TL1961
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 24, 2013
- Posts:
- 34,865
- Liked Posts:
- 19,021
What do the following men have in common?
Vince Lombardi
Chuck Noll
John Madden
Bill Walsh
Hank Stram
Don Shula
Bill Belichik
Jimmy Johnson
"They all won Super Bowls?" Well, yes, that is correct.
Also - Not ONE of them ever won a single Super Bowl without a HOF QB.
And not one of them was ever an All Pro NFL player.
So, let's just accept the fact that coaches can be great and still need the talent on the field to be successful. The argument of "he only won because of X player" is pointless.
And let's dismiss the idea that they need to be great players themselves to get respect. The coaches on this list are among the most highly respected in the history of the game.
I am not delusional enough to think any NFL team will hire a coach who will be successful without great players. But I am not going to look at it as a criticism that they succeeded with great players.
It's no guarantee that an assistant coach who is coaching a great player today will be a great HC. But we need to give the coaches credit where it is due.
Switching sports it goes back to knuckleheads trying to dismiss Phil Jackson's coaching (I am looking directly at you Red Auerbach!) by saying "he had Michael and Scottie" and "he had Shaq and Kobe". In each case, he won multiple titles, and in each case his predecessor also had those players and won none. And, no, he wasn't going to win a title with a crappy roster.
The coach will need to have great players, but not every coach wins with them. Don't dismiss guys having success because of their personnel. See how they use that personnel in ways others might not.
Vince Lombardi
Chuck Noll
John Madden
Bill Walsh
Hank Stram
Don Shula
Bill Belichik
Jimmy Johnson
"They all won Super Bowls?" Well, yes, that is correct.
Also - Not ONE of them ever won a single Super Bowl without a HOF QB.
And not one of them was ever an All Pro NFL player.
So, let's just accept the fact that coaches can be great and still need the talent on the field to be successful. The argument of "he only won because of X player" is pointless.
And let's dismiss the idea that they need to be great players themselves to get respect. The coaches on this list are among the most highly respected in the history of the game.
I am not delusional enough to think any NFL team will hire a coach who will be successful without great players. But I am not going to look at it as a criticism that they succeeded with great players.
It's no guarantee that an assistant coach who is coaching a great player today will be a great HC. But we need to give the coaches credit where it is due.
Switching sports it goes back to knuckleheads trying to dismiss Phil Jackson's coaching (I am looking directly at you Red Auerbach!) by saying "he had Michael and Scottie" and "he had Shaq and Kobe". In each case, he won multiple titles, and in each case his predecessor also had those players and won none. And, no, he wasn't going to win a title with a crappy roster.
The coach will need to have great players, but not every coach wins with them. Don't dismiss guys having success because of their personnel. See how they use that personnel in ways others might not.
Last edited: