Redskins' source denying Fassel has the job

by Skin Patrol on Jan 23, 2008 10:43 PM EST in Redskins News

Although we've heard a lot to the contrary this week, finally there is print denying reports that Jim Fassel has all but secured the head coaching job of the Redskins. Per ESPN:

Former New York Giants coach Jim Fassel remains under strong consideration to fill the Washington head coach vacancy, but a Redskins' source said late Wednesday he has not yet been offered the position and that club officials might still decide to wait until after Super Bowl XLII to interview one or more assistants from the franchises involved in the championship game.

Team and league sources also insisted that Washington defensive coordinator Gregg Williams... is still a candidate for the position.

I'm not saying that an additional wait is good news, but count me among many fans who think Jim Fassel just wasn't the right direction to go. He was bad enough to get fired from Baltimore, still fresh in memory, and the trajectory of his coaching career was doooooooooooooown. Of course, it wouldn't be a report on the Redskins coaching search if it didn't complicate matters by introducing more names:

It has been rumored that the Redskins might be interested in meeting with Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, who has vast experience in the NFC East. Before being named as the Giants' coordinator, Spagnuolo was the Philadelphia Eagles' linebackers coach for eight seasons. A Washington source acknowledged Thursday that Spagnuolo is "on the radar screen" of Redskins' officials.

The article also notes, and I didn't know this, that the team had tried to interview Monte Kiffin of Tampa Bay but he accepted an extension shortly before flying here for the interview.

Speaking of interviews, as I think I have some coming up, or hope so, anyways. Do you ever wonder what gets asked? How close is an interview for a Head Coach position to the interviews the rest of us slobs have to maneuver when the economy isn't shite in a pine tree? I have a real problem with interviews conceptually, since they necessarily ask dumb questions like: What are your biggest weaknesses? I can't imagine any employer expects honest answers, such as:

Do you consider a heroine addiction to be a weakness?
I like to steal things from my employer.
Well, it depends on how you interpret my criminal record. I like to view it as a wealth of diverse experiences that aid me daily. For instance, if I lock myself out of my car, or even lose my keys for that matter, it's no big shakes. I can get in and start it.

Yet knowing that you won't answer honestly, for whatever reason they're supposed to be swayed by "weaknesses" such as:

I'm a workaholic.
I am confident.
I tend to obsess over the details.
I'm too perfect.

Does this make any sense? How on earth did the process come to involve such a silly and absolutely uninteresting question? Are employers learning anything important about employees by how they answer questions that don't anticipate an honest answer and, in fact, encourage dishonesty?

My biggest weakness? I don't interview well.

Sports By Brooks, Falcons Hire Smith; Redskins Ready To Fassel-ize?

Tweet Comment 2 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Interviews are all about...

reading the situation. Most of the time, the interviewer doesn't want to be there any more than you do.

Now, there are a certain number of people who get their kicks off by grilling people that are their interviewing... but those are the people you don't want to work with anyway, right?

So I say: walk in like you own the damn place, act as normally as getting the job will allow, and have some fun with it.

Of course, I'm jobless, homeless, girlless, and clothesless... so what do I know?

by TexSkins on Jan 24, 2008 12:24 PM EST reply actions