SonnyJ Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by newsbroker Parcells Giants vs. Gibbs Redskins: 10-6 in regular season Parcells' Giants vs. Gibbs' Redskins in the ALL IMPORTANT SHOWDOWN GAME, the NFC TITLE GAME: 17-0 rout by the Giants. Number of Super Bowl titles Gibbs won when having to deal with Parcells in the league: one. Number of Super Bowl titles Parcells won when having to deal with Gibbs in the league: two. Proven the ability to turnaround 3 moribund franchises, a skill extremely unique in the NFL: Parcells. Who has a MEDIOCRE lifetime record against the NFC EAST (if you take the Phoenix Cardinals out of the numbers, a team that is no longer in the division and was of high school caliber when they were?: Gibbs. Who has won more division championships? Parcells. (hey, if you can say one coach won a whole WHOPPING one more Super Bowl than the other which is the case despite the fact that two of his titles came when parcells wasn't EVEN coaching, then I can use the same pathetic logic) So, I'm ready to make some concessions. Here's what I'll concede. If you need a guy to take on those pesky Phoenix Cardinals of the league, Joe Gibbs is your guy. And if you want a HC during a strike shortened (9?!?!?!?!?) game season or someother oddity that requires the FRONT OFFICE to play larger roles than in normal seasons, that again, I'll go with Joe Gibbs. For everything else, including one vs. the other, I'll take Bill Parcells and he's shown it. 17-0 NFC Title game. Which leaves only 2 questions left for me: #1 - Who has the more talented roster in the 2004 season, the Redskins or the Cowboys? (I did my own unscientific rating of that a week or two ago you might remember, and of course, as predictable, you found only the "negative" numbers of the Redskins something that was amiss and therefore needing to be commented on as about predictable as can be since everything is rosy red in your ultra-biased eyes; even though the totality of my numbers indicating the Skins having a superior roster of talent) #2- When the Cowboys win at least one game if not both games this year against the Redskins, what will be the excuse for that happening. I ask only because I want the excuse on file now. Because Dallas will win once at least against the Redskins because Parcells is a better coach than Gibbs. What do you think, guys? http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 "You put this test of Gibbs versus virtually ANY other coach, and I'll take Gibbs. You happen to choose Parcells and that's the one guy out there that has done more, has beaten Gibbs the majority of the time, he himself has gotten to 3 super bowls with 3 different qbs and running backs (2 different teams, 2 different eras), and has rebuilt losing programs into solid winners." All of which was done with Belichick coaching defense. I believe that the Giants beating the Redskins with Parcells/Gibbs has more to do with Belichick being just as good scheming on defense as Gibbs is at scheming on offense. Also the fact that the Giants had some very dominating defensive players while the Redskins never had the same talent on either side of the ball but still won a lot of games and 3 Super Bowls. Gibbs has a better playoff and season record by far (and they never played the Cards in the playoffs either, if the Giants were better they would have played more). Yeah, the Giants beat the Skins 17-0 in the playoffs that year with Shroeder starting his first year at QB, and he wasnt very good. I'd say that Parcells record against Gibbs was just a matter of good fortune (he started the year after we won the SB and quit the year before we won another and I doubt him being the Giants coach would have changed anything since both Giants teams were weak at the time) Beilchick has 2 rings since the Giants, Parcells has coached more but somehow has no additional rings to show for it. And you cant change the fact that the Giants got to the Bills SB because Roger Craig fumbled and won it because of Belichicks defense. If you can bring up the strike seasons then this should be mentioned as well and is much more meaningful. Belichick has played Parcells football better than Parcells himself and the Pats/Rams super bowl was very similar to the Giants/Bills Super bowl so I'm inclined to believe that Parcells has been, and might always be very overrated. The evidence of the past decade supports my argument, in fact. In my mind he has more to prove than Gibbs does. He hasn't done squat without Belichick who is a defensive Gibbs but Belichick has done great by dominating in an era in which you arent supposed to be able to dominate. He is winning big with average players just like Gibbs did. Parcells improves teams for sure but It's not like he just takes over crappy teams and they become better, they do go out and get players when they add a coach of Parcells reputation. Also Dallas had a lot of luck in several games last year or may have been 7-9 or 8-8. Until Parcells wins a couple SB's without Belichick I'd say he cant be compared with Gibbs and I dont think he will stay anywhere long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskns21 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by RW31 Hmm well lets see here. You used the argument that parcells never had the same success with another team, knowing that Gibbs never even tried. What am I to do? I use the same argument, regardless. I never used that argument, somebody else did. My arguments were in the post you replied to only, no other. I've never used that as an argument against Parcells. You might want to re-read my post. In any case, I stand by my point. You are faulting Gibbs for not having coached another team, that is a faulty argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskns21 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Newsbroker, I find it very amusing that you consider EVERYBODY here biased while at the same time you are bending over backwards trying to prove your point so that you won't be thought of in that fashion. In almost every post that I've seen from you, you've done your best to prove to everybody that you are an unbiased Redskins fan. Anybody else that isn't on your side, you dismiss as having a Redskins bias. You have been trying so hard that you've actually become what you've accused everybody else of being, BIASED. The only difference is that your bias is of a different view. If you think that makes you unique, you're mistaken. In the end you look like nothing more than a hypocrite in my eyes. That would make you the **worst** poster that I've seen here since the last one who played this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW31 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsLover What was the Tuna doing while not coaching??? Looks like just eating donut after donut. . Actually he was an ESPN analysts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW31 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by redskns56 I never used that argument, somebody else did. My arguments were in the post you replied to only, no other. I've never used that as an argument against Parcells. You might want to re-read my post. In any case, I stand by my point. You are faulting Gibbs for not having coached another team, that is a faulty argument. Well I assumed it was you. I don't remember names very well, but if you looked at the situation you would understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RW31 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by redskns56 Newsbroker, I find it very amusing that you consider EVERYBODY here biased while at the same time you are bending over backwards trying to prove your point so that you won't be thought of in that fashion. In almost every post that I've seen from you, you've done your best to prove to everybody that you are an unbiased Redskins fan. Anybody else that isn't on your side, you dismiss as having a Redskins bias. . Well this site has become to large for its own good. On most sites the is a 2-1 ratio of homers to unbiased fans. Usually those unbiased fans (like Henry who I respect very much)point out what is wrong on both sides argumnts. I mean Ill admit the redskins are better than the cowboy at almost every offensive position, but what rattles me is you won't admit it on the defensive side of the ball. Maybe I expect too much...Back on topic... Parcells and Gibbs became famous in the same era. However, while Gibbs stopped at the peak of his career, parcells moved on, deciding to turn around losing franchises, and he did. And most of the Franchises he turned around stayed in good shape(contrary to popular belief). If Gibbs had stayed, or parcells had left, we would know for sure who is better, but they didn't, so we don't know. But I do know this. This era, the 2000s will ultimately decide who is better. Going head to head with marginally the same talent. No longer being able to bully the rest of the leagues and eachother with there immense money/ talent, we will see, who belongs in top 4-5-6 coaches, and who will be the forgotten 7-8-9... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by lolhahaha "You put this test of Gibbs versus virtually ANY other coach, and I'll take Gibbs. You happen to choose Parcells and that's the one guy out there that has done more, has beaten Gibbs the majority of the time, he himself has gotten to 3 super bowls with 3 different qbs and running backs (2 different teams, 2 different eras), and has rebuilt losing programs into solid winners." All of which was done with Belichick coaching defense. I believe that the Giants beating the Redskins with Parcells/Gibbs has more to do with Belichick being just as good scheming on defense as Gibbs is at scheming on offense. Also the fact that the Giants had some very dominating defensive players while the Redskins never had the same talent on either side of the ball but still won a lot of games and 3 Super Bowls. Gibbs has a better playoff and season record by far (and they never played the Cards in the playoffs either, if the Giants were better they would have played more). Yeah, the Giants beat the Skins 17-0 in the playoffs that year with Shroeder starting his first year at QB, and he wasnt very good. I'd say that Parcells record against Gibbs was just a matter of good fortune (he started the year after we won the SB and quit the year before we won another and I doubt him being the Giants coach would have changed anything since both Giants teams were weak at the time) Beilchick has 2 rings since the Giants, Parcells has coached more but somehow has no additional rings to show for it. And you cant change the fact that the Giants got to the Bills SB because Roger Craig fumbled and won it because of Belichicks defense. If you can bring up the strike seasons then this should be mentioned as well and is much more meaningful. Belichick has played Parcells football better than Parcells himself and the Pats/Rams super bowl was very similar to the Giants/Bills Super bowl so I'm inclined to believe that Parcells has been, and might always be very overrated. The evidence of the past decade supports my argument, in fact. In my mind he has more to prove than Gibbs does. He hasn't done squat without Belichick who is a defensive Gibbs but Belichick has done great by dominating in an era in which you arent supposed to be able to dominate. He is winning big with average players just like Gibbs did. Parcells improves teams for sure but It's not like he just takes over crappy teams and they become better, they do go out and get players when they add a coach of Parcells reputation. Also Dallas had a lot of luck in several games last year or may have been 7-9 or 8-8. Until Parcells wins a couple SB's without Belichick I'd say he cant be compared with Gibbs and I dont think he will stay anywhere long enough. EXCELLENT POST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Who has a MEDIOCRE lifetime record against the NFC EAST (if you take the Phoenix Cardinals out of the numbers, a team that is no longer in the division and was of high school caliber when they were?: Gibbs. Gibbs' record vs. the non-Cardinal East is 40-33, including 2-1 in the playoffs. Describing a .547 record and a .667 playoff record as 'mediocre' is an exaggeration at best and an outright lie at worst. I wouldn't expect someone to resort to such tactics unless he was either ignorant of the subject matter or didn't feel his arguement held up without stretching the truth. So, I'm ready to make some concessions. Here's what I'll concede. If you need a guy to take on those pesky Phoenix Cardinals of the league, Joe Gibbs is your guy. And if you want a HC during a strike shortened (9?!?!?!?!?) game season or someother oddity that requires the FRONT OFFICE to play larger roles than in normal seasons, that again, I'll go with Joe Gibbs. The fact is, unless the Redskins played the Cardinals more often than the Giants during that time, Gibbs was your man. He was 85-42 during the Parcells Giants era, while Parcells himself went 77-49-1. Both teams won the division 3 times during that stretch. Both teams went to the playoffs 5 times. The Redskins went to the NFC Championship 3 times, went to 2 Superbowls and won one. The Giants went to the NFC Championship twice, went to two superbowls and won them. It's not exactly like Parcells was cramping Gibbs' style as much as you paint it. I'm not saying Gibbs is a clear cut better coach, but to say Gibbs was only good at beating the Cardinals or succeeding during strike years is an ignorant, innaccurate statement worthy of a Dallas fan. Honestly, I'm trying to figure out what your deal is. It's one thing to struggle with your home-team bias. It's another to get nasty about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 The thing that is perplexing to me is why we're attempting to narrow the conversation down to overlapping periods, and more, excluding games against teams we don't happen to like as much. Again, this is a clear method to limit Gibbs by ONLY factoring in things that possibly favor another guy. Silly statements like Gibbs' record was mediocre against the NFC East IF you take out the Cards is so moronic it limits everything else. Sure, if you take away Gibbs Super Bowls and his wins against the Cards and his winning percentage -- all things you've done -- then, he's probably the worst coach in the league. Ever. It's really pretty simple. As long as you continue to remove from consideration all of the factual positives to Gibbs, you have no choice but to draw a conclusion that he blows. I mean, if you subtract all of Gibbs' victories as a coach, he's never won in the NFL, therefore he blows. This is very sound logic. Really, NB. Top notch. Now I know the reason Parcells is better is because Gibbs never won a game you think matters. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanforlife Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by newsbroker Parcells Giants vs. Gibbs Redskins: 10-6 in regular season Parcells' Giants vs. Gibbs' Redskins in the ALL IMPORTANT SHOWDOWN GAME, the NFC TITLE GAME: 17-0 rout by the Giants. Number of Super Bowl titles Gibbs won when having to deal with Parcells in the league: one. Number of Super Bowl titles Parcells won when having to deal with Gibbs in the league: two. Proven the ability to turnaround 3 moribund franchises, a skill extremely unique in the NFL: Parcells. Who has a MEDIOCRE lifetime record against the NFC EAST (if you take the Phoenix Cardinals out of the numbers, a team that is no longer in the division and was of high school caliber when they were?: Gibbs. Who has won more division championships? Parcells. (hey, if you can say one coach won a whole WHOPPING one more Super Bowl than the other which is the case despite the fact that two of his titles came when parcells wasn't EVEN coaching, then I can use the same pathetic logic) So, I'm ready to make some concessions. Here's what I'll concede. If you need a guy to take on those pesky Phoenix Cardinals of the league, Joe Gibbs is your guy. And if you want a HC during a strike shortened (9?!?!?!?!?) game season or someother oddity that requires the FRONT OFFICE to play larger roles than in normal seasons, that again, I'll go with Joe Gibbs. For everything else, including one vs. the other, I'll take Bill Parcells and he's shown it. 17-0 NFC Title game. Which leaves only 2 questions left for me: #1 - Who has the more talented roster in the 2004 season, the Redskins or the Cowboys? (I did my own unscientific rating of that a week or two ago you might remember, and of course, as predictable, you found only the "negative" numbers of the Redskins something that was amiss and therefore needing to be commented on as about predictable as can be since everything is rosy red in your ultra-biased eyes; even though the totality of my numbers indicating the Skins having a superior roster of talent) #2- When the Cowboys win at least one game if not both games this year against the Redskins, what will be the excuse for that happening. I ask only because I want the excuse on file now. Because Dallas will win once at least against the Redskins because Parcells is a better coach than Gibbs. You sound dumb ass **** and matter of fact i think you are a cowboys fan. anyway, when you say gibbs has an avg record vs nfc east teams when pheonix cardinals out of the picture, back it up by posting the actual record. notice u just said it but u didnt give the record. what is parcells nfc east record? u see what u said dont make sense. gibbs has higher winning % than most of the coaches in history. his loss column is amazing. he coached in the nfc east and he plays every team in the nfc east twice a yr. Im sure you knew that. how many division titles does parcells has when he was the coach for the giants? how many does gibbs have? again back it up by postin facts , dont just say it. if you actually think everybody is in it to win the division, not the super bowl u on crack u dumb ****. u know teams that dont win their division but win the super bowl would take super bowl over division titles anyday. what the **** u retard. u take all the meaningless wins and put more weight on it as oppose to the wins taht matters the most. anybody would take super bowl wins over reg season wins anyday. super bowl titles over division titles anyday. if u win division titles but lose in the super bowl let alone not make it is nothing short of a bust because yr in and yr our everybody that are in the NFL play for one thing and thats to win the lombardi throphy u ****ing dumb ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Skinsfanforlife, Ease back a little from the vulgarity from here on please. Art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanforlife Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Originally posted by Art Skinsfanforlife, Ease back a little from the vulgarity from here on please. Art. Damn my bad art. i tried to respond to his post nicely but his last post was just retarded. Im done with him. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.