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

[Hoofbite]

If those guys are numbers 1 and 2......shouldn't the question be:

Who's the 3rd best coach of all time?

 

[Draegerman]

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.

Of course I agreed with "some" of your points. But you continue to miss the big picture here with what Coach Landry was able to accomplish for this franchise.

Let me try another more simplistic approach with you. If Landry and Johnson were switched and it was Jimma that made the Cowboys what they are today, then I would be defending him instead of St. Tom. Plus the pidgeons would have a different statue out in front of the new Cowboys Stadium to crap on.

You're giving your opinion and I'm giving mine.

Yes, except mine are correct.

I lost alot of respect for Landry the last few years of his coaching career.

And that's a shame. But we can't all be in awe of the greatest NFL head coach of all time. Some people are just simply too hard to please.

Well, more for the rest of us to love, I guess.

 

[perrykemp]

I looked it up and Lombardi won 7 Superbowls / Championships in 9 years in GB. Frankly, we can talk all we want about guys like Walsh, Knoll, Shula, Belinchick.. but come on... Lombardi is the GOD of NFL coaching... to think anything else is crazy. There is a reason why they named the trophy after him...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Best Coach of all time, Coach Landry and Lombardi included is Paul Brown hands down.

 

[KJJ]

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.

Well I'm forcing you to break down my paragraphs and will continue to do so. : So you think it was ridiculous for me to say Jimmy could have possibly won 4 straight SB's? When he left the Cowboys they had just won 2 straight SB's and made it to the NFC title game the following year with several early turnovers costing them that game. The next year they won another SB so I don't think it was a stretch to say Jimmy could have possibly won 4 straight SB's had he stayed. You also think it was ridiculous for me to say I don't think the Cowboys would have fallen as far as they did had Jimmy stuck around? Had Jimmy stayed around we might have taken Randy Moss instead of Greg Ellis. Had we done that there would have been no need to trade two #1's for Joey Galloway. Had Jimmy stayed around we wouldn't have been stuck with Dave Camp for 3 straight seasons in which the Cowboys only won 15 games. Sure it's all speculation but when you look at the incredible job Jimmy was doing in the 5 years he was in Dallas I think the odds were real good the Cowboys would have stayed competitive and not fallen as far as they did had he stayed around.

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.

Landry had 10 seasons starting in 1960 to pave the way for the success the Cowboys had in the 70's. LOL Compare Landry's first 5 years with the Cowboys with Jimmy's first and only 5 years with the team. : The Cowboys were 2-3 in SB's in the 70's. That may impress you but with as many good teams the Cowboys had during that era it doesn't impress me. The Dolphins and Steelers are rated ahead of the Cowboys as the 2 best teams of that decade with the Steelers winning the honer with 4 SB wins. You may put alot of weight into "reaching" the SB but it doesn't mean crap to me no matter how many you go to if you lose more than you win. When Landry took over the Cowboys he had been a player in the NFL and also an assistant coach in the NFL. Jimmy had no NFL experience what so ever when he arrived in Dallas. He spent his entire coaching career working with college kids. No coach ever came straight from college and took over the worst team in the NFL and turned them into one of the greatest teams in NFL history in 4 years. Alot of very good college coaches have come into the league only to fail miserably.

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.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Do you honestly think Landry would have had the same success had free agency and a salary cap been in place?Anyone who knows the history of the team knows Tex Shramm was low balling his players. Duane Thomas was making $25,000 a year. He was having to work part-time during the offseason to make ends meet. As for Jimmy he took over in Miami because him and Jerry had a clash of ego's. Success can do that. Jimmy's head started to swell and he wanted more control. He made comments about coaching Jacksonville and Miami and when Jerry got wind of it their relationship went down the drain. Jimmy never stayed longer than 5 years anywhere. When you have two egomaniacs a collision is bound to happen eventually. Jimmy still wanted to coach but got tired of Jerry's hands on ways and wanted to be in Florida. Jimmy had very little chance to turn the Dolphins around with a declining Dan Marino and the team being in cap hell. The salary cap was new for everyone and most teams didn't know how to handle it early on. When Jimmy arrived in Dallas he didn't have a salary cap and free agency to deal with so he was able to go out and stock the team not so in Miami.

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.

You should never give me a second chance after I already shot down your comments. Stand back and I'll riddle them full of holes. LOL Do you actually believe Landry would have traded his best player on a talentless team for a bunch of draft picks had he had the chance? Jimmy Johnson and Tom Landry were two entirely different animals. Jimmy was a risk taker and Landry was a conservative coach who would have NEVER traded the only proven player he had on a bad team for draft picks. He would have tried building around Walker figuring he already had one good piece of the puzzle in place. Landry was the one who gave the blessing to draft Walker with a 5th round pick banking the USFL would go bust. Acquiring Walker resulted in Landry trading Dorsett not long after. Landry would have never dealt Walker as bad as the Cowboys were because he didn't have the time to rebuild like a young coach with a patient owner. There's no guarantee's in the draft and trading Walker would have left him with another big hole to fill. Landry wasn't getting any younger and the frustration in Dallas was building. Bum Bright wanted to fire Landry after the Bears blew the Cowboys out in 85 but Shramm talked him out of it. That's another FACT! LOL It was that defeat to the Bears that got Bright thinking about selling the team. Everyone in 89 thought Jimmy was NUTS trading Walker but he saw Walker for what he was a straight north/south runner who wasn't shifty and wasn't getting it done. We all saw where Walkers career went after the trade....NEXT!

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.

The Cowboys SB V team would have accomplished "in my opinion" the same thing their SB VI team did had Staubach been the QB then. LOL Craig Morton was an average QB who was mistake prone. He tossed more picks than TD's during his career and was sacked over 400 times. Morton was the inspiration behind the term "sack" another FACT...LMAO! I think it was Deacon Jones who called him a sack of salt as in "Mortons salt" and the rest is history. LOL The 71 and 77 teams would have never been as good without Staubach as the QB. Show me ONE SB win Morton/Meredith/White had?...NUFF SAID! Only Morton reached a SB and looked terrible in both of them. This is becoming target practice for me...PULL!

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

I'm giving you the facts you're just delusional if you think I look bad. LOL I know the Cowboys history as well if not better than most here. If you think I'm making anything up go do some research. Everything else we're discussing is a matter of opinion.

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!

You're saying the 77 team was the most dominate Cowboy team ever??? That team beat an average Bronco team that only reached the SB because of their defense. They had an aging Craig Morton as their QB who helped do in the Cowboys 7 years earlier against the Colts. LOL The 77 Cowboys couldn't repeat the following year because they couldn't beat the Steelers. Even in 77 the Cowboys lost to Pittsburgh during the regular season. That Cowboys team may have been a veteran team but the 92 team was a young, physical team that peaked during the SB that year. The 49er team the Cowboys beat to get to that SB was a TERRIFIC team that had won 14 games that season. The 92 Cowboys were hands down the best Cowboys team ever and most rankings of the greatest teams in NFL history proves it. You need to work on your memory because almost everyone saw that Cowboy team about to emerge they just emerged a year earlier then the predictions. Most may not have thought 3 SB wins would come from it but you could tell in 91 the Cowboys were an up and coming team with alot of talent.

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.

It's a clear sign someone's losing an argument when they start taking pokes at someone's grammar. I must be doing good Mr grammarian if that's all you can find. LOL Almost everyone types "alot" instead of "a lot". "Alot" may not be grammatically correct but it's acceptable and someone has to be looking hard for something to pick at to make an issue of it. I'll have to do some research on your grammer later. LOL

I'll shoot holes....I mean address the rest of your drivel later. Try condensing your next post into something shorter than a novel so we're not still here arguing this by the season opener. :toast:

 

[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?

By the way it's spelled "suffered" not "sufferred". Not wise to misspell a word when you're picking on someone's grammar and questioning if they suffered a head injury. LOL This reminds me of the poster who called me ******** and spelled it "retarted".

 

[CCBoy]

By the way it's spelled "suffered" not "sufferred". Not wise to misspell a word when you're picking on someone's grammar and questioning if they suffered a head injury. LOL This reminds me of the poster who called me ******** and spelled it "retarted".

Well, is an assumption of ******** as opposed to 'retarted' going to fly?

 

[CCBoy]

Well, D-Man, a mighty undertaking approaching as broad a topic as system management, sports development, and team history matching accomplishments. Then to have to do it single quote and comparisons at a time...man, such patience, my friend. Thud doing it while also having to wipe attitudes off issue for specifics of clarifications.

NO wonders why spell check and name tossing are continually brought in to clear digruntled thought process not having transitional elements for insightful transitioning...boy, if that wasn't a sentence full!

It's nice to see that you can love Tom Landry and the historical significance he brings to today's fans, and also not lose the greatness involved with a co-working relationship involving Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones.

As your logic followed, Jimmy gets the credit for while he was with Dallas.

But my addition would be, thank goodness for Jerry Jones through the further developments even if not including a present day Lombardi. I'm going to a different association not inclusive of the coaching merit of accomplisments. Those serve and stand on merit earned themselves.

I added some posts on factual history involved in some of the Landry time, just to increase general knowledge....

and I can't wait for this draft.

 

[KJJ]

Let me try another more simplistic approach with you. If Landry and Johnson were switched and it was Jimma that made the Cowboys what they are today, then I would be defending him instead of St. Tom. Plus the pidgeons would have a different statue out in front of the new Cowboys Stadium to crap on.

Landry wasn't the one who was receiving the credit for finding all those great players the Cowboys drafted. It was Gil Brandt who was credited with finding those players. Landry wasn't known for being a great evaluator of talent but Jimmy was. With all due respect to Landry Roger Staubach is the one who turned the Cowboys into America's Team. It's the players who make a team into what they are. It's the players who turn coaches into geniuses and it's the players who get them fired. Bill Walsh would have probably kept winning 2-6 games a year had Joe Montana not come along. Bill Belichicks career was going nowhere until Tom Brady took over. Belichick was just another coach in Cleveland and with Bledsoe at QB in NE. If a coach isn't working with talented players ESPECIALLY at QB they aren't going to be successful and they will eventually get fired. There's not one coach in the HOF who ever coached a bunch of bad news bears. LOL All those coaches enshrined in Canton had some special players who won alot of games for them. I'm always going to give alot more credit to ones on the field scoring the TD's then a coach standing on the sidelines but Jimmy was responsible for putting most of those players out there in the early 90's. Coaching is important no question about that but it's the "players" who win and lose games. Coaches get too much credit when things are going well and I believe they get too much of the blame when things are going wrong unless they can't put talented players in the right position to succeed.

Any qualified coach could have led a Peyton Manning led team to a SB. Staubach helped bring Landry his only championships. Staubach's popularity and miracle comebacks made the Cowboys the most popular team in the NFL. The Cowboys had fans all over the country hence the "America's Team" label. With no Roger Staubach there would have been no championships for Landry and they would have never been known as a America's Team. Jimmy couldn't win without good players. He was the same fiery, enthusiastic, demanding coach in 89 that he was in 92 and 93 but he didn't have the players in 89. The SB trophy wasn't named in honor of Vince Lombardi because he coached a bunch of stiffs to mediocre records. He had a roster full of HOF players. Naturally he helped mold these players as all great coaches do but a player has to have heart and talent or they're hopeless for any coach. Bill Walsh didn't put a computer chip into Joe Montana and guide him from the sidelines with a remote control when he hit Dwight Clark in the back of the endzone in the 81 title game. If he did I wish it would have malfunctioned. LOL Once the whistle blows and the ball is snapped it's up to the players to perform.

 

[KJJ]

Well, D-Man, a mighty undertaking approaching as broad a topic as system management, sports development, and team history matching accomplishments. Then to have to do it single quote and comparisons at a time...man, such patience, my friend. Thud doing it while also having to wipe attitudes off issue for specifics of clarifications.

NO wonders why spell check and name tossing are continually brought in to clear digruntled thought process not having transitional elements for insightful transitioning...boy, if that wasn't a sentence full!

It's nice to see that you can love Tom Landry and the historical significance he brings to today's fans, and also not lose the greatness involved with a co-working relationship involving Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones.

As your logic followed, Jimmy gets the credit for while he was with Dallas.

But my addition would be, thank goodness for Jerry Jones through the further developments even if not including a present day Lombardi. I'm going to a different association not inclusive of the coaching merit of accomplisments. Those serve and stand on merit earned themselves.

I added some posts on factual history involved in some of the Landry time, just to increase general knowledge....

and I can't wait for this draft.

Jerry probably deserves more credit than anyone for those 90's teams because he was the one who hired Jimmy. He was the one who went along with the drafting of Aikman and the trading up for Emmitt. He went along with the Walker and Haley trades. Jerry had to give his blessing to everything or it wasn't going to happen. The working relationship he and Jimmy had worked to perfection but the Cowboys success caused an ego clash. Jimmy's head swelled and Jerry thought he could win with any of hundred different coaches. I'm sure they're both still living with some regrets.

 

[THUMPER]

I looked it up and Lombardi won 7 Superbowls / Championships in 9 years in GB. Frankly, we can talk all we want about guys like Walsh, Knoll, Shula, Belinchick.. but come on... Lombardi is the GOD of NFL coaching... to think anything else is crazy. There is a reason why they named the trophy after him...

Well, look it up again because he only won 5 Nimrod!

Lombardi coached the Packers from 1959-1967. They won the NFL championship in 1961, 1962, & 1965 and the SB in 1966 & 1967. The Packers didn't make it to the NFL Championship game in his first season nor in 1963 or 1964.

In the other years:
The Eagles beat the Packers in 1960
The Bears beat the Giants in 1963
The Browns beat the Colts in 1964

Now go back to Green Bay where you belong.

 

[CCBoy]

Jerry probably deserves more credit than anyone for those 90's teams because he was the one who hired Jimmy. He was the one who went along with the drafting of Aikman and the trading up for Emmitt. He went along with the Walker and Haley trades. Jerry had to give his blessing to everything or it wasn't going to happen. The working relationship he and Jimmy had worked to perfection but the Cowboys success caused an ego clash. Jimmy's head swelled and Jerry thought he could win with any of hundred different coaches. I'm sure they're both still living with some regrets.

KJJ....that's fair.

I think it took them both in player developments and acquisitions.

Jimmy took the team there for a Lombardi.

Jimmy wasn't as advanced in system management as he wished, possibly. He was a good football coach, but had to learn the sophistications involved in a developing NFL arena.

Jimmy was long on ego and short on practicaility. Bottom line may have been that Jerry had the responsibility with the bill. Jimmy wanted the power and glory.

He was great on a football field although. Maybe then, being a GM entailed more than he was ready to handle alone. That would require a much more a detailed analysis than my questioning here.

Thanks for your discussions...

 

[burmafrd]

well KJJ Jimmy did not exactly shine his last years at Miami, did he? And he had a HOF QB there as well.

 

[THUMPER]

well KJJ Jimmy did not exactly shine his last years at Miami, did he? And he had a HOF QB there as well.

Shhh! Those who worship at the feet of Saint Jimmy don't talk about his days with the Dolphins.

 

[Draegerman]

By the way it's spelled "suffered" not "sufferred". Not wise to misspell a word when you're picking on someone's grammar and questioning if they suffered a head injury. LOL This reminds me of the poster who called me ******** and spelled it "retarted".

Yep, I know how it's spelled but I was nodding off in my response to you last night and my nose accidentally hit the "R" key a second time.

But I acknowledge the pot calling the kettle black argument. It's difficult for me to point out grammatical errors to others unless it's repeated multiple times. I tried to be subtle with you when I quoted your error and then showed you the corrected way of applying it with highlights, but you clearly weren't picking up my hint. It's not intended to try and invalidate your argument. I was just trying to do you a courtesy - that's all.

What I will say about this, however, is there are a lot of people that post here that think it's immaterial (regarding spelling and correct grammar) on a football website when trying to make a point. They fail to realize that when attempting to make a point, the few intelligent members that read it quickly dismiss the attempt because it shows a lack of higher education. IOW, it's taken way too lightly when the effort puts more weight on the point rather than the way it's effectively communicated.

Understand, I'm not talking about a Shakespearean effort here. Mistakes happen (like my misspelling of the word, "suffered"), but that doesn't excuse a constant pattern the writer continuously makes. The mindset is that this isn't the forum to accommodate such readers, and they would be wrong.

Now I have to decide if it's worth my time and effort to address your counter-counter-counter points to my last counter-counter points.

I'm hoping it's not.

 

[Draegerman]

Well, D-Man, a mighty undertaking approaching as broad a topic as system management, sports development, and team history matching accomplishments. Then to have to do it single quote and comparisons at a time...man, such patience, my friend. Thud doing it while also having to wipe attitudes off issue for specifics of clarifications.

NO wonders why spell check and name tossing are continually brought in to clear digruntled thought process not having transitional elements for insightful transitioning...boy, if that wasn't a sentence full!

It's nice to see that you can love Tom Landry and the historical significance he brings to today's fans, and also not lose the greatness involved with a co-working relationship involving Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones.

As your logic followed, Jimmy gets the credit for while he was with Dallas.

But my addition would be, thank goodness for Jerry Jones through the further developments even if not including a present day Lombardi. I'm going to a different association not inclusive of the coaching merit of accomplisments. Those serve and stand on merit earned themselves.

I added some posts on factual history involved in some of the Landry time, just to increase general knowledge....

and I can't wait for this draft.

Amen, brother! And I look forward to reading it, too.

 

[KJJ]

well KJJ Jimmy did not exactly shine his last years at Miami, did he? And he had a HOF QB there as well.

Jimmy had an aging, declining HOF QB when he arrived in Miami. That was not the same Dan Marino plus as I mentioned the Dolphins were in salary cap hell and Jimmy couldn't go out and get players. The salary cap and free agency changed everything back then it took years for teams to learn how to massage the cap and work with it.

 

[KJJ]

Yep, I know how it's spelled but I was nodding off in my response to you last night and my nose accidentally hit the "R" key a second time.

But I acknowledge the pot calling the kettle black argument. It's difficult for me to point out grammatical errors to others unless it's repeated multiple times. I tried to be subtle with you when I quoted your error and then showed you the corrected way of applying it with highlights, but you clearly weren't picking up my hint. It's not intended to try and invalidate your argument. I was just trying to do you a courtesy - that's all.

What I will say about this, however, is there are a lot of people that post here that think it's immaterial (regarding spelling and correct grammar) on a football website when trying to make a point. They fail to realize that when attempting to make a point, the few intelligent members that read it quickly dismiss the attempt because it shows a lack of higher education. IOW, it's taken way too lightly when the effort puts more weight on the point rather than the way it's effectively communicated.

Understand, I'm not talking about a Shakespearean effort here. Mistakes happen (like my misspelling of the word, "suffered"), but that doesn't excuse a constant pattern the writer continuously makes. The mindset is that this isn't the forum to accommodate such readers, and they would be wrong.

Now I have to decide if it's worth my time and effort to address your counter-counter-counter points to my last counter-counter points.

I'm hoping it's not.

My grammar and spelling are impeccable you're just looking to divert from the topic because every point you make gets vaporized. LOL If I wanted to waste my time sifting through your posts searching for some silly grammatical errors I could find them but I don't need to divert from the topic. It makes you look foolish pointing out common grammatical errors that even the President makes just to nit pick because you're being frustrated in this debate. You shouldn't have taken the challenge. LOL If you think using fancy words ala Brian Billick and Todd Christensen is going to make you look smart in a discussion in which all your points are being riddled full of holes go right ahead Mr grammarian. Saying Landry didn't have the option to trade Walker for a bunch of picks like he would have done it made you look stupid. Everyone who knew how conservative Landry was and saw the dire situation he was in knows he wouldn't have traded away his best player in 89 had he remained the coach especially several games into the season when his team was winless. LOL I promise you Landry and Shramm didn't tick the way Jerry and Jimmy did.

Time wouldn't have been on Landry's side in 89. He wasn't a young coach who had the time to go from bad to worse like Jimmy did after the Walker trade. Landry wanted to trade the #1 overall pick for more draft picks because the clock was ticking and he didn't have the time to go through the growing pains of a young QB. Landry said in an interview a few weeks before he got fired he didn't think drafting a QB was the answer because he claimed Steve Pelluer was a good QB. LOL Pelluer ended up being Landry's undoing. A QB helped make Landry and a QB ended up sealing his fate in the end. Landry, Shramm, Brandt and the rest of the old regime grew stale through the years. They were all still stuck in the 70's doing things that worked 15-20 years prior. The game had changed and Landry and his staff didn't. The game passed them all by and it was time for them to be put out to pasture.

 

[Draegerman]

Well I'm forcing you to break down my paragraphs and will continue to do so. : So you think it was ridiculous for me to say Jimmy could have possibly won 4 straight SB's? When he left the Cowboys they had just won 2 straight SB's and made it to the NFC title game the following year with several early turnovers costing them that game. The next year they won another SB so I don't think it was a stretch to say Jimmy could have possibly won 4 straight SB's had he stayed. You also think it was ridiculous for me to say I don't think the Cowboys would have fallen as far as they did had Jimmy stuck around? Had Jimmy stayed around we might have taken Randy Moss instead of Greg Ellis. Had we done that there would have been no need to trade two #1's for Joey Galloway. Had Jimmy stayed around we wouldn't have been stuck with Dave Camp for 3 straight seasons in which the Cowboys only won 15 games. Sure it's all speculation but when you look at the incredible job Jimmy was doing in the 5 years he was in Dallas I think the odds were real good the Cowboys would have stayed competitive and not fallen as far as they did had he stayed around.




Landry had 10 seasons starting in 1960 to pave the way for the success the Cowboys had in the 70's. LOL Compare Landry's first 5 years with the Cowboys with Jimmy's first and only 5 years with the team. : The Cowboys were 2-3 in SB's in the 70's. That may impress you but with as many good teams the Cowboys had during that era it doesn't impress me. The Dolphins and Steelers are rated ahead of the Cowboys as the 2 best teams of that decade with the Steelers winning the honer with 4 SB wins. You may put alot of weight into "reaching" the SB but it doesn't mean crap to me no matter how many you go to if you lose more than you win. When Landry took over the Cowboys he had been a player in the NFL and also an assistant coach in the NFL. Jimmy had no NFL experience what so ever when he arrived in Dallas. He spent his entire coaching career working with college kids. No coach ever came straight from college and took over the worst team in the NFL and turned them into one of the greatest teams in NFL history in 4 years. Alot of very good college coaches have come into the league only to fail miserably.



I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Do you honestly think Landry would have had the same success had free agency and a salary cap been in place?Anyone who knows the history of the team knows Tex Shramm was low balling his players. Duane Thomas was making $25,000 a year. He was having to work part-time during the offseason to make ends meet. As for Jimmy he took over in Miami because him and Jerry had a clash of ego's. Success can do that. Jimmy's head started to swell and he wanted more control. He made comments about coaching Jacksonville and Miami and when Jerry got wind of it their relationship went down the drain. Jimmy never stayed longer than 5 years anywhere. When you have two egomaniacs a collision is bound to happen eventually. Jimmy still wanted to coach but got tired of Jerry's hands on ways and wanted to be in Florida. Jimmy had very little chance to turn the Dolphins around with a declining Dan Marino and the team being in cap hell. The salary cap was new for everyone and most teams didn't know how to handle it early on. When Jimmy arrived in Dallas he didn't have a salary cap and free agency to deal with so he was able to go out and stock the team not so in Miami.




You should never give me a second chance after I already shot down your comments. Stand back and I'll riddle them full of holes. LOL Do you actually believe Landry would have traded his best player on a talentless team for a bunch of draft picks had he had the chance? Jimmy Johnson and Tom Landry were two entirely different animals. Jimmy was a risk taker and Landry was a conservative coach who would have NEVER traded the only proven player he had on a bad team for draft picks. He would have tried building around Walker figuring he already had one good piece of the puzzle in place. Landry was the one who gave the blessing to draft Walker with a 5th round pick banking the USFL would go bust. Acquiring Walker resulted in Landry trading Dorsett not long after. Landry would have never dealt Walker as bad as the Cowboys were because he didn't have the time to rebuild like a young coach with a patient owner. There's no guarantee's in the draft and trading Walker would have left him with another big hole to fill. Landry wasn't getting any younger and the frustration in Dallas was building. Bum Bright wanted to fire Landry after the Bears blew the Cowboys out in 85 but Shramm talked him out of it. That's another FACT! LOL It was that defeat to the Bears that got Bright thinking about selling the team. Everyone in 89 thought Jimmy was NUTS trading Walker but he saw Walker for what he was a straight north/south runner who wasn't shifty and wasn't getting it done. We all saw where Walkers career went after the trade....NEXT!



The Cowboys SB V team would have accomplished "in my opinion" the same thing their SB VI team did had Staubach been the QB then. LOL Craig Morton was an average QB who was mistake prone. He tossed more picks than TD's during his career and was sacked over 400 times. Morton was the inspiration behind the term "sack" another FACT...LMAO! I think it was Deacon Jones who called him a sack of salt as in "Mortons salt" and the rest is history. LOL The 71 and 77 teams would have never been as good without Staubach as the QB. Show me ONE SB win Morton/Meredith/White had?...NUFF SAID! Only Morton reached a SB and looked terrible in both of them. This is becoming target practice for me...PULL!



I'm giving you the facts you're just delusional if you think I look bad. LOL I know the Cowboys history as well if not better than most here. If you think I'm making anything up go do some research. Everything else we're discussing is a matter of opinion.




You're saying the 77 team was the most dominate Cowboy team ever??? That team beat an average Bronco team that only reached the SB because of their defense. They had an aging Craig Morton as their QB who helped do in the Cowboys 7 years earlier against the Colts. LOL The 77 Cowboys couldn't repeat the following year because they couldn't beat the Steelers. Even in 77 the Cowboys lost to Pittsburgh during the regular season. That Cowboys team may have been a veteran team but the 92 team was a young, physical team that peaked during the SB that year. The 49er team the Cowboys beat to get to that SB was a TERRIFIC team that had won 14 games that season. The 92 Cowboys were hands down the best Cowboys team ever and most rankings of the greatest teams in NFL history proves it. You need to work on your memory because almost everyone saw that Cowboy team about to emerge they just emerged a year earlier then the predictions. Most may not have thought 3 SB wins would come from it but you could tell in 91 the Cowboys were an up and coming team with alot of talent.




It's a clear sign someone's losing an argument when they start taking pokes at someone's grammar. I must be doing good Mr grammarian if that's all you can find. LOL Almost everyone types "alot" instead of "a lot". "Alot" may not be grammatically correct but it's acceptable and someone has to be looking hard for something to pick at to make an issue of it. I'll have to do some research on your grammer later. LOL

I'll shoot holes....I mean address the rest of your drivel later. Try condensing your next post into something shorter than a novel so we're not still here arguing this by the season opener. :toast:

*KJJ,

I have a family emergency happening right now as we reply to each other, so allow me to use brevity and quickly make this point while I deal with more urgent matters.

I was wrong (sigh) but in a way, I'm kind of right. I could easily take "pot shots" at your argument (e.g. What Jimmy could've accomplished had he stayed, Landry's relationship with Staubach, the '77 team vs. '02 team, Hershel Walker [which was absolutely ridiculous on your part], the Cowboys record in SBs under Landry, my "delusional"ness verses you're "retartedness" and wow, I'm drawing a blank about the rest...oh yea, Landry vs. Johnson and which one was better as a head coach).

The fact is that I can't change your mind about Landry anymore than you can change mine about Johnson.

Why don't we try to find some common ground, shall we?


Here's what I propose: Let's say that you and I are college roommates and decide to take a course on Shakespeare together for our English requirements. Okay, now let's further say that you decide not to attend all the classes while I'm there for all of them. So good, so far, right? Now, let's continue further along and say that you and I have a final exam with said course. I study using the assigned text book to study but you decide that the cliff notes version is better for you.

With that said, we both pass the course (and get the same grade), but you take less time to study while I study everything that encompasses the works of William Shakespeare.

Now, Landry is Shakespeare but Johnson is the cliff notes.

Would that make more sense with where we're at?

 

[Draegerman]

KJJ....that's fair.

I think it took them both in player developments and acquisitions.

Jimmy took the team there for a Lombardi.

Jimmy wasn't as advanced in system management as he wished, possibly. He was a good football coach, but had to learn the sophistications involved in a developing NFL arena.

Jimmy was long on ego and short on practicaility. Bottom line may have been that Jerry had the responsibility with the bill. Jimmy wanted the power and glory.

He was great on a football field although. Maybe then, being a GM entailed more than he was ready to handle alone. That would require a much more a detailed analysis than my questioning here.

Thanks for your discussions...

Damn it, CC. I hate it when you make sense!!!