mansquatch wrote:Jim, Frasier era and Zimmer era couldn't be more different on defense.
PA:
2011: 28.1 (!)
2012: 21.8 (Frasier's best year)
2013 30.0 (!!!!)
2014: 21.4 (Zimmer's first year, worst year, and still better than Frasier)
2015: 18.9
2016: 17.4
In 2016 Seattle is at 16.2. NE and BAL are at 17.3 and the Vikings are at 17.4. That is the top 4 in the NFL. DAL is #5 at 19.0 PPG. An obvious conclusion here is this: How much better would our PPG be with better offensive play?
PF:
2011: 21.3
2012: 23.7
2013: 24.4
2014: 20.3
2015: 22.8
2016: 19.4
There is no doubt the offense has gotten worse. The three worst years on the list were year's in which AP got hurt. OL woes mark all three seasons since Zimmer came here, most notably injuries. After 2015 they tried to fix it and instead more injuries piled up. It isn't lost on me that Ponder's best season was almost a full PPG better than the TB era. That year was also the 2000 yard season, so I don't think it is the QB...
Should be worth noting that AP is probably worth 2-3 PF all by himself. Fixing Blair Walsh and having AP healthy is probably enough to swing 3 losses this season to wins.
If I am going to fault Spielman it is in over drafting CP84 (although he is showing signs of that deal maybe not being AS BAD) and wasting the recent pick on Treadwell. However, on Treadwell I think there is an argument that going OL there would have not made a difference this season given recent OL trends league wide. Still we had bigger needs that WR and Spielman should have anticipated that. They've obviusly not done a good job in bringing OL talent up to NFL speed. However, they also have built a roster that is highly competitive in the NFL. I might counter the OL argument by saying they are healthy RB and non headcase Kicker away from potentially being a #1 seed in the NFC. That has merit, the Point stats support it just as they do the OL argument.
So back to Ricky. If you accept my premise then he has built a roster capable of a 13-14 win season, playing elite defense and special teams. This is why I'm against firing Spielman. It seems extremely likely that a replacement will be WORSE. 13-14 wins in cream of the crop in the NFL. Furthermore, you have to ask the opportunity cost question. (I've brought this up before.) If swapped out one of the past moves (ergo the "miss steps") would this roster be as good as it is today? That is really the question of a GM isn't it?
Basing a coaches success based upon assumed hypothetical outcomes is an interesting idea.