Tom Cable Staying As Coach: Lesser Of Two Evils?

As soon as the time ran out on the Raiders, Tom Cable's name came up for Black Monday's firing squad.

Sure enough, Jim Zorn was gone in Washington. The Bills, going 6-10, didn't stop at one coach...the team fired everyone in the coaching ranks.

Tom Cable, as it now stands, is still the coach for the Oakland Raiders. How long that job title is his, however is anyone's guess. Off a Pro Football Talk article, linked to Steve Corkran, had reported several people close to the owner as Al "is inclined to fire Tom Cable". Of course, this is the great thing with speculation, being that no one truly knows what goes on inside Al's head.

What it does mean, for the Raiders, is having to balance the pros against the cons, of replacing Cable.

For the Pros, you have a coach the players love, to a man. Several have voiced their support for Tom and replacing him would simply cause the team to go backwards, not forward.

You have already seen all the dirty laundry that can be thrown at this guy. Do you think ESPN will make a series on Tom Cable's wives for next year? Doubtful, but this distraction was a one-and-done episode...hitting another assistant? After Randy Hanson's brush, I don't think anyone else would be that foolish.

Cable's coaching staff is already in place. Replacing Tom, would likely start a whole new process of migration of coaches, that may or may not work in Oakland, thus the new coach may not work as well, as the present issue. Al Davis may like to win and win now, keeping Cable may be the best option for Al.

Finding a coach who is willing to tolerate Al being Al. A lot of people thought the world of Kiffin, until it was announced that Kiffin wanted to bolt early. Anyone who has listened to Cable, knows Cable is just where he wants to be coaching a team he has worked hard with. If you think getting that sort of loyalty is easy, by waving money, it isn't.

Now, the primary con to keeping Tom Cable, of course is admitting that JaMarcus Russell is not going to work. Sure, he has a cannon arm. Sure, he had that late game win against the Broncos. And sure, he's an overpaid, overweight quarterback with a strong arm. But like some rookies, it's best to let the person learn on the bench, than from behind the center. If Tom stays, he'll probably keep Russell on the bench hoping JaMarcus can learn in a year from watching others run the team. As it stands, Charlie Frye and Bruce Gradkowski could make this team work, while Russell would fumble the ball or miss receivers.

The other aspects of replacing Cable, for cons would be a fresh injection of ideas to keep the team moving forward. the problem with this idea, is how does this help or hurt he players already here? It's been mentioned in the past from Rich Gannon that Russell's problem has been too many coaches. Is that an obvious sign? How about the newer players, like Darrius Heyward-Bey or Louis Murphy? Some people felt that with Kiffin in Oakland, Mike Williams would turn around and become a great player. Several dropped passes, and Williams was sent packing. If a new coach comes in, could Louis Murphy and his skills diminish due to the coaching that comes in?

The Raiders  have had a problem with turnovers in the coaching field. Going down the list, since Tom Flores, you had Mike Shanahan, Art Shell, Mike White, Joe Bugel, Jon Gruden, Bill Callahan, Norv Turner, Shell again, Lane Kiffin and now Tom. In a 22 year period, the longest any coach has lasted, produced the best result. Art Shell in a six year period played in 5 playoff games. Gruden, in only four years saw four playoff games, while his team under Callahan went on to three more playoff games the following year...and the Raiders lost to the same coach Al let go of.

Looking at the situation, Do we want in another coach that will last two years, go on to another team and start from scratch again? Or should the Raiders keep a coach that at least has the team thinking about the playoffs next year and the team can focus on fixing what truly is wrong with this team?

As a last point, it's always a point of issue, I find with firing of coaches. Sure, the coach might lose a game by trying to go for a fourth down, or calling a bad running play. But when it comes down to it, the coach isn't out on the field, snapping the ball, throwing a pass or even kicking a field goal. The coach, is a teacher, one who simply draws up plans, tries to show the football team how to perform better and to work together.

Sometimes, the students don't learn...why fire the teacher? Would that work in the real world?

Reference: ProFootballTalk.NBCSports.com