Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

I always compared Parcells to a german military officer during World War II named Walthur Model, called the "fireman" for stabilizing or revamping german armies and fronts. Parcells made every team he coached better than before ...

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Yes, Gibbs is right up there with me as well. Someone placing him over Walsh is not, nor should it be considered, a big deal at all. Walsh does get 'credit' for a 4th Ring in '89, and yes Gibbs losing to Raiders 38-9 a 'black-eye', but techincally-speaking both he and Gibbs have equal World Championships to their credit at 3-apiece. And Joe, of course, did it with three different non-Canton-inducted QBs. The reason why I have Tuna not a full notch beneath Gibbs is because of his high level of head-to-head success against him; threeping him in '86 and then going 6-0 from '88 thru '90 (also w/out a Canton QB). If the wind blows just right, they can be tied at #7 instead.

Parcells' teams weren't as consistently good as Walsh's and Gibbs' teams. The Parcells teams would fluctuate from year-to-year; it happened at all four of his stops: 86 to 87, 94 to 95, 98 to 99, 03 to 04. I think Parcells was great at always being able to create a winning team, but I don't think his teams were ever "great". Gibbs had a run where his teams went 31-3. Walsh's 84 team was on of the greatest ever. Parcells' doesn't really have that on his resume. The three times Parcells went to the Super Bowl, none of those teams were a #1 seed. That is a credit to Parcells, but also kind of lucky as well. In 86 and 96, Parcells didn't even have to play the #1 seed.

I don't know what to make of the Parcells-Gibbs head to head record. I think Parcells was 14-9 against Gibbs and 1-0 in the postseason, but Gibbs won titles at the start, in the middle, and after Parcells' tenure in New York, so its not like the Skins were just dominated by the Giants.

In terms of Gibbs' 'black-eye', I think its kind of downplaying Bill Walsh's postseason failures from 85-87. His offense scored 6 points in two games against the Giants with one of the losses being monumental, and then in 1987 the Niners were the postseason favorite and they got spanked by the Vikings. I guess this is my way of saying I would rank them Gibbs, Walsh, (gap), Parcells

Bryan wrote:

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Yes, Gibbs is right up there with me as well. Someone placing him over Walsh is not, nor should it be considered, a big deal at all. Walsh does get 'credit' for a 4th Ring in '89, and yes Gibbs losing to Raiders 38-9 a 'black-eye', but techincally-speaking both he and Gibbs have equal World Championships to their credit at 3-apiece. And Joe, of course, did it with three different non-Canton-inducted QBs. The reason why I have Tuna not a full notch beneath Gibbs is because of his high level of head-to-head success against him; threeping him in '86 and then going 6-0 from '88 thru '90 (also w/out a Canton QB). If the wind blows just right, they can be tied at #7 instead.

Parcells' teams weren't as consistently good as Walsh's and Gibbs' teams. The Parcells teams would fluctuate from year-to-year; it happened at all four of his stops: 86 to 87, 94 to 95, 98 to 99, 03 to 04. I think Parcells was great at always being able to create a winning team, but I don't think his teams were ever "great". Gibbs had a run where his teams went 31-3. Walsh's 84 team was on of the greatest ever. Parcells' doesn't really have that on his resume. The three times Parcells went to the Super Bowl, none of those teams were a #1 seed. That is a credit to Parcells, but also kind of lucky as well. In 86 and 96, Parcells didn't even have to play the #1 seed.

I don't know what to make of the Parcells-Gibbs head to head record. I think Parcells was 14-9 against Gibbs and 1-0 in the postseason, but Gibbs won titles at the start, in the middle, and after Parcells' tenure in New York, so its not like the Skins were just dominated by the Giants.

In terms of Gibbs' 'black-eye', I think its kind of downplaying Bill Walsh's postseason failures from 85-87. His offense scored 6 points in two games against the Giants with one of the losses being monumental, and then in 1987 the Niners were the postseason favorite and they got spanked by the Vikings. I guess this is my way of saying I would rank them Gibbs, Walsh, (gap), Parcells

Valid points about Tuna. I've always opined that Denver convincingly beats NE in a '96 hypo-AFCC. Broncos were a combo of being better than the Pats at that moment in time, and also having their #. I always think of Shannon Sharpe's loud sideline rant during that regular-season rout at Foxboro.

However, and forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm sure-enough that the G-men were indeed the top-seed in the NFC in '86. And though they may not have lost by 17 nor get shutout as Washington did, I really don't see Chi making a nail-biter of things in a hypo-NFCC at the Meadowlands. Likely it would have been a no-suspense 10 or 13-pt defensive slugfest in G-men's favor IMO. Especially with that significant downgrade of a QB situation in lieu of McMahon getting injured (no more Buddy Ryan either). Even at Soldier Field, Bears wouldn't at all have won.

In 1990, it was three powerhouses who were all, basically, equally capable of winning the SB and then it's quite a drop-off from there. And NYG were one of the three. They were basically right there with San Fran in the regular-season, losing that famous Wk#12 Monday Night 'almost'-Battle of Unbeatens by just 7-3; and just besting them in that second D-slugfest the following January.

And that brings us to your point, Bryan, about me "downplaying" SF's playoff woes that decade. You're right. Not consciously meaning to, but I overlook '49-3' in '86 followed by allowing that upset as a 10-2 non-scab top-seed to the 8-4 non-scab Vikings the following year. A double black-eye, perhaps, for Walsh which only further helped to add that "what have you done for me lately" tension between he and Bart in '88 during that 7-5 start. And I've been perpetually guilty of also overlooking the fact that Parcells was...2-1 vs Walsh in the post-season (remember, Ray Perkins was HC in '81 when SF beat NYG in both the reg-season and playoffs).

As much esteemed Parcells still is with me, I'm wondering if Andy Reid is now going to barge himself into my Top 10 and get that 8-spot! And there’s room for the possibility of Landry/Shula getting back ahead of Tuna as well (but not ready to think of that yet). Gibbs always has a chance at a moment's notice to get ahead of Walsh; and same with Noll over GSH.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:However, and forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm sure-enough that the G-men were indeed the top-seed in the NFC in '86. And though they may not have lost by 17 nor get shutout as Washington did, I really don't see Chi making a nail-biter of things in a hypo-NFCC at the Meadowlands. Likely it would have been a no-suspense 10 or 13-pt defensive slugfest in G-men's favor IMO. Especially with that significant downgrade of a QB situation in lieu of McMahon getting injured (no more Buddy Ryan either). Even at Soldier Field, Bears wouldn't at all have won.

In 1990, it was three powerhouses who were all, basically, equally capable of winning the SB and then it's quite a drop-off from there. And NYG were one of the three. They were basically right there with San Fran in the regular-season, losing that famous Wk#12 Monday Night 'almost'-Battle of Unbeatens by just 7-3; and just besting them in that second D-slugfest the following January.

I may be wrong on the 1986 seeding...thought Bears were #1 because they played WC team but not sure since Washington was in NYGs division. Bears probably don't defeat Giants in 86 without McMahon, but its interesting to me that the 1986 Giants title season was bookended by getting thrashed by the Bears in the 85 playoffs and again in the 87 season opener.

I don't think many people gave the 90 Giants much of a chance to win the SB with Hostetler at QB. They looked mediocre by the end of the year, and were 8 point underdogs to the Niners and 6.5 to the Bills. But I think that is more of a testament to Parcells' ability, not less.

Bryan wrote:

74_75_78_79_ wrote:However, and forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm sure-enough that the G-men were indeed the top-seed in the NFC in '86. And though they may not have lost by 17 nor get shutout as Washington did, I really don't see Chi making a nail-biter of things in a hypo-NFCC at the Meadowlands. Likely it would have been a no-suspense 10 or 13-pt defensive slugfest in G-men's favor IMO. Especially with that significant downgrade of a QB situation in lieu of McMahon getting injured (no more Buddy Ryan either). Even at Soldier Field, Bears wouldn't at all have won.

In 1990, it was three powerhouses who were all, basically, equally capable of winning the SB and then it's quite a drop-off from there. And NYG were one of the three. They were basically right there with San Fran in the regular-season, losing that famous Wk#12 Monday Night 'almost'-Battle of Unbeatens by just 7-3; and just besting them in that second D-slugfest the following January.

I may be wrong on the 1986 seeding...thought Bears were #1 because they played WC team but not sure since Washington was in NYGs division. Bears probably don't defeat Giants in 86 without McMahon, but its interesting to me that the 1986 Giants title season was bookended by getting thrashed by the Bears in the 85 playoffs and again in the 87 season opener.

I don't think many people gave the 90 Giants much of a chance to win the SB with Hostetler at QB. They looked mediocre by the end of the year, and were 8 point underdogs to the Niners and 6.5 to the Bills. But I think that is more of a testament to Parcells' ability, not less.

They just weren't an exciting, risk taking, flashy team. Still the best defense in football and when you have that there's no limit to how far you can go...but yea 13-10 wins over the Rust Patriots and 24-21 vs the Cards is pretty uninspiring. And they did lose to the Bills in a game NY won time of possession by about 15 minutes which would foreshadow what they were going to try to do in the Super Bowl. Though all that happened after they had already clinched the NFC East so it's kind of tough to gauge...maybe taking their foot off the pedal but making sure they're still doing enough to win?

They got the breaks they needed, the luck (that many champs get) and executed flawlessly when necessary to vs San Fran and Buffalo. In another football timeline those games could go either way really. What if Craig holds onto the ball, or Bahr misses, or Norwood makes it(was a very very difficult kick at that time, he gets way too much grief for it) But they went the Giants way. Though I agree once Hostetler had to take over that probably should've derailed them, but credit the Giants. They had a backup who had spent 6 years at that point in their org/system, who was a good college QB. He was ready and able to step in without causing any sort of panic or chaos.

6.5 and 8 was kind of outlandish considering the results of previous games vs those two opponents. This was a team that was 10-0 at one point and had allowed 10 or fewer points in 8 regular season games