Teams who passed on Fassel...

[Smoot Point Really]

Greetings,

Right now, there isn't any indication that Fassel has officially been named the Head Coach of the Redskins... Some support him and most do not. I'd like to throw this "food for thought" out to those who continually bleat that Fassel isn't a good choice because other teams have passed on him.

Here are the teams, the coaches they chose, and their records:

Buffalo Bills (2004) - Mike Mularky (14-18)
Buffalo Bills (2006) - Dick Jauron (14-18)
Miami Dolphins (2005) - Nick Saban (15-17)
Miami Dolphins (2007) - Cam Cameron (1-15)
New York Jets (2006) - Eric Mangini (14-19)
Cleveland Browns (2005) - Romeo Crennel (20-28)
Pittsburgh Steelers (2007) - Mike Tomlin (10-6)
Houston Texans (2006) - Gary Kubiak (14-18)
Kansas City Chiefs (2006) - Herman Edwards (13-19)
Oakland Raiders (2004) - Norv Turner (9-23)
Oakland Raiders (2006) - Art Shell (2-14)
Oakland Raiders (2007) - Lane Kiffin (4-12)
San Diego Chargers (2007) - Norv Turner (11-5)
Dallas Cowboys (2007) - Wade Phillips (13-3)
Chicago Bears (2004) - Lovie Smith (38-30)
Detroit Lions (2006) - Rod Marinelli (10-22)
Green Bay Packers (2006) - Mike McCarthy (22-12)
Minnesota Vikings (2006) - Brad Childress (14-18)
Atlanta Falcons (2004) - Jim Mora Jr (26-22)
Atlanta Falcons (2007) - Bobby Petrino (3-10)
New Orleans Saints (2006) - Sean Payton (17-15)
Arizona Cardinals (2004) - Dennis Green (16-32)
Arizona Cardinals (2007) - Ken Whisenhunt (8-8)
Saint Louis Rams (2006) - Scott Linehan (11-21)
San Francisco 49ers (2005) - Mike Nolan (16-32)

So basically, these teams passed up on a guy who had a winning record for 7 seasons at NY Giants and chose 25 guys (not all of them bad, of course) with a collective record (including the good records for guys who inherited good teams like Cowboys, Steelers and Chargers) of: 335-437 (.434 winning percentage).

Remember, Fassel inherited a team that went 11-21 the previous two seasons. So I ask... Why hasn't Jim Fassel been selected before today? Are you really going to credit all the teams that passed on him for choosing wisely? Fassel deserves a chance.

BTW, I didn't include Joe Gibbs... :) It would've been unthinkable for me to put him in the same category.

[milliondollarslim]

Excellent post. This actually covers new ground. Excellent.

[ntotoro]

Because they haven't yet discovered THE POWER OF SUPERFASSEL!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[tenken627]

Buffalo Bills (2004) - Mike Mularky (14-18) Bleh
Buffalo Bills (2006) - Dick Jauron (14-18) Bleh
Miami Dolphins (2005) - Nick Saban (15-17) Bleh
Miami Dolphins (2007) - Cam Cameron (1-15) Bleh
New York Jets (2006) - Eric Mangini (14-19) Bleh
Cleveland Browns (2005) - Romeo Crennel (20-28) Bleh
Pittsburgh Steelers (2007) - Mike Tomlin (10-6) Bleh
Houston Texans (2006) - Gary Kubiak (14-18) Bleh
Kansas City Chiefs (2006) - Herman Edwards (13-19) Bleh
Oakland Raiders (2004) - Norv Turner (9-23) Bleh
Oakland Raiders (2006) - Art Shell (2-14) Bleh
Oakland Raiders (2007) - Lane Kiffin (4-12) Bleh
San Diego Chargers (2007) - Norv Turner (11-5) Bleh
Dallas Cowboys (2007) - Wade Phillips (13-3) Bleh
Chicago Bears (2004) - Lovie Smith (38-30) Bleh
Detroit Lions (2006) - Rod Marinelli (10-22) Bleh
Green Bay Packers (2006) - Mike McCarthy (22-12) Bleh
Minnesota Vikings (2006) - Brad Childress (14-18) Bleh
Atlanta Falcons (2004) - Jim Mora Jr (26-22) Bleh
Atlanta Falcons (2007) - Bobby Petrino (3-10) Bleh
New Orleans Saints (2006) - Sean Payton (17-15) Bleh
Arizona Cardinals (2004) - Dennis Green (16-32) Bleh
Arizona Cardinals (2007) - Ken Whisenhunt (8-8) Bleh
Saint Louis Rams (2006) - Scott Linehan (11-21) Bleh
San Francisco 49ers (2005) - Mike Nolan (16-32) Bleh

Washington Redskins (2008) - Jim Fassel Bleh

All are BLEH, NO ONE is good enough to coach the ALMIGHTY REDSKINS :D

[MEANDWARF]

Now I really feel sick.

[Smoot Point Really]

Excellent post. This actually covers new ground. Excellent.

Yeah, a lot of people say KC wouldn't "touch him with a 10 foot pole" as OC even though they did interview him, but I do hear no 10 foot poles were involved in the interview process. However, KC chose Herman Edwards to follow up Dick Vermiel... Herman Edwards is one of the most notoriously bad coaches in NFL history. We're supposed to think that ownership groups like that are smarter than Dan Snyder? Suddenly, Free Agents and potential coaches will flock to Kansas City because we decided to go with Jim Fassel (possibly) and they wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole?

[superjuan]

Greetings,

Right now, there isn't any indication that Fassel has officially been named the Head Coach of the Redskins... Some support him and most do not. I'd like to throw this "food for thought" out to those who continually bleat that Fassel isn't a good choice because other teams have passed on him.

Here are the teams, the coaches they chose, and their records:

Buffalo Bills (2004) - Mike Mularky (14-18)
Buffalo Bills (2006) - Dick Jauron (14-18)
Miami Dolphins (2005) - Nick Saban (15-17)
Miami Dolphins (2007) - Cam Cameron (1-15)
New York Jets (2006) - Eric Mangini (14-19)
Cleveland Browns (2005) - Romeo Crennel (20-28)
Pittsburgh Steelers (2007) - Mike Tomlin (10-6)
Houston Texans (2006) - Gary Kubiak (14-18)
Kansas City Chiefs (2006) - Herman Edwards (13-19)
Oakland Raiders (2004) - Norv Turner (9-23)
Oakland Raiders (2006) - Art Shell (2-14)
Oakland Raiders (2007) - Lane Kiffin (4-12)
San Diego Chargers (2007) - Norv Turner (11-5)
Dallas Cowboys (2007) - Wade Phillips (13-3)
Chicago Bears (2004) - Lovie Smith (38-30)
Detroit Lions (2006) - Rod Marinelli (10-22)
Green Bay Packers (2006) - Mike McCarthy (22-12)
Minnesota Vikings (2006) - Brad Childress (14-18)
Atlanta Falcons (2004) - Jim Mora Jr (26-22)
Atlanta Falcons (2007) - Bobby Petrino (3-10)
New Orleans Saints (2006) - Sean Payton (17-15)
Arizona Cardinals (2004) - Dennis Green (16-32)
Arizona Cardinals (2007) - Ken Whisenhunt (8-8)
Saint Louis Rams (2006) - Scott Linehan (11-21)
San Francisco 49ers (2005) - Mike Nolan (16-32)

So basically, these teams passed up on a guy who had a winning record for 7 seasons at NY Giants and chose 25 guys (not all of them bad, of course) with a collective record (including the good records for guys who inherited good teams like Cowboys, Steelers and Chargers) of: 335-437 (.434 winning percentage).

Remember, Fassel inherited a team that went 11-21 the previous two seasons. So I ask... Why hasn't Jim Fassel been selected before today? Are you really going to credit all the teams that passed on him for choosing wisely? Fassel deserves a chance.

BTW, I didn't include Joe Gibbs... :) It would've been unthinkable for me to put him in the same category.

So your argument is that a bunch of teams (except for Pittsburgh, Green Bay and maybe New Orleans and Atlanta with Mora Jr) made bad coaching decisions so therefore Fassel deserves a chance?

[1972FAN]

Good research, kudos!

[Smoot Point Really]

All are BLEH, NO ONE is good enough to coach the ALMIGHTY REDSKINS :D

I said that I thought Snyder might decide to postpone the selection of a HC until after Super Bowl 43 (2009), so as not to take away from the game. Would be funny if they just went with the current staff and waited for Cowher to decide he wants to coach again.

[Smoot Point Really]

So your argument is that a bunch of teams (except for Pittsburgh, Green Bay and maybe New Orleans) made bad coaching decisions so therefore Fassel deserves a chance?

No, the point is that those who say Fassel isn't a good candidate predominantly on the basis that nobody has decided to name him HC in the last four years probably shouldn't put so much stock in that argument.

[pR0JEkT 21]

We should grab Mr. D Green, no, no, not Darrell Green, I mean Dennis Green! :D

[GaryGreenMonk]

did you really just spin that as somehow good for Fassel???

[Kilmer]

This is the best post I have read today. Thank you.

[ntotoro]

All those teams passed on me, too.

By that logic, I'd be a no-brainer of a hire.

[Dan T.]

So your argument is that a bunch of teams (except for Pittsburgh, Green Bay and maybe New Orleans and Atlanta with Mora Jr) made bad coaching decisions so therefore Fassel deserves a chance?

Who knows if Fassel was even a head coaching candidate during that whole time? Was he seeking a head coaching position during after New York?

Any NFL coaching job chews the hell out of a man. We see it all the time that coaches have to bail out before they get totally burned out. Fassel had 7 years in the NYC meat grinder.

He may have been happy not being a head coach for a long span after he left there. I honestly don't know. But that might be one reason he wasn't hired sooner - he simply didn't answer the phone when it rang

BTW, thanks for the post, Smoot Point Really. Refreshing to see a thread based on some substance. Those seem to be getting rarer around here.

[skinstzar]

Greetings,

Right now, there isn't any indication that Fassel has officially been named the Head Coach of the Redskins... Some support him and most do not. I'd like to throw this "food for thought" out to those who continually bleat that Fassel isn't a good choice because other teams have passed on him.

Here are the teams, the coaches they chose, and their records:

Buffalo Bills (2004) - Mike Mularky (14-18)
Buffalo Bills (2006) - Dick Jauron (14-18)
Miami Dolphins (2005) - Nick Saban (15-17)
Miami Dolphins (2007) - Cam Cameron (1-15)
New York Jets (2006) - Eric Mangini (14-19)
Cleveland Browns (2005) - Romeo Crennel (20-28)
Pittsburgh Steelers (2007) - Mike Tomlin (10-6)
Houston Texans (2006) - Gary Kubiak (14-18)
Kansas City Chiefs (2006) - Herman Edwards (13-19)
Oakland Raiders (2004) - Norv Turner (9-23)
Oakland Raiders (2006) - Art Shell (2-14)
Oakland Raiders (2007) - Lane Kiffin (4-12)
San Diego Chargers (2007) - Norv Turner (11-5)
Dallas Cowboys (2007) - Wade Phillips (13-3)
Chicago Bears (2004) - Lovie Smith (38-30)
Detroit Lions (2006) - Rod Marinelli (10-22)
Green Bay Packers (2006) - Mike McCarthy (22-12)
Minnesota Vikings (2006) - Brad Childress (14-18)
Atlanta Falcons (2004) - Jim Mora Jr (26-22)
Atlanta Falcons (2007) - Bobby Petrino (3-10)
New Orleans Saints (2006) - Sean Payton (17-15)
Arizona Cardinals (2004) - Dennis Green (16-32)
Arizona Cardinals (2007) - Ken Whisenhunt (8-8)
Saint Louis Rams (2006) - Scott Linehan (11-21)
San Francisco 49ers (2005) - Mike Nolan (16-32)

So basically, these teams passed up on a guy who had a winning record for 7 seasons at NY Giants and chose 25 guys (not all of them bad, of course) with a collective record (including the good records for guys who inherited good teams like Cowboys, Steelers and Chargers) of: 335-437 (.434 winning percentage).

Remember, Fassel inherited a team that went 11-21 the previous two seasons. So I ask... Why hasn't Jim Fassel been selected before today? Are you really going to credit all the teams that passed on him for choosing wisely? Fassel deserves a chance.

BTW, I didn't include Joe Gibbs... :) It would've been unthinkable for me to put him in the same category.


58-53-1 with 2-3 in the playoffs is your winning record you speak of? The fact is that some of the teams you listed took chances and some didn't pan out. Some did though. Look at a Lovie Smith. Let's also throw out the coaches making the jump from college. Only because it looks like we aren't going in that direction. Just for ****s and giggles I added up the records of the coaches in your list that are retreads and their combined record is 67-109

I guess I don't have to tell you that the winning percentage was better amongst the first time candidates who came from assistan postions.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think the jury is still out on:

Tomlin (inherited a good team with a franchise quarterback already in place)
McCarthy (how good would he be if Brett Favre had retired)
Payton (Not sure that guy is really viable... One 10-6 year and another 8-8 year doesn't mean a whole lot)
Crennel (let's see what the Brownies do the next couple years)
Mangini (probably give him a few years, he is pretty young)

Outside of this group above, Lovie Smith, Wade Phillips and Norv Turner (while at SD)... You could make a good argument that those teams probably chose poorly and you can't really hold it against Fassel that other teams made those decisions.

[bluekswing]

Actually I would say your post makes the case for those people saying that Fassel shouldn't get the job because he was passed over by so many teams. Fassel has made no secret about wanting to be a HC again. I remember him interviewing for the Texan job. Those were 25 opportunities where teams passed him by or didn't even consider him. Doesn't that say something about how possibly bad he is as a candidate?

[skinstzar]

If I gave you a choice between two restaurants and said try the veal based on what you know how which would you chose. Restaurant number one is one that your buddy ate at last week and said it wasn't anything to right home about. Restaurant number two is one that you read about in the paper. The chef is hot, up and coming and has a lot to bring to the table. Which one would chose. The moral is if you chose the unknown commodity it can either fail or succeed. If you chose the proven item your probably going to get the same result, nothing more maybe nothing less.

[2006Skins]

So basically, these teams passed up on a guy who had a winning record for 7 seasons at NY Giants and chose 25 guys (not all of them bad, of course) with a collective record (including the good records for guys who inherited good teams like Cowboys, Steelers and Chargers) of: 335-437 (.434 winning percentage).


Fassel did not have a winning record in 7 seasons. He coached 7 seasons, and had 3 winning seasons as head coach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fassel

Nothing against the guy, personally. But I don't believe we should hire a guy that has been turned down for OC for the Chefs. It doesn't make sense. I could see hiring him as OC, which I was all for. But the guy just got fired as OC. Granted the situation in Baltimore was unjust, but that's not a move you make regardless of how much you (Danny and Vinny aka Snyderrato) like him personally.

All of this regardless, I will continue to root and support this team no matter who they hire.

[Fetus]

i see 6 winning records on the out of what 25

he could help us

[Smoot Point Really]

58-53-1 with 2-3 in the playoffs is your winning record you speak of? The fact is that some of the teams you listed took chances and some didn't pan out. Some did though. Look at a Lovie Smith. Let's also throw out the coaches making the jump from college. Only because it looks like we aren't going in that direction. Just for ****s and giggles I added up the records of the coaches in your list that are retreads and their combined record is 67-109

I guess I don't have to tell you that the winning percentage was better amongst the first time candidates who came from assistan postions.

I mainly posted this to dispel the notion that just because other teams went in a different direction than Fassel doesn't mean they actually made a good choice.

Let's look at "retread" hires on the teams that didn't need a major overhaul: Wade Phillips and Norv Turner... I don't believe we need a major overhaul (and obviously neither does Dan Snyder)... All the other situations (including young coaches who weren't retreads) were pretty much rebuild situations outside of the Steelers. Many of these teams failed though repeatedly and replaced even the coaches they hired in that time, and probably will replace the current ones they have now in the near future.

BTW, "taking chances" hasn't really been Daniel Snyder's Modus Operandi... Most Free Agent pickups are basically players who have proven they can operate on the NFL level and you can't really say Schottenheimer, Spurrier and Gibbs were "taking chances"... I'm not saying this is good or bad (or disagreeing with you in any way), just pointing it out.

[gidoni13]

I think the point you're missing is that it's not just as if these teams all "passed" on Fassel; I can't even remember his name being brought up by any team as even under consideration for any HC job. Your obvious results don't prove anything; only that bad teams fire coaches and consequently have to hire new ones, which more times than not aren't given enough of chance to turn a team around, therefore leaving them with bad records during that brief period. Your argument also implies that every other team doesn't know what they're doing nearly as well as Snyder/Cerrato, or else they would surely have hired (or at least considered) Fassel over all of these other bums, right?

[Smoot Point Really]

Actually I would say your post makes the case for those people saying that Fassel shouldn't get the job because he was passed over by so many teams. Fassel has made no secret about wanting to be a HC again. I remember him interviewing for the Texan job. Those were 25 opportunities where teams passed him by or didn't even consider him. Doesn't that say something about how possibly bad he is as a candidate?

I'm saying he was passed over by a bunch of teams that made bad decisions... You can't use this statistic as evidence that he is a bad coach. :) I'm not saying Fassel himself is good or bad, I'm merely saying you have to ignore what other teams did in light of the bad choices they made. Who knows? Fassel may have done far better than any of those who were chosen... He certainly did a great job in NY.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think the point you're missing is that it's not just as if these teams all "passed" on Fassel; I can't even remember his name being brought up by any team as even under consideration for any HC job. Your obvious results don't prove anything; only that bad teams fire coaches and consequently have to hire new ones, which more times than not aren't given enough of chance to turn a team around, therefore leaving them with bad records during that brief period. Your argument also implies that every other team doesn't know what they're doing nearly as well as Snyder/Cerrato, or else they would surely have hired (or at least considered) Fassel over all of these other bums, right?

I know of 5 teams who considered him (there may have been more)... Bills, Raiders, Bears, Cardinals and Redskins...

Those who use this as "evidence" he is a bad choice need to understand that it is illogical to imply Fassel is a bad coach because other teams chose other coaches. Inevitably, many of their own choices were bad. They might have done far better with Fassel.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

I wouldn't be so upset if Redskins One is going to AZ to pick up Dennis Green for an interview. That would be better than Fassel.

[Smoot Point Really]

Fassel did not have a winning record in 7 seasons. He coached 7 seasons, and had 3 winning seasons as head coach.

Err... he went 58-53-1... Technically, that is a winning record.

[John451]

Because they haven't yet discovered THE POWER OF SUPERFASSEL!!!!!!!!!!!!111


You have to be kidding!!!!! Superfassel!!!!! :laugh:

[Smoot Point Really]

I wouldn't be so upset if Redskins One is going to AZ to pick up Dennis Green for an interview. That would be better than Fassel.

Dennis Green is 16-32 at Arizona... The guys who followed him (Whisenhunt and Grimm) took the same team to 8-8... Don't you think Fassel would be better? BTW, the year after Fassel's last, Coughlin took that team to 6-10.

[TankRizzo]

So basically, these teams passed up on a guy who had a winning record



I love how you're trying to spin this into a good thing. They passed on this "winner" for other options, yeah....that's a SHINING reason as to why we should hire him! :laugh:


Look, these are teams with real life NFL GMs who actually have a clue how to hire an NFL head coach, not some millionaire and his NFL cast away lackey....who also has something in common with Fassel....NOBODY WANTS CERATTO EITHER.

[SonnyandSam]

Excellent post with new information for a change instead of the constant whining and drivel we have been subjected to for 2 weeks. I'm not a Fassel fan either, but seeing who WAS hired and how they have done is encouraging....maybe I am being too hard on him.

Good stuff. Thanks! :applause:

[pR0JEkT 21]

I love how you're trying to spin this into a good thing. They passed on this "winner" for other options, yeah....that's a SHINING reason as to why we should hire him! :laugh:


Look, these are teams with real life NFL GMs who actually have a clue how to hire an NFL head coach, not some millionaire and his NFL cast away lackey....who also has something in common with Fassel....NOBODY WANTS CERATTO EITHER. Looking at your sig really makes me not WANT to have him here as the Redskin coach, that just depresses me, we need "MOOCH"!

[Peregrine]

Better question: Did the Cowboys, Saints, Packers, Steelers or Chargers even consider Fassil during their HC searches? Did the good teams even consider him?

[SonnyandSam]

Better question: Did the Cowboys, Saints, Packers, Steelers or Chargers even consider Fassil during their HC searches? Did the good teams even consider him?

So when did we become a "good" team? The Saints are NOT a good team...they had an incredibly EASY schedule for Payton's first year.

Would you have hired Phillips or Norv? So that leaves Tomlin and McCarthy. Tomlin walked into a very talented team. Only McCarthy really turned a team around.

ONE coach out of 25. I'd say maybe someone should have tried Fassel.

[fansince62]

Greetings,

Right now, there isn't any indication that Fassel has officially been named the Head Coach of the Redskins... Some support him and most do not. I'd like to throw this "food for thought" out to those who continually bleat that Fassel isn't a good choice because other teams have passed on him.

Here are the teams, the coaches they chose, and their records:

Buffalo Bills (2004) - Mike Mularky (14-18)
Buffalo Bills (2006) - Dick Jauron (14-18)
Miami Dolphins (2005) - Nick Saban (15-17)
Miami Dolphins (2007) - Cam Cameron (1-15)
New York Jets (2006) - Eric Mangini (14-19)
Cleveland Browns (2005) - Romeo Crennel (20-28)
Pittsburgh Steelers (2007) - Mike Tomlin (10-6)
Houston Texans (2006) - Gary Kubiak (14-18)
Kansas City Chiefs (2006) - Herman Edwards (13-19)
Oakland Raiders (2004) - Norv Turner (9-23)
Oakland Raiders (2006) - Art Shell (2-14)
Oakland Raiders (2007) - Lane Kiffin (4-12)
San Diego Chargers (2007) - Norv Turner (11-5)
Dallas Cowboys (2007) - Wade Phillips (13-3)
Chicago Bears (2004) - Lovie Smith (38-30)
Detroit Lions (2006) - Rod Marinelli (10-22)
Green Bay Packers (2006) - Mike McCarthy (22-12)
Minnesota Vikings (2006) - Brad Childress (14-18)
Atlanta Falcons (2004) - Jim Mora Jr (26-22)
Atlanta Falcons (2007) - Bobby Petrino (3-10)
New Orleans Saints (2006) - Sean Payton (17-15)
Arizona Cardinals (2004) - Dennis Green (16-32)
Arizona Cardinals (2007) - Ken Whisenhunt (8-8)
Saint Louis Rams (2006) - Scott Linehan (11-21)
San Francisco 49ers (2005) - Mike Nolan (16-32)

So basically, these teams passed up on a guy who had a winning record for 7 seasons at NY Giants and chose 25 guys (not all of them bad, of course) with a collective record (including the good records for guys who inherited good teams like Cowboys, Steelers and Chargers) of: 335-437 (.434 winning percentage).

Remember, Fassel inherited a team that went 11-21 the previous two seasons. So I ask... Why hasn't Jim Fassel been selected before today? Are you really going to credit all the teams that passed on him for choosing wisely? Fassel deserves a chance.

BTW, I didn't include Joe Gibbs... :) It would've been unthinkable for me to put him in the same category.

ypu aqren't serious are you? what kind of logic is this?

those teams chose coaches based on their records, quite obviously, before being hired. you are looking at their records AFTER being hired.

I have observed a whole slew of your posts where you have glossed over Fassell's record with generalizations that mask the deeper details. if you want to be the white knight...at least make an effort that isn't insulting to those of us who take the few seconds required to think about the puffballs you are throwing up against the wall.....none of which have stuck so far.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Why did they pass? Retread Retread Retread. Only 1 year with any playoff success. But, no, he's a great choice.

[angel2]

Greetings,

So basically, these teams passed up on a guy who had a winning record for 7 seasons at NY Giants and chose 25 guys (not all of them bad, of course) with a collective record (including the good records for guys who inherited good teams like Cowboys, Steelers and Chargers) of: 335-437 (.434 winning percentage).

Remember, Fassel inherited a team that went 11-21 the previous two seasons. So I ask... Why hasn't Jim Fassel been selected before today? Are you really going to credit all the teams that passed on him for choosing wisely? Fassel deserves a chance.

BTW, I didn't include Joe Gibbs... :) It would've been unthinkable for me to put him in the same category.





Most of the teams on your list were in the same predictament that the Skins were in prior to Joe Gibbs returning to the Redskins. What most of you have not mentioned is that Joe promised to make the team better at every position. He did that. He didn't say he was going to take us to the SB. So what he did for this team is made it competitive.

The teams on your list have or had bad front offices that made bad selections from the draft.

The knock on Jim Fassel is that he is a "me" type coach whose mantra is do it my way or else. This doesn't set well with most players in this league. The Giants' players lost faith in Jim Fassel's coaching abilities and Jim's expectations of them. The players began closing him out.

[Forever21]

This is so out of hand now it's actually laughable. These 'stats' have nothing to do with why we should or should not hire Fassel.

[Stew]

Damn you and your logical thinking... you make a good point though, but i still dont like Snyder.

[Romberjo]

New hires generally: 335-437 (.434 winning percentage).


Just for ****s and giggles I added up the records of the coaches in your list that are retreads and their combined record is 67-109

I guess I don't have to tell you that the winning percentage was better amongst the first time candidates who came from assistan postions.

The 268-328 record of the non-retreads is .450 rather than .434.

[Backpack3r]

You can probably add our teams name to that list next year OP if Fassel is our coach, so your list doesnt really prove anything

[Truant]

So all those teams, who are looking out for their best interests, they ALL had a look at Fassel and went in a different direction?

He was turned down that many times?

I don't feel better knowing that he was an even greater reject than I believed before.

[mdales22]

We should grab Mr. D Green, no, no, not Darrell Green, I mean Dennis Green! :D SNYDER IS WHO WE THOUGHT HE IS!

[communion5]

it means nothing, save for the steelers, all those teams suck, who's to say they know what THEY are doing, i hate to say this cause its being said all over the place, but....
"HEY CALM DOWN, THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO, IF YOU LIKE THE REDSKINS, GET USED TO IT.....THIS IS YOUR F'N COACH."

AND I DONT KNOW WHY I USED ALL CAPS so...........your making me crazy, lets talk about the draft, or our players.

[fansince62]

So all those teams, who are looking out for their best interests, they ALL had a look at Fassel and went in a different direction?

He was turned down that many times?

I don't feel better knowing that he was an even greater reject than I believed before.

sorry...it shouldn't have...but your post made me laugh! you're right.

[fansince62]

it means nothing, save for the steelers, all those teams suck, who's to say they know what THEY are doing, i hate to say this cause its being said all over the place, but....
"HEY CALM DOWN, THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO, IF YOU LIKE THE REDSKINS, GET USED TO IT.....THIS IS YOUR F'N COACH."

AND I DONT KNOW WHY I USED ALL CAPS so...........your making me crazy, lets talk about the draft, or our players.

we don't have to like the coach one iota. go back and read old ES threads.....from Norval on there have ALWAYS been combustible/loving threads on our coaches.

[styx491]

Because they haven't yet discovered THE POWER OF SUPERFASSEL!!!!!!!!!!!!111

:rubeyes:


:excited::excited::excited:



But seriously, new information = good information. Those are interesting numbers to know.

[Capt Rich Fla]

It's weird. When I heard about all this BS going down I couldn't wait to get to the computer and root for Mooch, but now that I know this circus is about to reach new levels, I'm just sinking into some kind of depression. I don't have the vemon I had last week. I'm just wore out over the whole damned thing.

[Seabee1973]

58-53-1 with 2-3 in the playoffs is your winning record you speak of? The fact is that some of the teams you listed took chances and some didn't pan out. Some did though. Look at a Lovie Smith. Let's also throw out the coaches making the jump from college. Only because it looks like we aren't going in that direction. Just for ****s and giggles I added up the records of the coaches in your list that are retreads and their combined record is 67-109

I guess I don't have to tell you that the winning percentage was better amongst the first time candidates who came from assistan postions.but if you look at the big picture a retread coach has won the last 7 of the last 8 something like that.
The last first time head coiach to win a superbowl with the team he started out with as a hot Coordinater was Bill Cowher. took him what 14 years to win it?

The last one before that to win a super bowl was green bay in 96 with Homgren

[Smoot Point Really]

ypu aqren't serious are you? what kind of logic is this?

Obviously, you are smarter than me... Allow me to argue with you anyway...


those teams chose coaches based on their records, quite obviously, before being hired. you are looking at their records AFTER being hired.

What does that matter? Some coaches inherited good teams and others inherited bad teams... The entire point is that you can't use the fact that some teams weren't as interested in interviewing Fassel for the position of HC as others, and the fact that he didn't get other HC jobs as the basis for your argument that he is a bad coach.

You see? People who think he isn't qualified have really overstated this argument as if it really mattered. Others have pointed to the Ravens job, which is a better argument, but also refutable. Others point to his age, which is also a consideration. However, to say the man sucks because other teams passed on him is pretty dim considering the poor decisions other teams have made.

His 7 years at NY pretty much speak for themselves. He was a quality coach and should've been given an opportunity. Whether or not it should be here is for other threads (there are plenty of those).


I have observed a whole slew of your posts where you have glossed over Fassell's record with generalizations that mask the deeper details. if you want to be the white knight...at least make an effort that isn't insulting to those of us who take the few seconds required to think about the puffballs you are throwing up against the wall.....none of which have stuck so far.

His record is 58-53-1 (.518) as a Head Coach... He went to the Super Bowl... In his first 6 years he took a team that won 11 games total over the previous two seasons to a 54-41-1 record (.563)... The Super Bowl team was was 7-4 with 5 games out and he declared to his team and the media that they were going to make the playoffs (after they lost back to back to Detroit and St. Louis) and they won 7 games straight to make it to the big game. BTW, Philadelphia was 11-5 that year and the Giants beat them twice.

What are these "deeper details" that I'm masking? These aren't generalizations... I'm just stating the facts as they are. You have people who continually harp on the fact Jim Fassel was passed over by other teams and that has nothing to do with whether or not he was a good coach. It's illogical to try to make that connection.

[fansince62]

What are these "deeper details" that I'm masking? These aren't generalizations... I'm just stating the facts as they are. You have people who continually harp on the fact Jim Fassel was passed over by other teams and that has nothing to do with whether or not he was a good coach. It's illogical to try to make that connection.

1) He was blown out in the SB.......that loss was in large part a coaching debacle. He was outcaoched by Billick! let us not forget. :laugh:

2) He had 3 wining seasons in seven.

4) The season he did go to the SB, if you recall, the NFC East was horrible as was the NFC.

5) 5 games above .500 is nothing to get excited about.

6) It's not that capturing the positives is a bad thing. You just have a bad habit of glossing over all the detractors. It's not an honest conversation.

[Smoot Point Really]

Why did they pass? Retread Retread Retread. Only 1 year with any playoff success. But, no, he's a great choice.

Retread? A guy gets one shot and goes 7 years with a Super Bowl appearance and a winning record? One of only two coaches in the last 30+ years to leave with a winning record?

Look, I think Dennis Green and Steve Mariucci can be classified as "retreads"... They've been more than 1 stop and had success one place and no success another. Herman Edwards is a retread... He sucks everywhere he goes. Norv Turner is a retread...

Jim Fassel is more like Wade Phillips... Not an exciting hire, but he definitely is a successful coach.

[skinstzar]

I mainly posted this to dispel the notion that just because other teams went in a different direction than Fassel doesn't mean they actually made a good choice.

Let's look at "retread" hires on the teams that didn't need a major overhaul: Wade Phillips and Norv Turner... I don't believe we need a major overhaul (and obviously neither does Dan Snyder)... All the other situations (including young coaches who weren't retreads) were pretty much rebuild situations outside of the Steelers. Many of these teams failed though repeatedly and replaced even the coaches they hired in that time, and probably will replace the current ones they have now in the near future.

BTW, "taking chances" hasn't really been Daniel Snyder's Modus Operandi... Most Free Agent pickups are basically players who have proven they can operate on the NFL level and you can't really say Schottenheimer, Spurrier and Gibbs were "taking chances"... I'm not saying this is good or bad (or disagreeing with you in any way), just pointing it out.

I think where we differ is in regards to what the skins need. I actually think they need an overhaul, not because of lack of talent but because of age, salary cap and overhaul personnel fit with new staff. I think the next coach is going to have to overhaul which I don't think Fassel would do as well as Meeks.

[Smoot Point Really]

1) He was blown out in the SB.......that loss was in large part a coaching debacle. He was outcaoched by Billick! let us not forget. :laugh:

2) He had 3 wining seasons in seven.

4) The season he did go to the SB, if you recall, the NFC East was horrible as was the NFC.

5) 5 games above .500 is nothing to get excited about.

6) It's not that capturing the positives is a bad thing. You just have a bad habit of glossing over all the detractors. It's not an honest conversation.


1) When is the last time we made a Super Bowl around here? They got blown out because Kerry Collins threw 4 INTs, the Giants fumbled another time, and they let Jermain Lewis return a punt for a TD. It doesn't reflect poorly on the coach if you make it to the Super Bowl and lose. You really are much smarter than me. You also are much smarter than the NFL, because they named him Coach of the Year that year.

2) Three winning seasons in 7, but only 1 season that was an absolute disaster. They went 7-9 twice... They started his final season 4-4, but 7 starters went down and they lost the last 8 games of the season... Not sure how you can really blame this on him completely. I don't know if you know this, but we've had a better record than 7-9 only 7 times since 1992... We've won 8 games only twice with coaches not named Joe since 1992 (4 times total)... Jim Fassel look better to you now?

3) FYI, there is a number between 2 and 4...

4) The year they went to the Super Bowl, the Eagles were 11-5... You are really wrong here. Minnesota was 11-5 (Dante Culpeper threw 33 TDs), Tampa Bay was 10-6 (They won the Super Bowl two years later with pretty much the same personnel, if you remember), New Orleans Saints were 10-6, Saint Louis Rams were 10-6 (and scored 540 points that year, only 49 fewer than the Patriots this year)... That was a VERY strong year for the NFC.

5) Again, 5 games above .500 includes the disaster that was 2003... At 4-8 he was informed he wouldn't be coming back the next season, but he stuck around and finished the season even though the team was in shambles due to injury. It would be 9 games above .500 if they had just gone 8-8...

BTW, did you look at the list of coaches I started this thread with? How many of them would still be coaching if they had taken their teams to 5 games over 500? Or won NFL coach of the year...

6) I'm not accentuating positives... I'm talking about other teams who probably could've used Jim Fassel and went in another direction. I'm talking about people who are lemmings and merely repeat mantras about how Fassel sucks because nobody is interviewing him for other positions, but without really thinking about whether or not it's pertinent information.

BTW, Gregg Williams is worth a shot (would you call him retread?), but nobody was knocking down his door...

[skinstzar]

Retread? A guy gets one shot and goes 7 years with a Super Bowl appearance and a winning record? One of only two coaches in the last 30+ years to leave with a winning record?

Look, I think Dennis Green and Steve Mariucci can be classified as "retreads"... They've been more than 1 stop and had success one place and no success another. Herman Edwards is a retread... He sucks everywhere he goes. Norv Turner is a retread...

Jim Fassel is more like Wade Phillips... Not an exciting hire, but he definitely is a successful coach.


Including the playoffs he has a 61-58-1 record. While it is above 500 I would hardly call it winning. We know what we are going to get with Jim Fassel, it is right there in front of us. If we hire Meeks we could get someone in the Tony Dungy mold. I'd like to take that chance.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think where we differ is in regards to what the skins need. I actually think they need an overhaul, not because of lack of talent but because of age, salary cap and overhaul personnel fit with new staff. I think the next coach is going to have to overhaul which I don't think Fassel would do as well as Meeks.

It's a fair argument... An opinion that isn't really debatable... I will say that he did successfully turn around a Giants team that Dan Reeves had turned into a 5-11 team followed by a 6-10 team the two seasons prior to Fassel. In essence, he did help rebuild that team (with help from George Young and Ernie Accorsi, of course).

However, it's understandable if people have their preferences. I just don't get the hyper-vitriol that surfaces whenever Jim Fassel is mentioned.

[fansince62]

1) When is the last time we made a Super Bowl around here? They got blown out because Kerry Collins threw 4 INTs, the Giants fumbled another time, and they let Jermain Lewis return a punt for a TD. It doesn't reflect poorly on the coach if you make it to the Super Bowl and lose. You really are much smarter than me. You also are much smarter than the NFL, because they named him Coach of the Year that year.

2) Three winning seasons in 7, but only 1 season that was an absolute disaster. They went 7-9 twice... They started his final season 4-4, but 7 starters went down and they lost the last 8 games of the season... Not sure how you can really blame this on him completely. I don't know if you know this, but we've had a better record than 7-9 only 7 times since 1992... We've won 8 games only twice with coaches not named Joe since 1992 (4 times total)... Jim Fassel look better to you now?

3) FYI, there is a number between 2 and 4...

4) The year they went to the Super Bowl, the Eagles were 11-5... You are really wrong here. Minnesota was 11-5 (Dante Culpeper threw 33 TDs), Tampa Bay was 10-6 (They won the Super Bowl two years later with pretty much the same personnel, if you remember), New Orleans Saints were 10-6, Saint Louis Rams were 10-6 (and scored 540 points that year, only 49 fewer than the Patriots this year)... That was a VERY strong year for the NFC.

5) Again, 5 games above .500 includes the disaster that was 2003... At 4-8 he was informed he wouldn't be coming back the next season, but he stuck around and finished the season even though the team was in shambles due to injury. It would be 9 games above .500 if they had just gone 8-8...

BTW, did you look at the list of coaches I started this thread with? How many of them would still be coaching if they had taken their teams to 5 games over 500? Or won NFL coach of the year...

6) I'm not accentuating positives... I'm talking about other teams who probably could've used Jim Fassel and went in another direction. I'm talking about people who are lemmings and merely repeat mantras about how Fassel sucks because nobody is interviewing him for other positions, but without really thinking about whether or not it's pertinent information.

BTW, Gregg Williams is worth a shot (would you call him retread?), but nobody was knocking down his door...

since you are so fond of appealing to authority (not to mention supra satisfied with mediocrity)...I think I'll place my bets with the legions of front offices who said "pass".

he made it to the SB...big whoop. he was whupped. and all the mistakes you lay on the players...who was the friggin coach? who was supposed to get them ready for the game? who is ultimately accountable? it wasn't even close. they lost to a team the horrendous Skins BEAT that season.

as for the 2-4 gap...thank God you have some facility for numbers...because you obviously are severly lacking when it comes to records if you believe 5 games above .500 is a strong recommendation for our team.

hmmm...how to put this gently. some of us are XXXX VVVVVV sick and tired of mediocrity. you evidently have a different bent of mind/set of standards. that is your burden in life....not ours. no way in Hades do many of us even begin to feel mildly good about this and all the excuses you make.

as I asked before but you adroitly sidestepped...if your primary input is a SB loss...then Snyder is obligated to interview Bill Callahan.

[Smoot Point Really]

Including the playoffs he has a 61-58-1 record. While it is above 500 I would hardly call it winning. We know what we are going to get with Jim Fassel, it is right there in front of us. If we hire Meeks we could get someone in the Tony Dungy mold. I'd like to take that chance.

I'm not throwing out the 4-12 season, but it has to be mentioned so as to put the first 6 seasons of Fassel in context. He had a very good record those first 6 seasons.

BTW, 4 seasons of more than 8 wins since 1992... Can we really complain vehemently about a guy who averaged more than 9 over his first 6 seasons? Also, Bill Belichick only averaged 7 wins a year his first 5 seasons in Cleveland. You know it's tough when you don't have a franchise QB either... Dave Brown, Danny Kannel and Kerry Collins weren't exactly Tom Brady or Brett Favre.

[Smoot Point Really]

since you are so fond of appealing to authority (not to mention supra satisfied with mediocrity)...I think I'll place my bets with the legions of front offices who said "pass".

he made it to the SB...big whoop. he was whupped. and all the mistakes you lay on the players...who was the friggin coach? who was supposed to get them ready for the game? who is ultimately accountable? it wasn't even close. they lost to a team the horrendous Skins BEAT that season.

as for the 2-4 gap...thank God you have some facility for numbers...because you obviously are severly lacking when it comes to records if you believe 5 games above .500 is a strong recommendation for our team.

hmmm...how to put this gently. some of us are XXXX VVVVVV sick and tired of mediocrity. you evidently have a different bent of mind/set of standards. that is your burden in life....not ours. no way in Hades do many of us even begin to feel mildly good about this and all the excuses you make.

as I asked before but you adroitly sidestepped...if your primary input is a SB loss...then Snyder is obligated to interview Bill Callahan.

You are hopeless! :) Jim Fassel had more wins in his first 6 seasons than Bill Parcells and only 1 trip to the Super Bowl (which they won). Basically, Fassel had the one 4-12 record and hasn't been given a chance to be HC again. He deserves a shot somewhere... It's lunacy that he hasn't been given that shot, and it's lunacy to continue the debate. I'm going to sleep!

[ManleyMann7271]

Are we just trying to make ourselves feel better about the inevitable? I still think Mr. Snyder has a surprise up his sleeve.

[fansince62]

You are hopeless! :) Jim Fassel had more wins in his first 6 seasons than Bill Parcells and only 1 trip to the Super Bowl (which they won). Basically, Fassel had the one 4-12 record and hasn't been given a chance to be HC again. He deserves a shot somewhere... It's lunacy that he hasn't been given that shot, and it's lunacy to continue the debate. I'm going to sleep!

Jim Fassel never won anything. You are easily impressed.... :laugh: Your argument is based on an appeal to statistics that simply aren't convincing. You are blithely assuming that his record was good. It wasn't. For whatever reason....you seem emotionally at peace with the notion that Fassel's record ranks him as a stellar candidate to coach our team. others look at that same record and don't see anything that truly recommends it as outstanding. they know/feel that through dint of intellect and innate leadership....he isn't good enough to overcome the roster problems this team currently is budened with. we NEVER viewed him as an elite coach when he was with the Gints and coaching against the Skins.

He deserves a shot? why would that be? is there some immutable law that says all coaches with a lifetime record 5 games above average deserve multiple shots?

you know...in all your statistical evasiveness...you haven't once presented the list of characteristics that you think qualify Fassell as the potential SB winning quality coach we need. his intellect? imagination/inventiveness? profound football insights? commanding leadership presence? what is it that tells you he is "the it guy". has he ever prodced a dominating offense/ dominating defense? a dominant team? were his successful Gint teams comparable to the current day Pats/Colts? what might his failings be that work against all the greatness you see? cuz when I see him on the idiot box and read what he has to say nothing jumps out at me. his record in and of itself just isn't good enough to carry the day as you would like. there has to be something more there to warrant assigning him the title "once and future Redskin coaching legend". something beyond he lost a SB game one lucky season.

yes...please sleep...keep the nightmares to yourself.

[Smoot Point Really]

Jim Fassel never won anything. You are easily impressed.... :laugh: Your argument is based on an appeal to statistics that simply aren't convincing. You are blithely assuming that his record was good. It wasn't. For whatever reason....you seem emotionally at peace with the notion that Fassel's record ranks him as a stellar candidate to coach our team. others look at that same record and don't see anything that truly recommends it as outstanding. they know/feel that through dint of intellect and innate leadership....he isn't good enough to overcome the roster problems this team currently is budened with. we NEVER viewed him as an elite coach when he was with the Gints and coaching against the Skins.

He deserves a shot? why would that be? is there some immutable law that says all coaches with a lifetime record 5 games above average deserve multiple shots?

you know...in all your statistical evasiveness...you haven't once presented the list of characteristics that you think qualify Fassell as the potential SB winning quality coach we need. his intellect? imagination/inventiveness? profound football insights? commanding leadership presence? what is it that tells you he is "the it guy". has he ever prodced a dominating offense/ dominating defense? a dominant team? were his successful Gint teams comparable to the current day Pats/Colts? what might his failings be that work against all the greatness you see? cuz when I see him on the idiot box and read what he has to say nothing jumps out at me. his record in and of itself just isn't good enough to carry the day as you would like. there has to be something more there to warrant assigning him the title "once and future Redskin coaching legend". something beyond he lost a SB game one lucky season.

yes...please sleep...keep the nightmares to yourself.

You know? Statistics like wins and losses do matter... My opinions about his "imagination/inventiveness"... That doesn't really matter. All I know is that he has had a very good NFL career and as an NFL Head Coach he was more than capable.

You criticized my arguments saying they were full of "generalizations", and I offered you statistics and achievements of this man. Now you want me to offer my opinions on whether or not he has certain "qualities?" What makes you think Spags had qualities? He was young and blitzed a lot? That's a quality for Head Coach? Steve Mariucci inherited a team that never lost more than 6 games in like 18 seasons prior to his taking over... He walked into a cherry situation and compiled a great record, but then in Detroit he walked into a horrible situation and failed miserably... Does that make him better than Fassel?

Anyway, you've really only offered opinions and the few negative statistics in this guys resume (BTW, coaches like Belichick and Parcells have negative statistics too).

There aren't a lot of NFL Head Coaches who last 7 years with one team... There aren't a lot of NFL Head Coaches who leave their teams with winning records. Experienced NFL Head Coaches with winning records who are available is even more rare...

What my OP pointed out was that since Fassel left, there were 25 open positions (in 4 years) and maybe only 3 or 4 of them have been filled with some level of certainty... 3 or 4 others may still pan out. There are a lot of teams who took a chance on the "flavor of the month" and got burned by it. There are some teams there who picked other coaches who had success (or even not success) and they also got burned... Just because other teams chose poorly doesn't mean Fassel isn't a good candidate. You can't use it as an argument, because it is irrelevant...

Yes, Fassel deserves a shot somewhere... even here.

[MikeB]

Great post... maybe some of the dolts on this board will get it through their heads to stop whining just to hear themselves whine.

Fassel is a decent candidate. Period.

[fansince62]

You know? Statistics like wins and losses do matter... My opinions about his "imagination/inventiveness"... That doesn't really matter. All I know is that he has had a very good NFL career and as an NFL Head Coach he was more than capable.

You criticized my arguments saying they were full of "generalizations", and I offered you statistics and achievements of this man. Now you want me to offer my opinions on whether or not he has certain "qualities?" What makes you think Spags had qualities? He was young and blitzed a lot? That's a quality for Head Coach? Steve Mariucci inherited a team that never lost more than 6 games in like 18 seasons prior to his taking over... He walked into a cherry situation and compiled a great record, but then in Detroit he walked into a horrible situation and failed miserably... Does that make him better than Fassel?

Anyway, you've really only offered opinions and the few negative statistics in this guys resume (BTW, coaches like Belichick and Parcells have negative statistics too).

There aren't a lot of NFL Head Coaches who last 7 years with one team... There aren't a lot of NFL Head Coaches who leave their teams with winning records. Experienced NFL Head Coaches with winning records who are available is even more rare...

What my OP pointed out was that since Fassel left, there were 25 open positions (in 4 years) and maybe only 3 or 4 of them have been filled with some level of certainty... 3 or 4 others may still pan out. There are a lot of teams who took a chance on the "flavor of the month" and got burned by it. There are some teams there who picked other coaches who had success (or even not success) and they also got burned... Just because other teams chose poorly doesn't mean Fassel isn't a good candidate. You can't use it as an argument, because it is irrelevant...

Yes, Fassel deserves a shot somewhere... even here.

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT: you have presented some disjoint statistics and then out of hand claimed that they establish fassell is a good coach. more over....in a completely illogical fashion, you are implicitly saying that because Fassell has a record 5 games above .500, has lost a SB, and has a winning percentage that sits in the middle of an arbitrary group of coaches....he should be our next coach. you are using a select group of statistics to grotesquely simplify a decision process that has infinitely more permutations than the simplified model you are advancing. You have made no case at all that links the statistics you provide as controlling factors for deciding who should be coach. moreover, the statistics you do present mask 10,000 different variations.....how stupid do you think the audience you are speaking to truly is? do you actually think that anyone believes that two comparable win/loss records were arrived at for similar cause and effect reasons? As I stated previously, you are glossing over significant differences with glib generalizations THAT EXPLAIN NOTHING. You haven't even made the case that the statistics you feel are so important should even be the primary...let alone significant.....factors in making a HC selection.

You haven't made the case. You are basically assuming what has to be proven...that Fassel is a good coach. You have determined in advance what you BELIEVE to be the criteria for what constitutes a good coach. There's no model in play here. There's no deeper reasoning about the qualities that characterize a good coach. There's no assessment of what DS/VC are after. More comically...there's no answer to many of us who are asking "why should we settle for good"?

NORVAL. NORVAL. NORVAL. NORVAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

welcome to the age of GOODNESS folks.....and sham statistics.

[kingfish50]

I'm not down on Mr. Fizzel as most people here are but then again, I'm not even luke warm on the two remaining choices (Mooch and Meeks) either.
Take away the fact that Gregg Williams should have been our next HC before he was so shamefully thrown to the curbside like a piece of garbage, then the next logical choice should have been Russ Grimm. He's well respected by the players, coaches, fans and he's had positive results at every position and team that he's coached for.
The only problem and it's big one, is that Little Danny has already filled out the coaching staff. Russ is not a WCO guy, more of a power running game (Gibbs and Cowher). Unless he's expanded his philosophy on offense, can work with the current staff, can be more than a figure head and make actual decisions on game planning, team structure and not be a "yes man" to Little Danny, then I don't see him ever coming here. Hell for that matter, I don't don't see anybody with an ounce of dignity wanting to walk into a cluster muck that Little Danny has created.

[Smoot Point Really]

As I stated previously, you are glossing over significant differences with glib generalizations THAT EXPLAIN NOTHING. You haven't even made the case that the statistics you feel are so important should even be the primary...let alone significant.....factors in making a HC selection.

If you'd read my original post... The intent was to point out that it is illogical to argue against Fassel based on what other teams have done, since many of them have made poor choices and some of them even followed those poor choices with other poor choices. There are plenty of threads out there debating whether or not Fassel makes a good coach, and many of them use this same dim argument that because no other team is after him it must mean he is a bad coach. I believe I've done a good job here at dispelling that faulty logic.

What you seem to think is that I'm arguing that he will be a good coach... I don't know if he will be... If you had told me that Bill Belichick would be a good coach after Cleveland and especially after the first season at New England, I would've said he sucks (I still think he does and it's Tom Brady carrying his arse to the HoF). However, you can't say that Fassel is "unqualified" based on his record and certainly not based on the fact that others teams have passed him over.

My only "generalization" is basically to say that we shouldn't "generalize" our opinions about Fassel just because other teams went in a different direction.

I wouldn't dispute the argument about his age, but "generalizations" about his performance as an OC with the Ravens and saying this makes him a bad HC when he was a very good HC for 7 years with the Giants is absurd. We aren't considering him for OC...

He didn't inherit a "gift situation" like Tomlin, Phillips, Turner@SD, Mariucci@SF... He inherited a team that legendary coach Dan Reeves (who after the Giants took the Falcons to the Super Bowl) managed 11 wins with over the previous two seasons.


welcome to the age of GOODNESS folks.....and sham statistics.

Statistics aren't shame... People are... :)

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Uh....Everyone.

[fansince62]

If you'd read my original post... The intent was to point out that it is illogical to argue against Fassel based on what other teams have done, since many of them have made poor choices and some of them even followed those poor choices with other poor choices. There are plenty of threads out there debating whether or not Fassel makes a good coach, and many of them use this same dim argument that because no other team is after him it must mean he is a bad coach. I believe I've done a good job here at dispelling that faulty logic.

What you seem to think is that I'm arguing that he will be a good coach... I don't know if he will be... If you had told me that Bill Belichick would be a good coach after Cleveland and especially after the first season at New England, I would've said he sucks (I still think he does and it's Tom Brady carrying his arse to the HoF). However, you can't say that Fassel is "unqualified" based on his record and certainly not based on the fact that others teams have passed him over.

My only "generalization" is basically to say that we shouldn't "generalize" our opinions about Fassel just because other teams went in a different direction.

I wouldn't dispute the argument about his age, but "generalizations" about his performance as an OC with the Ravens and saying this makes him a bad HC when he was a very good HC for 7 years with the Giants is absurd. We aren't considering him for OC...

He didn't inherit a "gift situation" like Tomlin, Phillips, Turner@SD, Mariucci@SF... He inherited a team that legendary coach Dan Reeves (who after the Giants took the Falcons to the Super Bowl) managed 11 wins with over the previous two seasons.



Statistics aren't shame... People are... :)

as someone with a lot of experience in econometrics...I can safely vouchesafe that the old saw about "statistics being used dto support any conclusion" is quite valid. statistics...as you know......mean very little without an underlying theory that is being tested.

I'm not sure that your idea that being rejected by other teams who subsequently made bad decisions really hangs.....but will accept it for the moment. Were that true.....you have not made the case for hiring Fassell...you have only undercut one argument against hiring him. Again, you have asserted that you believe he is a good coach. you have asserted that he dererves another chance. one has to assume that you think the Skins would be smart to hire Fassell. based on what? what is it about hos qualities as a person and a coach that you believe uniquely qualify him above all the other known and unknown candidates to be the next HC?

Perhaps I am hopeless! I just see nothing, nada, zippo...in Jim Fassell that stands out as a beacon to "the next great coach". and the next great coach is what we should all want. we have fiddle XXXXX around since 1992. It's high time to push in all the chips and bet the pot on the very best.....not another NORVAL!

You have made a good argument...I just don't think you have made the case. respectfully.....fansince

[Krayzie]

i hope we are the other team will pass on him too :)

[Smoot Point Really]

as someone with a lot of experience in econometrics...I can safely vouchesafe that the old saw about "statistics being used dto support any conclusion" is quite valid. statistics...as you know......mean very little without an underlying theory that is being tested.

I'm not sure that your idea that being rejected by other teams who subsequently made bad decisions really hangs.....but will accept it for the moment. Were that true.....you have not made the case for hiring Fassell...you have only undercut one argument against hiring him. Again, you have asserted that you believe he is a good coach. you have asserted that he dererves another chance. one has to assume that you think the Skins would be smart to hire Fassell. based on what? what is it about hos qualities as a person and a coach that you believe uniquely qualify him above all the other known and unknown candidates to be the next HC?

Perhaps I am hopeless! I just see nothing, nada, zippo...in Jim Fassell that stands out as a beacon to "the next great coach". and the next great coach is what we should all want. we have fiddle XXXXX around since 1992. It's high time to push in all the chips and bet the pot on the very best.....not another NORVAL!

You have made a good argument...I just don't think you have made the case. respectfully.....fansince

The case wasn't an attempt to knock down all arguments against Fassel... Some are legit and unarguable, but highly stooped in opinion (like he is old and we'll do better with someone young) and can't be debated...

I decided to specifically look at this one argument: That he isn't a good coach because other teams have passed on him. We can't really know why 25 teams over 4 seasons chose someone other than Jim Fassel (who had 7 years with only one team and compiled the winning record we spoke about). I believe that Jim Fassel doesn't really come out of a "coaching tree" and hasn't established a large network like other coaches have. I admit he isn't an exciting candidate, but he may be a very good coach for any team that wants to give him a shot. I don't believe the vitriol that is spewed at the sound of his name is deserved... I wonder if the same level of vitriol would be heard if Ray Handley was mentioned. :)

I understand the argument where people want someone who is younger... I don't really understand the argument that people raise when they speak about record, success and experience... Relative to available candidates, Fassel holds up well under this scrutiny.

BTW, statistics and modeling was half of my college major, and information systems as the other half... I've continued with both and often use modeling techniques during capacity planning and performance tuning exercises. I'm also interested in modeling of Bayesian Networks that try to predict future behavior based on probabilities gathered from real-world (and real-time) system interactions. For instance, the probability of who the Redskins pick as HC based on past and present actions and the statistics I feed into this model... :)

[MikeB]

as someone with a lot of experience in econometrics...I can safely vouchesafe that the old saw about "statistics being used dto support any conclusion" is quite valid. statistics...as you know......mean very little without an underlying theory that is being tested.

I'm not sure that your idea that being rejected by other teams who subsequently made bad decisions really hangs.....but will accept it for the moment. Were that true.....you have not made the case for hiring Fassell...you have only undercut one argument against hiring him. Again, you have asserted that you believe he is a good coach. you have asserted that he dererves another chance. one has to assume that you think the Skins would be smart to hire Fassell. based on what? what is it about hos qualities as a person and a coach that you believe uniquely qualify him above all the other known and unknown candidates to be the next HC?

Perhaps I am hopeless! I just see nothing, nada, zippo...in Jim Fassell that stands out as a beacon to "the next great coach". and the next great coach is what we should all want. we have fiddle XXXXX around since 1992. It's high time to push in all the chips and bet the pot on the very best.....not another NORVAL!

You have made a good argument...I just don't think you have made the case. respectfully.....fansince

I agree with your post.

So on the flipside for those that argue against Fassel who do you want to get now? Where is the next great coach coming from? Dan has mucked this up enough already and there are NO next great coaching candidates left. There are only serviceable guys that can get you to the playoffs... and Fassel is certainly on of those.

Folks that don't want Fassel need to come up with someone AVAILABLE, WILLING TO COME HERE, and BETTER THEN FASSEL rather then just say he is no good.

If you give me Mooch or Meeks, even if I don the rose colored glasses, I can only say they are marginally better at very best then Fassel. Grim is not a reality, he is not a WC guy, and JJ would be nothing more then a body here to cash some checks.

[fansince62]

BTW, statistics and modeling was half of my college major, and information systems as the other half... I've continued with both and often use modeling techniques during capacity planning and performance tuning exercises. I'm also interested in modeling of Bayesian Networks that try to predict future behavior based on probabilities gathered from real-world (and real-time) system interactions. For instance, the probability of who the Redskins pick as HC based on past and present actions and the statistics I feed into this model... :)

awesome! I tip my hat and acknowledge your expertise. apologies for some early....ummmmmmm.....excesses. part of the ES game I guess.

keep coming at us.......once one gets by the emotions of the moment....you are the kinda gold this community needs to mine. :cheers:

BUT FASSELL IS STILL A NORVAL! :)

[fansince62]

I agree with your post.

So on the flipside for those that argue against Fassel who do you want to get now? Where is the next great coach coming from? Dan has mucked this up enough already and there are NO next great coaching candidates left. There are only serviceable guys that can get you to the playoffs... and Fassel is certainly on of those.

Folks that don't want Fassel need to come up with someone AVAILABLE, WILLING TO COME HERE, and BETTER THEN FASSEL rather then just say he is no good.

If you give me Mooch or Meeks, even if I don the rose colored glasses, I can only say they are marginally better at very best then Fassel. Grim is not a reality, he is not a WC guy, and JJ would be nothing more then a body here to cash some checks.

I knew (and feared!) this was coming. I'm not sure. I want to rely on the belief that Dan/Vinny have the same goal in mind and trust that they can carry it off. With 32 teams out there...all with coordinators and assistants...it's hard not to think that the next Joe Gibbs isn't lurking somewhere. It boils down to whether DS/VC can find the candidates, recognize it when it is in front of them...and close the deal. This is when I buy into the idea they do (and should) know more than I will ever know. It's not my profession...not my business. I don't have the time/experience to figure out who the hidden NFL gems are...that's their job. We all just...gulp...have to trust them!

[TankRizzo]

Fassel and Vinny have a common bond.....no other team in the league will touch them w/ a 10 foot pole.

[Mr. Blitz]

We should pass on Fassel....

[JTNumber7]

Good research, I agree, but I disagree with the conclusion. There must be some reason why ALL THOSE TEAMS passed on Fassel. If he gets hired here, it is because he has made it clear that he will be a buttboy for Dan and Vinny because he is desperate for this last chance at a HC position in the league. Period.

[Smoot Point Really]

awesome! I tip my hat and acknowledge your expertise. apologies for some early....ummmmmmm.....excesses. part of the ES game I guess.

keep coming at us.......once one gets by the emotions of the moment....you are the kinda gold this community needs to mine. :cheers:

BUT FASSELL IS STILL A NORVAL! :)

I feel like I'm being setup for the fall... It's been a pleasure arguing with you. I don't mind when people exchange arguments, but hopefully we find more to agree about in the future. :) Anyway, I'm only joking about the "bleating" earlier... I just get annoyed with the vitriol I've read lately, but I hope you don't get too offended when I lash out (mostly directed at a general audience and not the actual person I'm writing to).

I understand it if people are looking for and expecting something exciting. Each time a new coach was named by Snyder, it seemed to be a bigger and bigger announcement and people getting psyched out for who the next guy would be... The expectations that "Vanny" has to live up to (regardless of the actual end results) are enormous. You go from canning Norv to hiring Schottenheimer (even after Schottenheimer said he'd never work for Snyder), then you get all the excitement surrounding Spurrier (mostly fans were desperate for that high powered offense after witnessing a year with Tony Banks at QB), then you pull Gibbs out of nowhere... How is he going to top this?

Anyway, let's not too big of a deal out of my "stats" hobby that I try to use professionally whenever possible. Statistics are never wrong, People are wrong, and I'm usually as wrong as the most wrong. :) I do enjoy it when people can pull out a statistic and speak intelligently about it and try to show more statistics that either support or refute their position... Especially when you can use a statistic that will change an opinion you once had... For instance, the Giants defense last year versus this year actually regressed in many areas (inspite of all the sacks). That kind of argument had some meat to it after the Super Bowl.

[Smoot Point Really]

Good research, I agree, but I disagree with the conclusion. There must be some reason why ALL THOSE TEAMS passed on Fassel. If he gets hired here, it is because he has made it clear that he will be a buttboy for Dan and Vinny because he is desperate for this last chance at a HC position in the league. Period.

Who can really explain why he wasn't hired? I have that one theory that I shared earlier that seems to make a lot of sense. Fassel didn't really have a coaching tree like most of those other coaches. He didn't have a complete network, even though Billick was his friend. I believe he sort of "made it on his own"... He came out of the Bill Walsh system, only because he worked with John Elway at Stanford... However, I don't really see him as having the same level of professional "network" that comes with people who normally come out of the Walsh system like Mike Holmgren, Dennis Green, Tony Dungy...

Anyway, most of the guys in that list... If they didn't come straight from college, they came out of the Reeves, Schottenheimer, Walsh or Parcells tree. It would be an interesting thing if someone wanted to research this more. I have to spend time with my family. :)

[fansince62]

I feel like I'm being setup for the fall... It's been a pleasure arguing with you. I don't mind when people exchange arguments, but hopefully we find more to agree about in the future. :) Anyway, I'm only joking about the "bleating" earlier... I just get annoyed with the vitriol I've read lately, but I hope you don't get too offended when I lash out (mostly directed at a general audience and not the actual person I'm writing to).

I understand it if people are looking for and expecting something exciting. Each time a new coach was named by Snyder, it seemed to be a bigger and bigger announcement and people getting psyched out for who the next guy would be... The expectations that "Vanny" has to live up to (regardless of the actual end results) are enormous. You go from canning Norv to hiring Schottenheimer (even after Schottenheimer said he'd never work for Snyder), then you get all the excitement surrounding Spurrier (mostly fans were desperate for that high powered offense after witnessing a year with Tony Banks at QB), then you pull Gibbs out of nowhere... How is he going to top this?

Anyway, let's not too big of a deal out of my "stats" hobby that I try to use professionally whenever possible. Statistics are never wrong, People are wrong, and I'm usually as wrong as the most wrong. :) I do enjoy it when people can pull out a statistic and speak intelligently about it and try to show more statistics that either support or refute their position... Especially when you can use a statistic that will change an opinion you once had... For instance, the Giants defense last year versus this year actually regressed in many areas (inspite of all the sacks). That kind of argument had some meat to it after the Super Bowl.

not at all brotha...we found our way to a happy medium. we all (self included) get carried away...part of the board experience. we want the same things. you marshalled a good argument and stuck to your guns. what can possiby be wrong with that!

truth be told...those of us who were drinking the exquisite varietals up to 1992 are simply worn down by all the corked stuff we have had to swill since. I understand the principle behind lining up and falling in.....it's just that we all have been knocked to the ground one time too many. add to that that DS, whether a fine person or not, simply does not overtly strike one as a singularly remarkable individual...and it is doubly hard to recharge the ole Redskin batteries.

press man...press! and good luck at work.

[Smoot Point Really]

BTW, I go back to the George Allen days... But, I really started getting interested when Pardee was around. Mostly because when I was a really young I didn't understand the game, I guess.

[RypienUmApart]

Didn't know Mularkey and Jauron have the same record.... the atmosphere around here (Buffalo) seems alot more positive with Jauron than it did with Mularkey.

Until you talk about the Toronto games.