It's not Snisher. It's 2 things.

I propose that, as we face the long, dead off-season, we observe what, in my mind, is a crucial distinction, one that is routinely overlooked.

Fisher and Snead are seen as essentially 2 sides of the same coin: Snisher. Since Fisher is established and Snead is young, the latter tends to be subordinated to the former.

It’s a distortion of the reality. I mean, you guys all know this abstractly. But, we have to actually REMEMBER that the HC and GM responsibilities are different.

As GM, Snead is responsible to bolster the roster. We all know that our main needs are at QB and OL. That’s on Snead. Sure, Fisher has input and influence. But it’s up to Snead to truly improve the roster.

In all the discussions I’ve seen this year on the improvements made by the Rams and the bases for hope moving forward, about 96% involve improvements in the roster. And I agree. I think Snead has done very well in improving the talent base. In terms of TALENT, we are better and we are very close to competing.

But talent does not equate to wins. Talented teams lose and teams with lowish talent ceilings win. Improving the talent does NOT constitute improving the team. If it did, we’d have improved our record the last 3 years, not steadily declined.

Winning comes from competitive discipline. The Brits have a word they use: nous. (Pronouned nouse.) It refers to a team’s street wise ability to prevail in competitive situation and hang up the W even when the talent is level or even at a deficit.

Well, in American football, responsibility for nous lies primarily with the coaching staff. The HC is responsible for preparing the team up to play like winners. Play competitive, tough football, and you’ll win games. In some sports, adding a couple competitive players can make a big difference. But in football, it’s a lot tougher. Few NFL players can significantly change the competitive balance of a team.

According to whom is this true? According to Jeff Fisher. When he was hired, he was quoted in the press as saying that the team could readily be taught how to go about winning games. Within the limits of the talent? Sure. But playing winning, competitively disciplined football. He said he could teach the Rams to do that.

And I think he was right to say that. I hold him to the standard he defined for himself. And by that standard, we haven’t improved at all.

Remember–improving talent does not mean improving a team’s ability to win. And if we all agree that Snead HAS INDEED improved the roster, then it follows that our competitiveness has DECLINED in 3 years. Gotten worse. A very limited roster won 7.5 games 2 years ago. A much better roster this year with an occasionally dominant defense won 6. That’s regression in my book.

In a press piece on the board today, some pundit says he had a talk with Fisher about how bad it was to lose Bradford. And, see, to me, that is the talk of a coach who has forgotten what nous is about. Before he coached a Ram game, he said he could coach winning football straight off. Now he blames an entire season on losing 1 guy.

Did losing Sam hurt? Of course. But what hurt WORSE is a long string of competitive errors. We were in position to win 3-5 more games this year had we simply played like winners. But the team didn’t know how to do that. It didn’t even know how to prepare itself for Game 1.

I guess we can disagree on how much of this should be put on Fisher. But, guys, please always remember the difference between 2 things. Roster talent. And competitive discipline.

No amount of good work by the GM in improving the roster can compensate for a failing team playing like losers.

And a coach who blames his inability to lead his team to play like winners fails to understand his responsibility to prepare his team to win.

Talk about roster building.

And talk about competitiveness.

They are different things.