The best football coach of all time is...

[Pugger]

10 hours ago, Jotun_Fan said:

If there's 1/2 as many teams you're twice as likely to be champion, thus easier to win 5 of 7. 

Yes, but if there are fewer teams each team is stronger and more difficult to beat.  This is what I was driving at.

[Shanedorf]

54 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

On the other hand, fewer teams makes it simply statistically more likely to rack up multiple championships. And this is why you very commonly saw stretches of the same teams in championship games. The Giants went to the championship like 6 out of 8 years at one point in there. The Lions went to 4 out of 6. The Browns went to 6 straight. Repeat appearances were incredibly common back then because fewer teams made it more likely to see repeats, and low roster turnover made it easier to repeat. Both statistically and anecdotally, it was more likely and more common.

It also helps that many of those NFL Championships were 1 game playoffs. You didn't earn the #1 seed and then have to go and play 2 single elimination games just to get to the superbowl, winning in the regular season meant they just handed you a one game shot at the trophy. I would be shocked if the 07 Patriots couldn't have knocked out the 07 Cowboys in a one game championship, for instance. It only took Lombardi 9 playoff wins to get 5 superbowls. Statistically impossible anymore. Bill had to go 3-0 each time. His last championship was the only time Lombardi had to do that.

There are many factors to consider and the game changes so much, it makes it even harder. You suggest it was easier to rack up multiples, but yet nobody ever won 3 in a row. That is a singular feat and one that tripped up all of the other multi-champion teams. I don't say that to suggest Lombardi was the greatest, but rather to give that accomplishment its due.  You mention repeat appearances and there were many, but appearances aren't Championships

NFL playoffs were indeed abbreviated compared to today, but only 2 teams made it into the playoffs, one from each of the 7 team divisions.
Only 2 out of 14 made it vs 12 out of 32 teams is a huge difference. In 1963, the 11-2-1 Packers didn't even make the playoffs, so in essence there was more pressure to win in reg. season than today where we are sending .500 teams to the playoffs. Its just so hard to compare across era's.

One other difference I thought of today with Shula passing, both he and Lombardi were massively successful in great part due to their taskmaster nature and they got the best out of their guys by whipping and beating them into shape mentally and physically. They made practice brutal,  so the easiest thing a player did each week was playing on Sunday. Lombardi and Shula won by saying: "My way or the highway ! " Old school guys for an old school game.

You can't do that in the modern NFL and both Walsh and Belichick adapted to a more cerebral way of winning. They still motivated their players, but they appealed to the players intellect, pushed their psychological buttons, listened to their ideas and made them a part of game planning etc. Its far more of a partnership than it ever was in the past. The Old School guys were the right guys for their time & place, the same is true of today's legendary coaches.

[y*so*blu]

It's a bit late, but I have remedied an oversight on my part and added Don Shula to the poll.

[Mr Bad Example]

14 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

There are many factors to consider and the game changes so much, it makes it even harder. You suggest it was easier to rack up multiples, but yet nobody ever won 3 in a row. That is a singular feat and one that tripped up all of the other multi-champion teams. 

Lambeau won 3 straight NFL titles from 29-31. Wildly different era, but it had been done. 

[lancerman]

On 5/4/2020 at 1:23 PM, Pugger said:

If there are only 10 teams (there were 13 in 1960 and 16 by 1967) that doesn't bolster your argument.  The more teams you have the talent is diluted.

The problem with that era is you literally needed to build one great team and you had a dynasty that could last the duration of a decade. 
 

Bekichick’s first team was a shadow of what they would be molded into by 03. Then by 05-06 Bill basically had to retool the team again. The core team in 07 was totally different with Brady and a few hold overs. Then by 2010 it was completely retooled again for the double tight end set. The 2014 team and the 2018 team (both SB winners) were completely different minus a couple pieces. Everyone but Gronk (Who was no longer a dominant force) and Edelman on offense, and the safeties and Hightower on defense (who were all much older and slower). Completely different RB Corp, mostly different offensive line, first two layers of the defense were different but Hightower. All the CB’s completely different. 
 

On Lombardi’s teams from his first NFL title to his 2nd SB (7 years apart)

-his two WR’s in 61 were still there in 67, they just added pieces. 
 

-Gregg and Kramer were still on the line. 
 

-Willie Davis and Henry Jordan were still in the defensive line and the stalwarts there. They just built around then. 
 

-Nitschke was still the star linebacker 

-Herb Adderly was still their All Pro CB, and Willie Wood was still their all Pro Safety.

And that’s just going 4 years apart on Belichick. You go from his 1st title to his 5th, Brady is the only common player at all 

[Pugger]

2 hours ago, lancerman said:

The problem with that era is you literally needed to build one great team and you had a dynasty that could last the duration of a decade. 
 

Bekichick’s first team was a shadow of what they would be molded into by 03. Then by 05-06 Bill basically had to retool the team again. The core team in 07 was totally different with Brady and a few hold overs. Then by 2010 it was completely retooled again for the double tight end set. The 2014 team and the 2018 team (both SB winners) were completely different minus a couple pieces. Everyone but Gronk (Who was no longer a dominant force) and Edelman on offense, and the safeties and Hightower on defense (who were all much older and slower). Completely different RB Corp, mostly different offensive line, first two layers of the defense were different but Hightower. All the CB’s completely different. 
 

On Lombardi’s teams from his first NFL title to his 2nd SB (7 years apart)

-his two WR’s in 61 were still there in 67, they just added pieces. 
 

-Gregg and Kramer were still on the line. 
 

-Willie Davis and Henry Jordan were still in the defensive line and the stalwarts there. They just built around then. 
 

-Nitschke was still the star linebacker 

-Herb Adderly was still their All Pro CB, and Willie Wood was still their all Pro Safety.

And that’s just going 4 years apart on Belichick. You go from his 1st title to his 5th, Brady is the only common player at all 

Yes, it was easier to keep your team together back then.  What BB did was absolutely remarkable and most likely will not be repeated in my lifetime.  I suppose it didn't hurt to have Brady as his QB...

[ET80]

Parcells or Walsh, IMO.

[ChazStandard]

Coaching isn't like playing, really. You can say "who's the best receiver"? And since that just means running routes and catching passes we're talking about a fairly easy ranking system. But what does best coach mean?

Best motivator? Best talent evaluator? Best innovator? Most influential coaching tree? Most wins? Most championships? Most iconic moments?

You can't really say "best coach ever" because all the candidates bring something new to the table. 

If you simplify the question into "Given equally talented rosters, who from this list would you pick to coach a game on Sunday?" I would say Bill Belichick 100% of the time, because I don't think there has ever been a coach who reads the game, makes in-game adjustments and gameplans for a specific opponent as well as he does.

[Superman(DH23)]

When you factor in the coaching tree I dont see how the answer is anything but Walsh, he won superbowls, his branches won Superbowls, his branches branches won superbowls, and his branches branches branches have won Superbowls.  Like 3/4 of current HCs today could have the roots traced back to Walsh, it's hard to believe there has ever been a more prosperous tree.  Now being fair, that's a feather for Brown as well bc Walsh was a Brown disciple.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, Superman(DH23) said:

When you factor in the coaching tree I dont see how the answer is anything but Walsh, he won superbowls, his branches won Superbowls, his branches branches won superbowls, and his branches branches branches have won Superbowls.  Like 3/4 of current HCs today could have the roots traced back to Walsh, it's hard to believe there has ever been a more prosperous tree.  Now being fair, that's a feather for Brown as well bc Walsh was a Brown disciple.

Parcels has Belichick, Payton, and Coughlin.

 

Coaching tree isn’t that important imo 

[Calvert28]

15 hours ago, lancerman said:

Parcels has Belichick, Payton, and Coughlin.

 

Coaching tree isn’t that important imo 

Not at all really. If you invented something that the rest of the NFL has incorporated into their own teams that's better then any coaching tree. 

[Uncle Buck]

On 4/28/2020 at 5:01 PM, y*so*blu said:

I figured anything NFL Fanzone could do, we could do better. (Especially because their poll left out Landry and Gibbs!)

Obviously Bill Belichick's going to get a ton of votes due to recency and the sheer number of Super Bowls he won. He's probably the smartest and most resourceful in the history of the game, but as for best of all time I say it's Vince Lombardi. He never had a losing season, walked into an obscure city and turned it into Title Town, then rejuvenated the Redskins before his untimely death. Incredibly driven, inspirational, and well-spoken. I wish I could have met him.

I used to reserve the title of GOAT for Lombardi also, but looking at what Belichick has accomplished during an era of parity has vaulted him over even Lombardi in my mind.  For him to keep winning year after year while dealing with the salary cap, a constant turnover of coordinators, etc., has been just amazing. 

[RamblinMan99]

Chuck Noll and it's not even close.  

Built an entire super team from scratch that won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years.  

Pittsburgh has the most former players in the Hall of Fame because of Chuck Noll.   

He also won all of his Super Bowls with most of the same players.  

If Belichick would have tried that, he would be lucky to have 2 rings.  

Don Shula is up there too.  

I'd probably put Shula at #2 behind Noll.  

[Superman(DH23)]

1 hour ago, RamblinMan99 said:

Chuck Noll and it's not even close.  

Built an entire super team from scratch that won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years.  

Pittsburgh has the most former players in the Hall of Fame because of Chuck Noll.   

He also won all of his Super Bowls with most of the same players.  

If Belichick would have tried that, he would be lucky to have 2 rings.  

Don Shula is up there too.  

I'd probably put Shula at #2 behind Noll.  

Um no, #1 is Chicago, #2 is Green Bay

[lavar703]

1 hour ago, RamblinMan99 said:

Chuck Noll and it's not even close.  

Built an entire super team from scratch that won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years.  

Pittsburgh has the most former players in the Hall of Fame because of Chuck Noll.   

He also won all of his Super Bowls with most of the same players.  

If Belichick would have tried that, he would be lucky to have 2 rings.  

Don Shula is up there too.  

I'd probably put Shula at #2 behind Noll.  

So Belichick losing players from his roster and still winning somehow hurts his case?