I don't know that I see a whole lot of differences between Saban's start to his regime and Cameron's. The difference is the side of the ball that they're willing to scrap.
You see, Saban came on and his forte is defense, obviously. What does he do? Well, he immediately sweeps away players he doesn't think fit. He knows what he likes, likes what he knows, and so you see guys like Patrick Surtain tossed immediately, you see Sam Madison phased out...our linebackers are revamped...defensive tackles revamped.....defensive ends reworked....I mean he really worked over that defense and made some unpopular moves I felt like.
But on offense, his forte isn't offense...he just took on Scott Linehan and went off his and Rick Spielman's recommendations. They even said the offense needs a lot less work than the defense, even though obviously in 2004 the defense was good and the offense was crap. I don't think Saban felt comfortable or felt like he had the know-how to really make controversial moves on the offensive side of the football.
The same is happening in 2007 just on different sides. If there's something Cam is an absolute expert on, it is offense. He knows what he likes and likes what he knows. He's tossing the parts that don't fit and re-fitting with parts that make sense to him. In the process, he makes controversial moves and doesn't really care because this is a guy that knows what he wants and needs to see on that side of the ball.
But on defense? What's he done? Basically allowed Mueller and Capers to run the show on that side. Mueller wanted Joey Porter in the worst way so he went out and got him. Secondary was awful last year, but where are teh changes to it? They've made internal changes, that's about it. The only decision they made that even came close to controversial was cutting Kevin Carter and re-signing Vonnie Holliday...but even those moves were just continuations of the patterns established by Saban. Saban had drafted Roth to eventually take over. Kevin Carter even said "Matt Roth will be the reason I retire". Re-signing Vonnie Holliday wasn't a bold move, it was a safe move. Personally I felt like they could maybe do better but you know, it's safe having ole Vonnie around.
So personally, I see the two having acted the same the issue is just that Saban revamped a defense that had a history of performing well so when it continued performing well he didn't get much credit for the serious body work he did on the thing...because the offense stayed dismal. If Cameron revamps the offense, which has a history of poor performance, he'll get a lot of credit for these bold moves because everyone will be seeing something they hadn't seen in a while....offensive competency. But what I wonder is, will the defense back-slide in the face of the one-sided attention? Could there be cracks in the defense that we don't know about that will get worse because we're not really renewing or revamping it? My main worry at this point is the secondary and how we didn't do anything about it.
In comparing the similar (somewhat) styles of Cameron and Saban you make some good points, especially regarding the secondary. But I don't think that you can factor out the element of synergy that Cameron brings and has fostered with Mueller, whom I think has done a heck of a job. Suffice it to say that dissecting this matter would require a harsh assessment of Huizenga, who not only signed off on the Saban dictatorial regime but allowed or at least turned a blind eye to Saban treating everyone like crap and significantly reducing club morale, a side issue but a disturbing one.
While Saban re-tooled the defense and Cameron the offense, as you correctly pointed out, I find myself referring to a two word litmus test that I think reduces the elemental style and efficacy differences of Saban and Cameron to the core: Bennie Anderson. Mueller and probably Capers wanted Porter, eating up 20 million in the process. They got him, but in that transaction we come face to face with an important caveat about comparing the two- Saban had carte blanche and the final word, Cameron does not in personnel matters. Maybe we should be comparing Saban the personnel chief to Mueller to be more accurate about it.
Which brings us back to Bennie Anderson: Saban, with seeming disregard to Mueller (Houck I don't know about), shoved this free agent down the organization's throat with little or no regard for Mueller's abilities as a judge of talent and his position and responsibility within the organization. And, of course, Anderson stunk and proved to be a waste of money and roster space. That's one example, I wonder how many more times Saban relied on no opinion but his own and screwed up.
I give Cameron major props for his ability to work seamlessly with Mueller and also for having the balls to stick to his guns i.e. the Ginn/Beck plan and Quinn fallout. If we're looking at this from a player evaluation perspective, I'll take RamCam over Saban in a heartbeat, but the dynamics of the organization have change dramatically such that a direct comparison between Cameron and Saban is not really addressing the totality of the situation.
Also, I have to point out that Cameron is an offensive guy who was brought in to revamp a weak offense- that's what he's doing. I don't really see how he's playing favorites with the O- he's fixing what is broken and requires help. Whereas Saban inherited a pretty good defense and even though he drafted Ronnie Brown and got Culpepper hoping for the best, he spent a lot of draft picks and money on the D. To me that smacks of favoritism more than anything CamRam have done. Again, props to Mueller.
It seemed to me that Saban was working in a vaccuum, shoving out Spielman, ignoring Mueller, and his offensive acquisitions were for the most part weak. In comparing Saban to Cameron, or more accurately Ramcam, I have no doubt that I'll take what we've got right now by a large margin over the Saban fascist regime.
