He knew Johnson from a personal relationship and on top of that, Johnson was a very hot commodity. I obviously wasn't paying attention in 1989 to know whether Johnson was thought of as highly as Harbaugh was when he got hired, but I don't think that one really is the same situation as this.
Zimmer might be ok in Minnesota, I wouldn't bet on it though.
I'm not for "keeping" Garrett, I'm for replacing him with a known upgrade.
Might as well cut a bunch of salary and tank a year so we can be competitive with the next coach if we're going to keep Mr No Improvement. If we were doing that I could almost understand, but no, we're "going for it".
No point in reading further if you think sitting on a proven loser coach is ok.
Well there's no real point in this debate at all since you think it's all just a facade to keep Garrett. You'll say anything to try to get rid of him and you aren't willing to realistically look at the situation and what's best here. So I agree until you're willing to concede a few points, as I've done many times.
That's a loser mentality. No wonder you are OK with status quo.
Before Johnson it was generally considered that hiring a college coach was retarded, that the college game did not translate to the NFL, even college gods like Holtz and Perkins had failed in the NFL, so Jimmy was not as hot a commodity for the NFL heck most made fun of Jerruh for dumping an icon and going with the college guy.
There is a huge difference between a fan wanting the team to tank for draft picks and the team itself not trying to improve on proven mediocrity.
But I am trying to improve on mediocrity.
Correct, and keeping Garrett ain't it.
Firing him for someone who can't get over the hump ain't it either.
I'd rather go 4-12 after cutting Austin, Ware and some other dead weight with high cap numbers then hire Rex with a lot of cap room and a nice draft pick.
As opposed to hiring a guy like Zimmer now? Exactly my point.