Andy Reid

 

Agreed

I think that's a fair criticism.

 

 

'02 = 41-0 loss to the Jets, disaster

'03 and '04 = they lost to a New England team that was better than them

'05 = lost to a Pittsburgh team they should have beat

'06 = won the Super Bowl

'07 and '08 = back-to-back losses to San Diego

 

Only '03 and '04 did they lose to a better team, IMO. Only in '06 with the win over New England did they beat a team they shouldn't have. JMO

 

 

How does Bill Cowher's resume differ significantly from Tony Dungy?

 

I wasn't offering Cowher up as a counterpoint, but I would give him more of a pass than Dungy. While Cowher has had a number of early playoff flameouts, they were generally with top-flite QB talent like Kordell Stewart, Neil O'Donnell and Tommy Maddox running the offense. Dungy had Peyton most of his time.

While I know there's a big-time Tony Dungy love-fest among popular opinion, I would argue he shouldn't even be in this conversation. His teams consistently underperformed in the playoffs, primarily because of the lack of adjustments made by the coaching staff in preparing for the playoffs. His teams would come into the playoffs and change next to nothing from the regular season, and subsequently get beat early.

 

He (and Peyton) should be thanking his lucky stars he's even got a SB ring thanks to the good fortune of drawing the awful Bears/Rex Grossman as an opponent in the big game. I have little doubt the Saints would've beaten them had they gotten past the Bears.

 

Uh...he also built a Super Bowl Champion in Tampa Bay but was let go one season short of winning the title. Give Gruden the credit if you want, but he's not in much of a different boat than Dungy career wise.

Uh...he also built a Super Bowl Champion in Tampa Bay but was let go one season short of winning the title. Give Gruden the credit if you want, but he's not in much of a different boat than Dungy career wise.

Or maybe they won BECAUSE he left?

Or maybe they won BECAUSE he left?

 

That might be it. The Colts sure weren't better off when he left.

That might be it. The Colts sure weren't better off when he left.

 

The Colts really haven't missed a beat since he left.

The Colts really haven't missed a beat since he left.

 

Which tells me their regular-season success has more to do with Peyton — as much as it pains me to say so — than the head coach.

The Colts really haven't missed a beat since he left.

 

I think they beat the Saints with Dungy last year.

I think they beat the Saints with Dungy last year.

 

Dungy retired before last season.

I think they beat the Saints with Dungy last year.

Or they could've done their usual MO and choked out prior to facing the Saints in the Super Bowl.

Which is my point...Dungy gets criticized for that, and fairly to some degree. Does Cowher? His track record is very similar. The Steelers lost numerous home playoff games as the high seed under Cowher's leadership. And, late in his career, he finally broke through with a Super Bowl. And, as many are quick to say the Colts were lucky in their Super Bowl season, I think Cowher was just as lucky in his, if not moreso. Say what you want about Dungy and the Colts getting to play the Bears, but they rallied from a 21-3 deficit against a perennial playoff power to get there. The Steelers never had to beat a team that good to win theirs. Instead, they had to beat the Bungles, the other guy in this argument (Dungy...somebody had to win), and finally the Jake Plummer-led Denver Broncos.

 

I see little difference in the two. If nothing else, they prove that it often takes some luck to win it all.

 

I wouldn't pick either as the best coach, but I like Dungy's argument from the standpoint of winning with two different teams in different ways...of taking a perennial loser to the cusp of a Super Bowl with defense, and winning a Super Bowl with offense.

I think they beat the Saints with Dungy last year.

 

Dungy retired before last season.

 

Oops. Misread your post.

 

I disagree, by the way. The Colts lost because they didn't change anything in their game planning from the regular season -- the usual recipe for early exits. The coach might have changed, but the culture there hasn't.

It would be really hard to vote for anyone other than Belicheck...Parcells is the only other guy I'd consider for the title of best. Seeing as how he looks to be done in the coaching realm, I'd go with the Pats guy.

While I know there's a big-time Tony Dungy love-fest among popular opinion, I would argue he shouldn't even be in this conversation. His teams consistently underperformed in the playoffs, primarily because of the lack of adjustments made by the coaching staff in preparing for the playoffs. His teams would come into the playoffs and change next to nothing from the regular season, and subsequently get beat early.

 

He (and Peyton) should be thanking his lucky stars he's even got a SB ring thanks to the good fortune of drawing the awful Bears/Rex Grossman as an opponent in the big game. I have little doubt the Saints would've beaten them had they gotten past the Bears.

I can't argue with anything in that post and I admire Dungy for all he did, and still does, for the Tampa Bay Area.

 

I like the guy, Jon Gruden does not belong on that list at all. After winning the Super Bowl with essentially Dungy's (really Rich McKay's) team, he went 45-51 the next 6 seasons. Even when the Bucs won the division, in 05, 07, and 08, they faded late in the season and lost in the first round of the playoffs.

The Colts really haven't missed a beat since he left.

 

Which tells me their regular-season success has more to do with Peyton — as much as it pains me to say so — than the head coach.

 

I tend to think it has more to do with the GM as anything. However, it took Dungy to get Payton over the hump, much like it took Gruden to take Dungy's team over the hump in Tampa.