Sports Question

[tickletoy3]

Why do so called 'analysts' never change their opinion on coaches? For years we hear about how great John Wooden, Vince Lombardi, Don Shula or a Tom Landry is. But the opinion always changes with the teams and/or players they coached.

For instance, you sometimes hear the opinion that Jim Brown wouldn't stack up with the teams of today. He would be good no doubt, just not the 'Great' Jim Brown as he was in those days. Or the Packers of the late 60s would be ordinary in today's NFL. I've even heard the Steelers teams of the 70s would be ordinary. If you don't believe me, just look at the Madden NFL video games of today. Where do they rank those teams in comparision of others? Good yes. Great? no.

Was it really that hard for the Dolphins to go 17-0 in 1972? Look at the level of competition in that division at the time - even the entire NFL at that time. The only real competition was Oakland and Pittsburgh in the AFC and Dallas and Washington in the NFC. In fact, from around 1972-1979, the NFL was primarily the Dolphins, Steelers, Raiders and a wild card (Broncos, Patriots). The NFC was always Cowboys, Vikings, Rams and Redskins and maybe a wild card too. The other teams were just there to fill out a league.

Seems the analysts want to discredit the teams of past, or consider them more like average given today's level of competition. Yet they always give the coaches the same reputation of 'greatness'. Even today, most would consider Shula and Lombardi the greatest NFL coaches ever. Yet they consider the teams they coached average by today's standards. Is this fair?

 

[jaba]

"Philosophy", over 'playbook".....

that's a really great question....

I don't know enough about the individual coaching styles of many of the great coaches, but I think generally, with most great coaches, it is philosophy, rather than schemes and plays and "playbooks", that really makes them successful....

John Wooden very rarely mentioned the names of the opponents of his teams, and it really appears that he did not care who the particular opponent was on the court....he believed that if his Bruins played his brand of basketball, in the most effective and efficient manner possible, the Bruins would be successful, no matter who the opponent was....and that certainly proved to be the case throughout most of his tenure as UCLA coach.....

and, he demanded that his players be good citizens first, and required them to follow rules.....the great college basketball player Bill Walton initially refused to cut his long hair, until Wooden smiled politely and bid him farewell from the team, and wished Walton good luck in his future endeavors...

so I think the coaches that had the most effective philosophies, and were most able to get the team to buy into that philosophy, would probably be the great coaches in any era.....

and I think that Jim Brown may have been as good , even if he played in today's era (I think Bo Jackson was the closest thing to a "modern day" Jim Brown)....and I think that there was an inner desire and toughness in some of the teams of the past that is somewhat lacking in teams of today...I don't think that it is ONLY level of talent, although talent is a requirement.....

 

[Knox The Hatter]

Was it really that hard for the Dolphins to go 17-0 in 1972? Look at the level of competition in that division at the time - even the entire NFL at that time. The only real competition was Oakland and Pittsburgh in the AFC and Dallas and Washington in the NFC. In fact, from around 1972-1979, the NFL was primarily the Dolphins, Steelers, Raiders and a wild card (Broncos, Patriots). The NFC was always Cowboys, Vikings, Rams and Redskins and maybe a wild card too. The other teams were just there to fill out a league.

Don't get me started on that team. During the regular schedule, Miami only played two teams with an above .500 record- Giants, and Kansas City (8-6). The AFC East consisted of a fast declining Baltimore Colts, the lucky Jets, and godawful New England and Buffalo. Some very lucky breaks got them past their opponents in the playoffs. And, with George Allen running plays called by the most important occupant on Pennsylvania Avenue (this is actually true!), how could they lose in SB7?

However, an analyst's most important job is to sell the product, and the idea of an undefeated team has cache. Regardless of whether it's all bullshit or not. So, there's no real point in listening to an analyst. His job is to get you to watch the product and buy shaving cream. Half of the time, these people aren't even listening to themselves.

The best thing for you to do is to turn the sound off. Like I do.