Is Doug Pederson a top five coach?

[Kip Smithers]

1 hour ago, Danger said:

Good teams find ways to win.

Whatever.

[mission27]

On 2/6/2018 at 9:06 AM, Art_Vandalay said:

Bill's the default #1 but who would you take over Doug after Bill? The most frustrating thing about watching the Pats is seeing opposing coaches freeze if they have a lead in the 4th quarter. All common sense tends to go out the window. Doug's been one of the only guys who's kept his cool against him.

So yeah, easily top 5.

I'd still take Pete Carroll over Pederson.  Yes, I realize Pete Carroll lost to Bill Belichick in the Super Bowl by blowing a 4th quarter lead.

[jrry32]

8 hours ago, TENINCH said:

5 wins in a row vs the St Louis, La Rams with 27 wins and 16 losses.

We'll be fine.

6th Highest winning percentage in NFL History.

But still lower than Sean McVay's. 

[Packerraymond]

I remember the thread asking if Elway was the 2nd best GM in the NFL after their SB win...

Pederson was by far one of the 5 best coaches in the NFL this year, but you have to do it consistently to get to that "best overall" ranking.

[BAConrad]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I remember the thread asking if Elway was the 2nd best GM in the NFL after their SB win...

Pederson was by far one of the 5 best coaches in the NFL this year, but you have to do it consistently to get to that "best overall" ranking.

I don't really think you can compare Elway bringing in a bunch of already-established veterans who won a Superbowl to what Pederson has done.

It's apples to oranges.

 

[Packerraymond]

5 minutes ago, BAConrad said:

I don't really think you can compare Elway bringing in a bunch of already-established veterans who won a Superbowl to what Pederson has done.

It's apples to oranges.

 

I'm not comparing anything about them other than they achieved success rapidly. I just need to see it sustained to talk about Pederson being top 5.

[BAConrad]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

I'm not comparing anything about them other than they achieved success rapidly. I just need to see it sustained to talk about Pederson being top 5.

I mean, we have seen Andy Reid have "sustained success" but I don't see any sane person that would take Reid over Pederson to coach their team right now.

And there's just too much turnaround at HC in the NFL. Also, I dislike this weird rule that people seem to have in saying that they need to see "more of x player or coach or GM" before saying theyre one of the best in the league. I think it's stupid. People said that about Gurley after his rookie year, and same with Bell, etc. And those guys turned out to be the 2 best players at their position. Obviously you can list off examples of guys who were successful for a short period of time and then turned out to suck.

But not when you have a season like Pederson just did. I can't think of any HC who was as brilliant as Pederson for an entire season and post-season who didn't sustain that success.

Nothing about what he did was flukey. He wasn't running the same gimmick all year. He's so great BECAUSE his offense is literally predicated on changing it around week to week based on who is playing. He uses FIVE different run schemes. Geoff Schwartz, former OL and now analyst, said that almost every team usually just has one. 

So you can't just throw some lame, general statement that he needs to show you more for you to "talk about him being in the top 5". Please. What does he need to do? Win a Superbowl with his back up QB or something? Or wait, did he not just do that?

And not to mention the fact that for whatever reason, maybe it's because of the retread problem, there is a very short supply of actually good Head Coaches right now. 

Harbaugh is not a better coach. Sorry. Nor is Tomlin. Just because those guys won 1 Superbowl in which their coaching was no different than it is now (ie their team won the SB in spite of them moreso than because of them), doesn't make them great coaches. Tomlin's team goes 8-8 or better every year. Awesome. Yet he keeps shooting himself in the foot when his team is in the playoffs with ridiculously bonehead decisions that he doesn't seem to learn from. Which btw I don't understand how that is not talked about enough. You think he'd learn by now. Because a great coach would. That is the same problem with Andy Reid, and Pederson is further proof of that. He learned from Reid, only he proved that he is a better coach because unlike Reid he is able to adjust. 

Great coaches adjust. Bad coaches do not (see: The Clapper).

You won't find a single owner not named Robert Kraft who would say no if the Eagles called them and said "hey we'll trade you our HC for yours".

 

[BAConrad]

17 hours ago, Kip Smithers said:

Whatever.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

So who cares about what MIGHT have happened IF Atlanta had done this or that differently. 

It takes a bit of luck to win a Superbowl no matter how great of a team you are. And in that game, where Foles was still getting used to being the starter, we absolutely benefited from Atlanta's bad playcalling at the end. But so did last year's Pats in the Superbowl. And I can go on and on.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, BAConrad said:

I mean, we have seen Andy Reid have "sustained success" but I don't see any sane person that would take Reid over Pederson to coach their team right now.

And there's just too much turnaround at HC in the NFL. Also, I dislike this weird rule that people seem to have in saying that they need to see "more of x player or coach or GM" before saying theyre one of the best in the league. I think it's stupid. People said that about Gurley after his rookie year, and same with Bell, etc. And those guys turned out to be the 2 best players at their position. Obviously you can list off examples of guys who were successful for a short period of time and then turned out to suck.

But not when you have a season like Pederson just did. I can't think of any HC who was as brilliant as Pederson for an entire season and post-season who didn't sustain that success.

Nothing about what he did was flukey. He wasn't running the same gimmick all year. He's so great BECAUSE his offense is literally predicated on changing it around week to week based on who is playing. He uses FIVE different run schemes. Geoff Schwartz, former OL and now analyst, said that almost every team usually just has one. 

So you can't just throw some lame, general statement that he needs to show you more for you to "talk about him being in the top 5". Please. What does he need to do? Win a Superbowl with his back up QB or something? Or wait, did he not just do that?

And not to mention the fact that for whatever reason, maybe it's because of the retread problem, there is a very short supply of actually good Head Coaches right now. 

Harbaugh is not a better coach. Sorry. Nor is Tomlin. Just because those guys won 1 Superbowl in which their coaching was no different than it is now (ie their team won the SB in spite of them moreso than because of them), doesn't make them great coaches. Tomlin's team goes 8-8 or better every year. Awesome. Yet he keeps shooting himself in the foot when his team is in the playoffs with ridiculously bonehead decisions that he doesn't seem to learn from. Which btw I don't understand how that is not talked about enough. You think he'd learn by now. Because a great coach would. That is the same problem with Andy Reid, and Pederson is further proof of that. He learned from Reid, only he proved that he is a better coach because unlike Reid he is able to adjust. 

Great coaches adjust. Bad coaches do not (see: The Clapper).

You won't find a single owner not named Robert Kraft who would say no if the Eagles called them and said "hey we'll trade you our HC for yours".

 

I mean I'm going to take McCarthy and Tomlin over him. It's obvious you wouldn't but that's just my opinion. He coached brilliantly this year but I need to see what happens when the whole league has a target on him. I don't think he'll fail whatsoever, he's been around great coaching not only as a player but as an assistant coach too.

[BAConrad]

57 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I mean I'm going to take McCarthy and Tomlin over him. It's obvious you wouldn't but that's just my opinion. He coached brilliantly this year but I need to see what happens when the whole league has a target on him. I don't think he'll fail whatsoever, he's been around great coaching not only as a player but as an assistant coach too.

Tomlin I don't think is preposterous
 

But McCarthy? Seriously?

Have we been watching different leagues or something?

[Packerraymond]

Just now, BAConrad said:

Tomlin I don't think is preposterous
 

But McCarthy? Seriously?

Have we been watching different leagues or something?

How are those two any different? If anything McCarthy's success has been greater and he works very well with Rodgers.

Feel like recency bias and the fact that half of the Packers fanbase thinks everyone sucks and should be fired every year hurts his reputation. I think he's an outstanding coach.

[BAConrad]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

How are those two any different? If anything McCarthy's success has been greater and he works very well with Rodgers.

Feel like recency bias and the fact that half of the Packers fanbase thinks everyone sucks and should be fired every year hurts his reputation. I think he's an outstanding coach.

The difference, for me, is I've seen Tomlin's team be successful when Ben has been out and I think he has more of a positive impact on his team.

Whereas McCarthy is 100% absolutely dependent on Rodgers.

I feel like this past season kind of reassured that notion

[Kip Smithers]

1 hour ago, BAConrad said:

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

So who cares about what MIGHT have happened IF Atlanta had done this or that differently. 

It takes a bit of luck to win a Superbowl no matter how great of a team you are. And in that game, where Foles was still getting used to being the starter, we absolutely benefited from Atlanta's bad playcalling at the end. But so did last year's Pats in the Superbowl. And I can go on and on.

 

Like you completely missed the point. I never said Eagles were lucky to win. I pointed out that if you lose vs ATL meaning a 1 and done then Pederson is some reason a lesser coach rightly or wrongly. I’m poking fun at this whole coach ranking we do which is simply results over process. Enough with the sensitivity.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, BAConrad said:

The difference, for me, is I've seen Tomlin's team be successful when Ben has been out and I think he has more of a positive impact on his team.

Whereas McCarthy is 100% absolutely dependent on Rodgers.

I feel like this past season kind of reassured that notion

The offense is 100% tailored to Aaron, that I won't argue. However to maximize what we have in Aaron I feel like that's how it should be. Way I see it McCarthy had the choice of either trying to build some sort of new offense to suit Hundley and teach the whole team, only to scrap it when Aaron came back, or try to fit the square peg in the round hole and hope Hundley won enough games to keep us in the race and he did. Unfortunately we played a really good team on the road and Aaron wasn't 100%.

Mac has never lost the team when most coaches do. We won the NFCN without Aaron in 2012, we start 6-0 and crash and burn to 4-6 only to win as underdogs in our first playoff game and then take an ARI team who absolutely destroyed us a few weeks earlier to OT in the Divisional game, then to start 4-6 and run the table and win 2 big playoff games, then this year up until the Carolina game that team played their butt off every week.

I'm not saying Pederson won't be better, but right now I'll take guys like Mac and Tomlin who I know will guide any talented team into the playoffs.

[TENINCH]

The Vikings owners are pretty big fans of Zimmer. They aren't trading him for Pederson.