News Archives

Washington Redskins Granted Permission to Interview Giants Defensive Coordinator Perry Fewell

January 1st, 2014 at 5:06 PM
By Dan Benton

As New York Giants head coach Tom Coughlin prepares to enter Thursday meetings to begin offseason evaluations and to discuss his current coaching staff with team owners and General Manager Jerry Reese, the Washington Redskins, fresh off firing Mike Shanahan on Black Monday, have requested permission to interview defensive coordinator Perry Fewell for their vacant head coaching position, reports ESPN Bureau's Josina Anderson.

Both Giants coordinators, Kevin Gilbride and the aforementioned Perry Fewell, have been the subject of much debate and speculation in recent seasons. A year ago, Fewell led the Giants' defense to a 31st ranking, leading many to believe he was on the hot seat. Instead, the Giants opted to give Fewell a quiet one-year extension, and after a rough start to this season, he was able to rally the Giants defense to an 8th overall finish.

Despite the solid defensive turnaround, the Giants still finished the season at 7-9 — a record that was not nearly good enough for co-owner John Mara. As a result of what's been deemed a failed season, Mara made it abundantly clear earlier this week that the coordinators will be a part of the offseason evaluations. And while Gilbride appears the most likely to get the axe, there's no guarantee that Fewell would be safe himself.

"As a football coach, we know that’s part of the business. It’s just like free agency, it’s part of the business for the players. You just go work and coach every day and you do the best job you can every day. Whatever happens will happen. Every day is a blessed day when you’re able to coach football," Fewell said last week.

Still, Coughlin fully intends to go into Thursday's meetings prepared to fight for both of his coordinators.

"I have great confidence in this group of men that we've had here as a coaching staff," Coughlin said. "I believe in them very strongly."

Whether or not the Giants ultimately grant the Redskins permission to interview Fewell remains to be seen, so they will continue to move forward with their list of current candidates, including Baltimore Ravens offensive coordinator Jim Caldwell, Carolina Panthers defensive coordinator Sean McDermott and Seattle Seahawks offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell.

Fewell last interviewed for a head coaching position following the 2011 season when he met with the Carolina Panthers, Cleveland Browns, Denver Broncos and Tennessee Titans.

Update: The Giants have granted the Redskins permission to interview Fewell for their vacant head coaching position.

photo credit: Chris Kunz via photobucket cc


Facebook Twitter Plusone Pinterest Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Posterous Email

Tags: Football, Mike Shanahan, New York, New York Giants, NFL, Perry Fewell, Tom Coughlin, Washington, Washington Redskins

Related posts

42 Responses to “Washington Redskins Granted Permission to Interview Giants Defensive Coordinator Perry Fewell”

  1.  Krow says:

    Poor Perry. He’s always a Rooney Rule interview. I hope he knows he has no real chance at these jobs.

    •  Dirt says:

      Rooney Rule gets under the skin of a lot of people. And some black coaches are getting used. Until they get hired. They’re getting in the door with a chance to showcase their stuff.

      Someone might hire this guy, especially coming off this season in which the defense actually did something (after a horrific start).

  2.  ERICHONIUS says:

    “Ok… you may know more about risk assessments than I do, but when I do them for the defense industry they’re just a function of Probability of Occurrence and Severity of the Outcome, not about guessing when in the future a guy’s performance will drop off. But apparently you’re working with a more advanced risk assessment algorithm, so I’ll defer to your asserted mastery in the field.”

    I don’t see how your job is relevant but congratulations. Further, I don’t understand why you can’t see how this situation is a risk assessment, but Ill try to explain:

    Risk to giants: overpayment for performance
    Probability: high, has only played to salary level once on his current deal, plus likelihood of diminishing production due to age.
    Severity of outcome: as the second highest player on this team, playing a position that has a high probability for injury and is a position that requires speed (attribute most affected by age), severity of outcome is high
    A high cost and low probability of return, makes a long term contract extension for Antrel Rolle a poor investment for this team.

    Now where is the fallacy in this argument? You tell me it’s ridiculous to make estimates of Antrel Rolle’s future performance, but if I asked you to sign Antrel Rolle to a contract for 20 years what would you say? Would you say, “we might as well sign him for 20 years because it is ridiculous to make an inference on future production”? (Since you don’t like me answering my rhetorical questions I will leave that to you.) Yes, I realize 4 and 20 years are dramatically different, but to say it is impossible to assess the future production of Antrell Rolle is obviously possible for 20 years. Why not 4 years?

    Look I am saying that Antrel Rolle COULD play at this (2013) level for the next 5 years. Just given his history and his age it is UNLIKELY. I am also saying that Rolle’s performance 2010-2012 was not worth 7.4 million a year and his future play is less likely to be worth 7.4 million (this is my opinion and is debatable). I am saying, yes, Rolle COULD sign an incentive-LADEN contract but since those deals are normally a last resort for player’s it is also UNLIKELY. These statements are based on the precedents I am aware of and since I have been watching the NFL closely for a long time, I feel secure in making them. My assumption is that Antrel Rolle is like the average NFL player. Could this assumption be wrong? Of course. Antrell Rolle COULD be willing to play for free for all I know, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know it is UNLIKELY. My arguments are based in probabilities but unless you are willing to condemn the entire practice of statistics as fallacy, I think that probability is a rational basis for an argument.

    “You’ve made quite a few serial assumptions that you assume will lead to signing a long term contract that’s probably not going to be good for the Giants. Let me ask you, do you ever challenge your own assumptions, or are they pretty much accepted as truth until proven otherwise?”
    Ironic sentiment coming from a statement based on the assumption that I don’t “challenge” my assumptions. I am sure you don’t truly care for an answer but I will give one anyways. My knowledge (assuming it is true) of science, lets me realize that we each experience universe uniquely depending on our frame of perspective. That many characteristics of subatomic particles are only defined when we measure them. These and many other things make me realize what we call “true” is more flexible and perhaps fragile then we take for granted. So yes I make assumptions and I make them with careful consideration.

    •  buljos says:

      Ha! Classic. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do care for answers… that’s why I bother to spend time here. People have a lot of information and interesting perspectives that I capture and use to adjust my thinking. Like you, I’ve been following the Giants for a while now, having been born and raised in Upstate in the mid 50s. I do see the situation as a risk assessment, I just didn’t discern that you had conducted a risk assessment. Rolle’s a great player and leader on this team, as was recognized by his MVP award, and he should have been in the pro bowl based on his numbers as compared to Safeties who did make the cut. If you don’t think he deserves a deal, then you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I don’t see how your knowledge of science is relevant but congratulations.

      •  ERICHONIUS says:

        Well I do think Antrel Rolle deserves an extension. I don’t think it should be for four years. I applaud Rolle’s performance this year but I also realize that his performance this year was FAR above his average production and I doubt we will consistently get that level of production (especially as Rolle nears the age of 35 — ancient as far as DB’s go).

        The comment about my knowledge of science was meant to explain WHY I carefully consider my assumptions. Those specific examples illustrate where common assumptions of how the universe works are inherently wrong and where scientific fields had paradigm shifts, where what had been assumed true changed drastically. So it was relevant to answer your question of whether I challenge my assumptions. My point was to say I have gone so far to challenge the very way I see the universe. Your comment about its irrelevance kind of portrays what I meant when I said that you probably don’t truly care about an answer. Alas, I did answer.

        Now your comment about your job was irrelevant because you were making a claim of expertise in risk assessment which was an “appeal to authority” fallacy since you were making a deductive argument (basically experts can be wrong).

        •  buljos says:

          Incorrect. My stated experience performing risk assessments was in no way, shape, or form making a deductive argument, which asserts my intent was to provide a guarantee of the truth of my conclusion providing my assumptions were true. I was assuming nothing, and arguing nothing. The simple fact is Risk = function ( Probability of Occurrence * Severity of the Outcome ), and that is a widely accepted and professionally defensible method found in systems engineering standards. You had asserted a “simple risk analysis” yet failed to present anything of the sort. I challenged you, so you did your homework and came back with a risk analysis. Now you’re asserting my reference to having performed countless risk analyses presented a deductive argument, which is utter nonsense as evidenced above.

          •  Begiant says:

            Antrell Rolle had a monster year and is getting old…no reason to take an incentive laden contract. However, if there was ever a player to break the mold it would be Rolle. He rarely gets injured and I don’t think he expects to have an injury…I don’t think he will either…he is just one of those guys. You can tell by his personality he wants to earn his contracts..but that doesnt mean he is willing to take a incentive laden one when he deserves more.

  3.  Mike Force says:

    This is a big deal and seems to indicate that injuries can indeed be minimized through proper weight training. It does make sense that advances would come out of the college ranks as study is what they’re supposed to do. Also indicates to me that Kelly in Philly may have brought something special with him from Oregon.

  4.  jb322 says:

    I’ve been saying this for a long time. Just for grins and giggles I plotted out the number of players from each team placed on the IR over the last 5 years. The Giants are always in the top ten for injuries. There has to be something going on with he way they train.

    •  Dirt says:

      Coughlin, and his methods from the Roaring Twenties, was supposed to rid the team of injuries.

      •  turkish says:


      •  jfunk says:

        To be fair, in the twenties ACL tears were called sore knees and guys just rubbed some dirt on it.

      •  Dirt says:

        From 9/20/07, NYP:

        Coughlin’s comments came during his introductory press conference on Jan. 7, 2004, during which he vowed to fix all the problems that had occurred in Fassel’s last season with the Giants. The most infamous comment was about the 12 Giants who ended the 2003 season on injured reserve (three others sat out the last few games).

        “I’m aware of the injury factor, the number of IRs, which is a cancer, let’s face it,” Coughlin said. “It’s something that has to be corrected. It’s a mental thing, I believe, as much as anything else.”

        In Coughlin’s first season as Giants coach, 18 players finished the season on IR. He has placed 47 players on IR in his (3 1/4 seasons).

    •  Kettles78 says:

      Did you break down injury types? Pulls and strains are more stretching training but what is the comparison between those vs broken bones/head injuries that you can’t train for. Just curious to see if there are numbers are out there

  5.  Kettles78 says:

    Good luck Perry

  6.  skinnydoogan says:

    Perhaps this is a good sign. Mara’s clear disgust with Gilbride and the possibility that Fewell goes, may trigger a retirement from Coughlin. There is hope afterall…..

  7.  fanfor55years says:

    I’d mind losing Marc Ross. Perry Fewell? Wouldn’t shed a single tear. But even Snyder isn’t that dumb.

  8.  LUZZ says:

    55 – I know ur not a Hogan fan, but he has made some beautiful throws on deep balls in this rose bowl. 3 that I can think of already.

    •  fanfor55years says:

      He is a hot and cold player. He almost single-handedly lost the Utah game. He has potential though. Could become a good pro because he has a terric arm.

      But Stanford can’t run against State and Hogan isn’t doing enough to overcome that so far.

  9.  BillyS says:

    I feel bad for Fewell. I think the Rooney rule is useless. I’m a believer that the best coach should be hired — end of story. Entertaining others does absolute nothing except alienate some coaches. I want the coach who is the best fit for the team. I don’t feel that Fewell is the best option out there and having him go through this process all over again just to satisfy a dumb rule is embarrassing and singles out African-American coaches in a negative way.

    Anyway, I don’t feel like Fewell should be coming back here and I wish him the best of luck with his future endeavors. Rotoworld said that Fewell boasted a top 10 overall defense (8th against the run, 14th against the pass). They sure as hell didn’t play like a top 10 defense…especially when looking back at the first half of the season. We need an overhaul when it comes to our coordinators.

  10.  rlhjr says:

    Michst offensive and especially defensive fronts are kicking the crap out of Stanford. MSU is no joke. I like both their DB. Also the DB King from Iowa.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: