Jump to content

NFL Thread 12


Rhom

Recommended Posts

Continuing the discussing from the last thread, I'll still take Parcells. He has consistently left every organization he has worked with in better shape than when he got there. The Patriots were a joke when he took over in the late 90's (and still wearing those gawd awful uniforms) and I think he would have won a Super Bowl there had it not been poor timing by running into Favre at the height of his career. The Jets were likewise a moribund franchise prior to his taking the reigns. Enter the Cowboys langoring in the post Johnson/Switzer doldrums... that team is still lightyears better due to his influence.

Belicheck is without a doubt the best coach active in the game today, but he doesn't yet have the program building resume of Parcells. IMHO.

My other curiousity is this newfound obsession with "Explosion Factor" that I keep hearing all the talking heads yammering about. Apparently, there's a book by Bill Walsh that outlines that teams that have 2 or more "Explosion Plays" of 20 or more yards have a higher winning percentage than even teams that win the turnover stat. :dunno: (Or something like that.) What I want to know is where this sudden fascination comes from? If its a Bill Walsh book, its obviously not found in the new release section of your bookstore. So what brought this up all of a sudden and is it really indicative of success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belicheck is without a doubt the best coach active in the game today, but he doesn't yet have the program building resume of Parcells. IMHO.

Nonsense. Parcells never built a dynasty.

ETA: Also, the Pats would have beaten the Packers in that Super Bowl if Parcells had not already taken a job with another football team and did not care. Fuck Parcells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take Belichick as the better head coach. No doubt about that. Parcells has proven to be a VERY good GM. He's done it in multiple locations. But I think Belichick may have passed him there as well with his recent draft class without Pioli.

Stego, Parcells didn't fail in Dallas. 2000-2002 Dallas went 15-33. In 2003 under him they went 10-6 with the great Quincy Carter as QB. He had 2 great draft classes in '03 and '05 that have multiple pro bowlers and 2 HOF players in Ware and Witten. The 13-3 and 11-5 recent division winners were stocked with his players.

His problem as a coach is the game had begun to pass him by. He ran a dinosaur of a 3-4 that Sean Payton destroyed in an epic 40 pt ass whipping. On offense he really did no player shifts or exotic formations so it became predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trebla, you have to understand that unless you win a superbowl you're a complete failure in Stego's eyes. Thus Belichick is a complete failure without Brady (and Vinatieri!), Montana a failure without Walsh, etc.

It makes for some interesting conversations. Ayn Rand would be proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got farther with Grossman.

You say that as if Cutler's career in Chicago is already over.

The Bears are 11-5, NFC North Champs, and earned a #2 playoff in just the first season with Peppers on defense and the Martzfence in place. The defense is aging but still has at least one or two good seasons left, probably more barring catastrophic injury. And the offense is only going to improve once they actually bring in some offensive line help (I'd say "Hello Logan Mankins!" but really, I'd think I'd rather take a top WR free agent and draft linemen).

I realize the consensus storyline for non-Bears fans this season is that they've been lucky and had the breaks and thus only a few of their wins are actually due to the players on the team making plays to win games. The reality is, this is a good team and it's only going to get better.

If the Jets win, can we not mention Brady or Beli until August?

You realize what thread you're in, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trebla, you have to understand that unless you win a superbowl you're a complete failure in Stego's eyes. Thus Belichick is a complete failure without Brady (and Vinatieri!), Montana a failure without Walsh, etc.

You forgot the extra condition: they also must be a Marine or they're a complete failure. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd put it this way, Trisk - if the Packers play to the ability they actually have, they should beat the Falcons. There's a pretty easy blueprint on how to beat the Falcons and the Pack can do that blueprint without too much issue.

But I don't have faith that the Packers will do that. While they're capable of being one of the best offensive and defensive teams out there, they're wildly inconsistent and do too many things to hurt themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had 2 great draft classes in '03 and '05 that have multiple pro bowlers and 2 HOF players in Ware and Witten.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but neither of those players will get a sniff of the HoF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trebla, you have to understand that unless you win a superbowl you're a complete failure in Stego's eyes. Thus Belichick is a complete failure without Brady (and Vinatieri!), Montana a failure without Walsh, etc.

It makes for some interesting conversations. Ayn Rand would be proud.

You're just mad your teams lose. Like last week and tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go you Ravens! Man, these teams fuggin' hate each other, any odds on a fistfight in the second half? Nice drives in each direction.

Nora... wouldn't Ravens-Pats next week be more stressful to the marriage than Bodymore losing today? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...