Coach choice, food for thought

[Russ Smith]

Jim Fassel is an offensive coach, in his 7 years as coach of the giants the highest their offense ranked in scoring was 15th(21,23,20,21,22,30 in the other 6 years). 4 of those 7 years the defense finished top 9 in scoring defense, 3, 4 and 5 in various years.

Point? The Giants under Fassel won with defense. yes it says he's a good enough HC to hire competent assistants and turn them loose, but basically he never made that offense consistently good, just good enough to win with the defense he inherited(#10 the last year of Reeves). He's not inheriting a good defense here.

I'll be perfectly "satisfied" with Fassel, he's a good coach, he prepares, he won't tolerate the nonsense Mac did. But I do think we'd be somewhat "settling" and would hope we at least pursue other coaches like Heimerdinger, Weiss etc.

 

[conraddobler]

Russ this is really the trend to some extent and is nothing unusual at all.

Take the Ravens for example Billick is an offensive guy and yet that team is a defensive team always has been but sometimes they can score in bunches but never would they be considered an offensive type team.

Same thing with us we had a defensive guy but kept spending $ on the offense.

It is part of the same philosophy that says if you have Jerry Sullivan as your WR coach you can afford to go with less talent/experience because they can make do with less.

It is why Gruden was hired to coach the Bucs because he is an offensive guy that is seen as being able to make more with less and that is essentially what Fassell was doing in NYC.

The thing I want to see out of a HC is a genius level game plan combined with average to above average management ability.

Players respond instinctively to excellent coaching / game plans and will over achieve when they believe they are being led by someone who has a clue as to what they are doing.

So whoever that guy is hire them.

 

[cardsunsfan]

I want to see PLAYER DEVELOPMENT that is what is most important to me....

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by conraddobler
Russ this is really the trend to some extent and is nothing unusual at all.

Take the Ravens for example Billick is an offensive guy and yet that team is a defensive team always has been but sometimes they can score in bunches but never would they be considered an offensive type team.

Same thing with us we had a defensive guy but kept spending $ on the offense.

It is part of the same philosophy that says if you have Jerry Sullivan as your WR coach you can afford to go with less talent/experience because they can make do with less.

It is why Gruden was hired to coach the Bucs because he is an offensive guy that is seen as being able to make more with less and that is essentially what Fassell was doing in NYC.

The thing I want to see out of a HC is a genius level game plan combined with average to above average management ability.

Players respond instinctively to excellent coaching / game plans and will over achieve when they believe they are being led by someone who has a clue as to what they are doing.

So whoever that guy is hire them.

I guess my point was the Giants didn't win because of Fassel's expertise on offense, they won with defense. So unless we have the same type of coaching on defense, and talent, he may not be the right guy here.

Seems like during his time they drafted a lot of WR's , RB's, signed Collins etc. So it's not like they spent all the money on the defense year after year.

There is no perfect coach of course and again I'm quite happy to hire fassel I think he'll be a MUCH better coach than mac. But I do wonder outside Toomer none of those WR's panned out, I look at what the WR's in Tennessee are doing under Heimerdinger and I have to wonder if he wouldn't be a better hire for this team with our young WR's and a likely #1 draft pick QB coming in?

Of course for all I know he has no interest in the job.

 

[JeffGollin]

But I do wonder outside Toomer none of those WR's panned out,
They were always getting injured - Hilliard was the only other highly hyped pick, and he never seemed to stay on the field long enough to get untracked. Accorsi let Jurevicious get away. Tim Carter looked like a player, but didn't he Dixon and another kid from a really small college get injured too?

I also think that Shockey ran into the "Young Guy Becomes Legend in Own Mind" syndrome and, despite being a key receiving option, dropped more than his share of balls before suffering the injury that ended his season.

 

[Red Dawn]

Seems like Dave Wannstadt is on the hot-seat in Miami. He's a defensive-minded coach who is getting knocked for losing in December. What's the general concensus on Wannstadt should he become available?

 

[seesred]

Dave W is much to ugly.

GBR

 

[Dan H]

Considering the mediocre offensive talent the Giants have had under Fassel I'm surprised they've done as well as they have.

 

[8ndkorner]

Originally posted by Russ Smith
I guess my point was the Giants didn't win because of Fassel's expertise on offense, they won with defense. So unless we have the same type of coaching on defense, and talent, he may not be the right guy here.

Seems like during his time they drafted a lot of WR's , RB's, signed Collins etc. So it's not like they spent all the money on the defense year after year.

Of course for all I know he has no interest in the job.

But he will look at Anquan, a choice of potentially great QB's in the draft, and Shipp.

Get a DC that can really coach and then do his job! If I were him I would have to seriously consider the job.

 

[Second Deck]

I have never cared much for Collins and for Fassel to get that bunch to the SB is quite an accomplishment. I spoke wrong before but thing it was Fassel as OC when Boomer had his 400 + yard game. He has earned his stripes in NY now bring him back to AZ. I am sure they will look at others but Jim is the top of my list.

 

[earthsci]

Even though I like alot of the DCs (Crennel, Smith, etc.) a huge benefit of having Fassel would be the developement of young QBs. Ben, Eli, Josh.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by Rowland Price
I have never cared much for Collins and for Fassel to get that bunch to the SB is quite an accomplishment. I spoke wrong before but thing it was Fassel as OC when Boomer had his 400 + yard game. He has earned his stripes in NY now bring him back to AZ. I am sure they will look at others but Jim is the top of my list.

I don't disagree, I've never believed in Collins. I was merely saying that contrary to what Fassel does as a coach, they won with defense not offense.

And remember, if he were hired it's not like we have a lot more talent on offense than they do at the moment, just last year that offense in NY looked like it was on the verge of becoming VERY good, just never was able to get it together there on offense.

I think fassel is a solid coach and a vast improvement over mac, but I do not think he's an "offensive genius".

 

[john h]

Originally posted by Russ Smith
Jim Fassel is an offensive coach, in his 7 years as coach of the giants the highest their offense ranked in scoring was 15th(21,23,20,21,22,30 in the other 6 years). 4 of those 7 years the defense finished top 9 in scoring defense, 3, 4 and 5 in various years.

Point? The Giants under Fassel won with defense. yes it says he's a good enough HC to hire competent assistants and turn them loose, but basically he never made that offense consistently good, just good enough to win with the defense he inherited(#10 the last year of Reeves). He's not inheriting a good defense here.



I'll be perfectly "satisfied" with Fassel, he's a good coach, he prepares, he won't tolerate the nonsense Mac did. But I do think we'd be somewhat "settling" and would hope we at least pursue other coaches like Heimerdinger, Weiss etc.

Russ: Since there will be a number of teams filling head coaching positions we will face what we do with free agents. The good ones will have a choice and will obviously want to go to a team with hopes of winning and with an owner who does not have the reputations of Mr. Bidwill. We will have a choice of what is left over after the other teams make their selection. Could be Fassel but more than likely a Coordinator which means he will probably not be able to bring his staff with him. We are caught in a never ending circle of past sins haunting us. Let us hope we get lucky as we need some of that at this point because we are not getting it done with brain power.

 

[john h]

Originally posted by SunCardfan
I want to see PLAYER DEVELOPMENT that is what is most important to me....

Agree but we must find a way to keep our good players long enough to develop. about the time they are good it is free agent time and they are out of here. Seems long term contract early is the only way out. This is risky but we cannot continue to lose the Chavous,Rice type players and get nothing in return. We have drafted high for many years and what do we have to show for it????????

 

[wierwolf]

The over hyped Ron Dayne didn't do much either with him as coach. They had to win with Defense. They never had much on Offense.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by wierwolf
The over hyped Ron Dayne didn't do much either with him as coach. They had to win with Defense. They never had much on Offense.

Yes but they did use some first round picks on offense. If you look at the drafts with Fassel as the coach they took 7 guys in the first round and 4 were offensive, Hilliard, Pettigout, Dayne and Shockey.

In other words the fact that they had a mediocre offense wasn't by design, they spent draft picks, FA and money on the offense, it just never got consistently better.

I would say the biggest problem was Collins, and lack of big play WR's.

 

[Northern Card]

Read through this thread... and wondered how one could ignore NYs depleted offensive line. They let talent get away... and what was left, and somewhat promising - were hurt. They played a large part of the year with 3rd stringers. No "quote" offensive genius or QB or runningback or wideout, can get around that fundamental problem.

 

[JeffGollin]

I've never believed in Collins.
I always liked Collins, but felt that his Achilles was adversity. If you could get to him early in a game (or a season for that matter) he'd tend to get down on himself and things would go to hell in a basket.

But if he started off fast, he could be streaky-scary.

 

[Mr.Dibbs]

Originally posted by SunCardfan
I want to see PLAYER DEVELOPMENT that is what is most important to me....

Exactly. Just as long as we improve year to year, and the players grow, I'll be happy.