What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Best coach to never win a Super Bowl? (1 Viewer)

Best coach to never win a Super Bowl?

  • Bill Cowher

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • George Allen

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don Coryell

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tony Dungy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bud Grant

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Marv Levy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dan Reeves

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Marty Schottenheimer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Chuck Knox

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

djcolts

Footballguy
I voted for Levy. I think those Bills teams in the 90s got too much grief for losing 4 straight Super Bowls - those teams were very good.

 

redman

Footballguy
I voted for Levy. I think those Bills teams in the 90s got too much grief for losing 4 straight Super Bowls - those teams were very good.
:goodposting: Hard to argue in this poll with a guy whose playoff record was 11-8.

 

valhallan

Footballguy
I voted for Levy. I think those Bills teams in the 90s got too much grief for losing 4 straight Super Bowls - those teams were very good.
The AFC East was weak.. they coasted to the #1 seed and got pasted in the big game over and over.Voted for Grant.

 

encaitar

Footballguy
Voted for Grant, but in my mind it's either Grant or Levy. 4 Super Bowl appearances each says a lot about their coaching ability. One or two breaks in each of those games and they could've been thought of as two of the greatest coaches of all time.Also, for Levy's defense. I clearly remember him losing a Super Bowl to the Giants because his kicker couldn't make a field goal. Hardly was a blow-out.

 

SSOG

Moderator
Voted Schottenheimer. 20 seasons, 4 different teams, and a grand total of TWO losing seasons (one of which was a mere 7-9). That's RIDICULOUS. Lots of bad results in the postseason, but nobody has been as good for as long with as many different teams.

 

redman

Footballguy
Voted Schottenheimer. 20 seasons, 4 different teams, and a grand total of TWO losing seasons (one of which was a mere 7-9). That's RIDICULOUS. Lots of bad results in the postseason, but nobody has been as good for as long with as many different teams.
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.

I can't even put Marty into the same strata as guys on this list who at least have made the Super Bowl but who still have a losing playoff record, such as Cowher, Bud Grant, etc. He hasn't even gotten there. I don't even believe he's gotten to the conference championship game.

I just don't see how he could be ranked ahead of people who have advanced to the big game.

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
I voted for Levy. I think those Bills teams in the 90s got too much grief for losing 4 straight Super Bowls - those teams were very good.
The AFC East was weak.. they coasted to the #1 seed and got pasted in the big game over and over.
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.

 

BigRed

Footballguy
Cowher. Who knows how many titles he coulda won if not for his one glaring weakness: ignorance of the QB position. Even so, he has few peers (and if friggin O'Donnell hadn't.....ahh never mind...).Levy is 3d, after Grant. At least ONE of those Bills' teams should have won it and IMO it's a direct reflection on him that they didn't - esp. that last one. Aikman was in a daze, they were up 14-7 at the half.....and came out and did an immediate collapse. That's on the coach.Allen also deserves a mention despite the poor playoff record (and keeping in mind that he had 3 teams which should have been in the playoffs but they didn't have umpteen playoff spots then).

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
Levy is 3d, after Grant. At least ONE of those Bills' teams should have won it and IMO it's a direct reflection on him that they didn't - esp. that last one. Aikman was in a daze, they were up 14-7 at the half.....and came out and did an immediate collapse. That's on the coach.
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SSOG

Moderator
Voted Schottenheimer. 20 seasons, 4 different teams, and a grand total of TWO losing seasons (one of which was a mere 7-9). That's RIDICULOUS. Lots of bad results in the postseason, but nobody has been as good for as long with as many different teams.
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.

I can't even put Marty into the same strata as guys on this list who at least have made the Super Bowl but who still have a losing playoff record, such as Cowher, Bud Grant, etc. He hasn't even gotten there. I don't even believe he's gotten to the conference championship game.

I just don't see how he could be ranked ahead of people who have advanced to the big game.
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.

Also, while it's impressive that Levy made 4 straight SBs, have you seen those Bills teams? They had 10, 8, 11, and 7 pro bowlers on them. That's right, in 1992, HALF OF THE TEAM made the pro bowl. And Levy and Cowher have only had success with one team each, compared to Schottenheimer's four.

Schotty has coached 4 different teams, making the playoffs with 3, making the AFC Championship with 2 (and his SD team is still young enough that I wouldn't rule out his chances of making it a third time, yet). And he has a grand total of TWO losing seasons in 20 years. To compare, Levy has 7 losing seasons in 17 years, and Cowher has 3 losing seasons in 14 years. And Cowher has never really taken on a single reclamation project, while Schotty has taken on four.

Now that everyone has remembered that Shanahan is really a good head coach, I think Schottenheimer is the most underrated coach in the entire NFL.

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
And Levy and Cowher have only had success with one team each, compared to Schottenheimer's four.
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?

 

Mike

Footballguy
Another vote for Marv. Damn those teams were good. F'n Bills for what we've had to witness the past 5-6 years.

 

SSOG

Moderator
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.

Besides, if it's a case like Marv Levy, where all of the success happened in a 4-year window with the same team, one can make the arguement that he just somehow lucked into a phenominal team and rode it for a period of greatness in an otherwise forgettable career. Schottenheimer has been so successful in so many different environments that it's clear it's not luck. He's proven he can replicate his success ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Impressive, to say the least.

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
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?
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.
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.
What is your definition of successful? Is it simply making the playoffs? Getting to the Super Bowl? Winning the Super Bowl?
Besides, if it's a case like Marv Levy, where all of the success happened in a 4-year window with the same team, one can make the arguement that he just somehow lucked into a phenominal team and rode it for a period of greatness in an otherwise forgettable career. Schottenheimer has been so successful in so many different environments that it's clear it's not luck. He's proven he can replicate his success ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Impressive, to say the least.
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

denver90

Footballguy
I think you have to get to SB to earn my vote.Strike Coryell, Schottenheimer, Knox, and Dungy.Multiple appearances trump single appearance.Strike Cowher and AllenWhat's left is Grant, Levy and Reeves.All three lost 4 SB.Grant lost to HOFers Stram, Shula, Knox and Madden(nominee) (combined 8 SB wins), but couldn't get his teams to show up for the big game (8.5 pts/game).Levy went to 4 consecutive losing to Gibbs(HOF), Parcells(wide right), Johnson twice (combined 7 SB wins), but couldn't win in the USFL while Spurrier could for what it's worth.Reeves lost to Gibbs, Walsh(HOF), Parcells, and Shanahan (combined 10 SB wins)and is only the 3rd coach to take 2 different teams to SB(Shula, Parcells).Reeves was my vote, based mainly on the 2 teams to SB fact, but Levy and Grant were a close 2nd and 3rd.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Orange Crush

Footballguy
I see Schottenheimer and Reeves as very similar. They both emphasize fundamentals - running the football, stopping the run, minimizing mistakes/turnovers. They are both excellent at not losing games. Though I think Schottenheimer is a lot better at this. IMO, Reeves got in Elway's way when in Denver. I think Reeves was an excellent first coach for Vick, so that Vick learned the importance of the fundamentals in the NFL. But to win it all and become a great coach, you have to be able to take risks, and Reeves just can't do that.An earlier responder questioned Schottenheimer's success in Washington. That period may have been some of his best work. During that period he had to deal with a meddlesome know-nothing owner in Dan Snyder who forced Jeff George on Marty. He went through one of the biggest salary cap purges any team has ever gone through, and Marty coached that team through it. You never hear about that cap purge, because the team didn't go 4-12 and use it as an excuse for not doing well. Again, though, I think there's a reason for Schottenheimer not being able to make it to the Championship, and that will always be a draw against him. I don't think he's even capable of getting to a SB. He lacks the ability.Still, these guys were better head coaches than Coryell and Grant, etc., who specialized in one side of the ball but lacked the ability to manage an entire team. Dungy has been in this category as well, but I think in a few weeks he'll remove himself from contention in this poll.

 

Brock Middlebrook

Footballguy
Levy's bombing out in KC,a nd the fact that he had so much talent in Buffalo give me doubts about his coaching ability.Voted for Sylvester.Despite losing players every year, the Stillers are ALWAYS in the hunt.

 

Vikes Fan

Footballguy
Voted for Grant, but in my mind it's either Grant or Levy. 4 Super Bowl appearances each says a lot about their coaching ability. One or two breaks in each of those games and they could've been thought of as two of the greatest coaches of all time.

Also, for Levy's defense. I clearly remember him losing a Super Bowl to the Giants because his kicker couldn't make a field goal. Hardly was a blow-out.
I feel the same way and voted the same. I think Levy and Grant both were awesome coaches that didn't get the breaks in the big game.
 

redman

Footballguy
Voted Schottenheimer. 20 seasons, 4 different teams, and a grand total of TWO losing seasons (one of which was a mere 7-9). That's RIDICULOUS. Lots of bad results in the postseason, but nobody has been as good for as long with as many different teams.
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.

I can't even put Marty into the same strata as guys on this list who at least have made the Super Bowl but who still have a losing playoff record, such as Cowher, Bud Grant, etc. He hasn't even gotten there. I don't even believe he's gotten to the conference championship game.

I just don't see how he could be ranked ahead of people who have advanced to the big game.
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.

Also, while it's impressive that Levy made 4 straight SBs, have you seen those Bills teams? They had 10, 8, 11, and 7 pro bowlers on them. That's right, in 1992, HALF OF THE TEAM made the pro bowl. And Levy and Cowher have only had success with one team each, compared to Schottenheimer's four.

Schotty has coached 4 different teams, making the playoffs with 3, making the AFC Championship with 2 (and his SD team is still young enough that I wouldn't rule out his chances of making it a third time, yet). And he has a grand total of TWO losing seasons in 20 years. To compare, Levy has 7 losing seasons in 17 years, and Cowher has 3 losing seasons in 14 years. And Cowher has never really taken on a single reclamation project, while Schotty has taken on four.

Now that everyone has remembered that Shanahan is really a good head coach, I think Schottenheimer is the most underrated coach in the entire NFL.
I can't believe I forgot the two Cleveland Championship games. :bag: 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?

I'm not bashing Schottenheimer - I think the guy's a very good coach. I may even agree with you that he's the most underrated in the NFL right now. I also agree that he did a phenomenal job as the 'Skins coach for a year against some tough odds.

But all of those are different issues from comparing him to some of the greatest coaches in NFL history. I just don't think you can rank him above guys who have managed to win games in the playoffs more often than not.

 

valhallan

Footballguy
I voted for Levy. I think those Bills teams in the 90s got too much grief for losing 4 straight Super Bowls - those teams were very good.
The AFC East was weak.. they coasted to the #1 seed and got pasted in the big game over and over.
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.
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.

 

Orange Crush

Footballguy
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.
:goodposting: 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.

 

raidergil

Footballguy
Levy. Consider that when he joined Bills they had only won 4 games over previous 2 seasons combined. They were the joke of the NFL. In his second full season in Buffalo he had the team in the AFC Championship game. He endured the Bickering Bills year & built off that to go to SB 4 straight years. That's 5 AFC Championship appearances in 6 years. He won in the playoffs with a backup QB & won a championship IN Miami (by the way he OWNED Don Shula). He coached a team to victory down 35-3 in a playoff game. Certainly the AFC was not as strong as the NFC during those years, but Levy's Bills had a tremendous regular season record vs the NFC - he beat the Giants & Cowboys on the road in each of the years those teams beat Buffalo in SB. I also believe that during his time in Buffalo, they were 2nd only to SF in overall record.I will hold him (and Kelly) responsible for the 1st SB loss as he should have called far more running plays the way Thurm was ripping the Giants. But the way he was able to rally this team every year speaks volumes as to his coaching ability.As for the argument that he only had success with 1 team - that can also be said about Belichick.

 

SSOG

Moderator
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.
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.
What is your definition of successful? Is it simply making the playoffs? Getting to the Super Bowl? Winning the Super Bowl?
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.
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 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?

 

redman

Footballguy
I think the last five or six Super Bowl losers didn't have 11 pro-bowlers on the team.
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?
 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
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.
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.

Given their numerous playoff failures, I think an argument could be made for both Cowher and Schottenheimer that they have gotten their teams to overachieve in the regular season, but once the playoffs came around, better teams took them out, although both guys have had playoff teams that lost to lesser opponents (Schottenheimer's Chiefs losing to the Colts in 95 and Cowher's Steelers losing to the Chargers in 94).

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.
Okay.
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?
You don't think a team has to be mentally tough to keep fighting after losing Super Bowl after Super Bowl?
I think the last five or six Super Bowl losers didn't have 11 pro-bowlers on the team.
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?
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.

 

SSOG

Moderator
You don't think a team has to be mentally tough to keep fighting after losing Super Bowl after Super Bowl?
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.
 

BlueDredSo

Footballguy
Levy's bombing out in KC,a nd the fact that he had so much talent in Buffalo give me doubts about his coaching ability.

Voted for Sylvester.

Despite losing players every year, the Stillers are ALWAYS in the hunt.
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.

 

QuizGuy66

Footballguy
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 :)On a more serious note, the innovative spirit of Sam Wyche should represent here too.-QG

 

Autumn Wind

Footballguy
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 :)
Brown's legend was cemented in Cleveland. In Cincy, he finished below .500 and didn't win one playoff game.
 

MDSkinner

Footballguy
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.

Besides, if it's a case like Marv Levy, where all of the success happened in a 4-year window with the same team, one can make the arguement that he just somehow lucked into a phenominal team and rode it for a period of greatness in an otherwise forgettable career. Schottenheimer has been so successful in so many different environments that it's clear it's not luck. He's proven he can replicate his success ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Impressive, to say the least.
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.
 

stevec

Footballguy
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.
:goodposting: Check out the poll reults as to what job's more desirable. While I picked NO, I think it's still dead last.

 

QuizGuy66

Footballguy
okay I gave my real vote from the above list to Levy - getting back there 4 straight years is just a helluva accomplishment and with Norwood he certainly had the closest call (though Wyche and the '88 Bengals took 'em out :) )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

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top