Re: Exactly!

Quote
dzrams

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.

I have no idea, really, why to me what seems like a simple and obvious thing caused so much debate. For an overnight, one year turnaround you need both the coach and inherited talent. Not sure what's to debate there (and in fact you agree with it), because as I said it strikes me as just perfectly obvious. So all the little side issues aside, let me put it bluntly. We know McVay is a good coach so there's that part of the equation. But does McVay win in 2017 if he has none of the following guys and so must find players to man their positions: Donald, Brockers, Saffold, Hav, Gurley, Goff. And that's a deliberately restricted list. He has nothing at those spots and must start over. Does he then win in 2017? That's directed at anyone interested (and not you specifically because you already agree). So for those who are interested, a simple yes or no.

As for the minutia. I have this feeling you didn't read the whole discussion. No big, that's common. Done it myself before. But as an accidental result of that, we are not really disagreeing per se on a lot of little things, in many instances, we are not even talking about the same things. For example you misread my comment about "underperforming." I didn't say any of the talent "wasn't underperforming." I said that that was far from the only reason they weren't winning. That's an entirely different issue than the way you took it. Your purported paraphrase of me there is just way off track. I wasn't clear or you misunderstood or both.

More minutia. I don't need the Shanahan example, I can turn to history for a better one. Vermeil went to the playoffs with three different teams, and the superbowl with 2. Yet he never won in his first year. Or even his 2nd. In Phil it took until his 4th year. Now how does Cowherd account for that? Does he say no, owners now know you don't need to be patient with a Vermeil, just find the next McVay? And in fact, honestly, that's pretty much exactly what I think he's saying.

On Demoff. He flat out said this team was not a rebuild. But that's okay, you can say it's about maximizing (Demoff also acknowledged that teams that move don't play well but that comment tends to be ignored.) Okay. Accepting your approach for argument's sake, if the talent wasn't maximized it was according to that logic PRESENT, so that it was present when the new coach was hired. So how is that an argument AGAINST the only real point I was making---that overnight turnarounds need both the coach and inherited talent? According to your own line of thinking, yes that talent was there, so what are you arguing with exactly? You seem to be agreeing with me in fact.

(Plus I am not sure at all why people think this is about 2016. My point, the one you are debating, had nothing to do with 2016. I do know however that Brockers aside, there were several reasons they did not win in 2016, and it does not reduce to just one or 2. Either way it's all completely beside the point and an entirely different discussion.)

The point I made was simple and honestly did not require a whole lot of debate. I didn't even realize it would be taken as controversial when I made it. I thought it would be a one-off stated opinion and that was that.

But this is that point. Cowherd tries to assert that McVay raises the bar on coaching hires because he demonstrates you don't have to wait to win. You can do it immediately. To be perfectly blunt, that comment strikes me as flat ignorant. There have been many many great coaches who did not win in year one. I think ignoring that fact just throws the entire issue out of whack. Plus, good coaches who HAVE won immediately had enough good talent in the rights spots to take off, and that's just simply not common. Remember, in the case of the Rams, that includes a pro bowl qb, an offensive rookie of the year who then became an offense player of the year, and a defensive rookie of the year who then became a defensive player of the year (and is routinely talked about as the best defender and one of the few best players in the league). For Cowherd to ignore all that means, I think, that he just leapt to the wrong conclusion. .

And as I said you agree with me. So why the big debate?




....

....



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2018 05:42PM by zn.