ESPN: 20 NFL coaches of all time

[Darkstarr]

So again u claim playoff dominance, but the bears 21-0, 24-0 and 46-10 is not more dominant? the gave up 10 points the entire playoffs! U gave up 41. How is the 91 team more dominant? U scored 29 more pts then they did, and gave up 26 more. That is 5 times greater? 

[DogofWar1]

Perhaps here should be two lists, a pure "coaching" list and an "innovator" list.

For example, Bill Walsh v. Gibbs. In terms of coaching I'd give the edge to Gibbs for the way he built teams with 3 different QBs into winners, but would give the innovation edge to Walsh with the way he developed the WCO and has a massive coaching tree.

[Darkstarr]

Darkstarr-

 

You're joking about the 91' team right?  It's arguably the greatest team of all-time.

Nope, no way i would put it ahead of those packer, cowboy, steeler, 49'r, bronco, or dolphin teams that went to and won multiple championships. IMO at their height those teams were far more dominant then any skin team ever imo. I am just calling it how i see it. I am not just going to be a homer on this hurts, but is true imo.

[Darkstarr]

Perhaps here should be two lists, a pure "coaching" list and an "innovator" list.

For example, Bill Walsh v. Gibbs. In terms of coaching I'd give the edge to Gibbs for the way he built teams with 3 different QBs into winners, but would give the innovation edge to Walsh with the way he developed the WCO and has a massive coaching tree.

Tougher call, I do not think building a team with 3 qb's is a better way to build a team then drafting a Montana and riding that to dominance, and as he was fading, having the vision to transition to S. Young and your next qb. That seems like a real nice way to go also. Maybe Gibbs was the better game day coach, but Walsh was better talent/personnel guy. 

[Taylor703]

Darkstarr-

 

You're joking about the 91' team right?  It's arguably the greatest team of all-time.

Nope, no way i would put it ahead of those packer, cowboy, steeler, 49'r, bronco, or dolphin teams that went to and won multiple championships. IMO at their height those teams were far more dominant then any skin team ever imo. I am just calling it how i see it. I am not just going to be a homer on this hurts, but is true imo.

You're completely misunderstanding things.  I'm not talking about dominance over an extended period of time.  As far as single-season accomplishments are concerned the 1991 Redskins are arguably the greatest team of all-time.  They gave up 26 more points on the season than the 85' Bears however they scored 30 points more.  I won't get too much into hypotheticals but there were several times Gibbs had his team take there foot of the pedal and coast to wins.  You're seriously selling the 91' team short.

[Burgold]

So again u claim playoff dominance, but the bears 21-0, 24-0 and 46-10 is not more dominant? the gave up 10 points the entire playoffs! U gave up 41. How is the 91 team more dominant? U scored 29 more pts then they did, and gave up 26 more. That is 5 times greater? 

 

Yup, and what I look at is how Gibbs smashed Ditka and Ryan in '68 with a team that was considerably weaker than the 91 team.

[Taylor703]

Perhaps here should be two lists, a pure "coaching" list and an "innovator" list.

For example, Bill Walsh v. Gibbs. In terms of coaching I'd give the edge to Gibbs for the way he built teams with 3 different QBs into winners, but would give the innovation edge to Walsh with the way he developed the WCO and has a massive coaching tree.

Tougher call, I do not think building a team with 3 qb's is a better way to build a team then drafting a Montana and riding that to dominance, and as he was fading, having the vision to transition to S. Young and your next qb. That seems like a real nice way to go also. Maybe Gibbs was the better game day coach, but Walsh was better talent/personnel guy. 

I thought Walsh retired before Young took over? I could be wrong though...

[Darkstarr]

 

Perhaps here should be two lists, a pure "coaching" list and an "innovator" list.

For example, Bill Walsh v. Gibbs. In terms of coaching I'd give the edge to Gibbs for the way he built teams with 3 different QBs into winners, but would give the innovation edge to Walsh with the way he developed the WCO and has a massive coaching tree.

Tougher call, I do not think building a team with 3 qb's is a better way to build a team then drafting a Montana and riding that to dominance, and as he was fading, having the vision to transition to S. Young and your next qb. That seems like a real nice way to go also. Maybe Gibbs was the better game day coach, but Walsh was better talent/personnel guy. 

I thought Walsh retired before Young took over? I could be wrong though...

Walsh traded for Young in 1987 settting the stage for montana's successor. Pretty good insight. Basically that trade set the 49'rs up for another decade of hof talent at qb between Montana and Young not bad.

So again u claim playoff dominance, but the bears 21-0, 24-0 and 46-10 is not more dominant? the gave up 10 points the entire playoffs! U gave up 41. How is the 91 team more dominant? U scored 29 more pts then they did, and gave up 26 more. That is 5 times greater? 

 

Yup, and what I look at is how Gibbs smashed Ditka and Ryan in '68 with a team that was considerably weaker than the 91 team.

Not sure what 68' is, but again am just not sure how u can argue 91' was more dominant then 85 when the numbers just do not support such an argument.

[Burgold]

sorry, meant the '86 game.

ot sure what 68' is, but again am just not sure how u can argue 91' was more dominant then 85 when the numbers just do not support such an argument.

> 

So again u claim playoff dominance, but the bears 21-0, 24-0 and 46-10 is not more dominant? the gave up 10 points the entire playoffs! U gave up 41. How is the 91 team more dominant? U scored 29 more pts then they did, and gave up 26 more. That is 5 times greater? 

 

Yup, and what I look at is how Gibbs smashed Ditka and Ryan in '86with a team that was considerably weaker than the 91 team.

[Hiro]

I'm happy that Gibbs was recognized for the top 10, and I can personally live with the number 9 ranking.

That said, these are the only coaches I feel deserve to be above him, mostly for their impacts on the game and in-game accomplishments:

 

• Bill Walsh
• Vince Lombardi
• Tom Landry
• George Halas
• Paul Brown
• Chuck Noll

Belichick deserves to be the top 10, but he doesn't deserve to be above Gibbs at all.

[Diehard Otis]

I love this - BY FAR my favorite thread that I've seen on ES!

 

For the record, I'm going to echo what many in this thread have already stated; Joe Gibbs ranking as the #9 best Head Coach of all time is ludicris!  He easily ranks higher (and Landry was posted today at #8 - too low as well).  So here's my list with this caveat: I do not consider records & hallmarks in the same light that occurred before integration of the league, (with some notable exceptions, of course).  Segregation era stats & records are skewed because it doesn't reflect accomplishments against the TOP competition of those times. So here goes nuthin:

 

Paul Brown - No one else had such a decisive impact on the game. 

 

George Halas - The Papa Bear who famously built The Monsters of the Midway

 

Vince Lombardi - Widely considered the Greatest football coach that has ever lived

 

Tom Landry - Among all else, his teams were consistently good for 20 years? Impressive.

 

Joe Gibbs - The Father of Washington Redskins Football that could Win in any era without a top flight Quarterback

 

Don Shula - He could Win in multiple environments with different types of teams

 

Bill Walsh - The Father of The West Coast Offense. His coaching tree is without peer

 

Chuck Knoll - Those Steeler teams of the 70's are the NFL's most talented dynasty.  He should be revered for that.

 

Bill Parcells - He may have been a mercenary, but his teams were always tough to beat 

 

Tony Dungy - The man built 2 Super Bowl Champions, in different leagues, with different strengths, but only got credit for one of em

 

 

So that's my top 10.  It's a lot harder than it seems (and I did this by memory, so I probably left someone off).  But I want to go out of my way say that Bill Belichick doesn't deserve to be in the same breath as these all time coaches.  He is a good coach, but NO WAY is he great!

-he failed in Cleveland

-he inherited a team in New England that Parcells had built (with Brady already on the roster)

-never Won a Super Bowl after his key defensive players got old

-resides in a division that cannot produce a legitimate challenger for the title

-has done more to outsmart himself in the past 5 years than I've seen out of ANY competent coach

(going for the 4th & 2 in Indy a few years back, late in the game, inside your OWN 30 yard line???? That's stupidity & arrogance)

[DogofWar1]

Tougher call, I do not think building a team with 3 qb's is a better way to build a team then drafting a Montana and riding that to dominance, and as he was fading, having the vision to transition to S. Young and your next qb. That seems like a real nice way to go also. Maybe Gibbs was the better game day coach, but Walsh was better talent/personnel guy. 

 

Perhaps, guys do get a lot of points for evaluating QB talent, since that tends to lead to wins, and Walsh, as one of the gurus of modern quarterbacking was probably a better evaluator for that position than, well, anyone, but that's what makes Gibbs such an incredible coach.  Gibbs managed 3 SBs with no HOF QBs, building whole teams.  If the Redskins of the 80's had Montana, we'd probably have 6 or 7 (or more) Lombardis in our trophy cabinet, not just 3.

 

The biggest difference between our Superbowl teams and the 20 years in the wilderness we're just coming out from, was Gibbs himself (04-07 being sort of a strange exception).

 

Both guys deserve top 10 spots in all-time coaches, but in terms of coaching season to season, Gibbs was better, Walsh built good teams with a great QB, Gibbs built great teams with good QBs.

[98ORAKPO98]

Darkstarr-

 

You're joking about the 91' team right?  It's arguably the greatest team of all-time.

Nope, no way i would put it ahead of those packer, cowboy, steeler, 49'r, bronco, or dolphin teams that went to and won multiple championships. IMO at their height those teams were far more dominant then any skin team ever imo. I am just calling it how i see it. I am not just going to be a homer on this hurts, but is true imo.

In Joe Gibbs first tenure as the Redskins coach, he only had 1 losing season out of 12 and made the playoffs in 8 of those seasons. The Joe Gibbs coached Redskins from 1981 to 1992 made 5 NFC championship games, 4 super bowls, and won 3 super bowls. IMO the Redskins from this time period deserve mention along with the 70's Cowboys, 90's Cowboys, 70's Steelers, 70's-80's Dolphins, 80's 49ers, and 00's Patriots as the most dominant NFL franchises of all time. And the 1991 Redskins are arguably the best team of all time along with a few others like the 85 Bears.

 

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/  Washington Redskins Franchise Encyclopedia

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1991.htm 1991 Redskins

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFC_Championship_Game NFC champions

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFC_Championship_Game AFC champions

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions Super Bowl champions

 

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/football/teams/greatest.html Greatest NFL teams of all time

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1052969-greatest-super-bowl-teams-ever-1991-washington-redskins-1985-chicago-bears Greatest Super Bowl teams ever

 

http://misterirrelevant.com/index.php/2012/07/23/the-1991-redskins-were-basically-the-best-team-ever-says-math/ The 1991 Redskins were basically the best team ever, says math

 

http://promo.espn.go.com/espn/promotions/nfl/superleague/ 1991 Redskins are Super League champs

[98ORAKPO98]

I'm going to copy and paste a post from GaTechRavens over at footballsfuture that I read a while back....

 

I've talked about this team a few times before and have always had them in my top five, but not until recently did I actually believe they were #1. Even better than the '85 Bears, '84/89 49ers, '78 Steelers, and '72 Dolphins (who I still consider the GOAT for the perfect record, but I have different rankings for 'best' and 'greatest'). 

This is a team that is almost always ignored in these lists simply because they weren't sexy enough. They didn't have a Hall of Fame quarterback (though Mark Rypien certainly played like one that year), they weren't considered a dynasty even though the Redskins won three Super Bowls in ten years, and they just didn't have the media appeal that other teams did. But from start to finish, they were an unstoppable force that no other team in the league had a prayer against. They dominated on both sides of the ball at a historic level, and I'm going to dig deeper into that throughout this post. 

I'm going to include all of the things I mentioned above in the "study," and look at some of the factors that go into determining which team had the most dominant season. 

What I won't look at are names. I don't care about how many Hall of Famers a team has. These determinations should be made solely on results, and the results from that 1991 Redskins team were, in my mind, more impressive than any other. 

First, let's look at the basics: record, point differential, and strength of schedule. The playoffs are factored into these numbers, because I feel that most of the time they aren't fairly included in the discussion unless it's looking at who they beat in the Super Bowl (and that has its own issues, since a ridiculously disproportionate emphasis is usually placed on the Super Bowl opponent). 

Also, strength of schedule is calculated differently: in addition to the playoffs being factored in, the games against the Redskins (and the other teams being measured) are taken out. That way, teams aren't penalized for winning. 

91 Redskins: 17-2, 587-265, .568 
85 Bears: 18-1, 547-208, .533 
89 49ers: 17-2, 568-289, .516 
84 49ers: 18-1, 557-253, .488 
78 Steelers: 17-2, 458-241, .509 
72 Dolphins: 17-0, 440-209, .468 

This is an eye opener. Not only did the Redskins put up a comparable record and a point differential that was superior to all teams but the Bears, they also did it against a schedule that was significantly stronger than everyone else's. 

Let's look a bit deeper, though. Let's see how they did against some of their tougher opponents (10+ wins - which made up half of their schedule), and compare it to the competition: 

Detroit (12-4): W 45-0 
@ Dallas (11-5): W 33-31 
Philadelphia (10-6): W 23-0 
@ Chicago (11-5): W 20-7 
Houston (11-5): W 16-13 
Atlanta (10-6): W 56-17 
Dallas (11-5): L 17-20 
@ Philadelphia (10-6): L 22-24 

(Playoffs) Atlanta (10-6): W 24-7 
Detroit (12-4): W 41-10 
Buffalo (13-3): W 37-24 

My favorite stat about that team come from this: the Redskins played their NFC playoff foes a total of four times during the season, outscoring them 166-34. That averages out to a 33 point margin of victory per game. Insane. 

It has to be noted that two of these games don't do the Redskins justice. The first one is the Eagles loss. This was the final game of the season and the Redskins rested their starters...but only after taking a 19-7 lead. That's as much of a textbook case as it gets, and it's pretty much a certainty that the Redskins would have won if they had a reason to keep their starters in the game. 

The other one is Super Bowl XXVI. 37-24 isn't a particularly close score, but it underscores how much of a blowout this game really was. The Redskins took a 37-10 lead before the Bills put up two touchdowns in garbage time and dominated the whole way, forcing 5 turnovers against the Bills offense. 

Now, let's compare their success against strong opponents to the 1985 Bears: 

New England (11-5): W 20-7 
Washington (10-6): W 45-10 
@ San Francisco (10-6): W 26-10 
@ Dallas (10-6): W 44-0 
@ Miami (12-4): L 24-38 
@ NY Jets (11-5): W 19-6 

NY Giants (10-6): W 21-0 
Los Angeles (11-5): W 24-0 
New England (11-5): W 46-10 

The Bears, despite playing two fewer double digit win opponents, still look very impressive. Between them and the Redskins, this category is a pretty close call. The Bears only had one game that wasn't a blowout win compared to Washington's 4 - but in one of those games the Redskins rested their starters, and they had nothing that was nearly as ugly as Chicago's loss to the Dolphins. As to which of the two slates is more impressive, this is a tough call and you could go either way. 

The other contenders also fail to stack up in this category. The 89 49ers may have had the most impressive postseason run of the entire group, but they only went 3-2 against 10+ win teams during the regular season. The 84 49ers might have the most impressive single victory of the group (a 38-16 win over the 14-2 Dolphins in the Super Bowl), but only played three teams with a double digit win total, blowing out just one of them. The 78 Steelers lacked signature wins during the season as well, and the 72 Dolphins' problems are pretty well known at this point. 

So, it really comes down to the Redskins and the Bears. Here's the wrap up, and here's why I go with Washington: 

- The schedule is hard to beat. Half of their regular season opponents had double digit wins, and while none of those teams were overly dominant the Redskins still did what no team should have been able to do against those teams. They demolished their toughest NFC contender (12-4 Detroit) in both meetings, then embarrassed Jim Kelly's 13-3, AFC dynasty Bills in the Super Bowl. 

- They have no major blemishes on their resume, unlike the Bears' veryugly loss to Miami. 

- The two losses are about as undamaging as two losses can be to a resume outside of the 2009 Colts. They lost 24-21 to the Cowboys (though in all fairness toward what I said prior, the Redskins had a garbage time touchdown at the end), and they lost 24-22 to the Eagles only after blowing a big lead following the benching of their starters. 

I really would have no problems with anyone taking the Bears - there's a strong case on both sides and it's truly a close call. But I think I would have a problem with anyone leaving the Redskins out of the top 3 (with room to include the Dolphins if you're going to give them bonus points for 17-0). Other than possibly the Bears, no other team dominated like the Redskins did against as tough of a schedule as the Redskins faced. It's very unfortunate that they don't get the recognition they deserve. But when you don't have a hot name for the media to overhype, that can happen sometimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-AGeNhqkgQ

[98ORAKPO98]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins

 

The 1991 season started with a franchise-record 11 straight victories.^[33] Also during the season, "The Hogs", ^[33] under the coaching of Redskins offensive line coach Joe Bugel, allowed a league low and franchise record nine sacks – the third lowest total in NFL history. The 1991 Redskins offense also dominated under the brilliant coaching of offensive minded head football coach Joe Gibbs scoring 485 points which was the most by any team in the 1991 NFL season. The 1991 Redskins defense was also dominant under the coaching of defensive coordinator and guru Richie Petitbon, giving up only 224 total points which was second best of any team in the NFL in 1991, while also not allowing a single point to opponents in 3 of the 16 games played that season. After posting a 14–2 record, the Redskins made and dominated the playoffs, beating the Falconsand Lions by a combined score of 64–17.^[9] On January 26, 1992, the Redskins won Super Bowl XXVI by defeating the Buffalo Bills 37–24 ^[9] with Mark Rypien winning the games Super bowl mvp award. After the Super Bowl, the Redskins set another franchise record by sending eight players to the Pro Bowl.^[33] The 1991 Washington Redskinsare widely considered one of the best teams in NFL history.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Washington_Redskins_season 1991 Washington Redskins season

[98ORAKPO98]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/1991-dvoa-ratings-and-commentary 1991 DVOA Ratings

91 Redskins were beast.

[98ORAKPO98]

http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandlers-real-redsk/2013/06/need-to-know-gibbs-only-9th-best.html

 

Joe Gibbs came in ninth on ESPN’s list of the greatest NFL coaches. I suspect that many Redskins fans will take issue with this ranking.

Gibbs 12-season run as head coach of the Redskins from 1981 to 1992 is the greatest era in the history of the team and is among the best for any team ever. His most noted accomplishment was winning three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks.

One other coach, Chuck Noll, won more Super Bowl titles than Gibbs but Terry Bradshaw was his QB for all four. The two other coaches who have three wins also had the same player behind center for all of them; Bill Belichick (Tom Brady) and Bill Walsh (Joe Montana).

Bradshaw and Montana are in the Hall of Fame and Brady is a slam-dunk for the first ballot when he’s eligible. Gibbs’ three Super QB’s, Joe Theismann, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien, had some pretty good seasons but none is considered to be an immortal. That he was able to collect three Lombardi Trophies with these three relatively pedestrian quarterbacks is a tribute to his coaching prowess.

Noll, Belichick, and Walsh were not among the first 11 coaches announced so they are all likely to be ranked somewhere in the top eight, ahead of Gibbs. So will Vince Lombardi (2 Super Bowls + 3 pre-Super Bowl NFL titles), Tom Landry (2 Super Bowls), and Don Shula (2). The guess here is that George Halas and Paul Brown, both of whom coached in the pre-Super Bowl era, will round out the group that comes in ahead of Gibbs.

So if you are going to argue that Gibbs should be ranked higher, you have to pick one or more of the other eight who should be ranked lower.

Gibbs’ 154 regular season wins makes him the Redskins’ winningest coach. His .683 win percentage is third-best of all time and his .708 postseason winning percentage is the best out of the 14 coaches with at least 10 postseason appearances.

The list is the result of voting by 22 ESPN television and Internet analysts.

[WakkaWakka]

http://misterirrelevant.com/index.php/2012/07/23/the-1991-redskins-were-basically-the-best-team-ever-says-math/ The 1991 Redskins were basically the best team ever, says math

If math says the 1991 Redskins were the best team ever, that settles it for me. Math > all talking heads.

[CrypticVillain]

I saw darkstarr's post about the 91' Redskins and was about to let him have it, it looks like a lot of people beat me to it. Good stats/articles/post (applause smiley)

[DogofWar1]

I would put Gibbs ahead of Belichick definitely, and possibly a few others, but definitely Belichick. Belichick's success thus far has been Brady dependent, he may be successful without him, but we have no way of knowing yet. In addition, Belichick's teams have rarely been complete teams, they dominate offensively but have been poor defensively. Gibbs built whole teams, and then won with 3 different QBs. So 7th at worst.

[TheItalianStallion]

I would put Gibbs ahead of Belichick definitely, and possibly a few others, but definitely Belichick. Belichick's success thus far has been Brady dependent, he may be successful without him, but we have no way of knowing yet. In addition, Belichick's teams have rarely been complete teams, they dominate offensively but have been poor defensively. Gibbs built whole teams, and then won with 3 different QBs. So 7th at worst.

Belichick's SB teams all had better defenses than offenses, though that might be due to Parcells' holdover players rather than Belichick. They haven't done much in the playoffs without strong defenses. Even in 2007 they relied heavily on their D in the playoffs.

[elkabong82]

My top 10 for HCs:

 

1. Lombardi

2. Noll

3. Gibbs

4. Brown

5. Halas

6. Landry

7. Walsh

8. Shula

9. Lambeau

10. Parcells

 

BSPN has Belicheat at 7, ahead of Landry, which is a crock. I'd have Belicheat 12-14 range. I'm predicting their final 6 goes: Halas, Walsh, Brown, Shula, Noll, Lombardi 

[Philip Pease]

I think the greatest coaching job ever was the year of the strike.  All the Redskins team members honored the strike and so the Redskins team was made up of guys off the street; but other teams had some or even most of their regular players not honoring the strike.  I believe the first six games were played under the strike and the Redskins won them all. 

 

If we had won against opponents who had all off-the street players I would have said job well done Joe Gibbs; but to win those games against teams who had many of their regular players with a group who were walk-on players was something you might expect to see in a work of fiction.  When the strike ended and the regulars returned Joe Gibbs had his team ready and went on to win the Super Bowl.

 

I would also mention that Joe Gibbs went on to create a winning team in NASCAR - another example of his ability to mold a group of people into a winning team.  How many coaches have created winners in more than one sport?  Joe Gibbs is legendary.

[pjfootballer]

1987 Strike team was 3-0 and there was one game cancelled.  The real team went 8-4.  Bobby Beathard was great at finding gems in the draft and after the draft so it wasn't surprising that he could put together a really strong scab team and it's a testament to Gibbs and his staff for getting the team to play with less than 2 weeks preparation.  Also, Gibbs beat an almost full Dallass squad with the scabs.

[elkabong82]

Paul Brown 6, which means BSPN will have Walsh and Shula ranked ahead of him. What a joke their list has been.