Prisco: Ranking the NFL Head Coaches

[PoundTheRock]

fine with Garrett around where he is, but Petey Prisco way overrates the so called "genius" Chip Kelly like the rest of the media. Have never seen a lovefest like this, for a coach who has won absolutely nothing.

He's been in the NFL all of 2 years and already won 20 games. Jason Garrett has been our coach 4 and a half years and just cracked the 10 win plateau.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you're basing that off 10 posts? Thats pretty smart of you.

First impressions are important.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Here are the guys ranked ahead of Garrett from 10-17:

10. Chuck Pagano

11. Bill O'Brien

12. Chip Kelly

13. John Fox

14. Ron Rivera

15. Jeff Fisher

16. Marvin Lewis

17. Rex Ryan

 

[JohnsKey19]

Honestly, you probably only have 3-4 difference makers at HC in the league and the rest are kinda in the same boat. Personally I'd rank Belichek, Harbaugh and Reid at the top. Then there is "the rest".

 

[endersdragon]

Who's to say that trade won't work out for Kelly? Bradford is a more talented QB than Nick Foles and IF he can stay healthy he may flourish under Kelly. Things weren't working out for Drew Brees in San Diego and he was let go due to injury and eventually blossomed in NO. Im not saying the same will happen with Bradford in Philly but you just never know. Jimmy looked pretty foolish with some of the moves he made when he first arrived in Dallas. He and Jerry were the butt of many jokes but they ended up getting the last laugh. Kelly has taken some gambles to bring in his type of players but what looks foolish now may end up looking brilliant in another couple of years. I would advice everyone to let things play out for awhile before coming to any conclusions.

There is very little from his career that would suggest that Bradford > Foles. Yes I know, he didn't have the best team around him, but Bradford had Steven Jackson for several years, which never helped him any and his stats are just horrible even when he is healthy. He has had 1 decent year (not as good as Foles) and the rest have had sub 90 QB Ratings. He might prove to be good this year, but my money says stay far away from the Eagles, especially if Bradford gets hurt like he always does.

 

[Risen Star]

Just because you don't count it, doesn't mean no else does.

It's pretty meaningless though. Nobody's radically altering their ranking on Garrett because he went 5-3 the year he took over midseason.

You have to be really delusional to think a coach that has produced 3 8-8 seasons in 4 years should be ranked any higher than where he is here.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

The chipster gets credit for being innovative even though the 90s Bills were doing basically the same thing. I have to admit that his approach adds some interest to the games,,,

 

[Idgit]

These lists are always stupid.

There are a handful of exceptional coaches in the league. And then a bunch of guys like Reid and Fisher who aren't exceptional but have won enough to get veteran coach status that's well deserved. Then there's everybody else with a few coaches (Tomsula) who just simply make you scratch your head. Garrett belongs in the 'everybody else' category for the time being, but I suspect he ends up in one of the top groups before it's all said and done.

And, like it *always* happens in these coach threads, it bears repeating that the team's won/loss record for a given year is not an accurate measure of the direction of the franchise or the ability of the head coach. It simply takes longer than a season or two to establish a program, and there are simply too many factors that are involved in assembling a staff and a roster to be lazy about evaluating the HC.

I've said it since Jason took over in Dallas, but the change in leadership and direction and in the quality of the player development, roster decision making, and the drafting since he's gotten here as been obvious. Now, we're seeing threads where even the loudest malcontents are gradually conceding that the draft and the direction is improving. That's isn't happening just by accident. At one point in one of these Garrett threads--back when just about everybody and his brother wanted to ride the guy out of town on a rail, I quoted a paragraph from John Wooden's biography that he considered his best job coaching ever to have been on a team that finished below .500. That sticks in my mind when the topic of coaching comes up because I think it's a fairly compelling argument for looking underneath the hood of any given coaching job if I've ever heard one. There are going to be ups and downs and fluctuations in the roster. A good coach is a guy who can keep the team trending up over a time. A great one gets them trending to the top a few times while he's lucky enough to be in the job. And fans are going to complain along the way, no matter what.

 

[Risen Star]

lol, ok. He has also never had a losing season in any season he's coached here. Neither how you stated it nor how I did tells the whole story, which is why you can't just look at records to determine if the coach is doing a good job or not and if the franchise is headed in the right direction or not.

Clearly, the team is headed in the right direction and is on the upswing. If you aren't happy with the state of the franchise, then that is your prerogative.

You are a smart guy and you certainly don't lack subtlety... you can tell that from your sense of humor. Why all the details that go into trying to determine if a guy is a good coach or not escapes you, I'm not sure. I know you understand that if a defense is terrible and the personnel is poor, that just about any coach will struggle, so why you don't think that applies at all to Garrett's time as HC in Dallas doesn't make sense. However, if you feel like you simply have to look at the record of a coach to see all you need to know, well, I'm certainly not going to argue with you about it any more than I already have.

Have a great day good sir.

The problem we're having here is a common one for me. I'm a truth teller in a room full of fanatic fans. I don't spin anything. Ever.

I'm not interested in feel good, rah rah, human interest nonsense. I'm talking about wins and losses. As of right now, Garrett's been mediocre, so he deserves a mediocre ranking. I'm sure if he can duplicate the one year he actually won more than he lost, his ranking will improve.

Which will mean something to you. This obsession for credit and recognition infests this board. I couldn't possibly care less where any of our coaches or players are ranked on anyone's list. I just want to win games.

 

[Risen Star]

The chipster gets credit for being innovative even though the 90s Bills were doing basically the same thing. I have to admit that his approach adds some interest to the games,,,

I hate the flow of Eagles games. Everything's rushed. Personally, I think Chip Kelly is an idiot. But that's just me.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

It's pretty meaningless though. Nobody's radically altering their ranking on Garrett because he went 5-3 the year he took over midseason.

You have to be really delusional to think a coach that has produced 3 8-8 seasons in 4 years should be ranked any higher than where he is here.

Yeah, that 1/2 season shouldn't count because Garrett didn't even have his starting QB, so other teams didn't game plan for him.

Gotcha.

 

[Risen Star]

Yeah, that 1/2 season shouldn't count because Garrett didn't even have his starting QB, so other teams didn't game plan for him.

Gotcha.

It doesn't count for me because of the dynamic. Teams often rally around a coaching change in-season. It really means less than nothing to me how an interim coach performs the remainder of that year. Garrett wasn't the head coach during the installation period. His program wasn't in place that year.

Why are you making such a big deal about 5-3 any way? This is beyond pathetic for a Cowboys fan. You should seriously be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Idgit]

Just because you don't count it, doesn't mean no else does.

Were they NFL games? Then they count, right? And you better believe they'd count if the record under Garrett that year were 0-8.

Honestly, won/loss record is just one metric to use in evaluating a coach, but turning around 1-7 in that situation is another in my book. As is going .500 with a roster that was in fairly dramatic need of retooling. Jason made some big staffing mistakes during those seasons, and had a couple embarrassing on-the-field gaffes on game day, but overall, he did a pretty dang good job keeping the team in contention during what could have been some pretty lean seasons.

Either way, it's becoming more and more obvious that the guy is a good man for the job in Dallas. There are always going to be haters, until the team wins more and then there are not. And then they'll fade into the woodwork again. We just need to stay the course and keep building a stable and young roster while drafting well and declining to overpay for positions that can most easily be replaced less expensively elsewhere. Sooner or later, that pays off.

 

[Idgit]

The problem we're having here is a common one for me. I'm a truth teller in a room full of fanatic fans. I don't spin anything. Ever.

I'm not interested in feel good, rah rah, human interest nonsense. I'm talking about wins and losses. As of right now, Garrett's been mediocre, so he deserves a mediocre ranking. I'm sure if he can duplicate the one year he actually won more than he lost, his ranking will improve.

Which will mean something to you. This obsession for credit and recognition infests this board. I couldn't possibly care less where any of our coaches or players are ranked on anyone's list. I just want to win games.

Said with a straight face. Truly, truly impressive, Risen.

I do agree with you that the list making is completely irrelevant to anything, though.

 

[guag]

fine with Garrett around where he is, but Petey Prisco way overrates the so called "genius" Chip Kelly like the rest of the media. Have never seen a lovefest like this, for a coach who has won absolutely nothing.

He wins games that count.




Regular season games that is.

 

[Idgit]

He wins games that count.

Regular season games that is.

Far be it for me to rain on any bashing of the Eagles, but I think Chip Kelly is a pretty dang good coach, too. I've been impressed by how he translated his game to the NFL and with the records he's gotten with what I consider to be nothing but below-average retreads at the most important position on the field. This is a big year for him coming up, and he hasn't been shy about stepping up to the plate. We'll see whether or not that seeming certainty pays off.

I like Coughlin, too, for that matter. And even like what little I've seen from Gruden to be honest. It feels to me like the NFCE is about to become one of the more relevant divisions in football again if the Cowboys and the Giants can whether the aging of their QBs.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

I hate the flow of Eagles games. Everything's rushed. Personally, I think Chip Kelly is an idiot. But that's just me.

I'm curious if it will work and how it will affect the Cowboys,,, so far I'm not overly concerned and it would be fun to see it fail miserably

 

[wileedog]

But the guy has never had a losing season... yet he's ranked in the bottom-half of the NFL.

Fluke season or not, that doesn't make sense.

And he never had a winning season before this year.

More importantly, he came into the league with an experienced top 5 QB. How many new coaches get that luxury? And for three years he goes 8-8 with him? Sounds like mediocre coach to me. If you want to quibble whether he should be 18 or 15 I supposed you could make an argument. but I don't have a big issue with where he is at given his performance in the seasons prior to this one, where he was most definitely ranked much lower.

 

[wileedog]

Far be it for me to rain on any bashing of the Eagles, but I think Chip Kelly is a pretty dang good coach, too.
.

This offseason is going to make or break him in Philly, but if Jason Garrett took over a 4 win team with complete dreck at the QB position and won 20 games in 2 seasons, this whole website would have been renamed the "GarrettZone" a long time ago.

*edit* Well probably RedZone would be more clever, but you get the idea.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

And he never had a winning season before this year.

More importantly, he came into the league with an experienced top 5 QB. How many new coaches get that luxury? And for three years he goes 8-8 with him? Sounds like mediocre coach to me. If you want to quibble whether he should be 18 or 15 I supposed you could make an argument. but I don't have a big issue with where he is at given his performance in the seasons prior to this one, where he was most definitely ranked much lower.

He did have a winning season in his first season.

And in the final analysis, no the ranking doesn't mean diddley, if he was ranked 1st or 32nd.