Why Bill Parcells's Position Should've Been Filled Immediately

[Shouright]

Gonna talk leadership and organizational dynamics here, folks.

Players need to believe in their coaches if they're going to follow their leadership and play well for them.

The only thing that ever gave Tony Sparano any legs in the eyes of his players was the fact that he was hired by Bill Parcells, who effectively ran the football side of the organization while he was here. Parcells had complete authority from the owner to hire and fire the GM and head coach, and the fact that he hired Tony Sparano gave Sparano instant credibility in the eyes of his players.

Now of course Bill Parcells is gone, and before Tony Sparano has had a chance to experience the kind of success that could make his leadership stand on its own, without the endorsement of Parcells, in the eyes of his players.

So now the only person above Sparano who can give him an endorsement is Stephen Ross, and we know where that went this past offseason. Down the drain.

The problem IMO is that if Parcells was going to leave prior to when the coach and GM he hired experienced sustained success, Parcells should've been replaced immediately by a football person players can trust, so that the new person in Parcells's position could either continue to give Sparano an endorsement the players would find credible, or replace him with someone else he could endorse.

As it is we have neither: we have a coach who has no endorsement from anyone above him who knows football, and we have no one who knows football who can replace him with a coach he can endorse.

It's a total no-man's land, and really the central, structural problem in this organization at the present moment.

Stephen Ross needs to hire a new Bill Parcells, and quickly.

 

[Zounds]

Parcells should have never been hired. He was only hired so WH could sell the team (before the scheduled capital gains tax increased of 2010 on his $800 million profit on the sale of the team). Parcells was just a big name to make it appear like the team was trending upward. Jerry jones used him to get a new stadium too. Parcells is an overrated tool.

 

[GoonBoss]

From a leadership aspect leaving the position open was the best choice.

Leadership and management both.

 

[FinsBR]

Unfortunately Carl Peterson took Parcells place...

 

[The New Guy]

Parcells should have never been hired. He was only hired so WH could sell the team (before the scheduled capital gains tax increased of 2010 on his $800 million profit on the sale of the team). Parcells was just a big name to make it appear like the team was trending upward. Jerry jones used him to get a new stadium too. Parcells is an overrated tool.

A big name means nothing if you don't have any success. Parcells may be overrated, but wherever he went, he made bad teams much better. The Giants, Patriots, Jets, Cowboys, and Dolphins were all terrible before Parcells came to town.

 

[fishfanmiami]

The first year Parcell gave Tony and Jeff some credabity with his experiance and SB trophy.

After that he basically dissappeared.

Now he's on every show promoting his football knowledge.

It was the old "bait and switch" if you ask me.

We all thought we got NFL experianced management but ended up with two novices not ready for prime time.

While Bill was cashing checks for three years.

I rank him with Sabin. Two rats leaving a sinking ship.

 

[Shouright]

A big name means nothing if you don't have any success. Parcells may be overrated, but wherever he went, he made bad teams much better. The Giants, Patriots, Jets, Cowboys, and Dolphins were all terrible before Parcells came to town.

The only problem I see with that line of reasoning is that, with the league's having so much built-in parity, I think you have to wonder if those teams, as terrible as they were when Parcells took them over, would've improved to the degree they did with just about anyone at the helm.

In other words, I'm not sure Parcells did anything ultra-special for any of those teams that anyone considered "average" couldn't have done.

When you're a bad team, the league sees to it that you improve. That's part of the parity of the NFL.

 

[Zounds]

A big name means nothing if you don't have any success. Parcells may be overrated, but wherever he went, he made bad teams much better. The Giants, Patriots, Jets, Cowboys, and Dolphins were all terrible before Parcells came to town.

You have to go way back in order to find where he was successful. Parcells' teams havent won a playoff game since 1998.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

The problem with Parcells was that he employed a "yes" man (Ireland) in the most important position even though he had no intention of being here for the long haul. While Parcells was here there was some direction but the more he took a back seat the more apparent it became that his boys were lost without their mentor. Parcells should have stayed until it was clear that the right people were in place (if necessary fire and rehire). Or better still employ strong minded people who know what they're doing and where they're going in the first place

 

[The New Guy]

The only problem I see with that line of reasoning is that, with the league's having so much built-in parity, I think you have to wonder if those teams, as terrible as they were when Parcells took them over, would've improved to the degree they did with just about anyone at the helm.

In other words, I'm not sure Parcells did anything ultra-special for any of those teams that anyone considered "average" couldn't have done.

When you're a bad team, the league sees to it that you improve. That's part of the parity of the NFL.

There are too many teams that have been bad for too long for that to be true. Before Parcells came to the Giants they had been through 4 coaches in 10 seasons, and had only 1 winning season in all of those years. In the 4th year with Parcells, they won the Super Bowl.

After a 5-11 89 season, the 1990 Patriots had a new coach (Rod Rust), and went 1-15 that year. They had a new coach the following season and went 6-10 in 91, and 2-14 in 92. In the 3rd year with Parcells, the Pats were in the Super Bowl.

From 1987 to 1996 the Jets had gone through 3 different coaches and had only 1 (8-7-1) winning season in that time. Parcells took over after a 1-15 season and went 9-7. (The Jets first winning season in 9 years)

He had the Jets in the AFCC game in only 2 years after taking over a 1-15 team.

Dallas went 8-8 under Gaily in 1999, and had 3 straight 5-11 seasons under Campo after that. Parcells took over and got them back to the playoffs.

If it happened just once, I would say that maybe anyone could have done it, but to do it with 5 different teams is something.

You have to go way back in order to find where he was successful. Parcells' teams havent won a playoff game since 1998.

You can thank Tony Romo for that. If you can take a team that has not been to the playoffs in many years, and bring them to the playoffs, I consider that successful.

 

[Zounds]

If you can take a team that has not been to the playoffs in many years, and bring them to the playoffs, I consider that successful.

Not winning in the playoffs, or not making the playoffs are both failures in my book. If you are finishing 9-7 in your 3rd and 4th years as a head coach for a franchise, you failed. If Sparano finished 9-7 this year like Parcells did at Dallas, would you consider him sucessfull? Hell no. If you are satisfied with mediocrity then good for you, but I think most people expect more.

 

[The New Guy]

Not winning in the playoffs, or not making the playoffs are both failures in my book. If you are finishing 9-7 in your 3rd and 4th years as a head coach for a franchise, you failed. If Sparano finished 9-7 this year like Parcells did at Dallas, would you consider him sucessfull? Hell no. If you are satisfied with mediocrity then good for you, but I think most people expect more.

Anything less than a Super Bowl win is failure. There are varying degrees of success for the 31 other teams. There is a big difference between the Patriots who lost in the playoffs compared to the Bills who did not make it. I would much rather be in the playoffs at 9-7, than not at 7-9. Going from 3 straight 5-11 seasons to 9-7 and the playoffs would be considered a success for most people.

 

[Shouright]

There are too many teams that have been bad for too long for that to be true. Before Parcells came to the Giants they had been through 4 coaches in 10 seasons, and had only 1 winning season in all of those years. In the 4th year with Parcells, they won the Super Bowl.

After a 5-11 89 season, the 1990 Patriots had a new coach (Rod Rust), and went 1-15 that year. They had a new coach the following season and went 6-10 in 91, and 2-14 in 92. In the 3rd year with Parcells, the Pats were in the Super Bowl.

From 1987 to 1996 the Jets had gone through 3 different coaches and had only 1 (8-7-1) winning season in that time. Parcells took over after a 1-15 season and went 9-7. (The Jets first winning season in 9 years)

He had the Jets in the AFCC game in only 2 years after taking over a 1-15 team.

Dallas went 8-8 under Gaily in 1999, and had 3 straight 5-11 seasons under Campo after that. Parcells took over and got them back to the playoffs.

Thanks for the research. :up:

I agree that with all that, it's far more likely that Parcells was doing something unique.

 

[Shouright]

The problem with Parcells was that he employed a "yes" man (Ireland) in the most important position even though he had no intention of being here for the long haul. While Parcells was here there was some direction but the more he took a back seat the more apparent it became that his boys were lost without their mentor. Parcells should have stayed until it was clear that the right people were in place (if necessary fire and rehire). Or better still employ strong minded people who know what they're doing and where they're going in the first place

Good point. If you're gonna bow out after a short period, you probably oughta hire somebody with a track record of success who is more likely to carry the torch successfully.

But, I do think that when Parcells left, Ross should've realized what you're saying here and hired someone to fill Parcells's position. In other words, Ross should've realized Parcells's hiring errors and hired someone who could appraise them and correct them if need be.

Now we're stuck in a position in which the players probably have no faith in anybody who's running the organization.

 

[LANGER72]

Enough of the man behind the curtains pulling the levers.
I think the coach should be in control and run the team with an excellent PP guy.
We need Cowher or another dominant strong hands on coach.