Who is the best coach of all time? (excl; Landry and Lombardi)

[burmafrd]

Improved by Wade? Romo? Witten? dream on

 

[jazzcat22]

Don Shula most likely.

 

[Draegerman]

The idiocy that cries out from your hypothesis is deafening. I'm sitting here dumbfounded while realizing that your paragraphs are far too long for a football forum. But what the hell, I love a good fight.

I give my honest opinion I could care less what others here think.

Perhaps, but I'll bet you'd care just a little bit especially if your targeted audience are more intelligent than you give them credit for and think you the fool because of your outlandish claims. Besides, what exactly is an "honest opinion" anyway? Is there such a thing as a dishonest opinion? Are we to assume that if you leave off the word 'honest' while stating an opinion, that you're lying to us? Enquiry minds want to know.

As for the rest, I really don't even know where to begin, so allow me to take a whack at your absurd generalizations for starters:

What Jimmy did with the Cowboys speaks for itself. He won as many championships in 5 years as Landry did in 28 years.

Yea, but does that mean that he also landed the Cowboys in the Super Bowl as many times as Landry? Of course not. Well does it mean that he won as many NFC Conference Championships as Landry? Not even close. What about as many NFC East Division Championships that Landry won? Heh...I laugh in your general direction.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that Johnson's body of work pales way in comparison to Landry's legacy. There was no guarantee that Jimmy could match or exceed the success Coach Landry had with this team. My bet is that it wouldn't even be close.

Had he stuck around the Cowboys may have won 4 SB's in a row.

If you want to generalize with your "honest opinion", that's fine but it's B-S. You don't really know what Jimmy could have done had he stayed on. So it's B-S until you can prove otherwise with facts to back it up. Also, aside from the two SBs he won here in Dallas, how many SBs did he win in Miami? I mean...surely he must have had HUGE success down there without Jerry breathing down his neck, right?

Jimmy started off with a Cowboys team that wasn't all that much better than the expansion team Landry took over in 1960. The 89 Cowboys were lucky to win a game that year.

Now this is where your so-called "honest opinion" turns into honest lunacy. Because I don't remember Coach Landry having a multi-gifted and multi-talented running back like Jimmy had with Hershel Walker. Now wouldn't you agree that it's a teeny, tiny little factoid (you failed to mention) that doesn't support your comparison? Boy I sure think so, especially when you think of all the options it gave Jimmy after he was traded.

Although Landry was a great coach his teams lost alot of big games.

But they also won a lot of big games, too.

Had Staubach not come along Landry would have never won a championship.

Is this an example of your 'dishonest opinion'? Because you don't know that anymore than you know the number of SBs Jimmy would've won had he remained with the Cowboys.

And what makes you think that Jimmy would've won his two SBs if Aikman had not come along? See the fuzzy logic here?

Landry couldn't even decide on Staubach or Morton in 71. He rotated both QB's after every play for about 5 games until the players called a meeting and asked him to decide on one QB. That situation made Landry look real bad.

More outlandish claims that you're not backing up with facts. Landry preferred Morton because he was more of a predictable system quarterback than the charismatic, athletic and improvisational Staubach. But Landry eventually had to give way because, he realized, the team played much harder for Staubach. Once Coach Landry was satisfied with Staubach leading the team, the Cowboys went on to win Super Bowl VI the same year. Now how exactly did that make him "look real bad"?

With as many good teams as the Cowboys had during the 70's they should have won at least 4-5 SB's.

First of all, they weren't just good...they were great teams (the '77 team was the best ever). They should have won at least one more Super Bowl (XIII), I'll give you that, but it happens and you know exactly what I mean here. We truly deserved to be the team of the 70s, fate had other plans.

Before Staubach arrived it was one heartbreak after another for the Cowboys. Once Staubach retired the Cowboys went back to losing big games every year until they fell apart.

I love Roger Staubach, I really do. But Danny White was no slouch and you do a disservice to him. You should keep in mind that White held several Dallas records in passing until Romo came along. The fact is with Danny at the helm, the Cowboys had a good shot at winning another Super Bowl but the Montana to Clark crap ruined those plans. The overall demise of the team began two years later when the twenty consecutive winning seasons finally caught up with the Cowboys in the draft. The truth is that the team could no longer replace aging veteran talent with equal or exceeding talent in the draft. Low draft picks simply caught up to the 'Boys (hell, I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did). There simply was no depth and this is what led to the dismal 80s.

I know alot of fans love Landry but I was never a fan of his low key unemotional style. I got frustrated watching all those good teams come up short year after year. I use to go out to Thousand Oaks every training camp and all Landry did was sit up in what resembled a deer blind and talk very calmly over a loud speaker.

That's because Landry didn't need to yell, it wasn't his style. He was a stoic and aloof type head coach and that's what made him so great. He knew that it wasn't necessary to single out one particuliar player and embarrass him in front of his teammates. But Coach Landry did have 'the look' and that was the one thing players tried to avoid at all costs. If you screwed up and Landry shot you with his patented 'look', you knew trouble was going to follow. Walt Garrison was once asked by a reporter if he had ever seen Landry smile. Walt responded, "No, but I've only been here 9 years". That's where the term "Stoneface" came from.

But make no mistake about this - his players feared, loved and respected the man in the funny hat - no different than what Jimmy had.

And if you don't believe that then you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

I never saw him once yell at a player during a game or congratulate one after a great play. He always had the same look on his face whether the Cowboys were winning by 20 or losing by 20. Jimmy was everything I ever wanted in a coach for the Cowboys. He was energetic, fiery, confident and very demanding. I knew the first time I saw his enthusiasm and temper out at Thousand Oaks in the summer of 89 that he would turn the Cowboys into something special. I've never seen any coach who could motivate a team the way he could. If Jimmy saw one player slacking he was all over them. Part of what made Lombardi so great wasn't just his knowledge of the game but his tough approach. Lombardi's players feared him and so did Jimmy's. Jimmy and Landry's approach was like NIGHT and DAY. I know I'm in the minority on this one but I just loved those teams that Jimmy built from the ground up in the 90's. Those were TOUGH, PHYSICAL teams that played with alot of emotion. Anyone want to make an argument that those 90's teams under Jimmy weren't better than those 70's teams under Landry be my guest. :toast:

I'm growing tired of extrapolating simple sentences from your complexed paragraphs (and I think I'm doing you a disservice by taking away its full meaning by dissecting it). So I'll just address the last paragraph as a whole with these thoughts:

Coach Tom was never a 'rah, rah' type of coach (for reasons explained already). Motivating his players was not his real strength (see the midget pasta eater for that type of coach). He had a unique perspective to the game and never allowed the hype from the term "America's Team" faze him in the slightest. The man was well-grounded.

Multiple flights as a pilot in a combat zone during WWII will do that to a man.

But the real thing that defined St. Tom's legacy was his innovations to professional football. It was what set him apart from other head coaches and what became his major contribution to the game that teams employ today. It started when he was the defensive coordinator for the Giants. He came of with the "4-3" defense back in the early 50s. It was called "4-3" because it featured four down lineman (two ends and two defensive tackles on either side of the offensive center) and three linebackers — middle, left, and right. The innovation was the middle linebacker. Previously, a lineman was placed over the center. But Landry had this person stand up and move back two yards. The Giants' middle linebacker was the legendary Sam Huff.

Now when Landry was hired by Tex to be the new Cowboys head coach, he became concerned with Lombardi's "run to daylight" concept. Basically, the Packers' rb was given free reign to choose whichever hole was open to run to rather than running through an assigned hole. That's where Landry came up with the concept by tweaking the "4-3" defense with what became famously known as the "Flex Defense".

To do this, he refined the "4-3" defense by moving two of the four linemen off the line of scrimmage by one yard and varied which linemen did this based on where the Cowboys thought the offense might run. This change was called the "Flex Defense," because it altered its alignment to counter what the offense might do.

Once the "Flex Defense" was perfected, Landry then found a way to beat it. Reviving the man-in-motion and starting the resurrection of the shotgun formation were among the many kinks he added.

But Landry's biggest contribution in this area was the use of "pre-shifting" where the offense would shift from one formation to the other before the snap of the ball. The idea was to break the keys within the defense used to determine what the offense might do. An unusual feature of this offense was Landry having his offensive linemen get in their squatted pre-stance, stand up while the running backs shifted, and then go back down into their complete "hand down" stance. The purpose of the "up and down" movement was to make it more difficult for the defense to see where the backs were shifting (over the tall offensive linemen) and thus cut down on recognition time. While other NFL teams later employed shifting, few employed this "up and down" technique as much as Landry. And once perfected, it became 'poetry in motion'.

One more thing that should be added to this is just how far Coach Landry was ahead of his time. The man was a visionary. He realized that although the Packers were the dynasty in the 60s, they did so by utilizing smaller offensive and defensive linemen. So while the Packers were kicking butt in the late 60s, Landry was quietly drafting huge offensive and defensive linemen for the next generation. And it worked beautifully.

The main point of all of this is the fact that Coach Landry had his fingerprints over all the aspects of this team. That's what made him so brilliant. He was a football genius...no, that's not exactly true...he was a football god!

Now please allow me to give you my "honest opinion" (or dishonest one if you prefer). Coach Tom, Tex Schramm & Gil Brandt were solely responsible for making the Cowboys what they are today. Gil would find the talent (based on what Landry told him he needed), Tex would sign and promote them and Landry would mold them into a team like a finely synchronize Rolex watch.

All three were responsible for building the foundation of this great team, with Coach handling the primary masonry duties. We, as Cowboys fans, owe this great man a huge debt of gratitude. If it wasn't for Coach Landry, I doubt very seriously this forum would be here today - hell, we might as well have been rooting for the Dallas Texans.

Coach Landry failed in your eyes because he didn't win enough Super Bowls - but as far as I'm concerned, I'm just simply grateful to him for always keeping us in contention. There will never be another man like him.

Once again I want to reiterate...




I laugh in your general direction.

 

[Dodger]

Mmm...

Tom Landry - Hall of Famer
Jimmy Johnson - Not a Hall of Famer (and probably never will be)


Nothing against Jimmy, but I think that'll take care of the Landry vs. Johnson debate...

 

[Draegerman]

Drae, I didn't stutter. I don't think they gained much of an advantage from the tapings. Unless Belichick is even more brilliant than I already think he is. There is just no way that practice walk throughs would tell him that much. If he gained an advantage it was minimal at best.

Sorry, that was intended to be 'sarcasm among friends' - didn't mean to insult.

But there was one article I read that exposed the infraction and how it helped the Patriots. From what I remember (and sorry for not being able to locate it on the internet), it explained how they were videotaping their opponent the day before kickoff while they were implementing the final touches of their offensive schemes. The coaching staff then burned the midnite oil and dissected how they were going to defend against it. This proved to be very effective in the 1st quarter where the Pats defense acted as if they knew where every offensive play was going. The defensive coordinator would shout out color codes to change the defensive schemes to better accomodate where the play was going. The article mentioned about three or four teams this happened to and how their 2nd half adjustments suddenly became their 2nd quarter adjustments.

It also spoke of Goodell destroying the evidence, preventing the media access to it.

I dread thinking what would have happened had this been the Cowboys coaching staff that did this. And it was a clear violation of the rules.

 

[Draegerman]

Not worth your time.

Now you tell me.

 

[Draegerman]

Difference is one tore the team apart and one built it up, plus one was one season later and one is 5 seasons later.

Parcells deserves no credit if we win SB45.

Sez you.

Meanwhile, I'll be the one in my study building a shrine to the Tuna while the Super Bowl parade heads into downtown Dallas.

:

 

[Draegerman]

Halas was a unique person in that he was the only one who was ever all things at once and won it all. Owner, GM, Coach.
And he won championships from 1933 to 1963.

That is why I put mine the way I did by eras. Lombardi is a special case in the relatively short time he coached but his domination of the NFL was unique. No coach owned the NFL for that many years consecutively- Basically 1961 thru 1967.

If Brown had not had his buggabo in the Detroit Lions he would be regarded without doubt as the greatest coach in the History of the NFL. Losing those four championship games to them was his big blight.

Look at Landry if he had won all 5 of the SBs? He would almost certainly be called the greatest of all time? With just a couple of breaks it could have happened in each of the ones we lost. Add to that what if Taylor drops the Catch or Pearson does not get shirtailed? We win the SB that year for sure.
He might have won 6.

Absolutely. In fact, I just read a really good article about Landry that discussed these very same points. Oh wait a second...that was my article.


Nevermind. :

 

[theebs]

Halas was a unique person in that he was the only one who was ever all things at once and won it all. Owner, GM, Coach.
And he won championships from 1933 to 1963.

That is why I put mine the way I did by eras. Lombardi is a special case in the relatively short time he coached but his domination of the NFL was unique. No coach owned the NFL for that many years consecutively- Basically 1961 thru 1967.

If Brown had not had his buggabo in the Detroit Lions he would be regarded without doubt as the greatest coach in the History of the NFL. Losing those four championship games to them was his big blight.

Look at Landry if he had won all 5 of the SBs? He would almost certainly be called the greatest of all time? With just a couple of breaks it could have happened in each of the ones we lost. Add to that what if Taylor drops the Catch or Pearson does not get shirtailed? We win the SB that year for sure.
He might have won 6.

Absolutely. In fact, I just read a really good article about Landry that discussed these very same points. Oh wait a second...that was my article.


Nevermind. :

the thing I find so fascinating about that 81 nfc championship game is that if it were played in todays nfl we probably go down and get into field goal range or maybe even score.

Eric wright horsecollared pearson at the 48 yard line, that would have been 15 yards....we would have been first and 10 from inside the 35 with 39 seconds left and 1 timeout down 1 point!!!!!!!

and the other ironic thing, had that not have been called a horsecollar, and we did run the next play where white dropped back and was sacked, it would have been ruled incomplete...His arm is clearly going forward with the ball in it...

Its pretty ironic that the pats dynasty started on the tuck rule and had the rule been applied in 81 the niners dynasty might never have started.

Danny white was screaming at the official that his arm was going forward and they just walked away from him!!!

Its just amazing stuff to me. How differently the game is officiated and how technology could have changed the entire face of the game and its history.

on a side note too, also niners related and on topic...on the opening drive of the nfc championship game in jan 1991 against the giants, John taylor caught ball came down took a step and was hit and fumbled and mark collins recovered.....the play was blown dead and jerry markright..???spelling...called it incomplete... a few plays later the niners kick a field goal.

That game came down to the final seconds and matt bahrs field goal to win!

I am having a blast watching old games...It is a different game now.

 

[JustDezIt]

The idiocy that cries out from your hypothesis is deafening. I'm sitting here dumbfounded while realizing that your paragraphs are far too long for a football forum. But what the hell, I love a good fight.



Once again I want to reiterate...




I laugh in your general direction.

http://img26.*************/img26/3700/pniw2.gif

 

[KJJ]

Besides, what exactly is an "honest opinion" anyway? Is there such a thing as a dishonest opinion? Are we to assume that if you leave off the word 'honest' while stating an opinion, that you're lying to us? Enquiry minds want to know.

If you have to ask what an "honest opinion" is this is going to be an easy argument for me. LOL There are dishonest opinions they're called BS. Jerry Jones is an expert at dishonest opinions.

Yea, but does that mean that he also landed the Cowboys in the Super Bowl as many times as Landry? Of course not. Well does it mean that he won as many NFC Conference Championships as Landry? Not even close. What about as many NFC East Division Championships that Landry won? Heh...I laugh in your general direction.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that Johnson's body of work pales way in comparison to Landry's legacy. There was no guarantee that Jimmy could match or exceed the success Coach Landry had with this team. My bet is that it wouldn't even be close.

Jimmy wasn't around long enough to land the Cowboys in the SB as many times as Landry but had he stuck around a few years longer good chance he would have done it in a fraction of the time it took Landry and Jimmy's teams would have probably won all those SB's. Jimmy was about winning it all. Sure I'm speculating but when Jimmy left the Cowboys they had just won back to back SB's. Had the Cowboys not turned the ball over several times against the 49ers the following year in the NFC title game they would have been going for a three peat. A Jimmy Johnson coached team wouldn't have turned the ball over like that. Jimmy didn't have the body of work to be up there with Landry or any of the great coaches but you won't find one 5 year period during Landry's 28 years as head coach where he did as good a job with the Cowboys as Jimmy did. Landry was the one who left Jimmy with the mess he took over in 89. Granted there's no guarantee Jimmy would have been able to match or exceed Landry's wins but Jimmy matched his SB wins and would have exceeded them had he stayed in Dallas. It's all about CHAMPIONSHIPS for me that means more to me than 20 consecutive winning seasons.

You don't really know what Jimmy could have done had he stayed on. So it's B-S until you can prove otherwise with facts to back it up. Also, aside from the two SBs he won here in Dallas, how many SBs did he win in Miami? I mean...surely he must have had HUGE success down there without Jerry breathing down his neck, right?

No one knows what Jimmy would have done had he stayed but I feel sure the Cowboys wouldn't have declined the way they did after he left. Jimmy showed Jerry the way when they came in together in 89 and Jerry thought he could get along without Jimmy. They had a clash of ego's and their breakup didn't workout for either one of them. Jimmy got stuck in Miami with a aging, declining Dan Marino and the Dolphins were in cap hell. Landry never had to deal with free agency and had it been around in the 70's the Cowboys roster would have gotten raided because Tex Schramm was a tight wad and low balled his players. No way would Landry have won as many games had free agency been around.

Now this is where your so-called "honest opinion" turns into honest lunacy. Because I don't remember Coach Landry having a multi-gifted and multi-talented running back like Jimmy had with Hershel Walker. Now wouldn't you agree that it's a teeny, tiny little factoid (you failed to mention) that doesn't support your comparison? Boy I sure think so, especially when you think of all the options it gave Jimmy after he was traded.

Speaking of Walker here's one factoid you failed to mention Jimmy only had Hershel for 5 games in 89 and he wasn't producing. That 89 team was on the brink of setting some franchise futility records. LOL Aikman a rookie missed 11 games that season and the Cowboys 2 starting WR's Irvin and Kelvin Martin were lost for the season with injuries. That Cowboy team was ranked as one of the worst teams in NFL history according to NFL Networks top 10 worst teams. LOL After Walker was traded the Cowboys had no options that season. It was a battle for survival after that. Sure the Cowboys got alot of picks for that trade but Jimmy still had to do something with those picks and he did. The draft is a CRAPSHOOT and Jimmy stocked the Cowboys with some terrific players including maybe the greatest Cowboy player since Roger Staubach Emmitt Smith. From coaching to drafting Jimmy did an amazing job.

Is this an example of your 'dishonest opinion'? Because you don't know that anymore than you know the number of SBs Jimmy would've won had he remained with the Cowboys.

And what makes you think that Jimmy would've won his two SBs if Aikman had not come along? See the fuzzy logic here?

I know Landry would have never won a SB had Staubach not come along because he never won a championship before Staubach arrived and he never won a championship after Staubach left. :toast: He never won championships with Meredith, Morton or Danny White. The Cowboys suffered nothing but heart breaking defeats with those QB's. It all changed when Staubach came along. Roger was a special player and he's the only QB Landry coached who got the Cowboys over the hump....FACT! As for Aikman he didn't have to carry the Cowboys the way Staubach had to carry them in some of his dramatic games. Roger had to pull some rabbits out of his hat many times for the Cowboys to win. Aikman was very valuable but I feel Emmitt was the most valuable Cowboys player during the 90's. The Cowboys offense revolved Emmitt and the running game. Emmitt would take the will out of teams that's the reason Aikman's numbers aren't all that impression. With Emmitt in the backfield Troy didn't have to put it up alot but he made plays when he had to like the slant to Harper in the 92 NFC title game.

More outlandish claims that you're not backing up with facts. Landry preferred Morton because he was more of a predictable system quarterback than the charismatic, athletic and improvisational Staubach. But Landry eventually had to give way because, he realized, the team played much harder for Staubach. Once Coach Landry was satisfied with Staubach leading the team, the Cowboys went on to win Super Bowl VI the same year. Now how exactly did that make him "look real bad"?

I watched an entire NFL Films on the Staubach/Morton duel. It included interviews with Staubach, Bob Lilly and several other members of that Cowboys team. Staubach said he and Morton were being shuffled after every play and looked like ships passing in the night. Roger said they would roll their eyes as they passed each other on the field after every play. Staubach was very critical of Landry in that interview and in his own words he said it made Landry look bad. The constant shuffling was causing alot of delay of game penalties and Roger said he finally got upset with Landry and confronted him. He told Landry to just trade him to end the QB dilemma. Lilly said he and several players called a meeting with landry and told him to settle on a QB so they had a leader and Landry settled on Staubach. Landry didn't like Staubach's scrambling and like you said wanted a system QB but Roger was a playmaker and he decided to go with him and the rest is history. I'm just giving you the FACTS from the players involved.

First of all, they weren't just good...they were great teams (the '77 team was the best ever). They should have won at least one more Super Bowl (XIII), I'll give you that, but it happens and you know exactly what I mean here. We truly deserved to be the team of the 70s, fate had other plans.

The 77 team was a great team but NO TEAM the Cowboys had was as GREAT as the 92 team. That team is ranked WAY ahead of the 77 team in every poll that's ever been made on ranking championship teams. Again I'm giving you the FACTS! The 70's Cowboys didn't deserve to be the team of that decade because they only WON 2 SB's. The number of SB's a team appears in doesn't matter if it did the Bills would have been the team of the 90's. LOL It's all about WINNING and the team who WINS the most SB's in a decade is the team of that decade.

I love Roger Staubach, I really do. But Danny White was no slouch and you do a disservice to him. You should keep in mind that White held several Dallas records in passing until Romo came along. The fact is with Danny at the helm, the Cowboys had a good shot at winning another Super Bowl but the Montana to Clark crap ruined those plans. The overall demise of the team began two years later when the twenty consecutive winning seasons finally caught up with the Cowboys in the draft. The truth is that the team could no longer replace aging veteran talent with equal or exceeding talent in the draft. Low draft picks simply caught up to the 'Boys (hell, I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did). There simply was no depth and this is what led to the dismal 80s.

Danny White wasn't a slouch but he wasn't a great player. He could never get the Cowboys over the hump because he was always good for a costly turnover at the worst possible time. He'll always be remembered for his fumble in the final seconds of the 81 NFC title game. Montana ruined the plans of alot of QB's and teams because he was the 49ers Staubach and was an even better version of the original. Some players are gifted in critical situations and none were more gifted than Joe Montana. The demise of the Cowboys began that day in San Francisco. The drafts started going bad around 79-80. Landry was still stuck in the early 70's running the flex defense. The team was aging and the drafts started going sour. The Cowboys had some terrible picks during those years like Rod Hill and Billy Cannon Jr who got injured his rookie year. Landry hated change and liked sticking with the same players year after year. The DL was aging badly by the mid 80's. Landry was so out of touch by 88 he didn't think drafting a QB was the answer and didn't want to draft Troy Aikman. He said in an interview he thought Pulluer was a good QB. LOL Landry wanted to trade the #1 overall pick for several picks. It was clear he didn't want to develop a rookie QB with time running out in his coaching career. Landry HATED developing young QB's because he felt it took 5 years to develop them and he didn't have the time.

Speaking of not having the time I don't have anymore for your drivel life's too short but I gave you my "honest opinion". LOL

 

[burmafrd]

I think this is clint longley....

 

[TNCowboy]

From a certain point of view, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to put Jimmy Johnson over Tom Landry. I'm a huge fan of both.

I just look at one as a model of consistency, and the other as probably the greatest short-term success in the super bowl era. Both were elite coaches in different ways.

 

[MapleLeaf]

...in the NFL over its history and so many factors contributing to their successes and failures they had no control over.

For me this is more a question about what coaching style really resonates with you and you would probably lean towards choosing that coach.

Of the greats I would choose Landry because his style is what I wished I could be as a coach. Calm, collected, intelligent and prepared.

 

[Hostile]

I think this is clint longley....

Why you gonna go insult Clint like that?

 

[burmafrd]

sorry, Hoss...

 

[Draegerman]

Before I continue with this "spat" with KJJ, I need one of you to give me some filler on this person. Is he/she actually a troll pretending to be a controversial Cowboys fan or is he/she a real Cowboys fan who tragically sufferred some type of head injury?

I don't like crushing the mentally weak, (well actually, I kind of do), but I have standards and I don't wish to be seen as an "internet bully" picking on members with an IQ of a turnip.

Thank you for your time.

:

 

[KJJ]

Before I continue with this "spat" with KJJ, I need one of you to give me some filler on this person. Is he/she actually a troll pretending to be a controversial Cowboys fan or is he/she a real Cowboys fan who tragically sufferred some type of head injury?

I don't like crushing the mentally weak, (well actually, I kind of do), but I have standards and I don't wish to be seen as an "internet bully" picking on members with an IQ of a turnip.

Thank you for your time.

:

If you don't agree with at least "some" of the things I said then it's pretty clear who's suffering from brain trauma. You're giving your opinion and I'm giving mine. Like so many debates I have nothing is right or wrong it's opinions and everyone has them. I liked Jimmy's coaching style better than Landry's and I liked the physically tough teams he built better than Landry's finesse teams. I liked the fact that no one could beat Jimmy's teams in title games and SB's. Jimmy's teams beat 2 GREAT 49er teams to get to SB's and demolished 2 GREAT Buffalo teams in back to back SB's that had several HOF fame players on their roster. Jimmy's teams not only won every SB they appeared in but they dominated. Jimmy's teams left no doubt who the better team was when those games were over. I'm not saying Landry wasn't a great coach because he was one of the greatest but he wasn't a favorite of mine because his teams lost too many big games and he never got the most out of the talented teams he had. Two championships in 28 years with all the good teams Landry had wasn't good enough for me. They underachieved! For me it's not how many wins a team has it's how many BIG wins do they have and Jimmy's teams won every big game they played. His teams played with enthusiasm and were physical. There was no fancy shifting they just lined up and came right at the opponent and punched them in the mouth. When Jimmy came along the Cowboys were at their lowest point in franchise history. It was tough being a fan having to suffer through some of *** kickings the Cowboys were taking. Fans were showing up at games with bags over their heads.

I lost alot of respect for Landry the last few years of his coaching career. The game had completely passed him by and it was frustrating to watch. His former assistants Reeves and Ditka were beating his teams once they became head coaches. It was embarrassing being a Cowboys fan in the late 80's and Jimmy turned an embarrassing team into one of the greatest teams in NFL history in only 4 years. He made us all proud to be a Cowboy fans again. He gave the Cowboys a swagger we had never seen under Landry. The most fun I had being a fan was during the early 90's watching the Cowboys rolling over opponents having no mercy on them. You never saw Jimmy call off the dogs during a beating but Landry would because he never liked rubbing it in but he stood there many times during the late 80's watching his teams get their nose rubbed in it. No one had any mercy on his teams especially the 85 Bears. It was hard to believe a team that was so bad in 89 only winning 1 game would be crushing a team 52-17 in a SB 4 years later. Jimmy was confident, cocky and loaded with piss and vigor and his teams reflected his personality much like Landry's teams reflected his. God rest Landry's soul he was a great man and a great coach but Jimmy will always be the man in my eyes. When a coach can dig a team out from the depths of hell the way Jimmy did they earn my respect.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

alot of names I never even heard of were said in this thread,.

 

[Draegerman]

Okay, fine. Let's do this.

If you have to ask what an "honest opinion" is this is going to be an easy argument for me. LOL There are dishonest opinions they're called BS. Jerry Jones is an expert at dishonest opinions.

Hehe...you don't really know me, do you? Honestly speaking, "honest opinions" have as much merit as the word "irregardless" or a phrase like, "I could care less".

Jimmy wasn't around long enough to land the Cowboys in the SB as many times as Landry but had he stuck around a few years longer good chance he would have done it in a fraction of the time it took Landry and Jimmy's teams would have probably won all those SB's. Jimmy was about winning it all. Sure I'm speculating but when Jimmy left the Cowboys they had just won back to back SB's. Had the Cowboys not turned the ball over several times against the 49ers the following year in the NFC title game they would have been going for a three peat. A Jimmy Johnson coached team wouldn't have turned the ball over like that. Jimmy didn't have the body of work to be up there with Landry or any of the great coaches but you won't find one 5 year period during Landry's 28 years as head coach where he did as good a job with the Cowboys as Jimmy did. Landry was the one who left Jimmy with the mess he took over in 89. Granted there's no guarantee Jimmy would have been able to match or exceed Landry's wins but Jimmy matched his SB wins and would have exceeded them had he stayed in Dallas. It's all about CHAMPIONSHIPS for me that means more to me than 20 consecutive winning seasons.

Damn it, I refuse to break down your paragraphs again because life is, indeed, too short. So I'm only going to address these worthless, without merit, hypothesizing B-S points (in bold) you keep bringing up. You're throwing out ridiculous generalizations about what Jimmy could've done, would've done had he remained the Cowboys head coach. Well guess what? It's moot because it never happened. Also, the "5 year accomplishment" argument pales (again) in comparison to Coach Tom's 10 seasons back in the 70s, we're talking 5 Super Bowls here. With that said, those 20 years of winning, (where Coach Landry continuously had us in contention) is a monumental feat - and here you are pooh-poohing it which proves you're a bigger fool than I thought you were. Seriously, you have no idea what you're saying and to give no credit to Jerry for what he brought to the table during Jimmy's tenure is utterly ridiculous. To argue with you is like shooting fish in a barrel.

And I hate myself for doing so.

No one knows what Jimmy would have done had he stayed but I feel sure the Cowboys wouldn't have declined the way they did after he left. Jimmy showed Jerry the way when they came in together in 89 and Jerry thought he could get along without Jimmy. They had a clash of ego's and their breakup didn't workout for either one of them. Jimmy got stuck in Miami with a aging, declining Dan Marino and the Dolphins were in cap hell. Landry never had to deal with free agency and had it been around in the 70's the Cowboys roster would have gotten raided because Tex Schramm was a tight wad and low balled his players. No way would Landry have won as many games had free agency been around.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? You just throw hypotheticals out there left and right to see which one will sink or swim. Well, hey, guess what? Your conjectures need rescuing because they're drowning like lead balloons. It simply doesn't float. For example, why do you think Jimmy took that Miami job if he had all this crap (per your words) to deal with? Answer: Because there were too many people (like yourself) telling him what a football genius he really was and that no hurdle was insurmountable. He was suppose to just as easily turn around the Dolphins like he did the Cowboys. Well, it didn't take long for Jimmy to realize that he was in way over his head - so he bailed (and that was probably the smartest thing he could have done in that horrible mess).

Say bye-bye to your savior, everyone. Jimmy's acting like a rat leaving a sinking ship.

Speaking of Walker here's one factoid you failed to mention Jimmy only had Hershel for 5 games in 89 and he wasn't producing.

And here's one factoid you failed to mention (or understand). Walker WAS the entire offense for the Cowboys in '89. That's why his trade brought so much value to the table for Jimmy - he basically traded away his entire offense.

Once more I'm going to tell you - Landry was never given such an option when he first started out.

So try again, smart guy.

(Oh crap! I did, afterall, break up your paragraphs to attack specific sentences )

That 89 team was on the brink of setting some franchise futility records. LOL Aikman a rookie missed 11 games that season and the Cowboys 2 starting WR's Irvin and Kelvin Martin were lost for the season with injuries. That Cowboy team was ranked as one of the worst teams in NFL history according to NFL Networks top 10 worst teams. LOL After Walker was traded the Cowboys had no options that season. It was a battle for survival after that. Sure the Cowboys got alot of picks for that trade but Jimmy still had to do something with those picks and he did. The draft is a CRAPSHOOT and Jimmy stocked the Cowboys with some terrific players including maybe the greatest Cowboy player since Roger Staubach Emmitt Smith. From coaching to drafting Jimmy did an amazing job.

I agree, Jimmy did do an amazing job. I have no problem with giving credit where credit is due. But Landry did more with less - so deal with it. BTW, (and I thought you would have taken the hint), it's a lot and not alot. I hate being the grammar police but you failed to notice my hint in my last response so here we are.

I know Landry would have never won a SB had Staubach not come along because he never won a championship before Staubach arrived and he never won a championship after Staubach left. :toast: He never won championships with Meredith, Morton or Danny White. The Cowboys suffered nothing but heart breaking defeats with those QB's. It all changed when Staubach came along. Roger was a special player and he's the only QB Landry coached who got the Cowboys over the hump....FACT! As for Aikman he didn't have to carry the Cowboys the way Staubach had to carry them in some of his dramatic games. Roger had to pull some rabbits out of his hat many times for the Cowboys to win. Aikman was very valuable but I feel Emmitt was the most valuable Cowboys player during the 90's. The Cowboys offense revolved Emmitt and the running game. Emmitt would take the will out of teams that's the reason Aikman's numbers aren't all that impression. With Emmitt in the backfield Troy didn't have to put it up alot but he made plays when he had to like the slant to Harper in the 92 NFC title game.

More conjectured B-S mixed with past successes (and failures). I'm really growing tired of repeating this. I don't want to hear only your assinine opinion, I want historical and factual data to support it. How many times does it need to be said? I'm a critical thinker who loathes opinionated statements that contain no sustenance and skew the points the author's trying to make. Sure Staubach made an impression with the team, Aikman did too. But the one thing that you fail to realize is this: What Emmitt meant to Aikman, Thomas/Dorsett more than made up to Staubach.

Now here's my hypothetical (since you love to do this exercise quite a bit) - You could have put Morton/Meredith/White as the starting qb in 1971 & 1977 and the Cowboys would've still won Superbowl VI & XII. That's just how good these team(s) really were ('77 team being the best) - and I hate you for making me disparage my hero to support my point.

I watched an entire NFL Films on the Staubach/Morton duel. It included interviews with Staubach, Bob Lilly and several other members of that Cowboys team. Staubach said he and Morton were being shuffled after every play and looked like ships passing in the night. Roger said they would roll their eyes as they passed each other on the field after every play. Staubach was very critical of Landry in that interview and in his own words he said it made Landry look bad. The constant shuffling was causing alot of delay of game penalties and Roger said he finally got upset with Landry and confronted him. He told Landry to just trade him to end the QB dilemma.

This is the one true thing that you got right. Staubach's autobiography addressed this very same issue but I couldn't reference it anywhere. He said, "Play me or trade me" but it was no where to be found on the internet - and that's why I left it out.

You don't seem to be playing by the same rules - and that's why you look bad.

Lilly said he and several players called a meeting with landry and told him to settle on a QB so they had a leader and Landry settled on Staubach. Landry didn't like Staubach's scrambling and like you said wanted a system QB but Roger was a playmaker and he decided to go with him and the rest is history. I'm just giving you the FACTS from the players involved.

No you're not. It only becomes a "FACT" if the person(s) you quote are referenced from a written text that's been authenticated as fact. Once again, you're not playing by the same rules.

The 77 team was a great team but NO TEAM the Cowboys had was as GREAT as the 92 team.

And you would be wrong. Listen carefully - I'm not suggesting the '77 team could have beaten the '92 team (they're more than a generation removed chronologically). But what I AM saying is that for their time, the '77 team was the most dominate Dallas team we've ever had. The '92 team (although great) had no idea just how truly great they were to become until they actually beat Buffalo in Super Bowl XXVII. You're talking about a great veteran team in '77 vs. a young inexperienced team from '92.

No so-called "expert saw this '92 team coming. NO ONE!

(even Vegas didn't see them winning it all)

That team is ranked WAY ahead of the 77 team in every poll that's ever been made on ranking championship teams. Again I'm giving you the FACTS! The 70's Cowboys didn't deserve to be the team of that decade because they only WON 2 SB's. The number of SB's a team appears in doesn't matter if it did the Bills would have been the team of the 90's. LOL It's all about WINNING and the team who WINS the most SB's in a decade is the team of that decade.

Screw this, you're totally missing my point. Do you know what's so funny? You're putting entirely too much weight on winning a Super Bowl as opposed to just making it there. I don't agree with that. You can't expect your team to always win the championship (especially now when it's pratically impossible). But what you should expect is for them to give it their all and get as far as they possibly can. Landry's Cowboys did just that and so did Jimmy's Cowboys as well, (once they learned to play like a team). The difference is that the management that Landry worked under, believed in him enough to give him a ten year extension (even after a heartbreaking loss to Green Bay) and to make this team as great as they were destined to become. Jimmy's management (Jones) obviously didn't, especially when the owner/GM made the "99 coaches" comment. Right or wrong it doesn't matter, what you keep failing to realize is that there would be NO Dallas Cowboys as we KNOW it and (surprise) there would be no Jimmy Johnson as head coach, had Landry never been hired. That, too, (as you might say) is just a FACT.

Danny White wasn't a slouch but he wasn't a great player.

He was good enough, that's all that matters.

He could never get the Cowboys over the hump because he was always good for a costly turnover at the worst possible time. He'll always be remembered for his fumble in the final seconds of the 81 NFC title game.

Wrong. That game will always be remembered for "The Catch" and not "The Fumble" as you suggest.

Montana ruined the plans of alot of QB's and teams because he was the 49ers Staubach and was an even better version of the original.

Wow, I wish you could be banned for such blasphemy. You and I are quickly becoming enemies because of your "opinions".

Some players are gifted in critical situations and none were more gifted than Joe Montana.

I never trusted quarterbacks that posed in their underwear (that's why I hate Joe Namath).

The demise of the Cowboys began that day in San Francisco. The drafts started going bad around 79-80. Landry was still stuck in the early 70's running the flex defense.

Once again, it began after the next season when Dallas lost to Philly in the NFC Championship. Landry had managed to make the playoffs a few more times after that but he never got as far as the NFC Championship.

The team was aging and the drafts started going sour.

I realize this because that's what I said in my previous post to you.

The Cowboys had some terrible picks during those years like Rod Hill and Billy Cannon Jr who got injured his rookie year. Landry hated change and liked sticking with the same players year after year. The DL was aging badly by the mid 80's. Landry was so out of touch by 88 he didn't think drafting a QB was the answer and didn't want to draft Troy Aikman. He said in an interview he thought Pulluer was a good QB. LOL Landry wanted to trade the #1 overall pick for several picks. It was clear he didn't want to develop a rookie QB with time running out in his coaching career. Landry HATED developing young QB's because he felt it took 5 years to develop them and he didn't have the time.

Landry did, in fact, have some hard times after the '85 season. Low draft picks and an aging veteran team will do that (as said in an earlier post). And as I previously mentioned, I'm surprised he made it this far as a successful head coach.

What eventually led to Landry's demise at his craft after 20 years (out of 28) of outstanding coaching were the final years of his tenure as it appeared the game did, in fact, pass him by. But considering the average span of an NFL head coach is less than 5 years with each team and not nearly as successful as someone like Coach Landry, I can live with that (as I'm sure most other Cowboys fans will agree).

After spending 5 seasons with Dallas, Johnson was not as fortunate. Johnson's tenure in Miami did not live up to expectations. Johnson won fewer games in his first season than Shula had in his final season (8–8 vs. 9–7). Johnson's overall winning percentage at Miami was 55.3% vs. 65.8% for Shula. Johnson inherited one of the NFL's best offenses, led by Hall of Fame Quarterback Dan Marino, but only a mediocre defense. As a defensive specialist, Johnson expected to put together a championship defense. With complete control over personnel decisions, Johnson and his staff signed several excellent defensive players, drafting future pro bowlers Zach Thomas, Jason Taylor, Sam Madison, and Patrick Surtain. But Johnson's draft record in Miami was blemished by several high profile first round busts, including running back John Avery and wide receiver Yatil Green.

In the face of Super Bowl–level expectations, Miami faded down the stretch, and Johnson's relationship with Marino dissolved completely. The Dolphins' final game of the season was an embarrassing 62–7 loss to the Jacksonville Jaguars in the Divisional Playoff Round. Johnson resigned the day after the game and Marino soon thereafter announced his retirement.

Speaking of not having the time I don't have anymore for your drivel

I bet you don't. If I was getting my bass handed to me, I wouldn't either. If I failed to recognize one of the greatest NFL head coaches of all time that made my team what it is today, I'd run away too.

life's too short but I gave you my "honest opinion". LOL

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."