OK...so please explain this logic...

[MinnesotaCowboy]

CBZ........you got so frustrated you misspelled "damned" twice and each time was different...........and you is not even as old as me!

 

[notherbob]

Maybe so, but it still doesn't explain the "logic"

Fool - didn't you know that only Norman Einstein can explain football fan logic. :laugh2:

 

[Cbz40]

CBZ........you got so frustrated you misspelled "damned" twice and each time was different...........and you is not even as old as me!

Well that should prove how often I cuss (curse).

 

[DipChit]

Why does one down period with a team negate all the good that a coach has done prior or after?

It shouldnt, really. But I think the reason some people bring up the negatives of what someone did prior is to just point out that by bringing someone else in, or back, isnt some guarantee of success.

From the tone of certain posts when it comes back to say Jimmy, it seems that is whats being inferred though as opposed to just saying.. "I think Jimmy would be a good candidate".

Lets face it, anymore theres a lot that goes into whether a team wins or loses than just who their HC is. Moreso than ever before probably or you wouldnt have such a list of ordinary HC's having either won or been to the show over the last number of years.

Seems to me that for every HC that is "getting" their team to a certain level, theres just as many being "carried" by their teams to certain levels.

 

[Ratmatt]

I agree with what you say for the most part,except I would definetly take Bellichek over Parcells anyday.I know Parcells backers don't like to hear this,but Parcells hasn't accomplished anything without Bellichek,the numbers don't lie.Parcells has a 117-73-1 regular season record with Bellichek running his defense.He is 11-5 in the playoffs,with 3 super bowl appearances,and 2 super bowl titles.Without Bellichek,he is 55-57 regular season,and 0-3 playoffs,and 1 of those 3 playoffs loses came at the hand of Bellichek.The point I'm trying to make is a successful head coach needs to hire good assistants,especially coordinators,and let them run their systems,and leave them the hell alone.A head coach needs to over see things,not try to control things,and run everything.It is a different era,and the man needs to step back and let his assistants shine.That's why I don't believe your going to see a real good coordinator come in here and work under Parcells.It is the same reason why Bellichek went to New England,instead of taking the Jets job,because he didn't want to be under Parcells thumb.

 

[burmafrd]

So how does one look at BP:
Took his first team to the SB 2 times and won 2 times
Second team to the SB once and lost
3rd team to the AFC champ game and lost
4th team to the playoffs twice and lost twice
One could say law of diminishing returns.
Or one could say he did not stay long enough at the last two.
He has taken LOSING teams and turned them into playoff teams 4 times in separate cities- no one is even close to that.
BUT maybe we need to look at getting someone that can take the next step. We shall see next year: we now have the vital piece in finally getting a good QB. Never underestimate THAT importance. He got the Jets to the AFC Champ with VINNY. Nuts, he got tot he playoffs with crankcase. He now has maybe the best QB since Simms, or maybe a young Bledsoe. So we give him ONE more YEAR and that is that.

 

[burmafrd]

So how do you explain BB and Cleveland?
And also look at this- when did BB come to the Giants? was it after the first SB?

 

[CF74]

With regard to coaches, who should be hired, who shouldn't...etc...

I've always been stumped by logic that goes like this:

"I think we should get Jimmy Johnson back"

"Oh yeah, sure. He did such a GREAT job with the Dolphins"

Or...

"I'd take Belichick over Parcells any day of the week."

"Oh yeah, sure. He did such a great job with the Browns"



Why does one down period with a team negate all the good that a coach has done prior or after?

When Parcells' career comes to a close, if he doesn't win in Dallas it should negate what he did elsewhere?

And Landry losing at the end should negate what he did prior?

And Shula not being a great success with the Dolphins for the last years, should negate what he did prior?

Paul Brown? What a bum. With the Bengals, 8 years, no playoff wins...and only three winning seasons. BUM.

And that Lombardi guy did NOTHING with the Commanders.

Oh and Shanahan is a bum also because of what he did with the Raiders.

Uh, you get my drift.

I'm too sober to answer this one but I get the drift:starspin

 

[MetalHead]

So how does one look at BP:
Took his first team to the SB 2 times and won 2 times
Second team to the SB once and lost
3rd team to the AFC champ game and lost
4th team to the playoffs twice and lost twice
One could say law of diminishing returns.
Or one could say he did not stay long enough at the last two.
He has taken LOSING teams and turned them into playoff teams 4 times in separate cities- no one is even close to that.
BUT maybe we need to look at getting someone that can take the next step. We shall see next year: we now have the vital piece in finally getting a good QB. Never underestimate THAT importance. He got the Jets to the AFC Champ with VINNY. Nuts, he got tot he playoffs with crankcase. He now has maybe the best QB since Simms, or maybe a young Bledsoe. So we give him ONE more YEAR and that is that.

You answered your own question there.
If he stays,expect another season of mediocrity and a december collapse.
He is what he is.A 34-32 coach.

 

[iceberg]

You answered your own question there.
If he stays,expect another season of mediocrity and a december collapse.
He is what he is.A 34-32 coach.

except that he does have skins on the wall and people who support bp keep waiting for that guy to show up and be that coach. seeing as how many long time friends say he doesn't seem like the bp of old on the sidelines, i don't think we'll ever see *that* bill again.

some people think otherwise.

 

[rcaldw]

I think an interesting offshoot of your original question has to do with the fact that most of the examples you mentioned (not the Shanahan one), involved bad performances after great performances.

I think what happens sometimes is these successful coaches don't recognize the need to adapt. That is what made Landry a success for so long. He was innovative. 1975 and the shotgun formation comes back from the past all of the sudden.

I think that sometimes these guys have "their way", and sure enough it was great for its time, they caught lightening in the bottle,sometimes for a longer period than others, but then they think it is a forever formula in every setting.

I found it interesting that someone said the other day (sorry, can't remember who), that Parcells insists on the BIG linebackers for his 3-4 defense like his Giants days. The person said that todays most effective 3-4 defenses also feature speed at the position.

So maybe it isn't that fans believe that they are horrible at their 2nd spot so much as they just want fresh ideas.

I am personally a confused person along these lines

I want Parcells gone, but I would welcome Jimmy back