Quote
promomasterj
Can we move on from the stache once and for all. His w-l record as a head coach - the only metric that counts - is a losing one. He was not a good coach.
Les Snead was also there for the drafts and is still there so maybe he's the common thread.
And where is old jeffry these days - oh yeah, unemployed.
Others are adding that. I deliberately avoided it.
My point is simple: you do not have an overnight turnaround, no matter who the coach is, unless you have some key talent on hand. That was said against Cowherder's idea that McV demonstrates there's a new standard for turnarounds. Naw. McV was bound to be a good one but the overnight part of it comes from having inherited talent, as it always does.
Now is that about "Fisher"? Only if you are obsessed with Fisher.
First it's true as a general principle regardless--
overnight turnarounds require inherited talent. Like what Harbaugh did in SF v. what Carroll had to do in Seattle. Unless someone wants to offer some counter-examples, that point stands.
Second, in terms of who acquired the talent that's as much Snead as Fisher anyway and Snead is still a Ram. So that card never had to be played.
I don't see the point of dismissing the significance of having a Goff, Gurley, and Donald on hand just because someone always has to get in digs at Fisher. That's not realistic and it's not good analysis.
You want people to move on, cool, me too. In fact in this discussion I had. I wasn't the one who turned the discussion that direction.
...