SHULA vs PARCELLS

[Rupert Patrick]

If I had to win one game, I would choose Parcells. His game plan against the Bills in Super Bowl XXV is perhaps the finest execution of a game plan I have ever seen, and is a testament to his talent. He picked the right time to leave New York after that game, after winning that game he could have coached there for the next decade if had wanted, but they would have never reached that point of greatness again. In a lot of ways Parcells reminds me (as a leader of men) of Billy Martin, a guy who could turn around a team quickly but over time he would either get tired of the challenge and want to move on to a new challenge, or the upper management or players would have enough of him and force him out. Parcells left every team he touched better off than when he arrived, I don't know how many coaches can say that.

The major knock I had with Shula is that in his Miami years post-Super Bowl XIX he failed to come up with a running back to compliment Marino and take the pressure off Number 13. He had a great QB, and a great set of receivers, but he needed a running back who could have established a ball control game where he could have gone to more of a West Coast style offense. Instead, the Dolphins of the late 80's early 90's seemed be be Marino trying to throw 30-yard passes on every down because he had no rushing game. In his entire career Marino had exactly one 1000 yard rusher, that was Karim Abdul-Jabbar in 1996, the year after Shula left.

I have to think at some point in his career Shula should have rolled the dice and traded up for a number 1, 2 or 3 pick in the draft, and his best shot would have been 1989 when the Dolphins drafted ninth and selected Sammie Smith while Barry Sanders went number three to the Lions. Smith in his career rushed for a grand total of 1,881 yards, less than the total Sanders rushed for in his 1997 season.

I've often held a theory, I've yet to see an example to refute it, that Head Coaches become mediocre after about 15-18 years on the job, that the radical new ideas they had are all spent and their bag of magic tricks is all empty, and they become very, very conservative. If you look at the winning percentage of Head Coaches who coach longer than 15 seasons, the winning percentage for seasons 1-15 is well over .500, but for seasons 16 and after is about .500.

After 1985, Shula knew he could probably win 9 or 10 games with a team consisting of Dan Marino and a couple good receivers and not much else; it might be enough to get him to the playoffs, and it was enough to keep him employed year after year.

[BD Sullivan]

Prior to SB VII, Shula was under EXTREME PRESSURE to win, considering his 1964 Colts had been favored by a touchdown in the title game and ended up losing 27-0. That was followed four years later by the even more heavily-favored '68 Colts falling to the Jets in SB III, 16-7, and then getting shut down in SB VI. Had they lost to the Skins, Shula would have been ripped as a myth/fraud/pick your perjorative.

[Bryan]

Parcells left every team he touched better off than when he arrived, I don't know how many coaches can say that.

I would argue that if I were a head coaching candidate, the 1983 Giants would have a lot more upside than the 1991 Giants. The 1990 Giants won a title with a bunch of guys on their last legs -- I don't think anyone was under the illusion that the Giants would repeat in 1991. The 1983 Giants had made the playoffs in 1981 with a young team, and had gone 4-5 in 1982...not terrible, but bad enough to 1) get the HC fired and 2) get a top 10 draft position. You are inheriting a team with Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson, Mark Haynes and also have guys like Phil Simms, Joe Morris, and Jim Burt on your roster.

I don't think its much of an accomplishment for Parcells to leave every team better off than when he arrived, because its hard NOT to be better than Rich Kotite's 1-15 or Dick MacPherson's 2-14. Also, Parcells' penchant for skipping town before having to coach through a 'down cycle' makes it almost 'logical' that Parcells would leave a team better off than when he arrived.

I have to think at some point in his career Shula should have rolled the dice and traded up for a number 1, 2 or 3 pick in the draft, and his best shot would have been 1989 when the Dolphins drafted ninth and selected Sammie Smith while Barry Sanders went number three to the Lions. Smith in his career rushed for a grand total of 1,881 yards, less than the total Sanders rushed for in his 1997 season.

I can't imagine an NFL team willing to trade down to bypass selecting Barry Sanders and instead be happy with Sammie Smith...except for maybe the 1977 Seahawks.

I've often held a theory, I've yet to see an example to refute it, that Head Coaches become mediocre after about 15-18 years on the job, that the radical new ideas they had are all spent and their bag of magic tricks is all empty, and they become very, very conservative. If you look at the winning percentage of Head Coaches who coach longer than 15 seasons, the winning percentage for seasons 1-15 is well over .500, but for seasons 16 and after is about .500.

After 15 years of coaching, Shula had an 8-year run where he made the playoffs 7 times and went to the Super Bowl twice. After 15 years of coaching, Tom Landry had a 10-year run where he made the playoffs 9 times and went to the Super Bowl 3 times.

[rhickok1109]

After his 8-season stint with the Giants, Parcells couldn't stay long with one team because players got sick of his insults and his deceit. His record was basically mediocre over his last 11 seasons and he had a 3-5 record in the playoffs. I wouldn't rank him anywhere near Shula.

I'd hardly say Parcells's post-Giants career was mediocre. It's important to keep in mind that he took over teams that were in the toilet. You could make a strong argument that two of the franchise's he took over (Patriots, Cowboys) are still benefiting from his decisions.

With that said, Shula was the better all-around head coach.

Perhaps "mediocre" is not quite the right word. But the Patriots slipped back to 6-10 between two very good seasons, the Jets slipped back to 8-8 after a very good season, and the Cowboys were 24-24 in his final three seasons.

[SixtiesFan]

Prior to SB VII, Shula was under EXTREME PRESSURE to win, considering his 1964 Colts had been favored by a touchdown in the title game and ended up losing 27-0. That was followed four years later by the even more heavily-favored '68 Colts falling to the Jets in SB III, 16-7, and then getting shut down in SB VI. Had they lost to the Skins, Shula would have been ripped as a myth/fraud/pick your perjorative.

The theme "Shula doesn't win the big ones" was a major story line going into Super Bowl VII. It was pointed out that "Shula's teams came up flat in both Super Bowls III and VI."

Carroll Rosenbloom, who hired Don Shula to coach Baltimore in 1963, and became Rams owner in 1972, said "I've seen Shula freeze up during big games."

And the unbeaten Dolphins were actually underdogs to the Redskins going in. The "smart money" was on the Redskins to beat the Dolphins.

[BD Sullivan]

Parcells left every team he touched better off than when he arrived, I don't know how many coaches can say that.

I would argue that if I were a head coaching candidate, the 1983 Giants would have a lot more upside than the 1991 Giants. The 1990 Giants won a title with a bunch of guys on their last legs -- I don't think anyone was under the illusion that the Giants would repeat in 1991. The 1983 Giants had made the playoffs in 1981 with a young team, and had gone 4-5 in 1982...not terrible, but bad enough to 1) get the HC fired and 2) get a top 10 draft position. You are inheriting a team with Lawrence Taylor, Harry Carson, Mark Haynes and also have guys like Phil Simms, Joe Morris, and Jim Burt on your roster.

I've often held a theory, I've yet to see an example to refute it, that Head Coaches become mediocre after about 15-18 years on the job, that the radical new ideas they had are all spent and their bag of magic tricks is all empty, and they become very, very conservative. If you look at the winning percentage of Head Coaches who coach longer than 15 seasons, the winning percentage for seasons 1-15 is well over .500, but for seasons 16 and after is about .500.

After 15 years of coaching, Shula had an 8-year run where he made the playoffs 7 times and went to the Super Bowl twice. After 15 years of coaching, Tom Landry had a 10-year run where he made the playoffs 9 times and went to the Super Bowl 3 times.

Ray Perkins quit to replace Bear Bryant at Alabama, he wasn't fired. The timing of it was bad, coming with three games still to be played and the Giants in contention. They proceeded to lose by a point at Washington and by a field goal in St. Louis to kill their chances for postseason.

As far as the great coaches go stale theory, Paul Brown is probably another candidate, since he was golden when he had Otto Graham handling things, but got fired because his 1946 method of dealing with players didn't work in 1962.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

I've often held a theory, I've yet to see an example to refute it, that Head Coaches become mediocre after about 15-18 years on the job, that the radical new ideas they had are all spent and their bag of magic tricks is all empty, and they become very, very conservative. If you look at the winning percentage of Head Coaches who coach longer than 15 seasons, the winning percentage for seasons 1-15 is well over .500, but for seasons 16 and after is about .500.

Hoodie?

[BD Sullivan]

I've often held a theory, I've yet to see an example to refute it, that Head Coaches become mediocre after about 15-18 years on the job, that the radical new ideas they had are all spent and their bag of magic tricks is all empty, and they become very, very conservative. If you look at the winning percentage of Head Coaches who coach longer than 15 seasons, the winning percentage for seasons 1-15 is well over .500, but for seasons 16 and after is about .500.

Hoodie?

Sooner or later, Brady won't be there--by choice, anyway.

[conace21]

I've often held a theory, I've yet to see an example to refute it, that Head Coaches become mediocre after about 15-18 years on the job, that the radical new ideas they had are all spent and their bag of magic tricks is all empty, and they become very, very conservative. If you look at the winning percentage of Head Coaches who coach longer than 15 seasons, the winning percentage for seasons 1-15 is well over .500, but for seasons 16 and after is about .500.

Hoodie?

Has any head coach besides George Halas ever won a champtionship in or after his 20th season? Or was Belichick the first? I think it's proper to exclude Papa Bear, because a- he owned the team, and b- he had 4 separate ten year stints.


Edit- It looks like Lambeau accomplished the feat in 1945.