I'm basing this off an interesting point raised from Peter King. He said that with a looming lockout, in-house candidates will have the edge on their team's head coach spot, because they now the players. Let me not go any further without saying that this is not a pro- or anti-Fisher post. I'm merely raising a question that we may be faced with.
Let's say we fire Fisher. We hire a brand new coach. Now let's play out how the lockout could go:
-Option #1 is the no-lockout option. If the CBA gets done early, clearly it has no affect on our coaching staff.
But now we're faced with the other options:
-If the lockout runs all the way through training camp, that means we are going to go into the season with a coach who has had only the preseason to work with this players (and his players have only had the preseason to learn the plays).
-If the lockout runs all the way through preseason, we're going into the regular season with a team that has almost zero practice time together.
-The football fan's worst nightmare is the lockout extending into the season. If we fire Fisher, this is the worst possible outcome for all of us (not that it wouldn't be anyways). We would be right in the midst of the regular season schedule and our new coach and players would have to hit the ground running. At this point, it would seem very tough for us to have any success. The new coach has not had OTAs, preseason games, etc to work with his players.
The point of this is the impact a looming lockout has on Fisher's future. Going over those possible scenarios, I don't think its unreasonable to say that a Fisher-led team would have a greater chance at success than a new coach would. This is simply because he's worked with the team, and the continuity would have at least some impact on how quickly our team comes together. The dilemma of course, is that we will have to decide on our coaching staff's future before we know if there's a lockout. Would the lockout affect our decision? Should it affect our decision?