| RotoGuru Football Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Classless Don Shula Posted by: Bond, James Bond - [28102870] Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 01:29 Don Shula's recent comments regarding putting an asterisk on New England's unblemished season if they run the table undefeated sounds nothing more than a case of sour grapes to me. Tell me what, if anything, does Shula have to gain by making such an inane comment? Certainly, he is an NFL legend but his lack of tact---whether or not he is right----reeks of selfism and gracelessness. I lost a lot of respect for him today. Shula's comments | |||||||
| 1 | Tree ID: 56102375 Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 06:30 |
Shula must have been drunk, or quite possibly the reporter misunderstood him. very clearly he didn't mean to say "asterisk"...he meant to say "assh*les"...8 letters, both start with "as", etc etc. besides, a little tiny ass instead of a boring old asterisk is much more entertaining. i mean, this: * or this:  case rested. | ||||||
| 2 | ivan ID: 534552418 Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 08:02 |
hrrm. don schula just needs to go away, he's totally overrated as a coach, and the 72 dolphins are one of the more tired storylines in the nfl. perhaps if they (the '72 dolphins) didn't make such a big deal about celebrating every time a team falls short i'd have a more favorable opinion of their accomplishment. that being said, he was asked and anwsered honestly, i can't flog him for that. the pats (or perhaps more correctly their coach) brought this on themselves - though again as much as it pains me to say this, this does more to cast doubt on what they did in years past compared to this year. if the pats do have a perfect year it's b/c they are: 1. good. 2. playing schedule w/ a lot of losers on it. 3. making the most of their salary cap. 4. lucky. everyone in the nfl knew (or suspected) that the pats now have their signals, if they made the decision to not change signals, that is on them - not the pats. | ||||||
| 3 | Tree ID: 3533298 Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 08:43 |
he's totally overrated as a coach clearly trolling, but i'll take the bait. how on earth is a guy with a .669 winning percentage, two SB wins, 1 NFL championship, 5 AFC titles, and 11 division titles overrated? | ||||||
| 4 | Great One Sustainer ID: 053272014 Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 09:18 | and coached the only undefeated team.... | ||||||
| 5 | Chuck ID: 54733162 Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 10:58 |
"perhaps if they (the '72 dolphins) didn't make such a big deal about celebrating every time a team falls short i'd have a more favorable opinion of their accomplishment." Whoops... guess you believed the media hype | ||||||
| 6 | barilko6 ID: 1949205 Wed, Nov 07, 2007, 11:01 |
Shula was definitely not overrated, however his complaints on this issue are quite stupid. Considering that the Jets caught the Patriots cheating on the first series of the first game of the season, its easy to assume that the Pats didn't actually get to glean any sort of advantage from their cheating. Shula has always hated New England, and Nick Saban is a big Belichick guy, and we all know what Saban did to the Shula's favorite team, the Dolphins. Sounds like sour graps from Shula to me. | ||||||
| 7 | ivan ID: 534552418 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 08:59 |
my issue isn't that he's a bad coach, he was above average for longer than anyone. but he had very few flashes of briliance in between. imho although he's got more wins than anyone, other coaches have done far more. btw the snopes article says only some of the '72 dolphins celebrate. oops my bad. | ||||||
| 8 | wiggs ID: 6825712 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 09:14 | Didnt Shula get in trouble himself for interviewing with the Dolphins while still under contract with the Colts? Isnt that cheating? | ||||||
| 9 | Tree ID: 3533298 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 10:43 |
above average for longer than anyone. but he had very few flashes of briliance in between right. he had 23 seasons where his team's winning percentage was over .600, including one stretch of 12 straight seasons. from 1964 to 1985 - 22 seasons - his winning percentage was .740. 22 seasons worth of serious winning is hardly "very few flashes of brilliance in between." instead, it is greatness defined. were the last 10 years of his coaching career unspectacular? yea, comparatively so. but, still, over that time, he had a .527 winning percentage and won two division titles. do you know how many coaches would kill for even THOSE numbers? | ||||||
| 10 | Frick Donor ID: 3410101718 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 11:34 |
You mean like the supergenius Bill Belicheck? Since his career record is 120-81 for a .597 record. And his longest streak of winning percentages over .600 is currently at 5. | ||||||
| 11 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 15023167 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 11:55 |
You'll note that ivan is sticking to generic statements without any sort of fact to back up his claims. You have to stick to that kind of argument when you're arguing against a coach who has the most career wins, reached the playoffs 20 times in 33 years, made it to the Super Bowl six times, and won 10+ games 21 times. There's no other possible way to call such a coach just "above average." | ||||||
| 12 | Balrog Dude ID: 02856618 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 11:59 | Right KKB. Shula's in the Hall of Fame. 'Nuff said. | ||||||
| 13 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 12:02 | But KKB, he is "just above average". The same way Christie Brinkley is "just above average" looking, for women her age. ;) | ||||||
| 14 | Kyle Donor ID: 052753312 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 16:56 |
Balrog, they only let the above average coaches into the Hall though. Btw I think it's worth noting that Dungy broke Shula's Colts record for most wins by a Colts Coach. But as my Dad says about Manning's Colts TD records, They are INDIANAPOLIS Colt records not Baltimore Colt Records. He still claims Johnny U has the TD record. (I think he's in denial) | ||||||
| 15 | ivan ID: 534552418 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 19:58 |
There's no other possible way to call such a coach just "above average." "above average for longer than anyone" was the full quote. he deserves to be in the hall of fame for his entire body of work. were the last 10 years of his coaching career unspectacular? yea, comparatively so. but, still, over that time, he had a .527 winning percentage and won two division titles. given one of the all time great qb's he barely eeks out a better than .500 record. hrrm... or is marino over rated too? You mean like the supergenius Bill Belicheck? fwif i had bill walsh in mind, 10-3 in the playoffs, 3 superbowl wins. (3 of 3) along the way changed the way the nfl is played. belicheck isn't a bad choice either 13-3 in the playoffs, 3 superbowl wins. (3 of 3) coaching god don schula 19-17, 2 superbowl wins. (2 of 6) win percentage in playoffs barely above .500 ;~) i'm sorry but his numbers to me speak to the fact that he could beat "soft" teams, but when facing tough opponents he's 50-50. might be more fair to compare to tom landry 20-16 post season, 2 superbowl wins. -- no one will ever touch schula's lifetime stats, mostly compiled before the salary cap & free agency btw. | ||||||
| 16 | Tree ID: 401032819 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 20:44 |
"above average for longer than anyone" was the full quote. he deserves to be in the hall of fame for his entire body of work. you still have yet to indicate how a .722 winning percentage over 20+ years is above average. given one of the all time great qb's he barely eeks out a better than .500 record. hrrm... or is marino over rated too? yea, because great QBs don't have mediocre seasons. look up all the greats - plenty of them had mediocre seasons. your arguments AGAINST Shula aren't holding much water. you've got something about how other coaches, like Landry, might also be great, but you've got pretty much nothing knocking Shula down that makes any sense... | ||||||
| 17 | Frick Donor ID: 3410101718 Thu, Nov 08, 2007, 22:14 |
Ahh, the joys of inferring from a small sample size. Looking at play-off records for football coaches doesn't make much sense. A couple of calls that go your way (see tuck game) and suddenly you have a 3-0 or 4-0 play-off record. On the flip side if those calls go against you can quickly have a 0-2 or 1-1 record. But great coaches don't have those types of plays happen to them, right? | ||||||
| 18 | ivan ID: 534552418 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 06:00 |
yea, because great QBs don't have mediocre seasons. look up all the greats - plenty of them had mediocre seasons for ten years? yeah i totally missed that part about marino putting up all his stats in the jimmy johnson era. ;~) Ahh, the joys of inferring from a small sample size. schula made the playoffs enough to compile 17 losses, how is that a small sample? hell he made the super bowl more than most coaches reach the playoffs. Looking at play-off records for football coaches doesn't make much sense. A couple of calls that go your way (see tuck game) and suddenly you have a 3-0 or 4-0 play-off record. On the flip side if those calls go against you can quickly have a 0-2 or 1-1 record. But great coaches don't have those types of plays happen to them, right? if playoff records don't matter wouldn't marty still have a job? with a guy like schula what i see is a guy who could dominate in the regular season, but as the level of competition rises, his record plummets. fwiw nobody has lost more superbowls than schula. ;~) -- at the risk of repeating myself, i never said schula was a bad coach, in fact he was great, but thanks in large part he to the perfect season he is totally overrated as a coach. hence now he goes into attack mode when he realizes that belicheck is challenging the "only" thing that makes schula special. i mentioned landry to provide context, *every* time a team goes on an undefeated streak people mention schula & the '72 dolphins, otoh i don't even remember the last time landry was even mentioned in front of an open mircophone. | ||||||
| 19 | Tre ID: 6102395 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 06:39 |
at the risk of repeating myself, i never said schula was a bad coach, in fact he was great, but thanks in large part he to the perfect season he is totally overrated as a coach. you're starting to mince your words. you did call him "above average longer than anyone", which is totally off. now you're calling him "great", which i don't think anyone will argue with. | ||||||
| 20 | Frick ID: 21041187 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 07:51 |
I think Marty is a good coach, who has the habit of going way to conservative in play-off games. Once again in comes down to small sample sizes. How many of the play-off games has Marty lost where a minor change reverses the outcome of the game. The play-off game two years ago where he conservative and thought a long field goal was the best play. If the kicker makes the kick, it looks like the smart play because he ran down the clock. So a couple of bad bounces happen and a couple of plays go against a coach and suddenly he's a bad coach, while if those plays had gone the other way, he would be considered one of the best coaches ever. Is the margin between coaches that small? I don't think it is, some coaches have repeated success, that is the mark of a great coach. And I will agree that it was easier before the salary cap when teams could stock pile talent based on their economic advantages. I honestly don't know, but how many of Shula's SB loses were close games where a lucky bounce could have changed the outcome? | ||||||
| 21 | ivan ID: 534552418 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 08:26 |
i've softend my stance on marty, i think maybe he was born under a bad sign or somethng. very good regular seasons, terrible playoffs - but he lost to guys like elway or brady. and after he left a team the teams got worse. he's no tom landry, but "small sample size" could apply here. in the past i've looked at him as a guy who did less with more in the post season, maybe he's really the guy who does more w/ less in the regular season then that reveals itself in the playoffs. which i suppose would make him underrated. you're starting to mince your words. you did call him "above average longer than anyone", which is totally off. fair enough, to me 66% is above average, at the same time you could consider it an amazing win percentage, it would be an insane batting average or a terrible grade on a term paper. as a number devoid of context it's above average. 50% is average. likewise 40% is below average, but it's still very rare air for a batting average. that schula has a 66% win percentage over more games coached than anyone is great. | ||||||
| 22 | ivan ID: 534552418 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 08:39 | where did i get the idea his name had a c in it... doh! | ||||||
| 23 | Tree ID: 3533298 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 08:45 |
fair enough, to me 66% is above average... ...that schula has a 66% win percentage over more games coached than anyone is great. not mincing words? you said two different things in the same post... it's about context, as you correctly pointed out. but to continue to maintain that Shula's win percentage is above average, is ludicrous, which is why you changed your stance a few lines later. | ||||||
| 24 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 15023167 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 08:49 |
schula made the playoffs enough to compile 17 losses, how is that a small sample? hell he made the super bowl more than most coaches reach the playoffs. The fact that he made the playoffs enough times to get 17 losses should speak to his greatness alone. You count it as a negative. I see that as a coach that knows what it takes to consistently put a great football team on the field and just happened to not have things go perfectly his way 17 times. Add in the 19 wins and he's that much greater of a coach. Now, if he were 0-17, it'd be different. Even if he were 10-17, it'd be different. Instead, he consistently made the playoffs and consistently won games. You can't go 19-17 without doing something. And you can't have played 36 playoff games without being a great coach to begin with. if playoff records don't matter wouldn't marty still have a job? And Tony Dungy, too, right? He got fired for not having what it takes to win in the playoffs and the Bucs were clearly right in that call. Oh, wait, you mean there could be idiotic GMs in the NFL who can't get over their own egos enough to leave a great coach in place? Surely not! The NFL's GMs are geniuses!!! Okay, seriously, you want to hold up one example of one coach as your basis for if playoff games matter or not? That alone speaks to the weakness of your argument, in my opinion. with a guy like schula what i see is a guy who could dominate in the regular season, but as the level of competition rises, his record plummets. And playoff records are overrated. Seriously, they are. Too much can happen in just one game that can make things go one way or another that are outside the hands of the coach. The "tuck call" was a great example and there are plenty more. i mentioned landry to provide context, *every* time a team goes on an undefeated streak people mention schula & the '72 dolphins, otoh i don't even remember the last time landry was even mentioned in front of an open mircophone. And Landry's regular season win percentage is almost 100 points less than Shula. There's a reason Shula's mentioned more. Plus, the media likes stories and an undefeated streak is a story. Still, even without the undefeated streak, Shula would (and should) be mentioned more than Landry when talking about great coaches. at the risk of repeating myself, i never said schula was a bad coach, in fact he was great, but thanks in large part he to the perfect season he is totally overrated as a coach. You're right, he was great. And don't confuse media hype over one aspect of his career as him being overrated. I don't think anybody is calling him far and away the greatest coach to hit the sidelines and that no other coach could hold his clipboard (which would be overrating him), but I think people are calling him ONE of the greatest coaches to hit the sidelines, which I think is absolutely appropriate. In any list of the top coaches in the history of the game, he should be top 5 at a minimum. In a list this long, top 5 is definitely more than "above average." | ||||||
| 25 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 15023167 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 09:00 |
fair enough, to me 66% is above average, at the same time you could consider it an amazing win percentage, it would be an insane batting average or a terrible grade on a term paper. as a number devoid of context it's above average. 50% is average. likewise 40% is below average, but it's still very rare air for a batting average. Dear Lord. Seriously? Clearly, with this rationale, Tiger Woods is a horrible golfer because he only wins 26.5% of the tournaments he enters. I mean, devoid of context, 26.5% is absolutely atrocious! I know there are PLENTY of things I can do successfully more than 26.5% of the time. Screw Tiger Woods! He's completely overrated! | ||||||
| 26 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 16:03 |
Shula isnt clessless, but this move by Minn is: WR fined over 25k for missing practice to attend funeral | ||||||
| 27 | Kyle Donor ID: 052753312 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 16:27 |
I guess this thread begs the question: Who do you consider to be the greatest coach ever? I'd have to throw out Shula's name since he has the most wins by a coach ever. I'd also like to toss out some of the originals, Curly Lambeau, and "Papa Bear" Halas. Names like Landry, Noll, and Lombardi come to mind. Where do some of the modern greats stack up with these classic names? The Belicheck's, Schottenheimer's, even Dungy. Too many greats for me to try to decipher, but I'd have to say it's Shula. | ||||||
| 28 | holt ID: 129202215 Fri, Nov 09, 2007, 17:46 |
re 26 on espn they said williamson was away from the team for 9 days. if that's true, then it sounds like he was taking advantage the situation. no one needs to take 9 days off for their grandmother's funeral. I mean I guess you can if you want, but you shouldn't be surprised if you have your pay docked. | ||||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||