What are your thoughts on Payton, Tomlin, and McCarthy?

[ronjon1990]

I'd go:

McCarthy

Payton

Tomlin

Most recent Superbowl win to longest drought. 

McCarthy has shown he can be at least decent without Aaron. We haven't seen Payton without Brees. But judging by what I see on the field, he'd be screwed. Tomlin probably builds the best teams of the 3 consistently, but I feel they fall short of true expectations more often. 

[Shady Slim]

3 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

The NFC West made 3 straight.

The AFC East has represented the AFC in 7 Superbowls in the last 16. Does that make them the best division? Ridiculous logic, you see?

look behind the raw numbers though, the ncfs is stacked with star players who, if x amount of them in a team get hot at a time, are nigh on invincible

2015 you had the panthers defense getting hot with cam and olsen

2016 you had both matty ice and julio have career years with the falcons o line starring big while cam faltered and the saints still lacked a d

2017 brees had a defense and thomas really went off again while cam and the panthers d was inconsistent, and atlanta couldn't replicate their mad year before

the way the schedule is structured and such means that a couple of lucky or unlucky breaks against a division rival can decide your playoff spot - this notion is especially prevalent here in such a stacked division, in which there are two arguably three of the nfl's top eight teams and a bucs team that -should- be better than it is too

 

[Malik]

27 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

The NFC West made 3 straight.

The AFC East has represented the AFC in 7 Superbowls in the last 16. Does that make them the best division? Ridiculous logic, you see?

Are you going to sit here and argue that the NFC South has not been a talented division top to bottom for about the last 10 years?

[ronjon1990]

2 minutes ago, Malik said:

Are you going to sit here and argue that the NFC South has not been a talented division top to bottom for about the last 10 years?

 

Tampa hasn't been very good for most of the 07-17 seasons. 7 losing seasons, actually. 3 9-7's and a lone 10-6 season. 

Carolina has been better recently, but still has 5 losing seasons, 1 7-8-1 season. 

Atlanta has 3 losing seasons and an 8-8 season.

New Orleans has the "best" 4 losing seasons as all of them were 7-9 seasons. 

 

Are you going to sit here and argue that the NFC South has been, top to bottom, that much better than the NFC West with Seattle, Arizona, and San Francisco (the Harbaugh years)? Better than the NFC East with Dallas, Philly, NYG, and the Redskins over the same span? The NFC North with Green Bay, Minnesota during Favre's run, the Lions most years recently? 

 

[ronjon1990]

34 minutes ago, Shady Slim said:

look behind the raw numbers though, the ncfs is stacked with star players who, if x amount of them in a team get hot at a time, are nigh on invincible

2015 you had the panthers defense getting hot with cam and olsen

2016 you had both matty ice and julio have career years with the falcons o line starring big while cam faltered and the saints still lacked a d

2017 brees had a defense and thomas really went off again while cam and the panthers d was inconsistent, and atlanta couldn't replicate their mad year before

the way the schedule is structured and such means that a couple of lucky or unlucky breaks against a division rival can decide your playoff spot - this notion is especially prevalent here in such a stacked division, in which there are two arguably three of the nfl's top eight teams and a bucs team that -should- be better than it is too

 

First, that logic works just as well in literally almost EVERY division. 

2014- Seattle. Heck, had Palmer not gone down, a case could be made for Arizona. 

2015- Arizona, Seattle. Either team gets hot, game over. Stars all over those two rosters. 

2016, 2017, 2018, 2045. That logic will remain. And how many Superbowls have the super stacked NFCS won in that span? How many since the turn of the century? 

It's the NFL. Most teams are stacked with star players. That isn't NFCS specific. The NFCW has stars all over. The AFCW. The NFCN. The NFCE. The AFCN. The AFCS has stars. EVEN THE CLEVELAND BROWNS have had some stars. 

The way the schedule is structured.... Again, its the NFL. Outside of the AFCE (Patriots) and the AFCN (NOT THE BROWNS), NO TEAM is guaranteed a playoff spot. That notion is especially prevalent in virtually every division. The NFCW (Rams), the AFCS (Jaguars) going worst to first shows that. 

Two of the top eight? 

In no particular order: Patriots, Steelers, Seahawks, Packers, Eagles, Falcons, Chiefs, Ravens, Cowboys, Giants, Cardinals, Panthers? Sorry, but I'm not calling the Saints one of the top 8 over the course of the last 5 years. Not with 3 straight losing seasons coming into this one. And Carolina looks like they're beginning to fracture. And saying the Bucs "should be better than they are", that's local radio speak. The team is bad and has been bad. So they have some talented players? The Raiders say hi. The Browns say hi. The Bucs are where they should be, because they are not a good team. Some of that it coaching, some is the players not executing. But the old "they should be better than they are".... any team could say that, but until they actually are, it means nothing. 

I suppose you could argue that the Saints and Falcons made up the #3 and #4 squads in the NFC this year based on where their seasons ended, but that also calls for the Titans to be called one of the top 4 teams in the AFC. They are not. The NFCS had a strong season (more the product of other teams having down seasons) and put in 3 playoff teams. That rarely happens, is not the norm, and would probably not have happened had Rodgers not gone down, Seattle not have crumbled, Garappolo started week 1, Ben McAdoo not sucked, Zeke not been suspended...... 

 

 

[Malik]

2 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

 

Tampa hasn't been very good for most of the 07-17 seasons. 7 losing seasons, actually. 3 9-7's and a lone 10-6 season. 

Carolina has been better recently, but still has 5 losing seasons, 1 7-8-1 season. 

Atlanta has 3 losing seasons and an 8-8 season.

New Orleans has the "best" 4 losing seasons as all of them were 7-9 seasons. 

 

Are you going to sit here and argue that the NFC South has been, top to bottom, that much better than the NFC West with Seattle, Arizona, and San Francisco (the Harbaugh years)? Better than the NFC East with Dallas, Philly, NYG, and the Redskins over the same span? The NFC North with Green Bay, Minnesota during Favre's run, the Lions most years recently? 

 

I never argued for or against the NFC West or the NFC East. Favre's run was almost a decade ago at this point and Lions have been a barely better term than the Bucs teams that you think little of. The only vaguely competent team off-and-on has been the Vikings and this is the 1st season since Favre they have actually been a legitimately great team while the Falcons and Panthers have had several seasons each with being legitimately great teams.

[mission27]

If I had to pick one of these guys to coach my team in the Super Bowl it'd be Payton.  He hasn't built the consistent winners that Tomlin has, but his teams have done better compared to expectations than most teams out there.  

McCarthy is basically a hack who lucked into Aaron Rodgers.

[Jlowe22]

3 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

 The NFCS had a strong season (more the product of other teams having down seasons) and put in 3 playoff teams. That rarely happens, is not the norm, and would probably not have happened had Rodgers not gone down, Seattle not have crumbled, Garappolo started week 1, Ben McAdoo not sucked, Zeke not been suspended...... 

 

 

Na, Carolina, atlanta, and Saints were all legitimately good teams.  If Rodgers had been healthy, anything could happen, but Atlanta already beat Rodgers and had the tiebreaker at that wildcard spot.  It's highly likely Minnesota still wins the division, so Packers would be fighting for a wildcard spot.  It's not set in stone they would have had better records than Carolina or New Orleans. 

But even if these things did happen, it doesn't matter, since we can do if, whens, and buts every year.  What did happen, is that the NFC South had three strong teams this year.  They've represented the NFC last two years, and had the league MVP last two years.  It's a strong division right now, and unless there's a lot of regressing gonna go on this offseason, they'll be strong next year.  

[JAF-N72EX]

21 hours ago, GSUeagles14 said:

was he on the list? not even gonna debate if throwing was the right move this weekend as its not relevant here. what a stupid, pointless post.

So your judgment on a coach based off a few plays in a single game doesn't apply to every coach....got it.

Point went way over your head.

[JAF-N72EX]

What I gather from reading this forum is that there's only 1 good coach in the entire league and that's Belichick. Everyone else is average or terrible and people could do better because it works on Madden.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

11 hours ago, Pugger said:

What exactly makes Payton better than McCarthy?  

I don't know, winning games and actually creating an innovative offense would be good starters. I give McCarthy credit for being an offensive play-caller and a "solid" OC, but beyond that I'm never really impressed with him as a coach. Just about the only thing that separates him from Tomlin, IMO, is that he calls plays and that deserves some credit.

[Iamcanadian]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

What I gather from reading this forum is that there's only 1 good coach in the entire league and that's Belichick. Everyone else is average or terrible and people could do better because it works on Madden.

That's about how some fans view it, because they can win on Madden, they believe they know what makes a good HC or not???

The  NFL is a QB/schedule league and basically a team can only go as far as their QB can carry them. These 3 HC's all had excellent QB's and thus win far more games than they lose in their careers. That is all you are ever going to get out of a HC and in the end even the great BB would be getting criticism if he didn't have Brady who is the goat!!!

[3rivers]

On 2018-01-14 at 6:01 PM, patriotsheatyan said:

How would you rank them against each other, and how competent do you consider each?

 

Mike McCarthy, Sean Payton, Mike Tomlin, if there is some other trio with those last names that have similar roles to each other that I am forgetting.

I can only comment on tomlin since I am a bit familiar with his coaching. The players seem to like tomlin, but it might be to the point where there is a lack of player discipline and the way they are conducting themselves. My main criticism with tomlin is how the team always plays down to competition - this really is on him.  Also, with his defensive background, I thought our D would be better in the "more important" games, yet it never really went that way. Our D has required a lot of talent, and we don't have that anymore.  It might be assistant coaches to blame and players as well, but tome he has to take some of the blame.  The game yesterday was the possibly the least interested I have ever seen the team that I can remember. It took them a half to wake up and this is in a playoff game vs a team that beat the steelers at home 30-9 already in the regular season.  Some of the play calling yesterday also I thought could have been different if tomlin got involved.  Most of all, this team has badly underachieved for many years now, and when will it end and how? Changes have to be made, not sure who , what or when but thats the steelers in 2018.

[Shady Slim]

7 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

First, that logic works just as well in literally almost EVERY division. 

2014- Seattle. Heck, had Palmer not gone down, a case could be made for Arizona. 

2015- Arizona, Seattle. Either team gets hot, game over. Stars all over those two rosters. 

2016, 2017, 2018, 2045. That logic will remain. And how many Superbowls have the super stacked NFCS won in that span? How many since the turn of the century? 

however in this span the rams and the miners (aside from the niners golden years) were more or less punching bags. last year the seahawks were the clear cut best team and they were on the road to nowhere, and outside of the rams this year (too early to call on the jimmy g niners) the division was pretty uninspiring, though if the cardinals weren't all on IR you could i suppose make a case for them

and yes i'm saying the seahawks were crap this year

7 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

It's the NFL. Most teams are stacked with star players. That isn't NFCS specific. The NFCW has stars all over. The AFCW. The NFCN. The NFCE. The AFCN. The AFCS has stars. EVEN THE CLEVELAND BROWNS have had some stars. 

The way the schedule is structured.... Again, its the NFL. Outside of the AFCE (Patriots) and the AFCN (NOT THE BROWNS), NO TEAM is guaranteed a playoff spot. That notion is especially prevalent in virtually every division. The NFCW (Rams), the AFCS (Jaguars) going worst to first shows that. 

no team is guaranteed a playoff spot but recently NFCS teams have all been uber competitive and all have strong rosters too. they pass both the eye test and the results test

7 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

Two of the top eight? 

In no particular order: Patriots, Steelers, Seahawks, Packers, Eagles, Falcons, Chiefs, Ravens, Cowboys, Giants, Cardinals, Panthers? Sorry, but I'm not calling the Saints one of the top 8 over the course of the last 5 years. Not with 3 straight losing seasons coming into this one. And Carolina looks like they're beginning to fracture. And saying the Bucs "should be better than they are", that's local radio speak. The team is bad and has been bad. So they have some talented players? The Raiders say hi. The Browns say hi. The Bucs are where they should be, because they are not a good team. Some of that it coaching, some is the players not executing. But the old "they should be better than they are".... any team could say that, but until they actually are, it means nothing. 

I suppose you could argue that the Saints and Falcons made up the #3 and #4 squads in the NFC this year based on where their seasons ended, but that also calls for the Titans to be called one of the top 4 teams in the AFC. They are not. The NFCS had a strong season (more the product of other teams having down seasons) and put in 3 playoff teams. That rarely happens, is not the norm, and would probably not have happened had Rodgers not gone down, Seattle not have crumbled, Garappolo started week 1, Ben McAdoo not sucked, Zeke not been suspended...... 

you can't put the eagles there without putting the saints there that's just absurd - likewise you can't have the eagles there and have the ravens, cowboys, giants, cardinals, skins, and hawks, because that is ridiculous too. you've picked a list of teams that are good now except for NFCS teams and then teams that used to be good in the last ten years again omitting the NFCS

right now i'd say the top eight teams in the league are ne, pitt, minn, phi, gb, no, atlanta and the rams, and then some mix of the jaguars and panthers rounding out top ten. now you can disagree and that's your right. i forgot the original point we were arguing i admit but i digress the NFCS is far and away the best division in football.

[patriotsheatyan]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

What I gather from reading this forum is that there's only 1 good coach in the entire league and that's Belichick. Everyone else is average or terrible and people could do better because it works on Madden.

It’s not really that strange. Most coaches get fired after a few years, and about half the few who don’t have great QBs who could be argued to carry them. Almost every coach demonstrates on a weekly basis that he doesn’t understand time management, doesn’t understand the rules, doesn’t understand situational football, is overtly conservative for little reason, and doesn’t know when to challenge. The average NFL coach seems to be under the impression that QB sneaks are some kind of illegal play you can only call on 4th and 1 late in the fourth quarter. Then there is the large percentage of coaches who are stubborn, or who have their team unprepared routinely. 

 

NFL coaching is mostly bad.