2008 Rams HC: You MUST pick from 1 of the following 3 names

[HUbison]

Uh, okay. Dick Vermeil. He actually WON a Superbowl with a team and coaching staff HE put together.

Dick Vermeil, really? One winning season, and none before Martz was brought in? A victory in barely a quarter of his games before Martz came to town? The man who DIDN'T want Faulk, and DID want Hostetler? The man who nearly forced Bruce to pull a T.O.esque walk-out?

Apparently, tx needs to re-post his list of things that would or would not have happened had Martz not come to town.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Vermeil for what he did, but I'm quite certain his contribution to football in this town doesn't match that of Martz.

[Fortuninerhater]

Originally Posted by HUbison

Yes, it is pretty easy to understand, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You say they underachieved every year, but they went to the playoffs 4 of 5 years. I know you don't care about the playoffs, but making it there in all but 1 year is as far from "underachieving" as possible.

Maybe, just maybe, this isn't about a coach's "underachieving" effort, but rather a fan's unrealistic expectations.

Are you telling me that none of the Rams from 2000 to 2004 should've won a Superbowl? If that's the case, perhaps we should take a poll to see if I had unrealistic expectations or if you are indirectly and inadvertantly making my point about Mike Martz.

[HUbison]

Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater

Are you telling me that none of the Rams from 2000 to 2004 should've won a Superbowl? If that's the case, perhaps we should take a poll to see if I had unrealistic expectations or if you are indirectly and inadvertantly making my point about Mike Martz.

What I'm telling you is that NO team SHOULD win a Superbowl. That's what makes those wins so special. When's the last time you heard anyone from the winning SB team say, "Well, it's always nice to win, but we should have won it anyway, so no big deal." The answer is.....never. And why is that? Because in this league, there is too much parity to say that any team SHOULD win a Superbowl. There will always be favorites to win, but no team SHOULD win it; which is to say, the SB win SHOULD be the goal of EVERY team, but not the line of demarcation of success for ANY team.

Take this year for example. The Patriots are being called the greatest team of all time. So, if they don't win the SB, does that mean the winner should NOT have won the SB, since the Pats SHOULD have? Or if the Pats do win it all, will their celebrations be tempered because the win was inevitable?

Of course not.

And, by all means, post a poll. It won't tell much about Mike Martz, but it will probably say quite a bit about unrealistic expectations of fans. Not that that's a bad thing, those expectations are part of the fun of being a fan.

[NyGiantz]

Haslett. He took the Saints to the playoffs with Aaron Brooks as the quarterback. To do that is a miracle in itself.

[letsgoramz]

Originally Posted by RamOfDenmark

Martz.

I'd take Mad Mike. And if we had problems between Zygmunt/Shaw and Martz I'd kick the FO out instead (what I would have preferred over running Martz out of town) and find some new guys for those positions. I don't value accountants or lawyers as much as I do football people, not in an organisation built around playing football. The only caveats with Martz as the HC is you need to have a strong GM to help supervise player evaluation and you need a strong independent DC to take care of that part of the team (Haslett would do fine). Then we'd be back on track.

Totally agree that would be a perfect scenario

[RealRam]

Originally Posted by Letsgoramz

Totally agree that would be a perfect scenario

:l Same here! I too liked this comment very much:

Originally Posted by RamOfDenmark
Martz.

I'd take Mad Mike. And if we had problems between Zygmunt/Shaw and Martz I'd kick the FO out instead (what I would have preferred over running Martz out of town) and find some new guys for those positions. I don't value accountants or lawyers as much as I do football people, not in an organisation built around playing football. The only caveats with Martz as the HC is you need to have a strong GM to help supervise player evaluation and you need a strong independent DC to take care of that part of the team (Haslett would do fine). Then we'd be back on track.

[ramsbruce]

Originally Posted by RAMFANRAIDERHATER

As good as that 1999 team was, Mike turned that great team into a 10-6 team the following year and an early exit in the playoffs.

That's not entirely fair. That year we lost Warner for 5 games, and Faulk also missed 2 games. Just wanted to add that into this whole discussion since it seems like everything else has been covered.

[yodachu]

I have to pick one of these 3? Dang, guess I will go with Martz then.