Marty Schottenheimer is one of the top 10 coaches in the NFL (1 Viewer)

[dgreen]

Yeah, I'm just not a huge fan of the recency effect.

So, speaking hypothetically, if a coach won two Super Bowl's, but then had a less than .500 record over the next ten years, would you still rank him in the top 5 or 10 based on his SB wins from more than a decade ago?

Depends on who else there is to fill those 5 or 10 slots. And, depends on the circumstances of the SBs and his .500 record. IOW, not enough information.But, just going off that info, I wouldn't necessarily rank him below a coach who had 10 years of .500 then won the most recent two SBs just because the other coach's SBs were more recent.

Okay. I just don't see how anyone can have a problem with Belichick, Shanahan, or Cowher being in the top 3. Cowher and Shanahan are two most winningest coaches over the past decade plus, and both have Super Bowl wins to the credit. And Belichick has been the best head coach over the last five plus years, so he is a no-brainer.

Because I have Joe Gibbs Manlove.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Superbowl titles are extremely overrated. Did Cowher magically become a better coach immediately after the superbowl last year? If Seattle had attempted a 17-lateral play like the Jets tried this week, and it miraculously worked and gave them the victory, then would Cowher suddenly be a worse coach again?

Absolutely correct. I said this before the Steelers won the SB when I was saying I'd put Cowher in the top 3-5 coaches in the NFL and consistently was told he didn't desrve such a ranking because he "couldn't win the big one." One game, and now he's a Hall of Fame coach. I don't buy that. I think the fact that the Steelers have more wins than any other team in football since Cowher became coach is a MUCH better indication of his coaching skill. Bear in mind, that includes the Cowboys, Patriots, and 49ers, each of whom had dynastic runs during that time span.

 

[SSOG]

Waiting 6 years before evaluating a coach separates the flukes from the real quality guys.

Well, it is certainly harder to argue that Marty isn't a top 10 coach if you exclude all coaches with less than 6 years of HC experience, since that eliminates around half of the current NFL head coaches. So what you're really saying is that Marty is in the top 10 of 16, and you personally rank him 8th, behind the 7 you listed earlier... so you rank him as about average for NFL head coaches with 6+ years of experience. It is harder for me to disagree with that. Like I said, we've been talking apples and oranges.

Why is it that so few coaches have more than 6 years of tenure? Because so many coaches turn out to be flukes. Just like you wouldn't go out and call Rex Grossman one of the best QBs in the NFL after 4 games, you shouldn't go out and call Lewis one of the best coaches in the NFL after 3 seasons.Once again, do I need to evoke the Barry Switzer comparisons? In his first 3 seasons, he went 12-4 and made the championship game, then went 12-4 and won the superbowl, and then went 10-6. With a three-year record like that, surely he must have been one of the best coaches in the NFL!If you'd rather compare Marvin Lewis to a coach who took on a reclamation project team instead of one that was already stacked, what about Dom Capers? Capers going 7-9 with an expansion franchise was more impressive than Lewis going 8-8 with the Bengals... and then Capers went to the conference championship game in his second year (the franchise's second year of existance)! Surely that two year stretch would cement his place as one of the elite coaches in the NFL, right?!If you want me to keep listing coaches who looked great during their first 2-4 seasons and then wound up bombing out, I'm sure I can keep going. There's Steve Mariucci, for instance. And Denny Green. And let us not forget Schottenheimer himself- the guy you're so determined to call a mediocre coach. In Marvin Lewis's first 3 years, he posted a 56.25% winning percentage compared to Schotty's 60%. He made the playoffs once compared to Schotty's twice. He never advanced in the playoffs, compared to Schotty, who made the conference championship in his third season and lost on a huge fluke drive (and made it again in his 4th). And Schotty did all this with a worse team (going 4-4 with a team that opened 1984 1-7).If you are convinced that we can tell how good a coach is based on his first four years in the league, then you should be convinced that Schottenheimer is a much better coach than Marvin Lewis is.

 

[SSOG]

Superbowl titles are extremely overrated. Did Cowher magically become a better coach immediately after the superbowl last year? If Seattle had attempted a 17-lateral play like the Jets tried this week, and it miraculously worked and gave them the victory, then would Cowher suddenly be a worse coach again?

Absolutely correct. I said this before the Steelers won the SB when I was saying I'd put Cowher in the top 3-5 coaches in the NFL and consistently was told he didn't desrve such a ranking because he "couldn't win the big one." One game, and now he's a Hall of Fame coach. I don't buy that. I think the fact that the Steelers have more wins than any other team in football since Cowher became coach is a MUCH better indication of his coaching skill. Bear in mind, that includes the Cowboys, Patriots, and 49ers, each of whom had dynastic runs during that time span.

Fun stat time!The Steelers have the most wins in the NFL since Cowher became the head coach (142).The Broncos have the most wins in the NFL since Shanahan became the head coach (116).The Colts have the most wins in the NFL since Dungy became the head coach (52)...BUT, The Patriots *DO NOT* have the most wins in the NFL since Belichick became the head coach,AND, the Eagles *DO NOT* have the most wins in the NFL since Reid became the head coach.That stat isn't supposed to mean anything, I just think it's fun to see which coaches can use the "most wins in the NFL" claim and which can't.

 

[dgreen]

Superbowl titles are extremely overrated. Did Cowher magically become a better coach immediately after the superbowl last year? If Seattle had attempted a 17-lateral play like the Jets tried this week, and it miraculously worked and gave them the victory, then would Cowher suddenly be a worse coach again?

Absolutely correct. I said this before the Steelers won the SB when I was saying I'd put Cowher in the top 3-5 coaches in the NFL and consistently was told he didn't desrve such a ranking because he "couldn't win the big one." One game, and now he's a Hall of Fame coach. I don't buy that. I think the fact that the Steelers have more wins than any other team in football since Cowher became coach is a MUCH better indication of his coaching skill. Bear in mind, that includes the Cowboys, Patriots, and 49ers, each of whom had dynastic runs during that time span.

Fun stat time!The Steelers have the most wins in the NFL since Cowher became the head coach (142).The Broncos have the most wins in the NFL since Shanahan became the head coach (116).The Colts have the most wins in the NFL since Dungy became the head coach (52)...BUT, The Patriots *DO NOT* have the most wins in the NFL since Belichick became the head coach,AND, the Eagles *DO NOT* have the most wins in the NFL since Reid became the head coach.That stat isn't supposed to mean anything, I just think it's fun to see which coaches can use the "most wins in the NFL" claim and which can't.

Scott Linehan and Sean Payton are only one win behind such a claim.

 

[massraider]

Fantastic coach at getting his team prepared to play. His players are ready to go on Sunday.

Average gameday coach. This is magnified in the playoffs.

Really, if I was an owner with an expansion franchise, I'd want to hire Marty or Coughlin. Two guys that'd work for me for a few years. Then, once the talent level had risen, I'd be looking to replace Marty (and Coughlin, but for different reasons).

Once you have a Super Bowl caliber team, Marty is a liability. I really believe that. Because in the playoffs, he gets outcoached. I'd rather take my chances on a guy like Saban, Lewis, or Mora.

I'd rank Marty above all three of those guys. But I'd want to win the Super Bowl, so that means taking a chance on an unknown commodity.

 

[H.K.]

Fantastic coach at getting his team prepared to play. His players are ready to go on Sunday.Average gameday coach. This is magnified in the playoffs. Really, if I was an owner with an expansion franchise, I'd want to hire Marty or Coughlin. Two guys that'd work for me for a few years. Then, once the talent level had risen, I'd be looking to replace Marty (and Coughlin, but for different reasons).Once you have a Super Bowl caliber team, Marty is a liability. I really believe that. Because in the playoffs, he gets outcoached. I'd rather take my chances on a guy like Saban, Lewis, or Mora. I'd rank Marty above all three of those guys. But I'd want to win the Super Bowl, so that means taking a chance on an unknown commodity.

Only thing to add, when Schotty is in the playoffs, he is going up against better quality teams and better quality coaches....and he rarely can beat that combo.

 

[H.K.]

Superbowl titles are extremely overrated. Did Cowher magically become a better coach immediately after the superbowl last year? If Seattle had attempted a 17-lateral play like the Jets tried this week, and it miraculously worked and gave them the victory, then would Cowher suddenly be a worse coach again?

Absolutely correct. I said this before the Steelers won the SB when I was saying I'd put Cowher in the top 3-5 coaches in the NFL and consistently was told he didn't desrve such a ranking because he "couldn't win the big one." One game, and now he's a Hall of Fame coach. I don't buy that. I think the fact that the Steelers have more wins than any other team in football since Cowher became coach is a MUCH better indication of his coaching skill. Bear in mind, that includes the Cowboys, Patriots, and 49ers, each of whom had dynastic runs during that time span.

Titles are the measuring stick. Ask Marino or Manning. Like it or not, removing the phrase "best to never win a Super Bowl" from a resume carries a lot of weight.

 

[Tau837]

I prefer to look at the glass half full when it comes to Parcells. As in Parcells has turned around two absolutely horrible franchises and teams in the Patriots and Jets. Many of Parcells hand picked players with the Patriots (McGinest, Bruschi etc) were huge factors in Belichick's Super Bowl teams. As was Parcells son-in-law Scott Pioli. Parcells definitely deserves some serious credit for those Belichick led Super Bowl teams. Many of Parcells hand picked players are/were still factors with the Jets (Pennington, Martin etc) and in the NFL (Abraham, Key etc). And Parcells is well on his way to turning around the horrible team that was once the Quincy Carter led Dallas Cowboys, with his hand picked guys like Ware, Glenn etc.

 

[Tau837]

Fantastic coach at getting his team prepared to play. His players are ready to go on Sunday.

Average gameday coach. This is magnified in the playoffs.

Really, if I was an owner with an expansion franchise, I'd want to hire Marty or Coughlin. Two guys that'd work for me for a few years. Then, once the talent level had risen, I'd be looking to replace Marty (and Coughlin, but for different reasons).

Once you have a Super Bowl caliber team, Marty is a liability. I really believe that. Because in the playoffs, he gets outcoached. I'd rather take my chances on a guy like Saban, Lewis, or Mora.

I'd rank Marty above all three of those guys. But I'd want to win the Super Bowl, so that means taking a chance on an unknown commodity.

Only thing to add, when Schotty is in the playoffs, he is going up against better quality teams and better quality coaches....and he rarely can beat that combo.

Both good postings. Especially the bolded part above, which is exactly where I am coming from in this thread.

 

[Tau837]

Waiting 6 years before evaluating a coach separates the flukes from the real quality guys.

Well, it is certainly harder to argue that Marty isn't a top 10 coach if you exclude all coaches with less than 6 years of HC experience, since that eliminates around half of the current NFL head coaches. So what you're really saying is that Marty is in the top 10 of 16, and you personally rank him 8th, behind the 7 you listed earlier... so you rank him as about average for NFL head coaches with 6+ years of experience. It is harder for me to disagree with that. Like I said, we've been talking apples and oranges.

Why is it that so few coaches have more than 6 years of tenure? Because so many coaches turn out to be flukes. Just like you wouldn't go out and call Rex Grossman one of the best QBs in the NFL after 4 games, you shouldn't go out and call Lewis one of the best coaches in the NFL after 3 seasons.Once again, do I need to evoke the Barry Switzer comparisons? In his first 3 seasons, he went 12-4 and made the championship game, then went 12-4 and won the superbowl, and then went 10-6. With a three-year record like that, surely he must have been one of the best coaches in the NFL!If you'd rather compare Marvin Lewis to a coach who took on a reclamation project team instead of one that was already stacked, what about Dom Capers? Capers going 7-9 with an expansion franchise was more impressive than Lewis going 8-8 with the Bengals... and then Capers went to the conference championship game in his second year (the franchise's second year of existance)! Surely that two year stretch would cement his place as one of the elite coaches in the NFL, right?!If you want me to keep listing coaches who looked great during their first 2-4 seasons and then wound up bombing out, I'm sure I can keep going. There's Steve Mariucci, for instance. And Denny Green. And let us not forget Schottenheimer himself- the guy you're so determined to call a mediocre coach. In Marvin Lewis's first 3 years, he posted a 56.25% winning percentage compared to Schotty's 60%. He made the playoffs once compared to Schotty's twice. He never advanced in the playoffs, compared to Schotty, who made the conference championship in his third season and lost on a huge fluke drive (and made it again in his 4th). And Schotty did all this with a worse team (going 4-4 with a team that opened 1984 1-7).If you are convinced that we can tell how good a coach is based on his first four years in the league, then you should be convinced that Schottenheimer is a much better coach than Marvin Lewis is.

You are totally not getting my point, or you are intentionally ignoring it. Fortunately, others here, like massraider, have captured it. We know more about what Marty can and can't do than we know about Lewis. We don't know that Lewis will be better than Marty... but we don't know he won't. What I do know is that I want a coach better than Marty, because I want to win in the playoffs. So I'd rather take the risk that Lewis turns out to be not as good as Marty, in exchange for the upside Lewis may have that I know Marty doesn't have.

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

Superbowl titles are extremely overrated. Did Cowher magically become a better coach immediately after the superbowl last year? If Seattle had attempted a 17-lateral play like the Jets tried this week, and it miraculously worked and gave them the victory, then would Cowher suddenly be a worse coach again?

Absolutely correct. I said this before the Steelers won the SB when I was saying I'd put Cowher in the top 3-5 coaches in the NFL and consistently was told he didn't desrve such a ranking because he "couldn't win the big one." One game, and now he's a Hall of Fame coach. I don't buy that. I think the fact that the Steelers have more wins than any other team in football since Cowher became coach is a MUCH better indication of his coaching skill. Bear in mind, that includes the Cowboys, Patriots, and 49ers, each of whom had dynastic runs during that time span.

Titles are the measuring stick. Ask Marino or Manning. Like it or not, removing the phrase "best to never win a Super Bowl" from a resume carries a lot of weight.

Carries a lot of weight with who? Short-sighted fans who don't see that its a team sport? I wholeheartedly agree with SSOG here. Cowher didn't become a great coach in 3 hours of one game. By this logic, Brad Johnson is a better QB than Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, etc. This argument (for QB's and Coaches) is asinine. If this were tennis, I could understand, but it isn't. No one with a decent grip on common sense says that one 3 hour football game makes the difference between greatness or not.

 

[BoulderBob]

We need to rate the GM's, if FBG's hasn't done this in the past. An excellent/terrible head coach may be able to swing a game or two in either direction, but it's the individuals who put the talent on the field that determine whether or not a team will win/lose.

 

[Bri]

At times I've really questioned his team's Ds but the guy wins. The only problem is he doesn't in the postseason and that's a major problem. I often feel like every other coach spends hours and hours analyzing 16 weeks of game tape to come up with a new plan of attack for the postseason game. I feel like Marty's theory is to continue what worked in the regular season and make precious few changes, thus he falls right into "the trap" of the team that adjusted their plan based on 16 weeks of tape.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Superbowl titles are extremely overrated. Did Cowher magically become a better coach immediately after the superbowl last year? If Seattle had attempted a 17-lateral play like the Jets tried this week, and it miraculously worked and gave them the victory, then would Cowher suddenly be a worse coach again?

Absolutely correct. I said this before the Steelers won the SB when I was saying I'd put Cowher in the top 3-5 coaches in the NFL and consistently was told he didn't desrve such a ranking because he "couldn't win the big one." One game, and now he's a Hall of Fame coach. I don't buy that. I think the fact that the Steelers have more wins than any other team in football since Cowher became coach is a MUCH better indication of his coaching skill. Bear in mind, that includes the Cowboys, Patriots, and 49ers, each of whom had dynastic runs during that time span.

Titles are the measuring stick. Ask Marino or Manning. Like it or not, removing the phrase "best to never win a Super Bowl" from a resume carries a lot of weight.

Of course it does. All I'm saying is that I personally feel long-term success is more important than titles. It's a much bigger accomplishment. 9 months ago, Barry Switzer had a SB win and Cowher didn't (and it came head to head vs. Cowher.) Does that make Switzer a better coach? Few would argue he was - he inherited a great team. Thus, number of titles can be misleading. Show me a guy who has his team in the hunt pretty much every year for an extended period of time - that's a guy I consider to be a great coach. Bobby Cox only has 1 WS win as a manager - there are tons of managers with more titles, but most people would rank Cox as one of the top 10-20 managers in baseball history.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Superbowl titles are extremely overrated. Did Cowher magically become a better coach immediately after the superbowl last year? If Seattle had attempted a 17-lateral play like the Jets tried this week, and it miraculously worked and gave them the victory, then would Cowher suddenly be a worse coach again?

Absolutely correct. I said this before the Steelers won the SB when I was saying I'd put Cowher in the top 3-5 coaches in the NFL and consistently was told he didn't desrve such a ranking because he "couldn't win the big one." One game, and now he's a Hall of Fame coach. I don't buy that. I think the fact that the Steelers have more wins than any other team in football since Cowher became coach is a MUCH better indication of his coaching skill. Bear in mind, that includes the Cowboys, Patriots, and 49ers, each of whom had dynastic runs during that time span.

Titles are the measuring stick. Ask Marino or Manning. Like it or not, removing the phrase "best to never win a Super Bowl" from a resume carries a lot of weight.

Carries a lot of weight with who? Short-sighted fans who don't see that its a team sport? I wholeheartedly agree with SSOG here. Cowher didn't become a great coach in 3 hours of one game. By this logic, Brad Johnson is a better QB than Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, etc. This argument (for QB's and Coaches) is asinine. If this were tennis, I could understand, but it isn't. No one with a decent grip on common sense says that one 3 hour football game makes the difference between greatness or not.

 

[Bri]

Carries a lot of weight with who? Short-sighted fans who don't see that its a team sport? I wholeheartedly agree with SSOG here. Cowher didn't become a great coach in 3 hours of one game. By this logic, Brad Johnson is a better QB than Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, etc. This argument (for QB's and Coaches) is asinine. If this were tennis, I could understand, but it isn't. No one with a decent grip on common sense says that one 3 hour football game makes the difference between greatness or not.

Problem with this is you guys are talking about great or "top" players+coaches and whether they are great or not. Cowher made the playoffs so many times with a different cast of players you had to be impressed. Peyton and Dan have passing records proving how good they are.How about comparing Brad Johnson to say Drew Bledsoe or Jake Plummer or Mark Brunell or Aaron Brooks? The supe win matters to me then.

 

[redman]

My top 10 NFL head coaches would be:

1. Belichick

2. Shanahan

3. Cowher

4. Reid

5. Holmgren

6. Gibbs

7. Parcells

8. Lewis

9. Schottenheimer

10. Dungy

How on earth can you rate Cowher and Reid that high? Those guys are on a tier above Shotty to be sure due to better playoff performances, but their ability to turn good teams into champions simply must be questioned. A year ago Cowher had been to 4 AFC Championship games and had lost every single one of them; two years ago Reid had coached the undisputed best team in the NFC for three years running and had failed to win 3 consecutive Conference Championship games. Kudos to Cowher for winning last year (especially with what I think was probably the fourth or fifth best team in his conference entering the playoffs) but that's not exactly a great batting average for a team that's reached the conference championship game the number of times that his team has. I also think that Reid is a poor game day coach, like Schotty is - that alleged "hurry up" offense in the Super Bowl and his repeatedly idiotic play calls (usually he's waaaaaaaaay too pass heavy) have really hurt his team's fortunes. Cowher is better than Reid in this regard as he seems to keep his head on game day and even comes up with creative play calls.

I can rate Cowher and Reid that high because of the success they have had. Cowher is the winningest coach in the NFL since the year he became the Steelers head coach, and Reid has a ton of success over the lat five years. Yes, both guys have lost conference championships at home, but in many of those cases, they got those teams to overachieve all year, only to see them lose to better teams in the title games. Don't coaches get points for getting to the conference title games? It seems like you want to take points away from them for losing those games, but getting there repeatedly speaks volumes about what good head coaches they are.

Reid is a poor gameday head coach? What about last night? They were losing 9-7 at the half to a lesser team, but obviously did some tweeking at halftime, and they blewout the Packers in the second half. Was that not some good gameday adjusting?

I am curious, what would your top 10 look like?

Wow, you mean that Reid's Eagles managed to pull ahead and beat the vaunted Packers? Color me impressed! Reid's great when he can go with his game plan or make the adjustments that he anticipates he might have to make, but if the game isn't going his way he tends to panic and revert to form, which is basically Chuck 'N Duck. I've even seen him screw up a lead by passing too much and not running enough time off of the clock and letting the other team into the game. Yes, he's been impressive overall in leading a team that over the years has had more than its share of distractions and injuries, but in crunch time I don't want him leading my team.

Here's my list:

1. Gibbs

2. Belichick

3. Parcells

4. Cowher

5. Shanahan

6. Holmgren

7. Reid

8. Fox

9. Schottenheimer

10. Dungy

Honorable mentions: Lewis; Del Rio

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think Marty is a good coach, but he is limited.

His strong points are that he is a good motivator and a good administrator. The players both like him and respect him. They play hard for him. I think he also manages his assistant coaches well, although he may be a bit too loyal to assistant coaches who are not getting the job done. (DB coach Brian Stewart and ST coach Steve Crosby are examples, IMO.)

He is good at giving press conferences, and he seems very good at instilling a strong work ethic into his players.

I suspect he is not very strong or innovative when it comes to Xs and Os. But that's okay because he's currently blessed with two very good coordinators in Cam Cameron and Wade Phillips.

The problem, I think, comes when Marty intervenes in Cam Cameron's play-calling -- which he did this past Sunday.

I wouldn't consider Marty a great coach because I think he'd be in trouble if his coordinators left. But as long as he's got Cameron and Phillips -- especially if he'd stay out of their hair -- I think Marty can fill the head coaching role very effectively. He can help motivate the players and leave the Xs and Os to his coordinators.

Unfortunately, he's not really doing that. He's placing his own stamp on the offense, and it is limiting the team's effectiveness, IMO.

Although I think he can be an effective head coach, I would not be surprised or saddened to see him replaced in the offseason with somebody who is better with the Xs and Os and is therefore not as dependent on his coordinators, and is not a liability when he intervenes in the play-calling.

I could be reading the situation wrong, but that's my feeling.

 

[H.K.]

Of course it does. All I'm saying is that I personally feel long-term success is more important than titles. It's a much bigger accomplishment.

Exactly, but long term success with a title (or more) is the great differentiator between long term succes without one.Success is measured in wins and losses.

Regular season success earns you the right to try for post-season success.

Post-season success is what separates good from great.

Winning it all is very difficult, few have done it because each step in the process becomes harder to achieve than the last one. However, the absolute essence of competition is having a winner and a loser. It's why they keep score. It's why teams advance and others go home. Its why no t-shirts get printed after the Super Bowl proclaiming the loser as the second best team.

Tony Dungy got run out of Tampa Bay because he couldn't get anywhere in the playoffs and then Gruden got it done. Could Dungy have won it all with that team? Who knows? But what we do know is that Gruden actually did get it done, and nobody can ever take it away from him or the city.

 

[redman]

I really can't disagree with anything you've written here. I am, however, one of those people who thinks that Parcells gets rated a bit too high in these kinds of discussions. Mind you, I still place him up near the top - top 5 easily (and certainly better than Marty), but not at the very top. I believe that there's something to the argument that notes that he's never been able to match the level of success that he had when he was with Belichick and Lawrence Taylor. He also has a declining career path:Giants: Won 2 Super BowlsPatriots: Won 1 Conference ChampionshipJets: Got to the Conference Championship GameCowboys: 1 playoff appearance (no wins so far)

Same thing could be said here about Joe Gibbs. Same thing will likely be said about Belichick after Brady and others are gone, and many of the other coaches on the list when the star player turnover hits them.I prefer to look at the glass half full when it comes to Parcells. As in Parcells has turned around two absolutely horrible franchises and teams in the Patriots and Jets. Many of Parcells hand picked players with the Patriots (McGinest, Bruschi etc) were huge factors in Belichick's Super Bowl teams. As was Parcells son-in-law Scott Pioli. Parcells definitely deserves some serious credit for those Belichick led Super Bowl teams. Many of Parcells hand picked players are/were still factors with the Jets (Pennington, Martin etc) and in the NFL (Abraham, Key etc). And Parcells is well on his way to turning around the horrible team that was once the Quincy Carter led Dallas Cowboys, with his hand picked guys like Ware, Glenn etc.

I have to disagree. First of all, since when are we giving coaches credit for what their sons-in-law did with other teams? Scott Pioli? WTF? Second, if you're going to count holdovers from the prior regimes, kindly remember that Harry Carson, LT and many others were held over from the Ray Perkins regime in NY. Sure, Parcells was the LB coach and d-coordinator, but then Belichick was the D-coordinator for Parcells in every stop too. It cuts both ways. As for Gibbs, I think you're primarily using him as a (supposedly) contrasting example because you know I'm a 'Skins fan. If you look closer your comparison makes no sense. First of all, Gibbs' complete absence from the game ironically hurts the comparison here because we don't know what his track record would have been during that time, but we do see Parcells' downward trend. Gibbs could perhaps have won another Super Bowl title had he continued to coach. We just don't know with him. Ignoring that, Gibbs seems to be repeating what he was accomplishing before, namely using an unheralded QB to lead an offense that seems to put up points and yards that are better than its talent. His primary claim to fame is that he won titles over the course of a dozen years with Joe Theisman, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien not simply being the named starters at the QB position for those teams (like Trent Dilfer in Baltimore, for example), but playing vital roles in successful offenses. After 12 years away (and one year to change over personnel and reacclimate himself), what does he do? He gets Mark Brunell to throw for a career high in TD's and lead a team that had been totally inept for the prior 3 seasons to a 10-6 record and a playoff win. I see more similarities than differences between Gibbs I and Gibbs II so far - whether he's able to win another Super Bowl is anyone's guess at this point. Understand, I'm not bashing Parcells. I rate him 3rd and I do think highly of him. I think, however, that he needs to show with the Cowboys that he's capable at the very least of winning multiple playoff games in order for him to refute the contention that he's still in decline.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Of course it does. All I'm saying is that I personally feel long-term success is more important than titles. It's a much bigger accomplishment.

Exactly, but long term success with a title (or more) is the great differentiator between long term succes without one.Success is measured in wins and losses.

Regular season success earns you the right to try for post-season success.

Post-season success is what separates good from great.

Winning it all is very difficult, few have done it because each step in the process becomes harder to achieve than the last one. However, the absolute essence of competition is having a winner and a loser. It's why they keep score. It's why teams advance and others go home. Its why no t-shirts get printed after the Super Bowl proclaiming the loser as the second best team.

Tony Dungy got run out of Tampa Bay because he couldn't get anywhere in the playoffs and then Gruden got it done. Could Dungy have won it all with that team? Who knows? But what we do know is that Gruden actually did get it done, and nobody can ever take it away from him or the city.

So, based on this, Gruden is the better coach? Even though he won with the players Dungy brought in, and since then has done bupkis with his own personnel in place, while Dungy has won about 50 games in 4 years in Indy, but hasn't gone all the way yet? I'd have to disagree with that.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I think Marty is a good coach, but he is limited.His strong points are that he is a good motivator and a good administrator. The players both like him and respect him. They play hard for him. I think he also manages his assistant coaches well, although he may be a bit too loyal to assistant coaches who are not getting the job done. (DB coach Brian Stewart and ST coach Steve Crosby are examples, IMO.)He is good at giving press conferences, and he seems very good at instilling a strong work ethic into his players.I suspect he is not very strong or innovative when it comes to Xs and Os. But that's okay because he's currently blessed with two very good coordinators in Cam Cameron and Wade Phillips.The problem, I think, comes when Marty intervenes in Cam Cameron's play-calling -- which he did this past Sunday.I wouldn't consider Marty a great coach because I think he'd be in trouble if his coordinators left. But as long as he's got Cameron and Phillips -- especially if he'd stay out of their hair -- I think Marty can fill the head coaching role very effectively. He can help motivate the players and leave the Xs and Os to his coordinators.Unfortunately, he's not really doing that. He's placing his own stamp on the offense, and it is limiting the team's effectiveness, IMO.Although I think he can be an effective head coach, I would not be surprised or saddened to see him replaced in the offseason with somebody who is better with the Xs and Os and is therefore not as dependent on his coordinators, and is not a liability when he intervenes in the play-calling.I could be reading the situation wrong, but that's my feeling.

I think that post pretty much sums up Schottenheimer. Also remember that the term "Martyball" is a strategy that he seems to utilize much more heavily in the playoffs than the regular season. Sure he opens it up in the regular season from time to time, but he has been much too conservative and tried to sit on leads in some of his playoff coaching appearances. That said, I don't think Marty ever had a team with enough talent to win a Superbowl. Maybe the '86-'87 Browns, but they lost to Elway's Broncos in both AFC Championship games on The Drive and The Fumble. The 1995 Chiefs team was also a huge disappointment after getting upset by the Colts. So I don't fault Marty for failing to win a Superbowl, but he should have at least made it to the big game with one of those teams. As a result, I cannot consider him an elite coach. He's above average and maybe top 10, but not in the same league as guys like BB, Parcells, Shanahan, Cowher and others.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Schottenheimer may be a decent regular season coach who can take a bad team and make it competitive, but don't confuse that talent with being able to lead a team to the ultimate prize, which he hasn't been able to do....and never will.

Take a quick gander at my signature to see why this is a terrible idea.

 

[Gr00vus]

I think Marty is a good coach, but he is limited.His strong points are that he is a good motivator and a good administrator. The players both like him and respect him. They play hard for him. I think he also manages his assistant coaches well, although he may be a bit too loyal to assistant coaches who are not getting the job done. (DB coach Brian Stewart and ST coach Steve Crosby are examples, IMO.)He is good at giving press conferences, and he seems very good at instilling a strong work ethic into his players.I suspect he is not very strong or innovative when it comes to Xs and Os. But that's okay because he's currently blessed with two very good coordinators in Cam Cameron and Wade Phillips.The problem, I think, comes when Marty intervenes in Cam Cameron's play-calling -- which he did this past Sunday.I wouldn't consider Marty a great coach because I think he'd be in trouble if his coordinators left. But as long as he's got Cameron and Phillips -- especially if he'd stay out of their hair -- I think Marty can fill the head coaching role very effectively. He can help motivate the players and leave the Xs and Os to his coordinators.Unfortunately, he's not really doing that. He's placing his own stamp on the offense, and it is limiting the team's effectiveness, IMO.Although I think he can be an effective head coach, I would not be surprised or saddened to see him replaced in the offseason with somebody who is better with the Xs and Os and is therefore not as dependent on his coordinators, and is not a liability when he intervenes in the play-calling.I could be reading the situation wrong, but that's my feeling.

as usualI think Marty's a good coach, but his track record has been firmly established, possibly moreso than any coach in the game today. He gets a team to a certain level, and it's an appreciably good/high level, but he's not able to take it to the top. Maurile notes some of the reasons why above, but the most obvious thing to me is he's a lousy front runner. He plays scared when ahead. And you can all most sense it happening through the t.v. as it happens. I caught it midway through the second quarter this week. You could almost feel the brainwaves saying a six point lead is good enough. You could see it in the playcalling and decisions that were made. What's worse than that though is you can see it in the players themselves - they pick up on it, you can see the tension and the reticence to chance a mistake.Why did he lose because of "The Drive" ? Sure, Elway got about as tough as anyone ever has - but Marty allowed it to happen by not being further ahead. It happened again this week, it happened in almost every loss last year, it happened in the 2004 playoffs vs. the Jets - Marty plays scared with the lead and ends up losing games his team should have won. And games where it works against inferior opponents just feed it more. Great coaches know the biggest risk of all is leaving your opponent in a position where one big play or one solid drive can lose you the game, and make all efforts to stay out of that position whenever possible - Marty coaches it just the opposite. He keeps quality opponents in games because he's too scared to create breathing room in the second half. It's too late for him to change his ways now, which is sad because I'm firmly convinced he won't win a Super Bowl as a result, but I sure hope the Charger front office figures it out before they squander all the young talent they've assembled.

 

[dgreen]

Schottenheimer may be a decent regular season coach who can take a bad team and make it competitive, but don't confuse that talent with being able to lead a team to the ultimate prize, which he hasn't been able to do....and never will.

Take a quick gander at my signature to see why this is a terrible idea.

[January 1998]John Elway is a loser. He's never won a SB and he never will.

[/January 1998]

 

[H.K.]

Of course it does. All I'm saying is that I personally feel long-term success is more important than titles. It's a much bigger accomplishment.

Exactly, but long term success with a title (or more) is the great differentiator between long term succes without one.Success is measured in wins and losses.

Regular season success earns you the right to try for post-season success.

Post-season success is what separates good from great.

Winning it all is very difficult, few have done it because each step in the process becomes harder to achieve than the last one. However, the absolute essence of competition is having a winner and a loser. It's why they keep score. It's why teams advance and others go home. Its why no t-shirts get printed after the Super Bowl proclaiming the loser as the second best team.

Tony Dungy got run out of Tampa Bay because he couldn't get anywhere in the playoffs and then Gruden got it done. Could Dungy have won it all with that team? Who knows? But what we do know is that Gruden actually did get it done, and nobody can ever take it away from him or the city.

So, based on this, Gruden is the better coach? Even though he won with the players Dungy brought in, and since then has done bupkis with his own personnel in place, while Dungy has won about 50 games in 4 years in Indy, but hasn't gone all the way yet? I'd have to disagree with that.

Competition is about winning, not coming close. Gruden has a ring, Dungy does not as a HC. If you are a champion, you are the best, at least for that season. When you talk about a Coach's body of work, the first criteria is championships. Would they call it the Lombardi Trophy if Vince didn't win the first two Super Bowls?

Who is held in higher esteem, Bill Walsh or Don Coryell? You get the idea.

 

[redman]

Of course it does. All I'm saying is that I personally feel long-term success is more important than titles. It's a much bigger accomplishment.

Exactly, but long term success with a title (or more) is the great differentiator between long term succes without one.Success is measured in wins and losses.

Regular season success earns you the right to try for post-season success.

Post-season success is what separates good from great.

Winning it all is very difficult, few have done it because each step in the process becomes harder to achieve than the last one. However, the absolute essence of competition is having a winner and a loser. It's why they keep score. It's why teams advance and others go home. Its why no t-shirts get printed after the Super Bowl proclaiming the loser as the second best team.

Tony Dungy got run out of Tampa Bay because he couldn't get anywhere in the playoffs and then Gruden got it done. Could Dungy have won it all with that team? Who knows? But what we do know is that Gruden actually did get it done, and nobody can ever take it away from him or the city.

So, based on this, Gruden is the better coach? Even though he won with the players Dungy brought in, and since then has done bupkis with his own personnel in place, while Dungy has won about 50 games in 4 years in Indy, but hasn't gone all the way yet? I'd have to disagree with that.

Gruden got Bill Callahan to the Super Bowl. 'Nuff said.

 

[redman]

Of course it does. All I'm saying is that I personally feel long-term success is more important than titles. It's a much bigger accomplishment.

Exactly, but long term success with a title (or more) is the great differentiator between long term succes without one.Success is measured in wins and losses.

Regular season success earns you the right to try for post-season success.

Post-season success is what separates good from great.

Winning it all is very difficult, few have done it because each step in the process becomes harder to achieve than the last one. However, the absolute essence of competition is having a winner and a loser. It's why they keep score. It's why teams advance and others go home. Its why no t-shirts get printed after the Super Bowl proclaiming the loser as the second best team.

Tony Dungy got run out of Tampa Bay because he couldn't get anywhere in the playoffs and then Gruden got it done. Could Dungy have won it all with that team? Who knows? But what we do know is that Gruden actually did get it done, and nobody can ever take it away from him or the city.

So, based on this, Gruden is the better coach? Even though he won with the players Dungy brought in, and since then has done bupkis with his own personnel in place, while Dungy has won about 50 games in 4 years in Indy, but hasn't gone all the way yet? I'd have to disagree with that.

Competition is about winning, not coming close. Gruden has a ring, Dungy does not as a HC. If you are a champion, you are the best, at least for that season. When you talk about a Coach's body of work, the first criteria is championships. Would they call it the Lombardi Trophy if Vince didn't win the first two Super Bowls?

Who is held in higher esteem, Bill Walsh or Don Coryell? You get the idea.

I forgot about Gruden when I made my list. I'd substitute him in at 10 in place of Dungy.

 

[redman]

I have to disagree. First of all, since when are we giving coaches credit for what their sons-in-law did with other teams? Scott Pioli? WTF?

Second, if you're going to count holdovers from the prior regimes, kindly remember that Harry Carson, LT and many others were held over from the Ray Perkins regime in NY. Sure, Parcells was the LB coach and d-coordinator, but then Belichick was the D-coordinator for Parcells in every stop too. It cuts both ways.

As for Gibbs, I think you're primarily using him as a (supposedly) contrasting example because you know I'm a 'Skins fan. If you look closer your comparison makes no sense. First of all, Gibbs' complete absence from the game ironically hurts the comparison here because we don't know what his track record would have been during that time, but we do see Parcells' downward trend. Gibbs could perhaps have won another Super Bowl title had he continued to coach. We just don't know with him.

Ignoring that, Gibbs seems to be repeating what he was accomplishing before, namely using an unheralded QB to lead an offense that seems to put up points and yards that are better than its talent. His primary claim to fame is that he won titles over the course of a dozen years with Joe Theisman, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien not simply being the named starters at the QB position for those teams (like Trent Dilfer in Baltimore, for example), but playing vital roles in successful offenses. After 12 years away (and one year to change over personnel and reacclimate himself), what does he do? He gets Mark Brunell to throw for a career high in TD's and lead a team that had been totally inept for the prior 3 seasons to a 10-6 record and a playoff win. I see more similarities than differences between Gibbs I and Gibbs II so far - whether he's able to win another Super Bowl is anyone's guess at this point.

Understand, I'm not bashing Parcells. I rate him 3rd and I do think highly of him. I think, however, that he needs to show with the Cowboys that he's capable at the very least of winning multiple playoff games in order for him to refute the contention that he's still in decline.

My bad on Pioli, it was a little early for me . But that still does absolutely nothing to take away from the players Parcells contributed the New England, and in bringing them back from a terrible club, to a true title contender.

And you have to remember that Parcells came in with George Young in 1979 with the Giants. And the two worked extremely close on all drafts from that point on. So for you to imply that Parcells wasn't involved in the drafting of Lawrence Taylor, would be very innacurate. Parcells is actually the one to make the switch to the 3-4 defense, to better utilize Lawrence Taylor's skills. Parcells has an incredible eye for players, best in the business. His track record proves this.

And I used Gibbs because he was the next coach on my list who can be pointed to just like Parcells, as a coach who hasn't made it back to the Super Bowl (or even NFC Championship for that matter). At least when Parcells took over the horrible New England and NY Jets teams, he brought them both back to contenders in a very short time. Putting New England in the Super Bowl in just his 4th year there with an 11-5 record, along with a 10-6 record his 2nd year with them, in using a 2nd year QB (Bledsoe) - another rarely acheived feat. New England had a 2-14 record just two years prior to this. Parcells did even better with the Jets, taking over a 1-15 team and turning them into a 12-4 team in just 2 years, along with putting them in the AFC Championship game. The following year as one of the league favorites going into the year, he lost his QB (Vinny) for the season. You call this a downward trend? I call this incredible and unprecendented in NFL history to this day. What has Gibbs done in his 3 years back in Washington? Now this (Gibbs) might be considered a decline, especially if you want to compare it to Parcells coaching history.

Even Belichick failed miserably in Cleveland. To this point, Parcells has never failed to at least get his team to the playoffs (Dallas), while getting all other teams to either a Super Bowl win (NY Giants - 2), Super Bowl (New England) or AFC Championship (NY Jets). With the latter two teams having done it within a 3 year time frame. Which Gibbs has not be able to do his 2nd time around with Washington in the very same 3 year time frame. The only thing you can point to as downward in Parcells coaching career with a half of leg of credibility, is the fact that in 3 years of taking over a perennial 5-11 team in Dallas, Parcells has guided them to 2 winning seasons and 1 playoff berth. And guess what? This is more than Gibbs has done in his 3 years in Washington, with just 1 winning season and 1 playoff berth. This proves Parcells has not declined as a coach...unless you want to say Gibbs has as well.

And why you would dismiss Brunell as a mediocre QB when Tom Coughlin (Parcells disciple) guided Brunell and the Jaguars to 2 AFC Championship games, just doesn't make any sense. With one of the AFC Championship games in Coughlin's 2nd year. If Coughlin could do this, then Gibbs should too. Especially considering Gibbs was lucky enough to inherit a very talented club in his return. Far more talented than any team Parcells has inherited in his 3 returns with New England, the Jets and Dallas.

You're mixing concepts here. I brought up LT in New York because you were trying to attribute Belichick's success in New England to Parcells, who was separated by 3 intervening seasons from Belichik's reign there. Parcells helped in player evaluation in New York? I'm sure that Belichick was involved in New England. You haven't convinced me on the Gibbs comparison either. He's actually accomplished more in less time that Parcells has in Dallas: Gibbs has won a playoff game in two seasons, something that Parcells hasn't done in three. Your argument that Gibbs in his two seasons back hasn't returned to the Super Bowl is silly when compared to Tuna's decade-long drought there when, with but short exception, he was coaching non-stop.

I'm absolutely willing to concede in the future that Gibbs second tenure won't be as successful as his first (it certainly won't be as long) if that's the way it pans out. Gibbs himself would tell you that given his repeated statement that, "the past buys you nothing." It's too early to say that yet after only two complete seasons.

It's not too early to look at the almost 15 years of NFL coaching that Parcells has done since his last Super Bowl victory and to note that, at each stop, he's accomplished less. I'll be the first to say that this theory, too, is out the window if he hoists the Lombardi Trophy in Dallas.

Another thought here. I think Parcells' wanderlust has hurt him the way (but certainly not to the extent) that Larry Brown's has in basketball. He's been genius in maximizing the performance of rebuilding teams - could anyone else have gotten that 2003 Cowboys team, led on offense by Quincy Carter and Troy Hambrick , to the playoffs? What might he have accomplished in New England or New York if he'd just had the patience to stay there? We'll never know.

 

[massraider]

1) Parcells - Best gameday coach in the league. Most knowledgable coach in all aspects of coaching in the NFL...he is always thinking special teams. His gameplanning is the best in the league, he just needs his players to carry it out. I remember the AFC Championship when his Jets should have destroyed Denver's club with Elway and Davis. But his players had an uncharacteristic turnover laden game. They should have been up 24 points at the half in that one. One of the best talent evaluaters in the NFL as well. Take a look at the top coaches he has produced, the list is unmatched by any active coach in the NFL. The most charismatic coach in the NFL. His players would do absolutely anything for him, extremely loyal and honest, almost to a fault. - His only negative...well along with his supersticious behavior - Has a Daughter named Dallas, which is probably a big part of why he took the Cowboys job. Multiple Super Bowl winner2) Belichick - His defensive schemes are unmatched. His ability to stay on top of every position on his roster and supply quality players at all positions is the best in the league. Excellent gameday coach, one of the best. Parcells disciple. Multiple Super Bowl winner3) Gibbs- His long time away from the game and taking on another sport is his only negative. One of the only remaining true Coryell-two Sid's disciples. His assistant (Saunders) this year will get far too much credit for what Gibbs put together. The reason why Saunders is there is because of his similiarity to Gibbs and the Coryell-two Sid's connection. I am always amazed at the offensive production Gibbs gets from both the running and passing game. His work and success with non top caliber QB's is unmatched. May have put together the best coaching staff in the NFL this year. Delegates responsibilty extremely well. Multiple Super Bowl winner4) Shanahan - Best offensive mind in the game. Probably the best coach of all the Bill Walsh disciples, which says volumes. Excellent gameday coach, one of the best. His biggest fault may be in his player evaluation. Not that it's bad, it is just very up and down. - See multiple QB's since Elway and more recent offensive draft busts. Multiple Super Bowl winner5) Cowher - A true closer with his consistant ground and pound approach. Although not afraid to open up the offense with trickery. Constantly produces among the best defenses in the game. Top player motivator...another one who's players would do absolutely anything for him. A Marty Schottenheimer disciple. Super Bowl winner6) Dungy - A master defensive guru and player evaluator. Should have won the Super Bowl with his home made Tampa teams, but got a raw deal. Another one who his players will do absolutely anything for. A Chuck Noll disciple. Expect him to win his first Super Bowl within the next three years.7) Lewis - The brainchild behind the Ravens defensive success. Should get the coaching credit for the Ravens Super Bowl win over Billick. Defensive guru who is getting it done offensively in Cincy. Excellent player talent evaluator. A Bill Cowher disciple. Another who should be getting his first Super Bowl win in short order.8) Holmgren - Player evaluator including the QB position is unmatched in the league. Builds teams slowly, but if you've got the time, he's got your team. Offensive guru in both the passing and running game. Makes his offensive lines a big priority of his teams success. Total control guy who players respect, if not always like. A Bill Walsh disciple. Super Bowl winner9) Reid - A WCO guru. A Holmgren disciple. Like Holmgren depends heavily on his ability to build the offensive line, a former offensive lineman himself. Controlled passing game master. Took Eagles to 4 consecutive NFC titles and one Super Bowl appearance. Biggest problem has been taking his power and control too seriously. Does not always handle his players correctly. His Owens-spandex fiasco was a head coaching atrocity.10) Fox/Del Rio Tie...Both (Fox/Del Rio) excellent defensive minded coaches...two of the better newer coaches in the game. Fox having been to the NFC Championship twice and Super Bowl once. Del Rio is working his way there quickly. Both excellent player evaluators and game day coaches.Edited to add space between coaches:

I really can't disagree with anything you've written here. I am, however, one of those people who thinks that Parcells gets rated a bit too high in these kinds of discussions. Mind you, I still place him up near the top - top 5 easily (and certainly better than Marty), but not at the very top. I believe that there's something to the argument that notes that he's never been able to match the level of success that he had when he was with Belichick and Lawrence Taylor. He also has a declining career path:Giants: Won 2 Super BowlsPatriots: Won 1 Conference ChampionshipJets: Got to the Conference Championship GameCowboys: 1 playoff appearance (no wins so far)

Same thing could be said here about Joe Gibbs.

You can't say that at all about Gibbs. Part of the greatness of Gibbs, is that he could coach with whatever players he had. And he made the total greater than the sum of the parts.Not to get between your current discussion, just wanted to interject this.What Gibbs did during his first tenure with Washington was unreal. He won with what, 3 different QB's? How many different RB's? Who was his Aikman, his Emmitt Smith, his Tom Brady? Gibbs' only peer is Bill Walsh, IMO, and Walsh had better core players, if not better overall talent. Course, Walsh drafted them, so that just shows the level Walsh is at. He matched his success, with different players. Look at the key components of the Skins Super Bowl teams. A lot of different names. A lot of guys that aren't Hall-of-Famers.There are a lot of coaches that one with only one crew of players. But Gibbs isn't one of them.

 

[SSOG]

You are totally not getting my point, or you are intentionally ignoring it. Fortunately, others here, like massraider, have captured it. We know more about what Marty can and can't do than we know about Lewis. We don't know that Lewis will be better than Marty... but we don't know he won't. What I do know is that I want a coach better than Marty, because I want to win in the playoffs. So I'd rather take the risk that Lewis turns out to be not as good as Marty, in exchange for the upside Lewis may have that I know Marty doesn't have.

You can't win in the playoffs without first making the playoffs.

While I like Marty Schottenheimer and feel he is probably in the top half of NFL of current NFL head coaches, but he is not in the top 10.Marty's offenses are a step or two up from Bum Phillips...and a step or two down from Chuck Knox. And he has been fired 2 times in his career due to either ineffective coaching (Washington), or in running his teams into the ground (Cleveland) with veterans he never replaced. And he escaped another firing by resigning as head coach in Kansas City. Schotty just doesn't have enough imagination on the offensive end to get it done in the big games. He has not gotten it done in big games with Joe Montana, he has not gotten it done in big games with Bernie Kosar...and he made poor decisions in electing to run his Washington club with Jeff George and Tony Banks as his quarterbacks, after accepting full control of a Washington team that he claimed he could get into the Super Bowl with those quarterbacks (with no mention of a rebuilding period). These are his negatives.

Schottenheimer has ranked in the top 10 in scoring offense 9 times in 20 years (45% of the time). That's an above-average rate, which would suggest that he's an above-average offensive mind. He's no Mike Shanahan, but he's produced some quality offenses in his day (including a top-5 scoring offense for 2 consecutive years). His average offensive rank is 13.35. Either way, you can afford to be marginally above average on offense when you're as *RIDICULOUS* on defense as Schotty's teams historically are. Schotty's teams have finished in the top 10 in scoring defense 10 times in 20 years (50%), but even more remarkably, they've only finished below 14th in scoring defense *THREE TIMES* in 20 years (meaning he's in the top 50% of the league 85% of the time). That's unreal. 4 teams, 20 years, and a huge history of solid defenses. You don't seem to be marking Billick down for his anemic offenses, so perhaps we should cut Schotty some slack for his merely serviceable squads.Also, I think Schottenheimer's firing from Washington was extremely unjust, and lots of Washington players agreed. They took a team that was a step away from the playoffs and set it back years when they fired Schotty for the "next big thing". Sometimes it's better to simply stick with the known commodity.

 

[SSOG]

You are totally not getting my point, or you are intentionally ignoring it. Fortunately, others here, like massraider, have captured it. We know more about what Marty can and can't do than we know about Lewis. We don't know that Lewis will be better than Marty... but we don't know he won't. What I do know is that I want a coach better than Marty, because I want to win in the playoffs. So I'd rather take the risk that Lewis turns out to be not as good as Marty, in exchange for the upside Lewis may have that I know Marty doesn't have.

You can't win in the playoffs without first making the playoffs.

While I like Marty Schottenheimer and feel he is probably in the top half of NFL of current NFL head coaches, but he is not in the top 10.

Marty's offenses are a step or two up from Bum Phillips...and a step or two down from Chuck Knox. And he has been fired 2 times in his career due to either ineffective coaching (Washington), or in running his teams into the ground (Cleveland) with veterans he never replaced. And he escaped another firing by resigning as head coach in Kansas City. Schotty just doesn't have enough imagination on the offensive end to get it done in the big games. He has not gotten it done in big games with Joe Montana, he has not gotten it done in big games with Bernie Kosar...and he made poor decisions in electing to run his Washington club with Jeff George and Tony Banks as his quarterbacks, after accepting full control of a Washington team that he claimed he could get into the Super Bowl with those quarterbacks (with no mention of a rebuilding period). These are his negatives.

Schottenheimer has ranked in the top 10 in scoring offense 9 times in 20 years (45% of the time). That's an above-average rate, which would suggest that he's an above-average offensive mind. He's no Mike Shanahan, but he's produced some quality offenses in his day (including a top-5 scoring offense for 2 consecutive years). His average offensive rank is 13.35. Either way, you can afford to be marginally above average on offense when you're as *RIDICULOUS* on defense as Schotty's teams historically are. Schotty's teams have finished in the top 10 in scoring defense 10 times in 20 years (50%), but even more remarkably, they've only finished below 14th in scoring defense *THREE TIMES* in 20 years (meaning he's in the top 50% of the league 85% of the time). That's unreal. 4 teams, 20 years, and a huge history of solid defenses. You don't seem to be marking Billick down for his anemic offenses, so perhaps we should cut Schotty some slack for his merely serviceable squads.Also, I think Schottenheimer's firing from Washington was extremely unjust, and lots of Washington players agreed. They took a team that was a step away from the playoffs and set it back years when they fired Schotty for the "next big thing". Sometimes it's better to simply stick with the known commodity.

Billick? Billick is not listed on my top 10 coaches list...I never discussed Billick's coaching here.In Washington Schottenheimer started off with an 0-5 record (before fired) after publicly boasting thru the media how he had a playoff club with Jeff George and Tony Banks as his QB options...enough said about Washington.

Billick wasn't entirely directed at you, it was sort of a broad statement directed at everyone else who was ranking Billick ahead of Schotty because of the SB win.Anyway, that's not enough said about Washington. You failed to mention that, after the 0-5 start, Washington managed to rattle off an 8-3 record to end the season. To me, that indicates pretty darn strongly that Washington had "turned a corner" and really started coming together as a team. Schottenheimer had them on the verge of the playoffs that year, and I don't doubt that he would have gotten them there the year after. By the way, how did his replacement wind up doing again?

Besides, what was he supposed to say through the media? "Yeah, I know that Jeff George is my QB. Our season is probably sunk. We're actually considering just forfeiting now and saving ourselves the embarassment"?

Also, I still don't get what's so preposterous about his claim that his team was a playoff club. One more win and his team *WOULD HAVE* made the playoffs with Jeff George and Tony Banks at QB. Pretty impressive for an "average" coach.

 

[BGP]

Top 10 out of 32 total coaches. That puts him in the top 31%. I don't think proclaiming yourself to be in the top 31% of anything is impressive.

 

[Tau837]

While I like Marty Schottenheimer and feel he is probably in the top half of NFL of current NFL head coaches, but he is not in the top 10.Marty's offenses are a step or two up from Bum Phillips...and a step or two down from Chuck Knox. And he has been fired 2 times in his career due to either ineffective coaching (Washington), or in running his teams into the ground (Cleveland) with veterans he never replaced. And he escaped another firing by resigning as head coach in Kansas City. Schotty just doesn't have enough imagination on the offensive end to get it done in the big games. He has not gotten it done in big games with Joe Montana, he has not gotten it done in big games with Bernie Kosar...and he made poor decisions in electing to run his Washington club with Jeff George and Tony Banks as his quarterbacks, after accepting full control of a Washington team that he claimed he could get into the Super Bowl with those quarterbacks (with no mention of a rebuilding period). These are his negatives.In Cleveland Schotty inherited Pro Bowlers Ozzie Newsome, Ernest Byner, Clay Matthews, Frank Minnifield, Chip Banks, Bob Golic and Hanford Dixon from Sam Rutigliano's previous Cleveland run team. In Kansas City he inherited Pro Bowlers Jon Alt, Albert Lewis, Deron Cherry, Neil Smith, Bill Maas, Kevin Ross, Dino Hackett, Christian Okoye and veteran QB Steve Deberg from Frank Ganz and John Mackovic's previous clubs. In San Diego he has inherited Ladainain Tomlinson, and both Junior Seau and Rodney Harrison in his early years there. Many of the players who have been brought in recently there have been done so arguably by AJ Smith.While stud coaches like Shanahan and Dungy have been fired under very questionable circumstances...Schotty's firings unfortunately have been well deserved. He is a good coach, but not a top 10 coach.

Forgot to say that this is a

 

[Tau837]

I think Marty is a good coach, but he is limited.His strong points are that he is a good motivator and a good administrator. The players both like him and respect him. They play hard for him. I think he also manages his assistant coaches well, although he may be a bit too loyal to assistant coaches who are not getting the job done. (DB coach Brian Stewart and ST coach Steve Crosby are examples, IMO.)He is good at giving press conferences, and he seems very good at instilling a strong work ethic into his players.I suspect he is not very strong or innovative when it comes to Xs and Os. But that's okay because he's currently blessed with two very good coordinators in Cam Cameron and Wade Phillips.The problem, I think, comes when Marty intervenes in Cam Cameron's play-calling -- which he did this past Sunday.I wouldn't consider Marty a great coach because I think he'd be in trouble if his coordinators left. But as long as he's got Cameron and Phillips -- especially if he'd stay out of their hair -- I think Marty can fill the head coaching role very effectively. He can help motivate the players and leave the Xs and Os to his coordinators.Unfortunately, he's not really doing that. He's placing his own stamp on the offense, and it is limiting the team's effectiveness, IMO.Although I think he can be an effective head coach, I would not be surprised or saddened to see him replaced in the offseason with somebody who is better with the Xs and Os and is therefore not as dependent on his coordinators, and is not a liability when he intervenes in the play-calling.I could be reading the situation wrong, but that's my feeling.

Excellent post, as usual on any subject remotely pertaining to the Chargers.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Of course it does. All I'm saying is that I personally feel long-term success is more important than titles. It's a much bigger accomplishment.

Exactly, but long term success with a title (or more) is the great differentiator between long term succes without one.Success is measured in wins and losses.

Regular season success earns you the right to try for post-season success.

Post-season success is what separates good from great.

Winning it all is very difficult, few have done it because each step in the process becomes harder to achieve than the last one. However, the absolute essence of competition is having a winner and a loser. It's why they keep score. It's why teams advance and others go home. Its why no t-shirts get printed after the Super Bowl proclaiming the loser as the second best team.

Tony Dungy got run out of Tampa Bay because he couldn't get anywhere in the playoffs and then Gruden got it done. Could Dungy have won it all with that team? Who knows? But what we do know is that Gruden actually did get it done, and nobody can ever take it away from him or the city.

So, based on this, Gruden is the better coach? Even though he won with the players Dungy brought in, and since then has done bupkis with his own personnel in place, while Dungy has won about 50 games in 4 years in Indy, but hasn't gone all the way yet? I'd have to disagree with that.

Competition is about winning, not coming close. Gruden has a ring, Dungy does not as a HC. If you are a champion, you are the best, at least for that season. When you talk about a Coach's body of work, the first criteria is championships. Would they call it the Lombardi Trophy if Vince didn't win the first two Super Bowls?

Who is held in higher esteem, Bill Walsh or Don Coryell? You get the idea.

I see your point completely and understand many people share this view. I have always been of the mind that winning is important, not necessarily winning it all. The best team, the best coach, the best player doesn't always win the championship - there are so many mitigating factors. I think way too much emphasis is placed on titles and not enough on being successful week in and week out or year in and year out.

 

[H.K.]

I see your point completely and understand many people share this view. I have always been of the mind that winning is important, not necessarily winning it all. The best team, the best coach, the best player doesn't always win the championship - there are so many mitigating factors.

Yes, they do. The team who everyone thinks is the best may not win, but the best team will.

 

[dgreen]

And Parcells has a better H2H record against Gibbs...that has to count for something here when comparing the two.

Of course it counts for something. However, that is pretty much the only thing Parcells has on Gibbs. I guess you can throw in the fact that Parcells took two different franchises to the SB, but I personally think that is overrated a little bit.When you look at every other meaningful measurable (overall record, regular season record, post season record, Super Bowls, NFC Championships, division titles, winning seasons, etc.), Gibbs beat Parcells in every one.They are both great coaches, but Gibbs, IMO, is clearly in a higher tier than Parcells and it's not even close.

 

[redman]

I see your point completely and understand many people share this view. I have always been of the mind that winning is important, not necessarily winning it all. The best team, the best coach, the best player doesn't always win the championship - there are so many mitigating factors. I think way too much emphasis is placed on titles and not enough on being successful week in and week out or year in and year out.

Why do I suspect that this is a rationale that is built around Cowher's coaching record? I doubt most Pittsburgh fans would have talked this way circa 1980 . . .

 

[H.K.]

Jeff Fisher is a guy who is overlooked, too. Wouldn't surprise me to see him go somewhere else and do very well.

 

[BoltzNBrew]

If games were only 55 minutes Shotty would have a couple of Superbowl rings under his belt.

 

[BGP]

There are 119 divsion 1-A college football teams:

http://scoreboards.aol.com/football/ncaaf/...ts:ncaafb:teams

Trumpeting being top 31% of this group puts you in the top 36...

That's statisically the same as trumpeting a top 10 coach in the NFL.

Neither makes sense.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I see your point completely and understand many people share this view. I have always been of the mind that winning is important, not necessarily winning it all. The best team, the best coach, the best player doesn't always win the championship - there are so many mitigating factors. I think way too much emphasis is placed on titles and not enough on being successful week in and week out or year in and year out.

Why do I suspect that this is a rationale that is built around Cowher's coaching record? I doubt most Pittsburgh fans would have talked this way circa 1980 . . .

Because you want to. I'll defend Bobby Cox too, and I have no axe to grind there.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I see your point completely and understand many people share this view. I have always been of the mind that winning is important, not necessarily winning it all. The best team, the best coach, the best player doesn't always win the championship - there are so many mitigating factors.

Yes, they do. The team who everyone thinks is the best may not win, but the best team will.

I tend to think injuries, extenuating circumstances, a team catching lightning in a bottle and getting hot at the right time, etc... has a lot to do with some teams winning championships, but hey, we'll agree to disagree here. I'm not even sure the Steelers were the best team in the NFL last year, and I'm not sure the 2004 team wasn't better, just so you don't think I'm coming from a homer point of view.

 

[redman]

I see your point completely and understand many people share this view. I have always been of the mind that winning is important, not necessarily winning it all. The best team, the best coach, the best player doesn't always win the championship - there are so many mitigating factors.

Yes, they do. The team who everyone thinks is the best may not win, but the best team will.

I tend to think injuries, extenuating circumstances, a team catching lightning in a bottle and getting hot at the right time, etc... has a lot to do with some teams winning championships, but hey, we'll agree to disagree here. I'm not even sure the Steelers were the best team in the NFL last year, and I'm not sure the 2004 team wasn't better, just so you don't think I'm coming from a homer point of view.

We'll both agree that getting a less-talented team to overachieve is a sign of good or even excellent coaching. I've already mentioned Bill Parcells' performance with that 2003 Cowboys team. The 1987 Redskins that won the Super Bowl against the Broncos was probably very comparable to last year's Steelers team in that neither had "on paper" any business winning the championship given that they were, at best, considered maybe the 3rd best team in their conference, and likely even lower. Where you and I seem to depart is that that's not the only criteria. There is an art to winning, even with great teams. Dungy is ranked as low as he is because I tend to view his teams as underperforming ultimately, even though he consistently has a winning record and gets to the playoffs. Last year's Colts were a prime example of a very good team stepping on the proverbial banana peel.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I see your point completely and understand many people share this view. I have always been of the mind that winning is important, not necessarily winning it all. The best team, the best coach, the best player doesn't always win the championship - there are so many mitigating factors.

Yes, they do. The team who everyone thinks is the best may not win, but the best team will.

I tend to think injuries, extenuating circumstances, a team catching lightning in a bottle and getting hot at the right time, etc... has a lot to do with some teams winning championships, but hey, we'll agree to disagree here. I'm not even sure the Steelers were the best team in the NFL last year, and I'm not sure the 2004 team wasn't better, just so you don't think I'm coming from a homer point of view.

We'll both agree that getting a less-talented team to overachieve is a sign of good or even excellent coaching. I've already mentioned Bill Parcells' performance with that 2003 Cowboys team. The 1987 Redskins that won the Super Bowl against the Broncos was probably very comparable to last year's Steelers team in that neither had "on paper" any business winning the championship given that they were, at best, considered maybe the 3rd best team in their conference, and likely even lower. Where you and I seem to depart is that that's not the only criteria. There is an art to winning, even with great teams. Dungy is ranked as low as he is because I tend to view his teams as underperforming ultimately, even though he consistently has a winning record and gets to the playoffs. Last year's Colts were a prime example of a very good team stepping on the proverbial banana peel.

I hear you. It's a very valid argument. I guess I just place less weight on titles than some people. If the Colts win it all this year, Dungy will instantly vault into most people's top 3-5 coaches in the league, whereas today, he likely ranks in the 8-13 range, and even if the Colts make it to the SB and lose, he'll remain there with the "can't win the big one" stigma attached to him. Personally, I don't believe that one game makes a great coach. I don't think Cowher is a far better coach now than he was a year ago, but if you look at people's top 10 lists then and now, you'll see a huge discrepancy. Sometimes things break right for you, and sometimes they don't. If Palmer's leg doesn't get hurt last year, maybe the Bengals squeak by and Cowher would still have that stigma attached to him... people would be saying that Pittsburgh would have had no chance to beat Indy, Denver, and Seattle on the road anyway... and he'd still be at the bottom of people's top 10 lists. That's all I'm saying.

 

[simey]

Anyway, the whole reason I keep mentioning turning over the roster is because the more different rosters you win with, the more proven you are. Marvin Lewis and John Fox are still essentially playing with their first roster. Are they both so good because they're good coaches, or because they lucked into Chad Johnson and Steve Smith? I mean, what's John Fox's record without Steve Smith? It's not very good (7-11). One could argue that it's not that Fox is a great coach, it's that Steve Smith is a DOMINANT WR. Like I said, even Bill Callahan can go 11-5 and make the superbowl if he lucks into the talent.

I think that is incorrect. John Fox took over a team that went 1-15 the previous year. That is awful. He took that team to 7-9 in his first year, which is the year he drafted Julius Peppers. In Fox's second year as HC, he signed and started Delhomme as quarterback. Delhomme did not have that much NFL experience at all as a starter. He also signed Stephen Davis that year. They also went to the Super Bowl that year. Taking a 1-15 team, to the Super Bowl in two years is pretty darn good. The following year they lost Steve Smith in the first game, and then they lost their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th string running backs, and many defensive players. They managed to make a comeback and go 7-9. That is not from luck, that is a well-coached team. The following year, last year, they made it to the NFC Championship game. They have also had plenty of roster turnover of starters since Fox became HC. Some include Nesbit, Mitchell, Steussie, Donnalley, James, McCree, Reyes, Willis, Grant, Fields, Allen, Maning Jr, Rasmussen, Walls, Moose, Witherspoon, Proehl, Sauerbran, Evans, Lamar Smith, Peete, Towns, Buckner, Navies, Terry, Davis, etc.

 

[ICON211]

There is a good article on espn.com today about how bad he is for the Chargers today. The Chargers could have gone deep into the playoffs with the talent they had last year and because of of his coaching style they didn't even make the playoffs. There are definitely far worse coaches, but if you want to win anything of significance Marty is not the coach you want. The guy treats a 3 point lead as if it were 30 at times and that is just not going to get it done in the playoffs. And by the way I think Louie Agiar is still running trying to pick up the first down on that 4th and a mile fake punt he called against Denver in the playoffs when he was with KC.

 

[Jason Wood]

If you want a disciplined team that will win its fair share of games, Schotty is certainly an accomplished option. But if you want a team that, favored or not, will make a deep playoff run, he's most certainly not.