Some of what I was referring to were from past conversations both laram and I were a part of, taken place on the moving board a year ago.
But yes, I think that firing the coach NOW, not even giving him the full season in the new venue to prove he can't cut it, proves SK's commitment to winning.
Despite the extension, despite being out of the playoffs where it "doesn't matter", we have an owner who's finally tired of losing and did something about it. The reason why Fisher hung around 4 years before is because he had to do exactly what he did: improve the team from 2-14, but not make them playoff-worthy. That way the ownership could cite improving the Rams' record by 53% (which the ownership actually DID cite in their relocation paperwork) yet not win enough to generate enough buzz for the team. Ownership cited "improving the record" yet continued "diminished attendance", got their approval from the NFL, and off they went to glitzy LA. Fisher was just a useful idiot to make their team win more to cite an improving record, but not enough to bring enthusiasm back to the team.
The rest is my speculation of course, that Fisher was now given the "go ahead" to do the best he could, and a few years if he showed improvement now that the chains were off, and well... we see how effective his best was at actually winning games.
You see it as four years of losing. I see it as less than one year of losing, since the St. Louis years were used as a license to move. I guess if you don't accept my premises, you don't have to accept my conclusion, but given the above, it's proof enough for me. In a more general way, letting the team languish in mediocrity for years also proves SK's commitment to "winning" his vote to move to LA.
I was soon to be very put-out, if Fisher actually did serve out his 2 year
sentence extension. I considered setting football aside for the 2017 season. But no longer, because my Rams ownership has a commitment to winning in LA!
Quote
9er8er
Quote
ArizonaRamFan
But a bit of irrefutable proof today is also nice.
So if we're going to have a tone deaf exchange of extremes with some contributions in all caps and using lots of exclamation points as substitution for substantive points, that can and will happen here as it often does.
But if you're interested in understanding the more nuanced points some have made about him not making excellence on the field a high enough priority, then I think you should answer this question.
You stated that finally firing a coach who he watched field an indisputably inferior product for 5 seasons, rewarding him for 4 years of that inferiority with a new two year extension prior to the 5th, is irrefutable proof that he wants to win. How irrefutable must the proof therefore be that on field excellence has not been his utmost priority when he accepted and rewarded the kind of inferiority for nearly 5 years that he would clearly never tolerate for even 5 weeks from the people responsible for moving the team to LA and / or the people responsible for designing and building Kroenke World? Or, do you believe he tolerates poor results from the people who've worked to get the team out of St. Louis and to LA and eventually into Kroenke World for weeks on end, let alone half a decade, the way that he has the people running his football team?
