WHO IS THE 3rd BEST COACH OF ALL TIME ????

[Bretsky]

Seeing this is my poll.......I get to set the rules/tone :). It goes without saying
in my world that the two best NFL coaches of all time are Vinny Genius and Hoody Genius

Let's only go back to the 60's here. I don't know football remotely well enough to go back before Lombardi........I never witnessed him but he's regarded at a top by all

If you fanatically listen to the NFL Network.....despite the hatred and extreme bias against Hoody Genius (his GM skills have been rightly ripped lately)..he is still considered to top coach in the NFL by the NFL Network analysts and nationwide.

But there has been great debate on who is #3...or even the next Tier of Coaches......

So calling on da Rats for some commentary.

I have #3 in my pocket.....w/o question......but I know once I make my clear cut #3 many flames will be thrown as it will not be a popular selction either.

[Smeefers]

It all depends on what you consider in making a coach great. If it's wins and playoff appearances, I don't know how Don Shula isn't above the #1 and #2. The dude did a ton... with, well, not a helluva lot. No name defense. I have trouble naming 5 of his receivers. Mark Clayton and... err.. um...

[Patler]

It all depends on what you consider in making a coach great. If it's wins and playoff appearances, I don't know how Don Shula isn't above the #1 and #2. The dude did a ton... with, well, not a helluva lot. No name defense. I have trouble naming 5 of his receivers. Mark Clayton and... err.. um...

Well, HOF'er Paul Warfield for half of his career for another.

[Maxie the Taxi]

In the early days I'm thinking Don Shula had the best receiving corps in the league: John Mackey at TE; WR's Jimmy Orr and Raymond Berry, plus Lenny Moore coming out of the backfield....and Unitas passing to all of them. Not too shabby.

[Upnorth]

In no particular order my top five who have coached since 1960 are Lombardi, Gillman, Coryell, Walsh, Gibbs, Shula, oh wait I'm over five and I haven't mentioned schottenhimer (sp?) and belicheat is somewhere. Could we expand this to say top ten?

[Patler]

In the early days I'm thinking Don Shula had the best receiving corps in the league: John Mackey at TE; WR's Jimmy Orr and Raymond Berry, plus Lenny Moore coming out of the backfield....and Unitas passing to all of them. Not too shabby.

It is amazing how his time with the Colts is often overlooked.

[pbmax]

Smeefs, it was the Marks Brothers. Duper and Clayton.

If we grant Vince and Bill in some order as 1 and 2, then you have to consider Walsh, Noll, Landry, Shula, Johnson, Gibbs, Levy and Parcells for third.

Jimmy "Life Like Hair" Johnson, even though his long haul output does match Gibbs, Shula or Parcells is one semifinalist. That was a lot of excellence in a short period of time.

Walsh is the other. I might consider Gibbs for fourth as well given he took three very different teams and QBs to the Championship.

I am going Walsh.

[TravisWilliams23]

I often wondered why during Shula's later years his Dophin teams had shit for defense. Once they drafted Marino, it seemed the defense went to hell. Looking up his early career, I found he had Bill Arnsparger at Baltimore then added Chuck Noll in '66 as defensive coordinator until Chuck left for Pitts. When Shula went to Miami, Arnsparger followed. It was Bill who came up with the "53" defense during the early super bowl years and once he left for the Giants gig, Miami's defense was good but not great like they once were. Perhaps when judging these coaches you have to take into account who they had "helping" them along the way. As much praise we all give Lombardi, rightfully so, let's not forget he had Phil Bengston coaching the defense all those years. And those teams always had a great defense.

[King Friday]

Shula >> Hoodie

[pbmax]

I often wondered why during Shula's later years his Dophin teams had shit for defense. Once they drafted Marino, it seemed the defense went to hell. Looking up his early career, I found he had Bill Arnsparger at Baltimore then added Chuck Noll in '66 as defensive coordinator until Chuck left for Pitts. When Shula went to Miami, Arnsparger followed. It was Bill who came up with the "53" defense during the early super bowl years and once he left for the Giants gig, Miami's defense was good but not great like they once were. Perhaps when judging these coaches you have to take into account who they had "helping" them along the way. As much praise we all give Lombardi, rightfully so, let's not forget he had Phil Bengston coaching the defense all those years. And those teams always had a great defense.

Arnsparger's book on defense is considered the classic tome for defensive coaches.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think to be fair we ought to at least mention Pappa Bear George Halas in the top three.

[Bretsky]

In no particular order my top five who have coached since 1960 are Lombardi, Gillman, Coryell, Walsh, Gibbs, Shula, oh wait I'm over five and I haven't mentioned schottenhimer (sp?) and belicheat is somewhere. Could we expand this to say top ten?


As you know I often fall way outside of the norm; the guy who I think is #3 is not on your list. I will say due to my age I didn't see enough of Don Shula to make that call

[Patler]

Shula, Landry,and Walsh would be high on my list. Shula was a head coach for 33 seasons with two different franchises, and had only 2 losing seasons. Landry had 20 consecutive winning seasons. Both showed amazing consistency as their rosters changed many times over. Both showed an ability to adapt to the changing NFL as it evolved from the 1960's to the mid-1980's for Landry and the 1990's for Shula. Quite remarkable, really.

I waffle in my opinions on Belichek, despite what all the football experts say about him. I'm sure I am influenced by the fact that I just don't like him. From announcing his resignation as their head coach at the press conference to introduce him as head coach of the Jets, to Spygate and questions about how much deeper it may have gone than that, to questions about his personal integrity, I just have a bad impression about the guy. He had a fantastic run with Brady to win 3 SB's in four years, which earned him his "guru" label, but before and after those 4 years has he really been outstanding, or just another of the good coaches in the NFL? I don't know, but I just can't get firmly behind the guy.

[Bretsky]

Danget I forgot about Bill Walsh.........from what I've seen he's top 5 for sure.........now I'm more torn on #3

[TravisWilliams23]

My basis for order is what the coach did for the team after he was hired and what the team was doing before the hire. Lombardi is a lock at 1 with his championship record with GB. He took the same players who previously stunk up the joint and built a dynasty. He also took over a bad Redskin team and had them winning instantly. #2 goes to Parcells. Giants from nothing to champs, Patriots from mostly bad to very good-almost champs and Dallas from bad to very good. For #3 I'd go with Walsh. The Niners were OK some years before he took over but once Bil took the reigns they were super. Also, after these men stepped down or moved on, the teams they coached went backwards for the most part. Exception would be the Niners but I'd credit Walsh with building such a great team that had the talent to still compete even after he left.

[Patler]

My basis for order is what the coach did for the team after he was hired and what the team was doing before the hire. Lombardi is a lock at 1 with his championship record with GB. He took the same players who previously stunk up the joint and built a dynasty. He also took over a bad Redskin team and had them winning instantly. #2 goes to Parcells. Giants from nothing to champs, Patriots from mostly bad to very good-almost champs and Dallas from bad to very good. For #3 I'd go with Walsh. The Niners were OK some years before he took over but once Bil took the reigns they were super. Also, after these men stepped down or moved on, the teams they coached went backwards for the most part. Exception would be the Niners but I'd credit Walsh with building such a great team that had the talent to still compete even after he left.

Then there are guys like Landry and Shula, who coached so long they could have coached sons and maybe even grandsons of players on their earliest rosters. Their roster included hundreds and hundreds of different players. and they won consistently with all of them (especially Shula), even as the NFL changed dramatically. For me, that is huge in ranking the coaches.

[The Shadow]

I think Walsh & Gibbs could both vie with Billy B for the #2 spot.

[Fritz]

Part of the issue is defining what is meant by "great coach," odd as that sounds. For example, Don Coryell was probably one of the most innovative coaches around, ever, but does that count for "great" or is a guy who is not necessarily creative but gets his teams to win and win - maybe Chuck Noll in Pittsburgh? - is that the guy who gets more "great" points.

Combining those two facets, I'd go with Bill Walsh and Tom Landry.

[TravisWilliams23]

Then there are guys like Landry and Shula, who coached so long they could have coached sons and maybe even grandsons of players on their earliest rosters. Their roster included hundreds and hundreds of different players. and they won consistently with all of them (especially Shula), even as the NFL changed dramatically. For me, that is huge in ranking the coaches.

Both are very deserving of top 5. Shula couldn't get Marino a ring. That takes something away from his record IMO. If he'd won one with Dan, I'd put him at #2. Landry has the record and longevity to be considered but I though he stayed too long. His teams at the end of his tenure were pretty bad.

Hoody gets knocked back because of his Cleveland record. Perhaps he needed those years to "learn" how to be great but he did fail at his first attempt.

[pbmax]

Part of the issue is defining what is meant by "great coach," odd as that sounds. For example, Don Coryell was probably one of the most innovative coaches around, ever, but does that count for "great" or is a guy who is not necessarily creative but gets his teams to win and win - maybe Chuck Noll in Pittsburgh? - is that the guy who gets more "great" points.

Combining those two facets, I'd go with Bill Walsh and Tom Landry.

He was hamstrung by his defense at times and his offense's turnovers at others. Giilliam is an interesting case. In the AFL, he was among the very best.

[bobblehead]

I would argue number two....three is Bellicheat.

Number 2...Only one coach has brought 2 teams to a superbowl, 3 to a conferance championship game and 4 to the playoffs. Let me see Bellicheat bring a team without Brady to the Superbowl. Let me see him get to the AFCC with Vinny Testeverde.

More importantly look at how hapless those frachises had become before Parcells turned them around. Dysfunctional teams. Teams coming off 4 win seasons and 5 straight losing seasons. Look at the QB's Parcells worked with.

You don't go place to place and turn around longtime losers without marquee QB's and win playoff games without being TRULY great.

[pbmax]

I would argue number two....three is Bellicheat.

Number 2...Only one coach has brought 2 teams to a superbowl, 3 to a conferance championship game and 4 to the playoffs. Let me see Bellicheat bring a team without Brady to the Superbowl. Let me see him get to the AFCC with Vinny Testeverde.

More importantly look at how hapless those frachises had become before Parcells turned them around. Dysfunctional teams. Teams coming off 4 win seasons and 5 straight losing seasons. Look at the QB's Parcells worked with.

You don't go place to place and turn around longtime losers without marquee QB's and win playoff games without being TRULY great.

Parcells never got to the Super Bowl without Other Bill though ...

[Bretsky]

Both are very deserving of top 5. Shula couldn't get Marino a ring. That takes something away from his record IMO. If he'd won one with Dan, I'd put him at #2. Landry has the record and longevity to be considered but I though he stayed too long. His teams at the end of his tenure were pretty bad.

Hoody gets knocked back because of his Cleveland record. Perhaps he needed those years to "learn" how to be great but he did fail at his first attempt.


You should watch the NFL documentary via NFL Network on everything about that last season with Cleveland. Given all the circumstances with the move I don't even acknowledge that season.

I'm not sure I'd put Parcells in top 10. He's a very good coach but I wouldnt consider him for the top 5.

[Fritz]

Really? Not even top five?

He was an ass, but he was a helluva coach. Those 80's Giants teams were tough, tough, tough. And he won everywhere he went.

[Bretsky]

Really? Not even top five?

He was an ass, but he was a helluva coach. Those 80's Giants teams were tough, tough, tough. And he won everywhere he went.


Guys that I would rate as no brainers above Parcells...from what I've witnessed and took in

Lombardi
Shula (basing this guy off a pretty strong view in here)
Hoody
Jimmy Johnson
Bill Walsh

Why has Chuck Knoll never entered the conversation ?
To my Parcells is in the next level .....maybe top 5.....but I've never bought into his greatness

[Bretsky]

Parcells never got to the Super Bowl without Other Bill though ...


Great Benefit to have Hoody Genius as a DC

[Smeefers]

Man, there's been a lot of really good coaches when you look back through all the teams. Why do I feel that it's going to be difficult ever including MM in that conversation? Is it because I believe his success is more a product of the players on the field than his coaching ability? I don't know. Has our team the last couple years been more a product of our front office? Or is it that we have such a high bar with Lombardi that everyone else will always pale in comparison?

I'm not saying that he's not good. I think he's really good. Great? Well... I'm willing to be we'll start the season with a complicated ass play book with a ton of deep routes. Then something will happen that will make MM scale it back and we'll start playing good Packer football. Then again, maybe I'm just to close to the subject and can't see the forest for the trees.