DanInUticaTampa Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 And even though Chan isn't a top ten coach, I do like him as a coach more than I like Nix as a GM.
Pilsner Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) It's pretty easy to see why some people would agree with Chan being ranked as the 29th best coach based solely on stats. Stats are so black and white. Talent, vision, creativity, leadership, guidance aren't so. Chan's first stint with Dallas wasn't ideal because he was trying to lead aging stars who weren't too open to adapting. This coach is talented. He's either been held back by over the hill talent or lack of it. How can a coach be ranked when he hasn't had decent young talent for him to lead and the time to lead it to show what he can do? I'm not taking this 29th ranking seriously at all. Edited June 12, 2011 by Pilsner
Meathead Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 idk where chan really sits but i sure as sheet know its better than twenty ninth
Rex Ryan's Lapband Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 that list is awful. Par for the course, with bleacherreport. Here's a little bit more even-handed one from PFW... http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/06/10/nfl-head-coach-power-rankings They have Chan listed 22nd. Still too low in my opinion. (and any list that has Marvin Lewis anywhere near the top half is ridiculous) The guy had his offense with a suspect line, and a journeyman QB, hanging 30 pts. on Balt. def, Pitt. def., and New England's defense. Once the Bills' D can stop the run, that kind of offense is going to win games.
hondo in seattle Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 Mike Sando (ESPN) lists his Top Ten coaches: Bill Belichick, Andy Reid, Tom Coughlin, Mike McCarthy, Sean Payton, Mike Tomlin, Rex Ryan, Ken Whisenhunt, Lovie Smith and Mike Shanahan.
tennesseeboy Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 it isn't about liking, it isn't about whether he has been "held back" or got screwed over other places....its about WINNING and LOSING. Right now he's a loser who didn't make the playoffs. When he makes the playoffs we can start talking about him being in the top third. When he gets to the superbowl we can rank in him in the top six, and when he actually wins a superbowl he can make a case of being a premier coach. Right now? loser...we can argue whether that makes him 32 or 29, but he's where he's supposed to be.
Jauronimo Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 it isn't about liking, it isn't about whether he has been "held back" or got screwed over other places....its about WINNING and LOSING. Right now he's a loser who didn't make the playoffs. When he makes the playoffs we can start talking about him being in the top third. When he gets to the superbowl we can rank in him in the top six, and when he actually wins a superbowl he can make a case of being a premier coach. Right now? loser...we can argue whether that makes him 32 or 29, but he's where he's supposed to be. That approach seems pretty narrow and overly simplistic. I guess Joe Gibbs is a loser due to his last stint in Washington. Parcells is definitely a loser from his last seasons in Miami. Belichek was a giant loser in Cleveland. Did Gibbs and Parcells lose their touch? If so, how? Did Belichek have an epiphany of sorts after Cleveland which translated in to Super Bowl wins in New England? What was it? Or is there just more to each of their stories'? If Vince Lombardi in his prime were on the Bills sideline they still would not have made it to the playoffs last season. Would that make him a loser?
tennesseeboy Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 hmm Vince Lombardi, Belichik, Parcells, Gibbs...what do they all do as head coaches that Chan Gailey hasn't had? Oh...yeah...superbowl wins....and a remarkable career of WINNING. Chan...so far his head coach career is one of LOSING. Hope it changes but it is what it is.
Jauronimo Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 hmm Vince Lombardi, Belichik, Parcells, Gibbs...what do they all do as head coaches that Chan Gailey hasn't had? Oh...yeah...superbowl wins....and a remarkable career of WINNING. Chan...so far his head coach career is one of LOSING. Hope it changes but it is what it is. Right. But your approach states that a coach is only as good as his record and only seems to include the most recent sample. Gailey took the Cowboys to the playoffs twice and last year finished 4-12, and you declared he's the worst coach in the NFL and a loser. So clearly you're of the mind set that a coach is only as good as his last season. To expand the discussion I brought up coaches with a demonstrated history of success who had bad years recently, as well as a coach who has enjoyed incredible success after a disastrous stretch with the Browns, and asked you if Gibbs and Parcells are bad coaches. The question remains.
The Senator Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 That approach seems pretty narrow and overly simplistic. I guess Joe Gibbs is a loser due to his last stint in Washington. Parcells is definitely a loser from his last seasons in Miami. Belichek was a giant loser in Cleveland. Did Gibbs and Parcells lose their touch? If so, how? Did Belichek have an epiphany of sorts after Cleveland which translated in to Super Bowl wins in New England? What was it? Or is there just more to each of their stories'? In *Belicheat's case, I'd have to credit the SONY Camcorder.
tennesseeboy Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Right. But your approach states that a coach is only as good as his record and only seems to include the most recent sample. Gailey took the Cowboys to the playoffs twice and last year finished 4-12, and you declared he's the worst coach in the NFL and a loser. So clearly you're of the mind set that a coach is only as good as his last season. To expand the discussion I brought up coaches with a demonstrated history of success who had bad years recently, as well as a coach who has enjoyed incredible success after a disastrous stretch with the Browns, and asked you if Gibbs and Parcells are bad coaches. The question remains. The answer is that both Gibbs and Parcells have superbowl rings and are exceptional coaches. Gailey is not in either one of their leagues over his career as a head coach. I don't see how you can compare either of them to him.
billsfreak Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 that list is awful. Par for the course, with bleacherreport. Here's a little bit more even-handed one from PFW... http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/06/10/nfl-head-coach-power-rankings They have Chan listed 22nd. Still too low in my opinion. (and any list that has Marvin Lewis anywhere near the top half is ridiculous) The guy had his offense with a suspect line, and a journeyman QB, hanging 30 pts. on Balt. def, Pitt. def., and New England's defense. Once the Bills' D can stop the run, that kind of offense is going to win games. The list that I saw on bleacherreport that had Chan at #22 had Marvin Lewis as the worst coach in the NFL.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 it isn't about liking, it isn't about whether he has been "held back" or got screwed over other places....its about WINNING and LOSING. Right now he's a loser who didn't make the playoffs. When he makes the playoffs we can start talking about him being in the top third. When he gets to the superbowl we can rank in him in the top six, and when he actually wins a superbowl he can make a case of being a premier coach. Right now? loser...we can argue whether that makes him 32 or 29, but he's where he's supposed to be. You're still not addressing your own point. As Jauronimo has pointed out twice, you are basing your appraisal of Gailey on ONE season. Coaches should be judged on their entire careers. In his other two seasons as an NFL Head Coach Gailey has led his teams to the playoffs. What you seem to be trying to say (maybe) is that you give greater weight to more recent events.
tennesseeboy Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 You're still not addressing your own point. As Jauronimo has pointed out twice, you are basing your appraisal of Gailey on ONE season. Coaches should be judged on their entire careers. In his other two seasons as an NFL Head Coach Gailey has led his teams to the playoffs. What you seem to be trying to say (maybe) is that you give greater weight to more recent events. I do emphasize Gailey's record as a Bills head coach, but his record career wise isn't all that good. Over his career Gailey is 22-26. the two he is being compared with not only won superbowls but had winning career records..569 for Parcells and .700 for Gibbs. Where does he stand right now against the coaches in the league right now? He took a mediocre team and failed to fill the obvious holes, move in free agency, changed to a 3-4 without the personnel, made some strange trades, and ended up with a bad team. Maybe this is a part of a bigger strategy and I hope it is. But going on what we have I think 29 is kind of generous.
Jauronimo Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 I do emphasize Gailey's record as a Bills head coach, but his record career wise isn't all that good. Over his career Gailey is 22-26. the two he is being compared with not only won superbowls but had winning career records..569 for Parcells and .700 for Gibbs. Where does he stand right now against the coaches in the league right now? He took a mediocre team and failed to fill the obvious holes, move in free agency, changed to a 3-4 without the personnel, made some strange trades, and ended up with a bad team. Maybe this is a part of a bigger strategy and I hope it is. But going on what we have I think 29 is kind of generous. What I've tried to point out repeatedly is that evaluating a coach on only wins and losses, without considering all other factors, is too simplistic. As is your approach of "9-7 or better in 2 years or you're fired." I've provided several high profile examples which I thought would illustrate the shortcomings in your evaluation. I've demonstrated that great coaches with multiple super bowl wins to their credit, can have losing seasons. Given that great coaches can have losing seasons, it must follow that there are other factors at play in determining wins and losses other than coaching. Therefore, it is not necessarily true that a coach with ONE losing season is a bad coach. Gailey was handed a team that has been run into the ground due to poor management. The main criticisms of Gailey all seem to revolve around personnnel decisions, which are NOT his responsibility. It is my contention that Belichek, Gibbs, Parcells or even Lombardi would produce similar results if they were head coach of the Bills last season. I'm not saying Gailey is a great coach, or even a good coach. I don't know enough about his approach, his in game adjustments, and haven't seen enough to judge his effectiveness as a coach. I know far less about the other 31 coaches in the NFL, so I won't even try to rank them. If Gailey is one of the worst coaches in football, which may be true, someone please break down the flaws in his strategies, preparation, adjustments or lack thereof, etc. instead of just peddling out the "he won 4 games" line. I don't know anything about coaching a football team (played hockey), but I do know that the conversation needs to be steered in a different direction.
tennesseeboy Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 What I've tried to point out repeatedly is that evaluating a coach on only wins and losses, without considering all other factors, is too simplistic. As is your approach of "9-7 or better in 2 years or you're fired." I've provided several high profile examples which I thought would illustrate the shortcomings in your evaluation. I've demonstrated that great coaches with multiple super bowl wins to their credit, can have losing seasons. Given that great coaches can have losing seasons, it must follow that there are other factors at play in determining wins and losses other than coaching. Therefore, it is not necessarily true that a coach with ONE losing season is a bad coach. Gailey was handed a team that has been run into the ground due to poor management. The main criticisms of Gailey all seem to revolve around personnnel decisions, which are NOT his responsibility. It is my contention that Belichek, Gibbs, Parcells or even Lombardi would produce similar results if they were head coach of the Bills last season. I'm not saying Gailey is a great coach, or even a good coach. I don't know enough about his approach, his in game adjustments, and haven't seen enough to judge his effectiveness as a coach. I know far less about the other 31 coaches in the NFL, so I won't even try to rank them. If Gailey is one of the worst coaches in football, which may be true, someone please break down the flaws in his strategies, preparation, adjustments or lack thereof, etc. instead of just peddling out the "he won 4 games" line. I don't know anything about coaching a football team (played hockey), but I do know that the conversation needs to be steered in a different direction. move it in whatever direction you like, but winning football games is a pretty hard factor to downplay in evaluating coaches. I haven't followed Gailey through the years, but frankly what I've seen at Buffalo isn't all that good. I assume the 3-4 idea was his. I assume keeping TE at qb as long as he did was his idea. I would guess his failure to campaign for a stronger offensive tackle situation is at least partly his. He had involvement with the Spiller decision, which hasn't paid off (it still might, though). I'm not the one who originally rated him 29, but I don't really have any reason to say the ranking was too low. Enlighten me about how good he is... I'm open to the idea.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 marvin Lewis over Chan, now that is a joke. Not that it's the end-all, be-all, but didn't the Bills coaching staff whup the Bengals coaching staff in the Senior Bowl? Yes, I think they did.
Recommended Posts