[/zn/]

I really doubt the team was throwing games but I could see where they were more reluctant to build a winner with a potential move or not occurring in the near future.

Well see, from what I saw, they would have been winning in 2014 and 2015 if (1) they hadn't lost the 1st starting qb to a freak 2nd knee injury, and (2) they hadn't lost the 2nd starting qb to a complete meltdown.

I don't think they foresaw that.

I didn't see any "reluctance to build a winner."

And I don't think that winning or losing had anything to do with moving in the future.

,,

[Hacksaw]

I really doubt the team was throwing games but I could see where they were more reluctant to build a winner with a potential move or not occurring in the near future.

Well see, from what I saw, they would have been winning in 2014 and 2015 if (1) they hadn't lost the 1st starting qb to a freak 2nd knee injury, and (2) they hadn't lost the 2nd starting qb to a complete meltdown.

I don't think they foresaw that.

I didn't see any "reluctance to build a winner."

And I don't think that winning or losing had anything to do with moving in the future.

,,

There have been many who have speculated that losing helped with fan apathy which would help make the Shields decision easier. Other's who have opined that a losing club would be a bad fit for LA.
My choice of words "reluctant" specifically, was a poor choice. A half arsed game plan coupled with being a limbo team could have factored though. Not an attractive scenario for potential quality newcomers.
No doubt, SB's recurring injury and Foles meltdown were unexpected happenings. Tough to win in this league without a solid QB, game plan and depth either. Still I remain of the opinion that the team rolled out trying to win,,,, which is a bit concerning due to their lack of success at it. However, tanking would have me considerably more concerned.
With relo over, I am hoping to see a better result.

[Elvis]

One thing that's almost certainly different is you don't keep a head coach who's had 3, let alone 4, straight losing seasons unless you're not in a big hurry to win.

But the real question is, whether we're in St. Louis or Los Angeles, how do you win with Jeff Fisher?

Does the hiring of Groh portend bigger changes than any of us realize? Is Fisher convinced all he has to do to win is stay the course?

We, and a hell of a lot of people, will be watching...

[/zn/]

One thing that's almost certainly different is you don't keep a head coach who's had 3, let alone 4, straight losing seasons unless you're not in a big hurry to win.

I get that opinion but I simply don't share it. The Rams were set to win both in 2014 and 2015. The OL fell apart in 2014 and they also lost the qb. The OL was young in 2015 and the qb melted down. So maybe you're in no hurry to fire a head coach if you take account of those kinds of things.

As long as we are guessing and mindreading, then, I just like that explanation better. Maybe SK is not in a big hurry to ditch a coach under the circumstances I describe.

[TomSlick]

One thing that's almost certainly different is you don't keep a head coach who's had 3, let alone 4, straight losing seasons unless you're not in a big hurry to win.

I get that opinion but I simply don't share it. The Rams were set to win both in 2014 and 2015. The OL fell apart in 2014 and they also lost the qb. The OL was young in 2015 and the qb melted down. So maybe you're in no hurry to fire a head coach if you take account of those kinds of things.

As long as we are guessing and mindreading, then, I just like that explanation better. Maybe SK is not in a big hurry to ditch a coach under the circumstances I describe.

No doubt we have different opinions. There is a lot riding on this first season in LA. Fans will show up for this season no matter what the record, but the rest of us are getting pretty antsy, and tired, of hearing the upbeat talk from Demoff, Fisher and Snead without the record to back it up.

Anything short of playoffs this year should be grounds for a fired HC; however, I fear the "intangibles of the move" may give Fisher more time.

Question for you ZN, what would you need to see at the conclusion of the 2016 season to decide to fire Fisher? I know I'm hard on Fisher, so I'm looking for a more objective opinion on the man.

[Hacksaw]

I posted something similar in another thread. imo, Fisher has had bad luck with his starting QB's in 3 of the 4 years and showed bad judgement (in hindsight) in not using one of his high picks on a top QB (considering how important that position is).
With SB's bloated hard to trade contract and #1 pick status I can see why he didn't though. Foles came as a product of getting rid of that contract, not Fish wanting to go after Foles specifically.
I'm being a bit of a Fisher apologist right now. I see his potential flaws and his track record. I also see the situations he's been put in.
Now, if they get that special QB (and another top WR), remain league average healthy and still lose it's "off with his head".

[TomSlick]

Now, if they get that special QB (and another top WR), remain league average healthy and still lose it's "off with his head".

Thanks for the reply, Hack. What if they don't get that special QB and another WR this year? How many more years would you give Fisher?

[Hacksaw]

Now, if they get that special QB (and another top WR), remain league average healthy and still lose it's "off with his head".

Thanks for the reply, Hack. What if they don't get that special QB and another WR this year? How many more years would you give Fisher?

Of course brother Tom. I answered your question in the last line of my thread above yours.

To that question, it depends on the outcome of course. How many wins and how we win 'em. If they are quiet on the QB/WR front under all these new circumstances, and the team continues to flail away, I'd say my chances to support him further would become zero, or at least slim to none and slim had just left the building.
There are no more relocation excuses, the team has money and caps space. I hope they get the right guys so they don't fail and the current staff (especially GW) doesn't potentially breaks apart with a change at the top.

[/zn/]

With SB's bloated hard to trade contract

In his 5th and 6th years Bradford's contract was below the norm for a young starter.

Under the new CBA, qbs come up for their second contract after their 4th year. Starters who meet that definition have been signing contracts for 16-21+ M or so, with the avg. being around 18-19 M.

Under the old CBA 1st round picks could sign 6 year deals. Bradford was averaging 13 M a year, which in his 5th and 6th years put him way under the avg. for young starters with that much experience.

There was nothing bloated about his contract.

In fact in 2015, according to Over the Cap.com, Bradford's 13 M ranked 19th among qbs.

[Hacksaw]

/zn/, the team had invested a ton into Bradford and if the kid could stay healthy perhaps he would have been worth his 19th ranked salary at that stage. But his success level and injury history wouldn't bear that out. Tough trade imo.