Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Synchronicity... Washington, Grant, MacArthur, Patton and, of course, Stormin' Norman.
They had their detractors too.
Until the day he died, Harry had to watch the newsreels of Doug on the deck of the Mighty Mo.
"These proceedings are closed."
How ironic...

Veeshik_ya wrote:Regarding Jimmy Johnson’s candidacy for HOF, some people who oppose his induction (see Johnson-Dungy HOF thread) point to his stint with the Dolphins as evidence against. It was a winning tenure, so not sure I follow the logic.

But it got me thinking. How many men have coached at least two teams and achieved a winning W-L record with more than one? Is Johnson unique, or is his achievement more common than I surmised? .

The issue with Johnson isn't really his lack of "success", its his lack of longevity. The problem with Johnson's stint with the Dolphins was that it was even shorter than his time with Dallas. If you aren't going to induct Johnson based solely on his success in Dallas, than I don't really see how his 4 years in Miami would influence the decision one way or the other. If Johnson had won another Super Bowl in Miami or perhaps even had gotten to the Super Bowl in Miami, that might be significant enough to influence the HOF decision. As it stands, I don't see how inheriting a team that went 11-5, 9-7, 10-6, and 9-7 the previous 4 years and then going 8-8, 9-7, 10-6, and 9-7 is really all that noteworthy in either a positive or negative way. Johnson was hired by Miami with the expectation that he would take an already-good team to the "next level", and it didn't really happen. I don't see how that could "solidify" Johnson's HOF case, but thats JMO. Coincidently, Johnson's win% in Miami is higher than his win% in Dallas.

Using your own list, would you say that Buddy Parker is more deserving of Canton than Jimmy Johnson? I think they had very similar coaching careers.

Bryan wrote:Using your own list, would you say that Buddy Parker is more deserving of Canton than Jimmy Johnson? I think they had very similar coaching careers.

Based on the chart I'd say he's a tad more deserving than Johnson.

That might change if I researched Parker more. What I like about Johnson's work is that when he and Jones came in, taking over one of the dregs of the league, they were viewed as amateur hour buffoons. In five years they were crushing people. (I view this as Johnson's work, not Jones'.)

I also think Johnson's work with Dallas is strong enough to warrant inclusion. Just saying his stint with Miami solidifies it based on the exclusive company he shares, rather than detracting from it.

Veeshik_ya wrote: What I like about Johnson's work is that when he and Jones came in, taking over one of the dregs of the league, they were viewed as amateur hour buffoons. In five years they were crushing people. (I view this as Johnson's work, not Jones'.)

I think an interesting part of Johnson's work in Dallas is that he was able to rebuild the team in short order while playing in one of the toughest divisions in NFL history....it wasn't like he was Chuck Knox beating up on the Three Stooges. The Eagles, Giants, and Redskins were loaded with talent. Johnson also "walked away" from a (probably) forthcoming third NFL title, much like Buddy Parker and the 1957 Lions.

Veeshik_ya wrote:rather than detracting from it.

This has always been my point. We just had the thread on Johnson (and Dungy) so won't repeat everything but we've all seen that too many talk about Johnson in Miami as if it was this colossal failure like Miami went 4-12 every season or something, using the narrative as opposed to reality (no losing records, 3 of 4 years in playoffs, put together one of leagues top defenses - drafting those players, etc) ...

I'm usually more interested in how wrong people are about his time in Miami, showing that you can't use that to say he's not a HOF'er, more than I make his HOF case, others are more pro-Johnson HOF than me but an argument I haven't seen them use is that he put together and coached the team of the decade (for those that care about 'decade' type things.)

How many - primary - Head Coaches of the team of the decade (60's Packers, 80's 49ers, etc) are not in the PFHOF?

Another one I find a little off in the anti-Jimmy HOF argument is Switzer winning with his team. As if another coach winning a SB with Dallas discredits everything Johnson did. If that was the case then what about the team of the 80's? Bill Walsh is somehow discredited because Seifert won with the 49ers? You would have to make that argument if you argue Johnson is worse because Switzer won. (note: don't think Jimmy Johnson is Bill Walsh, or Switzer is Seifert, just a comparison.)

Reaser wrote:Another one I find a little off in the anti-Jimmy HOF argument is Switzer winning with his team. As if another coach winning a SB with Dallas discredits everything Johnson did. If that was the case then what about the team of the 80's? Bill Walsh is somehow discredited because Seifert won with the 49ers? You would have to make that argument if you argue Johnson is worse because Switzer won. (note: don't think Jimmy Johnson is Bill Walsh, or Switzer is Seifert, just a comparison.)

I wonder if Johnson would be remembered differently if his Dolphins tenure had taken place before his Cowboys run, and he ended his NFL coaching career on a SB winning note. Same thing with Seifert and Tom Flores...if they had coached Carolina and Seattle before winning their SB titles, would they both be in the HOF now? I remember we had a thread about the notion of Marv Levy's Chief days and Belichick's Browns tenure being glossed over, but Seifert's and Flores' last coaching years were seen as diminishing their importance to title-winning teams.

Bryan wrote:I wonder if Johnson would be remembered differently if his Dolphins tenure had taken place before his Cowboys run, and he ended his NFL coaching career on a SB winning note. Same thing with Seifert and Tom Flores...if they had coached Carolina and Seattle before winning their SB titles, would they both be in the HOF now? I remember we had a thread about the notion of Marv Levy's Chief days and Belichick's Browns tenure being glossed over, but Seifert's and Flores' last coaching years were seen as diminishing their importance to title-winning teams.

Going out on a high note certainly helps perception.

In Johnson and Flores' cases, the association with their owners hurts them. Flores was seen as Al Davis's puppet, and while puppet might be too strong a word, he certainly had less a role in the building and the development of the Raiders than Jimmy Johnson did the Cowboys. I've always seen Jerry Jones as nothing more than the guy who bankrolled Johnson's plan, actually, and he's done nothing since to diminish that in my mind. But his consistent undermining of Johnson since then hasn't helped. Johnson also has an aloofness toward league tradition that turns some people off. I'd guess Jimmy Johnson could care less if he gets into the Hall of Fame. A self-fulfilling prophecy, probably.

Seifert's disaster in Carolina....well, it is what it is.

Bryan wrote:I wonder if Johnson would be remembered differently if his Dolphins tenure had taken place before his Cowboys run, and he ended his NFL coaching career on a SB winning note. Same thing with Seifert and Tom Flores...if they had coached Carolina and Seattle before winning their SB titles, would they both be in the HOF now? I remember we had a thread about the notion of Marv Levy's Chief days and Belichick's Browns tenure being glossed over, but Seifert's and Flores' last coaching years were seen as diminishing their importance to title-winning teams.

Never thought of it that way (for Johnson), that's very interesting.

Me personally, I go on what did happen and if the tenures were reversed it wouldn't change for me. Though general public, HOF voters, others that are the type that view Johnson as a massive failure in Miami, definitely that's a great point in how the perceptions (narratives) could possibly be changed.

re: Longevity. I view it the same as I do for players, not worried about how long a player played but what he accomplished when he did play. Same for coaches, not how long they were a HC but what they accomplished when they were a HC.

In other words, Lombardi didn't need to coach five more years for us to know who he is, Walsh didn't need another five years, etc ... (again, not that Johnson is Lombardi or Walsh)

I think I've seen - possible you in the past - the Parker comparison before, makes some sense. Based on similar HC career lengths (10 and 9 respectively) here's a comparison to Walsh:

Championships: Walsh (3), Johnson (2)
Playoffs: Walsh (7), Johnson (6) Walsh made playoffs last 6 years with SF, Johnson last 3 each with DAL and MIA.
Missed Playoffs: Walsh (3), Johnson (3) Both missed first two years, plus Walsh '82 and Johnson first year with MIA.
Playoff W/L: Walsh (10-4), Johnson (9-4)
Reg. Season over .500: Walsh (7), Johnson (6)
Reg. Season under .500: Walsh (3), Johnson (2) Includes first two seasons as HC for each of them.

Again, Johnson isn't Walsh, but is he so far behind him that he isn't a HOF'er? I don't know ...

... and aware I'm leaving out WCO, just going on results here, which V_ya greatly added to my 'innovation' point in the past, in that innovation is a result of trying to win - so I think we can go strictly on results.

I didn't realize this until I looked more closely at both of their coaching records, but Walsh won more Super Bowls (3) than Jimmy Johnson won divisions (2). I found that to be amazing.

Bryan wrote:I didn't realize this until I looked more closely at both of their coaching records, but Walsh won more Super Bowls (3) than Jimmy Johnson won divisions (2). I found that to be amazing.

Paul Brown won more league championships (7) than Walsh won divisions (6), too, ha. In Brown's first 10 seasons as HC and Walsh's only 10 seasons as HC.

Bryan wrote:I wonder if Johnson would be remembered differently if his Dolphins tenure had taken place before his Cowboys run

For the visual:

Jimmy Johnson -
Miami 8-8
Miami 9-7 (0-1 in playoffs)
Miami 10-6 (1-1 in playoffs)
Miami 9-7 (1-1 in playoffs)
Dallas 1-15
Dallas 7-9
Dallas 11-5 (1-1 in playoffs)
Dallas 13-3 (Champions / 3-0 in playoffs)
Dallas 12-4 (Champions / 3-0 in playoffs)

Now that I see it I think that's an even better point. Though I do wonder - for those that just don't like him - if it had played out like this if they wouldn't then just point to the first two Dallas years as the negative. Be blatantly obtuse about the realities of the beginning of his Dallas tenure instead of his overall Miami tenure as 'they' are now?