Ranking NFL Coaches

[Curly Calhoun]

CBS Sports ranked the head coaches for all 32 teams (giving the rookie head coaches a pass). Not surprisingly, Bill Belichick is #1, as he should be. Check out #2:

2. Mike McCarthy, Packers
There were some who wanted him fired the past two seasons. That was purely absurd. He has the second-best winning percentage (.651) of any active coach, behind Belichick. He has had double-digit victories in eight of his 11 seasons with the Packers, with only one losing season. He also has a Super Bowl win, but gets dinged some for his 10-8 playoff record. With Aaron Rodgers, some expect more. Maybe one more ring ends the debate.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Complete list: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/r...ach-from-bill-belichick-to-the-class-of-2017/

 

[Mondio]

CBS Sports ranked the head coaches for all 32 teams (giving the rookie head coaches a pass). Not surprisingly, Bill Belichick is #1, as he should be. Check out #2:

2. Mike McCarthy, Packers
There were some who wanted him fired the past two seasons. That was purely absurd. He has the second-best winning percentage (.651) of any active coach, behind Belichick. He has had double-digit victories in eight of his 11 seasons with the Packers, with only one losing season. He also has a Super Bowl win, but gets dinged some for his 10-8 playoff record. With Aaron Rodgers, some expect more. Maybe one more ring ends the debate.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Complete list: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/r...ach-from-bill-belichick-to-the-class-of-2017/

They wanted Rodgers benched or traded too. We must really have some bright fans somewhere to overcome the handicap so many around here give us in the "smartest fans in the NFL" declarations every year. Seriously, the football acumen of many is like giving a 10 second headstart to everyone else in the field at the Olympics in a 100M sprint and yet we still manage to finish near the top with winning times at 9.? seconds. How do we do it?

after what this team went thru last year, there is no question what type of men lead and play for this team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They wanted Rodgers benched or traded too. We must really have some bright fans somewhere to overcome the handicap so many around here give us in the "smartest fans in the NFL" declarations every year.

There wasn't any reasonable suggesting to bench Rodgers. Once again you seem incapable of distinguishing between those fans and the ones making ridiculous suggestions like that.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

There wasn't any reasonable suggesting to bench Rodgers. Once again you seem incapable of distinguishing between those fans and the ones making ridiculous suggestions like that.

There were, however, Packer fans that were beside themselves with rage when Ted Thompson "wasted" his first round pick on a quarterback when he already had Brett Favre. As they say, if you listen to the fans, you'll end up sitting with them - True for both GMs and coaches.

I was glad to see MM get some recognition from the national sports press - He's deserving of it.

 

[XPack]

Think #2 is proper for MM. I'd still take him over #3, 4 or 5 in the list.

 

[thisisnate]

I have read some pretty objectively stupid things on this forum, and the trade Rodgers people are among the worst offenders. But this is a Wisconsin team. There are a lot of passionate and inebriated fans posting sometimes. Shake head and close thread

I think anyone here would've guessed McCarthy would be top-5. Hard to differentiate between 2, 3, 4, 5 though. It's Bill Belichick alone at 1 by a wide margin, a handful of coaches that are very solid most years, and then everybody that's just happy to have jobs.

 

[Dantés]

McCarthy has Rodgers, therefore all credit for accomplishments are negated.

 

[thisisnate]

Does that make Lombardi unaccomplished because he had Starr? Or Belichick with Brady? Or Walsh with Montana and Young?

 

[AmishMafia]

There wasn't any reasonable suggesting to bench Rodgers. Once again you seem incapable of distinguishing between those fans and the ones making ridiculous suggestions like that.

He wasnt playjng well, and you Aaron-can-do-no-wrong posters are happy being one and done in the playoffs. He holds onto the ball too long sometimes and we need a player who can understand the whole job of being a QB and not just a part. Well I know more about QB play than he does and im a better fan than you who will not put up with mediocrity.

 

[AmishMafia]

Does that make Lombardi unaccomplished because he had Starr? Or Belichick with Brady? Or Walsh with Montana and Young?

Yes.

Same logic that TT is incompetent because he has Rodgers.

 

[Dantés]

Does that make Lombardi unaccomplished because he had Starr? Or Belichick with Brady? Or Walsh with Montana and Young?

Correct.

They all had good QB's, hence they all suck. It's logic.

 

[thisisnate]

Well, now I'm just confused, but that's okay. I think I missed the text sarcasm somewhere. I'll find another thread

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Yes.

Same logic that TT is incompetent because he has Rodgers.

Yes. Even though he is the one who selected Rodgers.

Now I understand how it works - Once you select a great player as a GM, you are forever incompetent. It's so simple.

 

[Mavster]

This thread is off to a great start, I already see Mondio doing his best to sidetrack the discussion, and then a few other guys randomly defending Thompson like he's their daddy. I could've sworn this was about coaching rank too

MM is a top 10 coach.

 

[PackAttack12]

He wasnt playjng well, and you Aaron-can-do-no-wrong posters are happy being one and done in the playoffs. He holds onto the ball too long sometimes and we need a player who can understand the whole job of being a QB and not just a part. Well I know more about QB play than he does and im a better fan than you who will not put up with mediocrity.

Okay. I'm a bit confused here. What exactly are you getting at?

 

[Mondio]

turning an argument back at the "argumenter" in hopes that maybe they see what they're saying? or maybe just a great shot at being sarcastic

 

[AmishMafia]

Okay. I'm a bit confused here. What exactly are you getting at?

Mondio has it right. To rip on TT for not having a roster 4 deep pro bowl talent at every position is like ripping on AR for his flaws. Both are extemely good at what they do and well respected in the NFL.

 

[Half Empty]

Mondio has it right. To rip on TT for not having a roster 4 deep pro bowl talent at every position is like ripping on AR for his flaws. Both are extemely good at what they do and well respected in the NFL.

Sort of like sniping at posters for using hyperbole/absolutes instead of, say, ripping on TT for not plugging holes in the roster, sometimes starters (TE, ILB, S - at least in the past, perhaps still), sometimes depth.

 

[Dantés]

Sort of like sniping at posters for using hyperbole/absolutes instead of, say, ripping on TT for not plugging holes in the roster, sometimes starters (TE, ILB, S - at least in the past, perhaps still), sometimes depth.

Both sides can be guilty of painting the entire other side with a paint that really only derives from the extreme fringes of both opinions.

Seems to me that the majority of TT apologists are willing to admit he's not perfect, and that the majority of his critics are willing to admit he has redeeming qualities.

There's just a handful on either end that don't have any sense of perspective or balance at all.

 

[PackAttack12]

Mondio has it right. To rip on TT for not having a roster 4 deep pro bowl talent at every position is like ripping on AR for his flaws. Both are extemely good at what they do and well respected in the NFL.

Find me one post that suggests that TT should have 4 deep pro bowl talent at every position and I might take you seriously.

Big difference in suggesting that, and expecting obvious holes on the team to be filled adequately.

 

[Mondio]

It's not usually said outright, but it's often been implied. Like last year. Gunter shouldn't have been a starter, but he was as our #4 or 5 entering the season DB. Very adequate #4 or 5 on any team I think as a young guy. But he had to start. Why? we had a lot of guys to replace constantly all year long. even with 2 probowlers, they would have been rather ineffective injured much of the year if what struck us last year struck us again. and then everyone behind them got hurt too, so without 4 probowlers deep, you'd still have Gunter off the bench as a starter

No team expects to have their 4th or 5th guy be a regular starter with a rotating mash unit around him starting the rest of the year. So even though they don't say we need 4 all stars per position, it's really what they mean, or they're not really understanding what they're advocating for. i'm sure that makes perfect sense

 

[Mavster]

It's not usually said outright, but it's often been implied. Like last year. Gunter shouldn't have been a starter, but he was as our #4 or 5 entering the season DB. Very adequate #4 or 5 on any team I think as a young guy. But he had to start. Why? we had a lot of guys to replace constantly all year long. even with 2 probowlers, they would have been rather ineffective injured much of the year if what struck us last year struck us again. and then everyone behind them got hurt too, so without 4 probowlers deep, you'd still have Gunter off the bench as a starter

No team expects to have their 4th or 5th guy be a regular starter with a rotating mash unit around him starting the rest of the year. So even though they don't say we need 4 all stars per position, it's really what they mean, or they're not really understanding what they're advocating for. i'm sure that makes perfect sense

LOL. There's no point with you anymore.

 

[AmishMafia]

Find me one post that suggests that TT should have 4 deep pro bowl talent at every position and I might take you seriously.

Big difference in suggesting that, and expecting obvious holes on the team to be filled adequately.

Packers lost their top 3 cbs at various points of the season last year and posters are still crucifying TT over lack of depth at CB.

I see now Mondio beat me to it. It was hyperbole, but there is some truth to it.

 

[PikeBadger]

Does that make Lombardi unaccomplished because he had Starr? Or Belichick with Brady? Or Walsh with Montana and Young?

Lombardi MADE Starr. McCarthy went a long ways into making Rodgers. Both Holmgren and McCarthy are/were very good with QB's.

 

[PikeBadger]

It's not usually said outright, but it's often been implied. Like last year. Gunter shouldn't have been a starter, but he was as our #4 or 5 entering the season DB. Very adequate #4 or 5 on any team I think as a young guy. But he had to start. Why? we had a lot of guys to replace constantly all year long. even with 2 probowlers, they would have been rather ineffective injured much of the year if what struck us last year struck us again. and then everyone behind them got hurt too, so without 4 probowlers deep, you'd still have Gunter off the bench as a starter

No team expects to have their 4th or 5th guy be a regular starter with a rotating mash unit around him starting the rest of the year. So even though they don't say we need 4 all stars per position, it's really what they mean, or they're not really understanding what they're advocating for. i'm sure that makes perfect sense

Your post is very well written and makes perfect sense. It is very true also.