Sgt Schultz

This is spot on where I am with Fitterer, and it seems to drive some people crazy. We simply don't know 1) who made or drove what decisions, 2) whether Fitterer could walk away from a deal for somebody Rhule wanted, or was he limited to just trying to get the best deal possible (think Darnold), 3) if the division of responsibility ever changed and if so, when (so you can figure out who drove what decisions), 4) what Rhule told Fitterer the dynamic between the two would be vs. what it wound up being. In other words, if the carrot to get him to sign on was they would talk it through until they agreed, and in practice Rhule ended the talks with he was guy in charge of personnel decisions, that is a pretty big difference. We don't know those things, but we know who does: Tepper. While Tepper's decision making for an NFL team is not ranked very high on my list, I have to defer to him on this because of the fact he does know the things that we do not. Just saying Fitterer signed into this relationship is all fine and well, but he still did not sign on to be held accountable for things that were not his job. They should have been his job, but they weren't. That part is on Tepper. Scot is correct, firing him for decisions that he had no voice in and had no choice but to implement (If that was the case) will be noticed. Every few years we see a team that has to dumpster dive for a HC or GM because nobody remotely good will talk to them. The most recent one was the 49ers after they chased Harbaugh out. Mr. Dunkin Donuts 2015 (Tomsula) was not their first choice, he was their last resort. Then, when he failed, their only option was Chip Kelly. We could be next. All Tepper has to do is continue to follow his instincts.

Any more moving of the bar that you want to do? You sound like Rhule, trying desperately to add some meaningless number to prove something. But, to humor you, here is the discussion. Both Johnson and Switzer coached SB winning teams (I would make the point Switzer watched idly from the sidelines, but he had the title of HC). You said they are what their record says they are. Which one was better? Or you can add in their zodiac signs or some other nonsense to try and roll back your first statement.

True, and in that order. One or both will likely be cap casualties next year.

Amazing how people can actually injure themselves with numbers, isn't it!

So based on that, you are on the record saying Barry Switzer (40-24, .625) was a better NFL coach than Jimmy Johnson (80-64, .556). Got it.

His legacy?

Uh, folks, for your consideration, we attach some clips of one Matt Rhule. A legend in his own mind. A man that could have bee great, but he wasn't any good. Then get back to us on that observation.

I could see that kind of outcome, particularly if our offense could find a way to stay on the field for more than 5:00 for the game!

I would be surprised. Some teams have players that are nearly unanimously held back by a dismissed coach. We have more players than usual who are on this team because of the coach. For players like Walker, yesterday was the beginning of the end. It will probably take a little longer than usual for any bounce to happen from Rhule's firing. I do expect us to be more competitive than we would have been, provided they don't let Kupp run wild. The defense might be a bit better, but McAdoo is still the OC so I don't expect any noticeable improvement there.

More like a laxative.

We have some good players on defense, but whether or not that are compatible pieces remains to be seen. What I mean is we still have not done anything about the fleeting moment switch to a 3-4, so we still have some pieces that are a better fit for that vs. a 4-3. Then add the "Snow vs. Wilks" philosophical difference. I have no idea what to expect, but if Wilks can somehow get this group to play up to their potential he probably deserves consideration for a DC position somewhere, if not here. Snow had to go. In 2020 he got the defense to play beyond the talent of the individual pieces. The problem was, as the talent increased, the results got better but not at the same level. In other words, Snow had a definite ceiling, and the talent may be above that. Then add that either he was a Rhule toadie or Rhule was his toadie, and keeping him around was doomed to fail.

I was thinking the same thing. It nearly always happens this way. And if the pattern holds true, we will be sweeping up ashes from Rhule for quite a while.

Agree on all counts. TB was signed for a job as a transition QB with a possibility he would be the answer in Brady's offense. He wasn't going to be the answer, but he was fulfilling the role, albeit at a high price which was not his fault. When Rhule handled the original public spat between TB and Brady by circling the wagons publicly instead of diffusing it, his downhill slide started with me. His best response was some form of "we all have things we have to work on and do better." That would have been an obviously true statement. Handle everything else behind closed doors, including addressing TB's criticisms (one of which was it was taking them too long to get plays in, especially in the red zone). Instead, he and Tepper made it impossible to continue on with the plan and TB in the role of a transition QB, which led to the acquisition of Darnold. As they say in the Guinness commercials, Brilliant! Ignoring and brushing off any and all criticisms, even when they were consistent with the eye and sniff tests of what we were seeing at the time and the vilifying the source, that gave us our first glimpse of the real Matt Rhule and The Process. You learn a lot about people in tough situations. The good news is he is gone and he can play that game in the NCAA where it actually can work. Some people start out over their heads and grow into the role, but Rhule never did and never was going to.

Hmm. I thought is specialty was being a BS artist. Although in a lot of cases, those two things are one and the same.

I'll never understand how Hurney was not sent packing before Rivera. I said this in another thread today, they both needed to go, but it was done exactly backwards.

IMO, Tepper doesn't need to know how to get to success or be able to define it any deeper than winning. That is the job of people he hires. What an owner primarily needs to do is stay out of the way. The problem with Tepper's reign thus far is not that he has waded into things he needed to stay out of (that we know), but the fact that he 1) set up a division of responsibilities that would make Rube Goldberg proud, and 2) hired Rhule and gave him more power than a coach should have, and more than a guy with no NFL pedigree could handle. The hiring part of #2 may be 2a, which would be listening to Marty Hurney I never understood why Rivera was sent packing before Hurney. I think they both needed to go, but it made sense to dump the GM first, then hire a GM to help find the new coach. Instead, he did it bass ackwards.

You are wrapping yourself around the "all or nothing" axle with Rhule did every single pick or trade. We have no idea. Say those words......."we have no idea." You seem bound and determined to assess blame on something and we have no idea who did what. That was not Rhule's fault, and not Fitterer's fault, that was Tepper's fault (and maybe a little of Hurney sprinkled in). I don't see Wilks and Fitterer getting us to a SB. I don't know if Fitterer can or not. The difference is I can say the words "I have no idea" how this Rube Goldberg machine has operated, I only know that it collapsed earlier today. Part of it probably/may have collapsed after last season, but how much of it was still standing is not something I can say. Bad news: Neither can you, whether you want to admit that or not.

The problem is we do not know where the lines were between Rhule and Fitterer at any given time. We can guess, but even "insider reports" were never consistent and clear. By the letter of Rhule's contract, if he told Fitterer to go get Darnold, Fitterer had to go get Darnold. If that was the relationship, all Fitterer could do is go back and tell Rhule the Jets wanted a king's ransom for a guy whose value was going to go down once the draft was over. But if Rhule responded to get Darnold, well, in words of Captain Picard, Fitterer had no choice but to "make it so." But, that is by the letter of Rhule's contract. We don't know if and when Rhule might have been told that if he was forgoing some of that power and how much or he was out. We may never know. Obviously Tepper and Fitterer do, and whatever happens with Fitterer will be a direct result of that. The whole bizarre division of duties is some odd Rube Goldberg machine. I feel about Fitterer the same way I do about some of our players: they may be a better than we have seen thus far, and hopefully being out from under the shadow of Rhule will tell us. Unfortunately, on offense our players are still under the shadow of McAdoo and his flying circus of an offense.

Yeah, but only grab the free end and don't pull the towel too hard. Boger is an effing embarrassment.

How close can you get to him? Is it like the college "halo" rule used to be for punt returns, if you get within x distance of him the flags fly? The halo is apparently bigger when Jerome Boger is throwing the flag.

And to think, we had people asking if he was a bust a few weeks ago. Dummkopfs!

It is very fitting that my last post during the Rhule era can be summed up as "huh?"

It would be one thing to say "since starting out 3-0 in 2021......" But paring down the data to do that every year is, well, dubious. His numbers are bad enough they don't need any help.

OK, am I reading this wrong? Here is a quote from Rhule's post-game press conference: RE: The guys came out early in the 3rd quarter with the Christian [McCaffrey] touchdown. What and who was behind the decision to go for two that early in the quarter? Yeah, you know, down 14 with the ball on the one. Had the ball had not been on the one, we wouldn’t have done it. I think we have talked a couple times, down 14 now, there is kind of the whole analytics movement to go for two and make it a one-score game. The time was pretty close to the vest. We held them to really 10 points on defense. So, had it been on the two, we wouldn’t have done it but with the ball on the one, feeling like with Christian [McCaffrey] we could hopefully punch it in from a yard out. Uh, the score was 17-9 when they faced that decision. It was already a one-score game, and kicking the point (which would have been snapped from either the 7.5 or 10 because of the penalty) would have made it a 7-point deficit. Going for two would not "make it a one-score game." I get the ball on the 1-yard line logic, but when was the last time we were any good at short-yardage situations? Somewhere in his vast knowledge of "analytics" our poor track record at those situations has to enter in. We just came out and made the score competitive to start the half, given the situation, why give their defense a chance to diffuse any momentum from the TD drive? But even given that difference in philosophy, the basis of his argument seems to be "down 14," and making it a one-score game by going for two. The math doesn't make it any better down by 14, but okay. Am I being overly critical, or does his statement sound like he was unaware of the situation? Or is this just the latest case of a BS artist BS-ing to insert "analytics" into the conversation to try and sound like the smartest guy in the room or appeal to an owner who claims to embrace analytics?"

The Process must have 8 x 10 glossies on Tepper.