Andy Reid vs Tom Landry vs Don Shula

[lastcat3]

Reid is being underrated here fairly significantly.

I said before the game the Chiefs would win and they would outcoach the 49ers. They outcoached the 49ers the last time, outcoached the Eagles, outcoached the 49ers again. I am very impressed by that. Above Landry, no question about it. Shula in the playoffs certainly.

They are winning on strategies and plays they are holding back for special occasions. Mahomes numbers are down significantly. Other than Kelce those receivers are crap, replacement level. About the level of the 1986 Giants. It affects Mahomes' numbers. Apparently Reid is significantly underrated on this board. I'll take up his cause.

Reid is not underrated…. HE’S OVERRATED

KC wins in spite of Reid, not because of him

Outcoached? He’s still the same guy that was a generational choke artist until Mahomes fell into his lap.

I wouldn't be quite that harsh on Reid but totally agree that he's overrated. He stupidly went for the two points without any reason to do so against the Bengals at the end of the first half of the AFC Championship and that stop was the first thing to slide momentum Cincinnati's way.

This year, he stupidly went for it on fourth down instead of kicking a field goal against Baltimore in the first half and it ended up putting Baltimore back in the game. Guys like Walsh, Gibbs, Landry, Shula - that's just laughable to guys like that. They would NEVER entertain the idea of giving the opponent ANY chance to gain any sort of momentum.

Does he win more than other coaches of this time period? Yes. But we're in the age where coaches forgo tying games to go for it on fourth down. The NFC Championship was lost on dumb stuff like that.

Reid coaching against any of these guys mentioned, Noll, Lombardi - I mean, there isn't a comparison IMO. We're in a time period where the most successful coaches are guys like Reid, McCarthy, Kyle Shannahan, even Bruce Arians won a Super Bowl. Those guys are nowhere near the coaching level of the old guard.

Comparisons to Reid - maybe Schottenheimer. Good coach, did a really good job with multiple teams, but he's not Chuck Noll level. Belichick - I'd put him high up there, but Andy Reid? His success is there but - and I don't want to sound like a grumpy old fan - but the level of coaching talent and decision making isn't the same as it was back then. All these head coaches today are assistant level compared with the other guys, IMO.

Yep. And to be honest I would totally be fine if they just completely separated the pre salary cap era of football (or at least when all these offensive friendly rules started being put forth around the mid to late 00's or so) from everything that came before. Stats and teams will not be compared by the on-air media. Everything now and everything then is just completely separated by the NFL.

It drives me crazy when on air media is comparing these current Chiefs teams to the '70's Steelers, 80's 49ers, or 90's Cowboys. Those teams would run these Chiefs teams out of the building and back onto the plane and tell them if they know what's good for them don't come back.

[Jay Z]

Reid is being underrated here fairly significantly.

I said before the game the Chiefs would win and they would outcoach the 49ers. They outcoached the 49ers the last time, outcoached the Eagles, outcoached the 49ers again. I am very impressed by that. Above Landry, no question about it. Shula in the playoffs certainly.

They are winning on strategies and plays they are holding back for special occasions. Mahomes numbers are down significantly. Other than Kelce those receivers are crap, replacement level. About the level of the 1986 Giants. It affects Mahomes' numbers. Apparently Reid is significantly underrated on this board. I'll take up his cause.

Jay Z a lot of people here just don't think as much about the current era of the NFL. In order for many people here to begin putting people like Mahomes or Reid above coaches and players who played in eras where teams were about twice as loaded as they are now and you couldn't just compete for championships if you had a star quarterback and a good play caller they are going to need to do something similar to what Belichick or Brady did (and that is something they are still a long ways off from doing). As of this point they are only about where the Patriots were in 2004 (we all know that after 2004 the Patriots still had about another decade and a half at being at or near the top).

How much the NFL has stacked the deck in the favor of good playcallers and good to great quarterbacks is beyond ridiculous. So much so that players of today shouldn't really even be compared to players and coaches of old unless they do something that most all agree have done something truly unique (such as what the Patriots did). As of this point the Chiefs havn't done anything close to being unique. If they are somehow able to three peat next year (which I really don't think they have a very good shot at doing) then maybe we can begin having a discussion about them doing something unique (but not at all now).

Reid shouldn't even be given credit for this years Super Bowl run as without the defensive improvements the team saw they wouldn't have sniffed the Super Bowl. And Reid doesn't have anything to do with the defense. A coach like Landry was heavily involved in both the offense and defense (and Reid didn't have to compete for championships against a team with more Hall of Famers along their defensive front seven alone than what we saw throughout the entire two rosters of the teams that played last night).

If people want to relish in the greatness of Andy Reid it's probably better to do that in a location that is mainly just focused on the modern era.

Championships have to be won on playcalling now. That's just the way it is.

Physically, the 1970s Steelers would get their asses kicked today. They didn't put in the training. Look at the kicking, at the passing in the old games. How sloppy it all is compared to today. Those players deserve to be honored historically, every era does. But even Vince Lombardi, a somewhat noted college player, said he couldn't have played in the 1960s era. Because the game had advanced.

Yes, in that era it was easier, far easier, to keep a core of talent. Now you had to have a good organization and many teams never had that. The Steelers developed a good organization and they were monsters in the draft. So they had the core of talent that could carry them through. Special teams were their weakest component, but I guess it didn't matter, they could overcome it. So it was never a big game day issue, particularly exotic game plans. They mostly just had better talent. But I give Noll credit for winning it all four times. He deserves it.

Landry didn't win as much and I have always downgraded him to a point for it. That organization had gobs of talent for years. Landry was never on the level of a Lombardi. Landry wanted to show his genius instead of just kicking team's butts. Shula was maybe the best all time at running up a great regular season record, probably better than his talent. Too many playoff failures, though he won twice. Bud Grant was the worst ever SB coach. Outside of the SB he was outstanding, but didn't understand the SB venue or whatever. Not going to gloss over that.

Championships have always been hard to win. It's harder to repeat now because of the constant talent erosion of free agency. So it still comes down to coaching and organization, and we still see that today. The Steelers' string of winning records. That's organization. The Chiefs have a great organization and they have outcoached the opposition in all of the SB wins under Reid. I've giving him his due. Hard as hell to win today and the coaches spend a ton more time on it, when you get down to the assistant level and everything it's 100 times the effort as back in the day.

[lastcat3]

Reid is being underrated here fairly significantly.

I said before the game the Chiefs would win and they would outcoach the 49ers. They outcoached the 49ers the last time, outcoached the Eagles, outcoached the 49ers again. I am very impressed by that. Above Landry, no question about it. Shula in the playoffs certainly.

They are winning on strategies and plays they are holding back for special occasions. Mahomes numbers are down significantly. Other than Kelce those receivers are crap, replacement level. About the level of the 1986 Giants. It affects Mahomes' numbers. Apparently Reid is significantly underrated on this board. I'll take up his cause.

Jay Z a lot of people here just don't think as much about the current era of the NFL. In order for many people here to begin putting people like Mahomes or Reid above coaches and players who played in eras where teams were about twice as loaded as they are now and you couldn't just compete for championships if you had a star quarterback and a good play caller they are going to need to do something similar to what Belichick or Brady did (and that is something they are still a long ways off from doing). As of this point they are only about where the Patriots were in 2004 (we all know that after 2004 the Patriots still had about another decade and a half at being at or near the top).

How much the NFL has stacked the deck in the favor of good playcallers and good to great quarterbacks is beyond ridiculous. So much so that players of today shouldn't really even be compared to players and coaches of old unless they do something that most all agree have done something truly unique (such as what the Patriots did). As of this point the Chiefs havn't done anything close to being unique. If they are somehow able to three peat next year (which I really don't think they have a very good shot at doing) then maybe we can begin having a discussion about them doing something unique (but not at all now).

Reid shouldn't even be given credit for this years Super Bowl run as without the defensive improvements the team saw they wouldn't have sniffed the Super Bowl. And Reid doesn't have anything to do with the defense. A coach like Landry was heavily involved in both the offense and defense (and Reid didn't have to compete for championships against a team with more Hall of Famers along their defensive front seven alone than what we saw throughout the entire two rosters of the teams that played last night).

If people want to relish in the greatness of Andy Reid it's probably better to do that in a location that is mainly just focused on the modern era.

Championships have to be won on playcalling now. That's just the way it is.

Physically, the 1970s Steelers would get their asses kicked today. They didn't put in the training. Look at the kicking, at the passing in the old games. How sloppy it all is compared to today. Those players deserve to be honored historically, every era does. But even Vince Lombardi, a somewhat noted college player, said he couldn't have played in the 1960s era. Because the game had advanced.

Yes, in that era it was easier, far easier, to keep a core of talent. Now you had to have a good organization and many teams never had that. The Steelers developed a good organization and they were monsters in the draft. So they had the core of talent that could carry them through. Special teams were their weakest component, but I guess it didn't matter, they could overcome it. So it was never a big game day issue, particularly exotic game plans. They mostly just had better talent. But I give Noll credit for winning it all four times. He deserves it.

Landry didn't win as much and I have always downgraded him to a point for it. That organization had gobs of talent for years. Landry was never on the level of a Lombardi. Landry wanted to show his genius instead of just kicking team's butts. Shula was maybe the best all time at running up a great regular season record, probably better than his talent. Too many playoff failures, though he won twice. Bud Grant was the worst ever SB coach. Outside of the SB he was outstanding, but didn't understand the SB venue or whatever. Not going to gloss over that.

Championships have always been hard to win. It's harder to repeat now because of the constant talent erosion of free agency. So it still comes down to coaching and organization, and we still see that today. The Steelers' string of winning records. That's organization. The Chiefs have a great organization and they have outcoached the opposition in all of the SB wins under Reid. I've giving him his due. Hard as hell to win today and the coaches spend a ton more time on it, when you get down to the assistant level and everything it's 100 times the effort as back in the day.

Yes the NFL is a such a shell of what it was that all it takes to win a championship is a solid playcaller combined with a good to great quarterback. My God if Marino and Shula were teamed up in this era where Marino could roam around in the pocket knowing that if he was just tapped a little too hard the defense would be flagged and his receivers could run their routes without being touched either we might as well just hand the trophy to Dan every single year. Don't even play the season because we all would know who was going to win.

The 70's Steelers had three Hall of Famers along their defensive front alone. They would destroy any teams today if they were allowed to play to their capabilities. And Landry played that team close in the big game........twice. Don't knock Landry because he had to go up against probably the greatest dynasty of all time. Teams just can't afford to have rosters like that anymore. And while it is definitely true that there is far more roster erosion these days teams still tend to hold on to the majority of their stars. And these days as long as a team is able to hold onto a couple stars they are set for years.

Reid and the Chiefs should really just be compared to Belichick and the Patriots and nothing else. The game is just too different now to say that they are as good as some of the greats from bygone eras were.

[74_75_78_79_]

He is tied with Gibbs and also has more conference championships than Gibbs

Gibbs' three Rings each won by three different non-Canton QBs places he over Andy with me for now. Two of those World Championships were strike years but '91 really seemed to legitimize things and I am a believer that had '82 & '87 went full that Washington would have finished on top anyway. This even if San Fran would still have been knocked out for them in the latter of the two post-seasons. First, "last man standing" is all that matters, and second, they still may have beat them at Candlestick anyway in such an '87 post-season meeting.

A true-blue three-title run with me. And as much as I admire Parcells, I've very lately untied he and Gibbs despite his H2H record vs him and placed enough distance between both. And enough distance to fit a few HCs into that space. Hate doing it, and his '80s/'90s work had more 'bite' to it than Landry/Shula, but Tuna is now very respectfully out of my updated (following yesterday's game) top 10 below...

1) Vince Lombardi
2) Paul Brown
3) Bill Belichick
4) George Halas
5) Chuck Noll
6) Bill Walsh
7) Joe Gibbs
8) Andy Reid
9) Steve Owen
10 - tie) Tom Landry/Don Shula

[7DnBrnc53]

When I think of Lombardi, I realize that people have forgot about one man: Jack Vainisi. He built that team for Vince.

Lombardi got out of there before that team really aged. Now, he did start to turn around the Redskins before he died, but he had a franchise QB in Sonny Jurgensen, and there was talent in Jerry Smith and Charley Taylor (and they did draft Larry Brown that year).

I would have Paul Brown at #!. He had a way, way bigger influence on pro football than Lombardi did.

[74_75_78_79_]

When I think of Lombardi, I realize that people have forgot about one man: Jack Vainisi. He built that team for Vince.

Lombardi got out of there before that team really aged. Now, he did start to turn around the Redskins before he died, but he had a franchise QB in Sonny Jurgensen, and there was talent in Jerry Smith and Charley Taylor (and they did draft Larry Brown that year).

I would have Paul Brown at #!. He had a way, way bigger influence on pro football than Lombardi did.

Though I'm late to the party on the matter though not showing up just yesterday, I do know now about Vainisi. Practically every All-Time-Great didn't do it all by themself though Paul may very well be #1 after all. If God told me so, I wouldn't be shocked at all. But until then - as I've said before - its either me seriously opining that Vince IS the Best-Ever (even in knowing about Vainisi), or I'm afraid that the sacrilege-police will come and take me away if I "dare" say that he's not Numero Uno. Again, many Legends didn't do it themselves, just for whatever reason Vainisi's role seems 'hidden' more than other such roles.

Same with me having Noll outside MtR. Maybe its because I truly do see four above him; or I'm afraid that a voice in me will give me gruff if I place him higher being I'm a Steeler-fan. And that, especially, would go for me actually placing him...above Vince! As Bryan said/enlightened in a previous post, there's plenty of room for an actual debate as to who was better between the two.

Yes, I lowered Belichick a half-notch. You can say that its, fair or not, because of his recent post-Brady struggles but its only dropping him from 2a to an outright 3, Not real drastic/a crime. And this is...Paul Brown we're talking of (who, again, may actually be #1 after all)!

[JameisBrownston]

Brown was way too capricious. Landry and Shula at the bottom of the top 10 is a bit wild. But I think Belichick's ignominious demise has distanced Lombardi at the top.

[rhickok1109]

One small comment about Lombardi: He doesn't get enough credit for introducing zone blocking into the NFL. Bud Wilkinson created the concept at Oklahoma, Red Blaik copied it at Army, and Lombardi brought it to the Giants. Within a few years, every NFL team was using it and they're still using it.

[Hail Casares]

He is tied with Gibbs and also has more conference championships than Gibbs

Gibbs' three Rings each won by three different non-Canton QBs places he over Andy with me for now. Two of those World Championships were strike years but '91 really seemed to legitimize things and I am a believer that had '82 & '87 went full that Washington would have finished on top anyway. This even if San Fran would still have been knocked out for them in the latter of the two post-seasons. First, "last man standing" is all that matters, and second, they still may have beat them at Candlestick anyway in such an '87 post-season meeting.

A true-blue three-title run with me. And as much as I admire Parcells, I've very lately untied he and Gibbs despite his H2H record vs him and placed enough distance between both. And enough distance to fit a few HCs into that space. Hate doing it, and his '80s/'90s work had more 'bite' to it than Landry/Shula, but Tuna is now very respectfully out of my updated (following yesterday's game) top 10 below...

1) Vince Lombardi
2) Paul Brown
3) Bill Belichick
4) George Halas
5) Chuck Noll
6) Bill Walsh
7) Joe Gibbs
8) Andy Reid
9) Steve Owen
10 - tie) Tom Landry/Don Shula

I'd put Reid ahead of Gibbs. Gibbs is an impressive coach but Reid not only has the same amount of titles, he also went to another two SB's. That stuff matters too. Reid's longevity is impressive and matters. He only has three losing seasons in his entire career. Gibbs has that many in 10 less seasons. Gibbs coached one of the most underappreciated/underrated teams in SB history but at some point the weight of Reid's resume has to win out. He's got 100 more wins. The same amount of SB's. Plus the additional two appearances in which he lost to some guy named Tom Brady.

I find the "well he has Mahomes thing/got lucky" angle to be a big cop out given that not only did Reid/KC intentionally make a huge move to get Mahomes and ID him(that has to count, right?) but also guys like Landry and Shula won a combined four SB's in 62 years of coaching with QBs like Unitas, Griese, Staubach, and Marino.

It might seem odd to have Reid knocking on the door of being a Top 5 coach of all-time, but maybe we need to adjust our perspective a bit.

[Brian wolf]

Its close on Reid and Gibbs. I think Gibbs was better and he didnt have to rely on pick plays during his coaching career. Reid deserves credit getting and coaching up Mahomes but during his days with Philly and KC with Alex Smith, he was atrocious with timeouts, clock management and teams running a two minute drill, which cost him in the postseason numerous times. Gibbs was more innovative overrall, expanding on the Sid Gillman-Don Coryell offensive innovations but he could also have poor judgement on his QBs and his teams played down to their opponents level too often. Adapting to Theismann got his career going quickly but he could never find a long-term replacement.