Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Tom Coughlin will and should be in the HOF. You have to apply the "Joe Namath" effect in this case.

He and his teams showed up whenever history was to be made. Spoiling the Patriots' perfect season in '07 and then proving that victory wasn't a fluke in Super Bowl 46. The upsets in Denver ('96) and frigid Green Bay ('07).

Andrew McKillop wrote:Tom Coughlin will and should be in the HOF. You have to apply the "Joe Namath" effect in this case.

He and his teams showed up whenever history was to be made. Spoiling the Patriots' perfect season in '07 and then proving that victory wasn't a fluke in Super Bowl 46. The upsets in Denver ('96) and frigid Green Bay ('07).

Whether he belongs in the HOF or not, someone else can judge. But as you say, I will remember Tom Coughlin for being one of the great big-game killers. Did it in pro, did it college.

Maddening inconsistency in between, but when he found himself in front of Goliath, he slayed him.

Andrew McKillop wrote:Tom Coughlin will and should be in the HOF. You have to apply the "Joe Namath" effect in this case.

True. When the Giants signed Coughlin after his stint with Jacksonville, it gave the NFC instant credibility. And after the Giants beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl everybody realized that the NFC was here to stay.

Bob Gill wrote:

Andrew McKillop wrote:Tom Coughlin will and should be in the HOF. You have to apply the "Joe Namath" effect in this case.

True. When the Giants signed Coughlin after his stint with Jacksonville, it gave the NFC instant credibility. And after the Giants beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl everybody realized that the NFC was here to stay.

Thanks for putting things in perspective

In the heat of the moment, one hardly thinks of whether the seat was left up or down.
One thing for certain, Tom Coughlin knew the 2015 New York Football Giants were a disaster.
He could not be anticipating another super bowl appearance unless he was invited to the Mara box.

If he had the presence of mind to realize the league was sure to do it, he could have benched beckham the bozo
and suspended him from the final regular season game.
By so doing, he would have assured his first-round ballot entry into the Canton building.

It would have been the feature story of the voting process:
Remember; Tom Coughlin suspended half of his dog-and-pony show even though the last game of the season had play-off potential.
What a man! - a veritable "Straight Arrow" Gennero!
To forego a possible third super bowl victory by maintaining the honor and integrity of his franchise -
as well as winning the hearts of millions just for beating the goodfella to the punch.

That, plus the prestige of coaching in the capital of the world would have made him a shoo-in.

Without it, he will now have to wait 3 or 4 or 5 years but the lucrative Big Apple will save the day.
It almost worked for "Chuckin' Charlie" but the log-jam now has covered any chance for old #42.

rhickok1109 wrote:

Bob Gill wrote:

Andrew McKillop wrote:Tom Coughlin will and should be in the HOF. You have to apply the "Joe Namath" effect in this case.

True. When the Giants signed Coughlin after his stint with Jacksonville, it gave the NFC instant credibility. And after the Giants beat the undefeated Patriots in the Super Bowl everybody realized that the NFC was here to stay.

Thanks for putting things in perspective

Yes, thanks! My mistake for making a figurative analogy.

Andrew McKillop wrote:Yes, thanks! My mistake for making a figurative analogy.

A weak one, though. I'm just saying I see no justification for a "Namath effect" as regards Coughlin. Beating an undefeated New England team in the Super Bowl was certainly noteworthy, and winning another championship is worth a notch on anybody's belt. But it certainly didn't prove the other game wasn't a fluke; in fact, both of them were flukes. They happened, and Coughlin and his team deserve credit for that, but that's all you can say without resorting to hyperbole.

Bob Gill wrote:

Andrew McKillop wrote:Yes, thanks! My mistake for making a figurative analogy.

A weak one, though. I'm just saying I see no justification for a "Namath effect" as regards Coughlin. Beating an undefeated New England team in the Super Bowl was certainly noteworthy, and winning another championship is worth a notch on anybody's belt. But it certainly didn't prove the other game wasn't a fluke; in fact, both of them were flukes. They happened, and Coughlin and his team deserve credit for that, but that's all you can say without resorting to hyperbole.

I never directly implied that you could match Coughlin's achievement with Namath's. I was pointing out that Coughlin, like Namath, had a rather unspectacular career sans a few transcendent, HOF-worthy moments.

Andrew McKillop wrote:

Bob Gill wrote:

Andrew McKillop wrote:Yes, thanks! My mistake for making a figurative analogy.

A weak one, though. I'm just saying I see no justification for a "Namath effect" as regards Coughlin. Beating an undefeated New England team in the Super Bowl was certainly noteworthy, and winning another championship is worth a notch on anybody's belt. But it certainly didn't prove the other game wasn't a fluke; in fact, both of them were flukes. They happened, and Coughlin and his team deserve credit for that, but that's all you can say without resorting to hyperbole.

I never directly implied that you could match Coughlin's achievement with Namath's. I was pointing out that Coughlin, like Namath, had a rather unspectacular career sans a few transcendent, HOF-worthy moments.

Namath was different. He had a career shortened by injury. That's the big argument against Namath usually. Not that he wasn't enough of a star 1965-69. I don't think he would have won another Super Bowl even if healthy (the Jets' defense fell apart after 1969) but he'd be better regarded by historians.

The Giants' two Super Bowl wins are flukes. Coughlin won no other playoff games with the Giants other than those two years. The 2011 team was 9-7, which meant they needed good luck just to get in the playoffs; 9-7 is usually only good enough to win one or maybe two of the eight divisions. They had nice runs, they deserve credit, but they were fluky runs all the same.

I consider the Jets' Super Bowl III win less fluky than the Giants' two Super Bowl wins under Coughlin.

Andrew McKillop wrote:I never directly implied that you could match Coughlin's achievement with Namath's. I was pointing out that Coughlin, like Namath, had a rather unspectacular career sans a few transcendent, HOF-worthy moments.

I get what you are saying, and on some level I agree with it, but perhaps Coughlin would better be compared to, say, Eli Manning (wait, what...?) than Joe Namath. Coughlin never wore pantyhose or propositioned Suzy Kolber.