Quote
zn
Quote
dzrams
Quote
stlramz
It seems every team has a few pieces where, if there was a turnaround, you could argue talent was in place.
Do you presently see a team devoid of talent?
I'd daresay that most teams that fire their coach feel they have talent that has underachieved. And looking around the league, I'd say that most teams do have some talent. Every team doesn't have the same amount of talent but typically there is talent in place.
Take Cleveland. They've got plenty of talent. I think a McVay could get them into the playoffs next year or the year after at the latest.
I will say, in the case of the Rams, I knew they had a lot of talent on the team that was severely under performing.
Then...why the 1, 2, 3 year rebuilds?
How is Shanahan doing with that? (I think KS is a top coach and that when he has a team on the field it will show.)
And as for the Rams, I don't think they had talent that was all underperforming. I think they had
a lot of issues. One was being young.
But yes it was predictable that if you add a good coach to that group, and avoid all the injuries that had plagued them (going back to 2007), that they would do well. Not sure if anyone predicted playoffs in year 1 but still, they had a great core in place. That's why Demoff openly said during the coach search that this was not a rebuild .
That was NOT true however in 2012, or 1997.
Honestly there are always big difference between teams and it is not that hard to tell them apart, though it's certainly clearer in retrospect. Looking at the 97 team did you think "well with the right coach they could be winning this year." No one thought that, and for good reasons.
And yes Cleveland is a good example. Add a good head coach to the Browns, and they look like they could do well. I don't think that anyone thought that about the Giants in the off-season, though.
....
...
We have a few areas of disagreement here.
First on Shanahan. How is he doing? Why the multiple years rebuild with him?
In a word, injuries. They just got their franchise QB towards the end of last year (week 11) and now he and the star RB are both injured.
Also, I don't know that KS is a top coach yet. He seems to fit the criteria but without results I'm not giving him that label. If Goff or Gurley got injured this year and last year and McVay hadn't made the playoffs, I wouldn't label him as a top coach either. It's got to be proven so that's an assumption I don't accept.
Secondly, if you don't think the talent was under performing, we'll never agree. It was massively under performing. If you don't want my opinion on that, let's take Demoff's and Brockers' opinions.
Demoff stated, in the interview that you've already mentioned, that the team was not rebuilding but that "
talent needed to be maximized." This was the interview when he was explaining why the coach was fired. Those statements were simultaneously expressions of confidence in team talent AND disappointment in how that talent had performed and the [lack of] results it had achieved.
Demoff wouldn't make a statement that they need to maximize talent if he believed the talent had already been maximized. This is pretty conclusive proof that Demoff felt the talent had under performed. Moreover, in other interviews, he alluded to the youth and stated that that wasn't a sufficient excuse for the sub par results.
Brockers implied the same thing a few weeks ago. He point blank said that if Fisher was still the coach, they would be 7-9 this year and that Fisher didn't make them accountable. Yeah, they lacked a lot of things one being accountability from the HC.
Brockers wouldn't make the assertions that he did if he believed the team had maximized their talent.
Not maximized talent is under performing talent. That's where a
great HC comes in....That's the essence of what I hear Cowherd saying.
But as I stated earlier, we'll probably have to disagree on this one.