On competitiveness

wv wrote:

I dont think the problem with the Rams
is a lack of competitive spirit though.
I dont see that.

Interesting.

I guess, by the way, that I failed to say what I intended. The post is not about competitive spirit.

It’s about performance that competes effectively in the clutch, the zone where games and seasons are won and lost. It’s not measured with emotion or with individual plays, any more than a golf tournament can be won with a single shot or good round. It’s about measuring up to the test of winning and losing.

Do you really see the Rams doing that? Honestly? Hmmmmmmmmm …

Well, it’s clear that there isn’t much interest in this issue. Time to put this dead horse to rest.

Thanks, Dak. Great response. I feel as if you heard what I was saying. I haven’t felt that very often this year.

Just a couple of quick responses.

You are right about the rarity of a Nicklaus. I guess I would respond by saying that the great champions provide the best examples. But, that each sport produces a fair sampling of tough competitors who aren’t great, but who overachieve through sheer mental toughness. In golf, Harrington himself is an example. Or you can think of guys like Lanny Wadkins, or Raymond Floyd, or Curtis Strange. Guys who competed, who were always tough to beat, without being in rarefied air.

The NFL has produced magnificent champions, of course. But, it always produces, every year, tough competitors. And there’s another issue:

If you’re saying that the Rams don’t have enough players like that, I cannot argue against it. What I see, though, is the possibility that some of their players CAN develop into that.

Football is different from golf in a key way. It’s a TEAM GAME. Yes, great teams are led by great competitors from Bednarik to Blanda to Unitas to Montana to Ray Lewis. Great competitors can lift a team as players. But, not all competitive teams have world class competitors as players. And, recall, in my view, there are probably 5-6 COMPETITIVE teams each year. AZ is a great example this year. I can’t name a single great player on that team other than, probably, Larry F. But they COMPETED all year. Their QBs went down and they kept competing. It caught up with them, but they never quit.

We don’t necessarily have to find more individual PLAYERS who are competitive. We need to be a more competitive ORGANIZATION.

I’ve written this half a dozen times. This is Fisher’s own standard. When he came, he said he needed to teach the players how to win. He said if you understand how, you can start winning. In Season 1, he seemed to be doing that. A pretty weak team was learning to compete and steal some wins. It wasn’t capable of much more. But it was pushing its ceiling by doing the 3 things I identified here. That 8-7-1 record was probably 4-5 games better than it should have been.

In the 2 following seasons, the team has utterly failed to come close to that level of competitiveness. The talent has risen. The standard of play is better in some ways, on D, in STs, even to some extent on offense. But the competitiveness has not held up.

In the opening games both years, the team has slid into a non-competitive comfort zone, exactly like the golfer who shoots 73-72 and misses the cut or makes it on the number. There’s no real chance at winning. So the pressure evaporates. A few plays here and there, a could stolen wins, and one can say, “see, we’re getting better.”

But it’s garbage time. Cheap, uncompetitive achievement. And the proof of it lies in those last few games both years. Just when the team got to the edge of some competitive possibilities, it fell away again, sliding back into the comfort of a losing season that has enough flash to claim that good times are ahead.

Whose fault is it? What has to happen to turn things around?

What do I know? Football is a coach’s sport, and the HC has to take responsibility. But the players do, too. Do we need a couple great competitors on the field to drive the troops? Does Fisher have to change his preparation? I dunno.

What I do know is that competitiveness is measured by winning and losing. Not by playing well while out of touch with wins. I would far rather cheer for a limited but tough, competitive team that wins ugly but wins more than it should than for a talented team that puts streaks of brilliance together with an overall inability to compete when it matters.

This Rams team has, with the exception of the GSOT anomaly for 3-4 years, ACCEPTED mediocrity or worse for 30 years. There’s nothing I can do to change anything. I will, however, continue to call “Bullshit” on false competitiveness until I see the team actually compete.

DAK, my friend, I have broken my resolution to let the dead horse lie. Your fault, my man! You shouldn’t have encouraged me. LOL!

wv wrote:

And i do think they are close. I expect
a break out season next year. Because
I think a lot of pressure on the offense
will be relieved with some solid upgrades
on the OLine. And yes, i think thats do-able
and i think Snead can accomplish that. It
cant be that hard to find a Center and a Guard.

Let me ask you something RFL, would you fire
Fisher at this point or give him another season?

First, your question. Would I fire Fisher?

I dunno. Probably not, especially in the lame duck year. GRITS is right, I think, about the Fish being asked to handle the transition.

But even apart from that, I don’t think I would fire him this year. Not unless I had another, better coach on tap.

What I WOULD DO if I were the ownership would be to get both Snead and Fisher into a locked room and give them a simple message: no more bullshit about how we’re improving and getting better after crushing, soul-destroying losses. Don’t ask fans to swallow that crap. And make it clear to players–people who can’t compete are going to be gone.

Hill should NEVER be given another contract after that pick on the goal line in SD. You do that with a season on the line after a decade of losing … I don’t care. You gotta go. That’s not what a winning team is about. It should be made clear to players that guys who can’t compete with discipline are going to be gone.

I would tell Fisher and Snead that “getting better” is no longer acceptable. It isn’t enough. You’d damn well better have the team READY for opening day. You’d better find an OL with healthy, competitive guys. You’d better have Williams calling a defense that is sound AND aggressive. You’d better get this team into contention and ready to compete down the stretch, or we’ll get someone who can. And you’d better talk to everyone as if we expect success, not as if we suck less than before and that minimal improvement is meaningful progress.

And this is where your view coheres with Fisher’s and differs from mine:

And i do think they are close. I expect
a break out season next year.

You and I fundamentally differ in perspective here. It isn’t a matter of conclusion drawn. It’s a matter of the questions to ask.

“Being close” is a matter of improvement. It’s talent level, and somewhat more than that. But it’s a matter of taking incremental steps along a continuum leading, hopefully, to a breakthrough.

And, see, I am asking different questions. As I keep saying, I saw this team learning to compete in Fisher’s 1st year. It happened ALMOST immediately. Remember how they “almost” beat DET in Game 1? They weren’t capable of actually competing with, say, NE. But they did compete with SF, precisely because SF offered a challenge a competitor could deal with. SF played a game that a competitive but inferior team could hang in there with. They did, and stole 2 results, a win and a draw.

That teamed learned to compete virtually immediately. Fisher SAID he could teach them, and then he did. They played like winners though their capability was still limited.

That’s what I haven’t seen since. The team has “gotten better,” but its competitive discipline has regressed. It’s a much better team than the ’12 bunch, but has a worse record.

So, most guys on this board raise the question of improvement. You say they are close to breaking through. Well, maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t.

What I am saying is that breaking through won’t come from incremental improvement. It won’t come from raising the talent level. It COULD come from adding a genuine leader in competitiveness, though they’re hard to find. But I would say …

1) We haven’t seen what I am talking about AT ALL in the last 2 years.
2) We won’t see a breakthrough on the basis of improved talent.
3) We’ll have no idea when the breakthrough is coming … until we see it in games that count and that matter.

Can Fisher lead us to that breakthrough? I thought he would. He still might. But I really wonder, hearing his comments this season, whether he still has fire in the belly. I honestly wonder about that.

Well, hopefully at the very least I have been able to clarify HOW my view differs from the board consensus.

Of course, we’re all old friends who will stick with this team forever. Which is what the last decade has seemed like!