Is there anybody who is missing Parcells as Our Head Coach Right now?

[dbair1967]

I'm pretty sure both guys will be going into the HOF

it's not like we're arguing Wade Phillips or Norv Turner, Mike Martz/Jason Garrett

and by the way, if someone just looked at Parcells resume post-Giants, he wouldnt be a HOFer IMO.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

He was HC of two different super bowl teams, won two of three...he'll get there

although Belichick has afar mroe impressive resume, and he has back to back championships...probably tainted somewhat, but he did get them

winning b-2-b is the pinnacle right now...only the truly great teams have done it

and by the way, if someone just looked at Parcells resume post-Giants, he wouldnt be a HOFer IMO.

neither would Tom Landry if they look at the last few years of his coaching career

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I fail to see how you can point to Belichick being largely responsible for Parcells' 2 super bowls when he failed immediately as a HC on his own

 

[dbair1967]

neither would Tom Landry if they look at the last few years of his coaching career

somewhat true, but Landry's teams were only bad at first (expansion) and at the end (last 3 teams)...he was the model of consistency in between...he also didnt need a fluke to win a super bowl, Parcells clearly got lucky in the Buffalo win.

The thing that resonates with me is that in spite of how much respect and love he got from the media, the guy had only one great season...his other championship team was good, but was more lucky.

 

[dbair1967]

I fail to see how you can point to Belichick being largely responsible for Parcells' 2 super bowls when he failed immediately as a HC on his own

pretty simple my man...with Belichick he got to three super bowls, won two

without Belichick...nada, despite alot of coaching seasons...wasnt like he had only a yr or two w/o him

Belichick w/o Parcells...3 championships, and undefeated season and b-2-b championships once

 

[Bob Sacamano]

pretty simple my man...with Belichick he got to three super bowls, won two

without Belichick...nada, despite alot of coaching seasons...wasnt like he had only a yr or two w/o him

Belichick w/o Parcells...3 championships, and undefeated season and b-2-b championships once

ok, so how come if Belichick did more to lead the Giants than Parcells

he fails leading the Cleveland Browns?

a coach under Parcells never has called games without Parcells overseeing him, and telling him how to call it

I think the 2 Giant Super Bowls were everyone doing their jobs very well, but I can't give it to the guy who didn't even have free-reign to call his own D (Belichick)

 

[Dave_in-NC]

pretty simple my man...with Belichick he got to three super bowls, won two

without Belichick...nada, despite alot of coaching seasons...wasnt like he had only a yr or two w/o him

Belichick w/o Parcells...3 championships, and undefeated season and b-2-b championships once

Not to mention he works for one of the best owners in the game and had a pretty good GM.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

its about control. You are acting like he can only coach a bad team.

With a bad team you can start over and build from scratch, and your comments and jukes comments indicate that is easy Which is completely bogus.

If that were true it would happen all the time and it doesnt. We have been through this before.

If people could just show up to the bad teams and fix them they would, but it doesnt happen and usually most coaches fail in that situation and complain about not having qbs etc......

and saying belichick is FAR superior is another misnomer. They are both great. They operate the same way, they use the same prototype for players and people and they are both succesfull.

I love when people say parcells is a few inches is to the left of having only one sb title, but never ever bring up the tuck rule and how close belichick came to just losing in the playoffs with another franchise.

How did this start again? I am tired of arguing this topic with people. Most people dont even know a quarter of parcells history and just make these baseless comments off of his time in dallas and the jets.

I didn't say turning around teams was easy. I said he was the Chainsaw Al of the NFL, and he is. When a company was floundering hopelessly, they called in Al, and he turned them around. Once he got them on their feet, he left to do it again somewhere else. Nobody called Al to take a pretty successful company and make them super-successful. Just like Parcells. I wonder why that is?

And for the record, I don't hate Parcells. I love about 90% of his philosophy, from running a tight ship, to drafting high-character players, to playing power football, to emphasizing squats and cleans in the weight room. So much of that is just basic football to me that I assume it goes without saying. What I hate is the deification of Parcells, as if he invented football. One example is this Parcells "tree" that gives him credit for everyone he comes in contact with. I mean, Tom Coughlin is a 62 year old man who has coached for 35 years or so. But because two of those years were spent as Parcells WR coach, he's a "Parcells disciple" who learned everything he knows from The Master. That's bunk, and a discredit to what Coughlin has accomplished. To a lesser degree that's true for Belichick too, who learned so much from his dad at the Naval Academy.

And no matter how good a motivator or team-builder or disciplinarian Parcells is -- and he's great at that -- he's maybe an even better self-promoter. Angling for a new job with another team a few days before your team plays in the Super Bowl is inexcusable to me. So is asking for a GM job with the team you're about to play the morning of a game. How can anyone find that acceptable? Cyclone Hart indeed.

 

[InmanRoshi]

pretty simple my man...with Belichick he got to three super bowls, won two

without Belichick...nada, despite alot of coaching seasons...wasnt like he had only a yr or two w/o him

Belichick w/o Parcells...3 championships, and undefeated season and b-2-b championships once

And Belichick without Brady has a career losing record as a head coach and only won 1 playoff game. So Brady made Belichick who made Parcells ... Obviously Brady was the real reason Parcells won a Superbowl in 1986. It's the only logical explanation. No, wait a minute ... I just remembered that Belichick has never won a Superbowl without Romeo Crennel. It must be Romeo Crennel who is the real coaching genius.

Anyway, aside from some bitter Cowboy fans, questioning the greatness of Parcells pretty much gets you laughed out of the room, so it is what it is. It's not even debated anywhere else. I mean, the team he just took over tied an NFL record for biggest turn around in a season ... if it's so common place to turn around bad teams, why hasn't anyone else in league hitory turned 1-15 teams to a 11-5 team in one season? It's ridiculous. There's nothing more difficult in sports than to come into losing franchise and get 53 unfamiliar players and a brand new coaching staff on board with your philosophy AND then to teach them the fundamentals of that philosophy AND exorcise the stench of losing out of the room. Once you've built the machine, the hard part is over and it pretty much runs itself. You have a lockerroom full of veterans who have already bought into the system and know it like the back of their hand. They indoctrinate the hand full of rookies and new aquisition into the system. The head coaches job is 95% done. The only reason Parcells doesn't have 4 or 5 Superbowl rings is he burned out and didn't stick around long enough to enjoy the fruits of his labor once he got the teams good. He never waited around season after season with a good team waiting for his number to be called like his Cowher or Dungy did.

Several coaches have won multiple Superbowls in the same organization. Several coaches have pulled the Jon Gruden and inherited already good teams and won Superbowls with them. No coach has ever won a Superbowl with two different franchises, and a lot of good ones have tried and failed. Its the most difficult feat in NFL coaching.

 

[mmillman]

Parcells said it best when he said the team was dumb

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Parcells said it best when he said the team was dumb

Parcells always hammered his players to the media. Its not as if it is truly meaningful.

 

[jobberone]

You have to look at the entire picture for any coach. It's hard to turn a franchise around. Lombardi did it with GB and took the Skins to their first winning season in awhile year one then got sick. Parcells does the same then moves on. Why? Lots of reasons. Mostly on him.

You have a hard time winning a SB period much less without talent esp at QB. Look at how BB and BP did without QBs and when taking over diseased franchises. It's not simple. It's even difficult to dissect it much less build it and drive it all the way to the SB.

BB will go to the HOF. So will Parcells and for good reasons. Right now it's not even close on who I'd want for a coach. BB. But BP is still very good. I wouldn't trust him though. He is a great remodeler though.

 

[wileedog]

Oh, almost forgot. I don't believe Parcells could have developed Brady the same way Belichick did. I have not been all that impressed with how he develops QBs. You'll mention Romo, and that is fair. I will mention back Cassel. Belichick has doen it twice. Parcells once and he left before he could truly glean the fruit of that labor.

That's just crap.

Parcells has developed QBs from Simms to Vinny to Romo. No question he could have done the same with Cassel.

You are only handed so many guys with real talent. Because Belichick won the lottery with Brady means nothing.

BTW Cassel got sacked at a dizzying pace this year and held the ball forever. I wouldn't be too quick to jump on his bandwagon.

 

[Hostile]

That's just crap.

Parcells has developed QBs from Simms to Vinny to Romo. No question he could have done the same with Cassel.

You are only handed so many guys with real talent. Because Belichick won the lottery with Brady means nothing.

BTW Cassel got sacked at a dizzying pace this year and held the ball forever. I wouldn't be too quick to jump on his bandwagon.

Simms and Vinny were 1st round picks. It isn't the same as Brady and Romo.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Simms and Vinny were 1st round picks. It isn't the same as Brady and Romo.

I didn't know you weren't supposed to develop and coach 1st round picks

 

[Hostile]

I didn't know you weren't supposed to develop and coach 1st round picks

That isn't what I said. I said it isn't the same as finding and developing a Brady or a Romo.

 

[wileedog]

Simms and Vinny were 1st round picks. It isn't the same as Brady and Romo.

How many 1st round picks flame out?

And last I checked a 6 th round pick from Michigan is still miles above an undrafted FA from Eastern Illinois from a pedigree standpoint.

Again, stupid argument if you think Cassel is the difference between them, or ignore the fact that Belichick had Pioli drafting for him while Bill was being handed Quincy, Hutch and Henson.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

That isn't what I said. I said it isn't the same as finding and developing a Brady or a Romo.

I haven't ribbed you in 5 days, I had to do it

 

[Hostile]

How many 1st round picks flame out?

And last I checked a 6 th round pick from Michigan is still miles above an undrafted FA from Eastern Illinois from a pedigree standpoint.

Again, stupid argument if you think Cassel is the difference between them, or ignore the fact that Belichick had Pioli drafting for him while Bill was being handed Quincy, Hutch and Henson.

Not near as many as 6th rounders and UDFAs.

 

[wileedog]

BTW Simms was considered a bust too before Parcells got to him. He was almost cut.