Doc Holliday Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 This is great. Like Parcells or not, the last 3 teams he's taken over were very bad. New England was crap before Parcells got there and he turned them around. Jets were the same way, and now Dallas was the same. He's the only coach I've seen who could've walked into a great situation (like Belichick did at NE) but instead he takes on a challenge. The last 2 teams he left have been 10X better off than when he started. I'd like to see Belidick turn around a horrible francshise! 1395591[/snapback] Let me start by saying I think Parcells is a excellent coach, and any team with him should be proud to have him. That being said, that was excellent post and I think it shows that losing Bill definately hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 That being said, that was excellent post and I think it shows that losing Bill definately hurt. 1395601[/snapback] only if those numbers can't be explained by other factors, like the fact that parcells was taking over crappy reclamation project teams and making them much better. it's hard to hold that against him, but that's exactly what you're doing when you give credence to those stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 In his first season at the helm in Dallas, Parcells took a team that had posted three consecutive 5-11 seasons and posted a 10-6 mark in the regular season, as well as an NFC Wild Card playoff berth. In 2004, the Cowboys posted a 6-10 record in his second season. Under his direction, the N.Y. Jets (1997-99)—who won a combined four games the two seasons prior to his arrival—improved to 9-7 his first season and 12-4 with a trip to the AFC Championship Game his second season. This success marked the first time in NFL history that a team had won one game and within two years was playing for a conference championship. He took over the New England Patriots (1993-96) following a 2-14 season by the Patriots. Within two years, Parcells coached the team to a 10-6 mark and its first playoff game in eight years. In his fourth year, the Patriots went 11-5 and advanced to Super Bowl XXXI against Green Bay. Parcells began his NFL head coaching career with the N.Y. Giants (1983-1990), who had posted one winning season in its previous 10 years. After an initial campaign of 3-12-1, he improved the club’s victory total to 9, 10, 14, 10, 12, and 13 between 1984 and 1990. In the process, the Giants were able to win two Super Bowl titles—Super Bowl XXI over Denver and Super Bowl XXV over Buffalo. During his time at the Giants helm, the club won two Super Bowls, three division titles, and had only one losing season. For his accomplishment, Parcells was honored with NFL Coach of the Year honors in both 1986 and 1989. Career record: 165-123-1. the one constant there is NOT bill bellichick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 (edited) I'd like to see Belidick turn around a horrible francshise! 1395591[/snapback] So, how many Super Bowls had New England won before Belichick? Not to take away from what Parcells did for the Pats, but he didn't really "turn around" the franchise. He got them back to the level that Raymond Barry had them at in the mid-80s. The Pats may have sucked in the early '90s, but weren't exactly the doormat of the AFC back in the '80s. Also consider that Belichick won 3 SBs (one more than Parcells) in the salary cap era, where it's MUCH more difficult to keep a good team together. Edited March 30, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 only if those numbers can't be explained by other factors, like the fact that parcells was taking over crappy reclamation project teams and making them much better. it's hard to hold that against him, but that's exactly what you're doing when you give credence to those stats. 1395605[/snapback] Sure there is many variables. Giving Parcells to much credit can also be bad. when those teams went out to get Parcells they also went out and threw a bunch of money around to give him talent to do what he did. This all being said, I think Parcells is a great coach. I think Bill Belichick is a great coach. if you got them both on the same team and you lose 1 of them, it is going to hurt. and that is exactly what the stats show. The thing is Bill has since went on to win 3 superbowls. the fact that he was such a huge part with Parcells and the fact that he has 3 on his own..well I look at the stats and they make sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Not to take away from what Parcells did for the Pats, but he didn't really "turn around" the franchise. 1395619[/snapback] the 4 seasons before parcells was hired as the head coach the pats were: 1992: 2-14 1991: 6-10 1990: 1-15 1989: 5-11 the 4 seasons before bellichick took over, they were: 1999: 8-8 (and they were 5-11 bellichick's first year, 2000) 1998: 9-7 1997: 10-6 1996: 11-5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleW64 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 It's a great debate - Big Bill or Little Bill, but in all fairness both are equally better than most head coaches. I would rather have either one of them coaching the Cowboys than Wannestadt, Green or several other head coaches. They were successful together and have had success while apart. Would Parcells have won without Belichek? Would Belichek had won without some tutelage/guidance from Parcells? We'll never know. But I do know that between them they have more championships than the majority of NFL coaches could ever expect to. IMO both will and should be in the HOF when it's all said and done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 the 4 seasons before parcells was hired as the head coach the pats were:1992: 2-14 1991: 6-10 1990: 1-15 1989: 5-11 the 4 seasons before bellichick took over, they were: 1999: 8-8 (and they were 5-11 bellichick's first year, 2000) 1998: 9-7 1997: 10-6 1996: 11-5 1395630[/snapback] Then I guess that Raymond Berry was as good a coach as Parcells... 1984: 9-7 (partially under Berry) 1985: 11-5 (AFC Champions) 1986: 11-5 1987: 8-7 1988: 9-7 1989: 5-11 Parcells had some bad seasons in New England as well (1993: 5-11; 1995: 6-10). Oh, and he never won a SB with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 BAH! What fun is THAT post?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 It's a great debate - Big Bill or Little Bill, but in all fairness both are equally better than most head coaches. I would rather have either one of them coaching the Cowboys than Wannestadt, Green or several other head coaches. They were successful together and have had success while apart. Would Parcells have won without Belichek? Would Belichek had won without some tutelage/guidance from Parcells? We'll never know. But I do know that between them they have more championships than the majority of NFL coaches could ever expect to. IMO both will and should be in the HOF when it's all said and done. 1395644[/snapback] Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 It's a great debate - Big Bill or Little Bill1395644[/snapback] i wouldn't even debate that. they BOTH have among the most impressive coaching resumes you will ever see, without any doubt whatsoever, and i wouldn't really even try to argue one over the other. i just think it's at best a misleading and shallow reading of certain stats, and at worst ridiculously stupid, to argue that parcells has "never done anything without bellichick". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTen Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Six Kings wrote: "Doesn't surprise me, considering Jones'es ego. " My p.o.s. firewall at work is blocking his avatar!!! 1395349[/snapback] Thats a d@mn shame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Then I guess that Raymond Berry was as good a coach as Parcells...1395656[/snapback] ok what does that have to do with your idiotic assertion that parcells "didn't really turn around the franchise" and my rather concise and clear-cut rebuttal to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 i wouldn't even debate that. they BOTH have among the most impressive coaching resumes you will ever see, without any doubt whatsoever, and i wouldn't really even try to argue one over the other. i just think it's at best a misleading and shallow reading of certain stats, and at worst ridiculously stupid, to argue that parcells has "never done anything without bellichick". 1395674[/snapback] I agree with you mostly. But that was a very huge difference in record. and I think to just throw those stats out the window is a mistake too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 ok what does that have to do with your idiotic assertion that parcells "didn't really turn around the franchise" and my rather concise and clear-cut rebuttal to it? 1395682[/snapback] owned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebartender Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Is there a link that says Parcells didn't want Owens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 1st you say this: "Also consider that Belichick won 3 SBs (one more than Parcells) in the salary cap era, where it's MUCH more difficult to keep a good team together. Then you say this. Then I guess that Raymond Berry was as good a coach as Parcells... 1984: 9-7 (partially under Berry) 1985: 11-5 (AFC Champions) 1986: 11-5 1987: 8-7 1988: 9-7 1989: 5-11 Parcells had some bad seasons in New England as well (1993: 5-11; 1995: 6-10). Oh, and he never won a SB with them. 1395656[/snapback] Parcells is still coaching in the salary cap era right? And the salary cap era existed while he was with the Pats. This comparison is just dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 1st you say this: "Also consider that Belichick won 3 SBs (one more than Parcells) in the salary cap era, where it's MUCH more difficult to keep a good team together. Then you say this. Parcells is still coaching in the salary cap era right? And the salary cap era existed while he was with the Pats. This comparison is just dumb. 1395727[/snapback] My (sarcastic) comparison of Parcells to Berry was to illustrate the point that Parcells didn't "save the franchise." The Pats had a fair degree of success in the '80s, and Parcells failed to take them to the next level. On the other hand, Belichick was able to make that jump... THREE times in the salary cap era. That's more impressive than Parcells' two championships prior to the cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 My (sarcastic) comparison of Parcells to Berry was to illustrate the point that Parcells didn't "save the franchise." The Pats had a fair degree of success in the '80s, and Parcells failed to take them to the next level. On the other hand, Belichick was able to make that jump... THREE times in the salary cap era. That's more impressive than Parcells' two championships prior to the cap. 1395802[/snapback] Agreed. Bill belicheck IMO is the greatest coach of our era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charty Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 (edited) the 4 seasons before bellichick took over, they were:1999: 8-8 (and they were 5-11 bellichick's first year, 2000) 1998: 9-7 1997: 10-6 1996: 11-5 1395630[/snapback] You can throw out 1996, right? That was Parcells last year and Bellichick was the Asst Head Coach. Notice each year after Parcells (and Belichick) went to the Jets, it was getting worse and worse, right? It would have ended up back in Victor Kiam status the way the front office and coaching staff was operating. If you are going to use 1996 in an argument, you didn't point out that in Belichick's last year in Cleveland, 1995, the Pats were 6-10. Belichick got fired from the Browns, joins the Pats, and then they go from 6-10 to 11-5 and a Superbowl appearance. I have nothing against Parcells, he turned around this franchise, brought excitement, etc. But it's pretty funny when comments like "Belichick never won anything without Parcells" are thrown out there. Edited March 30, 2006 by charty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I have nothing against Parcells, he turned around this franchise, brought excitement, etc. But it's pretty funny when comments like "Belichick never won anything without Parcells" are thrown out there. 1395818[/snapback] Ummm... nobody says that. Belichick never won anything without Romeo. That's what people say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charty Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 (edited) Ummm... nobody says that. Belichick never won anything without Romeo. That's what people say. 1395840[/snapback] Is that so...... Belichick never won anythign without Parcells or Romeo on his staff. 1394833[/snapback] I guess it was a simple grammar problem, huh? Maybe you meant "without either Parcells and Romeo", along with "anything" instead of "anythign"? Maybe you are right, maybe it's Romeo, and because Romeo was with Parcells in his NY - NE - NY stints, it should be Parcells or Belichick have never won without Romeo. Cleveland fans, according to the Hitsquad, you've hit the jackpot. When Romeo wins a division title, nevermind 3 SBs, then you can come back and try to make your point. Edited March 30, 2006 by charty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 You can throw out 1996, right? That was Parcells last year and Bellichick was the Asst Head Coach. Notice each year after Parcells (and Belichick) went to the Jets, it was getting worse and worse, right? It would have ended up back in Victor Kiam status the way the front office and coaching staff was operating. you're trying to read too much into that. i just posted the pats record the 4 years prior to parcells taking over to refute swerski's completely moranic statement (which he has repeated yet again) that parcells "didn't really turn around the franchise". the year before he took over, they won 2 games. the 4 years before he took over, they won a total of 14 games, and lost more than twice as many. there's no way in hell you can possibly support the statement that parcells "didn't turn around the franchise", and that was my point. i brought in the stats of the 4 years prior to bellichick taking over only to illustrate how much better shape the team was in when he got it compared to when parcells got it. 2-14 vs 8-8 the year before each took over. 14-30 vs. 38-26 for the 4 years prior. But it's pretty funny when comments like "Belichick never won anything without Parcells" are thrown out there. 1395818[/snapback] uhh, yeah that would be pretty stupid to say that. but nobody did. maybe somebody said "bellichick hasn't won anything without crennel" which, as far as it goes, is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 The crazy thing is that neither Parcells or Belichick is even the best "Bill" coaching in football today. Relax, I was just kidding, however, I do think the 3 "Bill's" will all be in Canton. My personal opinion is that the only coach that I would take over Cowher right now is Belichick. I think he is simply the best there is right now. The Super Bowl win definitely improves Cowher's resume though: Cowher's 14 Year Career: Overall = 153 - 92 - 1 Regular = 141 - 82 - 1 Playoff = 12 - 9 - 0 SB = 1 - 1 - 0 10 Playoff Appearance 8 Division Championships 6 AFC Championship Game Apearances 2 AFC Championships 1 Super Bowl Title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 (edited) you're trying to read too much into that. i just posted the pats record the 4 years prior to parcells taking over to refute swerski's completely moranic statement (which he has repeated yet again) that parcells "didn't really turn around the franchise". the year before he took over, they won 2 games. the 4 years before he took over, they won a total of 14 games, and lost more than twice as many. there's no way in hell you can possibly support the statement that parcells "didn't turn around the franchise", and that was my point. 1395874[/snapback] That depends on your definition of "turning around the franchise." Parcells took over after four straight losing seasons and then... Season 1: 5-11 Season 2: 10-6 , but lost in the first round of the playoffs Season 3: 6-10 Season 4: 11-5 and AFC Champions Parcells got his team to the Big Game in Year 4, but his overall record in NE (32-32) is pedestrian. Considering that Parcells failed to win a championship and that the Pats were better overall under Ron Meyer and Raymond Berry (61-54 from '82-'89) than under Parcells, you'll have to excuse me for not being wildly enthusiastic about Bill Sr.'s accomplishments in Foxboro. So, I guess we can say that Dick Jauron "turned arond the Bears franchise" as well? 1996: 7-9 (Wannstedt) 1997: 4-12 (Wannstedt) 1998: 4-12 (Wannstedt) 1999: 6-10 (Jauron) 2000: 5-11 (Jauron) 2001: 13-3 (Jauron) Edited March 30, 2006 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.