Other than all being Rams head coaches, what do these names have in common? Sid Gillman, Bob Waterfield, Harland Svare, Ray Malavasi, John Robinson, Chuck Knox, Rich Brooks, Dick Vermeil, and now........Scott Linehan.



The answer: All coached the Rams to at least one double-digit-loss season.

Quite a list. In fact, EVERY Rams HC since Gillman (with the exception of Allen and Martz) has coached the Rams to at least one double-digit-loss season. Does that mean EVERY Rams HC since Gillman (with the exception of Allen and Martz) were poor Head Coaches?

Of course not!

Truth be told, several from that list actually had very successful careers as head coaches. Here's a short sample:

Gillman - 5 post seasons, .55 Win%
Malavasi - 3 post seasons, 1 SB, .52 Win%
Robinson - 6 post seasons, .52 Win%
Knox - 11 post seasons, .56 Win%
Vermeil - 5 post seasons, 1 Super Bowl Victory, .52 Win%

So, my point is this: To say that Linehan IS NOT a good head coach is not recognizing history. It's fair to say his career HAS NOT been a good one, but some great coaches have had just as poor or worse seasons. Is he capable of turning this team around? Why not? What's the difference between he or those other coaches?

However, there is the reasonable conclusion that Linehan's trail may lead closer to Svare/Waterfield/Brooks-ville than it does to Robinson/Knox/Vermeil-town.

But only time will tell.