dpberr Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 Bill Parcells was the beneficiary of outstanding drafting with the Giants and Patriots, not free agents or quick fixes. He's gotten away from that. The draft is the fulcrum on which good and bad teams are balanced.
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 I have a more favorable opinion of the piece. A while ago, I looked at the records Parcells the GM's teams have complied. During his first year with a new team, Parcells the GM's teams attained winning records. (Around 10-6 on average, IIRC.) But in years other than the first year, Parcells the GM's teams have finished at about an average of 8-8. His tenure with the Dolphins is a perfect example of this. In his first year he went 11-5, as you pointed out. But a lot of that 11-5 was based on some lucky breaks, as well as short-term stopgap measures. As an example of the latter, Chad Pennington played well for the Dolphins that year. But he later became injured/ineffective/retired, and there was no realistic replacement on the roster. That's the biggest single reason why the Dolphins haven't had a winning season since Parcells' first year as GM. I agree with the author that the passing game has become far more important than the running game. I also agree that Parcells typically hasn't responded appropriately to this change--mostly because he hasn't been great at adding good QBs to the teams he GMs. I strongly disagree with the author's implication that this new emphasis on the passing game is a good reason to avoid using early draft picks on offensive linemen. Offensive linemen aren't just there for run blocking. They're there for pass protection, which might have a little something to do with improving one's passing game! If you consistently give Trent Dilfer five seconds to throw, then over the course of the game he'll be moderately effective. If you consistently give Kurt Warner five seconds to throw, he'll rip out the defense's throat. The combination of a good QB + good pass protection is a very powerful one. Parcells failed largely because he did not obtain the first half of that equation. Right. It comes down to the decision to take Long over Ryan. In hindsight, Ryan was a franchise QB and arguably worth the #1 pick overall, but at the time 2 teams had enough questions to pass over him. Like most endeavors, it takes a team. For Parcells, the original team of people that he worked with and with whom he was developed with under Ray Perkins have been cast to the four winds across the NFL. As more and more teams have bought into the same philosophies, the advantages become commodities in everyone's toolbox. While it's fun to take shots (especially since Buffalo is the only AFC East team he didn't work for making him a sort of archvillian) and we can level some well-supported criticisms against Parcells, he has had a tremendous influence on the modern NFL in many different areas.
dave mcbride Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) I place exactly zero value on "try to win right away," except to the extent that it's indicative of a long-term effort to build a solid core. Sure, it may seem impressive to acquire a bunch of additional wins in year 1 of the rebuilding process. But when years 2 and 3 roll around and it's clear that year 1 was just a flash in the pan, then what? TD was a master at the "win now" approach. Trading away a first round pick for an aging Bledsoe was classic "win now." Letting Winfield walk so that he'd have the salary cap space to sign Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy was "win now." Marv picked up right where TD left off. Going into the 2006 draft, it was felt that the two positions which could most help the Bills "win now" were SS and DT. So that's what the Bills focused on with their first two picks of the draft. In Marv's second year, they used their first two picks on a RB and LB--positions normally associated with an instant impact. Whether Lynch represented the best possible long-term use of the 12th overall pick may not have been central to Marv's thinking. Lynch could help the Bills win now! Shortsightedness, and the win now mentality it implies, is exactly what's been wrong with the Bills for at least the last decade. Year 1 of any given rebuilding program is the absolute least important time to get extra wins. If a team lacks an adequate core--as is the case with the Bills--its primary and secondary focus should be on building that core! As for Parcells' two Super Bowl wins: he earned them as a head coach, not as a general manager. Bills fans know a little something about guys who are better as head coaches than as general managers. ?? - The Bills under Donohoe didn't actually win (unless you count the 9-7 season), so it's pretty tough to compare them! The Dolphins did win the division and went 11-5. Moreover, they're hardly a terrible team now. Their problem is qb - in every other area, they're reasonably solid. And while that 11-5 team didn't make it to the SB, they put themselves in a fairly decent position to make it by winning the division. Parcells also made it to the playoffs twice with a Dallas and had three winning seasons in four years. In the three years after he left Dallas, they had three straight winning seasons and two playoff appearances. In the three years preceding Parcells' arrival in Dallas, they went went 5-11. So your comment about not building for the long term is belied by the facts. Edited August 9, 2011 by dave mcbride
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 ?? - The Bills under Donohoe didn't actually win (unless you count the 9-7 season), so it's pretty tough to compare them! The Dolphins did win the division and went 11-5. Moreover, they're hardly a terrible team now. Their problem is qb - in every other area, they're reasonably solid. And while that 11-5 team didn't make it to the SB, they put themselves in a fairly decent position to make it by winning the division. Parcells also made it to the playoffs twice with a Dallas and had three winning seasons in four years. In the three years after he left Dallas, they had three straight winning seasons and two playoff appearances. In the three years preceding Parcells' arrival in Dallas, they went went 5-11. So your comment about not building for the long term is belied by the facts. Wasn't the Miami job a drive-by sort of gig from the very beginning? I thought Parcells job was really to put other people in the decision making capacities, thereby installing a framework for stability and a direction according to his proven philosophies. So, much of the article that blasts Parcells for leaving the Dolphins is based on the false notion that Parcells was ever going to stay -- he wasn't, not even if the team was winning Super Bowls now. Furthermore, stability ultimately comes from the owner. If he's willing to get rid of Ireland and Sparano when it is implied that Parcells would be against it, how is that on Parcells exactly?
Recommended Posts