Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Reaser wrote: Be blatantly obtuse about the realities of the beginning of his Dallas tenure instead of his overall Miami tenure as 'they' are now?

It's interesting to see how much stupider those of us on the other side get as the two/three of you escalate your mutual agreement with eachother.

Bryan wrote:
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.

Kind of like Bears fans excusing Cutler's poor play because he has been better than Grossman or Orton.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:It's interesting to see how much stupider those of us on the other side get as the two/three of you escalate your mutual agreement with eachother.

It was my comment so no need to tie V_ya and Bryan to it as if they did something 'wrong' by contributing to an interesting, intelligent, and entertaining discussion.

The full context of the comment included "for those that just don't like him" obviously hinting at those that don't like him, then hinting that someone like that would use whatever flawed argument possible - like I hinted at with the 1-15 season. It wasn't aimed at any one person in particular. I don't know if that explains you or since you said you're on the other side if you're saying that does explain you and that's why you have whatever apparent opinion you have?

Regardless, why not contribute to the discussion, agree, disagree or add something? Instead of quoting one line - with no context - out of many apparently for the sole purpose of finding something to be offended by?

Reaser wrote:

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:It's interesting to see how much stupider those of us on the other side get as the two/three of you escalate your mutual agreement with eachother.

It was my comment so no need to tie V_ya and Bryan to it as if they did something 'wrong' by contributing to an interesting, intelligent, and entertaining discussion.

The full context of the comment included "for those that just don't like him" obviously hinting at those that don't like him, then hinting that someone like that would use whatever flawed argument possible - like I hinted at with the 1-15 season. It wasn't aimed at any one person in particular. I don't know if that explains you or since you said you're on the other side if you're saying that does explain you and that's why you have whatever apparent opinion you have?

Regardless, why not contribute to the discussion, agree, disagree or add something? Instead of quoting one line - with no context - out of many apparently for the sole purpose of finding something to be offended by?

There has been no addition to the discussion, just the same points being made over and over. I have nothing to add to what I said in the other thread, and I expect you have nothing to add to your comment that the opposing view on JJ's time in Miami falls into the "narratives, myths, and fallacies" category.

Reaser wrote:
It was my comment so no need to tie V_ya and Bryan to it as if they did something 'wrong' by contributing to an interesting, intelligent, and entertaining discussion.

The full context of the comment included "for those that just don't like him" obviously hinting at those that don't like him, then hinting that someone like that would use whatever flawed argument possible - like I hinted at with the 1-15 season. It wasn't aimed at any one person in particular. I don't know if that explains you or since you said you're on the other side if you're saying that does explain you and that's why you have whatever apparent opinion you have?

Regardless, why not contribute to the discussion, agree, disagree or add something? Instead of quoting one line - with no context - out of many apparently for the sole purpose of finding something to be offended by?

Well said.

Veeshik_ya wrote:

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.

Regarding Parker, I'm surprised at the dearth of material out there on the 1950s Lions. TJ Troup's recent book fills this gap, somewhat. But it seems like the definitive book on the team and its coach hasn't been written yet.

Am I missing something, or any suggestions?

Veeshik_ya wrote:Regarding Parker, I'm surprised at the dearth of material out there on the 1950s Lions. TJ Troup's recent book fills this gap, somewhat. But it seems like the definitive book on the team and its coach hasn't been written yet.

Am I missing something, or any suggestions?

IMO, a good resource for 1950's NFL stuff is the collection of Great Teams/Great Years books. They were/are a set of NFL team histories written in the early 70's, so there is a lot of material about the goings-on of the 1950's. A bunch of them are available on Amazon as used book sales...the Lions one in particular is available for $10 plus $4 S&H.

Bryan wrote:

Veeshik_ya wrote:Regarding Parker, I'm surprised at the dearth of material out there on the 1950s Lions. TJ Troup's recent book fills this gap, somewhat. But it seems like the definitive book on the team and its coach hasn't been written yet.

Am I missing something, or any suggestions?

IMO, a good resource for 1950's NFL stuff is the collection of Great Teams/Great Years books. They were/are a set of NFL team histories written in the early 70's, so there is a lot of material about the goings-on of the 1950's. A bunch of them are available on Amazon as used book sales...the Lions one in particular is available for $10 plus $4 S&H.

Thanks Bryan, I do have several of those. In terms of generic series, they're not bad. Might have to pick up the Lions.

Veeshik_ya wrote:

Veeshik_ya wrote:

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.

Regarding Parker, I'm surprised at the dearth of material out there on the 1950s Lions. TJ Troup's recent book fills this gap, somewhat. But it seems like the definitive book on the team and its coach hasn't been written yet.

Am I missing something, or any suggestions?

There's a 168-page paperback book on the 1957 Detroit Lions: "When the Lions Roared," by John A. D'Annunzio.

SixtiesFan wrote:There's a 168-page paperback book on the 1957 Detroit Lions: "When the Lions Roared," by John A. D'Annunzio.

Saw that on Amazon. That's the only book of note I saw outside of the Great Teams series. Might have to check that out also. Thank you.