Quote
RockRam
Fisher had the final decision making on player acquisition.
You just have to live with the idea that not everyone sees everything the same as you. Fisher didn't have the final decision on injuries. For example, name the last team you can think of where 2 players come back from a knee injury only to injure it again (Long and Bradford). Two on the same team, same year both times. And that's just an example.
Name the last team that was able to survive having BOTH the starting OL constantly with problems (including above all injuries) and then on top of it had a starting caliber vet qb for only a few games. They played 16% of their games with both a starting caliber non-rookie qb and a solid OL. I don't know what McVay's record would be under those conditions but it would not be as good as it was. Why is none of this just obvious?
My only claim is this, and no one has a good argument against it. Not that I have seen. Any and all coaches will have a better record if they DON'T have that particular situation.
What I did like about Fisher is how the Rams played division rivals tough. I never expected that much from them because you usually don't do that when your qbs in the majority of your games are Clemens, Hill, Austin, Foles, Keenum, and a rookie.
Anyway. You're not supposed to flip out if someone views a coach differently than you do. You don't start long silly board wars if someone argues something as obvious as "no coach does very well under the specified conditions." If you want to argue with that point, name examples of coaches who did do well under those conditions (it will not be a long list). IMO.
None of which addresses the "what level of coach was Fisher overall"--the only point made was about the more than 80% games under the specified conditions. You don't have to dodge that point either. You can say--well okay, but I still don't like Fisher cause of x or y or z. (And I said that several times in this goofy thread.)
....
...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2021 10:22AM by zn.
