Mike McCarthy

[74_75_78_79_]

Super Bowl-winning HC for a storied franchise. Wouldn't be a surprise to anyone if he wins one or two more before he's through. Yet, I got a feeling he'll forever be historically overlooked no matter what. What do you all feel his legacy so far is compared to present-day peers along with coaches of yesteryear?

[JohnTurney]

he's interested in that did he build it? Or did he maintain it? And the Aaron Rodgers/Favre thing, fell into a couple of great ones...but then again, have to give him credit for developing Rodgers...

[Citizen]

If he doesn't win at least one more Super Bowl, he'll be recalled, correctly or not, as an above-average coach who was lucky enough to have two successive hall-of-famers under center.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

I understand the Rodgers thing, but so many Hall of Fame coaches -- and a few yet to be enshrined -- are tied to one great QB. But there's a shit-ton of great QBs whose coaches didn't have the kind of success that McCarthy has had.

As for the build vs. maintain thing, come on. The two seasons he missed the playoffs were two of his first three years, the "maintain" years. After that, the roster had turned over almost completely, and it has been eight trips to the playoffs in a row.

[Rupert Patrick]

I understand the Rodgers thing, but so many Hall of Fame coaches -- and a few yet to be enshrined -- are tied to one great QB. But there's a shit-ton of great QBs whose coaches didn't have the kind of success that McCarthy has had.

As for the build vs. maintain thing, come on. The two seasons he missed the playoffs were two of his first three years, the "maintain" years. After that, the roster had turned over almost completely, and it has been eight trips to the playoffs in a row.

The same could be said for Mike Tomlin. However, I think in both Green Bay and Pittsburgh there are managerial structures that have been set up for the last couple decades (by Ron Wolf, Dan Rooney, Chuck Noll, and others) and as long as they keep putting good people in there and keep following the formula, the teams will continue to be successful even as coaches and players turn over. One gets the feeling that Belichick may have set up a similar structure of doing thing in New England that will endure even after he leaves the team that will continue as long as they follow his blueprint.

The key piece in the machine is the head coach, and the problem is when the head coach stays in place for too long and he becomes too entrenched. I think a head coach, in most cases, generally has a productive career of 20 years. After that, they have usually already pulled all the tricks out of their bag by then, and from then on the longer they stay on the job, the more conservative and predictable they become. Don Shula is the textbook example of somebody who stayed in one place for too long, where he couldn't figure out how to come up with a running game to compliment Dan Marino. I also think Tom Landry stayed in Dallas about 4-5 years too long, that maybe another coach could have taken that team further than he did. I worry we will see this in Bill Belichick in the years to come.

[BD Sullivan]

The key piece in the machine is the head coach, and the problem is when the head coach stays in place for too long and he becomes too entrenched. I think a head coach, in most cases, generally has a productive career of 20 years. After that, they have usually already pulled all the tricks out of their bag by then, and from then on the longer they stay on the job, the more conservative and predictable they become. Don Shula is the textbook example of somebody who stayed in one place for too long, where he couldn't figure out how to come up with a running game to compliment Dan Marino. I also think Tom Landry stayed in Dallas about 4-5 years too long, that maybe another coach could have taken that team further than he did. I worry we will see this in Bill Belichick in the years to come.

Noll had some peaks and valleys during the 1980's

[Rupert Patrick]

The key piece in the machine is the head coach, and the problem is when the head coach stays in place for too long and he becomes too entrenched. I think a head coach, in most cases, generally has a productive career of 20 years. After that, they have usually already pulled all the tricks out of their bag by then, and from then on the longer they stay on the job, the more conservative and predictable they become. Don Shula is the textbook example of somebody who stayed in one place for too long, where he couldn't figure out how to come up with a running game to compliment Dan Marino. I also think Tom Landry stayed in Dallas about 4-5 years too long, that maybe another coach could have taken that team further than he did. I worry we will see this in Bill Belichick in the years to come.

Noll had some peaks and valleys during the 1980's

Noll may have stayed too long, maybe he should have walked away after consecutive losing seasons in 1985-86, but his coaching effort in 1989, righting the ship after being blown out 92-10 in the first two games, was perhaps his most impressive effort of the 1980's.

Bud Grant picked the right time to walk away, but after the Les Steckel debacle, he had to come back for another season to straighten things out and get the stage set for Jerry Burns to take over the reins.

After I wrote my above piece, I was thinking about the Raiders, and how they were a machine from the mid-60's thru the mid-80's, followed by mediocrity with a few peaks during the Art Shell and Jon Gruden eras, before the wheels fell off after Super Bowl XXXVII. In that case, I think it is due to Al Davis being on the job too long. Davis was the de facto GM who stayed in place for more than 40 years, and he had gotten old and found himself behind the curve instead of being ahead of it, just where Shula and Landry found themselves near the end.

[BD Sullivan]

The key piece in the machine is the head coach, and the problem is when the head coach stays in place for too long and he becomes too entrenched. I think a head coach, in most cases, generally has a productive career of 20 years. After that, they have usually already pulled all the tricks out of their bag by then, and from then on the longer they stay on the job, the more conservative and predictable they become. Don Shula is the textbook example of somebody who stayed in one place for too long, where he couldn't figure out how to come up with a running game to compliment Dan Marino. I also think Tom Landry stayed in Dallas about 4-5 years too long, that maybe another coach could have taken that team further than he did. I worry we will see this in Bill Belichick in the years to come.

Noll had some peaks and valleys during the 1980's

Bud Grant picked the right time to walk away, but after the Les Steckel debacle, he had to come back for another season to straighten things out and get the stage set for Jerry Burns to take over the reins.

If I'm not mistaken, Bud was annoyed that Burns didn't get the job over Steckel. Was that one of the conditions for him to come back?

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

If I'm not mistaken, Bud was annoyed that Burns didn't get the job over Steckel. Was that one of the conditions for him to come back?

I've seen Grant/Steckel cited as one of the main arguments why you don't let successful people pick their replacements: they will pick a dud, so that they seem even better by comparison. The guy who wrote that was Harvey Mackay, not a football guy, but a very successful Minnesota businessman and motivational speaker.

[7DnBrnc53]

Don Shula is the textbook example of somebody who stayed in one place for too long, where he couldn't figure out how to come up with a running game to compliment Dan Marino.

After re-watching that game a few years ago, I came to the conclusion that Shula should have been fired after the 1992 AFC Title Game loss to the Bills. You could sense that Shula and Marino were never going to get it done together. For example, they only tried to run the ball 11 times. That was inexcusable with Bobby Humphrey (ex-1,000 yard rusher with Denver) in the backfield.