[BuiltRamTough]

If it's a one year extension... no big. You can easily fire people with that.

It will be for two years IMHO along with the assistants too...There moving a team so that factors in, however, if the Rams don't make the playoffs, the door is still open for a change.

My guess is also two years.

[dieterbrock]

I don't care if its a 5 year extension, it doesn't grant any more job security. If Fisher doesn't win this year he and his whole staff is gone. Stan didn't just spend 2 BILLION to then turn around and watch his pennies on his staff payroll.
This is lipstick on a pig. Having Fisher on a lame duck contract doesn't help with re-signing their own players nor does it help in recruiting free agents.
No way he survives another 6-7 win season, no matter what his contract says

[Hacksaw]

Unless they write in some clause prohibiting it, I agree with dieter. The LA Rams need to succeed. Better find that special hurler.

[TomSlick]

Not buying the contract extension is required argument. 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 and 7-9. His best year was season one. This is not the resume of someone who deserves the benefit of the doubt. If Fisher doesn't like going to LA without an extension then he could walk. I would have canned him after the smeller loss to the niners; however, since Stan is keeping him to fulfill his contract then the "win or else" statement should have stenciled on Fisher's forehead. Year 5 should have been "get in the playoffs and THEN we talk extension".

Fisher has done nothing to show he deserves more time. I've been skeptical of Stan's desire to win a Super Bowl. No one knows if Stan is willing to eat Fisher's contract for another sub-par season. I'm also not buying that because they are in LA there is NOW a sense of urgency to win. You can't project your hopes on to somebody (Stan/Fisher) until there is some proof that these men are willing to win at all costs.

[OldSchool]

Come on guys quit citing his win loss record as evidence against him come up with a valid argument. Yes Fisher averages 7 wins over four years and that's not good. But the four years prior we averaged 3 wins a year. There are many reasons we could and should move on from Fisher but looking at his win total makes him look good compared to his predecessors.

My reason for moving on is his total lack of ability to develop an offense as the reason to get rid of him.

[TomSlick]

Come on guys quit citing his win loss record as evidence against him come up with a valid argument. Yes Fisher averages 7 wins over four years and that's not good. But the four years prior we averaged 3 wins a year. There are many reasons we could and should move on from Fisher but looking at his win total makes him look good compared to his predecessors.

My reason for moving on is his total lack of ability to develop an offense as the reason to get rid of him.

Your reason to boot him is a good one.

I don't think Fisher's 7 wins makes him look good because we hired a series of mooks before him. W-L is a fine measure of a HC, and 7 wins is just terrible.

[dieterbrock]

Not buying the contract extension is required argument. 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 and 7-9. His best year was season one. This is not the resume of someone who deserves the benefit of the doubt. If Fisher doesn't like going to LA without an extension then he could walk. I would have canned him after the smeller loss to the niners; however, since Stan is keeping him to fulfill his contract then the "win or else" statement should have stenciled on Fisher's forehead. Year 5 should have been "get in the playoffs and THEN we talk extension".

Fisher has done nothing to show he deserves more time. I've been skeptical of Stan's desire to win a Super Bowl. No one knows if Stan is willing to eat Fisher's contract for another sub-par season. I'm also not buying that because they are in LA there is NOW a sense of urgency to win. You can't project your hopes on to somebody (Stan/Fisher) until there is some proof that these men are willing to win at all costs.

If you want to re-sign your free agents you shouldn't have your coach flapping in the wind.
I think Kroenke was win at all costs when it came to getting his team to LA. I envision him transcending that message to the play on the field as well.
He didn't come this far to have a mediocre team playing in his Nirvana-esque stadium

[TomSlick]

Not buying the contract extension is required argument. 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 and 7-9. His best year was season one. This is not the resume of someone who deserves the benefit of the doubt. If Fisher doesn't like going to LA without an extension then he could walk. I would have canned him after the smeller loss to the niners; however, since Stan is keeping him to fulfill his contract then the "win or else" statement should have stenciled on Fisher's forehead. Year 5 should have been "get in the playoffs and THEN we talk extension".

Fisher has done nothing to show he deserves more time. I've been skeptical of Stan's desire to win a Super Bowl. No one knows if Stan is willing to eat Fisher's contract for another sub-par season. I'm also not buying that because they are in LA there is NOW a sense of urgency to win. You can't project your hopes on to somebody (Stan/Fisher) until there is some proof that these men are willing to win at all costs.

If you want to re-sign your free agents you shouldn't have your coach flapping in the wind.
I think Kroenke was win at all costs when it came to getting his team to LA. I envision him transcending that message to the play on the field as well.
He didn't come this far to have a mediocre team playing in his Nirvana-esque stadium

Your statement regarding FAs is a valid one. However, I think most players will follow the money. If the HC is a big factor in attracting FAs, then we are already trailing in that race...Fisher has burnt pistons, bald tires, torn CV-boots, bent valves, smoked crankshaft bearings and his timing belt is about to break.

As for Stan, I like your optimism and hope you are 100% correct.

[The Gemini Method]

I can see why they'd extend Fisher for a few more years. Let's hope he can substantially improve on the 7-9 record that his teams tend to land on. Continuity is probably best with the move and starting anew in Los Angeles (again). He may not be the popular choice but as it was mentioned earlier in the thread, players want continuity. Whether they like him as a coach, it would be necessary to have at least one constant at the helm until we get closer to a stadium opening. I would, though, hope this is the Last Chance Saloon. Going into a new place it wouldn't behoove Kroenke to stick with a proven commodity of mediocrity.

[Elvis]

Come on guys quit citing his win loss record as evidence against him come up with a valid argument. Yes Fisher averages 7 wins over four years and that's not good. But the four years prior we averaged 3 wins a year. There are many reasons we could and should move on from Fisher but looking at his win total makes him look good compared to his predecessors.

My reason for moving on is his total lack of ability to develop an offense as the reason to get rid of him.

Taking 4 years to turn a 3 win team into a 7 win team is a firing offense, imo.

I'm willing to give Fisher just the slightest pass because of relocation. It's easier to move a 7 win team than a 10 win team and maybe that's been having an indirect/subconscious effect on the team. Relocation certainly gave Fisher the luxury of job security in an era where coaches get fired for doing a lot better than Fisher has done with the Rams.

But that's all over now, no more grading on a curve...