Is Parcells Worthy of the HOF?

[Bill Swerski]

I said the Redskins had different players. I dont care if the 49ers did, because Parcells didnt coach em. Nor did Gibbs. Yer just proving Walsh is better than Parcells also.

 

Yer getting a little confused. Take some nappy time and check back in later.

 

No, I'd say that you're the one who isn't getting the point. The Foreskins didn't have that much more turnover between their titles than any other team of their era. I clearly showed that in my last post. Since you brought up Parcells, here's another example...

 

'86 Giants starters

QB: Simms

RBs: Morris (mostly)

WRs: Johnson, Robinsin

TEs: Bavaro

OL: Oates, Ard, Godfrey, Benson, Nelson

DL: Burt, Marshall, Martin

LB: LT, Carson, Banks, Reasons

CB: Patterson, Williams

S: Welch, Hill

 

'90 Giants starters

QB: Hostettler

RBs: Anderson, Hampton, Megett

WRs: Baker, Ingram

TE: Bavaro/Cross

OL: Oates, Moore, Elliott, Robers, Riesenberg

DL: Howard, Marshall, Banks

LB: LT, Johnson, Collins, Thompson

CB: Walls, Williams

S: Guyton, Jackson

 

So, outside of Bavaro and Bart Oates, those two Giants offenses were completely different. They stayed a bit more intact defensively (LT, and Carl Banks, but lost HOFer Harry Carson... and I think there were two other low-impact players who carried over). So, the Giants turned over all but FOUR big-impact starters (six total) out of 22 between '86 and '90. What was that you were saying about "different players" again?

 

So, it looks like both Walsh AND Parcells dealt with the same turnover issues that Gibbs did and that Gibbs' teams weren't really that much more different. Nice try.

[skins]

No, I'd say that you're the one who isn't getting the point. The Foreskins didn't have that much more turnover between their titles than any other team of their era. I clearly showed that in my last post. Since you brought up Parcells, here's another example...

 

'86 Giants starters

QB: Simms

RBs: Morris (mostly)

WRs: Johnson, Robinsin

TEs: Bavaro

OL: Oates, Ard, Godfrey, Benson, Nelson

DL: Burt, Marshall, Martin

LB: LT, Carson, Banks, Reasons

CB: Patterson, Williams

S: Welch, Hill

 

'90 Giants starters

QB: Hostettler

RBs: Anderson, Hampton, Megett

WRs: Baker, Ingram

TE: Bavaro/Cross

OL: Oates, Moore, Elliott, Robers, Riesenberg

DL: Howard, Marshall, Banks

LB: LT, Johnson, Collins, Thompson

CB: Walls, Williams

S: Guyton, Jackson

 

So, outside of Bavaro and Bart Oates, those two Giants offenses were completely different. They stayed a bit more intact defensively (LT, and Carl Banks, but lost HOFer Harry Carson... and I think there were two other low-impact players who carried over). So, the Giants turned over all but FOUR big-impact starters (six total) out of 22 between '86 and '90. What was that you were saying about "different players" again?

 

So, it looks like both Walsh AND Parcells dealt with the same turnover issues that Gibbs did and that Gibbs' teams weren't really that much more different. Nice try.

 

 

Except Gibbs went to 4 in 12 years and won 3. So he is better than Parcells. Period.

 

Yer fun to argue with. So far noone has come in here and agreed with you because yer position is doo doo. Keep flogging it, this is quite amusing. Even you said Gibbs was phenomenal and Parcells was just very good. I am glad you agree with me deep in yer precious tender little inner sanctum.

[Bill Swerski]

Except Gibbs went to 4 in 12 years and won 3. So he is better than Parcells. Period.

 

Laughably simplistic analysis. In other words, pretty typical for you.

 

Go ahead and keep ignoring Parcells' three SBs in 11 years and two championships. Be sure to also overlook the fact that Parcells resurrected three franchises from the crapper while Gibbs was at home sitting on his own crapper.

 

Yer fun to argue with. Keep flogging it, this is quite amusing.

 

Well, at least you finally agree that Gibbs' teams weren't any "different" between championships than anybody else's.

 

So far noone has come in here and agreed with you because yer position is doo doo.

 

Perhaps you missed Nick's post about Parcells taking over a 2-14 Patriots team, bringing them back to the playoffs two years later (first time in eight years), and then taking them to the SB the following season?

[skins]

Laughably simplistic analysis. In other words, pretty typical for you.

 

Go ahead and keep ignoring Parcells' three SBs in 11 years and two championships. Be sure to also overlook the fact that Parcells resurrected three franchises from the crapper while Gibbs was at home sitting on his own crapper.

Well, at least you finally agree that Gibbs' teams weren't any "different" between championships than anybody else's.

Perhaps you missed Nick's post about Parcells taking over a 2-14 Patriots team, bringing them back to the playoffs two years later (first time in eight years), and then taking them to the SB the following season?

 

 

I agree, Parcells could take over teams and eventually get them into the playoffs and very good.

 

Except for Dallas.

 

Thats why he belongs in the HOF. And because he won 2 SB's.

 

But he is not as good a coach as Gibbs and never will be. His winning percentages are far lower. His playoff performances were worse. His overall coaching performance was worse by every measure.

 

Oh wait, I forgot, Parcells coached more than one team and got them good eventually. So he's got that going for him.

[Bill Swerski]

I agree, Parcells could take over teams and eventually get them into the playoffs and very good.

 

Except for Dallas.

 

Thats why he belongs in the HOF. And because he won 2 SB's.

 

But he is not as good a coach as Gibbs and never will be.

 

Gibbs was unquestionably a better coach than Parcells during their respective tenures with Redskins and Giants (124-60 (67%) and three rings vs. 77-49 (61%) and two rings). But Gibbs decided to quit and rest on his laurels. Meanwhile, Parcells had the balls to move away from his first team, went into some VERY bad situations (NE and NYJ), and was relatively successful. You don't become a better coach than somebody else by quitting your job while you're slightly ahead and watching the other guy have success elsewhere.

[skins]

Gibbs was unquestionably a better coach than Parcells during their respective tenures with Redskins and Giants (124-60 (67%) and three rings vs. 77-49 (61%) and two rings). But Gibbs decided to quit and rest on his laurels. Meanwhile, Parcells had the balls to move away from his first team, went into some VERY bad situations (NE and NYJ), and was relatively successful. You don't become a better coach than somebody else by quitting your job while you're slightly ahead and watching the other guy have success elsewhere.

 

 

That would make sense, except that Gibbs didnt need to become a better coach than Parcells (edited for clarity). He already was a better coach than Parcells and always will be.

 

Cute try, though.

Edited February 2, 2007 by skins

[Bill Swerski]

That would make sense, except that Gibbs didnt need to become a better coach than Gibbs .

 

 

It's unfortunate that Gibbs was too afraid to leave his comfort zone. Perhaps he was afraid of a Seifert-like career outside of Washington.

[skins]

 

It's unfortunate that Gibbs was too afraid to leave his comfort zone. Perhaps he was afraid of a Seifert-like career outside of Washington.

 

 

Or a Parcells-like career of solid but unspectacular coaching.

[Bill Swerski]

Or a Parcells-like career of solid but unspectacular coaching.

 

There's no shame in solid coaching, especially after winning two rings. It's certainly more "spectacular" than playing golf.

[Bier Meister]

There's no shame in solid coaching, especially after winning two rings. It's certainly more "spectacular" than playing golf.

 

 

didn't gibbs get involved with professional racing?

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

No, I'd say that you're the one who isn't getting the point. The Foreskins didn't have that much more turnover between their titles than any other team of their era. I clearly showed that in my last post. Since you brought up Parcells, here's another example...

 

'86 Giants starters

QB: Simms

RBs: Morris (mostly)

WRs: Johnson, Robinsin

TEs: Bavaro

OL: Oates, Ard, Godfrey, Benson, Nelson

DL: Burt, Marshall, Martin

LB: LT, Carson, Banks, Reasons

CB: Patterson, Williams

S: Welch, Hill

 

'90 Giants starters

QB: Hostettler

RBs: Anderson, Hampton, Megett

WRs: Baker, Ingram

TE: Bavaro/Cross

OL: Oates, Moore, Elliott, Robers, Riesenberg

DL: Howard, Marshall, Banks

LB: LT, Johnson, Collins, Thompson

CB: Walls, Williams

S: Guyton, Jackson

 

So, outside of Bavaro and Bart Oates, those two Giants offenses were completely different. They stayed a bit more intact defensively (LT, and Carl Banks, but lost HOFer Harry Carson... and I think there were two other low-impact players who carried over). So, the Giants turned over all but FOUR big-impact starters (six total) out of 22 between '86 and '90. What was that you were saying about "different players" again?

 

So, it looks like both Walsh AND Parcells dealt with the same turnover issues that Gibbs did and that Gibbs' teams weren't really that much more different. Nice try.

 

You're referencing one team to one other team. Yes, the 81 49ers were a different team from the other three. But look at the turnover in the last two 49er teams and tell me there was tons of turnover. Walsh took two teams the the Super bowl, the 81 49ers, and the other two, which had minimal turnover, and what there was were replaced with other great players. Young wasn't a starter on the 2nd team, but was on the 3rd. Oooo, replaced Montana with Young. one HOFer with another.

 

Bill, you just need a life. You'd sit home arguing with yourself if it wasn't for this board. I could tell you it's cold outside in New England right now, and you'd tell me it was colder in the midwest, just to start an argument.

 

Look outside the sky's blue!! Well, blue until Bill tells me otherwise...

Edited February 2, 2007 by Bring Back Pat!!!

[Azazello1313]

a skins vs. swerski vortex, this could be The Retarded Argument that Never Ends.

 

i think it may be somewhat silly to argue that one guy is a better coach than another when you're talking about two sure HOF coaches. but i think you'd have to say gibbs' resume is slightly more impressive than parcells', even though as swerski points out parcells has a few points in his favor that gibbs doesn't.

 

a couple other random points:

- you could argue that parcells' relatively short stints, coaching 4 different teams, argues against his greatness as a coach. having a guy blow into and out of town in the course of a few years doesn't exactly bring about the kind of prolonged excellence that we associate with great coaches.

- if i had to pick one of the two right now, in 2007, to coach my team i am pretty sure i would choose parcells. to me, he seems more on top of the game than gibbs does.

[Bill Swerski]

You're referencing one team to one other team. Yes, the 81 49ers were a different team from the other three. But look at the turnover in the last two 49er teams and tell me there was tons of turnover.

 

I didn't argue that there was or wasn't significant turnover between Seifert's '89 and '94 49ers teams. Or are you referring to the '84 and '88 49ers? I can't really tell what you're talking about. But I can tell you that there were basically three different "sets" of 49ers teams ('81/'84, '84/'88/'89, and '94) that won 5 Super Bowls. And I can also tell you that Walsh definitely did NOT win three SBs with the same "dynasty team," as you incorrectly asserted yesterday.

 

Walsh took two teams the the Super bowl, the 81 49ers, and the other two, which had minimal turnover,

 

Yep, and there was significant turnover beween the '81 and '88 teams. Just as there was significant turnover between Gibbs' championship teams and Parcells' championship teams. In other words, none of these three coaches won all of their SBs with one "dynasty team."

 

and what there was were replaced with other great players. Young wasn't a starter on the 2nd team, but was on the 3rd.

 

Um, Young wasn't a starter on their 3rd SB team. He wasn't even a starter on their 4th SB team.

 

I find it odd that Walsh was able to replace all but FOUR of his starters from the 1981 team with enough "great players" to win a third SB just six years later and lay the foundation for two more titles after he left. Don't you find it strange that he was able to pick up ALL of that talent, while other GMs completely missed it? The truth is that Walsh didn't replace his all of his talent with "great players." He DEVELOPED players (some, like Steve Young, were cast-offs) and MADE them great. And that's what made him a great coach.

 

Oooo, replaced Montana with Young. one HOFer with another.

 

Did it ever occur to you that HOFers don't just drop out of the sky? Did it ever occur to you that Walsh may have had A LOT to do with Steve Young's development? I mean, how good of a QB was Young in Tampa Bay? Wasn't he given the boot after a couple of seasons and labeled a "bust"? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Walsh also had a lot to do with the development of Jerry Rice?

 

Bill, you just need a life. You'd sit home arguing with yourself if it wasn't for this board. I could tell you it's cold outside in New England right now, and you'd tell me it was colder in the midwest, just to start an argument.

 

Pat, you need to do some research before you formulate an argument. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but your original point was just flat-out wrong. Oh, and condesceinding "you need a life" comments don't help support your argument, either.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

I didn't argue that there was or wasn't significant turnover between Seifert's '89 and '94 49ers teams. Or are you referring to the '84 and '88 49ers? I can't really tell what you're talking about. But I can tell you that there were basically three different "sets" of 49ers teams ('81/'84, '84/'88/'89, and '94) that won 5 Super Bowls. And I can also tell you that Walsh definitely did NOT win three SBs with the same "dynasty team," as you incorrectly asserted yesterday.

Yep, and there was significant turnover beween the '81 and '88 teams. Just as there was significant turnover between Gibbs' championship teams and Parcells' championship teams. In other words, none of these three coaches won all of their SBs with one "dynasty team."

 

 

 

Um, Young wasn't a starter on their 3rd SB team. He wasn't even a starter on their 4th SB team.

 

I find it odd that Walsh was able to replace all but FOUR of his starters from the 1981 team with enough "great players" to win a third SB just six years later and lay the foundation for two more titles after he left. Don't you find it strange that he was able to pick up ALL of that talent, while other GMs completely missed it? The truth is that Walsh didn't replace his all of his talent with "great players." He DEVELOPED players (some, like Steve Young, were cast-offs) and MADE them great. And that's what made him a great coach.

Did it ever occur to you that HOFers don't just drop out of the sky? Did it ever occur to you that Walsh may have had A LOT to do with Steve Young's development? I mean, how good of a QB was Young in Tampa Bay? Wasn't he given the boot after a couple of seasons and labeled a "bust"? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Walsh also had a lot to do with the development of Jerry Rice?

Pat, you need to do some research before you formulate an argument. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but your original point was just flat-out wrong. Oh, and condesceinding "you need a life" comments don't help support your argument, either.

 

 

I stand by my original FACT: Gibbs is the only head coach to win a SB with three different QBs. You can say that Parcells came close, but he didn't do it. That is a FACT.

 

And I just call em like I see em. I see in what seems like every other thread on here, you disagreeing with almost every other person in the thread. And I feel you state your opinion first, and then try to back it up with facts later. And even when presented with many facts that contradict your opinion, you continue to stand by your original view. Just my opinion and observation from many many thread readings. And I'm sure I'm not alone...

Edited February 2, 2007 by Bring Back Pat!!!

[Bill Swerski]

I stand by my original FACT: Gibbs is the only head coach to win a SB with three different QBs. You can say that Parcells came close, but he didn't do it. That is a FACT.

 

That's nice, but I never said that he didn't.

 

And I just call em like I see em. I see in what seems like every other thread on here, you disagreeing with almost every other person in the thread.

 

Yep, EVERYBODY disagrees with EVERYTHING I say in EVERY thread. Nice analysis.

[skins]

I win.

 

Swerski loses.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

I said that they were able to hold onto KEY players, moran. Like Darrell Green, Joe Jacoby, Jeff Bostic, Art Monk, Dexter Manley, Dave Butz, etc. Those were all high-quality players who, IIRC, each played on at least two of those championship teams.

 

But if you want to think that there was no turnover in the 49ers from '81-'89, go right ahead.

 

 

Saying that they started on at least two teams doesn't really mean that much. The first two winning years were five years apart and the third was four years after that. I'm sure lots of players have five year or longer careers.

 

But consider this: Besides the fact that there were three different QBs on the Skins three championships, these offensive positions also had three different starters or sets of starters:

 

RB- John Riggins, Timmy Smith, Ernest Byner

WR- Charlie Brown & Alvin Garrett, Gary Clark & Ricky Sanders, Gary Clark & Art Monk

 

Besides the player turnover, the three different Redskins teams went about things differently. The 1982 was lead by the D, who was ranked #1 in the league in points allowed. The offense was slightly better than middle of the road, ranked 12th in points scored (of 28). The 1987 team was more balanced. They ranked 5th in points scored and 6th in points allowed. And the 1991 team was a juggernaut that lead the league in scoring offense, and was 2nd in points allowed. A dominant team that went 14-2.

 

The teams won their Super Bowls differently as well. In 1983 the Skins gained 400 yards in the Super Bowl, 276 on the ground. In 1988 they gained 602 yards, and were much more balanced, 322 passing and 280 rushing. In 1992 they went the other way, gaining 417 yards, 292 through the air and 125 on the ground. Some of the players may have remained from one team to another, but the TEAM changed every chamionship year. How they played, as well as how well they played. If these aren't three different teams, I don't know what is.

[Bill Swerski]

Saying that they started on at least two teams doesn't really mean that much. The first two winning years were five years apart and the third was four years after that. I'm sure lots of players have five year or longer careers.

 

But consider this: Besides the fact that there were three different QBs on the Skins three championships, these offensive positions also had three different starters or sets of starters:

 

RB- John Riggins, Timmy Smith, Ernest Byner

WR- Charlie Brown & Alvin Garrett, Gary Clark & Ricky Sanders, Gary Clark & Art Monk

 

Besides the player turnover, the three different Redskins teams went about things differently. The 1982 was lead by the D, who was ranked #1 in the league in points allowed. The offense was slightly better than middle of the road, ranked 12th in points scored (of 28). The 1987 team was more balanced. They ranked 5th in points scored and 6th in points allowed. And the 1991 team was a juggernaut that lead the league in scoring offense, and was 2nd in points allowed. A dominant team that went 14-2.

 

The teams won their Super Bowls differently as well. In 1983 the Skins gained 400 yards in the Super Bowl, 276 on the ground. In 1988 they gained 602 yards, and were much more balanced, 322 passing and 280 rushing. In 1992 they went the other way, gaining 417 yards, 292 through the air and 125 on the ground. Some of the players may have remained from one team to another, but the TEAM changed every chamionship year. How they played, as well as how well they played. If these aren't three different teams, I don't know what is.

 

 

Well, that's nice, but I was disagreeing with that. My point was that many of the Walsh/Seifert's 49ers teams were very different and that Parcells' Giants teams were very different as well.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Well, that's nice, but I was disagreeing with that. My point was that many of the Walsh/Seifert's 49ers teams were very different and that Parcells' Giants teams were very different as well.

 

 

So Walsh also gets credit for Seifert's wins? This started as a debate between Gibbs and Parcells, and in turn the teams those guys won championships with, which lead to comparing Walsh's teams as well. Now Walsh gets credit for Seifert's wins?? Interesting.

 

Oh, and great evidence to back up that 'point' You say so, so it must be true.

 

Oh, and clearly other people feel the same way I do:

 

Pope Flick Today, 4:49 PM

 

"I find it amusing that the most argumentative guy in this forum is named after a Bears fan while sporting a Peyton Manning avatar.

 

I mean, no wonder you argue so much. How often does it happen in an empty room? "

[Bill Swerski]

So Walsh also gets credit for Seifert's wins? This started as a debate between Gibbs and Parcells, and in turn the teams those guys won championships with, which lead to comparing Walsh's teams as well. Now Walsh gets credit for Seifert's wins?? Interesting.

 

Oh, and great evidence to back up that 'point' You say so, so it must be true.

 

Given Siefert's abysmal record in Carolina and Walsh's design of the system and development of the players, I'd say that he deserves at least SOME credit. But I don't recall saying that Walsh deserved ALL of the credit or even a large fraction of it.

 

Oh, and clearly other people feel the same way I do:

 

Pope Flick Today, 4:49 PM

 

"I find it amusing that the most argumentative guy in this forum is named after a Bears fan while sporting a Peyton Manning avatar.

 

I mean, no wonder you argue so much. How often does it happen in an empty room? "

 

 

So, now you want to argue with me about being "argumentative"? It seems that you've graduated from presenting weak arguments to hypocricy.

 

Given that I've already proven my point, I don't really have much else to say to you. Unless of course, you want to continue to argue moot points and spend more time accusing me of being "argumentative."

Edited February 3, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Given Siefert's abysmal record in Carolina and Walsh's design of the system and development of the players, I'd say that he deserves at least SOME credit. But I don't recall saying that Walsh deserved ALL of the credit or even a large fraction of it.

So, now you want to argue with me about being "argumentative"? It seems that you've graduated from presenting weak arguments to hypocricy.

 

Given that I've already proven my point, I don't really have much else to say to you. Unless of course, you want to continue to argue moot points and spend more time accusing me of being "argumentative."

 

 

Considering it was found in the very next thread I opened, it was hilarious to me, and also was evidence to prove my point.

[Chavez]

Parcells won SBs with mediocre QBs like Phil Simms and Jeff Hostettler... and got to another one with Bledsoe. What's your point?

I'd hardly call Phil Simms "mediocre" - Hoss and Bledsoe, go right ahead.

You're making too much of QBs here. Terry Bradshaw was a mediocre system player, and it's not like Noll leaned on him heavily for those chamionships. IMO, they would've been in more trouble without Swann or Stallworth.

 

I'm thinking less Swann and Stallworth and more Franco and their D.

 

That is all, carry on.....