Why the hate towards Fassel?

[Drift Reality]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Why does everyone seem to think that past success (or failure) will translate the same with TOTALLY different personnel, political climate and fan base?!

I think in large, a coach is responsible for the personnel and political climate. Those are things that he and the general manager (the Boy in this case) must manage.

Sure, there are definitely cases where a different environment can spawn radically different results (see Belichick) - but I think one question you always have to ask, is did the team quit on the coach, and why?

Fassel's team quit on him, plain and simple. He didn't have any sense of discipline nor did he create a sense of accountability in his team (both are things I believe Williams would have done with the Redskins).

[MTK]

Let's consider the team that quit on Fassel. For years now the Giants roster has been full of prima donnas more interested in their celebrity and their egos (Tiki). Their locker room has always been on the verge of revolt.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Let's consider the team that quit on Fassel. For years now the Giants roster has been full of prima donnas more interested in their celebrity and their egos (Tiki). Their locker room has always been on the verge of revolt.

Good point.. They were ready to revolt and run Coughlin out of town..

BTW, in Michael Strahan's book he tells the story of after Fassel told the team he was going to be fired and was still going to coach the rest of the season the team played it's heart out for him. He said things go one way or the other, either the team mails it in or they play hard out of respect for the coach. They chose the latter because of the respect they had for him.

In addition, at their last team meeting the players presented him with a video of the greatest moments in his coaching career there with personal thank yous/goodbye's on the video. At the end of the video there wasn't a dry eye in the house. That doesn't sound like a team that quit on him to me.

[MTK]

Yeah I think the reports of the team quitting on him are overblown. And to those who think he didn't provide enough leadership or accountability, his playoff promise that lead to a Super Bowl run basically flys in the face of that notion.

[70Chip]

I think the playoff guarantee is actually a mark against Fassel. When you have to make a spectacle of yourself in a press conference in order to capture the attention of your team, something is amiss.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think the playoff guarantee is actually a mark against Fassel. When you have to make a spectacle of yourself in a press conference in order to capture the attention of your team, something is amiss.

You can't argue with the results.

The guarantee helped take the pressure off the players and it also instilled confidence in them.

I guess you can twist it anyway you want, but that promise is generally regarded as a positive thing.

[70Chip]

Just to be clear, I don't have anything against Jim Fassel. I also don't have anything against Wayne Fontes, Art Shell, or Rich Kotite. I think those who support Fassel should explain why he makes sense, rather than demanding that opponents explain why he doesn't.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Just to be clear, I don't have anything against Jim Fassel. I also don't have anything against Wayne Fontes, Art Shell, or Rich Kotite. I think those who support Fassel should explain why he makes sense, rather than demanding that opponents explain why he doesn't.

Hey I'm not pro Fassel either. I'm on the fence with him. I just found it curious that people are so against him, yet are so in favor of Mooch when there isn't really a huge difference between the two.

Going by the feedback here, it looks like it's because he was a rival coach, and second because Mooch is just a more personable guy that people can relate to.

[SmootSmack]

Why were so many people eager to give Williams another chance to succeed as a head coach, but not so much with Fassell? Is it simply because Williams was in-house?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Why were so many people eager to give Williams another chance to succeed as a head coach, but not so much with Fassell? Is it simply because Williams was in-house?

I wanted to keep Williams because I like having GOOD defenses. Prior to his arrival there were a lot of years with BAD defenses. I guess in a way, he was a victim of his own success. If the powers that be were a little more emotionally connected to the George Edwards led defense of 2003 in all its ineptitude, they might have been a little more hesitant to send Coach Williams on his way.

So, that would distinguish him from Fassel.

[QBall]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I wanted to keep Williams because I like having GOOD defenses. Prior to his arrival there were a lot of years with BAD defenses. I guess in a way, he was a victim of his own success. If the powers that be were a little more emotionally connected to the George Edwards led defense of 2003 in all its ineptitude, they might have been a little more hesitant to send Coach Williams on his way.

So, that would distinguish him from Fassel.

Didn't Marvin Lewis have some good defenses too?!

Arrington had like 12 sacks one year they played him down in the three point stance. I'm wondering how much our offense will change with Zorn, he's a great coach.

[Hog1]

As has already been mentioned several times, the writing was on the wall from the outset. Not a word from Joe as to how the organization would proceed upon his departure. No endorsement for GW. Big RED flag (although I did not notice). In retrospect, OBVIOUSLY there was a problem between GW, and DS, or whoever. Not to be........as this happens all the time and his protege is in house,and on staff.
At this point in time, DS seems to be taking his time to make the best decision possible. I have no problem with any of that.

[QBall]

Post is reporting Williams has interviews now? Of course he does, let it go!

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Just curious why people are so strongly against bringing in Fassel, yet are pro Mariucci. Just wondering what the big difference is? Is it just because Mooch is on TV and is a likable guy?

I think the hate comes from the disappointment of it not being GW. If we don't get GW as HC, then I think anyone isn't good enough in the fans eyes.

[freddyg12]

There are some good answers here. I'll agree w/Rypper11 as the best one; the anti-fassel sentiment was more pro GW than anything. Now that we know GW is out, I wonder what the reaction would be to Fassel if his name just surfaced like Mooch's did.

I like Mooch & think he's a good fit, but after this thread it's made me think a bit more. Maybe Mooch is just the flashier candidate & there isn't much difference between the two in terms of overall ability.

Someone jokingly said something earlier about his bitter beer face. In all serious, looks might have a lot to do w/it. I know a lot of us would never consciously be aware of that, but it's a factor just as it is in running for office. Ugly candidates start w/a disadvantage.