Great read from Brad Oremland: NFL top 100 QBs of all time

[bestQBever]

I think it's pretty overrated myself to tell the truth. A lack of playoff success should not negate the stats and effort a player has. It's a team sport.

true but... the QB is the MVP of the team. He needs to have that it factor to make plays at key moments to win those tight games in the playoffs. doesn't it bother you that we routinely had 12-13-14 win seasons but manning isn't even at .500 in the playoffs....

[Yehoodi]

What was Polian doing while "Dungy was building the team ?" 

 

Yes, Polian was helping build the team in Indy.   But like I said earlier in this thread, prior to Coach Dungy taking over the reigns, the colts under Polian and Manning were 3-13, 13-3, 10-6 and 6-10.  Yes it takes time to build and one needs to add players.  And yes the success in the colts records after the arrival of Dungy was not 100% Dungy.  But it is no coincidence that a coach leaving a team that was a 500 at best team when he started to the cusp of a Super Bowl when he left would have similar increase in result when he arrives with his new team.   Just as Polian did with his teams.  

 

To claim that Dungy was just figurehead that got in the way as some may think is just ridiculous.   He was a key piece in the puzzle in Indy.   

[21isSuperman]

Surely there are no true right or wrong answer to what makes one great.  Is it stats, rings, wins, changes the game, be good enough so show other the way, and/or so on.

 

I look at BB and Dungy as having similar careers.  They both became head coaches in the 90's with not the best teams and improve them in the right direction.  No they did not make either a playoff winner over night as that takes time with a 53 man roster.  Both coaches did improve the teams in the right direction, BB in Cleveland and Dungy in Tampa Bay, and both had success in the regular season and won in the playoffs and each saw their respective teams move on and win a SB title after they left, 5 years for Baltimore and the next year for Tampa.  And I think both contributed to getting the teams in the right direction and set up to win after they were relieved of their duties.  

 

For me there is something to be said for improving a team of 53 players in the right direction.  Some folks will down play BB's tenor in Cleveland, although it was not stellar, one needs to look at where is started and where is ended.   And is not so stellar records is not necessarily indicative of his intrinsic coaching abilities.  I do not consider BB a failure as he only won one playoff game.  btw the Football Life Cleveland '95 is a great program.

 

Similarly I do not look at Dungy as a failure as he can't win the big one just because he was on the cusp of winning the year he was fired.  To me, like BB, is a sign of how far he brought the franchise in his tenor with the club.  Indeed some could very easily say he brought the team farther than BB respectively did as Tampa won it the following year.  Dungy did have more time in Tampa though.

 

As for your point about he can't win it but Gruden can.  First, he got the team assembled and system in place to have a contender once Gruden showed up.  And Second, on one level Gruden knew his old team Oakland very well and that certainly helped him in the SB.  And Third, you can't take away what Dungy help built in Tampa, is not like he just showed up and held serve and had the same record as previous coaches.  

 

As for your Dungy v. Peyton point, I am not buying it.  Indeed prior to Dungy showing up Peyton was 3-13, 13-3, 10-6, 6-10, not exactly impressive, no?  In fact if I recall the 6-10 (2001) was the season that Peyton had his coach going into his playoff presser after losing to the 49ers.  After Dungy arrived and some drafting the colts go 10-6 and then run off 12+ seasons.   Was is all Dungy's credit no, but its not all Manning's either, its somewhere in between.  Its like Brady and BB, prior to Brady taking over for Bledsoe, the pats were a combined 5-13 under BB, and we know what happened between 2001-2014.  Is it Brady no, nor is it BB, its somewhere in between.   With all great coaches and great QBs they need each to succeed. 

 

Just as I do not give all of the credit to Brady I am not going to take it away from Dungy. 

 

As for the coaching tree, yes I agree no one can say for sure if the "great" coaching rubbed off on to the other coaches, or one is just the fact that one coach is good at picking out coaches and staff who have their own intrinsic value.  And like Cleveland, a lot of coaches came out of the BB tree.  So I do agree that one can not point a finger totally to credit the head coach, but more often than not great head coaches will have staff that will succeed on their own, and on some level it is an indication of the quality of the head coach in my book.

One more point to add.  Those Tampa teams, if I recall correctly, had trouble getting past the Eagles, not the Raiders.  Dungy couldn't get his team to beat Philly, but Gruden was able to get it done in his first postseason attempt.  So the point about Gruden knowing the Raiders well doesn't really fit.  It was the Eagles that gave Dungy/Tampa trouble

[AntonMcG]

As usual, people detract from the quality content in this article that does not isolate certain stats or rhetorics to paint an incomplete picture (e.g. attributing SB wins to a QB and not the teams).

 

I still, to this day, believe Peyton Manning is the best I have ever seen, and maybe well ever see, and there is so much evidence to the support that.

[Yehoodi]

Depends where you want to put the credit. Poilan built the Colt teams and IMO Manning was responsible for the 12 win seasons.  Dungy was horribly out coached in the Pitt game. Not too many 12 point favorites get crushed in a playoff game. And they were no doubt badly beaten. Pitt went conservative and Indy caught 2 huge breaks and still lost. I guess you can blame it on his son's tragic death and give him a pass that way. Otherwise it was a totally inexcusable, huge loss that more than likely cost that team a SB. 

 

To be honest I did not see all of the Pitt/Colt game as understandably was not in the mood as the pats had lost their first playoff game the night prior to Denver and ended up chatting with a buddy of my after Mass for a long time and only saw the game starting in the 2nd quarter.   I do think that it the passing of his son must of weigh on him and the team.   But one stills needs to prepare as much as one can.

 

If one were to find that the colts were unprepared for one game and blame it on the coach, I am not going to say one game set a standard for all games, anymore that I would hinder BB playoff coaching tenure because we got beat by the Jets in the first round of the playoff in 2010.  And for what it is worth, the colts did lose to the eventual SB champs and a team that BB sought fit to tank the last game of the season against Miami to avoid playing in the first round, we got Jacksonville instead before losing to the Broncos.

[Yehoodi]

One more point to add.  Those Tampa teams, if I recall correctly, had trouble getting past the Eagles, not the Raiders.  Dungy couldn't get his team to beat Philly, but Gruden was able to get it done in his first postseason attempt.  So the point about Gruden knowing the Raiders well doesn't really fit.  It was the Eagles that gave Dungy/Tampa trouble

Agreed.  They did make it to the NFCCG in 99 if I remember.  And yes they did not make the SB, but none the less they were a good team.

[southwest1]

Surely there are no true right or wrong answer to what makes one great.  Is it stats, rings, wins, changes the game, be good enough so show other the way, and/or so on.

 

I look at BB and Dungy as having similar careers.  They both became head coaches in the 90's with not the best teams and improve them in the right direction.  No they did not make either a playoff winner over night as that takes time with a 53 man roster.  Both coaches did improve the teams in the right direction, BB in Cleveland and Dungy in Tampa Bay, and both had success in the regular season and won in the playoffs and each saw their respective teams move on and win a SB title after they left, 5 years for Baltimore and the next year for Tampa.  And I think both contributed to getting the teams in the right direction and set up to win after they were relieved of their duties.  

 

For me there is something to be said for improving a team of 53 players in the right direction.  Some folks will down play BB's tenor in Cleveland, although it was not stellar, one needs to look at where is started and where is ended.   And is not so stellar records is not necessarily indicative of his intrinsic coaching abilities.  I do not consider BB a failure as he only won one playoff game.  btw the Football Life Cleveland '95 is a great program.

 

Similarly I do not look at Dungy as a failure as he can't win the big one just because he was on the cusp of winning the year he was fired.  To me, like BB, is a sign of how far he brought the franchise in his tenor with the club.  Indeed some could very easily say he brought the team farther than BB respectively did as Tampa won it the following year.  Dungy did have more time in Tampa though.

 

As for your point about he can't win it but Gruden can.  First, he got the team assembled and system in place to have a contender once Gruden showed up.  And Second, on one level Gruden knew his old team Oakland very well and that certainly helped him in the SB.  And Third, you can't take away what Dungy help built in Tampa, is not like he just showed up and held serve and had the same record as previous coaches.  

 

As for your Dungy v. Peyton point, I am not buying it.  Indeed prior to Dungy showing up Peyton was 3-13, 13-3, 10-6, 6-10, not exactly impressive, no?  In fact if I recall the 6-10 (2001) was the season that Peyton had his coach going into his playoff presser after losing to the 49ers.  After Dungy arrived and some drafting the colts go 10-6 and then run off 12+ seasons.   Was is all Dungy's credit no, but its not all Manning's either, its somewhere in between.  Its like Brady and BB, prior to Brady taking over for Bledsoe, the pats were a combined 5-13 under BB, and we know what happened between 2001-2014.  Is it Brady no, nor is it BB, its somewhere in between.   With all great coaches and great QBs they need each to succeed. 

 

Just as I do not give all of the credit to Brady I am not going to take it away from Dungy. 

 

As for the coaching tree, yes I agree no one can say for sure if the "great" coaching rubbed off on to the other coaches, or one is just the fact that one coach is good at picking out coaches and staff who have their own intrinsic value.  And like Cleveland, a lot of coaches came out of the BB tree.  So I do agree that one can not point a finger totally to credit the head coach, but more often than not great head coaches will have staff that will succeed on their own, and on some level it is an indication of the quality of the head coach in my book.

Nice reply Yehoodi. You're spot on about Bill Belichick in Cleveland. He would have transformed that football program if he was given more time to do it. Cleveland 95 is a great program to watch too. I've seen it more than once. TBW with you I think BB made Bill Parcells career in NY in the early 90's as a DC. The grey hoodie never gets enough credit for that IMO. 

 

True HOF coaches & QBs need each other & they can't experience success entirely on their own. Dungy gave Manning the calm demeanor he needed to not panic in the 2006 AFC Championship Game & Manning offensive prowess let Dungy handle the defense & neither 1 stepped on the others toes. 

 

I appreciate BB because I think he gave Brady the tools to play well in bad weather & Brady just continues to win with constantly with new chess pieces every single season. It's very impressive. 

[Yehoodi]

People argue and debate who deserves more credit for the Pats' legacy, however tainted it may be.  Some say Belichick, some say Brady.  When it comes to Indy, there's absolutely no doubt why we had such a successful run in the 2000s.  It was Peyton.  Dungy, while a nice guy, isn't much of a football coach, in my opinion.  He's certainly not on the same level as Belichick.  You can say his efforts in rebuilding Tampa were great, and they were, but that doesn't mean he's a good coach.

 

Fair enough folks are entitled to their opinion.  As for the pats I think it is a combo of the two, just as it is with the other great coach QB combos imo, like Lombardi/Starr, Landry/Staubach, Noll/Bradshaw, Walsh/Montana, Madden/Stabler, and so on.  Take a look at Coach Noll's and Coach Landry's record outside of their tenure with the HOF QBs, neither one won a SB or had overly stellar records outside of their runs with their HOF (although Landry has some success with Don Meredith).   Many would likely say that the respective QBs did not make the coach even though the later had less than stellar coaching careers outside of their tenure with the HOF QB.   Both parties contributed to the teams success while both parties can be given their just dues as for their respective contribution to the team success.   

 

I do not view the Dungy/Manning all that much different than those combos, you do, fair enough, we can agree to disagree.

[Yehoodi]

Nice reply Yehoodi. You're spot on about Bill Belichick in Cleveland. He would have transformed that football program if he was given more time to do it. Cleveland 95 is a great program to watch too. I've seen it more than once. TBW with you I think BB made Bill Parcells career in NY in the early 90's as a DC. The grey hoodie never gets enough credit for that IMO. 

 

True HOF coaches & QBs need each other & they can't experience success entirely on their own. Dungy gave Manning the calm demeanor he needed to not panic in the 2006 AFC Championship Game & Manning offensive prowess let Dungy handle the defense & neither 1 stepped on the others toes. 

 

I appreciate BB because I think he gave Brady the tools to play well in bad weather & Brady just continues to win with constantly with new chess pieces every single season. It's very impressive. 

 

Yah BB did help Brady, and continues to do so.  Brady is lucky he has had BB for his entire career and for the next few years.   Brady would of likely had some level of success on other teams, but not so sure he would of had the success he has had with BB and the Pats.  

[Yehoodi]

http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-brad-oremlands-best-qbs-in-history-1-5/

 

Nice read thanks for postings.  I have only gone through a handful, am looking forward to reading a few more.  Its always fun to read these types of lists.  Sometimes you get a different view on the subject and that can be refreshing.   And yah stats are fun to look at too.  And lastly, the author has a lot to say about each QB, so its fun and one can find something new about players from years past.

[Superman]

So a lot of teams could follow what the pats do, its simple, do not pay the highest, or near the highest, at any position, and let players go a year or two early, it is not rocket science what the pats do, any team could do it if they wanted.

 

But why? The Pats went 10 years without a Super Bowl, and didn't get another one until they actually spent some money on a premium position player. Same in 2007; they got rid of good players, stalled out, and then all of a sudden were a juggernaut when they signed one of the greatest receivers of all time. 

 

The Patriot Way isn't as successful as people claim it is.

[Superman]

And those "many" likely watch and hear Tampa 2 mentioned, and implemented, on a regular basis

 

You mean the most antiquated defensive scheme in football? The only reason Tampa 2 became popular is because it was considered cheap and easy to emulate, and it caught on after the Bucs put together a great defense running it. What people ignore is that the Bucs had GREAT defensive players running it, not replacement level players. 

 

And that's why Tampa 2 is going away as a base defensive scheme, about 10 years too late.

[Superman]

true but... the QB is the MVP of the team. He needs to have that it factor to make plays at key moments to win those tight games in the playoffs. doesn't it bother you that we routinely had 12-13-14 win seasons but manning isn't even at .500 in the playoffs....

 

It's a fallacy to attribute wins -- especially in the playoffs -- to QBs. 

 

To say that Russell Wilson "won" the NFCCG and Aaron Rodgers "lost" is craziness, and it's the reason "QB wins" needs to go away. QBs don't win or lose games; teams do. Sometimes, a QB will carry his team to victory, and sometimes he'll play so terribly that his team loses, but most of the time, the result of the game relies on multiple factors. That's especially true in the playoffs, when the opposition is really good, when weather is a factor, etc.

[Surge89]

Man you are all over the place . . .  My middle name is Consistent.  My points are only directed to the critics of Tony Dungy and more often than not they complain about his post season record as a reflection of how "average" he is as a coach.   And the same time those folks will complain that Manning was "held back" by an "average" coach and the coach is "average" due to his playoff record.  

 

Problem arises for me with respect to being "held back by an average coach" as being absolute definitive 100% proven point is the fact that is not 100% proven or correct and that one needs to on some level to qualify things, that is all.  Now DO NOT GET the impression that I am trying to say the qualifying points are 100% proven the other way to make a coach an otherwise goat coach, but just a factor, and only a factor, but nonetheless one that needs to be considered. 

 

And all my original point was when one tries to claim that Dungy is average due to x, y, and z and too bad for his players, but yet when one steps back and sees, in their opinion, that any said player is responsible on some level, again not 100% responsible but partially responsible, for a portion of the z part of the coaches resume, you need to look at that when claiming he was "held back."   That is all. 

 

You can not start a house fire and be responsible for the same and then complain gee aren't you lucky your house did not burn down, your house is better than mine, whoo is me.

 

Bottom line I think Dungy is a much better coach than what most colts fans will claim.           

 

BB coaching record is 211-109 (0.659), 12 division titles in 20 years, Dungy coaching record is 139-69 (0.668), 6 division titles in 15 years.   If BB is in the discussion as a goat level coach, then Dungy is not certainly not average.   If fact, Dungy's resume is not that much different than John Madden's, and most would consider Madden a great coach.

 

I'm all over the place?  I'm directly responding to each paragraph you have brought up...  Dungy is seen as an average coach at least to most Colts fans, because he had no clue how to scheme for his players.  He continued to stick small squares into smaller round holes and never changed nor adapted.  Because Manning created team opportunity he was able to stay with the mantra stick with what we do but do it better.  Even though that meant just getting run on over and over and over.

 

You see this is where you have misunderstood.  Manning was not held back by an average coach.  He accomplished legendary status in spite of an average coach.

 

I understand you're original point. But you're point doesn't coincide with the fact that Dungy couldn't manage players nor build a defense without Sapp and Tampa's old talent.  He kept trying to depend solely on Freeney rushing the pass instead of getting Freeney some actual LBers that could stop the run and force the pass or an interior D-Line so that Freeney couldn't be negated by 3 O-Lineman.  Or he'd depend on a fragile made of glass Safety who instead of getting him a D-Line so he could blow up receivers he had to take on Lineman and RB's so he can get hit more... I can go on and on and on with the ill decisions that Dungy had with his defense.  And that isn't even touching Meeks.

 

Your analogy doesn't fit, because Dungy never fixed anything...  He calmed the players and kept a clean locker room but as far as X's and O's he provided nothing but a dated scheme that we just could not find the personnel for and force players to play said scheme.

 

I disagree

 

The difference?  Dungy had Manning.  Who has inflated the following's records: Mora, Caldwell, Fox, and soon to be Kubiak.  Another difference?  His teams in Indy always had glaring weakness' a mark of either really bad drafting or really bad scheme for said players (which would be coaching). 

[dw49]

To be honest I did not see all of the Pitt/Colt game as understandably was not in the mood as the pats had lost their first playoff game the night prior to Denver and ended up chatting with a buddy of my after Mass for a long time and only saw the game starting in the 2nd quarter.   I do think that it the passing of his son must of weigh on him and the team.   But one stills needs to prepare as much as one can.

 

If one were to find that the colts were unprepared for one game and blame it on the coach, I am not going to say one game set a standard for all games, anymore that I would hinder BB playoff coaching tenure because we got beat by the Jets in the first round of the playoff in 2010.  And for what it is worth, the colts did lose to the eventual SB champs and a team that BB sought fit to tank the last game of the season against Miami to avoid playing in the first round, we got Jacksonville instead before losing to the Broncos.

 

 

Not only were they unprepared but they never really adjusted to what Pitt was doing on offense and defense. I don't think Dungy was a bad coach , I just don't think he was a top one. But coaches are really hard to evaluate IMO.

[dw49]

Super Bowl 37 = Tampa, not Indy.  Polian has nothing to do with that one

 

You are correct. As I read back , I see that you nor Yehoodi made reference to Dungy building any Colt teams.

I don't know if he was the major figure in the TB war room but could be that he was.

[BloodyChamp]

Dungy and Holmgren are overrated. That makes Manning 2nd in regard to what people were talking about earlier.

The Pats owe Bill more than they owe Brady.

Playoff wins and losses have to be taken in context individually. Sometimes quarterbacks blow playoff games, even with good teams. Sometimes they drag bad teams to 9-7 and are to blame none when a team on a whole other level destroys them in round 1. There are also many more scenarios.

That's my 2 cents on what this thread has been about for the most part. I'll injest the article later.

[amfootball]

It's a fallacy to attribute wins -- especially in the playoffs -- to QBs. 

 

To say that Russell Wilson "won" the NFCCG and Aaron Rodgers "lost" is craziness, and it's the reason "QB wins" needs to go away. QBs don't win or lose games; teams do. Sometimes, a QB will carry his team to victory, and sometimes he'll play so terribly that his team loses, but most of the time, the result of the game relies on multiple factors. That's especially true in the playoffs, when the opposition is really good, when weather is a factor, etc.

QB wins is never going to go away. It is the one position as we all know that determines the success rate of teams and why teams spend so much and look for so long to fill that position. And it only gets magnified in the post-season.

[Shane Bond]

QB wins is never going to go away. It is the one position as we all know that determines the success rate of teams and why teams spend so much and look for so long to fill that position. And it only gets magnified in the post-season.

QB play is important but wins/losses are team's play. Patriots didn't win a SB for 10 years and they needed a player like Darelle Revis to get it done. These are facts.

 

Tom Brady has 8 playoffs losses. Its all his fault?.

 

The author here discusses each and every player in detail. I learned a lot about all the players. Its a great detailed work and i commend Brad. I bet you didn't even read because you didn't see Brady as number 1.

[BloodyChamp]

Come on Colts...that list is cockeyed. Getting #1 right doesn't excuse running the rest of the list through a Boggle machine.

[jseg18]

It's a fallacy to attribute wins -- especially in the playoffs -- to QBs.

To say that Russell Wilson "won" the NFCCG and Aaron Rodgers "lost" is craziness, and it's the reason "QB wins" needs to go away. QBs don't win or lose games; teams do. Sometimes, a QB will carry his team to victory, and sometimes he'll play so terribly that his team loses, but most of the time, the result of the game relies on multiple factors. That's especially true in the playoffs, when the opposition is really good, when weather is a factor, etc.

. I believe it was the 2011 AFC championship that helps back this theory up. Ravens vs Pats. I'm sure everyone forgot how bad Tom played, but they want to crown him, then crown him. Patriots were the better TEAM, and that's why they they came out on top.

[21isSuperman]

You are correct. As I read back , I see that you nor Yehoodi made reference to Dungy building any Colt teams.

I don't know if he was the major figure in the TB war room but could be that he was.

He was.  He was a major contributor to them building a winning team

[amfootball]

. I believe it was the 2011 AFC championship that helps back this theory up. Ravens vs Pats. I'm sure everyone forgot how bad Tom played, but they want to crown him, then crown him. Patriots were the better TEAM, and that's why they they came out on top.

This is a myopic view IMO. It is easy to take one off games as I could take the Ravens game this year and Brady's 50 attempts and multiple TD night and show why he was the main reason why they won that game coming from behind twice 14 down. But again that is just a one game example.

 

I think what we are more discussing here is the influence QBs have over the out comes of games. The QB not only handles the ball on every offensive play but he makes a plethora of decisions before the ball is even snapped in terms of checking out of a bad play, reading the coverage, setting the protection, etc. It is the most cerebral position in all of sports and it is why a QBs ability to lead his team to championships is valued so highly.

 

And to take things one step further using the NFCCG from this past post-season. While it is true that one cannot fault Rodgers for losing the game, his inability to get the ball in the end zone on GBs first three possessions of the game, two of which came off of turnovers is the main reason why Seattle was even in the game at the end. And as bad as Wilson played for most of the game, he played his best football the final two possessions of regulation and the first possession of OT and that was enough to win the game. So again, we are talking influence on the outcome of games and the QB has the most. That is also why QBs more often than not win the league MVP and why it takes an exceptional year like we saw from AP two years ago for a non-QB player to win it.

[NFLfan]

A couple of things.

First, if Manning does not throw 4 picks in the 2003 AFCCG, maybe Dungy has two SB rings and BB, until this year, would likewise only have two SBs rings. So in some ways you create your own resume and others too by ones own play. A lot of folks like to downplay Dungy, but he built a great team in Tampa, that was good enough to win a SB the year he left, and when he arrived in Indy, and through some drafts, had that team go on a tear of 12+ win seasons when the team was basically a 0.500 team with Manning before he arrived in Indy. Bottom line if that AFCCG does not go the way it did, the BB card is not so easily pulled as both he and Dungy have the same number of SB rings. And even without that game, Dungy resume in Indy after he arrived is very very impressive, not to mention what he did in Tampa.

Second, regarding front office. I think one of the strength's of Brady is the fact that the pats FO knows they have him and he can take care of things on the offensive side of the ball. Basically, they do not pay for high price players and will let them go and will deal with good deals knowing they have Brady to take care of things. For example if the pats were the 2014 Broncos they would not be messing around with D. Thomas and would let him walk and the team would have to make due with Sanders and what ever else they could find in FA. So a lot of teams could follow what the pats do, its simple, do not pay the highest, or near the highest, at any position, and let players go a year or two early, it is not rocket science what the pats do, any team could do it if they wanted.

I guess only non-Colts fans appreciate Dungy. Vikings fans wish we had had Dungy. He had been our D-coordinator prior to becoming head coach of the Bucs. I believe he had only one sub-500 team in all his years as Bucs and Colts head coach. The Bucs were garbage before Dungy. And the Colts were not a good team before him, even with Manning. As soon as Dungy got there, the team improved. I was not following the Colts much then but I remember only successful years with Dungy. I don't get why Colts fans dislike him so much.

[Superman]

QB wins is never going to go away. It is the one position as we all know that determines the success rate of teams and why teams spend so much and look for so long to fill that position. And it only gets magnified in the post-season.

 

Just because you can't win without good QB play doesn't mean that the QB can win without good support around him. Football is the ultimate team sport, regardless how important the QB position is. QBs don't win or lose games; teams do.

 

"QB wins" is nonsense.

[Gramz]

Meanwhile.....back at the ranch, I like his list, love his in-depth analysis, and think he's pretty spot on.

[southwest1]

I guess only non-Colts fans appreciate Dungy. Vikings fans wish we had had Dungy. He had been our D-coordinator prior to becoming head coach of the Bucs. I believe he had only one sub-500 team in all his years as Bucs and Colts head coach. The Bucs were garbage before Dungy. And the Colts were not a good team before him, even with Manning. As soon as Dungy got there, the team improved. I was not following the Colts much then but I remember only successful years with Dungy. I don't get why Colts fans dislike him so much.

It's interesting to read your post given your take on Tony from a Minnesota Vikings fan perspective NFLfan. I felt so sorry for your team when HC Brad Childress was there. The man could not coach let alone motivate men for 16 weeks. QB Brett Favre masked or made up for Brad's shortcomings as a coach. 

 

You are right though Derrick Brooks, Warren Sapp, & John Lynch all sang Dungy's praises in Tampa. The Bucs were a laughing stock before Tony took over the reins there no question. I liked Tony in INDY too because he always had a calming demeanor & didn't feel the need to crack the disciplinary whip & stroke his own ego. Too many people confuse soft spoken with being timid. Tony always had a quiet confidence about him that I will always respect. 

 

Plus, Dungy is a man of his word & when he said he was done with football coaching on the NFL stage he meant it. People can debate Tony's X's & O's game planning naturally as much as they want, but I admire how he knew when to back off, do less, & not come down on the locker room guys like an overzealous dictator. 

[southwest1]

It's a fallacy to attribute wins -- especially in the playoffs -- to QBs. 

 

To say that Russell Wilson "won" the NFCCG and Aaron Rodgers "lost" is craziness, and it's the reason "QB wins" needs to go away. QBs don't win or lose games; teams do. Sometimes, a QB will carry his team to victory, and sometimes he'll play so terribly that his team loses, but most of the time, the result of the game relies on multiple factors. That's especially true in the playoffs, when the opposition is really good, when weather is a factor, etc.

In general, I agree with you Superman & I'm not discounting what your saying, but there's a reason a QB is the most important position on the field & Curtis Painter in 2011 can't hide behind a team excuse IMO for example. I realize you never mentioned a specific QB by name of course, but you can have a solid team defensively with a good running game & still lose i. e. Andy Dalton of the Cincinnati Bengals. So, I wouldn't entirely dismiss what AMF said.

 

Heck, look at the Broncos after Elway before Manning signed there. Do you honestly think Brock Osweiler  would have led the Broncos to a SB during the 2012 season? Ah huh. Me neither. 

[Bubbz]

You are creating something that didn't happen first off. 2nd the reason why Dungy is downplayed because the evidence is there to downplay. He built a team from his scheme in tampa right? What was it again? oh that is right a defensive team... and guess what he didn't do in Indy? turn them into a defensive powerhouse... Also guess what Manning did with and without Dungy? (Before and After I might add) take his team to 12 win seasons.... Everything you just posted is so shallow on Dungy its just the usual rhetoric attempting to turn Dungy into something he isn't... A revolutionary coach... He isn't. He created a scheme that he lucked into having the perfect players for in Tampa. That is pretty much the only thing he has done... Everything else teams did or were doing without him and just continued while he was there.

This paragraph is the most accurate thing that has ever been voiced lol. It is so simple but everyone is really really dumb. And my point remains BB and the Pats are the only ones to do it.

Can someone pls tell me how to like posts from the mobile version of the site? Spot on

[Yehoodi]

But why? The Pats went 10 years without a Super Bowl, and didn't get another one until they actually spent some money on a premium position player. Same in 2007; they got rid of good players, stalled out, and then all of a sudden were a juggernaut when they signed one of the greatest receivers of all time. 

 

The Patriot Way isn't as successful as people claim it is.

 

Sorry gonna have to differ here.  Gees Supes you sound like Michael Felger.     "You gotta spend man, forget about value."

 

The pats let Revis walk after one year and let him go as they have had other FAs looking for money in the past.  The pats will always not pay top dollar or near top dollar, but there are some exceptions and even those have understandable qualifications.   Revis was only signed effectively for a year deal at around 12 mil, effectively franchise tag money and only for one year.  We did not break the bank and sign him at top dollar for a 3-5 year contract in 2014 thereby threatening other up coming contract such as Collins, Hightower, Jones, etc.  Not to mention other role players on D that we might want to restructure/extend in the next 3-5 years. 

 

The Revis contract worked out for both parties, Talib was going to leave (and got good money in Denver), Revis wanted to get back in the national spot light and we wanted a replacement for Talib, so we ponied up 12 mill for one year and then we moved on.  And Moss was not much different, he came to NE on very short money in 2007 and we decided to extend him with a good contract and he was gone in 2010.  Moss average salary over his tenor with the pats was not as much as it might have seemed.  

 

As for your Michael Felger Patriot Way comment (he is always yapping about where are the rings '04 to present and thus the whole Patriot Way thing has run its coarse), I will take it everyday and twice on Sunday.   For me I look at the success of a program not in actual wins, but where has it put the team.  I think most of us will agree that luck plays a role in winning a ring.  And really all one can do is get one in position to win the ring and luck will take over.  Some players and teams will do this more often than other players and teams.  I think in 2004 we win a ring regardless of any luck.  But in the others years we played we had luck for us and luck go against us.

 

Without getting into details of what I have posted before on the forum, a few bounces going one way or the other we could of lost in the first round in '01 and '03, won in '06, '07 and '11 and lost in '14.   The fact that the bounces/plays/calls went our way in resulting in wins in '01, '03, '04 and '14 as opposed to bounces/plays/calls resulting in wins in '04, '07, '11 and '14, doesn't limit our team philosophy to only be successful '01-'04, but really over the coarse of the entire 14 year span.  That really can not be said for too many other team's philosophies.

[Superman]

In general, I agree with you Superman & I'm not discounting what your saying, but there's a reason a QB is the most important position on the field & Curtis Painter in 2011 can't hide behind a team excuse IMO for example. I realize you never mentioned a specific QB by name of course, but you can have a solid team defensively with a good running game & still lose i. e. Andy Dalton of the Cincinnati Bengals. So, I wouldn't entirely dismiss what AMF said.

 

Heck, look at the Broncos after Elway before Manning signed there. Do you honestly think Brock Osweiler  would have led the Broncos to a SB during the 2012 season? Ah huh. Me neither. 

 

Obviously, a better QB makes it easier to win games. That doesn't mean QBs win/lose games; they don't. There are a hundred examples in that last couple of seasons of QBs playing good games but the team loses, and QBs playing bad games but the team wins. 

[Superman]

Sorry gonna have to differ here.  Gees Supes you sound like Michael Felger.     "You gotta spend man, forget about value."

 

The pats let Revis walk after one year and let him go as they have had other FAs looking for money in the past.  The pats will always not pay top dollar or near top dollar, but there are some exceptions and even those have understandable qualifications.   Revis was only signed effectively for a year deal at around 12 mil, effectively franchise tag money and only for one year.  We did not break the bank and sign him at top dollar for a 3-5 year contract in 2014 thereby threatening other up coming contract such as Collins, Hightower, Jones, etc.  Not to mention other role players on D that we might want to restructure/extend in the next 3-5 years. 

 

The Revis contract worked out for both parties, Talib was going to leave (and got good money in Denver), Revis wanted to get back in the national spot light and we wanted a replacement for Talib, so we ponied up 12 mill for one year and then we moved on.  And Moss was not much different, he came to NE on very short money in 2007 and we decided to extend him with a good contract and he was gone in 2010.  Moss average salary over his tenor with the pats was not as much as it might have seemed.  

 

As for your Michael Felger Patriot Way comment (he is always yapping about where are the rings '04 to present and thus the whole Patriot Way thing has run its coarse), I will take it everyday and twice on Sunday.   For me I look at the success of a program not in actual wins, but where has it put the team.  I think most of us will agree that luck plays a role in winning a ring.  And really all one can do is get one in position to win the ring and luck will take over.  Some players and teams will do this more often than other players and teams.  I think in 2004 we win a ring regardless of any luck.  But in the others years we played we had luck for us and luck go against us.

 

Without getting into details of what I have posted before on the forum, a few bounces going one way or the other we could of lost in the first round in '01 and '03, won in '06, '07 and '11 and lost in '14.   The fact that the bounces/plays/calls went our way in resulting in wins in '01, '03, '04 and '14 as opposed to bounces/plays/calls resulting in wins in '04, '07, '11 and '14, doesn't limit our team philosophy to only be successful '01-'04, but really over the coarse of the entire 14 year span.  That really can not be said for too many other team's philosophies.

 

I never said forget about value.

 

And you can post away about how awesome the Patriot Way is, but the fact is that the Patriots have Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, and everything else is peripheral. Draft well, hold on to your best players, fill out your roster, and with a great QB and a great coach, you'll have a shot. Teams don't emulate the Patriot Way because you can't just emulate Belichick and Brady.

 

But I will mention that this value-centric approach isn't exclusive to the Patriots, nor did they originate it. 

[Surge89]

I guess only non-Colts fans appreciate Dungy. Vikings fans wish we had had Dungy. He had been our D-coordinator prior to becoming head coach of the Bucs. I believe he had only one sub-500 team in all his years as Bucs and Colts head coach. The Bucs were garbage before Dungy. And the Colts were not a good team before him, even with Manning. As soon as Dungy got there, the team improved. I was not following the Colts much then but I remember only successful years with Dungy. I don't get why Colts fans dislike him so much.

The Dungy years we're awful for me to watch as a Colts fan. To know every single year you are going to field a dated scheme and again offensive players drafted. I wouldn't even post on the forums then just read, because everyone was completely enamored with Dungy's good guy let's do what we do mentality. Yay 12 wins with a defense who routinely gave up 200 yards rushing for a game every year, got old real quick.

I was hopeful for change when we finally got some DT help in FA thinking maybe it was the change but nope business as usual when he retired soft interior and runners running wild. The biggest problem I had is that I knew we had the best QB to ever play but unlike every great QB before him he didn't have a coach that did whatever possible to improve the weak areas of the team.

And the worst thing... it feels like it's happening again...

[Yehoodi]

I'm all over the place?  I'm directly responding to each paragraph you have brought up...  Dungy is seen as an average coach at least to most Colts fans, because he had no clue how to scheme for his players.  He continued to stick small squares into smaller round holes and never changed nor adapted.  Because Manning created team opportunity he was able to stay with the mantra stick with what we do but do it better.  Even though that meant just getting run on over and over and over.

 

You see this is where you have misunderstood.  Manning was not held back by an average coach.  He accomplished legendary status in spite of an average coach.

 

I understand you're original point. But you're point doesn't coincide with the fact that Dungy couldn't manage players nor build a defense without Sapp and Tampa's old talent.  He kept trying to depend solely on Freeney rushing the pass instead of getting Freeney some actual LBers that could stop the run and force the pass or an interior D-Line so that Freeney couldn't be negated by 3 O-Lineman.  Or he'd depend on a fragile made of glass Safety who instead of getting him a D-Line so he could blow up receivers he had to take on Lineman and RB's so he can get hit more... I can go on and on and on with the ill decisions that Dungy had with his defense.  And that isn't even touching Meeks.

 

Your analogy doesn't fit, because Dungy never fixed anything...  He calmed the players and kept a clean locker room but as far as X's and O's he provided nothing but a dated scheme that we just could not find the personnel for and force players to play said scheme.

 

I disagree

 

The difference?  Dungy had Manning.  Who has inflated the following's records: Mora, Caldwell, Fox, and soon to be Kubiak.  Another difference?  His teams in Indy always had glaring weakness' a mark of either really bad drafting or really bad scheme for said players (which would be coaching). 

 

Fair enough we are just going have to differ on our opinions of Dungy.  I would agree that Mora is not the best and for that matter Kubiak.  But I just have a tough time looking the other way on a coach who resume, imo, is not that far off from BBs short of a ring for their respective coaching years till Dungy retired.  And like I said at the top, imo, BBs and Dungy's resumes would look different in those years had '03 turned out different, or any other year were the colts were primed to win a SB, like '05 when folks pointed out that a lot of that loss fell on Dungy's shoulders, altho pitt was no pushover.      

 

And for me there is nothing wrong in my book for given props to an all time great's coach.  Indeed, every great QB on that list and especially the ones near the top had all time HOF coaches paired up with them.  Its not like one of them was paired up with Brad Childress and he is given extra points for carrying Childress to the pantheon of the league.   Every great QB needed a great coach.  

[Yehoodi]

I guess only non-Colts fans appreciate Dungy. Vikings fans wish we had had Dungy. He had been our D-coordinator prior to becoming head coach of the Bucs. I believe he had only one sub-500 team in all his years as Bucs and Colts head coach. The Bucs were garbage before Dungy. And the Colts were not a good team before him, even with Manning. As soon as Dungy got there, the team improved. I was not following the Colts much then but I remember only successful years with Dungy. I don't get why Colts fans dislike him so much.

 

Agreed, and like I said in my prior post to Surge88, there is no shame in having a great coach.  Indeed, every great QB needed a great coach.  Manning's success in Indy and Denver stands on its own in my book regardless of what one thinks of Dungy.   I do not need to add to Manning's resume due to any opinion I might have of Dungy. 

[NFLfan]

The Dungy years we're awful for me to watch as a Colts fan. To know every single year you are going to field a dated scheme and again offensive players drafted. I wouldn't even post on the forums then just read, because everyone was completely enamored with Dungy's good guy let's do what we do mentality. Yay 12 wins with a defense who routinely gave up 200 yards rushing for a game every year, got old real quick.

I was hopeful for change when we finally got some DT help in FA thinking maybe it was the change but nope business as usual when he retired soft interior and runners running wild. The biggest problem I had is that I knew we had the best QB to ever play but unlike every great QB before him he didn't have a coach that did whatever possible to improve the weak areas of the team.

And the worst thing... it feels like it's happening again...

I'm sorry that those years were awful for you. I can only imagine what you would do if you had been a Cardinals, Bengals, or Bills fan in those years. At least you won a Super Bowl. Did you prefer the Marchibroda, Mora, and Infante years?

And the defense that you hated...I believe it is that defense that won the SB for you that year, not the offense. Again, I'm sorry that you were not able to appreciate the Colts success. Many fans of other NFL teams would have.

[southwest1]

 Teams don't emulate the Patriot Way because you can't just emulate Belichick and Brady.

A very simple & profound point right there. I wonder sometimes if you separate both Bill & Tom & place them in different cities would they have reached elite status on their own? If Bledsoe had not gotten hurt would Bill have won multiple rings with Drew? Maybe not 4 but at least 2 I think. 

 

I'm not dismissing the intelligence of Brady either. He'd win in any city as long as the offensive line was adequate. I'm just trying to picture Bill Belichick coaching Chad Pennington on the sidelines in the Big Apple.  

[southwest1]

I'm sorry that those years were awful for you. I can only imagine what you would do if you had been a Cardinals, Bengals, or Bills fan in those years. At least you won a Super Bowl. Did you prefer the Marchibroda, Mora, and Infante years?

And the defense that you hated...I believe it is that defense that won the SB for you that year, not the offense. Again, I'm sorry that you were not able to appreciate the Colts success. Many fans of other NFL teams would have.

You do make a valid point NFLfan. INDY fans really have nothing to complain about winning percentage wise ever since we acquired Peyton & Luck & even though 1998's Manning's rookie year came with it's own share of learning curve growing pains as 1 would expect & 2011 wasn't a pretty picture with 18's necessary neck surgeries that obviously weren't his fault. The Colts got a bonafide, up & coming elite QB in Andrew & you're exactly right when you say that we unlike the AZ Cardinals [minus Kurt Warner's SB appearance during the 2008 season & the hiring of new head coach Bruce Arians in 2013] the Colts have no idea what true longterm suffering & years of irrelevancy truly means. 

 

I get what Surge89 is saying. He wants INDY to compete more frequently in SuperBowls. So do I, but let's not forget that winning is never easy & the Cardinals were in the Playoff desert for a very long time. Thanks for reminding me how lucky [no pun intended] we INDY fans truly are. Dare I say spoiled even. Thank you NFLfan. 

[BloodyChamp]

Bill was on teams that won SBs or atleast playoff games that were quarterbacked by Testaverde, Kosar in his postprime, Simms, Hostetler, Bledsoe. It's not all Tom Brady. In fact, it's very little Tom Brady no matter how many bubbles that bursts.

[Surge89]

I'm sorry that those years were awful for you. I can only imagine what you would do if you had been a Cardinals, Bengals, or Bills fan in those years. At least you won a Super Bowl. Did you prefer the Marchibroda, Mora, and Infante years?

And the defense that you hated...I believe it is that defense that won the SB for you that year, not the offense. Again, I'm sorry that you were not able to appreciate the Colts success. Many fans of other NFL teams would have.

Jesus that's overkill. When I say it was awful to watch I assumed that one would know I'm talking relative to our discussion. Take it overboard if you'd like but this is simply discussing why the whole "Dungy was a revolutionary coach or close to that of BB" conversation. In which I believe is incorrect and was brutal to watch a coach be as inept as he was. There's only so many years you try something and it just doesn't work. Also that defense that "won us a superbowl" still allowed a 200 yard rusher that year and if not for Manning wouldn't have even gotten the chance to get healthy for 2 games (mainly due to a coaching inability to protect the DBs from olineman) because they were so atrocious in the regular season.

The rest of your statement is simply answered I did appreciate the Manning years but watching the coaching during so was hard to watch. I didn't know one had to appreciate every little thing of a successful era in order to be appreciative.