Tom Coughlin and the HoF

[mwald]

Not following the fluke logic at all; think it does a disservice to Coughlin. Though a couple of the plays in the Giants' SB wins over NE *might* be described as fluky (and that's debatable; the definition of fluky is "obtained or achieved more by chance than skill" - they didn't win those games by bounces, tips, fumble returns or anything like that; they won them by making clutch, acrobatic catches at the end of the game), Coughlin showed up too many times in big games to write it off as a fluke. What do they say...one or two times is fluke or luck, three times it's a trend? Coughlin's teams won too many big games as a decided underdog to write his Super Bowl victories off as a fluke. Even when he didn't win, this trait showed itself. Take this year, for instance. Coughlin's Giants gave the Patriots and Panthers all they could handle, even if they didn't win. He was just a great big game coach as an underdog. Demonstrated it time and again.

[JuggernautJ]

....Coughlin never wore pantyhose or propositioned Suzy Kolber.

That we know of.
Technically, it would be possible to do both at the same time...

[Jay Z]

Not following the fluke logic at all; think it does a disservice to Coughlin. Though a couple of the plays in the Giants' SB wins over NE *might* be described as fluky (and that's debatable; the definition of fluky is "obtained or achieved more by chance than skill" - they didn't win those games by bounces, tips, fumble returns or anything like that; they won them by making clutch, acrobatic catches at the end of the game), Coughlin showed up too many times in big games to write it off as a fluke. What do they say...one or two times is fluke or luck, three times it's a trend? Coughlin's teams won too many big games as a decided underdog to write his Super Bowl victories off as a fluke. Even when he didn't win, this trait showed itself. Take this year, for instance. Coughlin's Giants gave the Patriots and Panthers all they could handle, even if they didn't win. He was just a great big game coach as an underdog. Demonstrated it time and again.

Which explains why Coughlin was unable to win a single playoff game in any year not ending in 2007 or 2011. Or why he only made the playoffs once in the last 7 years, and that team had a 9-7 record. His record is extremely inconsistent. Hence, fluke.

Unless you think Coughlin was a master of the strategy "we'll finish 9-7, but be lucky enough to be in a division where that is enough to win the playoffs. Then, we'll win 4 in a row. However, this strategy will fail every year not ending in 2011."

[mwald]

Which explains why Coughlin was unable to win a single playoff game in any year not ending in 2007 or 2011. Or why he only made the playoffs once in the last 7 years, and that team had a 9-7 record. His record is extremely inconsistent. Hence, fluke.

Unless you think Coughlin was a master of the strategy "we'll finish 9-7, but be lucky enough to be in a division where that is enough to win the playoffs. Then, we'll win 4 in a row. However, this strategy will fail every year not ending in 2011."

I won't debate the definition of the word fluke. You must have a couple dictionaries laying around.

But consider, in 1991 Coughlin’s Boston College team almost upset the national champion Miami Hurricanes. Losing 19-14, they were stopped at the goal line at the end of the game.

In 1992 the BC Eagles beat the ninth ranked Penn State.

In 1993 BC beat the number one ranked Notre Dame on a field goal at the end of the game, a game so devastating to Notre Dame they were essentially out to pasture for the next fifteen years.

Moving to the pros, he took the Jaguars to the AFC championship in his second year, notching another colossal upset by beating John Elway’s 13-3 Broncos in Denver.

It seemed the bigger the game, the more overmatched, the more likely Coughlin’s team would do something extraordinary. Given this track record, then, it should’ve come as a surprise to no one that Coughlin’s Giants would show up in a big way against New England in 2007.

It didn’t come as a surprise to Dr. Z, who picked the Giants to upset New England in Super Bowl XLII when no one else had the guts to stray from the pundit consensus.

Then again, Z’s acumen was honed by years of putting a reputation-risking stake in the ground on games that haven’t been played yet, instead of safely waxing philosophic from ten thousand feet a decade after the fact. Your perspective changes when you live in that world.

[rhickok1109]

A small, self-congratulatory note: I also picked the Giants to upset the Patriots in SB XLII, based solely on Tom Brady's cocky, over-confident attitude in press conferences leading up to the game. My many Patriot fan friends all thought I was crazy. I won about $150 in small bets of $5 or $10 each, plus quite a few drink bets.

[Bryan]

Not following the fluke logic at all; think it does a disservice to Coughlin. Though a couple of the plays in the Giants' SB wins over NE *might* be described as fluky (and that's debatable; the definition of fluky is "obtained or achieved more by chance than skill" - they didn't win those games by bounces, tips, fumble returns or anything like that; they won them by making clutch, acrobatic catches at the end of the game), Coughlin showed up too many times in big games to write it off as a fluke. What do they say...one or two times is fluke or luck, three times it's a trend? Coughlin's teams won too many big games as a decided underdog to write his Super Bowl victories off as a fluke. Even when he didn't win, this trait showed itself. Take this year, for instance. Coughlin's Giants gave the Patriots and Panthers all they could handle, even if they didn't win. He was just a great big game coach as an underdog. Demonstrated it time and again.

I agree that I wouldn't term those Giants wins over the Pats as "flukes". I remember thinking before their first matchup when the Pats were undefeated "well, if any team can beat the Pats, its the Giants" because the Giants had played New England extremely tough in the regular season. I still expected the Pats to win, but I didn't think it was "flukey" that the Giants won. In both the regular season game and the Super Bowl the Giants were the physically-dominant team. The same also holds true in their second SB matchup...at that point, even though the Giants had done poorly in the regular season there was no reason to think that they couldn't beat the Pats. I think in general those Giants teams were bad matchups for the Pats because they were strong in the offensive and defensive lines, and those were the areas in which Belichick couldn't compensate for with superior strategy. But the bigger question to me is how that affects your view of Coughlin...watching them (especially in the 2nd Super Bowl) in the postseason those years made you wonder why were they so mediocre in the regular season year after year after year? To me, Coughlin enhanced his "big game" reputation by being such an average regular season coach, if that makes sense.

[Jay Z]

These are the Super Bowl champs I consider the most fluky:

1980 Raiders
1987 Redskins
2001 Patriots
2007 Giants
2011 Giants
2012 Ravens

I measure flukiness by unimpressive (for a champion) regular season performance, followed by more than one close playoff game. Success (or lack thereof) in surrounding seasons is also a factor. The 1988 49ers weren't a strong regular season team, but they won two of their playoff games by large margins, and won the Super Bowl the next year as well. I don't consider that team fluky.

No one's going to pick Coughlin ahead of Belichick or Gibbs.

The 1980 Raiders were probably the least fluky of these teams. One 2 point playoff game, one 7 point, 2 more comfortable games. Didn't make the playoffs the two seasons before or the season after. Wild card team, though they had the same record as all of the other AFC playoff teams that year. I'd rank Coughlin ahead of Flores, but that's mainly because of Coughlin's success in Jacksonville.

What about John Harbaugh? The 2012 Ravers weren't a strong team, 10-6 with an overtime victory and another close victory in the Super Bowl. However, they had been a consistent playoff participant to that point. I would rate Harbaugh's work with the Ravens as better than Coughlin with the Giants. He has more work to do.

Of the Giants' 8 playoff victories in 2007 and 2011, 5 were by 4 points or less, including 2 in overtime. That's a lot, no matter the competition. Plus, the 2011 team was 9-7 and needed help (a weak division) just to reach the playoffs.

The whole thing is just too inconsistent. Coughlin's a genius in 2007 and 2011 (but only in the playoffs), but can't even put a 10-6 team together on a consistent basis. He was also one and done - no magic runs there, even with a 12-4 team in 2008 - every other time he got the Giants in the playoffs.

Coughlin's record with Jacksonville helps him a lot, but I consider coming up with 2 Super Bowls given the Giants' body of work under his watch ----- FLUKY.

[mwald]

Coughlin's record with Jacksonville helps him a lot, but I consider coming up with 2 Super Bowls given the Giants' body of work under his watch ----- FLUKY.

Then FLUKE it is, big dog.

I won a lot of games backing the consistently flukey Tom Coughlin in the right spot.

[74_75_78_79_]

In 2008, as defending-Champs, the G-men finished with a top-seed 12-4 mark; with wins on the road vs both SB-participants-to-be. Yet, despite having obvious experience from the year before in running-the-gauntlet, they lose right off the bat at home to a 9-6-1 team that wouldn't advance the following week. Coughlin's Giants win-it-all, go back-to-back in 2008 (a 3rd Ring in '11), is this thread on page 2 already?

[Jay Z]

Coughlin's record with Jacksonville helps him a lot, but I consider coming up with 2 Super Bowls given the Giants' body of work under his watch ----- FLUKY.

Then FLUKE it is, big dog.

I won a lot of games backing the consistently flukey Tom Coughlin in the right spot.

Like 1999? 2008?

OK, here's a simple stat: Playoff wins by coach. Here are the ones not in the HOF:
Belichick 22
Holmgren 13
Coughlin 12
Cowher 12
Reeves 11
John Harbaugh 10
Andy Reid 10
Seifert 10
Dungy 9
Jimmy Johnson 9
Pete Carroll 8
Flores 8
John Fox 8
Shanahan 7
Knox 7
McCarthy 7
Payton 6
Vermeil 6
Billick 5
Fisher 5
Gruden 5
Jim Harbaugh 5
Schottenheimer 5
Switzer 5
Tomlin 5

That's actually a pretty good measure. Thought Vermeil would have more than 6.

Coughlin has 12 playoff wins, however they came. 4 with the Jags, that helps him a lot. Holmgren I think deserves to go. Cowher and Reeves are good candidates too. Surprised John Harbaugh is that high, he is not really talked about much. So Coughlin will be in the mix, he's a good candidate, fluke or no fluke.