Whci of the three coaches, Coryell, Johnson or Dungy?

[paulksandiego]

I wouldn't vote for any of the three for the HOF, if I had a vote. However, put a gun to my head, and I'll choose Coryell for his innovations in the passing game.

[26554]

His family and other big supporters may have mixed feelings about it, but I think Coryell's best way in would be as a contributor. From a W's and L's view, I think he comes up short. He deserves a great amount of credit for turning the Cards and Chargers into contenders, but he and the team couldn't get over the playoff hump in either case and his last few seasons in San Diego weren't very good overall (no playoff appearances after 1982;dismissed as HC after a 1-7 start in 1986).


Johnson had the highest W/L peak of the three and came into a very messy situation (in more than one way) when he took over in Dallas, but his NFL HCing career was relatively short and, while not a disaster, he time in Miami was a pretty far cry from his time in Dallas. He'd probably have a better case if the Cowboys had fallen off quickly after his divorce with Jerruh instead of making it to the NFC title game and winning another SB the first two years after he left.

Dungy is the best balance of the three and, while it may not be this year, I expect that he gets in soon.

[Gary Najman]

It's interesting that Coryell and Johnson both are in the College HOF. I don't think that any of them are deserving, tough. Sure, I recognize Coryell innovations and all of that, but it bothers me that from 1979-1982, with all the talent he had, he couldn't get to the Super Bowl. I've always wondered what would've happened in 1981 if they could have had Fred Dean and John Jefferson (sure, Wes Chandler replaced him nicely) all season, the play from that season that I've always remember was when (in the regular season, and at Jack Murphy Stadium) Louis Breeden returned a 102-yard interception return for a TD in a 40-17 Bengals' rout.

[Bryan]

Unlike judging players (QB's) by W/L record or by 'rings', in a TEAM sport, I've always felt coaches should be judged by that. That's the goal, to win. To be among the 'elite' (HOF), I look at a two league championships minimum - knowing that it would leave many coaches off the list with that criteria. Johnson is the only one who meets that, so that's who I would go with.

That said, I'm a huge Coryell fan. I love innovation but I struggle with how to honor that - in terms of the HOF. Does innovation make one a HOF'er? (then wouldn't Pete Gogolak be a HOF'er?) ... At a minimum there should be a large display inside the PFHOF dedicated to Coryell. Definitely wouldn't mind if he got inducted, but it's not really how I view the HOF which to me should be for the greatest players (determined on the field) and for greatest coaches (determined by winning) ...

I think a coach needs to do more than win games...he has to do something that transcends the sport in order to be a HOF. I get that Coryell has no shot at the HOF based on wins, rings, and how his team would come up short in the postseason. But I think that if we look at things more critically, we can see the strategic impact Coryell had on the game.

I think coaches are the most tricky group to evaluate when it comes to the HOF. In my mind, the HOF is about the players, and there are too many coaches in the HOF. I didn't really get the enshrinement of guys like Hank Stram, George Allen, or John Madden.

I think the greatest impact a coach has on the game is through innovation/strategy, not "winning games". Maybe that sounds stupid or even contradictory. I don't know what seperates Jimmy Johnson from Buddy Parker...they had nearly identical coaching careers.

[Reaser]

I think a coach needs to do more than win games...he has to do something that transcends the sport in order to be a HOF. I get that Coryell has no shot at the HOF based on wins, rings, and how his team would come up short in the postseason. But I think that if we look at things more critically, we can see the strategic impact Coryell had on the game.

I think coaches are the most tricky group to evaluate when it comes to the HOF. In my mind, the HOF is about the players, and there are too many coaches in the HOF. I didn't really get the enshrinement of guys like Hank Stram, George Allen, or John Madden.

I think the greatest impact a coach has on the game is through innovation/strategy, not "winning games". Maybe that sounds stupid or even contradictory. I don't know what seperates Jimmy Johnson from Buddy Parker...they had nearly identical coaching careers.

I'm similar in thinking the HOF is about the players. Though of course that doesn't mean I don't think coaches should be in, would be odd not to have Lombardi, Brown, Walsh and co. in the HOF. (here's a question, would you have Lombardi in the HOF if he hadn't won anything?)

I don't agree that innovation/strategy is more important than winning, at all. Goes against the entire point of the sport. Or if a "greater impact" was the goal then no one would be trying to win and every coach would be trying to come up with some new, different, 'innovative'. Would have a sport where the goal wasn't to win?

Like I said, I'm a huge fan and Coryell definitely had a huge impact on the sport. I just don't know the best way to honor that, is it the PFHOF? I don't know?

I just think in 'my' HOF coaches would be judged by winning (championships really) since that's the job of a HC, to win. If I started putting people in for innovation then I'd have to put every coach who brought something to the NFL (Wyche) and then I'd have to put in every player that changed the sport (Gogolak) and so on. I'd prefer the HOF to be for the best players and best coaches - with a coach really only being able to be judged by winning, since that's the job.

I would be happy if Coryell got in though. He's a legend, which of course he is, he was born in the greatest city in the world. High School with the Lincoln Lynx (not to be confused with the Lincoln Abes that produced Lawyer Milloy and Kitna) which only the best in the football world come from WA High Schools. Played at UW. Coached at Wenatchee. I-formation, Air Coryell, everything and everyone that came off and out of that, everything involving Coryell all comes back to the Great State of Washington. We'll take it all.

re: Jimmy Johnson, on the old forums I wrote a couple paragraphs on his time with the Dolphins and how it's not anything like people try to make it out to be (a massive failure where some act like the team was 4-12 every year), but I don't feel like doing that again. Long story short, I think he has enough (starting with 2 Super Bowls) though there's a number of players i would put in before I'd get around to him, or any coach.

[Bryan]

I don't agree that innovation/strategy is more important than winning, at all. Goes against the entire point of the sport. Or if a "greater impact" was the goal then no one would be trying to win and every coach would be trying to come up with some new, different, 'innovative'. Would have a sport where the goal wasn't to win?

You aren't understanding what I am saying. The coaches who have had the greatest impact on the game of football itself are those who have influenced strategy. That is a lasting effect. A coach's win total stops when he retires.

[Reaser]

You aren't understanding what I am saying. The coaches who have had the greatest impact on the game of football itself are those who have influenced strategy. That is a lasting effect. A coach's win total stops when he retires.

I understood. I was saying if that was or then became the criteria or goal to be a PFHOF coach, then a coaches goal would be to try to come up with something new, innovate, etc ... as opposed to win. If it's a win v. innovation argument, the point of the sport is to win. Of course you can innovate AND win (Paul Brown) which is the best of both worlds, but if it's one or the other, success in football is measured by winning.

[Veeshik_ya]

Of course you can innovate AND win (Paul Brown) which is the best of both worlds, but if it's one or the other, success in football is measured by winning.

Have to agree, winning comes first.

The goal is to win. The coach is hired to win, not to innovate. If innovation occurred, it occurred as a result of the coach trying to win.

Lombardi didn't innovate sh*t, but was one of the greatest coaches of all time. When John Madden beat the polyester trousers off all the innovators, he did what he was hired to do: win.

Innovation is overrated. You have to DO SOMETHING with your prowess. It's the difference between noodling around on guitar and writing a song that lasts.

[Reaser]

The goal is to win. The coach is hired to win, not to innovate. If innovation occurred, it occurred as a result of the coach trying to win.

Exactly.

[Gary Najman]

One coach I think it belongs in this category is Darrel "Mouse" Davis, who developed the run and shoot offense. No one would pick him for the HOF, even if he had lasted many years in the NFL.