[Elvis]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Am i right?

Maybe Fisher reinvents himself, changes philosophy, hires and fully supports a competent OC and becomes successful. But that seems pretty unlikely.

It's still amazing to me how he's all in on a cutting edge, push the envelope defense but remains in the stone age when it comes to offense.

[dieterbrock]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Am i right?

Maybe Fisher reinvents himself, changes philosophy, hires and fully supports a competent OC and becomes successful. But that seems pretty unlikely.

It's still amazing to me how he's all in on a cutting edge, push the envelope defense but remains in the stone age when it comes to offense.

Save for the 2013 off season and first what, 5 games of 2013 when we were going to "sling it"?

Fisher seemed to change his philosophy, brought in some players to make it work and then pulled the plug. Only to get more and more conservative as time went on. Totally boggles my mind

[dieterbrock]

I doubt Keenum will be our savior. .

He doesnt need to be our savior. He just needs to play a competent game. We dont need a resurection of Kurt Warner to win.
I think Keenum is going to surprise some folks and the criticism of, "how has this guy been kept on the bench" will become popular

[Elvis]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Am i right?

Maybe Fisher reinvents himself, changes philosophy, hires and fully supports a competent OC and becomes successful. But that seems pretty unlikely.

It's still amazing to me how he's all in on a cutting edge, push the envelope defense but remains in the stone age when it comes to offense.

Save for the 2013 off season and first what, 5 games of 2013 when we were going to "sling it"?

Fisher seemed to change his philosophy, brought in some players to make it work and then pulled the plug. Only to get more and more conservative as time went on. Totally boggles my mind

As i've always said, the defense was struggling those first 5 games and my theory is Fisher blamed the wide open offense for the defensive struggles. For Fisher the offense and defense are linked and he won't run an offense that he think will hurt his defense. He tried and the results cemented his beliefs.

That's my theory anyway, and i'm sticking with it...

[dieterbrock]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Am i right?

Maybe Fisher reinvents himself, changes philosophy, hires and fully supports a competent OC and becomes successful. But that seems pretty unlikely.

It's still amazing to me how he's all in on a cutting edge, push the envelope defense but remains in the stone age when it comes to offense.

Save for the 2013 off season and first what, 5 games of 2013 when we were going to "sling it"?

Fisher seemed to change his philosophy, brought in some players to make it work and then pulled the plug. Only to get more and more conservative as time went on. Totally boggles my mind

As i've always said, the defense was struggling those first 5 games and my theory is Fisher blamed the wide open offense for the defensive struggles. For Fisher the offense and defense are linked and he won't run an offense that he think will hurt his defense. He tried and the results cemented his beliefs.

That's my theory anyway, and i'm sticking with it...

I dont know of an offense that puts more strain on the defense then what we have now.
Offense goes 3 and out most of the time, opposition is completely dominating time of possession. And between the penalties and lack of gaining any yardage/1st downs, the opposition is getting the ball in great field position most of the time.

I agree at the time it may have worked that way, but since the trajectory for the success of the defense is polar opposite of that of the offense

[Elvis]

Save for the 2013 off season and first what, 5 games of 2013 when we were going to "sling it"?

Fisher seemed to change his philosophy, brought in some players to make it work and then pulled the plug. Only to get more and more conservative as time went on. Totally boggles my mind

As i've always said, the defense was struggling those first 5 games and my theory is Fisher blamed the wide open offense for the defensive struggles. For Fisher the offense and defense are linked and he won't run an offense that he think will hurt his defense. He tried and the results cemented his beliefs.

That's my theory anyway, and i'm sticking with it...

I dont know of an offense that puts more strain on the defense then what we have now.
Offense goes 3 and out most of the time, opposition is completely dominating time of possession. And between the penalties and lack of gaining any yardage/1st downs, the opposition is getting the ball in great field position most of the time.

I agree at the time it may have worked that way, but since the trajectory for the success of the defense is polar opposite of that of the offense

Absolutely.

But from Fisher's perspective, the defense has only improved since he committed to his preferred offense.

And my theory is: how the defense is playing is one of the ways Fisher measures the effectiveness of his offense...

[dieterbrock]

As i've always said, the defense was struggling those first 5 games and my theory is Fisher blamed the wide open offense for the defensive struggles. For Fisher the offense and defense are linked and he won't run an offense that he think will hurt his defense. He tried and the results cemented his beliefs.

That's my theory anyway, and i'm sticking with it...

I dont know of an offense that puts more strain on the defense then what we have now.
Offense goes 3 and out most of the time, opposition is completely dominating time of possession. And between the penalties and lack of gaining any yardage/1st downs, the opposition is getting the ball in great field position most of the time.

I agree at the time it may have worked that way, but since the trajectory for the success of the defense is polar opposite of that of the offense

Absolutely.

But from Fisher's perspective, the defense has only improved since he committed to his preferred offense.

And my theory is: how the defense is playing is one of the ways Fisher measures the effectiveness of his offense...

So what we're getting at is that his offense SUCKS
Lol
I'll say this much, the Kellen Clemens lead team gave me the most hope that we were on our way. Clemens was so bad, missed so many plays, but still made a play here or there to keep the team in the game. Surely I thought, if we could just improve THAT production wasnt asking too much and seemed pretty attainable.
Boy was I wrong. And correct at the same time, as I believe any 3rd rate coach could make an offense out of Gurley, Tavon and heck even Cook

[Elvis]

Our talent far exceeds the results on offense. I think that's pretty much undeniable.

[Hacksaw]

Stability and consistency.

Staying steady on the wrong course.

Being consistently awful on offense.

Not sure why some people continue to adamantly support Fisher.

I fixed the key word in my last sentence previous post... I can't see that the likelihood of a consistently productive offense is happening anytime soon. Say slim to none, and slim just left for LA.

A misleading typo.

Wasn't calling you out!!! Sorry if it came across that way. Was a general statement about Fisher support.

No worries, I needed to fix that word and I might have missed it. It changed the meaning of the post. lol

Re support. I think he get's a lot of credit for his stabilization of the program in StL. He just can't get to that next level alone.

[Hacksaw_64]

Our talent far exceeds the results on offense. I think that's pretty much undeniable.

I don't thinks so. I think we are a legit QB, LT, C,TE, WR1,WR2 and maybeTE2 away from being talented on offense. Otherwise its just a bunch of guys playing on unrealized or not much real potential.