PDA

View Full Version : Why The Blind Love Affair with Steve Spagnuola??



G-Man67
12-29-2011, 10:55 AM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



players play, coaches coach



i'd take another defensive stud any day over a coach



listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much



and you don't have to even wonder about that, because with total and complete control of the Rams, he did not accomplish anything and i don't think he forgot how to coach D, but he just simply didn't have the studs he needed



bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl



yes, we all had huge smiles on our faces watching Spags conduct the defense like a maestro and having us dominate, but you still have to realize that the players had more to do with the success than Spags



it's unbelievable to me, altho it shouldn't be b/c the same thing happened in 2007, that people want to lose to have a better chance of getting Spags, etc. ... with everyone healthy and if we can add stud DT or LB or DB, then we can be very dominant on D next year no matter who is pulling the strings with 2 solid corners, 1 solid LB and several good/great pass rushers

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 11:01 AM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



players play, coaches coach</p>



i'd take another defensive stud any day over a coach</p>



listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much</p>



and you don't have to even wonder about that, because with total and complete control of the Rams, he did not accomplish anything and i don't think he forgot how to coach D, but he just simply didn't have the studs he needed</p>



bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl</p>



yes, we all had huge smiles on our faces watching Spags conduct the defense like a maestro and having us dominate, but you still have to realize that the players had more to do with the success than Spags</p>



it's unbelievable to me, altho it shouldn't be b/c the same thing happened in 2007, that people want to lose to have a better chance of getting Spags, etc. ... with everyone healthy and if we can add stud DT or LB or DB, then we can be very dominant on D next year no matter who is pulling the strings with 2 solid corners, 1 solid LB and several good/great pass rushers</p>


</p>

i guess you missed 2007</p>

buddy33
12-29-2011, 11:04 AM
I have heard the media mention how banged up the Rams are in the secondary which is why Spags is having such a bad year but don't hear them mention how banged up the Giants secondary is yet PF gets so much blame.

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 11:10 AM
</p>


</p>

i guess you missed 2007</p>

makes no sense MMB ... if the Rams were stuffing everyone, i'd be like, wow a genius ... write him a blank check, but they can't stop anyone, so to me the GM is the guy most responsible for the defence and not the DC



heck, here is the greatest example ever ... Belichick can't stop anyone this year ... hmmm, maybe it's the players not the coaches???



listen, like everyone i want the best players and coaches, but if i had to choose one or the other, then i'm choosing players all day

Roosevelt
12-29-2011, 11:10 AM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



</p>


</p>

Blind?</p>


</p>

TrueBlue07
12-29-2011, 11:11 AM
coaches definitely don't make that much of a difference, I mean just look at Sheridan...wait, what?

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 11:14 AM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



</p>


</p>

Blind?</p>


</p>

i say blind b/c many are completely dismissing the job he hasn't done with the Rams and if he comes here, which i'm totally OK with, don't get me wrong ... he will come here with the lure of, obviously having some defensive studs, but also the chance of being the next Giants HC when Coughlin retires



so while i would be thrilled to have him as DC, i'm not so certain he would be the best HC for us down the road



now having said that ... Belichick failed in Cleveland and then basically re-wrote the record book for great coaching with NE, but i just think that we can't overlook the fact that Spags failed in St. Louis

yatitle
12-29-2011, 11:15 AM
Its no different than the blind devotion to Parcells all these years despite the evidence that he never won a playoff game where Belichick was his DC. Classic case of perception being greater than reality. Media brainwashing contributes as well.

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 11:15 AM
bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl

Ding ding ding.

Now why do you think they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing? Of course having a guy like AP helped a lot, but that is mainly the def. coordinators job.

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 11:21 AM
Its no different than the blind devotion to Parcells all these years despite the evidence that he never won a playoff game where Belichick was his DC.* Classic case of perception being greater than reality.* Media brainwashing contributes as well.


ha, i do love Parcells and i probably did give him more credit than he deserved for our success back then, but, man, after watching the Giants in the 70s, i don't think you could help as the younger, less experienced fan i was back then, thinking Parcells was a savior for our franchise

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 11:24 AM
bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl

Ding ding ding.

Now why do you think they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing? Of course having a guy like AP helped a lot, but that is mainly the def. coordinators job.

right, you said it ... AP, Sam Madison, RW McQuarters ... we had true leaders back there even if they weren't physically in their prime

TrueBlue07
12-29-2011, 11:27 AM
bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl

Ding ding ding.

Now why do you think they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing? Of course having a guy like AP helped a lot, but that is mainly the def. coordinators job.

right, you said it ... AP, Sam Madison, RW McQuarters ... we had true leaders back there even if they weren't physically in their prime

which is clearly evident by all those super bowls AP, Madison, and RW won without Spags.

kkr
12-29-2011, 11:27 AM
<h4 class="ForumPostTitle">Spagnuola?</h4>

Never heard of him.
</p>

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 11:28 AM
bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl

Ding ding ding.

Now why do you think they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing? Of course having a guy like AP helped a lot, but that is mainly the def. coordinators job.

right, you said it ... AP, Sam Madison, RW McQuarters ... we had true leaders back there even if they weren't physically in their prime

Well I don't know what to tell you man. You seem to think that the def. coordinator has little or no bearing on what goes on on the field. If you look around the league I don't think the evidence agrees with you.

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 11:28 AM
bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl

Ding ding ding.

Now why do you think they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing? Of course having a guy like AP helped a lot, but that is mainly the def. coordinators job.

right, you said it ... AP, Sam Madison, RW McQuarters ... we had true leaders back there even if they weren't physically in their prime

Well I don't know what to tell you man. You seem to think that the def. coordinator has little or no bearing on what goes on on the field. If you look around the league I don't think the evidence agrees with you.

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 11:30 AM
bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl

Ding ding ding.

Now why do you think they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing? Of course having a guy like AP helped a lot, but that is mainly the def. coordinators job.

right, you said it ... AP, Sam Madison, RW McQuarters ... we had true leaders back there even if they weren't physically in their prime

which is clearly evident by all those super bowls AP, Madison, and RW won without Spags.


so his failure with the Rams means nothing? ... i think u could argue that Perry Fewell with similar defensive talent in Buffalo did better than Spags with similar defensive talent in St. Louis ... Buffalo isn't stopping anyone these days



i'll tell you what ... would you take Suh at DT or Spags at DC?

mikeq672
12-29-2011, 11:31 AM
You guys realize there are like 5 good players on the Rams right? And that they are really bad, and Kellen Clemens has started multiple games for them. Most of their starters on D are players that failed elsewhere. Spag's scheme and creativity in playcalling and play design will always make him better than Fewell in my opinion.

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 11:37 AM
bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl

Ding ding ding.

Now why do you think they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing? Of course having a guy like AP helped a lot, but that is mainly the def. coordinators job.

right, you said it ... AP, Sam Madison, RW McQuarters ... we had true leaders back there even if they weren't physically in their prime

which is clearly evident by all those super bowls AP, Madison, and RW won without Spags.


so his failure with the Rams means nothing? ... i think u could argue that Perry Fewell with similar defensive talent in Buffalo did better than Spags with similar defensive talent in St. Louis ... Buffalo isn't stopping anyone these days



i'll tell you what ... would you take Suh at DT or Spags at DC?

Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

TrueBlue07
12-29-2011, 11:37 AM
with the talent he has to work with the Rams are 9th in points allowed. Failure is a strong word.

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 11:37 AM
Well I don't know what to tell you man. You seem to think that the def. coordinator has little or no bearing on what goes on on the field. If you look around the league I don't think the evidence agrees with you.

not true, football of all the major sports is the one most influenced by good/bad coaching, but it is still about 85% players, 15% coaches



so, all i'm saying is that i don't think we can dismiss Spags performance in St. Louis and i don't think we can totally crucify Fewell since he had a 50% Tuck all year, no Thomas, limited Osi, no Cofield, Boley missing 4 games, Rolle talking more than playing and not being disciplined, etc.

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 11:41 AM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 11:44 AM
with the talent he has to work with the Rams are 9th in points allowed. Failure is a strong word.


well then why all the rumors he is getting fired ... he certainly wasn't hired to be their offensive guru ... draft Luck, fire OC, give Spags another year at HC



but listen 2-13 is failure, i'm sorry, you can't spin it any other way .... when we had Dave Brown as our QB we'd still end up winning 6 games

RagTime Blue
12-29-2011, 11:49 AM
I agree that Spags is overrated. Not to say he isn't good, but there's people on here who think that NOBODY can possibly coach the Giants' D except for Steve Spagnuolo.

Even if the Giants wanted him back next year (and nobody else offers him a HC job), don't you think it would be the ultimate admission of defeat to step into the job he left?

Kruunch
12-29-2011, 11:53 AM
listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much





Kiwika Mitchell, Frank Walker, Gibril Wilson.

Just saying.

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 12:02 PM
</p>


</p>

i guess you missed 2007</p>

makes no sense MMB ... if the Rams were stuffing everyone, i'd be like, wow a genius ... write him a blank check, but they can't stop anyone, so to me the GM is the guy most responsible for the defence and not the DC



heck, here is the greatest example ever ... Belichick can't stop anyone this year ... hmmm, maybe it's the players not the coaches???</p>



listen, like everyone i want the best players and coaches, but if i had to choose one or the other, then i'm choosing players all day</p>


</p>

the offense on that team is so brutal that it constantly leaves the defense in bad spots. Their defense isn't actually as bad as you would think this year. They are actually ranked higher than ours.</p>

You can take the example of this year to judge Spags, but we've seen what hes done with the LBers in Philly and what he did for us. Think back to the way our defense performed before and after he was here. Obviously he can't go out there and play but just as players can get out played, coaches can get out coached.</p>


</p>

We've seen what he can do with our guys in his scheme. GO look at the Rams roster, even with the injuries we have we have a MUCH more talented staff. I would also say that they have the hardest schedule in the NFL this year too. Spags as a HC really had a bad year, but considering what he has to work with on defense, with the spots their offense put them in, and who they had to play this year - their defense has played above their ceiling imo.
</p>


</p>


</p>

daynemustgo
12-29-2011, 12:02 PM
I would take Spags back in a second but the guy doesn't walk on water.

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 12:04 PM
bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl

Ding ding ding.

Now why do you think they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing? Of course having a guy like AP helped a lot, but that is mainly the def. coordinators job.

right, you said it ... AP, Sam Madison, RW McQuarters ... we had true leaders back there even if they weren't physically in their prime

which is clearly evident by all those super bowls AP, Madison, and RW won without Spags.


so his failure with the Rams means nothing? ... i think u could argue that Perry Fewell with similar defensive talent in Buffalo did better than Spags with similar defensive talent in St. Louis ... Buffalo isn't stopping anyone these days



i'll tell you what ... would you take Suh at DT or Spags at DC?</p>


</p>

probably Spags even still. But regardless why do we have to choose? I don't get it
</p>

TrueBlue07
12-29-2011, 12:04 PM
sometimes you are in a no win situation. Did Jimmy Johnson forget how to coach when he went to Miami?

The point is, even if you don't want to give Spags any sort of pass for the roster in STL, his defense was still very good. He would be DC here. Pretty simple.

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 12:04 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach

I would take Suh but I have no idea what your point is.

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 12:05 PM
listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much





Kiwika Mitchell, Frank Walker, Gibril Wilson.

Just saying.

Frankie Walker was gone by the time Spags came around ... Kawika was a good LB both with and without the Giants and Spags ... Gibril went to the abyss that is the Oakland Raiders, so hard to say



the one thing i loved about Spags and, obviously, he needed AP to make it all happen ... was how they adjusted in game ... could he and Boley do that, i'm sure to some extent they could, but you know ... NFL D is all about consistent pressure on the QB and you need studs to do that ... if Tuck had been 100% and we used him more at DT on obvious passing downs and we got that push inside to combine with JPP and Osi outside ... listen Fewell would look like a genious

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 12:05 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 12:07 PM
I agree that Spags is overrated. Not to say he isn't good, but there's people on here who think that NOBODY can possibly coach the Giants' D except for Steve Spagnuolo.

Even if the Giants wanted him back next year (and nobody else offers him a HC job), don't you think it would be the ultimate admission of defeat to step into the job he left?




i think thats a bit extreme. The guy was a huge part in our superbowl win. We shut down the top 3 offenses in the league that year, including one that was considered to be the GOAT of offenses.

We were putrid and underperforming with Tim Lewis and Bill Sheridan who was immediatly before and after Spags.

I think we just want him back because hes creative, aggressive, chaotic, and has great gameplans

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 12:08 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

who makes a bigger impact? ... of course, we want both, but if you had to chose ... who helps the team more?

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 12:09 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

who makes a bigger impact? ... of course, we want both, but if you had to chose ... who helps the team more?

well as of right now - i think Spags would help us more.

I think having a great game plan and putting our players in better positions to succeed would be better for us than just upgrading 1 defensive tackle spot.

Buckeroo
12-29-2011, 12:10 PM
I tend to agree with OP in the regard that he is being seen as the be all end all in defensive DCs.</P>


Hey....he had a great 2 years in NY. He only has two years of DC experience.</P>


Give him all the excuses you want with the RAMS but at the end of the day they stink and he has to take some blame for that. Just like TC, PF, and KG. </P>


Dont get me wrong I like Spagnulo and I would welcome him back but I dont think he is saving grace of defenses.....</P>

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 12:16 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

who makes a bigger impact? ... of course, we want both, but if you had to chose ... who helps the team more?

well as of right now - i think Spags would help us more.

I think having a great game plan and putting our players in better positions to succeed would be better for us than just upgrading 1 defensive tackle spot.


If that were true, why wouldn't we just offer Spags some obscene contract, like what Suh would get?

Fewell might not be the answer but you can always find another coach. A guy like Suh comes around once a decade.

RagTime Blue
12-29-2011, 12:18 PM
Slightly off-topic. . .

Anyone else notice that in 3rd and VERY long situations, Fewell still rushed 4 men vs. the Jets?

Any chance he's learning from mistakes?

SweetZombieJesus
12-29-2011, 12:22 PM
Because it was the last time our team (and by extension our Defense, which has always been the defining characteristic of this team throughout the decades) was dominant and feared by the league. We beat all final 4 teams in their houses. We punched Pittsburgh and Baltimore in the mouth in their houses... Think these last 3 Giants teams could do that?

Because those same players turned to mush under Sheridan one year removed from 11-1 and the best shot at a repeat championship.

Because Coughlin has had FOUR defensive coordinators and the only one who wasn't an embarrassment was Spags.

I don't know how much he exerts himself over the Rams defense and whether it's his call or his DC.

Maybe Spags wasn't ready for the big chair and knows it and will take it as a learning experience, as did another guy we lost, Bill Belichick.

He was terrible and hated in Cleveland as the Browns coach. He fled back to Bill Parcells as DC of the Pats in 1996 and they made the Super Bowl. He followed BP to the Jets and was even named Jets Head Coach (for 24 hours) before he left for New England, and the rest, as they say, is history.

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 12:27 PM
Because it was the last time our team (and by extension our Defense, which has always been the defining characteristic of this team throughout the decades) was dominant and feared by the league.

Because those same players turned to mush under Sheridan one year removed from 11-1 and the best shot at a repeat championship.

Because Coughlin has had FOUR defensive coordinators and the only one who wasn't an embarrassment was Spags.


don't forget they were mush BEFORE Spags got there as well

RoanokeFan
12-29-2011, 12:27 PM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



players play, coaches coach</p>



i'd take another defensive stud any day over a coach</p>



listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much</p>



and you don't have to even wonder about that, because with total and complete control of the Rams, he did not accomplish anything and i don't think he forgot how to coach D, but he just simply didn't have the studs he needed</p>



bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl</p>



yes, we all had huge smiles on our faces watching Spags conduct the defense like a maestro and having us dominate, but you still have to realize that the players had more to do with the success than Spags</p>



it's unbelievable to me, altho it shouldn't be b/c the same thing happened in 2007, that people want to lose to have a better chance of getting Spags, etc. ... with everyone healthy and if we can add stud DT or LB or DB, then we can be very dominant on D next year no matter who is pulling the strings with 2 solid corners, 1 solid LB and several good/great pass rushers</p>


</p>

It's really very simple. Spags it not (yet) head coach material. However, he is an exceptional DC having learned from one of the best, Jim Johnson of the Eagles. It takes more than coaching ability to be a HC and not every great position coach or coordinator can master those skills. Wade Phillips is a good example.
</p>

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 12:29 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

who makes a bigger impact? ... of course, we want both, but if you had to chose ... who helps the team more?

well as of right now - i think Spags would help us more.

I think having a great game plan and putting our players in better positions to succeed would be better for us than just upgrading 1 defensive tackle spot.


If that were true, why wouldn't we just offer Spags some obscene contract, like what Suh would get?

Fewell might not be the answer but you can always find another coach. A guy like Suh comes around once a decade.

because theres market values - why would anybody throw money away?

As dominate as Suh is, hes only 1 man. Its a team sport. By getting Spags I see 11 players on the field playing better instead of just one.

suh is a great player and obviously I would love to have him, but I don't think talent (even with the injuries) is really the issue. I don't think Fewell is creative, i don't think he makes good enough adjustments, and we know the success spags has had with these core players already.

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 12:30 PM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



players play, coaches coach</p>



i'd take another defensive stud any day over a coach</p>



listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much</p>



and you don't have to even wonder about that, because with total and complete control of the Rams, he did not accomplish anything and i don't think he forgot how to coach D, but he just simply didn't have the studs he needed</p>



bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl</p>



yes, we all had huge smiles on our faces watching Spags conduct the defense like a maestro and having us dominate, but you still have to realize that the players had more to do with the success than Spags</p>



it's unbelievable to me, altho it shouldn't be b/c the same thing happened in 2007, that people want to lose to have a better chance of getting Spags, etc. ... with everyone healthy and if we can add stud DT or LB or DB, then we can be very dominant on D next year no matter who is pulling the strings with 2 solid corners, 1 solid LB and several good/great pass rushers</p>


</p>

It's really very simple. Spags it not (yet) head coach material. However, he is an exceptional DC having learned from one of the best, Jim Johnson of the Eagles. It takes more than coaching ability to be a HC and not every great position coach or coordinator can master those skills. Wade Phillips is a good example.
</p>

actually WP is the PERFECT example

Houstons defense has been outstanding this year

RoanokeFan
12-29-2011, 12:38 PM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



players play, coaches coach</p>



i'd take another defensive stud any day over a coach</p>



listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much</p>



and you don't have to even wonder about that, because with total and complete control of the Rams, he did not accomplish anything and i don't think he forgot how to coach D, but he just simply didn't have the studs he needed</p>



bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl</p>



yes, we all had huge smiles on our faces watching Spags conduct the defense like a maestro and having us dominate, but you still have to realize that the players had more to do with the success than Spags</p>



it's unbelievable to me, altho it shouldn't be b/c the same thing happened in 2007, that people want to lose to have a better chance of getting Spags, etc. ... with everyone healthy and if we can add stud DT or LB or DB, then we can be very dominant on D next year no matter who is pulling the strings with 2 solid corners, 1 solid LB and several good/great pass rushers</p>


</p>

It's really very simple. Spags it not (yet) head coach material. However, he is an exceptional DC having learned from one of the best, Jim Johnson of the Eagles. It takes more than coaching ability to be a HC and not every great position coach or coordinator can master those skills. Wade Phillips is a good example.
</p>

actually WP is the PERFECT example

Houstons defense has been outstanding this year


Who would have thought? But it really is true about being a HC. Now everyone can get it done.

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 12:45 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns

RoanokeFan
12-29-2011, 12:47 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


Which is why I said "yet" for Spags. I suspect he'll climb back up the ladder

BigBlueOnes
12-29-2011, 12:51 PM
This is a really stupid question posted by the OP. First of all, you're comparing a HC in his first year with the Rams with his prior DC position under a very good head coach in Coughlin. This is comparing Apples to Grapes, not a valid comparison. Another thing: if you honestly think football is 15% coaching like you say, you're sadly out of touch with what it takes to run a team. I'd take Spags over Suh ANY DAY OF THE WEEK for two reasons: Suh is a scumbag and will ruin that line, and Spags can elevate other players to a much higher level. I don't think you watched the Superbowl Run. Did you watch Spags on the sideline get on his knee and tell the D "This system will work, you must believe, it will come together...". They had the goal line stand against Washington and it was history after that. It takes a special coach to motivate, elevate and scheme appropriately. It takes an OPEN MINDED coach to make in game adjustments. We have a coaching staff that doesn't adjust very well on the fly. So while I can see some having blind faith, I would welcome him back. But hell, I'd also take Wade Phillips and **** Jauron in a HEARTBEAT as DC but not as HC.

yatitle
12-29-2011, 12:57 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


That's a common misconception about Belichick. He went 11-5 his 4th year with the Browns beat the "legendary" Parcells in a playoff game then lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Team had high expectation in 1995 when Modell dropped the big one early in the season and the team was toast with the fans because they knew they were leaving. Spags hasn't even sniffed that kind of success with the Rams.

BParcells777
12-29-2011, 01:03 PM
all you had to do was look at the 1st half of our own St Louis game this year to see how creative Spagnuolo was/is

Yes you have to have the players.....and they have to buy in (Vinny Lombardi stunk at the Skins, Bellicheck at Cleveland)

But those of us who really follow the team know Spags won the Giants 2007 SB......not Coughlin

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 01:04 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


That's a common misconception about Belichick. He went 11-5 his 4th year with the Browns beat the "legendary" Parcells in a playoff game then lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Team had high expectation in 1995 when Modell dropped the big one early in the season and the team was toast with the fans because they knew they were leaving. Spags hasn't even sniffed that kind of success with the Rams.



he had ONE good year out of 5 and was 36-44 with them as a coach

he did not have success and the Rams were much worse to start with than browns were

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 01:04 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


That's a common misconception about Belichick. He went 11-5 his 4th year with the Browns beat the "legendary" Parcells in a playoff game then lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Team had high expectation in 1995 when Modell dropped the big one early in the season and the team was toast with the fans because they knew they were leaving. Spags hasn't even sniffed that kind of success with the Rams.



he had ONE good year out of 5 and was 36-44 with them as a coach

he did not have success and the Rams were much worse to start with than browns were

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 01:07 PM
This is a really stupid question posted by the OP. First of all, you're comparing a HC in his first year with the Rams with his prior DC position under a very good head coach in Coughlin. This is comparing Apples to Grapes, not a valid comparison. Another thing: if you honestly think football is 15% coaching like you say, you're sadly out of touch with what it takes to run a team. I'd take Spags over Suh ANY DAY OF THE WEEK for two reasons: Suh is a scumbag and will ruin that line, and Spags can elevate other players to a much higher level. I don't think you watched the Superbowl Run. Did you watch Spags on the sideline get on his knee and tell the D "This system will work, you must believe, it will come together...". They had the goal line stand against Washington and it was history after that. It takes a special coach to motivate, elevate and scheme appropriately. It takes an OPEN MINDED coach to make in game adjustments. We have a coaching staff that doesn't adjust very well on the fly. So while I can see some having blind faith, I would welcome him back. But hell, I'd also take Wade Phillips and **** Jauron in a HEARTBEAT as DC but not as HC.

well by that logic coaches would be paid trillions and players thousands ... i mean there is no restriction on how much a coach can be paid, so rich teams would hire all the geniouses and pay them $20MM and then win Super Bowl after Super Bowl



and you are going to tell me that Spags is just a figure head in St. Louis, who just allows his coordinators to come up with all the schemes??? ... the Belichick - Cleveland thing is a very good point, but really a lot of these other points are downright silly



give me stud players before stud coaches and, of course, both is really magic, but if you are forced to have average players and great coach or great players and average coach ... you are kiddin yourself if you take the coach

TrueBlue07
12-29-2011, 01:09 PM
This is a really stupid question posted by the OP. First of all, you're comparing a HC in his first year with the Rams with his prior DC position under a very good head coach in Coughlin. This is comparing Apples to Grapes, not a valid comparison. Another thing: if you honestly think football is 15% coaching like you say, you're sadly out of touch with what it takes to run a team. I'd take Spags over Suh ANY DAY OF THE WEEK for two reasons: Suh is a scumbag and will ruin that line, and Spags can elevate other players to a much higher level. I don't think you watched the Superbowl Run. Did you watch Spags on the sideline get on his knee and tell the D "This system will work, you must believe, it will come together...". They had the goal line stand against Washington and it was history after that. It takes a special coach to motivate, elevate and scheme appropriately. It takes an OPEN MINDED coach to make in game adjustments. We have a coaching staff that doesn't adjust very well on the fly. So while I can see some having blind faith, I would welcome him back. But hell, I'd also take Wade Phillips and **** Jauron in a HEARTBEAT as DC but not as HC.

well by that logic coaches would be paid trillions and players thousands ... i mean there is no restriction on how much a coach can be paid, so rich teams would hire all the geniouses and play them $20MM and then win Super Bowl after Super Bowl



and you are going to tell me that Spags is just a figure head in St. Louis, who just allows his coordinators to come up with all the schemes??? ... the Belichick - Cleveland thing is a very good point, but really a lot of these other points are downright silly</p>



give me stud players before stud coaches and, of course, both is really magic, but if you are forced to have average players and great coach or great players and average coach ... you are kiddin yourself if you take the coach</p>


</p>

...anddddddd you'd have the Dallas Cowboys.
</p>

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 01:12 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

who makes a bigger impact? ... of course, we want both, but if you had to chose ... who helps the team more?

well as of right now - i think Spags would help us more.

I think having a great game plan and putting our players in better positions to succeed would be better for us than just upgrading 1 defensive tackle spot.


If that were true, why wouldn't we just offer Spags some obscene contract, like what Suh would get?

Fewell might not be the answer but you can always find another coach. A guy like Suh comes around once a decade.

because theres market values - why would anybody throw money away?

As dominate as Suh is, hes only 1 man. Its a team sport.* By getting Spags I see 11 players on the field playing better instead of just one.

suh is a great player and obviously I would love to have him, but I don't think talent (even with the injuries) is really the issue.* I don't think Fewell is creative, i don't think he makes good enough adjustments, and we know the success spags has had with these core players already.


But what determines market values?

I mean if elite DCs were really more important than elite players, there would be bidding wars for them and the salaries would skyrocket.

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 01:17 PM
This is a really stupid question posted by the OP. First of all, you're comparing a HC in his first year with the Rams with his prior DC position under a very good head coach in Coughlin. This is comparing Apples to Grapes, not a valid comparison. Another thing: if you honestly think football is 15% coaching like you say, you're sadly out of touch with what it takes to run a team. I'd take Spags over Suh ANY DAY OF THE WEEK for two reasons: Suh is a scumbag and will ruin that line, and Spags can elevate other players to a much higher level. I don't think you watched the Superbowl Run. Did you watch Spags on the sideline get on his knee and tell the D "This system will work, you must believe, it will come together...". They had the goal line stand against Washington and it was history after that. It takes a special coach to motivate, elevate and scheme appropriately. It takes an OPEN MINDED coach to make in game adjustments. We have a coaching staff that doesn't adjust very well on the fly. So while I can see some having blind faith, I would welcome him back. But hell, I'd also take Wade Phillips and **** Jauron in a HEARTBEAT as DC but not as HC.

well by that logic coaches would be paid trillions and players thousands ... i mean there is no restriction on how much a coach can be paid, so rich teams would hire all the geniouses and play them $20MM and then win Super Bowl after Super Bowl



and you are going to tell me that Spags is just a figure head in St. Louis, who just allows his coordinators to come up with all the schemes??? ... the Belichick - Cleveland thing is a very good point, but really a lot of these other points are downright silly</p>



give me stud players before stud coaches and, of course, both is really magic, but if you are forced to have average players and great coach or great players and average coach ... you are kiddin yourself if you take the coach</p>


</p>

...anddddddd you'd have the Dallas Cowboys.
</p>

annnnd thats that

gianta
12-29-2011, 01:20 PM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



players play, coaches coach</p>



i'd take another defensive stud any day over a coach</p>



listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much</p>



and you don't have to even wonder about that, because with total and complete control of the Rams, he did not accomplish anything and i don't think he forgot how to coach D, but he just simply didn't have the studs he needed</p>



bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl</p>



yes, we all had huge smiles on our faces watching Spags conduct the defense like a maestro and having us dominate, but you still have to realize that the players had more to do with the success than Spags</p>



it's unbelievable to me, altho it shouldn't be b/c the same thing happened in 2007, that people want to lose to have a better chance of getting Spags, etc. ... with everyone healthy and if we can add stud DT or LB or DB, then we can be very dominant on D next year no matter who is pulling the strings with 2 solid corners, 1 solid LB and several good/great pass rushers</p>

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 01:25 PM
This is a really stupid question posted by the OP. First of all, you're comparing a HC in his first year with the Rams with his prior DC position under a very good head coach in Coughlin. This is comparing Apples to Grapes, not a valid comparison. Another thing: if you honestly think football is 15% coaching like you say, you're sadly out of touch with what it takes to run a team. I'd take Spags over Suh ANY DAY OF THE WEEK for two reasons: Suh is a scumbag and will ruin that line, and Spags can elevate other players to a much higher level. I don't think you watched the Superbowl Run. Did you watch Spags on the sideline get on his knee and tell the D "This system will work, you must believe, it will come together...". They had the goal line stand against Washington and it was history after that. It takes a special coach to motivate, elevate and scheme appropriately. It takes an OPEN MINDED coach to make in game adjustments. We have a coaching staff that doesn't adjust very well on the fly. So while I can see some having blind faith, I would welcome him back. But hell, I'd also take Wade Phillips and **** Jauron in a HEARTBEAT as DC but not as HC.

well by that logic coaches would be paid trillions and players thousands ... i mean there is no restriction on how much a coach can be paid, so rich teams would hire all the geniouses and play them $20MM and then win Super Bowl after Super Bowl



and you are going to tell me that Spags is just a figure head in St. Louis, who just allows his coordinators to come up with all the schemes??? ... the Belichick - Cleveland thing is a very good point, but really a lot of these other points are downright silly</p>



give me stud players before stud coaches and, of course, both is really magic, but if you are forced to have average players and great coach or great players and average coach ... you are kiddin yourself if you take the coach</p>


</p>

...anddddddd you'd have the Dallas Cowboys.
</p>

annnnd thats that


are they great or are they just america's team and way over-rated talent-wise



and if they are great, then we don't stand a chance b/c our players esp. with injuries are just good and obviously everyone thinks our coaches are average and the cowboys coaches are average, so we in big trouble



i say don't buy into the hype no matter how hard the media tries to sell you on how great Romo is ... i use my eyes and he is only above average, IMO

yatitle
12-29-2011, 01:25 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


That's a common misconception about Belichick. He went 11-5 his 4th year with the Browns beat the "legendary" Parcells in a playoff game then lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Team had high expectation in 1995 when Modell dropped the big one early in the season and the team was toast with the fans because they knew they were leaving. Spags hasn't even sniffed that kind of success with the Rams.



he had ONE good year out of 5 and was 36-44 with them as a coach

he did not have success and the Rams were much worse to start with than browns were


You have to throw out the last year. NO COACH would have been successful after the owner announced he was moving the teams before year end. His first 4 years were 6-10,7-9,7-9 and 11-5.
Even ignoring the playoff year he was 20-28 which is 10 GAMES BETTER THAN SPAGS!

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 01:27 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

who makes a bigger impact? ... of course, we want both, but if you had to chose ... who helps the team more?

well as of right now - i think Spags would help us more.

I think having a great game plan and putting our players in better positions to succeed would be better for us than just upgrading 1 defensive tackle spot.


If that were true, why wouldn't we just offer Spags some obscene contract, like what Suh would get?

Fewell might not be the answer but you can always find another coach. A guy like Suh comes around once a decade.

because theres market values - why would anybody throw money away?

As dominate as Suh is, hes only 1 man. Its a team sport. By getting Spags I see 11 players on the field playing better instead of just one.

suh is a great player and obviously I would love to have him, but I don't think talent (even with the injuries) is really the issue. I don't think Fewell is creative, i don't think he makes good enough adjustments, and we know the success spags has had with these core players already.


But what determines market values?

I mean if elite DCs were really more important than elite players, there would be bidding wars for them and the salaries would skyrocket.

Every situation is different. Every team has different needs. Right now, getting our players in a good system to where they can succeed would do more for us than adding a superstar would.

And your whole money argument doesn't make sense. Backups make more per year than a OCs. I mean would argue that a guy like JWill would be more valuable to us than Spags because JWill would make more than him?

TrueBlue07
12-29-2011, 01:28 PM
This is a really stupid question posted by the OP. First of all, you're comparing a HC in his first year with the Rams with his prior DC position under a very good head coach in Coughlin. This is comparing Apples to Grapes, not a valid comparison. Another thing: if you honestly think football is 15% coaching like you say, you're sadly out of touch with what it takes to run a team. I'd take Spags over Suh ANY DAY OF THE WEEK for two reasons: Suh is a scumbag and will ruin that line, and Spags can elevate other players to a much higher level. I don't think you watched the Superbowl Run. Did you watch Spags on the sideline get on his knee and tell the D "This system will work, you must believe, it will come together...". They had the goal line stand against Washington and it was history after that. It takes a special coach to motivate, elevate and scheme appropriately. It takes an OPEN MINDED coach to make in game adjustments. We have a coaching staff that doesn't adjust very well on the fly. So while I can see some having blind faith, I would welcome him back. But hell, I'd also take Wade Phillips and **** Jauron in a HEARTBEAT as DC but not as HC.

well by that logic coaches would be paid trillions and players thousands ... i mean there is no restriction on how much a coach can be paid, so rich teams would hire all the geniouses and play them $20MM and then win Super Bowl after Super Bowl



and you are going to tell me that Spags is just a figure head in St. Louis, who just allows his coordinators to come up with all the schemes??? ... the Belichick - Cleveland thing is a very good point, but really a lot of these other points are downright silly</p>



give me stud players before stud coaches and, of course, both is really magic, but if you are forced to have average players and great coach or great players and average coach ... you are kiddin yourself if you take the coach</p>


</p>

...anddddddd you'd have the Dallas Cowboys.
</p>

annnnd thats that


are they great or are they just america's team and way over-rated talent-wise



and if they are great, then we don't stand a chance b/c our players esp. with injuries are just good and obviously everyone thinks our coaches are average and the cowboys coaches are average, so we in big trouble</p>



i say don't buy into the hype no matter how hard the media tries to sell you on how great Romo is ... i use my eyes and he is only above average, IMO</p>


</p>

Don't even take this year, take the Wade Phillips years...they had a ton of talent and didn't win anything.</p>


</p>

This is a silly debate anyway. Getting a coach never prohibits you from getting a player so it's not about player vs coach.
</p>

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 01:29 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


That's a common misconception about Belichick. He went 11-5 his 4th year with the Browns beat the "legendary" Parcells in a playoff game then lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Team had high expectation in 1995 when Modell dropped the big one early in the season and the team was toast with the fans because they knew they were leaving. Spags hasn't even sniffed that kind of success with the Rams.



he had ONE good year out of 5 and was 36-44 with them as a coach

he did not have success and the Rams were much worse to start with than browns were


You have to throw out the last year. NO COACH would have been successful after the owner announced he was moving the teams before year end. His first 4 years were 6-10,7-9,7-9 and 11-5.
Even ignoring the playoff year he was 20-28 which is 10 GAMES BETTER THAN SPAGS!



okay then you have to throw out this year with Spags seeing as how his young QB, #1 WR, secondary, and various other positions were hit very hard by injury and it wasn't that good of a team to begin with. They over acheived last year winning 7 games.

BParcells777
12-29-2011, 01:30 PM
I cannot even believe anyone would question Spags as a DC

Its ridiculous

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 01:31 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

who makes a bigger impact? ... of course, we want both, but if you had to chose ... who helps the team more?

well as of right now - i think Spags would help us more.

I think having a great game plan and putting our players in better positions to succeed would be better for us than just upgrading 1 defensive tackle spot.


If that were true, why wouldn't we just offer Spags some obscene contract, like what Suh would get?

Fewell might not be the answer but you can always find another coach. A guy like Suh comes around once a decade.

because theres market values - why would anybody throw money away?

As dominate as Suh is, hes only 1 man. Its a team sport.* By getting Spags I see 11 players on the field playing better instead of just one.

suh is a great player and obviously I would love to have him, but I don't think talent (even with the injuries) is really the issue.* I don't think Fewell is creative, i don't think he makes good enough adjustments, and we know the success spags has had with these core players already.


But what determines market values?

I mean if elite DCs were really more important than elite players, there would be bidding wars for them and the salaries would skyrocket.

Every situation is different. Every team has different needs. Right now, getting our players in a good system to where they can succeed would do more for us than adding a superstar would.

And your whole money argument doesn't make sense. Backups make more per year than a OCs. I mean would argue that a guy like JWill would be more valuable to us than Spags because JWill would make more than him?


That's wrong, Spags would make more than JWill. Coordinators make more than backups and some starters but not as much as stars. That seems about right to me.

yatitle
12-29-2011, 01:34 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


That's a common misconception about Belichick. He went 11-5 his 4th year with the Browns beat the "legendary" Parcells in a playoff game then lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Team had high expectation in 1995 when Modell dropped the big one early in the season and the team was toast with the fans because they knew they were leaving. Spags hasn't even sniffed that kind of success with the Rams.



he had ONE good year out of 5 and was 36-44 with them as a coach

he did not have success and the Rams were much worse to start with than browns were


You have to throw out the last year. NO COACH would have been successful after the owner announced he was moving the teams before year end. His first 4 years were 6-10,7-9,7-9 and 11-5.
Even ignoring the playoff year he was 20-28 which is 10 GAMES BETTER THAN SPAGS!



okay then you have to throw out this year with Spags seeing as how his young QB, #1 WR, secondary, and various other positions were hit very hard by injury and it wasn't that good of a team to begin with. They over acheived last year winning 7 games.

Over achieved? Really? How can a team that wins 7 games playing in the worst division potentially in the history of the league over achieve in the parity of the NFL. Look I'm fine with bringing back Spags as DC but for if you think he doesn't need the Giants or Eagles to rebuild his career more than those teams need him you are crazy.

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 01:39 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


That's a common misconception about Belichick. He went 11-5 his 4th year with the Browns beat the "legendary" Parcells in a playoff game then lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Team had high expectation in 1995 when Modell dropped the big one early in the season and the team was toast with the fans because they knew they were leaving. Spags hasn't even sniffed that kind of success with the Rams.



he had ONE good year out of 5 and was 36-44 with them as a coach

he did not have success and the Rams were much worse to start with than browns were


You have to throw out the last year. NO COACH would have been successful after the owner announced he was moving the teams before year end. His first 4 years were 6-10,7-9,7-9 and 11-5.
Even ignoring the playoff year he was 20-28 which is 10 GAMES BETTER THAN SPAGS!



okay then you have to throw out this year with Spags seeing as how his young QB, #1 WR, secondary, and various other positions were hit very hard by injury and it wasn't that good of a team to begin with. They over acheived last year winning 7 games.

Over achieved? Really? How can a team that wins 7 games playing in the worst division potentially in the history of the league over achieve in the parity of the NFL. Look I'm fine with bringing back Spags as DC but for if you think he doesn't need the Giants or Eagles to rebuild his career more than those teams need him you are crazy.


did u look at their roster? That team was garbage from front to back and had a rookie QB at the helm with maybe one of the worst receiving cores every assembled

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 01:41 PM
This is a silly debate anyway. Getting a coach never prohibits you from getting a player so it's not about player vs coach.
</p>

not silly on this board when you consider that this board is notorious for trashing our coordinators and not accepting that it's more often than not the players making physical errors and mental errors ... if Antrel Rolle, an NFL veteran is out of position, I'm not blaming Fewell and if Hakeem Nicks with hands bigger than the jolly green giant drops a TD, i'm sorry, i can't blame the stache for that



i have no particular love for our coordinators ... i do have a soft spot for TC for obvious reasons, but i've watched enough football to know that it's players more than coaches



would the Lions coach have turned them around without the likes of Calvin Johnson?



and when Belichick was supposedly working miracles with the NE D, weren't we greatly underestimating how good the likes of Bruschi and Vrable, etc. were ... listen, to your point, both is the answer, but when you read post after post of Killdrive, Fewell read & react and on and on and on ... well, i think some perspective is in order

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 01:42 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


That's a common misconception about Belichick. He went 11-5 his 4th year with the Browns beat the "legendary" Parcells in a playoff game then lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Team had high expectation in 1995 when Modell dropped the big one early in the season and the team was toast with the fans because they knew they were leaving. Spags hasn't even sniffed that kind of success with the Rams.



he had ONE good year out of 5 and was 36-44 with them as a coach

he did not have success and the Rams were much worse to start with than browns were


You have to throw out the last year. NO COACH would have been successful after the owner announced he was moving the teams before year end. His first 4 years were 6-10,7-9,7-9 and 11-5.
Even ignoring the playoff year he was 20-28 which is 10 GAMES BETTER THAN SPAGS!



okay then you have to throw out this year with Spags seeing as how his young QB, #1 WR, secondary, and various other positions were hit very hard by injury and it wasn't that good of a team to begin with. They over acheived last year winning 7 games.

Over achieved? Really? How can a team that wins 7 games playing in the worst division potentially in the history of the league over achieve in the parity of the NFL. Look I'm fine with bringing back Spags as DC but for if you think he doesn't need the Giants or Eagles to rebuild his career more than those teams need him you are crazy.


I think its mutually beneficial but I think either team needs him more than he needs them. They aren't looking to hire him as a HC. Hes proven as a DC and Giants made him the highest paid in 08.

He will be the biggest in demand DC in the league next year

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 01:47 PM
This is a silly debate anyway. Getting a coach never prohibits you from getting a player so it's not about player vs coach.


</p>

not silly on this board when you consider that this board is notorious for trashing our coordinators and not accepting that it's more often than not the players making physical errors and mental errors ... if Antrel Rolle, an NFL veteran is out of position, I'm blaming Fewell and if Hakeem Nicks with hands bigger than the jolly green giant drops a TD, i'm sorry, i can't blame the stache for that



i have no particular love for our coordinators ... i do have a soft spot for TC for obvious reasons, but i've watched enough football to know that it's players more than coaches</p>



would the Lions coach have turned them around without the likes of Calvin Johnson?</p>



and when Belichick was supposedly working miracles with the NE D, weren't we greatly underestimating how good the likes of Bruschi and Vrable, etc. were ... listen, to your point, both is the answer, but when you read post after post of Killdrive, Fewell read &amp; react and on and on and on ... well, i think some perspective is in order</p>


</p>

I dont think anybody considered BB to be working miracles. Pats had a top defense, their over powering offense and tom brady just overshadowed that at times.</p>

Lions were a garbage team, we are not a garbage team. The simple difference seems to be is that you odn't think the talent is there and I do, even with the injuries
</p>

yatitle
12-29-2011, 01:49 PM
yes I agree, but also not everybody gets it on their first try.

Look at BB - he had an awful first run with the Browns


That's a common misconception about Belichick. He went 11-5 his 4th year with the Browns beat the "legendary" Parcells in a playoff game then lost to the Steelers in Pittsburgh. Team had high expectation in 1995 when Modell dropped the big one early in the season and the team was toast with the fans because they knew they were leaving. Spags hasn't even sniffed that kind of success with the Rams.



he had ONE good year out of 5 and was 36-44 with them as a coach

he did not have success and the Rams were much worse to start with than browns were


You have to throw out the last year. NO COACH would have been successful after the owner announced he was moving the teams before year end. His first 4 years were 6-10,7-9,7-9 and 11-5.
Even ignoring the playoff year he was 20-28 which is 10 GAMES BETTER THAN SPAGS!



okay then you have to throw out this year with Spags seeing as how his young QB, #1 WR, secondary, and various other positions were hit very hard by injury and it wasn't that good of a team to begin with. They over acheived last year winning 7 games.

Over achieved? Really? How can a team that wins 7 games playing in the worst division potentially in the history of the league over achieve in the parity of the NFL. Look I'm fine with bringing back Spags as DC but for if you think he doesn't need the Giants or Eagles to rebuild his career more than those teams need him you are crazy.


did u look at their roster? That team was garbage from front to back and had a rookie QB at the helm with maybe one of the worst receiving cores every assembled


Lets agree to disagree. If I was to bet, I'd say Spags career will mirror that of Wade Phillips a lot closer than it will Bill Belichick.

MattMeyerBud
12-29-2011, 01:50 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

who makes a bigger impact? ... of course, we want both, but if you had to chose ... who helps the team more?

well as of right now - i think Spags would help us more.

I think having a great game plan and putting our players in better positions to succeed would be better for us than just upgrading 1 defensive tackle spot.


If that were true, why wouldn't we just offer Spags some obscene contract, like what Suh would get?

Fewell might not be the answer but you can always find another coach. A guy like Suh comes around once a decade.

because theres market values - why would anybody throw money away?

As dominate as Suh is, hes only 1 man. Its a team sport. By getting Spags I see 11 players on the field playing better instead of just one.

suh is a great player and obviously I would love to have him, but I don't think talent (even with the injuries) is really the issue. I don't think Fewell is creative, i don't think he makes good enough adjustments, and we know the success spags has had with these core players already.


But what determines market values?

I mean if elite DCs were really more important than elite players, there would be bidding wars for them and the salaries would skyrocket.

Every situation is different. Every team has different needs. Right now, getting our players in a good system to where they can succeed would do more for us than adding a superstar would.

And your whole money argument doesn't make sense. Backups make more per year than a OCs. I mean would argue that a guy like JWill would be more valuable to us than Spags because JWill would make more than him?


That's wrong, Spags would make more than JWill. Coordinators make more than backups and some starters but not as much as stars. That seems about right to me.


he was made the highest paid DC at like 2 mil a season

I think he was making like 1 mil a year before that. So thats like DJ Ware money. Sooo is Ware more important to this team than the defensive coordinator?

TrueBlue07
12-29-2011, 01:57 PM
This is a silly debate anyway. Getting a coach never prohibits you from getting a player so it's not about player vs coach.


</p>

not silly on this board when you consider that this board is notorious for trashing our coordinators and not accepting that it's more often than not the players making physical errors and mental errors ... if Antrel Rolle, an NFL veteran is out of position, I'm not blaming Fewell and if Hakeem Nicks with hands bigger than the jolly green giant drops a TD, i'm sorry, i can't blame the stache for that



i have no particular love for our coordinators ... i do have a soft spot for TC for obvious reasons, but i've watched enough football to know that it's players more than coaches</p>



would the Lions coach have turned them around without the likes of Calvin Johnson?</p>



and when Belichick was supposedly working miracles with the NE D, weren't we greatly underestimating how good the likes of Bruschi and Vrable, etc. were ... listen, to your point, both is the answer, but when you read post after post of Killdrive, Fewell read &amp; react and on and on and on ... well, i think some perspective is in order</p>


</p>

We are in 100% agreement here, ultimately it does come down to the players on the field. I tend to lead towards us having a good crop of coaches right now.
</p>


</p>

<font size="2">You're kind of contradicting yourself re: no love for coaches, but a soft spot for TC. TC's strength is or<span class="635375118-29122011">ganization. He puts the
coaches in the best position to teach, and in turn, hopefully the players in
their best position to succeed. Coaches need talent to work with, but for the
most part players also need coaches to lead the way. Sure there are some
examples out there to prove both sides of the argument but even if you think
good teams don't NEED good coaches, a crappy coach could screw up a good
team.</span></font></p><font size="2">
</font><div><font size="2"><span class="635375118-29122011"></span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span class="635375118-29122011"></span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span class="635375118-29122011">As for the love affair with
Spags, at least for me it comes down to loving the fire and passion he coached
with. I was always psyched to hear how highly his players spoke of him as a
coach, how smart he was, how well he prepared and how he connected with the
players. Now comes a time where our DC position is not filled for next year,
our HC is probably hanging it up soon, and Spags does not have a job for next
year. To me it all falls in to place to bring Spags back in with an eye on the
HC job in the future. I think he'd be much better with (obviously) a better
crop of players. Is he the ONLY coach out there that could lead the team? Of
course not. But with all the good memories people have of him, why wouldn't he
be the guy they want?</span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span class="635375118-29122011"></span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span class="635375118-29122011">For what it's worth, I wouldn't
let Fewell walk for any other guy besides Spags. But then you run in to the
problem of possibly having Fewell leave in a year or 2 for a HC job some where
if he is doing well here. If he isn't doing well here, he'd be canned and we'd
have a different problem.</span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span class="635375118-29122011"></span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span class="635375118-29122011"></span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span class="635375118-29122011"></span></font></div>
<div><font size="2"><span class="635375118-29122011">From what I can tell, I think
you'd have been better off phrasing your thread differently. This isn't about
Spags it's about coach vs player accountability. </span></font></div>

Gianthunter
12-29-2011, 02:00 PM
Why? Because coveting thy neighbors coach is the No. 1 sport on these boards. Insert any name. They are always better than what the Giants have. Always

yatitle
12-29-2011, 02:02 PM
Why? Because coveting thy neighbors coach is the No. 1 sport on these boards. Insert any name. They are always better than what the Giants have. Always

Damn right, fire Killdrive and bring in Brian Scottenheimer!

Tony Bruno
12-29-2011, 02:06 PM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



players play, coaches coach



i'd take another defensive stud any day over a coach



listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much



and you don't have to even wonder about that, because with total and complete control of the Rams, he did not accomplish anything and i don't think he forgot how to coach D, but he just simply didn't have the studs he needed



bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl



yes, we all had huge smiles on our faces watching Spags conduct the defense like a maestro and having us dominate, but you still have to realize that the players had more to do with the success than Spags



it's unbelievable to me, altho it shouldn't be b/c the same thing happened in 2007, that people want to lose to have a better chance of getting Spags, etc. ... with everyone healthy and if we can add stud DT or LB or DB, then we can be very dominant on D next year no matter who is pulling the strings with 2 solid corners, 1 solid LB and several good/great pass rushers

I think you are really the only one who thinks any of our DCs after Spags is better...

Spags had a go get em scheme not sit back and wait.. Id take the pressure Spags brought to the opposition any day of the week... He forced other teams to play a great game...

Tony Bruno
12-29-2011, 02:08 PM
Why? Because coveting thy neighbors coach is the No. 1 sport on these boards. Insert any name. They are always better than what the Giants have. Always

Damn right, fire Killdrive and bring in Brian Scottenheimer!


I know this... BS would run the ball on 3rd and 1... And probably would call a slant more than once every 3 games... #justsaying

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 02:21 PM
Um, was Buffalo's defense good or something? I don't remember that.

STL defense isn't even that bad. Their offense is the much bigger problem.

yeah Buffalo created a bunch o' turnovers when Fewell was there, they weren't great, but i would say good in Fewell's final year



and you didn't answer the question ... Suh or Spags, since that is my point, give me stud player before stud coach</p>


</p>

whats the point of asking that question though? I don't get it?</p>


</p>

If we had a shot at Suh, could we not still sign Spags?</p>

What good would Suh be if we don't have a good game plan?
</p>

who makes a bigger impact? ... of course, we want both, but if you had to chose ... who helps the team more?

well as of right now - i think Spags would help us more.

I think having a great game plan and putting our players in better positions to succeed would be better for us than just upgrading 1 defensive tackle spot.


If that were true, why wouldn't we just offer Spags some obscene contract, like what Suh would get?

Fewell might not be the answer but you can always find another coach. A guy like Suh comes around once a decade.

because theres market values - why would anybody throw money away?

As dominate as Suh is, hes only 1 man. Its a team sport.* By getting Spags I see 11 players on the field playing better instead of just one.

suh is a great player and obviously I would love to have him, but I don't think talent (even with the injuries) is really the issue.* I don't think Fewell is creative, i don't think he makes good enough adjustments, and we know the success spags has had with these core players already.


But what determines market values?

I mean if elite DCs were really more important than elite players, there would be bidding wars for them and the salaries would skyrocket.

Every situation is different. Every team has different needs. Right now, getting our players in a good system to where they can succeed would do more for us than adding a superstar would.

And your whole money argument doesn't make sense. Backups make more per year than a OCs. I mean would argue that a guy like JWill would be more valuable to us than Spags because JWill would make more than him?


That's wrong, Spags would make more than JWill. Coordinators make more than backups and some starters but not as much as stars. That seems about right to me.


he was made the highest paid DC at like 2 mil a season

I think he was making like 1 mil a year before that.* So thats like DJ Ware money.* Sooo is Ware more important to this team than the defensive coordinator?




I'm just talking Econ 101 supply and demand here...if there is a scarce resource (top defensive coordinators) that is in high demand (which they would be if they were as important as elite players), the price should go way up, right? I mean, that's the entire reason that elite players like Suh get so much money. Teams would be stupid to give guys like Suh, Revis, etc $50-$100 million dollar contracts when you could have Spags for 3/years $8 million or something, right? There must be a lot of stupid front offices out there.

G-Man67
12-29-2011, 02:37 PM
I think you are really the only one who thinks any of our DCs after Spags is better...

Spags had a go get em scheme not sit back and wait.. Id take the pressure Spags brought to the opposition any day of the week... He forced other teams to play a great game...

never said i wouldn't swap Fewell for Spags, if you read my rant, which i understand is a bit long-winded ... i'm just making the point that the players have a far greater impact on the game than the coordinators and time and time again, i see posts about the only thing holding our team back being the coaches and i just totally disagree



in fact, giving the coaches too much credit to me, gives the highly paid players a pass ... Nicks dropping a TD is not Gilbride's fault ... a veteran Safety being out of position or freelancing on his own is not Fewell's fault and while I would welcome Spags back as DC with open arms, I made the point that a single stud defender would have a greater impact both short and long term on improving our D

JJC7301
12-29-2011, 02:37 PM
I don't expect Spags to make players better, but to put in place a defense system / scheme that makes the entire D better. Like he did in '07 and '08 after replacing Lynn. Tuna never won another SB after leaving the Giants, but does that make him any less of a HOF coach? Of course the Giants had good talent under Spags, but that talent did not perform nearly as well under Lynn, Sheridan, or Fewell.

elifan10
12-29-2011, 02:41 PM
I don't expect Spags to make players better, but to put in place a defense system / scheme that makes the entire D better. Like he did in '07 and '08 after replacing Lynn. Tuna never won another SB after leaving the Giants, but does that make him any less of a HOF coach? Of course the Giants had good talent under Spags, but that talent did not perform nearly as well under Lynn, Sheridan, or Fewell.</P>


I think you mean Lewis. But besides that I totally agree. Spags always had the players in the right spots where Fewell just makes the defense look lost most of the time. We NEED to do everything in our power to get SPAGS back.</P>

Gianthunter
12-29-2011, 02:50 PM
Why? Because coveting thy neighbors coach is the No. 1 sport on these boards. Insert any name. They are always better than what the Giants have. Always

Damn right, fire Killdrive and bring in Brian Scottenheimer!
I know this... BS would run the ball on 3rd and 1... And probably would call a slant more than once every 3 games... #justsayingThere must have been a Shotty doppleganger last Sat. The pass happy alter-ego.

burier
12-29-2011, 03:24 PM
Its no different than the blind devotion to Parcells all these years despite the evidence that he never won a playoff game where Belichick was his DC.* Classic case of perception being greater than reality.* Media brainwashing contributes as well.


Funny because I'd call all the nob slobbing you guys do for Belichick around here a product of media brain washing.

Belichick never busted a grape without Lawrence Taylor or a spy camera....or a bunch of juiced up players yet he's put up on a pedistal.

He's a mastermind when it comes to cheating. He's not so tough with out the spy camera.

JJC7301
12-29-2011, 03:27 PM
I don't expect Spags to make players better, but to put in place a defense system / scheme that makes the entire D better. Like he did in '07 and '08 after replacing Lynn. Tuna never won another SB after leaving the Giants, but does that make him any less of a HOF coach? Of course the Giants had good talent under Spags, but that talent did not perform nearly as well under Lynn, Sheridan, or Fewell.</P>


I think you mean Lewis. But besides that I totally agree. Spags always had the players in the right spots where Fewell just makes the defense look lost most of the time. We NEED to do everything in our power to get SPAGS back.</P>


</P>


Yep, Lewis -- I knew that I was messing that one up. I don't think Fewell is horrible (MUCH better than Lewis and Sheridan), but rather just slightly above average. I'm not saying that we'll never have another another DC like Spags, but if he's available why not get him if he's interested in coming back?</P>

Tony Bruno
12-29-2011, 03:30 PM
I think you are really the only one who thinks any of our DCs after Spags is better...

Spags had a go get em scheme not sit back and wait.. Id take the pressure Spags brought to the opposition any day of the week... He forced other teams to play a great game...

never said i wouldn't swap Fewell for Spags, if you read my rant, which i understand is a bit long-winded ... i'm just making the point that the players have a far greater impact on the game than the coordinators and time and time again, i see posts about the only thing holding our team back being the coaches and i just totally disagree



in fact, giving the coaches too much credit to me, gives the highly paid players a pass ... Nicks dropping a TD is not Gilbride's fault ... a veteran Safety being out of position or freelancing on his own is not Fewell's fault and while I would welcome Spags back as DC with open arms, I made the point that a single stud defender would have a greater impact both short and long term on improving our D

We got a superstud in JPP and Ill tell you there were way more coaching blunders than he could ever make up for!!!

Tony Bruno
12-29-2011, 03:32 PM
Why? Because coveting thy neighbors coach is the No. 1 sport on these boards. Insert any name. They are always better than what the Giants have. Always

Damn right, fire Killdrive and bring in Brian Scottenheimer!
I know this... BS would run the ball on 3rd and 1... And probably would call a slant more than once every 3 games... #justsayingThere must have been a Shotty doppleganger last Sat. The pass happy alter-ego.

Playing from behind... Rest assure you if they were winning that game BS wount have elected tossed the ball 60 times... Most of the Jets passes are glorified run in all fairness...

yatitle
12-29-2011, 04:40 PM
Its no different than the blind devotion to Parcells all these years despite the evidence that he never won a playoff game where Belichick was his DC. Classic case of perception being greater than reality. Media brainwashing contributes as well.


Funny because I'd call all the nob slobbing you guys do for Belichick around here a product of media brain washing.

Belichick never busted a grape without Lawrence Taylor or a spy camera....or a bunch of juiced up players yet he's put up on a pedistal.

He's a mastermind when it comes to cheating. He's not so tough with out the spy camera.

Dude juiced up players? The whole freaking league is using PEDs so dont even go there. As for Fatty all he's managed to do post Giants is piss off 4 different fan bases for screwing them royally without any rings.

sc_markt
12-29-2011, 04:47 PM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...



players play, coaches coach



i'd take another defensive stud any day over a coach



Not me I'd take a known good head defensive coach any day over one good player. For one, that one good player is just that, one good player. But a known good defensive coach will improve the play of all players.

burier
12-29-2011, 04:55 PM
Its no different than the blind devotion to Parcells all these years despite the evidence that he never won a playoff game where Belichick was his DC.* Classic case of perception being greater than reality.* Media brainwashing contributes as well.


Funny because I'd call all the nob slobbing you guys do for Belichick around here a product of media brain washing.

Belichick never busted a grape without Lawrence Taylor or a spy camera....or a bunch of juiced up players yet he's put up on a pedistal.

He's a mastermind when it comes to cheating. He's not so tough with out the spy camera.

Dude juiced up players?* The whole freaking league is using PEDs so dont even go there.* As for Fatty all he's managed to do post Giants is piss off 4 different fan bases for screwing them royally without any rings.


The whole league???? Come now.

And to the Tunas credit The Pats were a terrible historically awful franchise before he got there and they became a contender damn near the day he walked through door.

He greatly improved the Jets and Dallas too for that matter.

But the truth is, Give me LT and I'll look like a genius too.

pino
12-29-2011, 04:56 PM
I don't have a "blind love affair" but I will tell you that Spags scheme put our players in 2007 in position to use their strengths. Fewell's scheme is not aggressive when it needs to be. I do agree there is a big personnel issue, but a blind man can see that Fewell is not the one, although he's just the tip of the iceburg.

There is no telling if Spags can have success with the same personnel, but I liked the way he called the game and I'm open to giving him another shot. Fewell is done in NY.

jhamburg
12-29-2011, 05:09 PM
Its no different than the blind devotion to Parcells all these years despite the evidence that he never won a playoff game where Belichick was his DC.* Classic case of perception being greater than reality.* Media brainwashing contributes as well.


Funny because I'd call all the nob slobbing you guys do for Belichick around here a product of media brain washing.

Belichick never busted a grape without Lawrence Taylor or a spy camera....or a bunch of juiced up players yet he's put up on a pedistal.

He's a mastermind when it comes to cheating. He's not so tough with out the spy camera.

I hate Belichick and I'd love to take any opportunity to take him down a notch but to say that he won 3 superbowls because of spying is beyond ******ed.

elifan10
12-29-2011, 05:14 PM
I don't have a "blind love affair" but I will tell you that Spags scheme put our players in 2007 in position to use their strengths. Fewell's scheme is not aggressive when it needs to be. I do agree there is a big personnel issue, but a blind man can see that Fewell is not the one, although he's just the tip of the iceburg. There is no telling if Spags can have success with the same personnel, but I liked the way he called the game and I'm open to giving him another shot. Fewell is done in NY.</P>


100 % agree. Fewell is just not an agressive defensive coordinator, while Spags is everything you want in one.</P>

jomo
12-29-2011, 05:17 PM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...


</P>



</P>


Blind?</P>



</P>That's what the man said Rosey, "blind".

JesseJames
12-29-2011, 05:26 PM
talented players trump bad coaching

Tony Bruno
12-29-2011, 05:28 PM
Here is the thing...l. If and only if our O could literally score 10-17 on their own, 3-9 points on 3rd and outs or turnovers... Do you not get aggressive with a Spags type coach...

The d that we run will work... We cause TOs and we do stop teams enough that the O really needs to be able to keep the d off the field and score points more consistent...

IF NOT then you have to resort to a style like Spags that will make the opposition play a darn near perfect game and beat us...

Check the stats and I think we scored more on D with Spags...

Anyone can see that we were a better D with Spags then most of the D we have had period...

Either way if he is available you almost have to give draft picks for him... He may not be the best HC but he does sport a pretty nice "table conversation" as a DC...

right now!!! The giants would be fools to not get Spags back...

jomo
12-29-2011, 05:45 PM
talented players trump bad coachingI don't agree. I believe that overpaying great coaches to "coach up"mostly averageplayers is the way to cheat the salary cap.

Wes
12-29-2011, 06:07 PM
ok i know this is sacrilege, but come on guys ...


players play, coaches coach


i'd take another defensive stud any day over a coach


listen if somebody said we could replace Perry with Steve and Steve would be more than happy to just be DC, then i would do it in a heartbeat, but i wouldn't expect any average defensive player we have to all of a sudden become great ... he can only do so much


and you don't have to even wonder about that, because with total and complete control of the Rams, he did not accomplish anything and i don't think he forgot how to coach D, but he just simply didn't have the studs he needed


bottom line is ... Tuck, Strahan and Osi were so dominant vs. the Patriots and the guys behind them, while certainly not great ... they were all on the same page and knew what they were doing ... that is why we won the Super Bowl


yes, we all had huge smiles on our faces watching Spags conduct the defense like a maestro and having us dominate, but you still have to realize that the players had more to do with the success than Spags


it's unbelievable to me, altho it shouldn't be b/c the same thing happened in 2007, that people want to lose to have a better chance of getting Spags, etc. ... with everyone healthy and if we can add stud DT or LB or DB, then we can be very dominant on D next year no matter who is pulling the strings with 2 solid corners, 1 solid LB and several good/great pass rushers





i think the difference between spags and PF is, spags knew where his strength was....and he used it relentlessly because he knew he had weaknesses in other areas. PF doesnt seem to adjust to the strengths...he just game plans and expects everyone to execute despite thier shortcomings.


Spags succeeded because he knew his lb corps was ok not great, he knew his dbs were better in man coverage, he also knew he had a good dland he knew the best way to play to his strength was to play aggressive def because it worked to the players strengths.


PF doesnt seem to adjust to his players strengths he just game plans and our weaknesses get exposed because his lack of aggressive play.


PF doesnt have the personell to play these complicated zone coverages...but he does it anyway and it shows that he doesnt have the personell.


Spags made it simple...play man...get the qb</P>

Tony Bruno
12-29-2011, 06:07 PM
talented players trump bad coachingI don't agree. I believe that overpaying great coaches to "coach up"*mostly average*players is the way to cheat the salary cap.

Thats an interesting perspective!!!!

RoanokeFan
12-29-2011, 06:13 PM
talented players trump bad coachingI don't agree. I believe that overpaying great coaches to "coach up"mostly averageplayers is the way to cheat the salary cap.

You could be on top something there.. Never considered that angle.

gumby742
12-29-2011, 07:32 PM
talented players trump bad coachingI don't agree. I believe that overpaying great coaches to "coach up"*mostly average*players is the way to cheat the salary cap.

Thats an interesting perspective!!!!

It's why the most successful teams run their business the same way. Today's NFL is all about finding the best bandaids.

gumby742
12-29-2011, 07:36 PM
I'm not sure people are saying Spags walks on water compared to other DCs, but more so compared to our latest crop of DCs.

Results are results and Spags took a defense of Danny Clark, Dockery, Butler, Blackburn, Michael Johnson, and others and turned them into a top 5 defense.

People say that we lack LBers all year, but if you compare them to 2008, who's to say Boley, Kiwi, and Blackburn is worse then AP, Blackburn, and Clark?

Spags did so much more with less.

sinn fein
12-29-2011, 07:53 PM
u hit the nail right on the head!!

elifan10
12-29-2011, 08:38 PM
I'm not sure people are saying Spags walks on water compared to other DCs, but more so compared to our latest crop of DCs. Results are results and Spags took a defense of Danny Clark, Dockery, Butler, Blackburn, Michael Johnson, and others and turned them into a top 5 defense. People say that we lack LBers all year, but if you compare them to 2008, who's to say Boley, Kiwi, and Blackburn is worse then AP, Blackburn, and Clark? Spags did so much more with less.</P>


Totally agree and people act like the talent was 1000X better with Spags......</P>