Has there been a "great" coach who is clearly conservative?

[T master]

On 12/21/2019 at 8:18 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

I'm trying to think of one. In any sport. 

 

Don't make this a hate McDermott stance or thread. I like him. I'm glad we have him. But it's arguable that his blatant conservative nature holds this team back. 

 

There are no facts. This is ALL opinion. And some of his conservative nature surely helps. We're 10-5 and will likely finish 11-5. 

 

But the object is to win it all. Josh is a unique talent. We need to score more points or there is little chance to win it all and that is the object. 

 

I think he needs to relinquish some of his dearly held nature in order to be great. I don't think you can be great without a killer instinct. 

 

Well i can think of one he was the coach of the Giants in SB 25 . He was more run oriented a grind it out coach The Big Tuna !! 

[dave mcbride]

On 12/22/2019 at 2:11 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

61-66 which was their prime they were 1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 2nd in scoring. They had an aggressive defense. Yes the game was way different but he was not at all a conservative guy. He attacked all game, just sometimes it was with a powerful running attack that bulldozed opponents. 

So it sounds like you're saying that if the running game is successful, it's not conservative. If it results in a lot of 3-and-outs, it's conservative.

 

In 1961, the Packers were 14th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 3rd in rushing attempts. 

 

In 1962, they were 14th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 2nd in rushing attempts. 

 

In 1963, they were 13th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 2nd in rushing attempts. 

 

In 1964, they were 14th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 3rd in rushing attempts. 

 

In 1965, they were 14th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 6th in rushing attempts.

 

In 1966, they were 15th in passing attempts in a 15-team league. They were 3rd in rushing attempts.  

 

In 1967, they were 15th in passing attempts in a 15-team league. They were 4th in rushing attempts.

 

1967 was their last SB year and their last year of dominance under Lombardi. 

 

Dog, I fear you're  just making it up when discussing the Lombardi-era Packers.  Over a 7-year stretch, they were literally DEAD F**KING LAST in pass attempts every year except one, and in that year they were second last. 

 

More to the point: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1991-01-27-1991027150-story.html

 

'Lombardi liked his football plain and simple. One defense -- four down linemen, three linebackers and four defensive backs in man-to-man coverage. Two offensive formations. Compared to today's modern teams, the Packers were a Model T. But they moved forward like a plow cutting through snow.

 

"Vince didn't like multiplicity. He liked simplicity," said Hank Stram, whose Kansas City Chiefs lost to Lombardi's Packers in the first Super Bowl. "He might have not even liked the modern game enough to coach it."

 

In his time, Lombardi ran the offense, Phil Bengston ran the defense, and that was that. The Packers coaching staff consisted of only six men. There were no coordinators or special teams coaches, no fancy playbooks filled with schemes or trick plays.

 

"I don't see another Lombardi today," said Bengston, who was Lombardi's successor as Packers head coach. "They go at it entirely different. A typical NFL staff has 11 coaches. Well, jeez, I can't imagine him sitting in a meeting like that. He let me turn in a report on the defense once a week. I don't think he ever read it."'

Edited December 27, 2019 by dave mcbride

[LABILLBACKER]

On 12/21/2019 at 6:20 PM, PromoTheRobot said:

Belichick today?

No, Belichick would run the score up all the time.

[billsfan_34]

On 12/21/2019 at 9:18 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

I'm trying to think of one. In any sport. 

 

Don't make this a hate McDermott stance or thread. I like him. I'm glad we have him. But it's arguable that his blatant conservative nature holds this team back. 

 

There are no facts. This is ALL opinion. And some of his conservative nature surely helps. We're 10-5 and will likely finish 11-5. 

 

But the object is to win it all. Josh is a unique talent. We need to score more points or there is little chance to win it all and that is the object. 

 

I think he needs to relinquish some of his dearly held nature in order to be great. I don't think you can be great without a killer instinct. 

Lindy Ruff- played the blue line trap- super conservative type of play however the “no goal” may nullify your parameters. Anyways just my 2 cents- Happy Holidays.

On 12/22/2019 at 4:23 PM, egd said:

 

Stop it. Knox was very conservative, as any article will tell you. He had a run first approach. 

 

https://mavensports.io/nfl/talkoffame/state-your-case/state-your-case-why-voters-should-consider-chuck-knox-tpUfsylso0yme_jcs3YCiw

 

https://www.thenewstribune.com/latest-news/article211077829.html

 

Mary Levy. /End thread

K Gun conservative? Hmmm I beg to differ.

[Bob in STL]

Lombardi was conservative for the times.   Compared to George Allen or Tom Landry anyway.  

 

Chuck Knox was very conservative - Ground Chuck.  Bud Grant (70's Vikings) was conservative 

 

Levy was conservative quite often.  Same can be said for Bellicheat, he prefers to be conservative but is not.  

 

McD is mostly conservative - I think he tries to match the experience of the team to what he asked them to do.  

 

Ditka has conservative offenses and crazy aggressive defenses.  

 

 

[Bob in STL]

On 12/22/2019 at 10:06 AM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

What Knox did with the Rams in the regular season is nothing short of amazing......and it wasn't all on the ground there either he made John Hadl and NFL MVP at QB and then traded him for a kings ransom and kept winning.

 

But he was ultimately a big loser in the playoffs so to Kelly's point I'm not sure he can be called "great".

 

Knox is by far the best football coach the Bills have ever had though.

 

Maybe if he stayed with the Rams he would have eventually broke thru like Cowher did in Pittsburgh.

 

 

Knox was an excellent coach but I rate Saban and Levy ahead of him for what they did as  "Bills" coaches.   

 

Saban was a flake but he won.  Levy was a teacher and he was consistent.  Knox had a great rebuild in Buffalo, combining vets and young talent to bring us to contention for a short time.  

[Kelly the Dog]

40 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

So it sounds like you're saying that if the running game is successful, it's not conservative. If it results in a lot of 3-and-outs, it's conservative.

 

In 1961, the Packers were 14th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 3rd in rushing attempts. 

 

In 1962, they were 14th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 2nd in rushing attempts. 

 

In 1963, they were 13th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 2nd in rushing attempts. 

 

In 1964, they were 14th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 3rd in rushing attempts. 

 

In 1965, they were 14th in passing attempts in a 14-team league. They were 6th in rushing attempts.

 

In 1966, they were 15th in passing attempts in a 15-team league. They were 3rd in rushing attempts.  

 

In 1967, they were 15th in passing attempts in a 15-team league. They were 4th in rushing attempts.

 

1967 was their last SB year and their last year of dominance under Lombardi. 

 

Dog, I fear you're  just making it up when discussing the Lombardi-era Packers.  Over a 7-year stretch, they were literally DEAD F**KING LAST in pass attempts every year except one, and in that year they were second last. 

 

More to the point: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1991-01-27-1991027150-story.html

 

'Lombardi liked his football plain and simple. One defense -- four down linemen, three linebackers and four defensive backs in man-to-man coverage. Two offensive formations. Compared to today's modern teams, the Packers were a Model T. But they moved forward like a plow cutting through snow.

 

"Vince didn't like multiplicity. He liked simplicity," said Hank Stram, whose Kansas City Chiefs lost to Lombardi's Packers in the first Super Bowl. "He might have not even liked the modern game enough to coach it."

 

In his time, Lombardi ran the offense, Phil Bengston ran the defense, and that was that. The Packers coaching staff consisted of only six men. There were no coordinators or special teams coaches, no fancy playbooks filled with schemes or trick plays.

 

"I don't see another Lombardi today," said Bengston, who was Lombardi's successor as Packers head coach. "They go at it entirely different. A typical NFL staff has 11 coaches. Well, jeez, I can't imagine him sitting in a meeting like that. He let me turn in a report on the defense once a week. I don't think he ever read it."'

I understand and concede the point.

 

I remember that team as rolling up points and killing people. But I was young.

 

It depends on your definition of conservative though. When you are running the ball down a team's throat and they cannot stop you, and you roll up points and win games and championships with an attacking defense led by Ray Nitchske I just don't call that being "conservative." Just running is not being conservative when it is working and you are dominating. If it WASNT working and you were running all the time then yes, that would be overly conservative.

18 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

 

 

Knox was an excellent coach but I rate Saban and Levy ahead of him for what they did as  "Bills" coaches.   

 

Saban was a flake but he won.  Levy was a teacher and he was consistent.  Knox had a great rebuild in Buffalo, combining vets and young talent to bring us to contention for a short time.  

That is where I stand. Saban and Marv were better overall than Knox, who was consistently a very good and not great coach, IMO. I did love the 1980-81 Knox coached Bills though as a team.

[row_33]

The greats fall, to me, into a few categories, 

 

1) the legends who pulled off great upsets in the biggest games, like Belichick and Parcells, Al McGuire, Bobby Knight

 

2) less admired coaches who were handed great teams and lost games they never should have like Wooden, Phil Jackson Scott Bowman, Dean Smith

 

3) the NBA has patented a category of “genius” that is given to one who has never won a darn thing,  even with great talent such as D’Antoni, Karl, Thibodeau.... 

 

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

4 minutes ago, row_33 said:

The greats fall, to me, into a few categories, 

 

1) the legends who pulled off great upsets in the biggest games, like Belichick and Parcells, Al McGuire, Bobby Knight

 

2) less admired coaches who were handed great teams and lost games they never should have like Wooden, Phil Jackson Scott Bowman, Dean Smith

 

3) the NBA has patented a category of “genius” that is given to one who has never won a darn thing,  even with great talent such as D’Antoni, Karl, Thibodeau.... 

 

 

 

Good post although I would vehemently disagree about Wooden. He's rightfully known as one of the very best coaches in any sport of all-time, was 664-162, won seven championships in a row, 10 in 12 years, 88 games in a row with all different kinds of players. He didn't lose many games he should have won at all, and it certainly was not because of poor coaching.

[TigerJ]

It sore of depends on you definition of "great".   "Ground" Chuck Knox was pretty highly regarded, though his Bills tenure left something to be desired.

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Bob in STL said:

 

 

Knox was an excellent coach but I rate Saban and Levy ahead of him for what they did as  "Bills" coaches.   

 

Saban was a flake but he won.  Levy was a teacher and he was consistent.  Knox had a great rebuild in Buffalo, combining vets and young talent to bring us to contention for a short time.  

 

 

Saban was good but he was actually under .500 in both the AFL and the NFL.  

 

Knox impacted a franchise like Saban but actually won a ton at the NFL level.

 

Levy was a glorified substitute teacher who hired bad coaches(except Marchibroda) and won almost entirely by sheer force of talent.  

[TwistofFate]

I think his conservative approach is to hide deficiency and limit mistakes. 

[Teddy KGB]

6 minutes ago, TwistofFate said:

I think his conservative approach is to hide deficiency and limit mistakes. 

 

What deficiency ? 

[Bob in STL]

1 hour ago, TigerJ said:

It sore of depends on you definition of "great".   "Ground" Chuck Knox was pretty highly regarded, though his Bills tenure left something to be desired.

He was a Joe Ferguson ankle injury (or a fallen free safety) away from a playoff win and a home AFC championship game versus Oakland. 

[TwistofFate]

6 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

What deficiency ? 

Pick one. 

[billsfan89]

I find the Patriots under Billy B to be mostly conservative. They tend to play in a way that is super disciplined and philosophically designed to limit mistakes and capitalize on their opponents mistakes. Yes they take some chances here and there like any coach but overall I think they mostly play to force you to lose the game. Marty Schotenheimer was a coach who had a lot of regular season success playing a conservative type of game. Bill Cowher was also a very conservative coach who let his ground game and defense win a lot of games who won a lot and did win a Super Bowl. 

 

I think there are actually a lot of "great" conservative coaches. But we tend to attribute aggressiveness in coaching to winning when in the end selected moments of aggression are outliers as opposed to the coaches general nature. 

[Dr.Sack]

The two best conservative NFL coaches the past 30 years have to be Marty Schottenheimer & Bill Cowher. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

When I hear conservative I hear defensive coach  and lots of running on offense.

 

if so canton is filled with them

 

 

[dave mcbride]

5 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

It depends on your definition of conservative though. When you are running the ball down a team's throat and they cannot stop you, and you roll up points and win games and championships with an attacking defense led by Ray Nitchske I just don't call that being "conservative." Just running is not being conservative when it is working and you are dominating. If it WASNT working and you were running all the time then yes, that would be overly conservative.

That is where I stand. Saban and Marv were better overall than Knox, who was consistently a very good and not great coach, IMO. I did love the 1980-81 Knox coached Bills though as a team.

Being conservative means at least in part being a slave to routine and highly averse to variety/novelty. Lombardi was the equivalent of someone who ate excellent pancakes for breakfast, a very good cheeseburger for lunch, and a nicely cooked piece of steak and mashed potatoes for dinner (followed by a bowl of solid vanilla ice cream) every day at the same times for seven straight years. No Thai or Ethiopian food for him. 

Edited December 27, 2019 by dave mcbride

[CLTbills]

Can you think of a "conservative" coach who regularly goes for it on 4th and 6?