Quote
zn
Quote
Rams43
Here’s dieterbrock...
From the tail end of Jeff Fisher's 2nd season (Game 13) until his ultimate demise in year 5, the Rams scored a whopping total of 867 points in his final 49 games as Head Coach
Conversely, in the 27 games since, (just over a season and a half) Coach McVay's boys have also scored 867 points
Me. Admittedly somewhat cherrypicked stats, but still...
Fisher’s average was 17.7 ppg.
McVay’s average is 32.1 ppg.
Dang!
As is usually the case, these kinds of stats come without any context.
There is no question McVay is a top coach. But that point is not reinforced by dubious comparisons.
For example, look at this.
Counting Atlanta, percentage of games the McVay Rams have played with BOTH a starting caliber veteran qb AND a relatively healthy OL: 96.5%
Percentage of games the 2012-2016 Rams played without BOTH (at the same time) a starting caliber veteran QB AND a relatively healthy OL (note: I am not counting Keenum or Foles as starting caliber. Keenum to me is a #2 caliber qb who gets enough right to get a starting gig, but like McNown or Fitzpatrick, he is not a franchise qb type). So that percentage is 18.75%.
1.) I just take it as completely obvious that if McVay had to compensate for an extensively damaged OL and did not have a veteran franchise qb most of the time,. he would not do as well as he has. I think most people would accept that as reasonable.
2.) For some reason though some people resist the obvious on the other side of the equation. But I take it as equally obvious that if the 2012-2016 Rams had both a starting franchise caliber qb and a relatively healthy OL most of the time, they would have done better than they did.Those last 2 bolded statements just strike me as being just simply completely beyond reasonable dispute.
...
I am very familiar with your position, can appreciate where you're coming from, and I'm not expecting to change your mind but the lack of a franchise QB IMO doesn't make a compelling case for Fisher.
Why? Because the lack of a franchise QB was his fault.
He's the one who wanted to go with Bradford. Probably not the wisest move from the beginning. But even if it was a wise move, by 2014 when he had a great chance to at least get some QB insurance (Bortles, Bridgewater, Carr, Jimmy G), he chose not to.
Both the QB and the LT were injury risks but the QB also hadn't demonstrated conclusively to be a franchise QB and his contract was coming up. It was time to make a move that year. I beat that drum many times here but was in a very small minority.
He chose his horse, he rode his horse. Thus, he doesn't get to say "I never had a good horse waaaah!"
On point 2, I agree with you slightly. It's my opinion that if the 2012-2016 Rams had both a starting franchise caliber qb and a relatively healthy OL most of the time, they would have done
one to two games better per year than they did. IOW, not a dramatic difference.
Obviously this opinion can't be proven since we don't live in parallel universes but I take comfort in the fact that a member of the team, Michael Brockers, agrees with me. He said and I quote, "
If Fisher were still here, we would be 7-9...and I love the man."When your former player knows that you're gonna be mediocre no matter what talent is on the team, it's time to stop arguing for the failed coach. Yes, he had some bad conditions but the failures were by far mostly with his deficiencies as a coach.
That's my stance...don't think I'm moving.
