Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Though decades apart, I felt Tony Dorsett and Chris Johnson were the same type of runners. I thought Adrian Peterson was very similar to Gale Sayers early in his career and Billy Sims was similar to Leroy Kelly ...

74_75_78_79_ wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 5:09 pm

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 2:37 pm I wouldn't say necessarily "equal" but I would say Brown, Lombardi, and Noll are above everybody else - a higher tier of coach than anyone else. They are each their own, so I wouldn't call them equals but they are equals in terms of who they are historically, IMO. And I guess maybe that's because I think of the 50s Browns, 60s Packers, 70s Steelers as the three dynasties above all others and maybe kind of equal that way. The 49ers are close, but not quite the same.

Maybe Lambeau and Halas are equals in terms of establishing the two franchises.

Players - I guess I think of Ben Roethlisberger being a modern version of Dan Fouts. Really tough guys with great arms. Those two might be equal in my book - if I had to choose I'd choose Dan Fouts for sentimental reasons only.

92/93 Cowboys are just about equal, I agree, as well as Landry/Shula.

Wow, you're really tempting me to place those very three in my 'Holy Trinity' of HCs as well! And in a strictly Top 3/'no one above anyone' way! As I've said before, is it me still placing Noll at a strong-5th just because I don't want to be seen as a "biased" Steeler-fan? Maybe.

I do place him above Walsh if only because of their de facto 'Best-of-Three' Series: Game 1, at Three Rivers, '81, Game 2, at Candlestick, '84, and the rubber-band Game 3 back at Three Rivers in the '87 opener - and I indeed see it as a legitimate 'tie-breaker' between the two if a tie-breaker was even needed in the first place, which it probably was. In each game of the 'Series, Walsh had quite a stronger team - the first two being SB-winners, the third being 10-2 non-scab whilst each 'Burgh installment was mediocre. Yet Noll wins, 2-1!

Belichick not winning without Brady (coupled with his time in Cleveland, which only reared its ugly head back up due to that, fair or not) does drop Hoodie. But unlike most others' take on him due to the "without Brady" stuff, Yours Truly has him dropping by just ONE NOTCH from #2 to #3. And Paul probably should have been above him in the first place anyway. Maybe/maybe not. Just one notch, no biggie.

Ask Don Shula about he and Marino. You can't win titles with 'just' a QB. If you still want to give Brady more credit for '01-thru-'19 than Belichick, IMO it better be by a little! Hoodie created the whole entire culture for Tom to win-Win-WIN like he did thus propelling #12 to his obvious Status!! How many other HCs this century would have groomed Brady, if they had him, to eventually supplant a QB already starting for him who made it to a Super Bowl along with several recent Pro Bowls to his credit? But MUCH more important - WIN those SIX Super Bowls along with a phenomenal W/L record, and high-seeded playoff berths, deep runs, to boot in that entire stretch?? Already knowing about Brady despite already having Bledsoe is more remarkable than already knowing about Joe despite already having DeBerg.

Papa Bear vs Curly? Great point in putting them together due to their similar workings in their respective franchises, and both were there together from the Beginning! But such a 'debate' between them as HCs, with me and JMHO, is an elongated version of Brady-vs-Peyton. Whereas that very QB debate was a mere decade-long, this very HC one may have lasted numerous decades!

Brady/Peyton? That debate, with me, began to end with SBXLIX (Seahawks), then "ended" more with LI (Atl, OT) if not end it altogether, and so on, and so on. Halas/Lambeau? It was after the War starting, right off, with that 1946 NFL Title! And then for Halas to field more contending teams - including, of course, 1963 - within the two following decades whilst Curly immediately fell off into mediocrity until exiting stage left in the early-'50s. I really feel that Papa Bear would have still fielded some tough contenders had he still, somehow, been HC-ing into the 1970s or even later!

That said, maybe Noll really IS ahead of both! But for now (just now), Papa & Hoodie still shore-up MtR. Come on, Money! Twist my arm some more! Give me another "push" thus push the Emperor into the even-Steven 'Holy Trinity' with Vince & Paul! I may just about be there with or without you!

Yes, I'll never ever be able to decide who was actually better between Landry and Shula nor Jimmy Johnson's back-to-backs! I noticed, Money, that you didn't bring up Brees/Rodgers, Swann/Stallworth, nor Ham/Lambert. IMHO, each of those examples are just as "equal" with me.

The difference between Walsh and the other three (to me) is that he only won 3 SB. Of course, I use the term "only" loosely. But then the 49ers won the next year with Seifert. So when splitting hairs amongst the best of the very best, Walsh's tenure doesn't match 10 straight championship games (with 5 straight wins!) or the 5 in 7 or 4 in 6 championships for Brown/Lombardi/Noll. The other thing is that both Washington and New York won multiple SBs basically in the same timeframe. I know the Giants 2nd was in 1990, but that's only a year after SF back to back. So it wasn't quite the same as the other 3 coaches, IMO, with Gibbs and Parcells each winning two. Lombardi fended off two potential dynasties in New York and Dallas.

Fairly or unfairly, I knock Belichick out of that conversation simply because he benefitted from learning from all of the previous greats. Noll played for Brown, yes, and saw Lombardi's teams, but Belichick got to put all of the great ideas together. He's a real student of coaching the game, so that's part of the reason why Belichick was so far ahead of the others - he knew how to put together all of the great coaches strategies and pull them all together. He also, above all others, figured out how to keep rolling in the free agency era. Yes, a big part of that was Brady, but the vast majority of coaches probably aren't going to win that often even with Brady. My similar feeling about not putting Belichick in that class - again fairly or unfairly - is it's kind of like placing a modern day guitar player in the same category as Hendrix or Van Halen. They just turned the whole world upside down with what they did, and the effects are still heard today. Are coaches going to be quoting Belichicks innovations or strategies or sayings 30 years from now? Brown brought so many innovations with film and so many other things, Lombardi with conditioning and running things over and over to perfection, Noll with preparation and how to put together an all around complete team and winning so often with a QB that doesn't match your own style, I mean, Belichick doesn't really have any of that, IMO. Again, this is splitting hairs between the best of the very best.

Straight up coaching wise, I put Halas above Lambeau for sure if for nothing else the T-Formation. Halas might not have invented it, but I don't think Henry Ford invented cars, either. In terms of building the franchises and the league, however, I see them as equals.

Swann/ Stallworth - I might be thinking way too much about this one, but in those days, there was a difference between flanker and split end. Pass catching, yeah, I would say they were equally great, but honestly, if I had to choose ONE, it would be Stallworth without too much thought. Swann could do a lot of things like reverses and such that I don't remember Stallworth doing, but Stallworth from what I remember was a bigger, tougher guy who proved he could be just as clutch in SB 14. But Swann - I mean he truly might have been the difference in the Dallas/Pittsburgh Super Bowls. If the Steelers don't pick him in 74 and Dallas takes him with the next pick, I think we may very likely be talking Swann and Pearson and Dallas' SB wins rather than the Steelers. BUT - the Steelers did have a better defense and I do believe Noll coached better than Landry in those two games. Which is another reason why I'd put Noll in that top 3.

And Ham/Lambert - same thing - I mean they're both linebackers but they played different positions and had different responsibilities at linebacker. I get how people rate WR/LB/S/RB as the same thing so again, maybe I'm just overthinking all of it.

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 10:43 am . But Swann - I mean he truly might have been the difference in the Dallas/Pittsburgh Super Bowls. If the Steelers don't pick him in 74 and Dallas takes him with the next pick, I think we may very likely be talking Swann and Pearson and Dallas' SB wins rather than the Steelers. BUT - the Steelers did have a better defense and I do believe Noll coached better than Landry in those two games. Which is another reason why I'd put Noll in that top 3.

Swann (and Stallworth) were superior to Pearson IMO. Pearson started 22 postseason games and scored in 6 of them, and the Cowboys were 4-2 in those games. Lynn Swann started 13 postseason games and scored in 8 of them, and the Steelers were 8-0 in those games (with 3 SB wins).

Noll took the worst franchise in NFL history and made it the best. He is top 3 in my book as well.

Okay it’s official…Brown, Lombardi, and Noll are the ‘Holy Trinity’ with me! Neither of the three above or below the other two.