Re: I thought this on Fisher was spot-on...

Quote
Coy Bacon
43 summed up the argument well: Fisher had 5 years with the Rams, and he had 10 or so years in TN and his record is mediocre.

This argument isn't about you as much as it is the weakness of your argument. No you don't see it differently from us, you only see part of the problem. You are an intelligent poster and a fellow Ram fan, but sometimes your arguments are myopic. .

That's about me. In the same breath you're saying it's not about me, you make it about me--and it's not the first time recently and it hasn't been just this issue. So for you it's about me (you directly said so) and whether I see things "rightly" (ie. whether I see them your way). It's not that you disagree, or see it differently, or have a different take--for you it's about whether I see "correctly." So ask yourself this. I write one post in response to LMU about how the conditions the Rams had in the Fisher years wouldn't allow a team to win. And all of a sudden, that must be fought by several posters, who don';t know how to stop fighting it, and they are so insistent about their "rightness" that--for them--the poster is the issue. You can't allow a divergent interpretation of the Fisher years without going to war? Really?

Here;s what I said and always say about the Fisher years. No coach has winning records if more than 80% of the time they do not have both of these things: a non-rookie starting caliber qb, and a relatively healthy, stable OL. That's all I ever say about the Fisher years, and frankly, it's too solid and obvious a point to pretend it's not valid.

I also add that you can admit that simple football truth while also saying you don't care, you don't like Fisher anyway, you don't like his approach, or even if he had basic solid conditions at OL and qb he could not have done much with it (leaving McNair and the great old Titans OLs out of it). And so on. There are plenty of ways to acknowledge what is valid about my argument while upholding your own opinion of Fisher.

But instead you make it about the poster. Why not just agree to disagree and move on--not everyone sees things the same, especially issues that are open to interpretation. You also don't want to endorse the idea that different viewpoints are supposed to be met with poster baiting. That's not what we want in discussion, right?

In terms of whether Fisher was mediocre, or average, or better than average, or any of that? I have never once said what my own view is. (And no one ever asks, they always assume.) In fact I never argue that point one way or another. So it's not clear what you think you're fighting with or against. I always only point out this one thing: no one wins if 80% of the time they don't have both the qb and the OL.

It never even dawns on you that for me at lot of this issue has to do with the effect of OLs on team standing, whether that's discussing Fisher, Bulger, Goff, or Stafford.

I resist that kind of pile-on warfare because I have too much pride to get shut up by it. Yet when people want to discuss things sensibly while exploring the possibility of different viewpoints, I am all for it. I invite you to try that instead.

...