Quote
zn
Quote
Rams43
Quote
zn
Quote
Rams43
I think the answer is quite clear. Fisher has been fired. Carroll is going to the playoffs. Again...
The answer to what? (?)You seem to be responding to a post that no one wrote.
My post simply said that it is impossible for Fisher to over-rule any Snead decisions because Snead didn't make decisions. That;s just how the front office was structured.
I compared the
front-office structure of the Rams to Seattle. That's it. That's all I said. And in fact in terms of that, the Rams will have the same structure with the next coach.
AND in spite of the current post-loss blues doing a lot of the talking around here, the Rams drafted pretty well from 2012-15 (can't say about 2016 yet). That's if you have a realistic look at what percentage of players teams tend to hit on. For BAD drafting see 2000-2008. For okay drafting see 2009-11. What follows is pretty good drafting. Comparing them to other teams and their percentages bears this out.
.
...
You then seemed to read something into all that that wasn't there.
.
So, we're hairsplitting over whether Snead's top recommendations were Snead "decisions" or not, zn?
Ummmmm... okay...
Okay. So in the course of discussion you clarify "decisions" to mean "recommendations." That's fair. Just clarifying.
Except to add this...there are really no Snead "recommendations" either. It wasn't like that. That's not how the system worked. They would build a ranked board based on discussion. That's with everyone's input. There was never this system where the GM goes "I recommend player x" and the coach shoots it down. Snead had input and more than like Fisher listened to it (same with Carrol and Schneider, same kind of process).
It's really hard to determine which guy gets credit or the opposite when you have discussions that end in consensus and a ranked board with multiple input.
If this sounds picky, remember---it's more than likely that they will have the same structure with the next coach.
I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the structure, myself. Plus I think Snead fits it. I don't think he's the "I'm in charge and we're doing it this way," Polian style GM type.
...
Anyway that's the structure.
You wanted to talk about evaluating the personnel decisions, and I just wasn't doing that, but I can.
From what I have seen just looking at percentage of hits, actually the Rams have done well.
2006-2008 was BAD.
2009-2011 was average, with some hits.
2012-15 was good. By any standard, and I have compared the numbers to other good drafting teams. The weakness is receiver, but then who knows how it would have looked if they had Bailey. Either way they have other strengths too,
BUT 2016 makes that a foggy picture. For the record I don't think 2016 was about personnel per se but more about many other factors sort of perfect storming to make things unclear a bit. Is Gurley over and done with? What happened to the OL?
Either way, and we probably disagree, but, I don't see 2016 as being about bad personnel. I see it as being a lot of things.
So (and this is probably where we disagree) I see Snead has having done well overall, though 2016 makes that a little obscure.
.
