Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Decisive Action Necessary

Here’s something I’ve never understood – the concept of a coach “saving his job” by winning one game. As far as I’m concerned, if a GM or owner has decided that the coach is on thin ice then a change has to happen, regardless of whether the team wins or not. Obviously there are extenuating circumstances, such as when Jeff Van Gundy led the eighth-seeded New York Knicks to an improbable run to the NBA Finals in 1999 or when Jim Fassel made his “playoffs” speech after the New York Giants dropped to 7-4 and then ran off seven straight wins, making it to Super Bowl XXXV.

I bring this up because pundits and fans are saying that Coach Coughlin might have to beat Philadelphia in the playoffs next Sunday in order to save his job. What would be the point? If he is perceived to be so weak and disrespected in his own locker-room, if he is so ill-regarded by his own players, then why should one meager victory change his fate? Why would the Giants want to go through this again next year? It seems pretty arbitrary that a coach should be spared the hangman’s noose if he is able to win one game.

Please keep in mind that I am a big fan of Tom Coughlin’s. I think he’s the unfortunate victim of some incredibly selfish and undisciplined players who can only be controlled in short doses. But at this point I see the benefits of letting him go. And no margin of victory (or defeat) should spare Coughlin at this point.

No comments: