Demoff: "Unfair to judge Fisher by his record"

If the head coach runs the whole show, than isn’t he accountable? If his decisions led to the circumstances that we are talking about….isn’t he responsible? Maybe not.

I honestly don’t see the “agony of debate” in this one. You don’t win with back-up qbs, particularly when extensive injuries disrupt your line. The coach didn’t cause any of that. I have been in endless discussions where people try to pin some of that on Fisher and it just doesn’t fly. It doesn’t hold up.

But then Linehan went through similar things, and my reaction then was, I don’t care, I don’t like him anyway.

So people don’t have to win the “so isn’t he responsible for X Y or Z” thing.

But at the same time, people keep telling me yes you can with with those conditions, and then can’t name anyone who has.

joemad wrote:

ZN, you are the only person in the Rams world that justifies Fisher….

No there are others. Not that it matters either way.

.

Herzog wrote:

I’m not trying to win anything….. I’m just expressing my point of view.

I don’t understand why you are telling me that I’m trying to win something.

I am mildly irrritated by this

Wait…who are you talking to?

I didn’t see anyone say anyone was “trying to win” anything.

zn wrote:

But then Linehan went through similar things, and my reaction then was, I don’t care, I don’t like him anyway.

So people don’t have to win the “so isn’t he responsible for X Y or Z” thing.

But at the same time, people keep telling me yes you can with with those conditions, and then can’t name anyone who has.

Herzog wrote:

I’m not trying to win anything….. I’m just expressing my point of view.

I don’t understand why you are telling me that I’m trying to win something.

I am mildly irrritated by this

zn wrote:

Wait…who are you talking to?

I didn’t see anyone say anyone was “trying to win” anything.

Well I just went through and there’s a good chance you’re talking to me and the first post I quote.

So on that I can assure you, I wasn;t doing the heavy-duty “you try to win discussions at all costs” number with that statement. It was a much lighter touch than that. I really didn’t mean anything more than “and we dont have to agree on xyz, that doesn’t matter that much.:

I can see how that looked like the HEAVY version of “you are just trying to win,” but it really wasn;t that—my heart is in the same place as you. I prefer informal poll, all views chime in style posting and I like the fact that that is prevalent here. I wouldn;’t use the heavy version of that word here. (There ARE places where yes that’s how it is–where some posters are definitely like that.)

So to avoid confusion, let me say what I mean in different words.

We’re having a “what is Fisher responsible for” debate. I am one of those who claims that no coach wins much with the specific conditions I describe, AND that those conditions were beyond his control.

But, to take put it all in perspective, I added, and it doesn’t really matter in the end what any of us believe on that one issue–because someone can always skip over that issue entirely and say, it doesn’t matter either way I don’t like the guy as a head coach. To me that just puts that particular issue (conditions) in perspective.

So it;s more like me saying —> I <—- don;t approach the “conditions” discussion as something —> I <—- am trying to “win,” cause in perspective, it doesn’t matter… I just am trying to keep up with everyone from a minority perspective, but I personally don’t go about it as someone “trying to win.” (Though also like everyone else I stand by my view of it.)

My repeated example is, Linehan had massively wrecked OLs that were so bad they brought the qb down with them. I said yeah he can’t win under THOSE conditions, but, it doesn’t matter…I don’t like him as a head coach anyway.

So in the post (I think) you’re responding to, I wasn;t negatively characterizing posters or lashing out at their motives or telling them they can’t speak their minds. I was just contributing my 2 cents while qualifying it by saying, basically, this one debate (“conditions”) is just one topic among others and won’t decide anything. And mostly I said THAT so I personally would not be seen as someone who thought there was a deciding argument. Again, just 2 cents.

zn wrote:

joemad wrote:

ZN, you are the only person in the Rams world that justifies Fisher….

No there are others. Not that it matters either way.

“No…there is another…” 😉

I think Fisher definitely has his offensive blind-spots…but he is a good LEADER and that’s what a team needs as their HC.
Yep, I know…nearly everyone will disagree with that last sentence…and that’s okay. just opinions anyway.

I wanna bring something up…a conceptual thot of the game of football. I think it’s harder for an offense than a defense.
I think it’s harder to play with a ball, than without one. Kinda like the way Building something is waay harder than tearing it down.
An offense has to fight some sort of chaos-entropy to be successful with the ball in their hands. A defense is just run&hit. I’m not belittling the defense…cuz I love ours!!!

I just think scoring points is more valuable than having a great defense and an offense that cannot score many points. So, to me, having an OFFENSE oriented team….a team that excels on offense will win more than they would lose over time. Now, I appreciate a good defense as they can slow down/even stop the GSOT…but, all it takes is one mistake on defense and a team that can score will win. I’m being long-winded here cuz I’m not sure what I’m saying yet. lol

I think our focus should be on building an offensive juggernaut(and we have the QB, RB, etc to do it. imo)
IF…open up and get super aggressive on offense. What I find interesting is that Fisher interviewed/called some interesting OC names for our OC position this off-season. Names that I would not think Fisher would work with as they would be too aggressive and not run enough. I remember, those 4 games when fisher tried the open passing attack with Bradford before we scrapped it. But Bradford had like 14TDs 4INTs iirc and so Fisher was open to trying new things on offense but we lost many of those games and he went back to offensive basics. I think we should try that again now with Goff…well, next year. But I think they need to let this kid sling it in order to allow TG to pound the ball. I think we need a different OC guy to do that…and I think Fisher will get an experienced one….
if Fisher is indeed back next year which I think he will be UNLESS…the team quits on him and plays with no fire. Then, I think GW has a real chance to step in as interim if it gets outta hand in these last 5 games. However, I think the liklehood of that is small. Fisher is a great motivator and gets his team playing hard for every game…even if they make mistakes, they are always playing hard!! THAT is a very underrated ability for a HC…and the 1st casualty that leads to the HC being fired.

I think a new OC overhaul and a 2yr deal from Stan will give Fisher the team he needs to win with now that we have a QB and RB.
Fisher went thru many DCs until he got his guy(GW)…
he’s gone thru many RBs over the years til he got his guy(TG)….
Fisher will go thru another OC and get his guy this off-season.
…or maybe not!!! LOL

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by SunTzu_vs_Camus.
• This reply was modified 8 years ago by SunTzu_vs_Camus.

zn wrote:

And of course I think Goff is that qb. He isn’t Wilson, he’s a different animal, BUT I also think he can be close to Wilson in QUALITY of play, just doing it differently.

mmmm… i like what i’ve seen so far, but i’m not ready to make that comparison.

my personal opinion is that wilson is a special qb.

i think he’s up there with the best. it wasn’t just a great defense and great running game that propped him up.

i also think it’s far from given that the rams can match seattle’s defense and running game.

so there’s a lot of questions still about this team and the talent assembled by jeff.

zn wrote:

SunTzu_vs_Camus wrote:

I think a new OC overhaul and a 2yr deal from Stan will give Fisher the team he needs to win with now that we have a QB and RB.

I honestly think it is THIS simple.

They just needed the qb.

Having the qb will not turn them into the GSOT.

But they have the pieces to field a decent scoring offense IF they just have the qb.

Right now, it’s not really personnel that holds them back–it’s playing in a situation where they are always close, and have a slim margin of error. This has led to pressing, magnifying mistakes, having to have everything go right every play for it to work, etc. It strains the OL.

You put a qb in the middle of all that, and it increases the margin for error. It just comes together more effectively. I think of the Seattle example–until they had Wilson, they were a perpetual 7-9 team.

And of course I think Goff is that qb. He isn’t Wilson, he’s a different animal, BUT I also think he can be close to Wilson in QUALITY of play, just doing it differently.

.

.

I agree…with both things…what you said and what I said! 😉
I DO think Goff is the right guy and will make this offense rank 15th…which is good enough for us to win with. imo

I agree with that, except I am going to say the offensive line needs to play better.

But, since this thread is about Fisher, I will give an opinion how he plays the game. His strategy is to limit possessions. Like what coaches do in basketball when there is no shot clock and they play a better team, “like the 4 corners offense”. This lets you steal games from better teams, but also makes the games close between lesser or equal opponents. The result is, you steal a game, but you also lose a game/s. It is not, playing not to lose, like it has been characterized. imo If you watch his games through this lens, maybe you will agree?

Don’t forget, as a whole, the Rams have drafted more OLinemen than any NFL franchise in the past 5 years. And we still suck.

Even the national media has been on Fisher. Stephen A. Smith has said he wished he could have a job like Fisher, where you can be so inept, aka you suck at your job. and still have all this job security.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by JackPMiller.

Don’t forget, as a whole, the Rams have drafted more OLinemen than any NFL franchise in the past 5 years.

That’s not exactly accurate. And it’s checkable. They’re tied with 2 other teams for most. So no they;re not THE most.

Over the last 5 years, 2012-16, Indianapolis and SF drafted 10. If you count Battle, Rams also got 10.

Seattle is next down with 9.

The problem with judging the Rams OL picks is that half of them–Havenstein, Brown, Donnal, Wichman, Battle–are just 2 year vets, all having been drafted in 2015. So it’s still a little soon to judge all 5.

..

zn wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

. His strategy is to limit possessions. Like what coaches do in basketball when there is no shot clock and they play a better team, “like the 4 corners offense”. This lets you steal games from better teams, but also makes the games close between lesser or equal opponents.

I don’t believe that’s his strategy. I think we’ve seen a lot of that with qbs they either ended up not seeing as starters, or never saw as starters (eg. Foles and Keenum). Now even with a rookie they play less like that (keeping it close) already.

Their strategy on offense, IMO, is to field a balanced attack. I don’t think the “play it close” thing has anything to do with it–I think that has been true recently, mostly because of the qb situation. But I already see that changing with Goff, even though he’s a rookie.

IMO people often talk about the Fisher offense when what they’re actually seeing is the Fisher offense without a quarterback.

…

All that is true, but I am not saying what you are. Look at it through the lens, QB or no QB, balanced or not.