would be lost in a change....why not just keep Flajoe?

What's the big deal about a lame duck HC? He can get the players to play (not quit) during such a disappointing, post-high expectation season, but he won't be able to command their respect because his contract has just one year left?

I don't see that as a major issue; a Spags-is-gone-because-of-it issue. If Stan has the faith in Spags to keep him for one more year, then the inevitable turnaround next season will get Spags a new contract.

That's my thought as well. Plus I'm not thrilled about any potential replacements at this time, so if he does end up doing poorly next year then maybe a new coach will stand out worthy enough to be the HC, because at this point I do not feel anyone is out there that would excite me.

One additional thought: The assumption is that Spags is gone after this season, right? If so, that makes him a lame duck now. By all accounts, he has handled this situation without losing the locker room. So how would being a lame duck next season be any different?

Assumption isn't fact. If Spags is announced as a true lame duck then much lowered expectations are justified.....as difficult as that is to imagine.

 

[JdashSTL]

I have believed with reason for about 6-7 weeks now that Spags and Devaney were done here. I don't know that it is totally fair or the right call but it just is what it is.

What a lot of comments miss is that Spags would be a lame duck next year and there is little way that Kroenke can justify an extension.

But to address the defense and what would be lost in a change....why not just keep Flajoe?

What's the big deal about a lame duck HC? He can get the players to play (not quit) during such a disappointing, post-high expectation season, but he won't be able to command their respect because his contract has just one year left?

I don't see that as a major issue; a Spags-is-gone-because-of-it issue. If Stan has the faith in Spags to keep him for one more year, then the inevitable turnaround next season will get Spags a new contract.

I think people would compare it to what happened with John Fox in Carolina, but that was a completely different situation. Everyone knew that Fox would be gone, it was clear that they were moving in a different direction. Spags situation could be compared to a player in their contract year.

 

[Yamahopper]

I have believed with reason for about 6-7 weeks now that Spags and Devaney were done here. I don't know that it is totally fair or the right call but it just is what it is.

What a lot of comments miss is that Spags would be a lame duck next year and there is little way that Kroenke can justify an extension.

But to address the defense and what would be lost in a change....why not just keep Flajoe?

What's the big deal about a lame duck HC? He can get the players to play (not quit) during such a disappointing, post-high expectation season, but he won't be able to command their respect because his contract has just one year left?

I don't see that as a major issue; a Spags-is-gone-because-of-it issue. If Stan has the faith in Spags to keep him for one more year, then the inevitable turnaround next season will get Spags a new contract.

That lame duck knife cuts both ways. We all think the Rams will rebound, and what if they make a nice playoff run. That's great.
But the coach that made it happen is a free agent after the season. maybe a job closer to his home comes open like the Eagles, Giants or the Jets. Sure it would be easy to say he would be loyal and stay with the Rams, but how would we really know that? The big markets and all the resources those teams have. Wow. Unless he was a personal friend that let us into his thoughts we can't ever say for sure what his plans would be.
They should have gave him a year extension this season not wait to see what happens.

You can franchise a player but not a head coach.

 

[Ram Quixote]

I have believed with reason for about 6-7 weeks now that Spags and Devaney were done here. I don't know that it is totally fair or the right call but it just is what it is.

What a lot of comments miss is that Spags would be a lame duck next year and there is little way that Kroenke can justify an extension.

But to address the defense and what would be lost in a change....why not just keep Flajoe?

What's the big deal about a lame duck HC? He can get the players to play (not quit) during such a disappointing, post-high expectation season, but he won't be able to command their respect because his contract has just one year left?

I don't see that as a major issue; a Spags-is-gone-because-of-it issue. If Stan has the faith in Spags to keep him for one more year, then the inevitable turnaround next season will get Spags a new contract.

That's my thought as well. Plus I'm not thrilled about any potential replacements at this time, so if he does end up doing poorly next year then maybe a new coach will stand out worthy enough to be the HC, because at this point I do not feel anyone is out there that would excite me.

One additional thought: The assumption is that Spags is gone after this season, right? If so, that makes him a lame duck now. By all accounts, he has handled this situation without losing the locker room. So how would being a lame duck next season be any different?

Assumption isn't fact. If Spags is announced as a true lame duck then much lowered expectations are justified.....as difficult as that is to imagine.

Then it's a good thing no owner has ever labeled a HC "lame duck" before. That's a pure perception thing, much like an assumption.

Besides, I'm talking about the media assuming Spags will be out after this last game. Or, if he's retained for another season, that 2012 would be his last as Rams HC.

 

[jimitroutboy]

A lame duck coach would severely impact any free agent moves a team could make. You would essentially give up any kind of significant signings.
And how in the world could a lame duck change anyone on his staff?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I just want to see our D play with a 14 point lead but their always playing from behind and tired that's tough on a defense especially our offense really doesn't move the ball to give our D some rest honestly with the talent level and the injuries I'm shocked the D played as good as they did.

 

[Ram Quixote]

A lame duck coach would severely impact any free agent moves a team could make. You would essentially give up any kind of significant signings.
And how in the world could a lame duck change anyone on his staff?

Again, lame duck is merely a perception, and an assumption that next year is his last with the Rams. If Stan brings him back, you can't believe he does so expecting Spags to fail.

It really depends on the coach. Linehan was given a make-or-break year and he was gone after 4 games. We all remember how Vermeil's lame duck year went, and while Spags can't be compared to him, he's certainly no Linehan.

 

[jimitroutboy]

I give up.....neither Linehan nor Vermeil were in the last year of their contracts.

Believe what you want to ....

 

[Ram Quixote]

I give up.....neither Linehan nor Vermeil were in the last year of their contracts.

Believe what you want to ....

And you'll believe what you want. Don't try to portray my stance as unreasonable. It hinges on perception, which is merely a point of view.

Vermeil and Linehan were in the same situation as Spags; the fans wanted both of them gone. Both showed signs of dissent in the lockerroom. Both stayed. One succeeded, one didn't. I bring them up as counterpoint in the same argument.

Which one is Spags? There are only 2 things I do know: there isn't any dissent in Spags' lockerroom, and we'll only know the answer to my question if Stan allows him to stay.

 

[Anonymous]

I give up.....neither Linehan nor Vermeil were in the last year of their contracts.

Believe what you want to ....

And you'll believe what you want. Don't try to portray my stance as unreasonable. It hinges on perception, which is merely a point of view.

Vermeil and Linehan were in the same situation as Spags; the fans wanted both of them gone. Both showed signs of dissent in the lockerroom. Both stayed. One succeeded, one didn't. I bring them up as counterpoint in the same argument.

Which one is Spags? There are only 2 things I do know: there isn't any dissent in Spags' lockerroom, and we'll only know the answer to my question if Stan allows him to stay.

Jimi's right on this one.

And you seem to think he wants Spags gone. He doesn't. He just thinks he IS gone regardless what you, he, or I want.

 

[Ram Quixote]

I give up.....neither Linehan nor Vermeil were in the last year of their contracts.

Believe what you want to ....

And you'll believe what you want. Don't try to portray my stance as unreasonable. It hinges on perception, which is merely a point of view.

Vermeil and Linehan were in the same situation as Spags; the fans wanted both of them gone. Both showed signs of dissent in the lockerroom. Both stayed. One succeeded, one didn't. I bring them up as counterpoint in the same argument.

Which one is Spags? There are only 2 things I do know: there isn't any dissent in Spags' lockerroom, and we'll only know the answer to my question if Stan allows him to stay.

Jimi's right on this one.

And you seem to think he wants Spags gone. He doesn't. He just thinks he IS gone regardless what you, he, or I want.

Right? Which? The Vermeil/Linehan metaphor, or the Spags would be a lame duck next year part?

Btw, since we're talking opinions how is anyone right? I'll grant you some opinions are more right than others, but hands down, I'm wrong he's right?

Did I say that? I'm debating one of the influences that has convinced him that Spags will be gone regardless what you, he or I want.

 

[BatteringRam]

Fisher/Gruden/Cowher/Billick arren't coming to StL.
Change for change's sake is stupid.

1st line, why aren't they coming when we offer the most growth and resources?
2nd line, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Angry Ram]

To respond to an earlier comment, changing to a 3-4 wouldn't be so hard...

We'd have to find a NT, and Robbins is gonna be replaced anyway eventually.

Chris Long can play OLB, as I saw him stand up plenty of times. And Quinn is fast and strong enough to be a player like that as well. Or we could keep Long @ 3-4 LE (his college posistion) and draft an OLB (Courtny Upshaw).

Of course we'd still need to find a 3-4 end and another starting ILB.

I'ts possible to do it, but there's just too many needs offensively and in the 2ndary.

 

[-X-]

I give up.....neither Linehan nor Vermeil were in the last year of their contracts.

Believe what you want to ....

And you'll believe what you want. Don't try to portray my stance as unreasonable. It hinges on perception, which is merely a point of view.

Vermeil and Linehan were in the same situation as Spags; the fans wanted both of them gone. Both showed signs of dissent in the lockerroom. Both stayed. One succeeded, one didn't. I bring them up as counterpoint in the same argument.

Which one is Spags? There are only 2 things I do know: there isn't any dissent in Spags' lockerroom, and we'll only know the answer to my question if Stan allows him to stay.

There's validity to the lame duck coach scenario (hate that term, by the way) in terms of the lack of power that coach would have. It would also be pretty difficult to get free agents to commit to a coach who could be gone the following year (though, money solves all that). However, I don't see Spagnuolo as a coach who would mail it in, and I don't see the players mailing it in either. I don't know that they'd go out of their way to rally support for him or anything, but they certainly wouldn't disregard his leadership.

It's a very sticky situation. IF Kroenke were to retain Spagnuolo, it would probably be in parallel with making some real wholesale changes in the structure of the Organization. Coaches should just coach. GM's should Generally Manage (or something) and they should all answer to the President. Including Kevin Demoff. And it had better be someone who has real experience in football. No 'confidants' or 'trusted advisers' or 'family counsels'. None of that stuff.

 

[Memento]

To respond to an earlier comment, changing to a 3-4 wouldn't be so hard...

We'd have to find a NT, and Robbins is gonna be replaced anyway eventually.

Chris Long can play OLB, as I saw him stand up plenty of times. And Quinn is fast and strong enough to be a player like that as well. Or we could keep Long @ 3-4 LE (his college posistion) and draft an OLB (Courtny Upshaw).

Of course we'd still need to find a 3-4 end and another starting ILB.

I'ts possible to do it, but there's just too many needs offensively and in the 2ndary.

I honestly don't think that Long could make a Dumervil-like move to outside linebacker. He's best when he has a hand on the ground, and you'd be squandering his pass-rushing potential with a move to the 3-4 end position; those guys are usually supposed to eat up blockers, not rush the quarterback (and the lone exceptions are guys who face the left tackle, not the right). Would it really be wise to make Quinn learn an entirely different position in his second year? Can Laurinaitis be as effective in a 3-4 as he is in a 4-3? And that's not even mentioning the potential change in the secondary.

A 3-4 wouldn't just change the front seven; it affects the entire defensive scheme. And that begs this question: why fix one of the few things that actually work on this team?

 

[Angry Ram]

To respond to an earlier comment, changing to a 3-4 wouldn't be so hard...

We'd have to find a NT, and Robbins is gonna be replaced anyway eventually.

Chris Long can play OLB, as I saw him stand up plenty of times. And Quinn is fast and strong enough to be a player like that as well. Or we could keep Long @ 3-4 LE (his college posistion) and draft an OLB (Courtny Upshaw).

Of course we'd still need to find a 3-4 end and another starting ILB.

I'ts possible to do it, but there's just too many needs offensively and in the 2ndary.

I honestly don't think that Long could make a Dumervil-like move to outside linebacker. He's best when he has a hand on the ground, and you'd be squandering his pass-rushing potential with a move to the 3-4 end position; those guys are usually supposed to eat up blockers, not rush the quarterback (and the lone exceptions are guys who face the left tackle, not the right). Would it really be wise to make Quinn learn an entirely different position in his second year? Can Laurinaitis be as effective in a 3-4 as he is in a 4-3? And that's not even mentioning the potential change in the secondary.

A 3-4 wouldn't just change the front seven; it affects the entire defensive scheme. And that begs this question: why fix one of the few things that actually work on this team?

Well it didn't stop Houston from the switch. In a lockout year.

If there ever was a time to switch, it would be now. Quinn is still young enough to learn a new posistion and Long could be good there.

Would I personally would like to see it? No. But it is is possible.