Is Parcells Worthy of the HOF?

[McBoog]

This article, , got me thinking about the two questions above. I thought it was interesting when the following points were brought up.

 

...When it comes to coaches, I believe contributions matter. Don Coryell, as a prime example, continues to be overlooked, no doubt because he failed to win a championship. But he changed the face of the game, on both sides of the ball, and the effects of his innovations still can be felt today. They're still stealing from Coryell.

 

What, exactly, did Parcells do to change the game? Bill Walsh changed it. So did Sid Gillman. So did Paul Brown. All did more than win. They were innovators...

 

and

 

...New England's Bill Belichick, a master of preparation, is this close to being the greatest among all coaches and a certain Hall of Famer. Would Parcells have two rings if Belichick hadn't been his defensive coordinator in New York (Belichick also was his defensive coordinator in New England)? It's debatable, even doubtful...

 

and

 

...A coach must contribute something other than an East Coast reputation and a couple of Super Bowl rings. ...

 

 

I tend to agree with all of this. I grew up on both coasts so I "understand the "bias" perspective. But that aside, I still wonder what Parcells did to actually change the game. How did he leave his mark? Both Tom Flores and George Seifert both won two SBs! Think they will ever get a sniff? Nope!

 

I used to think it was a horrible oversite that Coryell has been shunned by the great hall, if Parcells makes it...

Edited January 29, 2007 by McBoog

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Parcells has never won anything without Belichick on his staff. BB was the DC for Parcells with the NYG, was on the staff (asst. HC or DC, don't recall?) for one year, 1996, when NE went to the SB, and was the DC for the NYJ the entire time parcells was there. The only non-Belichick time Parcells has had is the last tenure with Dallas, and he didn't exactly light the world on fire there.

 

Belichick won without Parcells, but Parcells has never won without Belichick. He'd get a no from me, at least on first couple of times. Let him get in later I guess.

[wildcat2334]

Of course he is in the HOF- since when is "changin the game" a requirement of getting into the HOF? guy was one of the top coaches of his generation and is a HOFamer fo sure.

 

Good coaches tend to have good OC & DC's -so what - you could use the Belicheck argument on many coaches.

 

In coaching, winning SB's is "changing the game" -

 

Coryell? you gotta win the big one - period

[McBoog]

Of course he is in the HOF- since when is "changin the game" a requirement of getting into the HOF? guy was one of the top coaches of his generation and is a HOFamer fo sure.

 

Good coaches tend to have good OC & DC's -so what - you could use the Belicheck argument on many coaches.

 

In coaching, winning SB's is "changing the game" -

 

Coryell? you gotta win the big one - period

 

 

So you also feel that both Tom Flores and George Seifert, both who won two SBs each, should go to the HOF?

 

If not, how are they any different from the Tuna?

Edited January 29, 2007 by McBoog

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Parcells took over 4 struggling franchises, and after he left, were night and day better than they were before he took over. Personally, I think Parcells greatness truly is in Bill Walshes greatness. Look at his legacy. Look at the coaching tree. And there is a big difference between winning as a head coach and winning as an assistant. Look at Norv Turner. Tremendous offensive coordinator, very very average (and thats being nice) as a head coach. Being a head coach has more to dealing with egos than the x's and o's. Coordinators are the ones who need to make sure the x's and o's are good.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

Parcells took over 4 struggling franchises, and after he left, were night and day better than they were before he took over. Personally, I think Parcells greatness truly is in Bill Walshes greatness. Look at his legacy. Look at the coaching tree. And there is a big difference between winning as a head coach and winning as an assistant. Look at Norv Turner. Tremendous offensive coordinator, very very average (and thats being nice) as a head coach. Being a head coach has more to dealing with egos than the x's and o's. Coordinators are the ones who need to make sure the x's and o's are good.

 

+1

 

Plus that whole Parcell's never won without Belichick is BS. How many SB's has Belichick won without Crennel and Weis on his staff? He sucked in Cleveland without them, and he hasn't won a SB since they left... same argument, no?

[whomper]

Of course he is in the HOF- since when is "changin the game" a requirement of getting into the HOF? guy was one of the top coaches of his generation and is a HOFamer fo sure.

 

 

 

 

 

Bingo..Enough said

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

+1

 

Plus that whole Parcell's never won without Belichick is BS. How many SB's has Belichick won without Crennel and Weis on his staff? He sucked in Cleveland without them, and he hasn't won a SB since they left... same argument, no?

 

 

If that holds up for 20+ years, we can talk, although Belichick allready has parcells with having won three to BP's two. But I'd still feel similarly. I didn't say Parcells wasn't worthy. IMO, he's just not a first ballot lock like some people feel.

[REZ]

I don't remember offhand what else would qualify Flores but as for Seifert he was viewed as somebody who was a caretaker of a system that Walsh had installed. I don't think anybody ever thought he was a great coach much less a Hall of Famer.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

If that holds up for 20+ years, we can talk, although Belichick allready has parcells with having won three to BP's two. But I'd still feel similarly. I didn't say Parcells wasn't worthy. IMO, he's just not a first ballot lock like some people feel.

 

Belichick is 58-54 withut Weis and Crennel on his staff. Parcells is 55-57 without Belichick on his. It's pretty much the same argument.

 

I say he's a 1st ballot easy.

[Grits and Shins]

Do you have to "change the face of the game" to make the HoF? Of course not, that is a ludicrous statement/requirement.

 

I don't think Bill did a very good job of coaching Dallas the last 4 years. He seemed to lack the killer instinct and was unable to finish teams off when he had them down. He seemed to lack fire and appeared to be a tired old man trying to re-live his glory years. Coaching in today's game is much different than coaching when Bill was in his prime. It appeared to me that Bill was always behind on his game time adjustments, too willing to attempt to rely on his tried and true game plan and just plain not able to motivate his team.

 

Having said all that, I believe that one thing that can still be said about Bill Parcells is that he is an excellent evaluator of talent (putting aside the fact that he brought in too many old ex-players to Dallas).

 

Does he belong in the HoF? He is a little before my time so I don't know if I can answer that question truthfully. Based on his time in Dallas, certainly not. But if you include his career with the Giants, the Jets and New England . Just looking at the numbers he left each team better off than when he arrived.

 

 

I'd say that winning 2 rings isn't an automatic qualification for the HoF, but I didn't watch him during that era to see the impact he had on his teams.

[Caveman_Nick]

Parcells took over 4 struggling franchises, and after he left, were night and day better than they were before he took over. Personally, I think Parcells greatness truly is in Bill Walshes greatness. Look at his legacy. Look at the coaching tree. And there is a big difference between winning as a head coach and winning as an assistant. Look at Norv Turner. Tremendous offensive coordinator, very very average (and thats being nice) as a head coach. Being a head coach has more to dealing with egos than the x's and o's. Coordinators are the ones who need to make sure the x's and o's are good.

 

 

 

[Doc Holliday]

Without a doubt he makes the HOF.

[Azazello1313]

yes to both parcells (absolute no-brainer) and coryell.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

yes to both parcells (absolute no-brainer) and coryell.

 

and Flores

 

[Pope Flick]

Belichick is 58-54 withut Weis and Crennel on his staff. Parcells is 55-57 without Belichick on his. It's pretty much the same argument.

 

I say he's a 1st ballot easy.

 

 

So the Pats have played 112 games since the end of 2004? Interesting..... :think:

[piratesownninjas]

He won 2 super bowls, turned around franchises, and left his mark on the game. I can't stand him, but he's a hall of famer.

[Bill Swerski]

Parcells took over 4 struggling franchises, and after he left, were night and day better than they were before he took over. Personally, I think Parcells greatness truly is in Bill Walshes greatness.

 

Not sure I'd go that far, but Parcells deserves to be inducted into Canton. In addition to what's outlined above and his three conference championships and two SB championships, he got more out of his players than just about any other HC of his time. He turned good-but-not-great QBs (Simms, Bledsoe, Vinny, Romo) into Pro Bowlers and got the maximum out of problematic players (LT, Keyshawn, Terry Glenn).

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

So the Pats have played 112 games since the end of 2004? Interesting..... :think:

 

Oh my bad, and here I thought Crennel and Weis were not with Belichick in his 5 year "tour de force" of Cleveland (36-44).

[Chavez]

Parcells took over 4 struggling franchises, and after he left, were night and day better than they were before he took over. Personally, I think Parcells greatness truly is in Bill Walshes greatness. Look at his legacy. Look at the coaching tree.

 

Right. I forget where 183 wins leaves him, but it's up there. The franchises certainly all had, if not their salad days, at least a pretty good run during his tenure - he turned around the Giants, the Pats, and the Jets, all of whom were utterly hapless for some time prior to his arrival, and he improved the Cowboys - if not to the level of past glories, to where they were a playoff contender year in and year out (though it's certainly fair to say that Parcells appears to have lost a good deal of his magic touch). Taking one franchise to two SB wins is impressive, but going and rebuilding a mess is probably harder than maintaining an established system - that's why Seifert and Flores lose a bit of shine; both were fine in their established system, but failed MISERABLY when moved outside their comfort zone. It doesn't automatically disqualify them, but it is a bit of a black mark.

 

 

I believe contributions matter. Don Coryell, as a prime example, continues to be overlooked, no doubt because he failed to win a championship. But he changed the face of the game, on both sides of the ball, and the effects of his innovations still can be felt today. They're still stealing from Coryell.

Coryell didn't even tweak Gillman's offense; that said, he was the last guy who managed to win with the Cards and has 100+ wins. I think he's borderline.

[Perchoutofwater]

Parcells gts in. It is kind of like that actor who never wins the Oscar, but when he's old and really doesn't know what is going on, they give him the "Life Time Achievement Award". The same thing will happen with Parcells.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

Parcells gts in. It is kind of like that actor who never wins the Oscar, but when he's old and really doesn't know what is going on, they give him the "Life Time Achievement Award". The same thing will happen with Parcells.

 

Uhh... except he won 2 Oscar's with the Giants. Try a different analogy, Sherlock.

[Clubfoothead]

IMHO 2 rings should make it automatic. Less than 2 rings should require some game changing transcendence. I don't like that because the Tuna gets in but so be it.

 

Yes I know that puts Switzer one win over the 49ers from getting in.

[Clubfoothead]

Having said all that, I believe that one thing that can still be said about Bill Parcells is that he is an excellent evaluator of talent (putting aside the fact that he brought in too many old ex-players to Dallas).

 

 

Based on what, $hitty drafting?

[McBoog]

...Coryell didn't even tweak Gillman's offense; that said, he was the last guy who managed to win with the Cards and has 100+ wins. I think he's borderline.

 

 

The whole concept of the modern form of the passing tree, using motion to read the "tells" of the defense (not just to try and confuse the D) and adjustable routs on the fly (after the snap) depending on the D doesn't count then?

 

Gillman was the "father" of the modern passing game with his "integrated" routs and passing schemes that could be adjusted at the LOS depending on the D set. Coryell transformed it into what is being used throughout the League. From this evolved the "West Coast Offense" and the variations of other passing games used by Gibbs, Martz, Turner and Cameron today (as examples).

 

For that alone I think he deserves the Hall.

 

Coryell's biggest deficiency was his inability to integrate a defensive scheme and an offensive scheme into an overall gameplan. The disjointed coordination between the two often lead to exhausted D units that created shootouts or just got plain run over. The Charger Defenses of that era were designed as pass rushing/defense teams. They expected to get up early and then force you into keep up in the passing game.

 

Like the Colts (I see remarkable similarities between the two teams) of today, Air Coryell could be grounded by a physical team with a solid running game. If you could keep it close, keep the ball away and frustrate them, they could be had, as was exhibited often by the Raiders during the Coryell/Fouts era. What is ironic is that the modern version of the Chargers is exactly the kind of team that could have beaten the Coryell Chargers regularly just as the Raiders were always a pain in the ass in the past (and don't forget the Orange Crush and their running game as well ). The "formula" to give the Colts problems was in essence "uncovered" the past two seasons when the Bolts played the Colts.

 

I agree that it should be the entire body of work, and some of these posts have led me to think twice. After all, Gibbs is HOF and has not produced at the end of his career either.