Jamalisms Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The analogies really only go so far. If you have an end goal, keep buying those players. Within a game and within a season, however, figure out what gives you the best chance to win. It's the difference between adapting and designing. As Jon said, if you hate their design when trying to run, fine. If you think they should have kept trying to run with that design and the results on hand just because you have an identity, different story and I disagree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The team had already started throwing the ball more and playing more spread before Locker got hurt. I don't think the fact they changed QBs had as much to do with the fact they could not effectively run the ball. I also think if Munchak wanted CJ cut last off season and they were running so much spread it probably rubbed Webster the wrong way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 The analogies really only go so far. If you have an end goal, keep buying those players. Within a game and within a season, however, figure out what gives you the best chance to win. It's the difference between adapting and designing. As Jon said, if you hate their design when trying to run, fine. If you think they should have kept trying to run with that design and the results on hand just because you have an identity, different story and I disagree. Like I said, I do think that Munchak and Loggains thought they were doing what gave them the best chance to win. However I do think that Loggains natural predilection is to throw the ball and this is counter to what Munchak said he wanted the team's identity to be. When Greene was healthy, there was no reason that they couldn't follow through on their supposed "identity". If Munchak and Co. truly wanted to run the ball by getting Warmack, Walker and Greene then why would Fitzpatrick be the catalyst for change? Running the ball is not dependent on Fitzpatrick. Again, if Munchak wanted this to be a spread team I don't believe Webster would have an issue with that. However your off-season needs to be consistent with your regular season. If you want to be a smash mouth offense then go be that type of offense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercalius Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 My not-so-short theory on how it went down: Tommy wanted Munch to stay, for personal/family reasons as well as continuity (potentially dealing with the pitch Ruston gave him about still believing Locker has good chance to be a franchise QB, though this isn't certain given some recent quotes from Webster) Ruston wasn't *as* sold on the idea of Munch staying, but was open to it, so long as he took a bit of Munch's control off the table (given the conflicting nature of the groceries he bought mixed with constantly changing philosophies once a season started). I think that Ruston felt if *they* surrounded Munch with a hand-picked coaching staff, this team could succeed with some more personnel moves. I think Ruston had lost most confidence in Munch's ability to surround himself with viable/competent coaches that could get the best use of Munch's stated goals to remedy the team. I think Ruston felt by picking up staff members he personally wanted, the team, and Munch's ultimate vision would become easier to attain. I think neither one wanted to outright fire Munch because of his loyalty to the franchise and not wanting to appear ruthless to longtime fans of the team, though again, I think Ruston and Tommy both knew that this plan could be a bitter pill to swallow and might end with Munch leaving. I believe the sticking point largely was Loggains - as Ruston (in my completely personal opinion) if he stuck with Munch would've went out and pursued the top available OC to groom Locker into next year. Though switching OCs three times is hardly a recipe for success, I don't think Ruston was sold on Loggains mixed with the playcalling seeming to go against the stated goals in the offseason. I think Munch was squarely in Loggains corner for continuity reasons for Jake, as well as doing decently well switching to Fitz and making something out of an offense that was largely missing a running game and had an OL that was constantly hit/miss. Personally, I believe Ruston wanting to dismiss Loggains was the straw that broke the camels back in all of this, as it directly slapped Munchak in the face of where each thought the team should go. Munch saw progress/success during a season riddled with injuries and bad luck. Ruston saw a potentially underqualified guy that wasn't fitting the vision (nor the money spent) on the plan that Munchak sold to the team during the last offseason. I think Tommy and Ruston believed that Munch would be a good figurehead for a team that got a homerun OC hire, promoted Williams to DC, and filled in the underqualified positional coaches with folks with a higher chance of success. (I think the regression of our LB's was a pretty big issue also). I think they believed the fans would buy in to such a plan, with a new offensive guru on staff, and maybe another decent FA period and high draft pick. I think ultimately, Ruston, if keeping Munch, felt like the FO had to force their hand to overly "help" him reach some of his vision, which to be fair, Munch sorta failed to prove them wrong in this aspect over three years. I further think, as any person would, this insulted Munchak by having to can most of his hand-picked staff as well as proved a bit contradictory in regards to having a third OC in three years if they really were sold on Locker being the starter in 2014. I think to make this easier to swallow, the FO offered a raise, and an extension, as anyone with common sense knows it would be damn hard to basically be a figurehead to a coaching staff that you had little to do with attaining. I think either choice that Munchak chose could've worked. With Williams as DC and someone like Turner/Kubiak as an OC - I think the fans would've been content (enough) if we had a solid draft and made a splash in free agency. I also think in their hearts they knew Munchak wasn't getting the job done, regardless of bad luck/circumstance, and that moving on was something they'd have to face one day anyway - so they put this scenario out there as such. He could stay, or he could go, but they did enough damage control to make it look like his choice either way. If he stays, Ruston builds the team largely to suit *his* vision of what Munchak has claimed he wanted to build (because Munch consistently failed to make the proper moves). If Munch leaves, he hires a coach that has a plan and sells it enough during the interview process that he believes he'll stick to it. That's my best take on how I felt it played out anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Merc I think that's exactly how it went down Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Merc I think that's exactly how it went down Agreed. I think it's the most accurate view we can take from the outside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
code Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I think it is an awesome discussion simply because we don't know. It makes for fun speculation. To me, Webster has appropriately held his cards close to the chest. We really don't know what pushed the button. In life, largely the answer is 'follow the money'. To build upon Cyrus's analogy ... Webster stocked the cabinet with CJ, Jake, Wimbley, McCourty, Griffin, Levitre ... and to a lesser extent Greene, Walker, Ropati P, Moise, Pollard and Wilson. Did we get our money's worth on CJ? (most say no) Did we get our money's worth on Kameron (all say no) Did we get our money's worth on McCourty (most say yes after this past season) Did we get our money's worth on Griffin (most say yes after this past season) Did we get our money's worth on Levitre (most would say no, but with the condition that he was not a bust, just not worth the contract) Did we get value in the draft from Jake (most would say not to date) Did we get value in the draft from Chance (most would say not to date) Did we get value in the draft from Hunter and Brown (most would say to an extent, but not to the fullest) Those are the decisions that Webster should be judged on. The only argument he can make is that the coaches didn't know how to use the groceries to make a palatable meal. Clearly, this isn't just one player (as I often lock in on QB). This is about Webster's financial and personnel decisions and I think it is clear that while he liked Munch and could work with Munch, he didn't feel that Munch and his staff put his investments to best use. Thus, he says "We will hire a coach that can build upon the foundation already put into place." The guys listed above are foundational. Large contracts. High round selections. The questions he has to be asking candidates is - "how would you get the most out of these foundational elements and what else do we need to put in place to get to 10 wins and a playoff spot?" Firing Mike Munchak was the last thing Tommy Smith and the Adams family wanted to do. But when you consider the 'mismanagement' of the groceries listed above, it was the only decision Webster could allow him to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Interestingly, I think the overall sentiment average for each of those FAs or extended players on Code's list were all deemed overpaid (CJ, McCourty, Levitre, Wimbley) or the wrong choice (Griffin/McCourty instead of Finny) from the moment they were inked to deals... and each of the draft picks was critiqued as a reach (Jake and Chance), gave up too much and should have gone defense (Hunter), or a pillow-handed workout warrior (Brown). Not a resoundingly popular choice (at the time) in the entire group. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
code Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Which goes to say that Mr. Webster better pull a bunny out of his butt or he too will be on a slow moving training out of Tommy Smith junction (hold the lettuce, add mayonnaise and three slices of cheese). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Which goes to say that Mr. Webster better pull a bunny out of his butt Is he wearing himself as a hat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.