[MTskibum]

Wade Phillips was the head coach of the buffalo bills in 1998, 1999, and 2000.

Wade Phillips had a 29-19 record while head coach of the buffalo bills. The 3 years before he arrived the bills were 26-22 and the 3 years after he left they were 17-31. In a 9 year period the best 3 seasons that the bills had were under Wade phillips.

In 4 years of coaching the Dallas Cowboys Wade Phillips had 3 winning seasons and a 34-22 record. In the 3 years before Wade Phillips became head coach the Cowboys were 24-24. The year after he left the cowboys were 8-8.

In 2010 before Wade Philips arrived the Houston Texans had the 30th ranked defense in the nfl.
In 2011 with Wade Philips the Houston Texans had the #2 ranked defense.



Everywhere he goes the team is better with him as a coach compared to before he arrived and after he leaves. How is this guy not one of the most sought after commodities in the nfl?

[dagame]

Great D coach, horrible head coach. Same goes with Rex, Norv and few others.

[MTskibum]

dagame, on 16 August 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Great D coach, horrible head coach. Same goes with Rex, Norv and few others.

Why is he a bad head coach. His record as a head coach is 82-59.

Just for some reference his record as a head coach is better than bill parcels and comparable to andy reid.


This is precisely why i started this thread. By all accounts he is an excelent head coach. Yet the perception is he is not a good head coach. There are only 8 active head coaches that have a better win/loss record.


I challenge you guys to make 1 argument why wade philips is not a good head coach.

This post has been edited by MTskibum: 16 August 2012 - 01:59 PM

[Aargyle]

MTskibum, on 16 August 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

dagame, on 16 August 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Great D coach, horrible head coach. Same goes with Rex, Norv and few others.

Why is he a bad head coach. His record as a head coach is 82-59.

Just for some reference his record as a head coach is better than bill parcels and comparable to andy reid.


This is precisely why i started this thread. By all accounts he is an excelent head coach. Yet the perception is he is not a good head coach. There are only 8 active head coaches that have a better win/loss record.


I challenge you guys to make 1 argument why wade philips is not a good head coach.

Just like QB's (Rivers/Romo lately), HC's are judged by their post-season success or lack thereof, and perhaps deservedly so. The buck has to stop with someone, often the GM is responsible for what the team is, but the HC has to be responsible to get it done with what he has. The Cowboys HC's lately might be "good", but they haven't been good enough. Reid might be a "good" coach, but he can't get his team over the hump: and this year might be do-or-die for him.

Jeff Fisher always gets his team to .500, has been coaching forever, and has gotten to the playoffs several times and the SB once. Never won the whole thing, and I'm glad he isn't my coach.

A winning tradition in the season isn't enough for me when it comes to HC's and their legacy.

[MTskibum]

Aargyle, on 16 August 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Just like QB's (Rivers/Romo lately), HC's are judged by their post-season success or lack thereof, and perhaps deservedly so. The buck has to stop with someone, often the GM is responsible for what the team is, but the HC has to be responsible to get it done with what he has. The Cowboys HC's lately might be "good", but they haven't been good enough. Reid might be a "good" coach, but he can't get his team over the hump: and this year might be do-or-die for him.

Jeff Fisher always gets his team to .500, has been coaching forever, and has gotten to the playoffs several times and the SB once. Never won the whole thing, and I'm glad he isn't my coach.

A winning tradition in the season isn't enough for me when it comes to HC's and their legacy.

In the 40+ superbowl years there have been more than 1000 head coaches, but less than 30 have won the superbowl. My point was not that Wade Philips was in the top 3% of head coaches.



My point was that teams Wade Philips is an above average coach even though people perceive him as a below average coach.

[Aargyle]

MTskibum, on 16 August 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Aargyle, on 16 August 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Just like QB's (Rivers/Romo lately), HC's are judged by their post-season success or lack thereof, and perhaps deservedly so. The buck has to stop with someone, often the GM is responsible for what the team is, but the HC has to be responsible to get it done with what he has. The Cowboys HC's lately might be "good", but they haven't been good enough. Reid might be a "good" coach, but he can't get his team over the hump: and this year might be do-or-die for him.

Jeff Fisher always gets his team to .500, has been coaching forever, and has gotten to the playoffs several times and the SB once. Never won the whole thing, and I'm glad he isn't my coach.

A winning tradition in the season isn't enough for me when it comes to HC's and their legacy.

In the 40+ superbowl years there have been more than 1000 head coaches, but less than 30 have won the superbowl. My point was not that Wade Philips was in the top 3% of head coaches.



My point was that teams Wade Philips is an above average coach even though people perceive him as a below average coach.

I think the only reason people think of him as below average is that they don't consider what is "average". There are many, many coaches that are in the league for three years or less, and people just discount them a short amount of time after they are gone. If you discount all of those guys in statistics, the "average" is 50% or less of all HC's.

People probably still think about McDaniels, he hasn't been gone long enough. I tried to think of an older example, and thought to myself: who was the last bengals HC? >wiki list<. I don't remember any of those guys very well! I just discount them in my mental list of "average". They made the superbowl in 81 and 88, but they lost both (under different HC's)--so I forget their coach names easily. No one will think of McDaniels in five years when they start considering average, but many will probably remember Wade for his longevity if nothing else.

I was just trying to make an argument about why Wade isn't a good HC, which was your challenge. It totally depends on what your definitions are. Better than average, when considering all the failures? Sure. Better than average of the top 50%, guys that last for five years or more? You give statistics that show his win/loss percentage says yes.

I was defining more the terms "good" and "great", he's a fine, good HC. But he's not great, his teams don't win. Therefore, he won't be immortalized--he'll either be forgotten ("oh yeah, that guy was HC for a long time wasn't he?"), or he'll be remembered for the negative ("oh yea, that guy's teams never won").

I think most fans would rather have a crazy HC that wins the whole shebang occasionally. Then again, HC's take more blame over losses and get praise they probably don't deserve. Did Shanny win? Well, not without Elway. Belacheck had a losing record without Brady. Dungy didn't win as much as he perhaps should have with Manning, Chucky inherited teams that went to the SB rather than building them. But all of those coaches are memorable (and generally looked at as "good") since they took teams all the way.

[dagame]

Aargyle, on 16 August 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

MTskibum, on 16 August 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Aargyle, on 16 August 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Just like QB's (Rivers/Romo lately), HC's are judged by their post-season success or lack thereof, and perhaps deservedly so. The buck has to stop with someone, often the GM is responsible for what the team is, but the HC has to be responsible to get it done with what he has. The Cowboys HC's lately might be "good", but they haven't been good enough. Reid might be a "good" coach, but he can't get his team over the hump: and this year might be do-or-die for him.

Jeff Fisher always gets his team to .500, has been coaching forever, and has gotten to the playoffs several times and the SB once. Never won the whole thing, and I'm glad he isn't my coach.

A winning tradition in the season isn't enough for me when it comes to HC's and their legacy.

In the 40+ superbowl years there have been more than 1000 head coaches, but less than 30 have won the superbowl. My point was not that Wade Philips was in the top 3% of head coaches.



My point was that teams Wade Philips is an above average coach even though people perceive him as a below average coach.

I think the only reason people think of him as below average is that they don't consider what is "average". There are many, many coaches that are in the league for three years or less, and people just discount them a short amount of time after they are gone. If you discount all of those guys in statistics, the "average" is 50% or less of all HC's.

People probably still think about McDaniels, he hasn't been gone long enough. I tried to think of an older example, and thought to myself: who was the last bengals HC? >wiki list<. I don't remember any of those guys very well! I just discount them in my mental list of "average". They made the superbowl in 81 and 88, but they lost both (under different HC's)--so I forget their coach names easily. No one will think of McDaniels in five years when they start considering average, but many will probably remember Wade for his longevity if nothing else.

I was just trying to make an argument about why Wade isn't a good HC, which was your challenge. It totally depends on what your definitions are. Better than average, when considering all the failures? Sure. Better than average of the top 50%, guys that last for five years or more? You give statistics that show his win/loss percentage says yes.

I was defining more the terms "good" and "great", he's a fine, good HC. But he's not great, his teams don't win. Therefore, he won't be immortalized--he'll either be forgotten ("oh yeah, that guy was HC for a long time wasn't he?"), or he'll be remembered for the negative ("oh yea, that guy's teams never won").

I think most fans would rather have a crazy HC that wins the whole shebang occasionally. Then again, HC's take more blame over losses and get praise they probably don't deserve. Did Shanny win? Well, not without Elway. Belacheck had a losing record without Brady. Dungy didn't win as much as he perhaps should have with Manning, Chucky inherited teams that went to the SB rather than building them. But all of those coaches are memorable (and generally looked at as "good") since they took teams all the way.

Couldn't have said it better, I would love for him to be my D-coordinator but NOT my head coach. He has had the talent in his gigs but hasn't taken them beyond their capabilities. Take the Lakers for example, they needed Phil Jackson to come back to win the championship. Some coaches have what it takes and others don't, WPhillips doesn't. Nothing wrong with it, stick to what you are good at.

[MTskibum]

I bet the fans of the new york giants are happy that their owner does not judge head coaches the same way you guys do.

Tom coughlin had a .531 winning percentage at the same point in his career as wade phillips, plus coughlin hadnt won anything at this point in his career.


How many years did it take cowher to get over the hump, what about dungey?




Wade phillips has a good win/loss ratio as a head coach, and it is not because of talent, because he took over teams that were .500 and those same teams were .500 after he left

[Aargyle]

TMQ

Quote

Andy Reid has guided the Eagles to 19 playoff appearances -- of active coaches, only Bill Belichick received more postseason invites. But Philadelphia is barely above water at 10-9 in those games, Reid's 126-81 regular-season record being much better than his postseason outcomes.

And he's on the hot seat, and rightfully so. Regular season record is meaningless. 49ers could go 12-4 every year for the next ten years, and if the NFC West doesn't improve and they never win the superbowl folks would criticize the coach. Winning at the end of the year is the bottom line in the NFL.

And again, sometimes the coach gets more praise than he deserves.

Quote

Touted by the Redskins as a Hall of Fame-caliber coach, Shanahan has one playoff victory in the last decade. Anybody can have an off year, but with each succeeding season, Shanahan looks more like a coach who shined when he had the great John Elway and is in over his head with anyone else. Shanahan was 7-1 in the playoffs with Elway at quarterback; is 1-4 since.