Worst time of the year

[RichardSeymour]

RS, Lombardi won the last NFL Championship prior to the merger, followed by the first two SB's to make it 3 consecutive titles

Granted the first of the three was not a SB, but that would really be splitting hairs to minimize the accomplishments of the HC who became the standard by which all others are measured

Lombardi also won two prior NFL titles a couple of years earlier, making it 5 in total

Just wanna make sure we never allow time to dull our senses .. that can easily happen as generations pass and the memories of Lombardi fade, IF WE LET IT HAPPEN

Ham, I fully agree that Lombardi should not be forgotten or diminished.

At the same time, as I said before, in my opinion you can say Bill Belichick is the best head coach of all time, and you can say that right now.

CB Herb Adderly

DE Willie Davis

OT Forrest Gregg

RB Paul Hornung

DT Henry Jordan

MLB Ray Nitschke

C Jim Ringo

QB Bart Starr

RB Jim Taylor

S Willie Wood

Hell, those are JUST the hall of famers that Lombardi had.... there's also Jerry Kramer, Gale Gillingham, Dave Robinson.... a LOT of other high end talent.

Those Packers teams were packed jaw to jaw with talent.

Furthermore Lombardi won his first 3 championships in a 14 team league, his 4th in a 24 team league, and his 5th in a 25 team league---- and in the last two cases the NFL/AFL gap was enormous.

Now in my book that doesn't diminish his accomplishments---- every dynasty has existed in highly favorable conditions of a combination of weak opposition and tremendous talent on the dynastic team.

But with the Patriots, that's arguable.

The Patriots have won superbowls against 31, 32, and 32 team leagues. In my opinion they have done this with two future hall of famers on the roster.

In 2001 they did it with one of the least talent laden rosters for an SB winner in recent memory---- remember, the Patriots that year had a "decent" running back, a very good #1 and a good #2 WR, and NO other weapons on offense---- Anthony Becht was one 15 yard catch that year from DOUBLING the offensive output of the Pats entire TE unit, and if you ignore Terry Glenn who was productive in 3 games or so but a nonfactor and absentee the rest of the season, Kevin Swayne was one 12 yard catch away from having more production than the Pats #3, #4, and #5 WRs COMBINED.

Kevin Swayne.

Anthony Becht.

On defense the Pats had a rising star in Seymour, highly underrated (that year) play from Bruschi. Two elite players in the secondary. And solid play at LB from McGinest, Vrabel, and Phifer (none of whom were playing at an elite level at that point however).

Quick: who was the Patriots nickelback?

I have no f***ing clue either.

That team came together in a way that few teams in the NFL have. That team KNEW its weaknesses and played to its strengths. The best coaching job in NFL history, IMO.

The 2003 New England Patriots would have the most impressive record against high end teams of any superbowl winner ever---- The Patriots went 10-0 that year against opponents who were 10-6 or better. They won their last 15 straight. They had a heck of a lot more talent---- but still not as much as Lombardi enjoyed in Green Bay. They won despite having more injuries to more guys at the top of the depth chart than anyone else in the league. They won despite having to cut their pro-bowl SS 5 days before opening day.

The 2004 New England Patriots continued to thoroughly dominate the league. Then they lost their cornerbacks. Pretty much all of them. They kept winning. Then they lost their all-world, franchise caliber DL for most of the playoffs.

They kept winning.

They went against the most prolific passing offense in pro-football history by some measures, and possibly the very best, with UDFA rookie Randall Gay and Sophmore 4th rounder Asante Samuel at cornerback. With WR Troy Brown and LB Don Davis as the nickel and dime backs.

3 points. Utter humiliation for the Colts.

They went against a 15-1 team with the #1 defense in the league. Blew 'em out. Racked up the score like it was a pinball game.

I said before the Pats playoff run when we found out Law was out that in my opinion if the Patriots won the superbowl missing Poole and Law, and Seymour for the first two games of the playoffs, then BB was the GOAT in my book.

I stand by that.

[RichardSeymour]

I do think winnning 3 now would be a MUCH greater accomplishment than those 3 in a row for Lombardi.

I can go both ways though (go ahed TS, it's a layup) on the Lombardi's won 3 in a row thing.

The first was in a 14 team league. Comparatively speaking, winning an NFL championship premerger could be considered equivilant to just MAKING the superbowl now--- and Marv Levy's dynasty isn't often talked about.

At the same time, hey, good point, he won three championships in a row. That does count for something.

I'd say it's like 2.5--- better than 2 SB wins, but not as good as 3.

[Jethead]

Can't penalize the coach for having good players. How many times have great teams, chock full of all stars failed to deliver.

Lombardi is still the gold standard.

IMO, Scotty Bowman is the greatest coach of all time in any sport.

[RichardSeymour]

Can't penalize the coach for having good players. How many times have great teams, chock full of all stars failed to deliver.

Lombardi is still the gold standard.

IMO, Scotty Bowman is the greatest coach of all time in any sport.

I think the bigger issues is that it's so much tougher to have sustained success today, in a 32 team league with a salary cap, than it was in a 14 team league with ironclad player rights.

And yes, player quality does enter into it when you're comparing similar levels of success: you don't see people praising Barry Switzer, do you? Likewise, while Jimmy Johnson's rep as a talent evaluator and drafter has grown through time, his rep as a HC has diminished a bit as people consider just how stacked those 'Boys teams were.

Again, not to suggest it takes a LOT away from Lombardi, just that you have to consider things when comparing between all time greats.

[Green Jets & Ham]

RS, I have to take issue with your inferring it is HARDER to win a championship nowdays simply because there are more teams

Yes, there are more teams, but more teams also means less teams that are STACKED to contend with .. afterall, there are only so many Great Players to go around, and the more teams you have the lesser amount of Impact Players each team will field as the talent is spread through a larger number of teams

Its like Micky Mantle once said prior to this death, when asked what most accounts for the increase in offense overall?

Mantle attributed that most of all to the lack of quality pitching .. said half the pitchers in the league would have been minor leaguers prior to expansion .. even sited the number of pitchers who played in MLB, PRE and POST expansion, and the differential was huge

Or think of it this way ... if there was only 14 teams in the league today {TODAY!!}, and they all had to draw from the same pool of players who are currently in the NFL today {TODAY!!}, how much better would each roster look from top to bottom and how many borderline pros would not even be in the league?

You would basically be eliminating 60% of the current players ... 60% ... leaving only the best of the remaining 40% to spread throughout the league

And what you would have is LESS TEAMS to contend with ... but also MUCH BETTER TEAMS to contend with

The other thing you mentioned was the superiority of the NFL to the AFL ... which is true ... but you still had to beat the best the NFL had to offer in the NFL Championship Game just to get into the SB .. so all this did was add another Championship Game to the NFL Championship Game ... now instead of Just winning the NFL Title Game and calling it a wrap, Lombardi then had to Go and wax the AFL for Good measure

Perfect example is the famous Ice Bowl ... on that day Lombardi defeated a STACKED Cowboys team to win the NFL Title ... in years past that would have been a wrap .. but in this case Lombardi still needed to Go and wax the KC Chiefs to cap it off {something most folks forget about when they discuss the Ice Bowl}

Lastly, you mention all of the Great Players Lombardi had, but way more than half of the players you listed were all ready in GB when Lombardi took the job .. and that team flatout stunk .. perennial losers .. NFL laughingstocks .. celler-dwellers who hadn't had a winning season {i.e. Above .500} in eons, if ever?

It was only AFTER Lombardi came to town that these one-time sad sacks turned into HOF'ers and perennial winners

PS. Go and look at some of the rosters during Lombardi's era ... look at those teams ... it is damn near impossible to find even ONE TEAM nowdays that are as stacked as nearly every team was during that era ... that's why the Packers could have all of those talented players you listed and still get the crap kicked out of them year after year, until Lombardi came to town .. because at that time darn near every team was loaded

[RichardSeymour]

Actually I'd DEFINITELY say that the Patriots dynasty has NOT existed under "favorable circumstances".

http://archive.profootballweekly.com/content/archives/features_2000/nflist_030501.asp

The question posed to NFL insiders was: Which team had the least chance of making the playoffs or going to the Super Bowl in the next five years? The Patriots were a unanimous choice, but several other teams will have more than their share of obstacles to overcome as well.

3 Lombardis and counting in that 5 year span.

and the thing is, read the reasons those experts cited: for the most part they were DEAD ON.

Almost all the scouts we spoke to gave the following reasons for picking the Patriots.

1. The Patriots are in salary-cap hell because they spent money unwisely due to their inability to evaluate their own talent.

True.

2. They got almost nothing out of the drafts during the Pete Carroll era, although in many of those years they had two first-round picks. One year, they even had double picks in all the higher rounds of the draft.

True.

3. In this day and age when everyone wants a mobile quarterback who can make plays with his feet, buy time and improvise, Patriots QB Drew Bledsoe gets F

[Green Jets & Ham]

You wanna know how stacked teams were during the Lombardi reign?

The Chicago Bears had 3 HOF'ers ... RB Gale Sayers, MLB Dick Butkus and DE Doug Atkins ... and they were one of the worst teams in football!!

Can you even imagine a team with 3 HOF'ers in todays watered down NFL failing to even play .500 ball?

Heck man, nowdays you give me 3 IMPACT PLAYERS ... not HOF'ers, Just 3 Impact Players ... and I like my chances to make a run at the damn SB

But there were the Chicago Bears ... GOAT at MLB, one of the GOATS at RB, and a HOF DE ... yet they couldn't even play .500 football

And no, that is not a big knock on the Bears ... every team they faced was loaded

Look at the Rams .. never won a championship and they had arguably the Greatest front-four of all-time

DE Deacon Jones

DT Merlin Olsen

DT Rosie Greer

DE Lamar Lundy

THE FEARSOME FOURSOME

Also had a bigtime QB in Roman Gabriel

Then you had the Colts and the Browns ... both stacked to the Gills ... and the Cowboys that looked like a damn All-Star team

I'm telling you man, don't make the mistake of thinking LESS TEAMS made it any easier ... LESS TEAMS also meant MUCH BETTER competition

[Green Jets & Ham]

PS. Namath was one of the exceptions ... one of the true exceptions ... but most of the GREAT PLAYERS in the AFL did not opt for the AFL over the NFL, not for money or any other reason

Truth is, the NFL wouldn't have them ... most of them tried to make an NFL roster and failed ... Len Dawson, Darryl Lamonica, and many of the AFL's BEST PLAYERS ... the best some of them could accomplish was to make an NFL team as a backup, thus they left for the AFL so they could play ... that's how stacked the NFL was in those days

[RichardSeymour]

Ham, in your opinion how many teams in the NFL have rosters whose talent is moderately close to the Patriots'?

I think there's a significant though not enormous gap, but I know most here believe the Jets are JUST as talented as the Pats..... even though that's silly, anyone who thinks that should be even more in awe of the Patriot Dynasty.

Vince Lombardi never had to deal with a Terry Glenn, Ty Law, or Lawyer Milloy contract situation. Never saw Damien Woody and Ted Washington signed away in free agency. Never had to balance the salary cap.

Mind you, I am in awe of how good he was as a coach.

But I do think it is harder to win more than one in todays NFL. 32 teams, and these days they're pretty much ALL run at least competently. Every team has talent. Any given sunday....

What the Patriots are doing is unprecedented and underappreciated.

The Patriots have won 32 of their last 34 games.

16-1 against playoff teams in that span.

18-1 against teams with a winning record.

That's stupid. That doesn't happen.

I realize that Lombardi is absolutely an all-time great, and an all-world coach.... but I do think it's a longer, harder, tougher road in today's NFL.

[Green Jets & Ham]

RS, I look at it this way .. for every advantage either man had, there was a disadvantage

When comparing the NFL Circa the 1960's to the NFL Circa 2000, I can probably list 5-to-10 advantages and disadvantages for each of the two

But one thing we have to remember is that all coaches, regardless of era, had to operate under the same structure and rules as their peers

Example, BB has to deal with losing players to free agency, but so does everyone else. BB can also use free agency to plug a few holes, but so can everyone else. BB has a cap to contend with, but so does everyone else ... etc. etc. etc.

Same is true of Lombardi. Never had to deal with the headache of losing players to free agency, but neither did anyone else. Never had a fixed salary cap to adehere too, but nor did anyone else. Could not plug any holes with free agents year after year, but nor could anyone else ... etc. etc. etc.

The level of talent from team to team was much better in Lombardi's time, but there were less teams to contend with and less hurdles to leap on your way to a championship.

The talent level between the Patriots and many other teams is razor thin, but the same was true in the 1960's

And believe it or not, the Packers heard many of the same charges during their reign that the Patriots are hearing today ... NOT THE MOST TALENTED TEAM IN THE LEAGUE, but a wide gap between their HC and everyone else

Yes, I know that may shock and amaze you, but you will be hard pressed to find many opposing players from that era who will suggest the Packers possessed the most talent ... in spite of that list you submitted, they were never viewed as an exceptionally talented team ... NOT IN THAT ERA ... Deacon Jones, till this day, will tell you that his Rams were far more talented from top to bottom ... I know for a fact that the Cowboys felt likewise, as did many others ... but they will also tell you that "collectively" {AS A TEAM} the Packers were damn near unbeatable ... and they ALL KNEW it started with their HC, where the Packers held a huge advantage over most and perhaps a smaller advantage over some, but definitely an advantage over ALL

Does this sound at all familiar too you?

The year has changed ... the rules have changed ... the structure has changed ... so much has changed from then to now ... but I'll be darned if this isn't the GREEN BAY PACKERS all over again, only this time their wearing Red, White, and Blue

It really is amazing how history has repeated itself here ... two coaches on the opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum, one a master motivator who believed that manical conditioning and brute force is the true key to success in football, and one chess-master who believes that brilliant schemes are the true keys to success ... yet the results {amazing results} are eerily similar

Of course there is more to both men than what I described in the last paragraph ... their reasons for success goes much deeper than one or two elements ... it's a disservice to either man to suggest otherwise ... but at the end of the day their have always been two competing philosophies amongst football coaches, and these two men are philisophical opposites

Parcells is much more of an heir to Vince Lombardi, whiile BB is more of an heir to Paul Brown

BB, Landry, Walsh ... these are all Paul Brown disciples philosophically speaking

Parcells and Chuck Noll ... pure Lombardi disciples

That's why I believe you get the GREAT MATCHUPS when you can pit these two competing philosophies in a Championship Game ... Classic GREAT BOXER Vs GREAT PUNCHER matchups for the heavyweight title

These matchups are a football historians dream, because these matchups transcend football ... puts even more on the line than a football championship ... this pits one philosophy verses the other, for all the marbles, with each coach wanting to vindicate his core beliefs

It's why I loved those two Steelers Vs Cowboys SB's in the 70's ... too me those were the Ali Vs Frazier SB's ... Two Great Teams, Stacked to the Gills ... Two HC's, one a Lombardi disciple and the other a Brown disciple, and both at the top of their Game ... vying not only for a football championship, but to vindicate their competing philosophies as the superior of the two

But having said all that, there are also some similarities which are often ignored because the competing philosophies are so intrguing. Like for example, they may have had a different vision of what ultimatelty dictates success in the game of football, but both men {BB and Lombardi} were natural born teachers of the game. Same is true of all the GREAT ONES.

Its not enough to know what ultimately spells success, not enough to have it all in your head, that will not win you a damn thing if you cannot transfer that same knowledge to your players, IN FULL, and have them buy into every last detail without so much as a hint of reluctance.

All of these men had a plan ... a philosophy ... a sound one that they knew in their hearts {and minds} was the key to success ... but they also had the uncanny ability to transfer it all to their players, to break it down and make it seem simple, so even a child could understand it, and then have THE PLAYERS bring their philosphies to the Gridiorn exactly as it was hatched in the minds of these Great Coaches.

This is something BB and Lombardi have in common ... both men could turn their players, ALL OF THEM, into extensions of themselves on the football field

They may have taught different things, their ultimate keys to success may have differed, but their ability to instill their ideas into their players, make it seem simple, have the players completely buy into their vision, and then transfer what was borne in their minds to the football field was EXACTLY THE SAME

And believe me, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what YOU KNOW ... what YOU KNOW will not even get you a ride on the subway, much less a championship ring ... that can only happen when THE PLAYERS know what you know, every last detail, can fully grasp every last concept, and can bring it to the field without thinking twice

No football coach ever won a championship because of what HE KNOWS ... never happened and it never will

You win because of what YOUR PLAYERS KNOW, and what they can do with that knowledge .. minus that, what the coach knows doesn't matter one wit

Every Great Coach has understood that ... all of them ... and they all knew what mattered most was to TEACH and PREACH until the players became an extension of themselves on that football field

Anyhow, sorry to be so long winded here ... as you well know, this is a topic that really garners my attention ... and as you also well know, I already view BB as a HOF LOCK and one of the All-Time Greats

I would still place him a notch below Lombardi and his five championships, but he's gaining ground on the old man ... has him in his crossshairs ... and he'll have an opportunity to catch him

Right now I have him third

If he wins one more, I place him ahead of Bill Walsh and alone in second place

If he wins two more, he's right there with Vince Lombardi ... 1 and 1a ... dead-heat

If he wins three more, we have ourselves a new GOAT

MY CURRENT TOP 10 {from the SB era}

1. Vince Lombardi

2. Bill Walsh

3. Bill Belichick

4. Joe Gibbs

5. Chuck Noll {4 SB's but that wasn't a football team, it was an All-Star team. Greatest talent ever assembled}

6. Tom Landry

7. Don Shula

8. Bill Parcells

9. Jimmy Johnson {Much like Noll, also coached an All-Star team}

10. Don Coryell {The true father Modern Game and the BB of offesne}

I know it seems ironic to place Coryell on this list when there are still coaches out there who won two SB's, and he appeared in none ... you can call this a sentimental choice if you wish, but it really is more than that ... the man never had a defense to get him to the show, but there has never been a more brilliant offensive mind in the history of Pro Football and it is BECAUSE OF THIS MAN that we all enjoy a far more exciting game today

PS. If you said I could choose only ONE MAN to disect BB's defense and devise a plan to tear it to shreads, LIFE ON THE LINE, I would not even hesitate in making that decision ... there is NO MAN who ever lived who I choose for that job, with my life on the line, ahead of Don Coryell

NOT BILL WALSH and NOT ANYBODY ... Don Coryell and no-one else ... PERIOD

He was to offense what BB is to defense ... same guy, different side of the ball ... when you played a Don Coryell coached team, you just prayed that they wouldn't hang 40 or 50 on your @$$ ... if you held them under 30, you felt like you pitched a shutout

[Maxman]

Ham...great post.

But one game...for everything. You needed an offensive game plan you are going with Coryell over Walsh?

It is a tough, tough call.

[Green Jets & Ham]

Ham...great post.

But one game...for everything. You needed an offensive game plan you are going with Coryell over Walsh?

It is a tough, tough call.

Max, I saw BB shutdown Walsh's offense ... saw it in the NFC Title Game {held them under 10 Points in SF} and on more than a few occasions, this when BB was Parcells DC with the Giants ... but if there was one offensive mind in the history of this game who could have disected BB's schemes and designed one of his own to give him hell, that man was Don Coryell ... if he couldn't do it, no-one can

But life on the line I have to choose Coryell for that job over Walsh because I already know BB can shutdown a Walsh devised offensive scheme ... and I've always viewed Coryell as the more brilliant offensive mind of the two anyway ... IMO Coryell was truly the BB of offense, he could take the best defenses and tear them a new @$$

[Maxman]

Max, I saw BB shutdown Walsh's offense ... saw it in the NFC Title Game {held them under 10 Points in SF} and on more than a few occasions, this when BB was Parcells DC with the Giants ... but if there was one offensive mind in the history of this game who could have disected BB's schemes and designed one of his own to give him hell, that man was Don Coryell ... if he couldn't do it, no-one can

But life on the line I have to choose Coryell for that job over Walsh because I already know BB can shutdown a Walsh devised offensive scheme ... and I've always viewed Coryell as the more brilliant offensive mind of the two anyway ... IMO Coryell was truly the BB of offense, he could take the best defenses and tear them a new @$$

Fair point Ham. I forgot about the direct link between BB and Walsh. I wasn't counting BB's defensive coordinator days but you are right...they should count.

I still say there is no way BB stops Lombardi's "Sweep Right".

[Green Jets & Ham]

Fair point Ham. I forgot about the direct link between BB and Walsh. I wasn't counting BB's defensive coordinator days but you are right...they should count.

I still say there is no way BB stops Lombardi's "Sweep Right".

You know I was watching a Sports Century on Lombardi just yesterday afternoon ... on ESPN Classics

At one point John Madden talked about being a fledgling young assistant coach in the days who went to a Lombardi clinic on coaching .. said Lombardi spent 8 FULL HOURS teaching them ONE PLAY .. The Power Sweep

BTW, Just did some checking ... Coryell faced BB in 1983, when BB was Parcells DC with the Giants and Coryell was the Chargers HC/OC

Coryell hung 41 Points on his @$$ that day 8)

Chargers 41

Giants 34

[Maxman]

You know I was watching a Sports Century on Lombardi just yesterday afternoon ... on ESPN Classics

At one point John Madden talked about being a fledgling young assistant coach in the days who went to a Lombardi clinic on coaching .. said Lombardi spent 8 FULL HOURS teaching them ONE PLAY .. The Power Sweep

BTW, Just did some checking ... Coryell faced BB in 1983, when BB was Parcells DC with the Giants and Coryell was the Chargers HC/OC

Coryell hung 41 Points on his @$$ that day 8)

Chargers 41

Giants 34

They talk so much about the sweep in anything you read on Lombardi. Excecution.

That is funny about Coryell scoring 41. I think you had that one in your back pocket the whole time!