I'll take Parcells, given what he accomplished with four different teams, but by no means am I downgrading Coughlin, who won Super Bowls without LT and possibly the greatest coach ever on his sideline.
I'll just say I'm glad we had both -- which should be the most important thing.
there’s no wrong answer. After XLVI, I thought TC, but then, for varying reasons we hit a big bump thereafter. But the Tuna also had his share of clunkers, especially in some really big game.
assisttants, including Coughlin himself. If TC had had a commensurate staff, he'd have won more than 2 SB's. Btw, TC had a better staff lined up in 2004, but Ernie wanted to to chase Saban and TC ended up losing some.
there’s no wrong answer. After XLVI, I thought TC, but then, for varying reasons we hit a big bump thereafter. But the Tuna also had his share of clunkers, especially in some really big game.
And as just pointed out, the Tuna made every stop a much improved one
Coughlin 2 teams 20 years 170 wins .531 winning percentage 7 out of 20 double digit winning seasons 12-7 playoff record 2 Super Bowl appearances 2-0
Schottenheimer 4 teams 20 years 200 wins .613 winning percentage 11 out of 20 double digit winning seasons 5-13 playoff record 0 Super Bowl appearances.
Some of Marty's playoff loses were just horrible out of the coaches hands luck. Kind of like a helmet catch in reverse. The two fumbles in Cleveland, the SD fumble when they had NE beat, some were that he played too conservative and not to lose. But anyone who watched both of those careers and thinks Tom Coughlin got more out of his teams than Marty did is either a Giant fan or lying. Basically in the NFL Super Bowl wins = HOF which is why Coughlin will be in and Marty won't.
As far as Parcells vs Coughlin goes everyone here will have their own opinion based on which guy they "like". For anyone who has been around the NFL objectively from the beginning of the Super Bowl era it's an easy call.
I think Coughlin did more with less talent. the main reason I would want Coughlin over Parcells is loyalty. Parcells didnt want to stay in one place for a while which is why after he left the Giants he didnt win the big game. He didnt stay anywhere long enough.
Parcells has 3 potential HOF coaches on his staff in himself, BB and Coughlin. Coughlin only has himself.
They are both great coaches but if you are looking for long term Id go Coughlin and short term Id go Parcells.
It's hard to compare pre and post free agency eras
It's funny, some people wanted to discount TC making Jax into a contender, but that's why I would give points to Parcells as well. Like TC, he never won a championship outside of NY, but building the Pats and Jets into contenders is nothing to sneeze at. It's easier for a coach to sit on a perennial winner (especially before free agency) and collect rings.
I view the strength of Parcells' staffs as a point in his favor. He was a great leader but also great at putting together strong coaching staffs and at least 3 of his assistants went on to win SBs (BB, TC, and Payton) as HCs. I don't think any TC disciple has even had moderate success as a HC.
This quote is from an ESPN article at the time Parcells went into the HOF.
“ Bill Parcells' greatest gift as a head coach had nothing to do with X's and O's, game-day adjustments or personnel evaluation. Instead, it had everything to do with bonding. No coach in his era was better at discovering exactly what it takes to motivate every player on his roster. More importantly, as many of those players would attest, he also understood something equally crucial to his success: All players shouldn't be treated equally.”
This to me was the biggest weakness of Coughlin and something I constantly pointed out in his early years here (and was constantly blasted for when I brought it up back then as I probably will be blasted again).
For me it's Parcells. But I find it's interesting that both Parcells & Coughlin may have been paired with the perfect QBs for their coaching / leadership methods. Both coaches had skilled QBs and leaders that aptly supported the personalities of their teams, too.
It's not even a debate. Finding quality assistants and building a top coaching staff is part of a head coach's job, yet some people are trying to use Coughlin's struggles in this regard as an advantage over Parcells? Get the hell outta here with that.
It's not even a debate. Finding quality assistants and building a top coaching staff is part of a head coach's job, yet some people are trying to use Coughlin's struggles in this regard as an advantage over Parcells? Get the hell outta here with that.
was always the best coach on his staff. Parcells wasn't whenever he had Belichick. Plax's night out is the reason TC didn't win more SB's. Tuna's teams just left one or two on the table.
I wouldn't give him full credit for people like Belichick, Romeo Crennel, Ron Erhardt, Lamar Leachman and Pat Hodgson, who he inherited from Ray Perkins' staff. I give him more credit for hiring later staffs, like Sean Payton in Dallas.
Young didn't stop Parcells from hiring anyone, but Ernie's pursuit of Saban cost Coughlin guys like Alex Gibbs, Bill Callahan and Greg Williams back in 2004. None of them are Little Bill, but they are better than what he ended up with.
George Young got BP great players ... including the GOAT in LT. Parcells’ teams might have crushed TCs Giants, but more so bc of the players not the coaching. As much as I love Eli, he would have been a sitting duck against BB’s defenses. Also, I will always hate Parcells for leaving the way he did ...
It's not even a debate. Finding quality assistants and building a top coaching staff is part of a head coach's job, yet some people are trying to use Coughlin's struggles in this regard as an advantage over Parcells? Get the hell outta here with that.
great coaches. Many similarities with teams known for toughness, preparedness and attention to detail. Both got teams ready in big games.
Whoever you pick you know that when they take over a team they will win big and soon.
I think Parcells was much better at identifying coaching talent and developing it to take on more responsibility. TC often mentioned how Parcells was a great mentor for him. He also was a master with the press.
TC seemed more loyal to the franchise whereas Parcells was often planning a exit strategy.
with guys like Testaverde, Quincy Carter, Neil O'Donnell, and Ray Lucas as his starting QB. How many times did TC have to play a meaningful game with someone other than Brunell or Eli at QB?
Was gifted with outstanding coaches even a guy to manage time yet knew nothing about coaching a team. His psyche was bigger than a mountain one of the main reasons he could not find a permanent home and left everywhere as a thief in the night. Coughlin turned his players into fighters with the desire to play well above their true ability he just lacked the special talents Parcells was lucky to have. Coughlin was a much better overall coach than Parcells and it’s not close.
If the coach is going to be deeply involved in all aspects of football operations, probably Parcells. He was never a great X-and-O guy, but he could assemble a staff and he understood motivation, team chemistry and a bunch of other intangibles. He does have some big black marks on his NYG record, though: Brunner and the rest of the 1983 disaster; losses to weaker team in 1985 that cost the Giants the East; the lazy 0-2 start in 1987 before the strike; the Jets loss in 1988; the Flipper Game. It wasn’t all sunshine and Lombardi Trophies with Tuna.
Parcells made his name before the cap, so he didn’t have to worry about the one thing that killed Coughlin in Jacksonville.
RE: If you can get him to just coach the team, Coughlin.
If the coach is going to be deeply involved in all aspects of football operations, probably Parcells. He was never a great X-and-O guy, but he could assemble a staff and he understood motivation, team chemistry and a bunch of other intangibles. He does have some big black marks on his NYG record, though: Brunner and the rest of the 1983 disaster; losses to weaker team in 1985 that cost the Giants the East; the lazy 0-2 start in 1987 before the strike; the Jets loss in 1988; the Flipper Game. It wasn’t all sunshine and Lombardi Trophies with Tuna.
Parcells made his name before the cap, so he didn’t have to worry about the one thing that killed Coughlin in Jacksonville.
seems straight up. Coughlin was a PIA to his players. Parcells was, but in a different way. Coughlin very nearly lost the team after 2006 by being a hard ass and intractable. Never heard of Parcells almost losing the team. Tom was too loyal to his assistant coaches and kept them even when they proved to be failures. Parcells seemed to attract better coaches or probably identified them better.
I will never forgive Parcells for walking out like he did in '91. But I would pick Bill over Tom because he had a better understanding of his players and built better coaching staffs.
Not to mention better press conferences.
This quote is from an ESPN article at the time Parcells went into the HOF.
“ Bill Parcells' greatest gift as a head coach had nothing to do with X's and O's, game-day adjustments or personnel evaluation. Instead, it had everything to do with bonding. No coach in his era was better at discovering exactly what it takes to motivate every player on his roster. More importantly, as many of those players would attest, he also understood something equally crucial to his success: All players shouldn't be treated equally.”
This to me was the biggest weakness of Coughlin and something I constantly pointed out in his early years here (and was constantly blasted for when I brought it up back then as I probably will be blasted again).
This is a good point. Though TC was not ignorant of bonding with players. You may recall that he researched the personalities of millennials so he could figure out what motivates them. He was also very funny on those clips where he would talk to players warming up. Maybe he didn’t go player by player but he did not ignore the motivational aspects of coaching and I think he was or became proactive in that aspect.
seems straight up. Coughlin was a PIA to his players. Parcells was, but in a different way. Coughlin very nearly lost the team after 2006 by being a hard ass and intractable. Never heard of Parcells almost losing the team. Tom was too loyal to his assistant coaches and kept them even when they proved to be failures. Parcells seemed to attract better coaches or probably identified them better.
I will never forgive Parcells for walking out like he did in '91. But I would pick Bill over Tom because he had a better understanding of his players and built better coaching staffs.
Not to mention better press conferences.
You note 2006, but then fail to mention the adjustment made AFTER 2006, and the incredible impact it had on the players and team. It's not easy for a 60 year old man to completely change his coaching approach, but he did.
They were both great, I don't see the need to choose one. Different eras. Much different.
TC learned to have a degree of "charm" .... But BP just innately had the charm and ability to read people and motivate them. From an X and O perspective and managing assistants I also give Bill an edge, due to assistant management. Then of course BP has the better record.
seems straight up. Coughlin was a PIA to his players. Parcells was, but in a different way. Coughlin very nearly lost the team after 2006 by being a hard ass and intractable. Never heard of Parcells almost losing the team. Tom was too loyal to his assistant coaches and kept them even when they proved to be failures. Parcells seemed to attract better coaches or probably identified them better.
I will never forgive Parcells for walking out like he did in '91. But I would pick Bill over Tom because he had a better understanding of his players and built better coaching staffs.
Not to mention better press conferences.
You note 2006, but then fail to mention the adjustment made AFTER 2006, and the incredible impact it had on the players and team. It's not easy for a 60 year old man to completely change his coaching approach, but he did.
They were both great, I don't see the need to choose one. Different eras. Much different.
Why would I need to note that change as it was noted by saying he almost lost the team? He had to or be fired. He lost Tiki because of his attitude. Fact remains, he almost lost the team, Parcells never did.
definition of losing the team, but TC had two seasons where the team just flat didn't show up for meaningful games down the stretch (2009 and 2012). 2009 was especially horrific. They're 8-6 heading home to play the last game ever in Giants Stadium and they find themselves losing to the Panthers and the immortal Matt Moore 31-0 early in the 3rd quarter. The very next week, they're losing 31-0 to the Vikings at halftime.
Coughlin had the advantage of a HOF QB for 11 years, every snap. Of all the variables and counter points, QB in 1990 is the challenge Parcells faced that Coughlin never did.
Coughlin had the advantage of a HOF QB for 11 years, every snap. Of all the variables and counter points, QB in 1990 is the challenge Parcells faced that Coughlin never did.
No doubt Parcells' job down the stretch in 1990 is probably the best head coaching performance in Giants history. I'd be curious to see what would have happened had Parcells stuck around a few more years -- would his record have come down a bit, especially when going against Jimmy Johnson's more talented Dallas teams? I think the major strike against Coughlin is that he hung around too long (not to mention other factors that depleted the team).
But to be fair, while Coughlin had the advantage of Eli, I wouldn't say Simms was far behind (some still put him ahead of Eli), and Parcells also had the benefit of the greatest destructive force in NFL history on defense.
Coughlin had the advantage of a HOF QB for 11 years, every snap. Of all the variables and counter points, QB in 1990 is the challenge Parcells faced that Coughlin never did.
Fair. I don't really rank one above the other, but just as a counterpoint to the HOF QB Coughlin had, Parcells had the HOF DC (who definitely helped out a lot during that 1990 situation). Oh, and Lawrence Taylor.
And that's not meant as a knock on Parcells, either.
although only twice as HC.
Once, if you drink the Kool-Aid and buy into the technicality of his retirement.
Down the stretch of his final years here, I felt he got less than the sum of the parts out of the team. Not that the quality was great, but I left each season thinking wins were left on the table.
although only twice as HC.
Once, if you drink the Kool-Aid and buy into the technicality of his retirement.
Down the stretch of his final years here, I felt he got less than the sum of the parts out of the team. Not that the quality was great, but I left each season thinking wins were left on the table.
wins were left on the table in several regular seasons under TC....when there was quality on the roster.
although only twice as HC.
Once, if you drink the Kool-Aid and buy into the technicality of his retirement.
Down the stretch of his final years here, I felt he got less than the sum of the parts out of the team. Not that the quality was great, but I left each season thinking wins were left on the table.
What's better? Putting in the effort and trying to weather rebuilds to come out on the other sied? Or just quitting and heading off to greener pastures?
I'll take Parcells, given what he accomplished with four different teams, but by no means am I downgrading Coughlin, who won Super Bowls without LT and possibly the greatest coach ever on his sideline.
I'll just say I'm glad we had both -- which should be the most important thing.
And as just pointed out, the Tuna made every stop a much improved one
Schottenheimer 4 teams 20 years 200 wins .613 winning percentage 11 out of 20 double digit winning seasons 5-13 playoff record 0 Super Bowl appearances.
Some of Marty's playoff loses were just horrible out of the coaches hands luck. Kind of like a helmet catch in reverse. The two fumbles in Cleveland, the SD fumble when they had NE beat, some were that he played too conservative and not to lose. But anyone who watched both of those careers and thinks Tom Coughlin got more out of his teams than Marty did is either a Giant fan or lying. Basically in the NFL Super Bowl wins = HOF which is why Coughlin will be in and Marty won't.
As far as Parcells vs Coughlin goes everyone here will have their own opinion based on which guy they "like". For anyone who has been around the NFL objectively from the beginning of the Super Bowl era it's an easy call.
Parcells has 3 potential HOF coaches on his staff in himself, BB and Coughlin. Coughlin only has himself.
They are both great coaches but if you are looking for long term Id go Coughlin and short term Id go Parcells.
It's funny, some people wanted to discount TC making Jax into a contender, but that's why I would give points to Parcells as well. Like TC, he never won a championship outside of NY, but building the Pats and Jets into contenders is nothing to sneeze at. It's easier for a coach to sit on a perennial winner (especially before free agency) and collect rings.
He wasn't perfect, but Parcells' shortcomings illustrate how difficult it was to win in the NFL during the era he coached.
Coughlin mostly did this with average coaches. I think his style was limiting, but did a great job in both super bowl runs.
“ Bill Parcells' greatest gift as a head coach had nothing to do with X's and O's, game-day adjustments or personnel evaluation. Instead, it had everything to do with bonding. No coach in his era was better at discovering exactly what it takes to motivate every player on his roster. More importantly, as many of those players would attest, he also understood something equally crucial to his success: All players shouldn't be treated equally.”
This to me was the biggest weakness of Coughlin and something I constantly pointed out in his early years here (and was constantly blasted for when I brought it up back then as I probably will be blasted again).
-a 2-14 Patriots team
-a 1-15 Jets team
-a 6-10 Cowboys team
So let's not pretend that Parcells had some kind of inherent benefit here.
And Phil, if Coughlin had Belichick on his staff, he wouldn't have been the best coach of his staff either.
+1.
Whoever you pick you know that when they take over a team they will win big and soon.
I think Parcells was much better at identifying coaching talent and developing it to take on more responsibility. TC often mentioned how Parcells was a great mentor for him. He also was a master with the press.
TC seemed more loyal to the franchise whereas Parcells was often planning a exit strategy.
Happy they both coached the team I follow.
Each with two Super Bowl Trophies.
Bill Parcells (NFL Regular Season)
172 Wins
130 Losses
1 Tie
Winning % .569
Bill Parcells (NFL Playoffs)
11 Wins
8 Losses
Winning % .578
Tom Coughlin (NFL Regular Season)
170 Wins
150 Losses
Winning % .531
Tom Coughlin (NFL Playoffs)
12 Wins
7 Losses
Winning % .632
Then maybe you should have.
Parcells made his name before the cap, so he didn’t have to worry about the one thing that killed Coughlin in Jacksonville.
Parcells made his name before the cap, so he didn’t have to worry about the one thing that killed Coughlin in Jacksonville.
Best and most accurate opinion yet. IMHO.
I will never forgive Parcells for walking out like he did in '91. But I would pick Bill over Tom because he had a better understanding of his players and built better coaching staffs.
Not to mention better press conferences.
-a 2-14 Patriots team
-a 1-15 Jets team
-a 6-10 Cowboys team
So let's not pretend that Parcells had some kind of inherent benefit here.
And Phil, if Coughlin had Belichick on his staff, he wouldn't have been the best coach of his staff either.
“ Bill Parcells' greatest gift as a head coach had nothing to do with X's and O's, game-day adjustments or personnel evaluation. Instead, it had everything to do with bonding. No coach in his era was better at discovering exactly what it takes to motivate every player on his roster. More importantly, as many of those players would attest, he also understood something equally crucial to his success: All players shouldn't be treated equally.”
This to me was the biggest weakness of Coughlin and something I constantly pointed out in his early years here (and was constantly blasted for when I brought it up back then as I probably will be blasted again).
This is a good point. Though TC was not ignorant of bonding with players. You may recall that he researched the personalities of millennials so he could figure out what motivates them. He was also very funny on those clips where he would talk to players warming up. Maybe he didn’t go player by player but he did not ignore the motivational aspects of coaching and I think he was or became proactive in that aspect.
I will never forgive Parcells for walking out like he did in '91. But I would pick Bill over Tom because he had a better understanding of his players and built better coaching staffs.
Not to mention better press conferences.
You note 2006, but then fail to mention the adjustment made AFTER 2006, and the incredible impact it had on the players and team. It's not easy for a 60 year old man to completely change his coaching approach, but he did.
They were both great, I don't see the need to choose one. Different eras. Much different.
Quote:
seems straight up. Coughlin was a PIA to his players. Parcells was, but in a different way. Coughlin very nearly lost the team after 2006 by being a hard ass and intractable. Never heard of Parcells almost losing the team. Tom was too loyal to his assistant coaches and kept them even when they proved to be failures. Parcells seemed to attract better coaches or probably identified them better.
I will never forgive Parcells for walking out like he did in '91. But I would pick Bill over Tom because he had a better understanding of his players and built better coaching staffs.
Not to mention better press conferences.
You note 2006, but then fail to mention the adjustment made AFTER 2006, and the incredible impact it had on the players and team. It's not easy for a 60 year old man to completely change his coaching approach, but he did.
They were both great, I don't see the need to choose one. Different eras. Much different.
Why would I need to note that change as it was noted by saying he almost lost the team? He had to or be fired. He lost Tiki because of his attitude. Fact remains, he almost lost the team, Parcells never did.
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/tom-coughlin-changed-ways-won-giants/story?id=36089018
Mara told him he needed to lighten up, and he sought advice how to better reach his players.
Tiki hated him so much he ran for 300 yards in the final game of the season for a win and in game to get into the playoffs?
So Strahan and Tiki hated him. What didn't those two bitch about through the years?
Parcells: 77-49 (.610) 2 Champions, 5 playoffs, 2 losing seasons
Coughlin: 103-90 (.531) 2 Championships, 5 playoffs, 4 losing seasons
Coughlin had the advantage of a HOF QB for 11 years, every snap. Of all the variables and counter points, QB in 1990 is the challenge Parcells faced that Coughlin never did.
Parcells: 77-49 (.610) 2 Champions, 5 playoffs, 2 losing seasons
Coughlin: 103-90 (.531) 2 Championships, 5 playoffs, 4 losing seasons
Coughlin had the advantage of a HOF QB for 11 years, every snap. Of all the variables and counter points, QB in 1990 is the challenge Parcells faced that Coughlin never did.
No doubt Parcells' job down the stretch in 1990 is probably the best head coaching performance in Giants history. I'd be curious to see what would have happened had Parcells stuck around a few more years -- would his record have come down a bit, especially when going against Jimmy Johnson's more talented Dallas teams? I think the major strike against Coughlin is that he hung around too long (not to mention other factors that depleted the team).
But to be fair, while Coughlin had the advantage of Eli, I wouldn't say Simms was far behind (some still put him ahead of Eli), and Parcells also had the benefit of the greatest destructive force in NFL history on defense.
Parcells: 77-49 (.610) 2 Champions, 5 playoffs, 2 losing seasons
Coughlin: 103-90 (.531) 2 Championships, 5 playoffs, 4 losing seasons
Coughlin had the advantage of a HOF QB for 11 years, every snap. Of all the variables and counter points, QB in 1990 is the challenge Parcells faced that Coughlin never did.
Fair. I don't really rank one above the other, but just as a counterpoint to the HOF QB Coughlin had, Parcells had the HOF DC (who definitely helped out a lot during that 1990 situation). Oh, and Lawrence Taylor.
Once, if you drink the Kool-Aid and buy into the technicality of his retirement.
Down the stretch of his final years here, I felt he got less than the sum of the parts out of the team. Not that the quality was great, but I left each season thinking wins were left on the table.
Once, if you drink the Kool-Aid and buy into the technicality of his retirement.
Down the stretch of his final years here, I felt he got less than the sum of the parts out of the team. Not that the quality was great, but I left each season thinking wins were left on the table.
wins were left on the table in several regular seasons under TC....when there was quality on the roster.
Once, if you drink the Kool-Aid and buy into the technicality of his retirement.
Down the stretch of his final years here, I felt he got less than the sum of the parts out of the team. Not that the quality was great, but I left each season thinking wins were left on the table.
What's better? Putting in the effort and trying to weather rebuilds to come out on the other sied? Or just quitting and heading off to greener pastures?