Is Parcells Worthy of the HOF?

[charty]

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.

 

 

Here are the numbers, on Bill Parcells W/L record:

 

With Belichick as Def Coord/Assist Head Coach (1985-1990, 1996-1999)

Reg Season

105-54

Playoffs

10-4 (2-1 in Superbowls)

 

Without Belichick as Def Coord/Assist Head Coach (1983-1984, 1993-1995, 2003-2006)

Reg Season

67-76-1

Playoffs

1-4

 

Take it a step further, could it be a more than a coincidence that Parcells steps down from the Giants at the end of 1990, which is the same time he loses Belichick to the Browns?

And while Parcells is "turning around the Patriots" his first three years there (1993-95) he goes 21-27 (0-1 playoffs). Over the same stretch, Belichick, who was "awful" in Cleveland goes 23-25 (1-1) in the playoffs for a deadbeat owner. It wasn't until Belichick joined Parcells in NE in 1996 that NE smells real success (11-5 and a run to the Super Bowl).

Edited January 30, 2007 by charty

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

Take it a step further, could it be a more than a coincidence that Parcells steps down from the Giants at the end of 1990, which is the same time he loses Belichick to the Browns?

And while Parcells is "turning around the Patriots" his first three years there (1993-95) he goes 21-27 (0-1 playoffs). Over the same stretch, Belichick, who was "awful" in Cleveland goes 23-25 (1-1) in the playoffs for a deadbeat owner. It wasn't until Belichick joined Parcells in NE in 1996 that NE smells real success (11-5 and a run to the Super Bowl).

 

Belichick's coaching record, including Clevland, when he did not have Crennel or Weis on his staff is 58-54, 0 Super Bowl appearances.

 

Parcell's record when he did not have Belichick on his staff is 55-57, 0 Super Bowl appearances.

 

Patriots "smelled success" in Parcell's 2nd season in 94, at 10-6 and a Wild Card berth. Prior to Parcell's arrival, they had not had a winning season since 88 at 9-7.

 

Belichick's Browns were 9-6-1 two years before taking over, and in the playoffs the year before that and AFC Championship game the year before that. He hardly took over an "awful" team.

[Kansas State 2000]

WHAT??? is Belichick's coaching record without Bill Parcells or Tom Brady????

[charty]

WHAT??? is Belichick's coaching record without Bill Parcells or Tom Brady????

 

 

This isn't about if Belichick is Hall of Fame material, the question is for the man that "retired", Parcells.

The story linked here from the SD Union Tribune simply states that without Belichick, Parcells is pretty mediocre. All I did was take it a step further and provide the numbers, take them how you will.

 

Seeing that Belichick's head coaching career is entirely without Parcells, I'd say he is pretty successfull, including a 13-3 playoff mark.

And it's funny that 5 years ago people were saying without Belichick and his "system", Brady would be nothing, now it's "without Brady, Belichick would be nothing".

[Azazello1313]

This isn't about if Belichick is Hall of Fame material, the question is for the man that "retired", Parcells.

The story linked here from the SD Union Tribune simply states that without Belichick, Parcells is pretty mediocre. All I did was take it a step further and provide the numbers, take them how you will.

 

that is a ridiculous argument. this "with or without you" nonsense entirely misses the real point. even if belichick was the greatest assistant coach ever, his role on those giants teams pales in comparison to that of the head man. they were parcells' teams, he was the captain of the ship, there is absolutely no doubt who was in charge.

 

also, i'm curious why the reverse of this argument never seems to come up...like, maybe some of the credit for belichick's quality of a coach ought to go to his mentor.

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

This isn't about if Belichick is Hall of Fame material, the question is for the man that "retired", Parcells.

The story linked here from the SD Union Tribune simply states that without Belichick, Parcells is pretty mediocre. All I did was take it a step further and provide the numbers, take them how you will.

 

Seeing that Belichick's head coaching career is entirely without Parcells, I'd say he is pretty successfull, including a 13-3 playoff mark.

 

And I counter the rediculousness of that statement with Belichicks record without 2 key assistants from his staff. Without them, he is has been as mediocre as Parcells.

 

And I'm not saying that to say Belichick's is a bad coach, just the opposite. He is great, and his assistants being on the staff did not make his teams great nor did the lack of them make his teams mediocre. Same with Parcells.

 

I've just provided the numbers to point that out, take them how you will.

[Muggsy]

if Gibbs belongs in then so does Parcells

[charty]

And I counter the rediculousness of that statement with Belichicks record without 2 key assistants from his staff. Without them, he is has been as mediocre as Parcells.

 

 

Since they've left, Bellichick is 22-10 without is 2 key assistants, plus 3-2 in the playoffs.

Those 3 playoff wins across just 2 years is 2 more than Parcells career playoff victory total without Bellichick.

Vatican, as each year passes since the departure of Crennell and Weis, and the Pats continue to be successful, your argument becomes weaker and weaker.

Edited January 31, 2007 by charty

[skins]

if Gibbs belongs in then so does Parcells

 

 

Parcells and Coryell belong in but the above statement is off point.

 

In his first 12 season as a HC, not including his current run, Gibbs went to 4 Super Bowls and won 3. His win-loss record was amazing during that 12 season stretch (124-60 in regular season, 16-5 post season), easily surpassing Parcell's comparable numbers for his first 12 seasons (109-81-1 regular season, 10-5 post season). That first 12 year run alone cemented Gibbs for the HOF. Parcells is still under consideration by some (not me, I think he gets in).

 

Even if you look at total career, Gibbs numbers blow Parcells away: 145-87 regular season, 17-6 post season versus 172-130-1 regular season, 11-8 post season for Parcells.

 

Gibbs is a much better coach than Parcells, although Parcells is a very very good coach. Gibbs is one of the best of all time.

[Muggsy]

Gibbs is one of the best of all time.

 

 

and he's doing a great job of showing it right now

[skins]

and he's doing a great job of showing it right now

 

Like I said, he is one of the greatest coaches of all time. Whatever happens in the next couple years wont change that. It also wont change the fact that yer an idiot.

[Bill Swerski]

Like I said, he is one of the greatest coaches of all time. Whatever happens in the next couple years wont change that. It also wont change the fact that yer an idiot.

 

 

No, I think that you're the idiot. Gibbs was a great coach, but could only win with one organization. Parcells, on the other hand, had winning seasons and conference championships on teams other than the Giants.

[skins]

No, I think that you're the idiot. Gibbs was a great coach, but could only win with one organization. Parcells, on the other hand, had winning seasons and conference championships on teams other than the Giants.

 

 

You calling anyone an idiot is hilarious. Are you saying Parcells was a better or equal coach to Gibbs?

 

Gibbs "could" only win with one organization? Who knows?

 

He had one of the greatest runs in NFL history with the Redskins, retired as a Redskin, and was an automatic to the HOF. That means more to me than Parcells bouncing around from team to team and doing a standup job with each one. Parcells did a very good job everywhere he went. He never did an alltime great job.

 

Gibbs did. You lose.

[Bill Swerski]

You calling anyone an idiot is hilarious. Are you saying Parcells was a better or equal coach to Gibbs?

 

No, I believe it was your stupid ass who was claiming the opposite.

 

Gibbs "could" only win with one organization? Who knows?

 

Everyone knows. He's failing miserably in his second attempt at glory on a much different team run by a different person.

 

He had one of the greatest runs in NFL history with the Redskins, retired as a Redskin, and was an automatic to the HOF. That means more to me than Parcells bouncing around from team to team and doing a standup job with each one. Parcells did a very good job everywhere he went. He never did an alltime great job.

 

Gibbs did. You lose.

 

 

Yep, Parcells only won two SBs (compared to Gibbs' three), but also took another team from the dumps to the Super Bowl and two others from the dumps to the playoffs. So how does that make Gibbs a much better coach?

[skins]

No, I believe it was your stupid ass who was claiming the opposite.

Everyone knows. He's failing miserably in his second attempt at glory on a much different team run by a different person.

Yep, Parcells only won two SBs (compared to Gibbs' three), but also took another team from the dumps to the Super Bowl and two others from the dumps to the playoffs. So how does that make Gibbs a much better coach?

 

 

So yer claiming Parcells is as good or better a coach as Gibbs.......why again? Cause he coached a bunch of teams well?

 

Gibbs is a better coach because what he did in his first 12 years is almost unmatched by any coach in NFL history. And he took the current Redskins to the second round of the playoffs last year, so his return is not a complete failure.

 

Has Parcells had as good a year with Dallas as Gibbs did with the Redskins last year?

[Pope Flick]

| 1981 was | 8 8 0 | 0 0 |

| 1982 was | 8 1 0 | 4 0 |

| 1983 was | 14 2 0 | 2 1 |

| 1984 was | 11 5 0 | 0 1 |

| 1985 was | 10 6 0 | 0 0 |

| 1986 was | 12 4 0 | 2 1 |

| 1987 was | 11 4 0 | 3 0 |

| 1988 was | 7 9 0 | 0 0 |

| 1989 was | 10 6 0 | 0 0 |

| 1990 was | 10 6 0 | 1 1 |

| 1991 was | 14 2 0 | 3 0 |

| 1992 was | 9 7 0 | 1 1 |

 

| 2004 was | 6 10 0 | 0 0 |

| 2005 was | 10 6 0 | 1 1 |

| 2006 was | 5 11 0 | 0 0 |

+----------+--------------+----------+

| TOTALS | 145 87 0 | 17 6 |

 

Gibbs' first run as a Skin. 3 Titles in 11 seasons along with a 16-5 postseason record (more wins in that time than Parcells has AS OF TODAY) before he comes back to work for Snyder. That's an easy vote. Easier than parcells' record. If you cannot admit that, you're being intentionally obtuse.

 

 

 

| 1983 nyg | 3 12 1 | 0 0 |

| 1984 nyg | 9 7 0 | 1 1 |

| 1985 nyg | 10 6 0 | 1 1 |

| 1986 nyg | 14 2 0 | 3 0 |

| 1987 nyg | 6 9 0 | 0 0 |

| 1988 nyg | 10 6 0 | 0 0 |

| 1989 nyg | 12 4 0 | 0 1 |

| 1990 nyg | 13 3 0 | 3 0 |

| 1993 nwe | 5 11 0 | 0 0 |

| 1994 nwe | 10 6 0 | 0 1 |

| 1995 nwe | 6 10 0 | 0 0 |

| 1996 nwe | 11 5 0 | 2 1 |

| 1997 nyj | 9 7 0 | 0 0 |

| 1998 nyj | 12 4 0 | 1 1 |

| 1999 nyj | 8 8 0 | 0 0 |

| 2003 dal | 10 6 0 | 0 1 |

| 2004 dal | 6 10 0 | 0 0 |

| 2005 dal | 9 7 0 | 0 0 |

| 2006 dal | 9 7 0 | 0 1 |

+----------+--------------+----------+

| TOTALS | 172 130 1 | 11 8 |

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

Since they've left, Bellichick is 22-10 without is 2 key assistants, plus 3-2 in the playoffs.

Those 3 playoff wins across just 2 years is 2 more than Parcells career playoff victory total without Bellichick.

Vatican, as each year passes since the departure of Crennell and Weis, and the Pats continue to be successful, your argument becomes weaker and weaker.

 

My argument stands as strong as it was before, unless you continue to choose not to accept the Clevland years.

 

He was 36-44 after taking over a team in Cleveland that was only 2 seasons removed from the playoffs and 3 from the AFC Championship game. He didn't have Crenel or Weis then and he flopped.

Edited January 31, 2007 by The Vatican Hitsquad

[Chavez]

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 was a brilliant offensive mind, I don't think anyone is denying that, and he MODIFIED the basic concepts of Gillman, but didn't really innovate himself.

 

Not that innovation necessarily gets you anywhere - Mouse Davis was brilliant with run-and-shoot principles but will never get a sniff of the Hall.

 

But anyway, coaches, rightly or wrongly, are judged by titles. I can't put Coryell in the queue ahead of Dan Reeves - who contributed to 2 SB teams (winning in '71) over an 8 year playing career, 3 more as an assistant coach (winning in '77 as OC), and 4 more as head coach, retiring with 201 wins and an 11-9 playoff record.

[Bill Swerski]

So yer claiming Parcells is as good or better a coach as Gibbs.......why again? Cause he coached a bunch of teams well?

 

Yep, and also because he won two Super Bowls with the Giants. Parcells has two titles and has taken FOUR franchises from the gutter to the playoffs (two to the SB). I'd say that puts him at least on the same level as Gibbs, who hung it up prematurely and is looking lost and confused on the sidelines these days.

 

Gibbs is a better coach because what he did in his first 12 years is almost unmatched by any coach in NFL history.

 

Yep, Gibbs won a lot of games, but his three championships don't compare to what Bill Walsh and Chuck Noll did. And when one considers that the vast majority of Gibbs' success came in the pre-salary cap/pre-free agency era, I'd say that Belichick has also been more successful than him.

 

Gibbs was a fantastic HOF coach in his prime, but it's foolish to declare that he's "better" than Parcells.

 

And he took the current Redskins to the second round of the playoffs last year, so his return is not a complete failure.

 

Yeah, that NFC sure was tough last year.

 

You're right, Gibbs' return has only been MOSTLY a failure.

 

Has Parcells had as good a year with Dallas as Gibbs did with the Redskins last year?

 

By my count, Parcells took the Cowboys to the playoffs twice in four years, while Gibbs did it once in three during his second run with Redskins. And by my count, Parcells ALSO won the AFC with the Pats and took the Jets to the playoffs... both in the past decade and both in the salary cap/free agent era.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[forever in debt to mo lewis]

Since they've left, Bellichick is 22-10 without is 2 key assistants, plus 3-2 in the playoffs.

Those 3 playoff wins across just 2 years is 2 more than Parcells career playoff victory total without Bellichick.

Vatican, as each year passes since the departure of Crennell and Weis, and the Pats continue to be successful, your argument becomes weaker and weaker.

 

 

yeah last time i checked bill had another assistant wisked away to a head coach position last year...what was his name? i think he inherited a team with pretty low expectations and took them to the playoffs...his name escapes me at the moment

[The Vatican Hitsquad]

yeah last time i checked bill had another assistant wisked away to a head coach position last year...what was his name? i think he inherited a team with pretty low expectations and took them to the playoffs...his name escapes me at the moment

 

Parcells teaches them well before pushing the birds from the nest

[Pope Flick]

By my count, Parcells took the Cowboys to the playoffs twice in four years, while Gibbs did it once in three during his second run with Redskins. And by my count, Parcells ALSO won the AFC with the Pats and took the Jets to the playoffs... both in the past decade and both in the salary cap/free agent era.

 

 

 

By my count Bill has coached 5 more years than Gibbs and has one more playoff appearance than Gibbs to show for it. Meaning they were tied before this year.

[Retrograde assault]

Gibbs is in and Parcells will probably get in. The amazing thing to me about Gibbs is he has won championships in two sports, football and racing and will probably end up in the hall of fame in both.

[skins]

Yep, and also because he won two Super Bowls with the Giants. Parcells has two titles and has taken FOUR franchises from the gutter to the playoffs (two to the SB). I'd say that puts him at least on the same level as Gibbs, who hung it up prematurely and is looking lost and confused on the sidelines these days.

Yep, Gibbs won a lot of games, but his three championships don't compare to what Bill Walsh and Chuck Noll did. And when one considers that the vast majority of Gibbs' success came in the pre-salary cap/pre-free agency era, I'd say that Belichick has also been more successful than him.

 

Gibbs was a fantastic HOF coach in his prime, but it's foolish to declare that he's "better" than Parcells.

Yeah, that NFC sure was tough last year.

 

You're right, Gibbs' return has only been MOSTLY a failure.

By my count, Parcells took the Cowboys to the playoffs twice in four years, while Gibbs did it once in three during his second run with Redskins. And by my count, Parcells ALSO won the AFC with the Pats and took the Jets to the playoffs... both in the past decade and both in the salary cap/free agent era.

 

 

Heres the problem: Parcells belongs in the HOF in my opinion, because he was a great coach who did a lot of things very well as you point out. But the initial comment I was responding to equated him to Gibbs. Gibbs is a better coach than Parcells by every statistical measure except one which you keep harping on--Parcells was successful at multiple teams. While significant, that doesnt mean much to me when looking at overall achievment and unprecedented success. Gibbs had an almost unprecedented first run in the NFL and Parcells has had a longer very good career at multiple teams. He belongs in the HOF, but he never achieved the stunning success Gibbs did in his first run. Look at Gibbs percentages of post season wins, overall wins, and Super Bowl wins and appearances in that first run and it is staggering.

 

Nothing Parcells has done is staggering. Just very very good with multiple teams over a long period of time. Longevity and adaptibility are great assets and make for a great coach, but they dont compare to what Gibbs accomplished.

 

I think only 1 or 2 coaches compare statistically to what Gibbs did during that stretch, if that. If he hadnt returned to coaching, I think it would go down as the greatest statistical stretch of coaching in the modern era. now we have to factor in his current term into his overall stats.

[Pope Flick]

 

I think only 1 or 2 coaches compare statistically to what Gibbs did during that stretch, if that. If he hadnt returned to coaching, I think it would go down as the greatest statistical stretch of coaching in the modern era. now we have to factor in his current term into his overall stats.

 

 

I remember back in the early 90's hearing a stat about Ditka, in that he was one of a handful of coaches who won 100 games in their first ten seasons. I think that list is confined to Halas, Madden, Ditka and Gibbs but I could be wrong.