Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Not enough wins yet.
I did.
I would agree with you except that the ability to win playoff games is its own skill and virtue IMHO, and his management of games during the playoffs has been horrid. That's why I highlighted Marv Levy's (and indirectly, Dan Reeves') winning playoff records in the discussion above.
Are you serious? Perhaps you are forgetting about Miami who had a guy named Marino who was still at the top of his game in the early 90's. The AFC East was hardly weak like you suggested. And Buffalo made the Super Bowl as a wild card one of those four years, to say that they coasted to a number one seed every year is absurd. Besides, no team EVER coasts to a number one seed. If you finish with the best record in your conference, you earned it.
Actually, the score 13-6 and it was Thurman Thomas' fumble that was returned for a TD that turned the momentum. How is that Levy's fault? Should he not have given the ball to his star RB in the second half?
He's made it to THREE Conference Championships. In 1986, he was the coach of Cleveland as Elway pulled off "The Drive". In 1987, he was the coach of Cleveland as Byner lost "The Fumble". In 1993, he coached KC to the AFC Championship game, losing to Buffalo in a manner not heartbreaking enough to earn a nickname with capital letters.I absolutely CAN NOT hold it against Schottenheimer that he never made it to the Superbowl. He was 98.5 yards away from a superbowl. It's not Schottenheimer's fault that John Elway pulled off some of the greatest playoff heroics that history has ever seen. Any other QB facing Cleveland, and Schotty has his SB squad, but no... he had to face the Comeback Kid himself.
I don't think this is relevant. Why should Levy and Cowher be punished for sticking with one team for a long time, unlike Schottenheimer who changes teams every few years? This is the same thing I hear about Parcells and I find it aggravating. I think sustaining success over a long period of time like Cowher and Shanahan have done is FAR MORE IMPRESSIVE than Parcells and Schottenheimer changing teams every few years. I mean, I am sure Shanahan could pad his resume by switching teams every few years so the media could also hype him up by saying, "he has turned three or four franchises around," like they love to do about Parcells, but I find him staying with Denver and having success like he does far more admirable and impressive. And when did Schottenheimer have success in Washington?
I think it's incredibly relevant. Here's a question- which do you think is harder, winning 8 games with a team that won an average of 3 the two years before you showed up, or winning an average of 10 games with a team that won an average of 10 games the year before?Inevitably, taking over reclamation projects (or expansion teams) will kill a coach's overall win-loss record, since it's very very hard to win games with reclamation projects. The fact that it hasn't for Schotty is impressive. Cowher isn't getting PUNISHED for staying successful with one team, Schotty is getting REWARDED for going to several different teams, and still being successful.
It all depends on the situation. Sustained consistency like winning 10 games every year is pretty difficult. In a lot of cases, an NFL team that has only won 3 or 4 games is likely been the victim of bad coaching and/or bad luck and sometimes it takes a good coach like Schottenheimer, for example, to help turn it around. I submit, though, that Shanahan and Cowher could easily do the same thing, but they have stuck with the same teams for over ten years now instead of leaving and then coming back a year later to bring a hapless team back to life.
What is your definition of successful? Is it simply making the playoffs? Getting to the Super Bowl? Winning the Super Bowl?
In Levy's case, I think he deserves mad props for getting a team mentally prepared to play well and get back to the Super Bowl following three losses in the big game. Look at recent history. I think the last five or six Super Bowl losers did not even make the playoffs the following season. Losing the Super Bowl is often a damaging blow to a team's psyche. Buffalo managed to rebound three times and make it back to the Super Bowl and I think Levy deserves much of the credit for this, wouldn't you say?
I can't believe I forgot the two Cleveland Championship games.
I wasn't sure with the KC team when he had Montana and should have checked; my recollection was that they'd only gotten as far as the second (divisional) round there. Anyway, the fact is the guy hasn't won it. You talked about Schotty being 98 yards away from the AFC Championship and Super Bowl appearance, well Marv Levy was 3 feet away from a Super Bowl victory in 1990. Schotty's still better?
1:17am.. hmm, I was probably inebriated.But I think we can all agree that without powerhouses like Chicago, San Fran, Washington, Dallas, and New York, the AFC had a weaker playoff field than the NFC from '84-'97. What Buffalo did was impressive, but not enough for Levy to get my vote.
The same could be said about Bud Grant in the '70s, when the Cowboys were the only NFC team to break the AFC death grip on the Super Bowl.And in a few years we'll be saying the same thing about Andy Reid and the current era of AFC dominance.
I agree that sustaining consistency is very difficult, which is my biggest knock against Bellichick (and the reason why I don't think he's even CLOSE to the "best ever" yet). That said, I would hope that you would agree that it's easier to win 10 games with a talented team that you have assembled yourself than to win 8 games with a less talented team that was poorly assembled by someone else- which was the reason you were brought in in the first place. I still think Schotty's 8-win season in Washington was far more impressive than any of Cowher's 10-win seasons in Pittsburgh. Also, it's far more impressive that he has FEWER losing seasons than Cowher, despite coaching 6 more years and 3 more teams.
I think playoffs are a very solid measure of success, but in this case, I was referring to non-losing seasons. There are many levels of success, but at its core, success is winning at least as many as you lose- something that very few coaches have done as well as Schottenheimer.
I think the last five or six Super Bowl losers didn't have 11 pro-bowlers on the team.I don't buy the "damaging to a team's psyche" stuff. I buy parity. I mean, was it damaging to the 1972 Dolphins' psyche that they lost the SB the year before? Was losing the SB so much more damaging to Philly's psyche than losing 3 straight NFC Championships?
The Pro Bowl is a lousy barometer to use for talent. Besides, you seem to be assuming that the team got to the Super Bowl because those 11 guys were good enough to make the Pro Bowl; but don't guys often make the Pro Bowl because they're on a winning team (especially one that's been to multiple Super Bowls already)? Can't good coaching get players into the Pro Bowl who might not have been?
Admittedly, I was not aware of Schottenheimer's low number of losing seasons and that is somewhat impressive. I wouldn't call his 8-8 season in Washington impressive, however. And not moreso than some of Cowher's best seasons in Pittsburgh.
Okay.
You don't think a team has to be mentally tough to keep fighting after losing Super Bowl after Super Bowl?
I agree. Pro Bowl berths are overrated. Even still, a team with a lot of Pro Bowlers is not always automatically a winner. Look at this season's San Diego Chargers.
I think a team has to be mentally tough to do a ton of things. I don't think a team has to be more mentally tough to keep fighting after losing SB after SB than it has to be to keep fighting after losing NFC Championship after NFC Championship (at home, even), or to keep fighting after losing season after losing season (such as Cincy), or even to keep fighting after WINNING SB after SB. I think each presents its own challenges, and since I've never been in ANY of those situations, I couldn't say which is the most difficult. I do know that the whole reason the '72 Dolphins went undefeated (other than their schedule) WAS the fact that they lost the SB, and it just galvanized the team. I also feel like the reason that the Eagles kept making the NFC Championship was because they kept losing it- they played like they still had something to prove. Personally, I believe the toughest thing to do would be to turn around a losing culture- to take a team that just loses and loses and turn them into a winner. Something like what Lewis has done with the Bengals, or like Levy did in the first place with the Bills... or like Schotty has done in Cleveland, KC, and now SD.
Going to 4 straight Super Bowls, and you still doubt his coaching ability...?Those teams were great because of him. Yes there was a lot of talent. There's a lot of talent on the Bills' squad right now, and look where they're going - NO WHERE! I don't know how anyone could possibly doubt his coaching ability, it's ludicrous.
On a more serious note, the innovative spirit of Sam Wyche should represent here too.-QG
Brown's legend was cemented in Cleveland. In Cincy, he finished below .500 and didn't win one playoff game.Actually Brown was head coach of the Bengals from '68-'75, all of which were years the Bengals competed for the Super Bowl. Though I'll admit I was taking liberties with the topic as were the Kotite fans
I completely agree with this logic and to put it into terms literally of today, which job would most people think is more appealing, the KC job (10 win team) or the New Orleans job (3 win team). Marty has essentially taken over the 3 win teams, and has always immediately made them competitive, and that is an amazing feet. If someone comes in and make New Orleans an 8-9 win team next year, that will be a solid job of coaching. If someone comes to KC and wins 8-9 games, they will probably be a dissapointment to KC fans.
)Brown's Cincy record was of course in part b/c it was an expansion team - and one that made the playoffs in a real hurry at that (and that I still believe is the only 1-6 team to turn around and make the playoffs)-QG
