IF Holmgren coaches Seattle to a SB win, does he (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

Personally, I think the whole "winning a Super Bowl with 2 different teams" thing is overrated. It makes for good conversation, but that's about it. If Cowher had beaten Dallas in '96 and won again this year, would that accomplishment be any less impressive than what Holmgren would achieve by winning, simply because he won 2 Super Bowls with the same franchise? If anything, I'd say it might be slightly MORE impressive because you have to be a pretty damn good coach just to stay with one team for that long to begin with. If Dungy had quit recently and Jimmy Johnson came out of retirement to coach the Colts and won it all, would that be more impressive than the resumes of the other multiple Super Bowl winning coaches? Not in my eyes.I think the thing to focus on is that a win would give Holmgren 2 Super Bowl rings as a head coach, period. That's enough in and of itself to start talking about him as a great coach.

 

[Jason Wood]

Personally, I think the whole "winning a Super Bowl with 2 different teams" thing is overrated. It makes for good conversation, but that's about it. If Cowher had beaten Dallas in '96 and won again this year, would that accomplishment be any less impressive than what Holmgren would achieve by winning, simply because he won 2 Super Bowls with the same franchise? If anything, I'd say it might be slightly MORE impressive because you have to be a pretty damn good coach just to stay with one team for that long to begin with. If Dungy had quit recently and Jimmy Johnson came out of retirement to coach the Colts and won it all, would that be more impressive than the resumes of the other multiple Super Bowl winning coaches? Not in my eyes.

I think the thing to focus on is that a win would give Holmgren 2 Super Bowl rings as a head coach, period. That's enough in and of itself to start talking about him as a great coach.

Hey Evil, I know you're giddy about the Steelers being in the Bowl and all, but shouldn't Cowher get his FIRST SB victory before we start throwing him into the debate?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Personally, I think the whole "winning a Super Bowl with 2 different teams" thing is overrated.  It makes for good conversation, but that's about it.  If Cowher had beaten Dallas in '96 and won again this year, would that accomplishment be any less impressive than what Holmgren would achieve by winning, simply because he won 2 Super Bowls with the same franchise?  If anything, I'd say it might be slightly MORE impressive because you have to be a pretty damn good coach just to stay with one team for that long to begin with.  If Dungy had quit recently and Jimmy Johnson came out of retirement to coach the Colts and won it all, would that be more impressive than the resumes of the other multiple Super Bowl winning coaches?  Not in my eyes.

I think the thing to focus on is that a win would give Holmgren 2 Super Bowl rings as a head coach, period.  That's enough in and of itself to start talking about him as a great coach.

Hey Evil, I know you're giddy about the Steelers being in the Bowl and all, but shouldn't Cowher get his FIRST SB victory before we start throwing him into the debate?

I'm not throwing Cowher into the debate at all. I was merely pointing out a hypothetical situation - IF Cowher had won in '96 and again this year, would that be less impressive than another coach winning 2 Super Bowl titles with two different teams? You can use any coach to make this point, Cowher, naturally, always comes to my mind. I was trying to avoid using coaches who won 2 Super Bowls in relatively quick succession, because I can see how winning multiple Super Bowls with the "same team" might be viewed as somewhat less impressive than winning with two different clubs.

So, forget that. If Seattle wins next Sunday, and then Billick wins the Super Bowl next year with Baltimore, is Billick winning 2 Super Bowls with Baltimore any less impressive than Holmgren winning with Green Bay and Seattle? Not in my opinion.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

How many are great..........we're watering them down.  Yeah, those guys are great.

How about these guys........Vince Lombardi, Paul Brown, Tom Landry, Chuck Knoll, Don Shula, Bill Walsh, Bud Grant, Hank Stram, and the countless other coaches.

We get caught up in the greatest ever conversations because Player A or in this case a coach is current.

Whether it's Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant or whoever we as a society start talking about greatest ever way to early.

So I'm saying NO.  NO, to the fact that Holmgren is in the Greatest ever category of coaches.

Fair enough.I think we're encountering a lot of this:

What does "greatest ever" mean? Top 2? 5? 20? Seems destined to end in people arguing over different things.

"Greatest ever" was not originally defined for the discussion so we have everyone debating from different starting points.Personally I would define "one of the greatest ever" as being in the Hall of Fame. A SB win here just about assures Holmgren of a bust in Canton. There is obviously an ability to further rank those in the Hall on a "greatest" scale. For the record, if Holmgren does get in, he would almost certainly be in the bottom quarter of my Hall of Fame coaches rankings.

Ok.........if you're defining "Greatest Ever Category" as being in the HoF.Then, if he does win here........he probably will and should be considered. Lots of If's here but if he did win and continued etc........he could fall under that category.

Personally though, my list of greatness for any category isn't as long. Great means elite...not a lot of room on top of that mountain for many people.

Talk about great runners, you're talking about Jim Brown and Barry Sanders.

Sure, OJ Simpson was very good or Franco Harris but they're not great compared to the greatest.

I think Holmgren is more of the OJ Simpson and Franco Harris types in regards to coaching......and that's awesome but to me not the greatest.

Very subjective though.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Personally, I think the whole "winning a Super Bowl with 2 different teams" thing is overrated.  It makes for good conversation, but that's about it.  If Cowher had beaten Dallas in '96 and won again this year, would that accomplishment be any less impressive than what Holmgren would achieve by winning, simply because he won 2 Super Bowls with the same franchise?  If anything, I'd say it might be slightly MORE impressive because you have to be a pretty damn good coach just to stay with one team for that long to begin with.  If Dungy had quit recently and Jimmy Johnson came out of retirement to coach the Colts and won it all, would that be more impressive than the resumes of the other multiple Super Bowl winning coaches?  Not in my eyes.

I think the thing to focus on is that a win would give Holmgren 2 Super Bowl rings as a head coach, period.  That's enough in and of itself to start talking about him as a great coach.

Hey Evil, I know you're giddy about the Steelers being in the Bowl and all, but shouldn't Cowher get his FIRST SB victory before we start throwing him into the debate?

I'm not throwing Cowher into the debate at all. I was merely pointing out a hypothetical situation - IF Cowher had won in '96 and again this year, would that be less impressive than another coach winning 2 Super Bowl titles with two different teams? You can use any coach to make this point, Cowher, naturally, always comes to my mind. I was trying to avoid using coaches who won 2 Super Bowls in relatively quick succession, because I can see how winning multiple Super Bowls with the "same team" might be viewed as somewhat less impressive than winning with two different clubs.

So, forget that. If Seattle wins next Sunday, and then Billick wins the Super Bowl next year with Baltimore, is Billick winning 2 Super Bowls with Baltimore any less impressive than Holmgren winning with Green Bay and Seattle? Not in my opinion.

The problem with it Evilgrin72 is that you're being hypothetical on both ends.......the lost to Dallas and a win that hasn't yet happened this year.And me personally, I do think it's worthy of great honor to win with two different teams, even more so than winning back to back.

Winning back to back means you're taking a lot of those same players who won prior and you win again with them. Certainly a great accomplishment......very difficult to do.

However, winning with 2 different teams means you were good enough to put together a SB team with one team. Then, you went and started completely over and did it again. Wow, that's awesome. That is the reason I believe people hold that in such high esteem compared to back to back winners or coaches who win with the same organization.

 

[Jason Wood]

Personally, I think the whole "winning a Super Bowl with 2 different teams" thing is overrated.  It makes for good conversation, but that's about it.  If Cowher had beaten Dallas in '96 and won again this year, would that accomplishment be any less impressive than what Holmgren would achieve by winning, simply because he won 2 Super Bowls with the same franchise?  If anything, I'd say it might be slightly MORE impressive because you have to be a pretty damn good coach just to stay with one team for that long to begin with.  If Dungy had quit recently and Jimmy Johnson came out of retirement to coach the Colts and won it all, would that be more impressive than the resumes of the other multiple Super Bowl winning coaches?  Not in my eyes.

I think the thing to focus on is that a win would give Holmgren 2 Super Bowl rings as a head coach, period.  That's enough in and of itself to start talking about him as a great coach.

Hey Evil, I know you're giddy about the Steelers being in the Bowl and all, but shouldn't Cowher get his FIRST SB victory before we start throwing him into the debate?

I'm not throwing Cowher into the debate at all. I was merely pointing out a hypothetical situation - IF Cowher had won in '96 and again this year, would that be less impressive than another coach winning 2 Super Bowl titles with two different teams? You can use any coach to make this point, Cowher, naturally, always comes to my mind. I was trying to avoid using coaches who won 2 Super Bowls in relatively quick succession, because I can see how winning multiple Super Bowls with the "same team" might be viewed as somewhat less impressive than winning with two different clubs.

So, forget that. If Seattle wins next Sunday, and then Billick wins the Super Bowl next year with Baltimore, is Billick winning 2 Super Bowls with Baltimore any less impressive than Holmgren winning with Green Bay and Seattle? Not in my opinion.

This is totally personal opinion, but for ME it would be more impressive. Holmgren would have won with two COMPLETELY different teams, support staff, executives, divisions, etc...if you're going to split hairs and discuss coaches with big-time success, winning 2 bowls with two differenet teams would help break to tie in my eyes.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Personally, I think the whole "winning a Super Bowl with 2 different teams" thing is overrated.  It makes for good conversation, but that's about it.  If Cowher had beaten Dallas in '96 and won again this year, would that accomplishment be any less impressive than what Holmgren would achieve by winning, simply because he won 2 Super Bowls with the same franchise?  If anything, I'd say it might be slightly MORE impressive because you have to be a pretty damn good coach just to stay with one team for that long to begin with.  If Dungy had quit recently and Jimmy Johnson came out of retirement to coach the Colts and won it all, would that be more impressive than the resumes of the other multiple Super Bowl winning coaches?  Not in my eyes.

I think the thing to focus on is that a win would give Holmgren 2 Super Bowl rings as a head coach, period.  That's enough in and of itself to start talking about him as a great coach.

Hey Evil, I know you're giddy about the Steelers being in the Bowl and all, but shouldn't Cowher get his FIRST SB victory before we start throwing him into the debate?

I'm not throwing Cowher into the debate at all. I was merely pointing out a hypothetical situation - IF Cowher had won in '96 and again this year, would that be less impressive than another coach winning 2 Super Bowl titles with two different teams? You can use any coach to make this point, Cowher, naturally, always comes to my mind. I was trying to avoid using coaches who won 2 Super Bowls in relatively quick succession, because I can see how winning multiple Super Bowls with the "same team" might be viewed as somewhat less impressive than winning with two different clubs.

So, forget that. If Seattle wins next Sunday, and then Billick wins the Super Bowl next year with Baltimore, is Billick winning 2 Super Bowls with Baltimore any less impressive than Holmgren winning with Green Bay and Seattle? Not in my opinion.

The problem with it Evilgrin72 is that you're being hypothetical on both ends.......the lost to Dallas and a win that hasn't yet happened this year.And me personally, I do think it's worthy of great honor to win with two different teams, even more so than winning back to back.

Winning back to back means you're taking a lot of those same players who won prior and you win again with them. Certainly a great accomplishment......very difficult to do.

However, winning with 2 different teams means you were good enough to put together a SB team with one team. Then, you went and started completely over and did it again. Wow, that's awesome. That is the reason I believe people hold that in such high esteem compared to back to back winners or coaches who win with the same organization.

I understand that. That's why my hypothetical entails a caoch winning with the same franchise, but 6-10 years apart. Forget about the examples - the question I am posing is : is winning two championships with the same franchise (assuming a sizable gap between rings) any less impressive than winning with two different franchises?I think what should be focused on here is the fact that a win would give Holmgren two rings, not two rings with two different teams.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Personally, I think the whole "winning a Super Bowl with 2 different teams" thing is overrated.  It makes for good conversation, but that's about it.  If Cowher had beaten Dallas in '96 and won again this year, would that accomplishment be any less impressive than what Holmgren would achieve by winning, simply because he won 2 Super Bowls with the same franchise?  If anything, I'd say it might be slightly MORE impressive because you have to be a pretty damn good coach just to stay with one team for that long to begin with.  If Dungy had quit recently and Jimmy Johnson came out of retirement to coach the Colts and won it all, would that be more impressive than the resumes of the other multiple Super Bowl winning coaches?  Not in my eyes.

I think the thing to focus on is that a win would give Holmgren 2 Super Bowl rings as a head coach, period.  That's enough in and of itself to start talking about him as a great coach.

Hey Evil, I know you're giddy about the Steelers being in the Bowl and all, but shouldn't Cowher get his FIRST SB victory before we start throwing him into the debate?

I'm not throwing Cowher into the debate at all. I was merely pointing out a hypothetical situation - IF Cowher had won in '96 and again this year, would that be less impressive than another coach winning 2 Super Bowl titles with two different teams? You can use any coach to make this point, Cowher, naturally, always comes to my mind. I was trying to avoid using coaches who won 2 Super Bowls in relatively quick succession, because I can see how winning multiple Super Bowls with the "same team" might be viewed as somewhat less impressive than winning with two different clubs.

So, forget that. If Seattle wins next Sunday, and then Billick wins the Super Bowl next year with Baltimore, is Billick winning 2 Super Bowls with Baltimore any less impressive than Holmgren winning with Green Bay and Seattle? Not in my opinion.

This is totally personal opinion, but for ME it would be more impressive. Holmgren would have won with two COMPLETELY different teams, support staff, executives, divisions, etc...if you're going to split hairs and discuss coaches with big-time success, winning 2 bowls with two differenet teams would help break to tie in my eyes.

OK, that's all I was asking. To me, it wouldn't much matter, especially with the rate of turnover in the NFL - a coach winning two rings ten years apart with the same franchise would likely have all different players, coordinators, GM, etc... maybe everything but the owner.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Personally, I think the whole "winning a Super Bowl with 2 different teams" thing is overrated.  It makes for good conversation, but that's about it.  If Cowher had beaten Dallas in '96 and won again this year, would that accomplishment be any less impressive than what Holmgren would achieve by winning, simply because he won 2 Super Bowls with the same franchise?  If anything, I'd say it might be slightly MORE impressive because you have to be a pretty damn good coach just to stay with one team for that long to begin with.  If Dungy had quit recently and Jimmy Johnson came out of retirement to coach the Colts and won it all, would that be more impressive than the resumes of the other multiple Super Bowl winning coaches?  Not in my eyes.

I think the thing to focus on is that a win would give Holmgren 2 Super Bowl rings as a head coach, period.  That's enough in and of itself to start talking about him as a great coach.

Hey Evil, I know you're giddy about the Steelers being in the Bowl and all, but shouldn't Cowher get his FIRST SB victory before we start throwing him into the debate?

I'm not throwing Cowher into the debate at all. I was merely pointing out a hypothetical situation - IF Cowher had won in '96 and again this year, would that be less impressive than another coach winning 2 Super Bowl titles with two different teams? You can use any coach to make this point, Cowher, naturally, always comes to my mind. I was trying to avoid using coaches who won 2 Super Bowls in relatively quick succession, because I can see how winning multiple Super Bowls with the "same team" might be viewed as somewhat less impressive than winning with two different clubs.

So, forget that. If Seattle wins next Sunday, and then Billick wins the Super Bowl next year with Baltimore, is Billick winning 2 Super Bowls with Baltimore any less impressive than Holmgren winning with Green Bay and Seattle? Not in my opinion.

The problem with it Evilgrin72 is that you're being hypothetical on both ends.......the lost to Dallas and a win that hasn't yet happened this year.And me personally, I do think it's worthy of great honor to win with two different teams, even more so than winning back to back.

Winning back to back means you're taking a lot of those same players who won prior and you win again with them. Certainly a great accomplishment......very difficult to do.

However, winning with 2 different teams means you were good enough to put together a SB team with one team. Then, you went and started completely over and did it again. Wow, that's awesome. That is the reason I believe people hold that in such high esteem compared to back to back winners or coaches who win with the same organization.

I understand that. That's why my hypothetical entails a caoch winning with the same franchise, but 6-10 years apart. Forget about the examples - the question I am posing is : is winning two championships with the same franchise (assuming a sizable gap between rings) any less impressive than winning with two different franchises?I think what should be focused on here is the fact that a win would give Holmgren two rings, not two rings with two different teams.

I was thinking about that afterwards, if you're lucky enough to be coaching on a team long enough, like a Cowher with big gaps in between. Then you have an argument, it's certainly not the same players or a high percentage of them. I would be impressed by that.I don't think as impressed, because you're dealing with an entire different organization, fans, division and possibly conference.

But let me say this. Coach Cowher is a very good coach and I'm sure trying to prove himself to message board posters is the farthest thing from his mind. It's unfortunate that in 96 they ran into the Cowboys but I'll have to say I like their chances this year.

Good luck to you and Steeler fans. As a Detroit native I'm really pulling for Jerome Bettis to have a big game. I remember following him thru high school and was disappointed he didn't go to U of M and went to Notre Dame instead. It seems to have come full circle for him now.

 

[DropKick]

Building two seperate superbowl teams from the ground up is an incredible acomplishment that only a few other coaches have done. Homgren should be compared to Bill Parcells RIGHT NOW, because they are virtually equal.

And the comparison to Parcells is a compliment?

 

[DoctorDetroit]

I'd say there are still lots of things to get on for Holmgren haters.

This year's team...

They went 2-2 against teams with winning records. They just beat up on the scrubs.

They beat the 6 and the 5 seed to get to the SB. If they win, one could still argue that they just beat another 6 seed (although I don't think that's a very good argument). It would be pretty amazing to see a team win a SB without beating a single division winner in the post-season.

You really make me hate the Jets more and more. This is what I'm talking about when I say that even if the Seahawks win, they still won't get any respect from fans like this.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Personally I can't wait for this game to be over so I can stop seeing Dr. Detroit posting every 30 seconds.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Personally I can't wait for this game to be over so I can stop seeing Dr. Detroit posting every 30 seconds.

Trailor park down?

40 seconds. I did it!

EDIT TO NOTE: Don't drink and post! I was not a shark last night by any means because I responded to a cheap shot with another cheap shot instead of just moving on. My apologies and I retract that post.

 

[falconeyed]

I'm not so sure that winning 2 with 2 different teams is enough. Taking a glance at the stats on superbowl.com (as far as winning coaches go), I was wondering what the percentage of SB winner HCs were in the HOF.I and II - Lombardi (no brainer).III - Weeb Ewbank (in)IV - Hank Stram (in)V - Don McCafferty (nope)VI - Tom Landry (in)VII - Don Shula (in)VIII - Don Shula (in)IX - Chuck Noll (in)X - Chuck Noll (in)XI - John Madden (nope)XII - Tom Landry (in)XIII - Chuck Noll (in)XIV - Chuck Noll (in)XV - Tom Flores (nope)XVI - Bill Walsh (in)XVII - Joe Gibbs (in)XVIII - Tom Flores (nope)XIX - Bill Walsh (in)XX - Mike Ditka (nope ... well he's in, but not for his coaching, so he counts as a "no" for this)XXI - Bill Parcells (nope)XXII - Joe Gibbs (in)XXIII - Bill Walsh (in)XXIV - George Seifert (nope)XXV - Bill Parcells (nope)XXVI - Joe Gibbs (in)XXVII - Jimmy Johnson (nope)XXVIII - Jimmy Johnson (nope)XXIX - George Seifert (nope)XXX - Barry Switzer (nope)XXXI - Mike Holmgren (nope)XXXII - Mike Shanahan (nope)XXXIII - Mike Shanahan (nope)XXXIV - **** Vermeil (nope)XXXV - Brian Billick (nope)XXXVI - Bill Belichick (nope)XXXVII - Jon Gruden (nope)XXXVIII - Bill Belichick (nope)XXXIX - Bill Belichick (nope)So, multiple winners are Lombardi (2), Landry (2), Shula(2), Noll(4), Walsh(3), and Gibbs(3). Multiple winners that aren't in (and eligible) are Flores and Seifert. I think it's probably safe to say that Shanahan and Belichick will get in (and perhaps Johnson). Based on all of that, I'm thinking that if Seattle wins, then Holmgren isn't necessarily a lock for the HOF. The guys that won 2 and are HOF inductees are known as innovators outside of their SB success, which might be the reason why guys like Flores and Seifert aren't in. Shanahan and Belichick, I think, fall into that innovator category ... so that, coupled with the SB wins, puts them in. Long story short ... I think Holmgren has to win this one and another one to get in. There are coaches in the HOF that didn't win the SB, but most of them are pre-SB coaches.Edit for run on sentence.

 

[Sinrman]

I'd say there are still lots of things to get on for Holmgren haters.

This year's team...

They went 2-2 against teams with winning records. They just beat up on the scrubs.

They beat the 6 and the 5 seed to get to the SB. If they win, one could still argue that they just beat another 6 seed (although I don't think that's a very good argument). It would be pretty amazing to see a team win a SB without beating a single division winner in the post-season.

none of that is his fault.

I agree. It's not his fault that they were scheduled a "cupcake" schedule overall. He just did what he SHOULD have done -- beat up those they played, cupcake or not.Sure, they had an easier schedule than many others, but they did what needed to be done, and won two big games against tough opponents, and brought themselves to the Super Bowl.

Kudos to them...

 

[Judge Smails]

NotEvenClose

 

[BGP]

These sorts of questions are opinions, of course. For me, a win clearly elevates Holmgren as the guy I would most like to have coach my team if I couldn't have Belichick. Someone else may disagree. Fine.

 

[G3-175SE]

IF (big "if") Holmgren becomes the first to coach two different teams to superbowl victories, does that automaticly push him into the "greatest coaches ever" conversation?

I don't believe so. While he will be the first coach to do it I think he needs to win more games and maybe another SB or two first.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

What a "hero or goat" situation for the Walrus. He had a chance at greatness, but now must be considered a two-time Super Bowl choker in my opinion. He won in '96 with a team that was far superior to the woeful Patriots, although Parcells made a game out of it but for some huge special teams plays. Holmgren's terrible clock management last night was stunning, and he lost as a double digit favorite in '97 when he was thoroughly outcoached by Shanny.