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?
“ 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?