Why Tom Coughlin is my #1 coach on the ballot

[rewing84]

Thanks for the (100%) compliment!

The Coughlin endorsement is still taking over me (still blinking). It's just a simple me thinking (JMO) that Parker & Arnsparger are even better candidates. That's all.

But DO get Coughlin in there! Make it three! I don't disrespect Eli. But he getting in could only be for the obvious reasons and the obvious reasons only - he was the QB in two SB wins against Belichick/Brady, he played in a big market franchise, he's a...Manning! Sadly, and again no disrespect, but that's IT (HOVG? zero argument).

A Gene Tunney (beat Dempsey twice) Eli is but his HC even more-so! If Gene is in the World Boxing Hall of Fame, then WHY NOT Coughlin in Canton?? And he shouldn't have to wait so many decades later as post-humous Gene did (he not getting in until 1980). No, get Coughlin in now along with Parker & Arnsparger!

Look at his career outside of the two Super Bowl wins, and there is not a lot of impressive characteristics. He was never an all-pro, never among the best of his era. The only category he led the league in was interceptions (three times; '07, '10, '13). His career record as a starter was .500. Other than his name and family association and the two SB seasons, why should he be inducted?

That's exactly why I think eli doesn't get in right away

[Jay Z]

I don't know that Holmgren is helped by his Seattle tenure. Yeah, he made one SB (a loss) but he was there for 10 years. Plus he had a great situation in GB, arguably should have made more SBs but he quit on that team for more power in Seattle. By all reports he was nothing special in the front office too. I think that tends to hurt his candidacy.

[rewing84]

I don't know that Holmgren is helped by his Seattle tenure. Yeah, he made one SB (a loss) but he was there for 10 years. Plus he had a great situation in GB, arguably should have made more SBs but he quit on that team for more power in Seattle. By all reports he was nothing special in the front office too. I think that tends to hurt his candidacy.

I was thinking the same thing does Holmgrens time in the front office esp his Cleveland tenure hurt him

[readjack]

I don't know that Holmgren is helped by his Seattle tenure. Yeah, he made one SB (a loss) but he was there for 10 years. Plus he had a great situation in GB, arguably should have made more SBs but he quit on that team for more power in Seattle. By all reports he was nothing special in the front office too. I think that tends to hurt his candidacy.

To each their own. I'm the exact opposite on his time in Seattle. The Seahawks missed the playoffs for 10 straight seasons before Holmgren arrived. They won their division his first year (admittedly a weak champ at 9-7), missed the playoffs for three years (though with a 9-7 season) and then went to the playoffs five straight seasons, including four straight division titles and the Super Bowl appearance.

All of the best players on the '05 Seahawks with the exception of Walter Jones — and obviously that's a huge exception — arrived under Holmgren, including Hutchinson, Alexander, Hasselbeck, Tatupu, Wistrom, Tobeck, Trufant, Boulware and their entire receiving corps. They didn't all arrive when he was GM, but it's fair to say that he built that team as much if not more than Dungy's Bucs or Coughlin's Jaguars.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

Does anyone know why Parker wasn't inducted around the same time as other coaches from his era? Why wasn't he voted in during the late 60s/early 70s?

As for Holmgren, I agree he should have won more with the Packers. He sure put together an amazing staff, though. That's for sure.

Arnsparger is a no-brainer. He needs to get in at some point. But I'd personally like to see Reeves get in first.

[Brian wolf]

Jackson, I feel Parker simply fell through the cracks. Owners, coaches and deserving players were getting elected at that time and many felt the success of Detroit was due more to Bobby Layne than Parker. Parker should have at least been inducted by 1980. There werent many coaches elected even when Weeb Ewbank joined in 1978. Original owners got the jump over everybody.

Had Holmgren stayed with Favre, he would have been inducted already but he wanted more authority in Seattle. He probably didnt like the friction from Ron Wolf as well.

Imagine had Robert Griffin not injured his knee in the 2012/13 playoffs? Maybe he and Shanahan would have done better in 2013 and Shanahan not lost his job with the Redskins.

[Bryan]

I don't know that Holmgren is helped by his Seattle tenure. Yeah, he made one SB (a loss) but he was there for 10 years. Plus he had a great situation in GB, arguably should have made more SBs but he quit on that team for more power in Seattle. By all reports he was nothing special in the front office too. I think that tends to hurt his candidacy.

Holmgren was pretty terrible in the Super Bowls. He was in Seattle for 7 years before winning a playoff game...no doubt he was living off of his Packers reputation. He had some great timing with his career. I never viewed him as being an asset on gameday; he would tend to make wonky decisions that Favre would have to overcome.

[Jay Z]

I don't know that Holmgren is helped by his Seattle tenure. Yeah, he made one SB (a loss) but he was there for 10 years. Plus he had a great situation in GB, arguably should have made more SBs but he quit on that team for more power in Seattle. By all reports he was nothing special in the front office too. I think that tends to hurt his candidacy.

To each their own. I'm the exact opposite on his time in Seattle. The Seahawks missed the playoffs for 10 straight seasons before Holmgren arrived. They won their division his first year (admittedly a weak champ at 9-7), missed the playoffs for three years (though with a 9-7 season) and then went to the playoffs five straight seasons, including four straight division titles and the Super Bowl appearance.

All of the best players on the '05 Seahawks with the exception of Walter Jones — and obviously that's a huge exception — arrived under Holmgren, including Hutchinson, Alexander, Hasselbeck, Tatupu, Wistrom, Tobeck, Trufant, Boulware and their entire receiving corps. They didn't all arrive when he was GM, but it's fair to say that he built that team as much if not more than Dungy's Bucs or Coughlin's Jaguars.

The problem is that Holmgren is compared to his own history with the Packers. With Ron Wolf as GB, the Packers had an even more dismal recent history than the Seahawks, and turned it all around to a SB Championship and a return appearance the following year.

While Holmgren (at the time) was the most successful Seahawks coach, he wasn't as successful as he was with the Packers. Ron Wolf, who didn't leave for another job, is in the HOF and Holmgren isn't. A lot of that is narrative, even though Holmgren had longer after the SB appearances than Wolf did, he left, had the hubris to think he could do both jobs, eventually lost the GM job, and didn't win a SB the way he did with the Packers. It honestly probably hurts his chances, the Packers aren't going to boost him as much as other players associated with the team; it's why Wolf and Leroy Butler got in and Holmgren is still waiting.

I'm sure it's the same issue with Buddy Parker. Left a great situation with the Lions (they in fact won the year he left.) While his tenure with the Steelers was successful by the then standards of that franchise, he never even made the playoffs with the team. So the controversy of the departure is enough to stall the progress to the HOF.

[Brian wolf]

Good points by all ... thats the thing with all these coaches, they all have holes in their candidacy, even Buddy Parker, but will the nominated coach have enough support or momentum to replace a deserving senior player? Getting back to Roberts question, the only coach I would put in over a senior is Buddy Parker.

In fairness to Holmgren, at least he won an NFC Championship with the Seahawks, after leaving the Packers. Jimmy Johnson left the Cowboys and couldnt win a divisional playoff game for Miami.
Does Johnson get the elected pass over Holmgren simply because he went back-to-back as champion? Remember, he only coached nine seasons? I still feel he is deserving but their cases are similar, though Johnson could act as his own general manager--with an eye for talent, while working with Jones--before Holmgren could.

We cant discount Dan Reeves either. His case is similar to Grant and Levy, but we will see if any surprise nomination could unseat a senior, though doubtful ...

[rewing84]

ill answer it this way Brian depends on who the coaching nominee is and who the three seniors are