greatest NFL coach

[jimschn]

This decade it's Belichick by far not sure he's the best ever though

[targa88]

Lombardi... And Tom Landry for the Dallas fan in me!

Dallas has never been the same since..

[hounser]

I'm obviously biased, but I think it's Belichick. Back before 1992 you could trot roughly the same rosters out year to year due to the free agency rules. I have a lot of respect for Knoll, Gibbs, Walsh, etc. but doing it in an era where there is such a high turnover of players year after year and to have a team this consistently good, is extremely difficult. This year, for example, they had no business being a 12-4 team after losing a number of their best players and still kept it together. The one year Brady missed they went 11-5 with Matt Cassel. Yes, the same Matt Cassel that has failed miserably in both KC and Minnesota.

The Matt Cassel season is always a very good argument that Belichick can do it without Brady, I don't think having a great QB should make your achievements as a coach any less impressive, his defensive scheming is just impressive, period. I really like Gibbs but as a fan who was 11 when he retired from the 'skins it's hard to get the image of his unimpressive second run out of my mind.

[Dourowino]

Don Shula

[cookie_1978]

How many head coaches have 4 SB - and have never lost the big game. Only one answer. Noll. Quit arguing - it is over.

[Ken Gargett]

How many head coaches have 4 SB - and have never lost the big game. Only one answer. Noll. Quit arguing - it is over.

if the yardstick is simply success - read superbowl wins - then one can't argue with noll. but is suspect that it is not so simple and there'll never be consensus, as we've seen here.

does winning the superbowl with a great team of future hall of famers make one a better coach than someone who takes an average team all the way but loses the big game?

if consistency is key then belichik has a strong argument. if influencing the game (and results) is important, i think walsh has serious claims. and what of winning three superbowls with largely different rosters, as gibbs did. the steelers had key people in place for most of the four superbowls (and keeping a team together another skill, i'd argue) whereas gibbs had to do it with three rather different teams.

i honestly don't know if anyone stands out.

[DrunkenMonkey]

if the yardstick is simply success - read superbowl wins - then one can't argue with noll. but is suspect that it is not so simple and there'll never be consensus, as we've seen here.

does winning the superbowl with a great team of future hall of famers make one a better coach than someone who takes an average team all the way but loses the big game?

if consistency is key then belichik has a strong argument. if influencing the game (and results) is important, i think walsh has serious claims. and what of winning three superbowls with largely different rosters, as gibbs did. the steelers had key people in place for most of the four superbowls (and keeping a team together another skill, i'd argue) whereas gibbs had to do it with three rather different teams.

i honestly don't know if anyone stands out.

Sure, Noll was great if your measure of success is actually achieving what all NFL coaches set out to do every year. But the argument against him was ... ... What? Having too many good players? So how exactly does having great players on your team makes one a lesser coach? Do you think Chuck Noll was hanging out at the beach or playing golf when the Steelers were drafting all those Hall of Fame players?

[Ken Gargett]

Sure, Noll was great if your measure of success is actually achieving what all NFL coaches set out to do every year. But the argument against him was ... ... What? Having too many good players? So how exactly does having great players on your team makes one a lesser coach? Do you think Chuck Noll was hanging out at the beach or playing golf when the Steelers were drafting all those Hall of Fame players?

was not criticising noll in the least. i did mention that there was skill in keeping a team together and should have added bringing together a team. no suggestion he was a lesser coach.

my comment "does winning the superbowl with a great team of future hall of famers make one a better coach than someone who takes an average team all the way but loses the big game?" was not aimed at noll - though the position of that statement in my comment would fairly allow that inference.

take it as an independent comment.

it is a bit like someone saying that XXX is the greatest QB (and we might all believe that he is) but he might have been stuck in a dire team with average coaches and may never win a superbowl. does that mean he is not the greatest?

agreed, coaches are employed to win superbowls but there are a number of variables that affect that. it doesn't make the coach better or worse.

[anacostiakat]

**** JAURON

[poisonowns]

Belachick is a cheater. Since the NFL laid that 500k fine on him and took their 1st round pick for videotaping other teams walk throughs, they haven't won a Superbowl. He should not be on this list for consideration. Also, look at the teams in their division they had to compete against. The Jets?? Dolphins?? Bills?? The Little Sisters of the Poor can win 11 games per season playing in the AFC East.

[DrunkenMonkey]

was not criticising noll in the least. i did mention that there was skill in keeping a team together and should have added bringing together a team. no suggestion he was a lesser coach.

my comment "does winning the superbowl with a great team of future hall of famers make one a better coach than someone who takes an average team all the way but loses the big game?" was not aimed at noll - though the position of that statement in my comment would fairly allow that inference.

take it as an independent comment.

it is a bit like someone saying that XXX is the greatest QB (and we might all believe that he is) but he might have been stuck in a dire team with average coaches and may never win a superbowl. does that mean he is not the greatest?

agreed, coaches are employed to win superbowls but there are a number of variables that affect that. it doesn't make the coach better or worse.

Quite right, Ken. My main point was that a head coach is (or should be, unless he works for an idiot owner who doesn't let him have enough control) very much involved in who the team drafts/acquires. Noll was in charge of those Steelers drafts that gave them all those great players. If the players are subpar, then it's to a great extent the head coach's failure. If the team is filled with hall of famers, then it's because the coach did a great job. That's the big difference with the QB analogy.

[poisonowns]

Quite right, Ken. My main point was that a head coach is (or should be, unless he works for an idiot owner who doesn't let him have enough control) very much involved in who the team drafts/acquires. Noll was in charge of those Steelers drafts that gave them all those great players. If the players are subpar, then it's to a great extent the head coach's failure. If the team is filled with hall of famers, then it's because the coach did a great job. That's the big difference with the QB analogy.

It's not uncommon fort he GM to be in charge of draft decisions. After years of Andy Reid making poor draft day decisions the Eagles handed the reigns over to the GM.

And we all know who is doing the drafting in Dallas.