Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Bigger loss to Rams...Pete Holohan or London Fletcher??

May 22, 2017 03:01PM
Losing Fletcher was HUGE but Holohan was MUCH bigger IMO. After Fletcher left, we still had some defensive and team success. After Holohan left, it seemed the entire team went to the drain (That would last 8 years) and Jim Everett was never the same. Arguably, the loss of Holohan is STILL felt! Yeah, we had the GSOT but I have always looked at that as a flash in the pan. Before the loss of Holohan, a Rams drought MIGHT be two seasons. John Robinson fielded some pretty good teams for most of 10 years.
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

  Bigger loss to Rams...Pete Holohan or London Fletcher??

Ramgator565May 22, 2017 03:01PM

  Re: Great question......Pete Holohan.

oldschoolramfan201May 22, 2017 03:54PM

  I do not think of the GSOT as a flash in the pan....

JamesJM198May 22, 2017 03:59PM

  Mike's ego killed the GSOT

Rampage2K-304May 22, 2017 04:05PM

  Be that as it may...

JamesJM256May 22, 2017 04:08PM

  Re: Be that as it may...

Rampage2K-217May 22, 2017 04:16PM

  Thing is, Vermeil did not stay and...

Ramgator190May 23, 2017 06:47AM

  Martz would have been hired as a HC

PeoriaRa187May 23, 2017 07:08AM

  Fletcher, easily

six2stack167May 23, 2017 07:50AM

  Re: Mike's ego killed the GSOT

Ramdom187May 23, 2017 09:58AM

  Re: Bigger loss to Rams...Pete Holohan or London Fletcher??

LMU93313May 22, 2017 05:36PM

  Played at a HOF level

ferragamo79212May 22, 2017 08:03PM

  But the overall , long term impact was bigger with Holohan.

Ramgator158May 23, 2017 06:49AM

  Fletcher

PeoriaRa282May 23, 2017 09:54AM