The Sporting News Top 50 Coaches: Beginning a Revised Top 50
August 3, 2009 by dwil
I‘m going to take a little break from the craziness of Plax, Mike Vick, Daniel Hood, and more. On ESPN’s Mike and Mike in the Morning show Thursday morning, Mike Greenberg nd Mike Golic are discussing the coaches listed on the Sporting News Top 50 head coaches. I’ll give up the list and then begin dissecting the coaches, sports by sport. Then I will put the list back together, according to me.
I cannot do this in one fell swoop, so I’m spreading out my assessments over a few days but bear with me. I’ll start with NCAA hoops, since John Wooden is number one and deal with the coaches accordingly. This installment deals with NCAA Hoops and the NFL. Next will be NCAA Football, Major League Baseball, and the NHL. Finally, I’ll put the list back together.
Let the discussions begin.
1. John Wooden, college basketball
2. Vince Lombardi, NFL
3. Bear Bryant, college football
4. Phil Jackson, NBA
5. Don Shula, NFL
6. Red Auerbach, NBA
7. Scotty Bowman, NHL
8. Dean Smith, college basketball
9. Casey Stengel, MLB
10. Knute Rockne, college football
11. Pat Summitt, women’s college basketball
12. Paul Brown, NFL
13. Joe Paterno, college football
14. George Halas, NFL
15. Chuck Noll, NFL
16. Bob Knight, college basketball
17. Joe Gibbs, NFL
18. Tom Landry, NFL
19. Mike Krzyzewski, college basketball
20. Bill Belichick, NFL
21. Adolph Rupp, college basketball
22. Joe McCarthy, MLB
23. Eddie Robinson, college football
24. Bobby Bowden, college football
25. John McGraw, MLB
26. Bill Walsh, NFL
27. Woody Hayes, college football
28. Connie Mack, MLB
29. Bud Wilkinson, college football
30. Pat Riley, NBA
31. Pete Newell, college basketball
32. Joe Torre, MLB
33. Bill Parcells, NFL
34. Tom Osborne, college football
35. Walter Alston, MLB
36. Bo Schembechler, college football
37. Toe Blake, NHL
38. Sparky Anderson, MLB
39. Al Arbour, NHL
40. Amos Alonzo Stagg, college football
41. Tony La Russa, MLB
42. Geno Auriemma, women’s college basketball
43. Dick Irvin, NHL
44. Ara Parseghian, college football
45. Chuck Daly, NBA
46. Bobby Cox, MLB
47. Hank Iba, college basketball
48. Tommy Lasorda, MLB
49. Gregg Popovich, NBA
50. Herb Brooks, NHL
————————————
So, where do I differ from the Sporting News‘ list? Let’s first break this list down by sport.
NCAA Hoops – 1. John Wooden. 8. Dean Smith. 11. Pat Summit. 16. Bob Knight. 19. Mike Krzyzewski. 21. Adolph Rupp. 31 Pete Newell. 42. Geno Auriemma. 47. Hank Iba.
Picking Wooden as, not only the top college hoops coach but the best coach of all time is cool with me. But Dean Smith is the 2nd-best college basketball coach? With all of two chips? No way. And of those championships, I’d say referee calls against Georgetown and particularly Patrick Ewing and a brain fart pass by Fred Brown allowed a loaded North Carolina team with MJ, James Worthy, Sam Perkins,to eke out a 63-62 win. If young Michigan’s Fab Five had any coaching at all, the 1993 championship game never would have come down to Chris Webber’s uncalled travel and time out violations. But, hey, you can’t blame Smith for being in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately for Dean Smith, he has had too many NCAA Championship-caliber teams that did not win to be close to the number two college basketball coach.
But I would say Pete Newell has had more influence on the pro game and Coach K has more chips against stiffer competition. Bob Knight has coached the game in a cleaner program than any other coach. Knight never change while the game around him changed, which is both a pro and con. Knight also coached the last undefeated men’s college basketball team. Iba didn’t coach against Black players and Rupp didn’t want Black players – and on SOMM, racism counts against coaches.
Of the coaches in the women’s game, Pat Summit has more wins and chips than any coach, but since Geno Auriemma burst onto the scene he has become the women’s game’s top dog. These two coaches have done more than any to bring the women’s college game to a place where its version of March Madness is also a national happening.
In my estimation Smith cannot at all be the second-best NCAA hoops coach. I would place Summit and Auriemma as numbers two and three, Knight would be four , Krzyzewski would be five, Smith six, Newell seven, and finally Iba.
That is, if those were the coaches I was picking.
Jim Calhoun has to be on the list. I might not like him but the man can coach. John Thompson must be on this list. Being the first successful Black college head coach in Division I hoops, having won two chips, and bringing the tough defense and overall attitude the Big East is known, and doing it all at tiny, private, Catholic, Georgetown University, must count for something. And then there’s John McLendon, who learned at the feet of John Naismith. Though McLendon did most of his head coaching at HBCUs and only coached in DI at Cleveland State, his style of basketball is the one we see today in both the pro and NCAA games.
So, if these men are on my list, who goes?
Newell and Iba have to go. Newell’s Princeton offense is nice, but it s but an offshoot of Tex winter’s triangle offense – and is a simplification at that. Newell was best known for teaching centers from high school to the NBA at Pete Newell’s Big Man Camp. Iba coached solely in the days of segregation, so he must go.
To replace those two I would add Calhoun and McLendon. And I would place Thompson just behind Coach K.
So,my NCAA Hoops list looks like this: 1. John Wooden. 2. Pat Summit. 3. Geno Auriemma. 4. John McLendon. 5. Bob Knight. 6. Mike Krzyzewski. 7. John Thompson. 8. Jim Calhoun. 9. Dean Smith.
——————————————-
Next up are the NFL head coaches. We have 2. Vince Lombardi. 6. Don Shula. 12. Paul Brown. 14. George Halas. 15. Chuck Noll. 17. Joe Gibbs. 18. Tom Landry. 20 Bill Belichick. 26. Bill Walsh. 33. Bill Parcells.
I have a problem with Lombardi as the top NFL head coach. Sure, he won a lot of chips, five to be exact and won the first two Super Bowls. But Paul Brown was more influential as a head coach and won more chips total than did Lombardi. Brown went against every pro football owner in the NFL and bew down the doors of segregation by bringing on Marion Motley and Bill Willis, both of whom are in the Hall of Fame. Brown’s Cleveland Browns won all four All-America Football Conference championships and went to the NFL title game in his first six years as Browns coach, winning three titles, one in the Browns firsts season in the NFL (1950) and back-to-back titles in 1954-and 1955.
Brown brought the face mask to football and an offensive scheme that is the most successful in NFL history – the West Coast offense.
My number one NFL head coach is definitely Brown.
After Paul B. my list looks like this: Bill Walsh #2 Lombardi #3, George Halas #4, Sid Gillman #5, Don Shula #6, Bill Belichick #7, Tom Landry #8.
Walsh has to be second. He took Brown’s offense and refined it and has made it into an NFL staple. Even teams that do not use the West Coast offense have elements of it in their systems. Walsh was a genius at evaluating talent and bringing out the best in that talent. Lombardi had one way – his way. Walsh adapted from player to player, team to team, and season to season. Walsh was no slouch on the defensive side of the ball, either. Though he was known for his offensive genius, he borrowed from Hank Stram and Sid Gilman and brought back using speed as a key component to defeat opposing offenses. And as we see today, NFL and college defenses are predicated on speed.
Lombardi is the obvious number three with Halas number four.
Sid Gillman replaces Joe Gibbs and moves in ahead of Don Shula. Gillman is one of the original AFL head coaches and in 1963 brought the San Diego Chargers its only team championship with a 51-10 demolishing of the Boston Patriots; Gillman’s teams also won seven division titles. What elevates Gillman to such a high status is his creativity and contribution to NFL football that lasts today. For the 1963 title game Gillman derived a new offense he called “feast or famine.” The feast or famine was predicated on a new concept called “motion.” Moving wide receivers from one side of the line to the other before the ball was snapped spread out the Patriots interior defense and allowed running back Keith Lincoln to rush for 206 yards in the game.
But Gillman’s most important contribution to pro football also came in 1963. One day he visited NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle and suggested that the winner of the NFL championship play the winner of the AFL championship to determine the best team in all of pro football. This planted a seed in Rozelle’s head that was to grow to become what is today called the Super Bowl.
The list of Gillman proteges includes: Chuck Noll, Ara Parseghian, Bo Schembechler, Chuck Knox, Dick Vermeil, and George Allen.
I placed Belichick ahead of the remainder of the head coaches because he learned from his first head coaching experience with Cleveland and honed an overall head coaching philosophy that is dominating pro football today. Many experts say Belichick’s philosophy it is the Bill Parcells way. That cannot be farther from the truth. Sure Belichick learned from Parcells but the “new Bill” did much soul-searching on his own to develop his philosophy. and Belichick, with his hoodie, bland demeanor, monotone press conference voice, and public succinct football speak, is more Sun-Tzu than Parcells. Belichick knows well the value of giving the appearance that anyone and everyone other than him is the star while he is just the guy in the beat up sideline wear along for the ride.
Though I am a die-hard Washington Redskins fan and Joe Gibbs did win three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks in his 10-year head coaching career, Tom Landry has to be ranked ahead of Gibbs.
So far, all of the innovators have been primarily offensive minds, but Landry’s primary contributions were on the defensive side of the ball. a former defensive back and defensive coach for the New York Giants, Landry was picked to coach the fledgling NFL expansion team, the Dallas Cowboys. While with the Giants Landry came up with the “4-3″ defense, a standard in all of football played today. While head coach of the Cowboys Landry tweaked the 4-3 by moving two lineman a yard away from the line of scrimmage depending on which side the Cowboys felt the offense would run the ball. This was called “The Flex” defense. The extra yard allowed the Cowboys linemen an added moment to read the play while also forcing offensive one yard out of their comfort zone. Because offensive lineman were forced to make extra movements to engage the Dallas linemen, The Flex allowed for better lanes of pursuit to the ball.
Then to combat his own defenses Landry borrowed Sid Gillman’s motion offense, sending a man in motion to force the defense to shift to accommodate the moving player. Landry also brought back the shotgun, part of the single wing offense from the 1940s. The shotgun is used today most famously by Indianapolis Colts quarterback, Peyton Manning.
In addition to these developments Landry introduced a new generation of bigger, taller, and faster offensive lineman to the NFL. Landry also introduced formal weightlifting to the NFL when he was the first head coach to demand strength coaches for his teams.
Under Landry the Dallas Cowboys won two Super Bowls and played in some of the more memorable Super Bowl contests against the Pittsburgh Steelers.
As good a head coach as was Don Shula, he lost the biggest Super Bowl in NFL history to the New York Jets when his team was an 18.5 point favorite and was not known as a great innovator. He did, though, have that perfect season.
And Chuck Noll? What did he contribute to the NFL besides four Super Bowl wins and Terry Bradshaw’s neurosis – oh and a rash of steroid abuse that would continue to this day? You want to slot him in ahead of Don Shula? Go ahead, I don’t mind. But he doesn’t belong any higher.
Again, my NFL head coaches are: 1. Paul Brown. 2. Bill Walsh. 3. Vince Lombardi. 4. George Halas. 5. Sid Gillman. 6. Bill Belichick. 7. Tom Landry. 8. Don Shula. 9. Chuck Noll
Uhm, D, you left out Chuck Knoll at #15 on the overall list for the NFL!
They “named” a team after Paul Brown, so that must mean something…
I’m surprised SN placed Halas near the bottom…
Being in Big Orange country, I understand the Pat and Gino showdown…
Good revise!!!
kos-
Sorry about that – it was a Freudian slip…. Everyone else has contributed something to the NFL other than just winning – and Shula had to be there because of the perfect season.
And it really is the most difficult team accomplishment in football. Yeah, was great at assessing talent and his teams won 4 SBs but….
So,I added him in – last on this list where he belongs….
Clarification. You never mentioned Noll with the rest of those coaches or ranked him. D, are you trying to provoke Steelers fans this early in the morning?
I have to agree with you on the NCAA Basketball list. Dean Smith is ranked too high. After Wooden retired, Smith almost always had the best talent in the game, yet could only pull out two ‘chips! Folks always talk about how Wooden had the best talent, but he still had to go out and win those games.
The glaring omissions to this list is that they limited to white D-1 coaches. No John McLendon? No Big House Gaines? No Vivian Stringer? Unforgivable.
The NFL list:
Lombardi always gets rated up there because of “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” I agree with Paul Brown. His influence changed the league.
I might rate Papa Bear Halas a little higher because of his willingness to share revenue back then with smaller markets to keep them competitive without getting his arm twisted.
Noll’s chief contribution to the NFL was in scouting smaller colleges for gems. The backbone of his four championships were made up of many players from smaller colleges, many in the southern U.S. that were ignored or thought second rate by teams back then. The Steelers simply drafted better than most other teams back in the 70′s. Because of this, other teams began to look to smaller colleges to fill holes in their lineups. Yeah, he also contributed by bringing a devestating 4-3, but I always maintain that he just had better, hungrier players than everyone else.
I’m thinking Noll belongs ahead of Shula, and maybe Gillman, but either way, he probably doesn’t belong higher than Halas, Brown, or Lombardi.
Damn! Didn’t know you were a Skins Fan!
I knew there was something about you that I liked.
Good analysis…
kos-
Hank Stram and Sid Gillman were waaaaaay ahead of Noll when it came to scouting small college players; so was Tom Landry. So Noll can’t get credit there, either.
On NCAA Hoops coaches… SI apparently placed much emphasis on the perception of the coach and wins (a general critique but it pertains to the Hoops rankings, too). But I do understand, to a degree, leaving off non-DI head coaches, if all they did was coach. would they have won in DI? Maybe, but no one can be sure because it didn’t happen. But with someone like McLenden, his overall influence on the game is unmistakable.
Taomun-
Wow, thank you.
I left Joe G. off the list and got thanked just for being a ‘Skins fan?! Cool!
I can live with either Summit or Auriemma in the top five. But the two of them at 2 and 3?
Isn’t this like putting Ali and Frazier at 1 and 2 on the list of all time boxers…if they were the only 2 boxers ever?
I just don’t think we are at the point where there is enough talent in women’s hoop to give you 64 good teams. It still seems to me that the top 16 programs are so far ahead of the rest as to make the tournament uninteresting until the second Sunday.
And there is another gap between Tennessee and UConn that shows no sign of going away.
To some degree, it’s the same issue I have with Wooden. Yes, he won 100 championships, but he usually had a starting five that could double as an All-American team.
I’ve always thought Bobby Knight’s coaching jobs were made more impressive by the fact he really only ever had an other-worldly talent once (Isiah). Your mileage may vary with Scott May, but I was 4 when he played so I don’t exactly have memories of him. From what I can gather, he was a great college player who got the most out of his talent but is never going to be one of those “I can’t believe I saw Scott May play” kinda guys. I assume he was a lot like his son in that way.
D-
As far as I can recall, John Thompson only won 1 championship as a coach of Georgetown. That was in 1984 vs. Houston. My beloved Hoyas lost in ’82 and ’85. I don’t even want to talk about it.
Also, as a Steeler fan, it’s hard for me to see Chuck Noll take it on the chin again. With that said, I’m glad you elevated some of the philosophical pioneers of the game because they deserve the love. I can’t say where he belongs, but I believe his placement has more to do with his being an enigma than anything else.
The Steelers beat the Cowboys twice in the Super Bowl. They had success against the Raiders, Colts, Broncos and everyone else in the AFC. For all of that to be diminished to Terry’s desire for a softer touch and the use of steroids is to miss the entire point of the decade.
If the conventional wisdom is that it was easier to win championships when they were fewer teams, less player movement and more franchise control (an argument that many have used in support of Belichick), it is difficult to ignore that argument in weighing whether Summit and Auriemma should be placed ahead of Knight and Coach K. The number of elite teams in women’s college basketball (relatively small in comparison to the men’s game) suggest that in some respects, it is analogous to an earlier era in men’s sports. Women’s sports are on the rise and it isn’t clear to me that Auriemma, for example, is such a “pioneer” that he exceeds what K & K have done. Perhaps he’s more akin to Adolph Rupp — a guy who built a machine during the nascent stages of a game. I don’t have an easy answer, but it seems to me that K & K work in a more difficult environment. That’s not a product of gender, but of the respective stages in which the men’s and women’s games have evolved.
I mention Auriemma to say that if he can be placed ahead of K & K, even though the STAGE of the women’s game is not comparable to the men’s game (understand — I’m not arguing that the women’s game isn’t highly competitive. I’m arguing that it is going to get infinitely MORE competitive and that this may be comparable to a time when Kentucky ruled the roost under Rupp), it may be that Noll’s feat of winning 4 in 6 years in the 1970′s deserves more credit than Belichick’s feat of winning 3 in 4 years. I mean, the teams of the ’70′s were Super Teams. There wasn’t much separating the Steelers from the Cowboys and Raiders and Dolphins. Whatever it was that propelled them to 4 SB’s (was it steroids?), Noll rarely gets much credit. At the end of the day, we know that Noll didn’t have an NFL pedigree that ran through New York or the wallet of Carroll Rosenbloom. He wasn’t a self-promoter. It’s hard for me to call it, but something just doesn’t seem right about it.
D –
I would agree concerning the small college scouting issue. It also bears stating that there was a line of demarcation between small predominantly white schools and traditionally black colleges.
The fortunes of the Steelers changed dramatically when Bill Nunn (father of the actor who played Radio Raheem in Spike’s Do The Right Thing) worked as a scout for the team and opened the flood gates from Black schools. The cornerstone of those championship teams came from small schools.
Nunn, Sr.’s father was the founder (I believe) of the famed Pittsburgh Courier newspaper. The Courier had the widest circulation of any Black paper in the nation for decades (peak year — 1957). The Nunn family was tremendously important in the city at the time. They left a legacy in many areas.
Just 3 more things on Coach Noll (for now):
1) He not only worked for Sid Gilman, he played for Paul Brown and worked for Shula.
2) I haven’t figured out the significance of all this, BUT, Noll’s teams finished in the Top 10 league on OFFENSE AND DEFENSE 7 times. Walsh – 5 times, Gibbs – 4 times, Madden – 2 times, BB – 3 times.
3) Noll gave Dungy his first coaching gig.
I still don’t know where he ranks, but this bit of background suggests that a man who worked for Brown, Shula and Gilman might have a bit of difficulty distinguishing himself — AND that winning four Super Bowls has proven to be insufficient.
Amazing stuff. Perhaps the best thing is that he could care less about his rank — and it’s a good thing.
Chuck Noll oversaw the 1974 Draft. Nuff said.
I have to defend my man Dean Smith
1- recruited the first SCHOLARSHIP African American basketball player (Charlie Scott) in the ACC and more importantly organized a support system for him to give him every chance to succeed
2-helped integrate all White Chapel Hill neighborhoods
3-endorsed and actively supported Barack Obama for President
4-retired #1 in wins
5-2nd to Wooden in Final Fours
6-13 consecutive sweet sixteens
7-played and coached in Final Four
8-Gold medal winning coach
9->95% graduation rate
10- the greatest college coach at developing talent – as evidenced by the # of successful NBA players who played for him
The biggest argument against Smith is the number of championships. Yeah, he only has 2. There are only 4 men with more, and only 8 with as many. The factors that worked against him were: coaching during the Wooden era (nobody else won then; he actually went to 3 straight final fours during the Wooden era) Does it diminish the great NBA players who didn’t win a ring against the greatest? (Jordan); the ACC tournament-before at large bids, unlike every other conference the regular season winner did not get the automatic bid, there were many great teams that didn’t get a chance b/c of an upset in the conf. tournament; Injuries-The ’77 runner up team had 3 injured starters; Kenny Smith’s broken wrist derailed the ’84 team; Derrick Phelps was the victim of a hatchet job by a BC player in ’94 leading to the upset of the defending champs
It’s interesting that Smith is the only coach on the list whose career overlapped significantly with Wooden’s b/c he overshadowed everyone else.
Tarheels are truly OK with Dean’s 2 championships b/c for Dean it wasn’t about him and his glory. He wanted his players to be the best they could be and made sure of that even if it cost him a win or two here or there. Jordan isn’t JORDAN without Smith, but even more impressively he took marginally talented players (Hubert Davis, Warren Martin) and turned them into valuble contributors. His legacy isn’t about him, his wins, or championships, his true legacy is personified by the people who were touched by him. In that regard, he is second to none
Dwil,
I tried but I couldn’t make that thing we talked about happen.
spaceg…, T3, Myron-
All of your inputs are as valid as mine. I didn’t mean to diminish Chuck Noll – or Dean Smith, thugh I added some snark just to make the read a little more interesting.
As you said T3, my goal is to elevate philosophy over Ws – that is, if some chips come with the philosophy…. UNLESS the philosophy creates a lasting paradigm shift in the given sports, e.g. McLendon and Gillman.
As for Noll, if Paul Brown is MJ, Noll is Kobe. Noll took the best of all those philosophies and created a decade-long monster team. But he didn’t give the NFL anything to continue to hang its hat on after that. Brown and Walsh did so much for the game…. Vince has the archetypal NFL coaching style and Halas did much on the $$$$$ front that persists today. Even Landry was an innovator.
Chuck COACHED HIS ASS OFF! But there has to be more…. Oh, and Belichick took Parcells to a level that is, today, unregognizable, which is why Parcells did not make the list and Belichick did.
——————————————-
Now, Dean’s socio-cultural accomplishments were cool but fellas you have to admit he should have won more that two chips with the teams he had! and as far as being touched by him – can’t you say the same about a lot of coaches? I men Lute Olsen is almost unanimously loved by his ex-players. Same with Big John and Calhoun, same with K, Cremins was like that when he was a coach. Dale Brown was like that at LSU.
And then there’s the famous joke, Question: “Who’s the only person who could hold MJ under 20 points every game?” Answer: “Dean Smith”
As far as Pat and Geno go, I very well could have propped them too much. I will mos’ def’ reconsider when it comes to the actual rankings.
——————————————
spaceg…..-
Email me ’cause I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Plax got indicted.
When I was talking about Dean, I wasn’t talking about how he touched them personally, but how he touched their game. He took some highly touted but realistically marginally talented players (in terms of NBA talent) and turned them into 10 year NBA players. I’m not talking about Jordan or Worthy, I’m talking about Joe Wolf, Hubert Davis (a marginal mid-major talent at best), Pete Chilcutt, etc. I’m talking about getting 20 wins and sweet sixteen when you are starting Steve Hale, Ranzino Smith, Kevin Madden, Steve Bucknall. I’ll say it again, without Dean, THERE IS NO MICHAEL JORDAN AS WE KNOW HIM TODAY. Bobby Knight doesn’t get him there, Coach K doesn’t get him there. A majority of the credit for his success goes to Michael but even he will admit he doesn’t get there without Dean.
I mentioned Warren Martin earlier. When he got to Chapel Hill he made Georghe Muresan look like Hakeem Olajuwon, but they worked with him and by the time he was a senior he averaged double figure points, 9 rbs, 78%ft. That was a modern day miracle. I don’t see any other coach who would have made him into that.
I’m curious which team of Dean’s should have one a championship other than the ones I’ve mentioned?
I’ve always said if you have one game to win and one team to gameplan for give me Coach K or Bobby Knight, those are their strengths and it will lend itself to more chips, but if I have a son and I want him to maximize his potential in college and the pros I go to Dean Smith.
spaceg-
I hear that which team of Smith’s should have won…. all the time from Smith proponents. I think if you look at how many times UNC was the #1 team in the country and were favored to win chips and didn’t it says a lot about Smith’s ability to coach in big games.
I actually got in a fight with a dude during the big Dance when a favored to win it all UNC team with Kenny smith at point lost in a what round of 16 game or Great eight game(?). what got us to fighting was because I accurately predicted that if Carolina came out in the second half and got behind that Smith would refuse to call a timeout to settle the team – Smith especially – down.
It happened, I started cracking up and my buddy sucker-punched me in the back of the head! Shit hurt, too! so after the minor scuffle that other friends watching broke up, UNC was down like 12 points and soon to be out of the tourney in yet another disappointing Tar Heel loss. As usual with Dean, the payers got the blame, but it was Smith who blew the game.
And yes, dude apologized for his Love of Dean Tourette’s-like outburst (you Dean Smith lovers are a cultish bunch – lmao)
Explain to me, what was it Smith did that “made” MJ that say, JT could not have done or Knight, or Jim Boeheim, or Denny Crum?
And which teams should have won chips? You can start w/ Charlie Scott’s team w. Larry Miller – but didn’t they lose to Lefty Drisell’s Davidson team, or something crazy like that? sorry I can’t remember the SI’s off hand and don’t feel like looking at the Vault. But I remember rummaging through my father’s SI’s and seeing Scott in mid-air – OH YEAH, they BEAT Davidson on a last-second shot in a regional game at Cole Field house – on the cover hitting the shot. But that was like, what 1967 or something?
That was team number one that should have won a chip. If I really looked I’d say there are eight to 10 teams that should have won chips but didn’t.
Finally, I’d like to say that people tend to tell me that this center sucked or that point guard sucked, etc., etc. – But when you’re Dean Smith, how do you get that player instead of the player you’re supposed to get? If you’re John wooden you get those players. Even Lefty got who he wanted – he just wasn’t a good big game coach. And IMO neither was Smith.
I am going to go on a limb a say there are not too many hockey fans patrolling this site but I volunteer my services to analyze the hockey entries.
1. Scotty Bowman (7), 2. Toe Blake (37), 3. Al Arbour (39), 4. Dick Irvin (43), 5. Herb Brooks (50)
Scotty Bowman is obvious, nine Stanley Cups with three different teams. Nothing else needs to be said.
I would like to make the case that not only should Al Arbour be second on the hockey list but also higher overall. He took over the NY Islanders in their second season and beginning the following season started a ten-year period where the Isles finished with 100 points seven times, made the playoff semi-finals nine times, with five trips to the Stanley Cup finals and four consecutive championships in the early 1980′s. No team in the NHL has since won even three Cups in a row. I would submit this accomplishment tops even Blake’s eight cups in 13 years, with five consecutive, because Blake did it mostly in a six team league. Arbour won his Cups in a league with over three times the entries. For this reason I believe Arbour should be placed in the top twenty of all coaches. I would put him in the slot about Joe Gibbs, yes that high.
Dick Irvin is fine, but I have a suggestion about Herb Brooks. Sure Brooks did the impossible in 1980 and influenced a generation of US hockey players. But I would submit the name of Lester Patrick. Instrumental in many of the early innovations of hockey in the first years of the NHL many of his, and his brother Frank’s, ideas are still in use today.
Just my two cents.
References:
Al Arbour: http://www.hockey-reference.com/coaches/arboual01c.html
Toe Blake: http://www.hockey-reference.com/coaches/blaketo01c.html
Lester Patrick: http://nyrangerslegends.blogspot.com/2007/05/lester-patrick.html
I think you can make the argument that Scotty Bowman is the greatest coach of all time in any sport. Period.
He won in different eras with different teams and different styles. He coached one of the great dynasties of all time. His coaching job with the Penguins cannot be overlooked considering he had to take over for a beloved coach who died. And he basically invented the modern NHL with those European-heavy teams in Detroit.
It seems like the hardest thing for a coach to do is win with different teams. Bowman never had a problem doing that.
By the way, an argument could be made for Herb Brooks even without the ’80 Gold Medal. If he had just gone back to Minnesota or to another high profile college program after 1980, he might have 8 or 9 college titles instead of 3. Instead, he became some sort of weird hockey nomad/ambassador coaching pro teams and international teams and everything in between.
I think he makes the top fifty just for saying, “If you lose this game, you’ll take it to your f-ing graves,” which might be the best pep talk in the history of the universe.
I meant to hit on this earlier — and I’ll need to do more research on this, but I don’t see any way that Bear Bryant can be #3 and Eddie Robinson can be #23. I don’t think there is any question that the collusion of the State, county and local governments and the private sector in Alabama and Louisiana collaborated to “keep these institutions in their place.” Alabama’s legacy is a political invention — just as in other states where collegiate athletics feed the bottom line.
Robinson dominated his competition. His players created legacies all over the league: from Willie Davis to Buck Buchanan (Stram as small college scout?) Charlie Joiner to James Harris to Doug Williams.
I suppose Bryant would have done about as well at Grambling, but that’s not really the issue either.
I find the Dean Smith conversation interesting. I have long held an opinion like DWil’s on Smith, but spaceghost puts together a strong countercase.
The question comes down to this (a version of the Jordan question): with all the pros that came out of NC, did they excel in the pros BECAUSE of Smith’s teaching or did Smith simply under-perform in college with superior talent.
Conversely, so few Dukies make good in the pros. Did Coach K excell with inferior talent or did he teach his players a game that would not translate?
Perhaps somebody has answers
“The question comes down to this (a version of the Jordan question): with all the pros that came out of NC, did they excel in the pros BECAUSE of Smith’s teaching or did Smith simply under-perform in college with superior talent.”
Of course that’s why they excel. Dwil makes the point with Smith refusing to call a timeout in a tournament ( I think I have seen Phil Jackson do this in the pros as well). He lets the players make the decisions, he gives them the tools but he also allows them to learn from mistakes. As a result after they leave Smith they are more self reliant on the court. As I said earlier this will lead to more losses for Dean Smith but ultimately the PLAYERS will be more successful in the long run. I never remember Dean blaming his players for a loss. Dean sacrificed his personal short term success for the long term success of the players. With minutes left in the national championship game against Michigan he had Scott Cherry and Pat Sullivan on the court. I’m thinking ‘What is he doing, get them out of there.’ But it was consistent with his philosophy. They were seniors he taught them, they should be able to excel. In the Sporting News article Matt Doherty says about the Georgetown game, ‘If you get an open look, knock it down.’ He said the same thing to Jordan. He puts the confidence into the players as opposed to his coaching genius or schemes. Most college coaches egos are too big to allow them to do that.
“Conversely, so few Dukies make good in the pros. Did Coach K excell with inferior talent or did he teach his players a game that would not translate?”
Coach K did one of best coaching jobs I have seen this year b/c he had nothing to work with. Coach K does what he needs to do to win as many games as possible, sometimes he sacrifices individual player development for the next win. A lot of the players I see come through Duke are basically the same player going out as they were coming in. Instead of encouraging individual development he focuses on the team and being a ‘Blue Devil.’ They play with tons of emotion and you have to ‘buy in’ to the philosophy to be successful. But what happens when they leave and nobody cares where you went to school and emotion doesn’t fuel every game? They get to win a lot of games in college though. That said, outside of Dawkins, Laettner, & Ferry, the real pro-style blue chippers didn’t come to Durham until the late ’90s and a lot of them didn’t stay very long.
K v. Dean is apples/oranges, conservative/liberal, private/public, wrong/right(joking)
All the guys I mentioned were McDonald’s high school All-Americans who were overrated. No matter what he had, Dean was good for 25 wins and sweet sixteen. Do I wish Dean’s team had won more championships? Yeah, but I understand why they didn’t and I’m OK with that. I understand what he was trying to do. I guess that’s part of the reason I get defensive about his legacy.
Regarding #1ranked teams winning it all. It doesn’t happen often. From wikipedia
Only six teams, since the beginning of the seeding process in 1979, have entered the tournament ranked #1 in at least 1 poll and gone on to win the tournament:
* 1982: North Carolina
* 1992: Duke
* 1995: UCLA
* 2000: Michigan State
* 2001: Duke
* 2007: Florida
spaceg-
A few points…
-K hasn’t had a team that can match all but two or three of Smith’s since the elton Brand Blue Devils and that was what 10 years ago? 11?
-2009 UNC was the preseason #1 and won the chip. The reason teams are picked #1 is because of their talent, maturity, and skill level….. They become #1 most often for the same reasons….
-Since the seeding…? How many times did John Wooden win with the #1 team in the country. Stopping at 1979 is to act like the coach who set the standard for winning with good teams didn’t exist.
-The only college with the consistent talent Wooden’s UCLA teams had is UNC and particularly Smith’s UNC teams. And they failed – he failed.
-It’s one thing to be okay with teams not winning. I’m okay with the Ewing Hoyas teams that didn’t win chips – but that does not mean that the Hoyas should have lost those games, despite Nova’s familiarity with the Hoyas. Thompson failed to force the wildcats out of their comfort zone and he paid for it. Against UNC, well, like I wrote, it was a zebra special and even then G-town had a chance to win.
-You cannot compare what Phil Jackson or any NBA coach does with what any college coach does particularly when it comes to calling TOs when the team needs one.
-I’m sorry, but for me not calling TOs when the momentum of the game is slipping away is one of a coach’s duties – period. You can get away with it during the regular season but not at winnin’ time. See, now when the team loses, whose fault is it? The point guard who couldn’t pull himself and the team together or the coach who failed to call the TO? Smith’s failure to call those TOs is always seen as the player’s failure, and never Smith’s. I find it odd that a college coach looking out for his players would so silently throw them under the bus.
-And as far as understanding what Smith is doing? I have to ask. do you? I ask because it is the point guard’s job to be the head coach on the floor – to be that dude. How many PGs did Smith produce who starred in the Lig? Zero. Not Phil Ford, not Kenny Smith – and I can’t even name another one. so what was it Smith was trying to do? Allow his players to lose? Get his 25 and trips to the Sweet 16, which allows him to keep his jobby job but quietly throws his college players under the bus for failing to push through and win chips?
-Look at the litany of UNC players that have excelled in the pros. And look at the paucity of chips that accompany them – it’s a shame. And the funny thing is, is that most of the players he failed with are pretty candid and say they should have won!
-No Dean Smith proponent will ever convince me that he was the #2 head coach to Wooden.
K takes crappy teams and wins. He takes great teams and wins chips. Izzo is the same. A coach like Boeheim – when he has a transcendent player, just one player – finds ways to ride that dude farther than most other coaches could. Calhoun, on the other hand, is another coach with teams that should win chips but fail too often for me to call him anywhere close to #2.
“No Dean Smith proponent will ever convince me that he was the #2 head coach to Wooden”
I guess there is no point in trying
“K hasn’t had a team that can match all but two or three of Smith’s since the elton Brand Blue Devils and that was what 10 years ago? 11?”
I agree and said so in my post
“since the seeding?”
that was the only information I had
“The only college with the consistent talent Wooden’s UCLA teams had is UNC and particularly Smith’s UNC teams. And they failed – he failed.”
I wouldn’t call it failure, being successful & not reaching the pinacle often, but if that’s failure >800 wins, 2 NCAA championships-I’ll take it
“I’m sorry, but for me not calling TOs when the momentum of the game is slipping away is one of a coach’s duties – period. You can get away with it during the regular season but not at winnin’ time. See, now when the team loses, whose fault is it? The point guard who couldn’t pull himself and the team together or the coach who failed to call the TO? Smith’s failure to call those TOs is always seen as the player’s failure, and never Smith’s. I find it odd that a college coach looking out for his players would so silently throw them under the bus.”
It’s impossible to win a game when you are down 8 with :18 left in the game (before the 3pt shot) if you burn all your timeouts early in the game. This actually happened. As someone who has watched literally hundreds of Dean Smith coached games, this strategy is successful more than it is unsuccessful. You didn’t see all those games where the Tarheels were down at the end and used timeouts to get back in the game and win it. I did.
Roy Williams (Dean’s protege) did the same thing against Kansas in the ’08 Final Four and was crucified for it. Now Roy has 2 rings, more final fours than all but K, Smith, and Wooden, if he gets another ring matching K and Knight, can you leave him out of your top 5?
I find it curious that everybody praised Coach K for getting to 4 Final Fours in five years (86-90). He finally broke through and won in 1991, but I don’t remember anyone calling him a failure before then. By contrast Roy Williams had 4 final fours before a championship Dean had 6 (4 during the Wooden era) and they were both labeled as ‘can’t win the big one.’
Of the coaches in this thread there has only been one who produced an all star caliber point guard (Isiah Thomas). I guess we should make Jud Heathcote #2 all time coach.
“Smith’s failure to call those TOs is always seen as the player’s failure, and never Smith’s.”
You seem to be doing a pretty good job of placing the blame where it belongs. This criticism was heard in ACC country about Smith (not the players) all the time. Smith liked to save his TOs for end of game situations, such as advancing the ball to midcourt after one pass after a FT or made basket and calling TO to set up a better play and save time. Again it worked more often than it failed.
“Get his 25 and trips to the Sweet 16, which allows him to keep his jobby job”
He was never going to be fired. His job was never in jeopardy. Moot point.
It’s very hard to compare any modern program to UCLA when it comes to NCAA championships b/c the circumstances were much different. 1-It only took 2 wins to get to the Final Four (the equivalent of the modern day Sweet Sixteen) 2-the NCAA tournament was truly regional then, UCLA never had to face any of the east coast power teams to make it to the final four. They would have to beat Fresno State and Utah, then final four. My knowledge of college basketball then is shaky at best but I don’t recall any other good bball teams west of the Mississippi (with the exception of Elvin Hayes Houston team). Different circumstances. Doesn’t diminish the accomplishment but makes it almost impossible to duplicate.