Anyone else think that Fassel is a lousy coach?

[Glengoyne]

Back when the New England successfully converted a safety into game winning field position, I mentioned in a thread here that while it wasn't exactly a ground breaking call, it was just the sort of thing that a guy like Fassel wouldn't have done. Well after seeing the giants snap the ball through the endzone from their three yard line last night, I'd have to say I was right. He did do it....He just didn't do it right.

He completely blew the whole situation. After the two minute warning he actually had his offense line up on fourth down, and then call a time out so the punter could come out to be a "target" for the center who snapped the ball out of bounds for a safety. I mean what the hell, Collins couldn't take a knee, or lineup in shotgun while the ball was snapped clear?

Now I realize that throwing away the time out isn't the worst thing Fassel has done as a coach, but I think it made him look almost as incompetent as I believe him to be.

[Glengoyne]

dola,

You know, I can't even recall exactly what made me start thinking he was a moron. At some point though I came to two realizations.
1) He needs someone else to handle clock management, because it seems to be beyond his grasp.
2) This guy is possibly the worst coach since Bruce Coslet.

I can't really recall when or what made me come to those conclusions, but I am amazed he still has a job.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Well, he has blown it a few times and can't get Collins to wise up and stop throwing and fumbling away games, but whenever you get a team to the Superbowl only 3 years ago, he can't be all that bad. You're focusing on a few instances and forgetting the major part of being a coach - gameplanning, motivation, etc. which he had done alright at with the limited talent he has.

Which reminds me. I have always though Kerry Collins is one of the most overrated QBs in the NFL and I still do. I never have liked him since he left Carolina (including his short mail it in stint in New Orleans)

[pjstp20]

When Notre Dame went for an intentional safety their starting QB got hurt. I think it was 97 or 98 against LSU. That being said, yeah it was dumb for him to burn a timeout. As for the safety call itself. I think the Giants had a better chance at receving an onside kick than converting that 4th and 16 from there own 3.

[sabotai]

Note: It was Kerry Collins who took the timeout, not Jim Fassal.

And why does he still have a job? 1) The owners refuse to talk about hirings/firings until the seaosn is over. 2) Super Bowl in 2000. 3) Playoffs last year.

The Giants have been to the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years. And contrary to what the media hypes, overall, the Giants have not had a great team in those years.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

A TV commentator put it best when he said that Parcells cut a good player before the playoffs for fumbling twice in a game while Fassel won't even bench Tiki for putting it on the ground consistently. That convinced me. Good coordinator. He knows the game. But you have to be able to put your foot down and make hard decisions as a head coach.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by sabotai
Note: It was Kerry Collins who took the timeout, not Jim Fassal.

And why does he still have a job? 1) The owners refuse to talk about hirings/firings until the seaosn is over. 2) Super Bowl in 2000. 3) Playoffs last year.

The Giants have been to the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years. And contrary to what the media hypes, overall, the Giants have not had a great team in those years.

I agree that it was Collins that took the TO. It looked to me like they went out there with instructructions to lineup check the defense, and then I guess if TB had more than 9 guys on the field to just call the time out and walk away. It really is ONLY the loss of a timeout. I don't think they could have realistically done anything that would have really helped them win the game. They just could have stopped the clock once in the last two minutes. I guess my point is that Fassel made the same call Belicheck(sp?) did, he just executed it poorly. As a result he looked to be in pretty poor form.

Regarding their recent playoff and superbowl appearances. I had completely wiped their superbowl appearance from my mind. I do agree that they aren't that good a team, but rather than give him credit for that success, I think I'd rather just regard the Giants most recent Superbowl appearance as a freak misfortune of parity.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I do agree that they aren't that good a team, but rather than give him credit for that success, I think I'd rather just regard the Giants most recent Superbowl appearance as a freak misfortune of parity.

I disagree. I stand by the adage "winning is winning." I don't think anyone flukes out and makes it to the Superbowl.

[Chief Rum]

The qualities which determine if Fassel is a good coach are many, as has been said. He does some things really well, and other snot so well.

I don't really know enough to say for sure, because I am not a regular Giants watcher. But last night I saw him do something incredibly stupid that wasn't related to that safety or that horrible clock management at the two-minute mark.

And that was, after the interception return for touchdown, the guy was down 17-12--five point difference--and he doesn't go for two. That's just dumb. I remember hearing the commentators try to justify it later (they didn't even mention it when it happened and he just kicked for the extra point), but it was utter BS. They were talking like the guy was following a hunch and not everyone would go for two and what not. I have no idea why their mouths were planted on Fassel's poop chute, but then I haven't had a high opinion of a Monday Night announcer in my lifetime.

All I know is, if being five down is pretty much the same as four, then you pass up the easy (but "pointless" point) and go for two, with the end result of being within a field goal of your opponent.

CR

[cthomer5000]

As a resident of New Jersey (and the NYC television market), I've seen plenty of Giants games (although I'm a Jets fan at heart).

Over the last 3-4 years, Fassell has consistently gotten more out of the Giants team than could have been reasonably expected. The Super Bowl season was one of those amazing runs that I didn't think that team was even close to being capable of.

This year has been a completely different story. Poor decisions by the coaching staff, compunded by horrendous and untimely turnover problems by the offense have done the team in. For a change, I don't even know If can name a team who is underachieving more than the Giants right now. The most telling stat was how the Giants were #3 in the league statistically on offense, yet something like 25th in points scored. In many games this year they've moved the ball up and down the field without scoring.

In Fassell's defense:

* The offensive line has been in shambles. What few players they had return from last year have been hurt.
* Despite doing everything they could in the offseason, special teams is again their achilles heel. It single handedly cost them the Cowboys and Eagles games, played a huge role in losing to the Dolphins, and they escaped the Jets game after the special teams blew it. If the special teams had played average this year, they would be no worse than 6-5 right now.
* Collins seems to have taken 5 steps back. This one would probably be Fassell's fault, as he's gotten most the credit for turning Collins around, and is a former QB coach. Collins has securely gone from "the man" to having people openly wonder if the Giants will draft a QB in the first round.
* Tiki can't hang on to the fucking ball. It's a cruel joke this year. The guy is an excellent two-way RB, he jus't keeps coughing up the ball. Maybe he should be benched, but it's tough to argue that Dorsey Levens or Ron Dayne gives them a better chance to win.
* The defense has gotten old an mediocre overall. It shows up occassionally.
* The secondary has been really banged up. Cornerbacks especially.


The 2000 Super Bowl run saved his job. This year combined with the San Fran playoff loss from last year may cost him it. It looks like maybe he has lost the team entirely.

[oykib]

Sometimes it's just time for a change. I believe Fassel is the dean of coaches, either him or Shannahan. Denver's not doing that well this year either. Eventually the players stop listening.

I think if he gets fired that he'll do a great job somewhere else. If he's not fired nd there is not aa generqal housecleaning, defense offense nd special tems, then we're likely going to be looking at a repeat of this season next year.

[Leonidas]

When the national broadcasters talk the most redeeming thing I always here them say about Fassel is he handles the New York media and the whole pressure of running a team in NY really well. I don't follow the Giants so I have no opinion one way or the other on his genuine ability to coach a team, but whenever I here broadcasters talk about this I think it's possibly one of the most assinine things I have ever heard, right up until the broadcasters can think of something even dumber to say.

[Butter]

I don't understand why he didn't go for it in that situation.

I mean, what are the chances of recovering an onside kick? Even if they did get it, they were only gaining about 25 yards of field position... not to mention that they lost a timeout which may have helped them at least stay in it.

I didn't get that whole safety decision at all. Like someone else said, it seemed like Fassel saw Belichick do it, and hoped it would work for him too.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by oykib
Sometimes it's just time for a change. I believe Fassel is the dean of coaches, either him or Shannahan. Denver's not doing that well this year either. Eventually the players stop listening.

I think if he gets fired that he'll do a great job somewhere else. If he's not fired nd there is not aa generqal housecleaning, defense offense nd special tems, then we're likely going to be looking at a repeat of this season next year.

I think i'm with you on the "it's time for a change" feeling here. I also believe Fassell will surface again, and be a successful coach elsewhere. He's got a veteran team that no longer appears to be buying into him.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by oykib
Sometimes it's just time for a change. I believe Fassel is the dean of coaches, either him or Shannahan.

Um, you're forgetting a certain angry fellow in Pittsburgh?

[Butter]

Talk about people not buying into someone any more. How about Cowher?

Well that, and they're hanging their hat on Tommy Maddox. Yikes.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Vinatieri for Prez
I disagree. I stand by the adage "winning is winning." I don't think anyone flukes out and makes it to the Superbowl.

What about New England in '86? Well I think '86. Against the Bears, at any rate. Then there was the San Diego Team the niners ran into the ground in the opening minutes. Both of those teams owe their Superbowl appearances more to a fortunate string of events, than a dominance on the field.

[sabotai]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
I don't understand why he didn't go for it in that situation.

I mean, what are the chances of recovering an onside kick?

A hell of a lot more than succesfully converting a 4th and 19.

And CR, what's funny about what you posted is that last season Fassal went for 2 in a situation that the "card" says to, and failed. He got a lot of critisism about that (for not going for 1) because if he just went for 1 and made it, the game would not have gone into OT and the Giants would have won (it went into OT and lost). It was pretty much the same time in the game too (beginning of the 4th)

So it would seem that regardless of what he does, people are going to get on his back about it.

[lynchjm24]

As a Giant fan who's stuck going to the awful game this coming Sunday. Jim is a good man, and a good coach. He's going to do a nice job somewhere else down the line.

His players just didn't get it done this year, and he's going to take the fall. There really isn't any choice but to fire him now. I don't know if it's his plan to build the offensive line the way they do or if it's Ernie, but that is what's at the base of their problems this season.

[sabotai]

dola,

IMO, Fassal has done a good job. People forget that not all coaches have the authority to make all of the decisions. The Giants GM (Ernie Accorsi) has the ability to Sign/Fire/Draft/Trade, not Fassal. Although he could probably bench a player for poor performance (which he has done, see Amani Toomer), I'm pretty sure he does not have have the authority to cut a player.

Basically, Fassal has to make the best out of the players that Accorsi gives him. And in the past 2 years, Accorsi has given him offensive lines filled with undrafted free agents and no depth in the defense.

As far as the progression and apparent decline of Collins, maybe Sean Payton was much more valuable than the Giants front office realized. Payton's the QB coach in Dallas now...Quncy Carter is improving.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by sabotai
A hell of a lot more than succesfully converting a 4th and 19.

Are you serious? There is no way you have statistical info to back that up. I would say converting a 4th and 19 against a defense (that would only have been playing not to give up a TD) would be easier than recoving an onside kick.

Not to mention, since it was a free kick - it would require a holder (a situation which the kicker has probably never practiced).

I believe stats show that about 10% of known onside kicks are recovered (the rate is obviously higher on "surprise" onsides kicks). Taking the safety probably decreased the already terrible odds the Giants had of winning the game. There was no reason to not at least call a pass play, and have Collins take a safety if he didn't see something he loved.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I believe stats show that about 10% of blatant onside kicks are recovered (the rate is obviously higher on "surprise" onsides kicks).

What percentage of onsides kicks are recovered when the kicking team is offsides. Oh that's right... none.


I almost smashed my TV on the opening kickoff. Who takes the ball at the 28? Make them kick again.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
What percentage of onsides kicks are recovered when the kicking team is offsides. Oh that's right... none.

Yeah, even if they had recovered, they would have had to do it again.

I almost smashed my TV on the opening kickoff. Who takes the ball at the 28? Make them kick again.

I think it was an example of the Giants expecting failure. Fassell was probably just happy they didn't fumble the ball - that's how bad the special teams have been this year. Had they made them re-kick, they probably would have started at the 35 or beyond.

[sabotai]

"I believe stats show that about 10% of known onside kicks are recovered "

Where'd you get this? Back when I was doing stat research for FLS, onside kick success rate was much higher than that. Maybe it was just a good few years for it...

Even at 10%, you think converting a 4th and 19 has a higher than a 10% chance of success? Then again, finding success rate for 4th and 19 would be pretty hard since no coach is stupid enough to ever go for it on 4th and 19.

"There was no reason to not at least call a pass play, and have Collins take a safety if he didn't see something he loved."

Except the risk of another turnover and the Bucs getting another easy TD. And the risk of an injury (as stated above, that happened in a Notre Dame game)

[Huckleberry]

Monday Night's onside had even less chance of success because of the restriction on a free kick following a safety that you can't use a tee.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Yeah, even if they had recovered, they would have had to do it again.

That game was so poorly played on both sides and officiated so poorly, I can't believe how high the ratings stay. It must be gambling, noone would subject themselves to this 'football' otherwise.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
What about New England in '86? Well I think '86. Against the Bears, at any rate. Then there was the San Diego Team the niners ran into the ground in the opening minutes. Both of those teams owe their Superbowl appearances more to a fortunate string of events, than a dominance on the field.

I still disagree. No doubt every team gets breaks to get to the Superbowl (some more than others), but you still need to combine it with some semblance of good play and playcalling. Good luck only takes you so far. You still have to put yourself in a position where it will actually help you win games.

I watched in '86 where the Pats, as a wildcard, beat Oakland and Miami on the road. They clearly outplayed and beat those guys. No luck needed. That's also why they didn't beat the Bears - luck can only take you so far.