Quote
max
Quote
zn
When he said it was an organizational failure, he apparently silently recanted on that, because he did keep Snead and that has been shown to be a wise decision, especially since Snead was one of the reasons they had talent on hand in the first place. So that comment did not hold up. He never acted on it and that was the smart decision.
....
Nope. That’s just your interpretation of what he meant by an organizational fail.
My interpretation is that Fisher was the organizational fail, and that no recant was made, silent or announced.
If there was anything that was apparent it was that Demoff recognized that Fisher was the fail, and that Snead was not part of the fail. And this was proven by Snead’s recent results.
Except he said it was not just Fisher, it was an organizational fail beyond that. That's the comment that does not hold up.
If what he meant was only Fisher, then, since he fired Fisher, there would be nothing to debate.
But he made that comment to indicate he thought it was more than Fisher. He directly said that:
"It’s unfortunate for him today because this is an organizational failure,” Demoff said. “I think when you stand up here, any time you let a coach go, we all have to take a look in the mirror. It’s not just about the head coach and the coaching staff. We have to improve across the board, from personnel to operations to everything.”So that's how he meant it, on Dec. 12th. See this is what I meant. THAT, what he ACTUALLY said (which is how I thought you took it too) did not hold up. They did not alter or re-structure the organization (a few scouts were replaced). Organizational change means the GM. The major figures are still there and they did not change how they approach team management. I just think on 12/12 Demoff was speaking from the moment. But as his own actions show, he wasn't right about that, and later did not act the way he was talking on 12/12. So that comment does not hold up.
When later in January he said this team was not a rebuild, he WAS right about that. It held up, it still holds up. Players were added (key players in fact) but they were added around an intact core of talent.
And besides, as I said, none of this has anything to do with what I was initially talking about. I was simply disputing Cowherd's claim that McV proves you can expect overnight turnarounds and don't have to wait for years to turn a team around. To me that comment just fails to account for the fact that you can't have an overnight turnaround without there being talent in place. If the coach alone guaranteed that, then, we would have seen overnight, 1-year turnarounds from the likes of Walsh, Noll, Landry, Gibbs, Bellichick, Vermeil, etc. No matter how great the coach is he either has to inherit a team that has enough talent to take off, or rebuild. In both cases Cowherd's assumption is just wrong. History doesn't back it.
Again it's wrong in 2 ways. Great coaches HAVE had to rebuild and didn't do it overnight. And great coaches have turned it around overnight, but only if they did not have to do a massive rebuild--they had enough talent TO turn it around.
....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2018 07:06PM by zn.
