Whci of the three coaches, Coryell, Johnson or Dungy?

[Gary Najman]

The goal is to win. The coach is hired to win, not to innovate. If innovation occurred, it occurred as a result of the coach trying to win.

Exactly.

I also agree, but I would like to point out the election of Dick LeBeau (yes, I know he entered "officialy" as a Senior player, but back in Canton there were only Steelers fans rooting for him), that he is credited with developing the zone blitz and other defensive schemes. Sure, he won Super Bowls with Pittsburgh, but for many years his teams or his defenses weren't anything special.

[rhickok1109]

Of course you can innovate AND win (Paul Brown) which is the best of both worlds, but if it's one or the other, success in football is measured by winning.

Have to agree, winning comes first.

The goal is to win. The coach is hired to win, not to innovate. If innovation occurred, it occurred as a result of the coach trying to win.

Lombardi didn't innovate sh*t, but was one of the greatest coaches of all time. When John Madden beat the polyester trousers off all the innovators, he did what he was hired to do: win.

Innovation is overrated. You have to DO SOMETHING with your prowess. It's the difference between noodling around on guitar and writing a song that lasts.

Actually, Lombardi was a great innovator. He brought zone blocking and single-wing blocking techniques (double teams, short traps, pulling both guards) to the T-formation and, in effect, rendered Clark Shaughnessy's version of the T obsolete. Every running attack of the last 50 years has been built on Lombardi's principles, not Shaughnessy's.

[Reaser]

One coach I think it belongs in this category is Darrel "Mouse" Davis, who developed the run and shoot offense. No one would pick him for the HOF, even if he had lasted many years in the NFL.

Huge fan of his! Good name drop, Teo.

Another one born in the Great State of Washington, with Pac NW ties from all his years coaching in Oregon.

Coach Davis was the OC at Portland State during one of my HS teammate and best friends Senior year. Though he was starting safety so didn't learn the "run and shoot", but did defend it in practice that year.

Plus as a huge WLAF fan (at the time and still throw in games I recorded here and there), I always liked watching his NY/NJ Knights.

Growing up as a QB the most interesting thing to me about the r&s was always the QB's drop, the over-extended first step from center.

Which you can see Reggie Slack doing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9_EOl2K7GY

[Veeshik_ya]

Actually, Lombardi was a great innovator. He brought zone blocking and single-wing blocking techniques (double teams, short traps, pulling both guards) to the T-formation and, in effect, rendered Clark Shaughnessy's version of the T obsolete. Every running attack of the last 50 years has been built on Lombardi's principles, not Shaughnessy's.

We'll have to agree to disagree. His calling card was execution delivered through force of will. He might've innovated a bit, but it's a footnote in his legacy.

[Bryan]

I understood. I was saying if that was or then became the criteria or goal to be a PFHOF coach, then a coaches goal would be to try to come up with something new, innovate, etc ... as opposed to win. If it's a win v. innovation argument, the point of the sport is to win. Of course you can innovate AND win (Paul Brown) which is the best of both worlds, but if it's one or the other, success in football is measured by winning.

Again, innovation isn't "THE" criteria to be a HOF coach, but innovation is "A" criteria, in my opinion. You keep treating this as an either/or proposition, as if we have one set of coaches who want to win (winners), and another set of coaches who just want to experiment with stuff (innovators). I would assume that when a coach comes up with a new idea or a new system, his intended goal is to win. Many NFL coaches copied Don Coryell's ideas and formations, which then made them successful and winning. Jimmy Johnson ran literally the same plays with the Cowboys that Coryell used with the Chargers.

I think "innovation" played a role in the enshrinement of George Allen, Hank Stram, and even Sid Gillman. There is no way Allen gets in based solely on 0 titles and a 2-7 postseason record. Stram probably doesn't get in without an "innovator" label (which I think is a bit overblown), Gillman's win% is the worst of the three and he has 1-5 postseason record, but I think he was kind of a no-brainer HOF selection due to his impact on offensive strategy. I don't think the HOF selectors view coaching as simply "the coach's job is to win". I think its a bit more complex, which is all I am trying to say.

In general, I think winning in the NFL is due in large part to the players. The team with the better players who are healthy are going to win most of the time. I can't name many title-winning teams that didn't have great personnel. Perhaps my opinion is incorrect, but it makes me think there is more to coaching than just winning...because otherwise then the converse would be true, in that the only factor to winning in the NFL is coaching.

[Reaser]

Again, innovation isn't "THE" criteria to be a HOF coach, but innovation is "A" criteria, in my opinion. You keep treating this as an either/or proposition,

My post literally contains "you can innovate and win" but IF it's an either/or proposition then winning is more important. Others got it, and agreed.

[Bryan]

Again, innovation isn't "THE" criteria to be a HOF coach, but innovation is "A" criteria, in my opinion. You keep treating this as an either/or proposition,

My post literally contains "you can innovate and win" but IF it's an either/or proposition then winning is more important. Others got it, and agreed.

This is like Charles Barkley claiming he was misquoted in his autobiography. I quoted your response to me, which contradicted itself, just like your above post. I didn't realize your posts were open to such interpretation, but I don't feel like now devolving into "arguing" with you about what you said.

I am repeatedly trying to say that innovation and winning isn't an either/or proposition, and you repeatedly respond with "I know, but if it was..."

I hope you see the pointlessness of it. I do. Let me know when you actually feel inclined to respond to the football-related content of my postings...I am always interested in hearing your opinions on Allen, Stram, Gillman.

[oldecapecod11]

Here's two pennies to add to the pot.

1. "The only thing that matters is first place. Everything else is hinky-dinky." --- Saint Vincent
After a thorough search, the only method of gaining first place that could be found was directly related to winning,
I.E. Wins and Losses

2. Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal may be appealing but what they conceal is vital.
Another thorough search of those sites offering statistics for the masses did not reveal one listing that related
innovations with winning?

So... the obvious conclusion is that innovations may be fun, exciting, and copied but the only thing that matters
is winning.

Beyond that, it might be added that any "category" that eliminates or reduces the number of players inducted is pure
and utter nonsense.
Create, if you must, categories for coaches, contributors, cheerleaders, scoreboard operators, snowplow drivers
or anything you wish but don't cheapen the accomplishments of the players or decrease their number by grouping
them all together.

[Reaser]

I quoted your response to me, which contradicted itself, just like your above post. I didn't realize your posts were open to such interpretation, but I don't feel like now devolving into "arguing" with you about what you said.

I don't think you know what contradicted means. My post reads clear, another member agreed with my post and another member agreed with his post. Above this post, another member seemingly agrees with all 3 of us.

Another case where everyone but you is comprehending what they read.

[Todd Pence]

Well, I can eliminate Harvey Johnson right away.