Money in the NFL...

[IntheNet]

This is a good year to address why money in the NFL can't buy wins...

As Dan Daly says about Redskins Gregg Williams (defensive coordinator): "...highest paid defensive coach in human history..." Apparently not a good investment... Skins lost again, to Giants yesterday, 19-3! Redskins have the highest salary* of any NFL team...

Does money buy championships?

Doesn't seem to in Major League Baseball either, considering Yankess situation. Doesn't seem to in soccer/MLS either, with young Adu getting paid half a million for nothing at all this year.

Does money in sports buy anything anymore?

* payroll

[doublee]

The problem with the 'Skins is they are turning into the Yanks of the NFL in that they overspend on aging stars and second tier players.

That is kind of an odd statement to make about Williams though as it has by-in-large been an inept offense that has cost them in the three games they lost this year. The 'Skins have scored a grand total of 29 points in their three losses this year.

[Anthony]

While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, IntheNet, you are looking at things through the distorted prism of our contemporary sports culture.

The Yankees have won the AL East nine years in a row, have made the playoffs for twelve consecutive years (and it would have been 13 had the 1994 players' strike not wiped out the postseason in that year as they had the best record in the AL when the players walked out) and have finished first or second in their division for 14 straight years - the longest current streak in baseball in all of these areas.

So I'd say money has bought the Yankees quite a lot - and anyone who does not inhabit what author Christopher Lasch aptly termed The Culture of Narcissism would agree with me.

[LA sports]

While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, IntheNet, you are looking at things through the distorted prism of our contemporary sports culture.

The Yankees have won the AL East nine years in a row, have made the playoffs for twelve consecutive years (and it would have been 13 had the 1994 players' strike not wiped out the postseason in that year as they had the best record in the AL when the players walked out) and have finished first or second in their division for 14 straight years - the longest current streak in baseball in all of these areas.

So I'd say money has bought the Yankees quite a lot - and anyone who does not inhabit what author Christopher Lasch aptly termed The Culture of Narcissism would agree with me.

But Anthony I remember you saying in the top 10 NFL coaches of all time thread that 2nd place is the first loser, so by that definition the Yankees making the playoffs all these years means nothing if they don't win the World Series. So all that money spent by the Yankees since the last time they won the World Series has been for nothing.:D

[Anthony]

But Anthony I remember you saying in the top 10 NFL coaches of all time thread that 2nd place is the first loser, so by that definition the Yankees making the playoffs all these years means nothing if they don't win the World Series. So all that money spent by the Yankees since the last time they won the World Series has been for nothing.:D


But Joe Torre has won the World Series, now hasn't he?

[LA sports]

But Joe Torre has won the World Series, now hasn't he?

That wasn't your statement. You were talking about all the accomplishments of the Yankees over the last several years even though they did not win the World Series, you said their money has brought them quite a lot. I was pointing out how in another thread you said 2nd is the 1st loser so according to that their money has brought them nothing.

[Anthony]

That wasn't your statement. You were talking about all the accomplishments of the Yankees over the last several years even though they did not win the World Series, you said their money has brought them quite a lot. I was pointing out how in another thread you said 2nd is the 1st loser so according to that their money has brought them nothing.



What I said on another thread is that the prevailing view in sports today - and for the past couple of decades or so - is epitomized by Ken Stabler's famous remark that "if you don't win the big one, the rest ain't worth a damn."

But it wasn't always this way - and the fact that it is this way now is one of the root causes of many problems in sports, particularly baseball.

[LA sports]

What I said on another thread is that the prevailing view in sports today - and for the past couple of decades or so - is epitomized by Ken Stabler's famous remark that "if you don't win the big one, the rest ain't worth a damn."

But it wasn't always this way - and the fact that it is this way now is one of the root causes of many problems in sports, particularly baseball.

I thought you had said that you would not rank a coach that had not won the Super Bowl higher than a coach who had. That's why it was asked in that thread if that means you would rank Barry Switzer higher than Bud Grant. I thought you had said that 2nd place is the 1st loser agreeing with Stabler's comment.

But I do agree it is a cause of problems in sports, it's either all or nothing instead of enjoying the sports and supporting your teams. Championships are great and that is what teams are supposed to be working for, but if my teams don't win them that does not mean I will stop supporting them. These teams are going out and spending so much money to try and win that the fans have to fit the bill with higher ticket prices and concessions as well as the outrageous price of team merchandise.

[Anthony]

I thought you had said that you would not rank a coach that had not won the Super Bowl higher than a coach who had. That's why it was asked in that thread if that means you would rank Barry Switzer higher than Bud Grant. I thought you had said that 2nd place is the 1st loser agreeing with Stabler's comment.

But I do agree it is a cause of problems in sports, it's either all or nothing instead of enjoying the sports and supporting your teams. Championships are great and that is what teams are supposed to be working for, but if my teams don't win them that does not mean I will stop supporting them. These teams are going out and spending so much money to try and win that the fans have to fit the bill with higher ticket prices and concessions as well as the outrageous price of team merchandise.



My stand on ranking coaches and players for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame etc., is well known on this forum: In fact I advocate the creation of a "Gallery of Champions" within the NFL Hall of Fame (and by extension, the other sports HOFs as well) to provide an additional honor to those inductees who have been on at least one championship team during their applicable (playing or coaching/managing) career.

But even if one does hold that Barry Switzer was a "better" coach than Bud Grant, that doesn't mean one has to believe that Bud Grant was a bum or anything like that - and if it was like the way it was half a century ago (when if the last-place team in the eight-team leagues baseball then had was hosting the seventh-place team, all the games would sell out), money wouldn't be an issue because the gap in revenues between the best and worst teams would be far narrower (indeed, in their early years as an expansion team the Mets generally led the National League in attendance, or very close to it).

[LA sports]

My stand on ranking coaches and players for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame etc., is well known on this forum: In fact I advocate the creation of a "Gallery of Champions" within the NFL Hall of Fame (and by extension, the other sports HOFs as well) to provide an additional honor to those inductees who have been on at least one championship team during their applicable (playing or coaching/managing) career.

But even if one does hold that Barry Switzer was a "better" coach than Bud Grant, that doesn't mean one has to believe that Bud Grant was a bum or anything like that - and if it was like the way it was half a century ago (when if the last-place team in the eight-team leagues baseball then had was hosting the seventh-place team, all the games would sell out), money wouldn't be an issue because the gap in revenues between the best and worst teams would be far narrower (indeed, in their early years as an expansion team the Mets generally led the National League in attendance, or very close to it).


So are you saying that with coaches if they don't have a championship than they can't be ranked ahead of one who had because 2nd place is the 1st loser, but teams not winning a championship does not mean the same thing. Teams still accomplished a lot but not the coach, and it can still be considered a successful season for the team but not the coach?

IMO Grant was a much better coach than Switzer with or without the ring and I would rank Grant ahead of Switzer everytime, just my opinion though.

[Anthony]

So are you saying that with coaches if they don't have a championship than they can't be ranked ahead of one who had because 2nd place is the 1st loser, but teams not winning a championship does not mean the same thing. Teams still accomplished a lot but not the coach, and it can still be considered a successful season for the team but not the coach?

IMO Grant was a much better coach than Switzer with or without the ring and I would rank Grant ahead of Switzer everytime, just my opinion though.


The "choke" stigma runs very deep in sports today - for teams, individual players, and coaches alike. For example, soon after he retired, Danny White got into a minor car accident on the outskirts of Dallas. When the driver of the other car - a 17-year-old kid! - realized who he had been in the accident with, he called White "you choking dog." How come no one has ever insulted Archie Manning that way, with his 35-101-3 lifetime record as a starter and never being on a team that had so much as a single winning season?

But I don't apply any double standard to players and coaches; for instance, in the 2005 NFL season the only unqualified "success" was the Steelers, but the only unqualified "failure" was the Houston Texans. Everyone else was somewhere in between - and that's the way it should be, and in fact, that's the way it once was to the vast majority of people.

[LA sports]

The "choke" stigma runs very deep in sports today - for teams, individual players, and coaches alike. For example, soon after he retired, Danny White got into a minor car accident on the outskirts of Dallas. When the driver of the other car - a 17-year-old kid! - realized who he had been in the accident with, he called White "you choking dog." How come no one has ever insulted Archie Manning that way, with his 35-101-3 lifetime record as a starter and never being on a team that had so much as a single winning season?

But I don't apply any double standard to players and coaches; for instance, in the 2005 NFL season the only unqualified "success" was the Steelers, but the only unqualified "failure" was the Houston Texans. Everyone else was somewhere in between - and that's the way it should be, and in fact, that's the way it once was to the vast majority of people. Are you saying with the White/Manning analogy that it's better to have been on a terrible team that never contended than on a team that nearly won championships? Or are you saying that you are better off to have been on a team that never competed that way you were never put in a situation to risk choking?

If you say that a coach can't be ranked higher than another coach because he never won a Super Bowl and 2nd place is just the 1st loser with coaches, then saying that a team did a lot even though they did not win it all is a double standard IMO.

[Marc]

Are you saying with the White/Manning analogy that it's better to have been on a terrible team that never contended than on a team that nearly won championships? Or are you saying that you are better off to have been on a team that never competed that way you were never put in a situation to risk choking?

If you say that a coach can't be ranked higher than another coach because he never won a Super Bowl and 2nd place is just the 1st loser with coaches, then saying that a team did a lot even though they did not win it all is a double standard IMO.
That's a good point. It's like are you better off having a solid year, but being known as a choker, or not being known at all and having an obscure, insignificant career? Something to ponder...

[Anthony]

Are you saying with the White/Manning analogy that it's better to have been on a terrible team that never contended than on a team that nearly won championships? Or are you saying that you are better off to have been on a team that never competed that way you were never put in a situation to risk choking?

If you say that a coach can't be ranked higher than another coach because he never won a Super Bowl and 2nd place is just the 1st loser with coaches, then saying that a team did a lot even though they did not win it all is a double standard IMO.



What I am saying is that the cultural standards have changed - and for the worse, from where I sit (in this respect mirroring the general trend in society at large over the last 40-45 years or so).

[LA sports]

What I am saying is that the cultural standards have changed - and for the worse, from where I sit (in this respect mirroring the general trend in society at large over the last 40-45 years or so).

So are these your opinions or what you think the cultural standards opinions are in society?

I could be misunderstanding you. Do you think that if a coach does not win it all and that they finish in 2nd that they are the 1st loser, but a team can not win it all but still have accomplished a lot? Or is that what you are saying is societies opinions? I think you had said before that your opinion on coaches is well known on this board so I took it as these were your opinions.

[Anthony]

It's still better to be a champion than a runner-up, just like it's better to finish next-to-last than last - and both do matter.

And it just so happens that a Sports Central staff member has written an awesome article about this very subject: See Zach Jones' Fire Torre? The Curse of Playoff Thinking.

But to prove how times have changed - take the Danny White car accident, transform it into another era, and try to replay its effect: Had it happened in the mid-1950s instead of the mid-1980s, the kid probably would have asked White for his autograph!

[LA sports]

It's still better to be a champion than a runner-up, just like it's better to finish next-to-last than last - and both do matter.

And it just so happens that a Sports Central staff member has written an awesome article about this very subject: See Zach Jones' Fire Torre? The Curse of Playoff Thinking.

But to prove how times have changed - take the Danny White car accident, transform it into another era, and try to replay its effect: Had it happened in the mid-1950s instead of the mid-1980s, the kid probably would have asked White for his autograph!

I don't disagree with you that times have changed so you don't have to prove that to me. All I have been doing is trying to get a couple answers from you.

1. Did you or did you not say in the top 10 coaches thread that 2nd place is the 1st loser?

2. Did you or did you not say in this thread that the Yankees money still brought a lot to the team because of their accomplishments this season even though they did not win the World Series?

If you answered yes to these questions would that not be a double standard?

My whole point with this is that you said in the coaches thread that you would not rank a coach who had not won the Super Bowl ahead of a coach who had because 2nd is the 1st loser and I disagreed with that, like you said about the Yankees a lot can be accomplished without winning it all. Maybe when a coach took over a team they were terrible but the coach helped make them a contender. Would that not be more of an accomplishment and show better coaching skills than a coach who won a championship after taking over an already great team?

We might just be completely misunderstanding each other here so I apologize if that is the case.

[Anthony]

We seem to be going around in circles here, but allow me to reiterate:

1. No way should a coach who has never won a Super Bowl (or NFL championship before the Super Bowl existed) be ranked among the top 10 head coaches of all time. But this does not necessarily mean that I believe that every coach who has done so is better than every coach who has not.

2. And I find it rather puzzling that the same culture that revels in seeing shades of gray everywhere when it comes to moral issues doesn't apply the same standard to sports: Again using last year's NFL season as an example, the only "black" was the Steelers, the only "white" was the Texans, and other than them there were 30 shades of gray.

[bama4256]

The Redskins definitely need a youth movement.

[LA sports]

We seem to be going around in circles here, but allow me to reiterate:

1. No way should a coach who has never won a Super Bowl (or NFL championship before the Super Bowl existed) be ranked among the top 10 head coaches of all time. But this does not necessarily mean that I believe that every coach who has done so is better than every coach who has not.

2. And I find it rather puzzling that the same culture that revels in seeing shades of gray everywhere when it comes to moral issues doesn't apply the same standard to sports: Again using last year's NFL season as an example, the only "black" was the Steelers, the only "white" was the Texans, and other than them there were 30 shades of gray.

1. So you would not rank a coach ahead of another coach if he had not won a championship even if you knew he was a better coach. That makes no sense. The top 10 coaches thread was asking who you think are the best coaches, not who has won the most championships. That just goes back to my analogy of if a coach takes over a team that is already a contender and they win 1 championship is he a better coach than one who takes over a bad team and takes them to 4 Super Bowls but does not win them. No way. I think this total emphasis on just championships is one of those things that you had stated is wrong with sports today. To rank a Barry Switzer ahead of a Bud Grant or Marv Levy makes no sense at all. Switzer's championship was practically handed to him while Grant and Levy made bad teams into teams that went to 4 Super Bowls. But I guess these are just our opinions, I am just really struggling with yours.

2. I am not really sure where you are going with these gray area statements or what they have to do with our discussion. I just simply wanted to know why with coaches you say 2nd place was nothing while with teams it is a lot. I actually agreed with your statement about the Yankees that is why I was wondering why the coaches thread contradicts this one. But it has still been fun talking about it with you even if I don't agree with you.:)

[Anthony]

1. So you would not rank a coach ahead of another coach if he had not won a championship even if you knew he was a better coach. That makes no sense. The top 10 coaches thread was asking who you think are the best coaches, not who has won the most championships. That just goes back to my analogy of if a coach takes over a team that is already a contender and they win 1 championship is he a better coach than one who takes over a bad team and takes them to 4 Super Bowls but does not win them. No way. I think this total emphasis on just championships is one of those things that you had stated is wrong with sports today. To rank a Barry Switzer ahead of a Bud Grant or Marv Levy makes no sense at all. Switzer's championship was practically handed to him while Grant and Levy made bad teams into teams that went to 4 Super Bowls. But I guess these are just our opinions, I am just really struggling with yours.


What if a horse didn't win a race the whole year but consistently finished second or third in a whole bunch of major stakes races? Should that horse be named Horse of the Year? Apparently, by your logic, yes.



2. I am not really sure where you are going with these gray area statements or what they have to do with our discussion. I just simply wanted to know why with coaches you say 2nd place was nothing while with teams it is a lot. I actually agreed with your statement about the Yankees that is why I was wondering why the coaches thread contradicts this one. But it has still been fun talking about it with you even if I don't agree with you.:)


There's an old saying on the PGA Tour: Nobody remembers you if you come in second - except your banker.

[LA sports]

What if a horse didn't win a race the whole year but consistently finished second or third in a whole bunch of major stakes races? Should that horse be named Horse of the Year? Apparently, by your logic, yes.QUOTE]


LA sports reply:
If it was better than other horses did on average than of course the answer is yes. This is another example of being obsessed with championships.

According to your logic if a horse won 1 race the whole year but did nothing in all the rest he could be one of the greatest ever.

You said that you would not put a coach in the top 10 if he had not won a championship. That means that Barry Switzer is at least a candidate while Bud Grant and Marv Levy would not be. Switzer took over a Cowboy team that had already recently won a Super Bowl and had just finished a 12-4 season the year before under Jimmy Johnson. Bud Grant took over a Vikings team that finished 4-9-1 the year before he took over, he took this team to 4 Super Bowls. Marv Levy took over an equally if not worse Bills team and took them to 4 straight Super Bowls. Your emphasis on championships as a measuring stick is very flawed and shows little logic IMO.




Anthony's QUOTE:
There's an old saying on the PGA Tour: Nobody remembers you if you come in second - except your banker.


LA sports reply:
This tells me that you don't get your sports opinions by pondering and studying, you get them from popularity contest. Once again the question was who do you think the best 10 coaches of all-time are not who won the most championships or who is the most popular and well known.

And you still have not answered why your Yankees statement contradicts your top 10 coaches statement.

Sorry how our quotes ran together, don't know what happened. I marked our statements to avoid confusion.