| Giants head coach Jim
Fassel’s displeasure over receiving just a one-year extension from his employers
should come as no surprise. But neither should his employers’ offer. Since the
Giants’ NFC East-winning campaign of 1997, when the team went 10-5-1 and unbeaten in
the division, they have steadily regressed in efficiency and production — and many
believe Fassel is a big reason.
His biggest transgression is this: He was brought in to rejuvenate a dormant offense
and develop a quarterback. Neither has happened. Fassel came to New York as a ballyhooed
QB guru, having helped uncuff Broncos QB John Elway. Heck, even Kent Graham did well under
Fassel’s tutelage in Arizona. But nothing has developed in the Big Apple, leading to
the front office’s hesitancy in giving Fassel the three-year contract extension he
wanted.
Worse yet, he lost control of two of the team’s marquee players, LB Jessie
Armstead and DE Michael Strahan. Armstead blasted the offense, and Strahan blasted Fassel
for blasting Armstead for blasting the offense. In an age when everyone on an NFL club has
to be on the same page, the Giants were obviously reading from different books.
Fassel’s authority was disrespected by two team leaders, and a head coach — and
management — must not tolerate it.
Now Fassel faces a Norv Turner-like scenario: Win now or else. But even if Fassel, who
has one year left on his original four-year deal, accepts the extension and is fired after
the 2000 season, he’ll still be paid the $1.1 million provided in the extension. Just
like Ray Rhodes, who will still be paid $1 million by the Packers next season, even though
he was fired earlier this month. So not all would be lost for Fassel.
But this isn’t about money. This is about pride, and Fassel’s took a severe
blow with the Giants’ proposal. Frankly, he has no choice but to accept it. The
worst-case scenario is that he plays out next season as a lame-duck coach, and his players
quit on him. Neither Fassel nor the Giants want that. Then again, what’s the
difference between that scenario and one in which Fassel accepts the one-year extension
and the Giants still show no improvement?
About $1 million, I guess.
The way Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is going about finding a new head coach seems awfully
odd. By looking for the perfect coach to run the offense, Jones is in essence placing more
importance on the offensive-coordinator position than the head-coaching position. Unless,
of course, Jones hires himself as the head coach, which I highly doubt will happen.
But seriously … Here’s Jones talking to anyone and everyone about who the
perfect candidates are to run his offense, the one the Cowboys used to win three Super
Bowls in the 1990s. He doesn’t have a head coach, and he has a staff full of
assistants. It just doesn’t make sense.
Here’s Jones’ thinking. Former head coach Chan Gailey, who was fired last
week, was essentially the Cowboys’ head coach and offensive coordinator. Jones
didn’t have a problem with Gailey the head coach. His problem was with Gailey the
coordinator. So in his mind, he needs to fix Dallas’ offense first. The head-coaching
thing will apparently take care of itself.
Hence, if he finds someone to be both head coach and offensive coordinator, great. If
he finds someone who would be best-suited for solely a coordinator’s position,
that’s great too. It would allow him to graciously promote from within, giving the
head-coaching spot to either defensive coordinator Dave Campo or special-teams coach Joe
Avezzano.
But neither of them would feel the heat if the offense came under fire, would they?
Probably not, considering neither of them can be considered offensive gurus. Nope. The
offensive coordinator would be on the hot seat, just as Gailey — the offensive
coordinator — was. Jones can sugarcoat this all he wants. He’s the head coach of
the Cowboys, for all intents and purposes. Next in line is whoever’s suckered into
taking the offensive-coordinator job. Then comes the guy who oversees the team’s
practice week, whatever they call him, whoever he is.
It’s not like he’s important or anything. |
