Jump to content

How does FIsher have a reputation as a revolutionary?


N/A

Recommended Posts

Is it really completely based on the Music-City-Miracle which was the special teams equivalent of a hail mary (i.e. desperation play with nothing to lose), because everything else about him is the opposite of revolutionary (ball control, run oriented, plays veterans too long because he is afraid of mistakes by young players, etc.) Or perhaps the occasional, usually silly, trick play on special teams a few times a year that he just does to make other teams account for it in practice going forward. 

 

Yet you see signs that many think he is an agent of change.  For example, today on NPR, there was a discussion on Michael Sam, and one of the guests said it took Fisher, "a revolutionary and risk taker in the NFL" (actual quote), to draft him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't think he really has this rep. Stock praise thrown out by a talking head. He's well respected int he media because he treats the media well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

,... Yet you see signs that many think he is an agent of change.  For example, today on NPR, there was a discussion on Michael Sam, and one of the guests said it took Fisher, "a revolutionary and risk taker in the NFL" (actual quote), to draft him. 

 

I think part of your answer is right there

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you hear hints of it in other media and that is the feel it seems reports about him project.  I just highlight that because I heard it today and it prompted me to pose this question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

See 9's you're supposed to ask these sorts of questions BEFORE you turn on him and demand he be relieved of his duties. Still, it's good you're finally getting around to it and I'll give this as my best response:

 

- He got 31 wins out of Vince Young

 

- after beginning 2-14 with a roster bereft of talent, he finished with a 542 winning % over 16 years with a club owned by Bud Adams, made the playoffs 6 times,was homeless for a nice chunk of it, and rarely had top notch QB'ing. 

 

I'd say those are the 2 biggest reasons but it's, of course, not just limited to just those 2 things! In a  general sense, being Powerful and Attractive goes a long way in life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

See 9's you're supposed to ask these sorts of questions BEFORE you turn on him and demand he be relieved of his duties. Still, it's good you're finally getting around to it and I'll give this as my best response:

 

- He got 31 wins out of Vince Young

 

- after beginning 2-14 with a roster bereft of talent, he finished with a 542 winning % over 16 years with a club owned by Bud Adams, made the playoffs 6 times,was homeless for a nice chunk of it, and rarely had top notch QB'ing. 

 

I'd say those are the 2 biggest reasons but it's, of course, not just limited to just those 2 things! In a  general sense, being Powerful and Attractive goes a long way in life. 

 

Yes, he was (not sure if he still is based on how his team has done so far) an above average coach. My question was on him being a revolutionary (which he clearly was not and is not - he is the opposite of that in his approach to the game) and why some in the media imply or directly label him as such. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fisher is an overachiever, that why he has this rep. The points from CTF are valid regarding, Bud, winning during the move from TX, VY, etc....

Fisher just did not capitalize when he had talent, and that's what matters. Also, his last few years he had much more control. If he felt so strongly about VY being shoved down his throat, he should have left. He also made some dumbass coaching moves which he's responsible for like Corky, Ernest Byner, etc...

He's ultimately responsible for the results, which show that he's average overall (overachieving some years and underachieving in others)...

What he does in St. Louis will be interesting, because he has all the pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fisher is an overachiever, that why he has this rep. The points from CTF are valid regarding, Bud, winning during the move from TX, VY, etc....

Fisher just did not capitalize when he had talent, and that's what matters. Also, his last few years he had much more control. If he felt so strongly about VY being shoved down his throat, he should have left. He also made some dumbass coaching moves which he's responsible for like Corky, Ernest Byner, etc...

He's ultimately responsible for the results, which show that he's average overall (overachieving some years and underachieving in others)...

What he does in St. Louis will be interesting, because he has all the pieces.

 

 

Again, above average coach - yes agreement - but what about the label of revolutionary, as in an agent of change, when it seems he is the antithesis of change when it comes to football. 

 

Perhaps since Fisher is the epitome of old ways of playing football, people label him revolutionary to be ironic, but I do not think that is the case; I think they really think he is. 

 

Perhaps it really is the Music-City-Miracle.  That makes sense I guess. The Titans were and are a small market team with little to no national exposure, so outside of fans of the Titans, that is probably what comes to most people's minds when they think of the Titans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Schematically he's far from it. He's all about conservative football. He dislikes 3 man fronts. He runs the ball to set up the run....etc.

Personnel-wise I'd agree. He seems to ignore risk (or at least not speak out against risky players Toni's GM) for football ability. Haynesworth, Pacman, Britt, Sam (not in the same category but still ensures a media circus)....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...