HawkShack.com

CANTON, Ohio -- Super Bowl-winning coaches Mike Shanahan and Mike Holmgren are among 54 seniors, coaches and contributors named as semifinalists for the Pro Football Hall of Fame's class of 2023.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/342 ... ifinalists

IMO his resume comes up a little short and I'd be surprised if he makes the final cut, but it seems like my personal bar for players and coaches is considerably higher than that of the HOF committee that makes the call.

3 Super bowl teams and a Lombardi. But some would say he underachieved. A classy man that called the pure WCO as well as anyone but stubborn and unwilling to change a game plan to account for key injures etc. Holmy the GM hampered Holmy the HC IMO. i DUNNO. By today's standards hes probably in . He didnt win it and his and loss of cool on the sidelines while totally justified threw his team off on a night where they would have had to be perfect to beat the Stealers and Leavey. A really really good coach but maybe not great.

Hawktawk wrote:3 Super bowl teams and a Lombardi. But some would say he underachieved. A classy man that called the pure WCO as well as anyone but stubborn and unwilling to change a game plan to account for key injures etc. Holmy the GM hampered Holmy the HC IMO. i DUNNO. By today's standards hes probably in . He didnt win it and his and loss of cool on the sidelines while totally justified threw his team off on a night where they would have had to be perfect to beat the Stealers and Leavey. A really really good coach but maybe not great.

I agree with your assessment of Holmgren. It seems to me that one of the standards should be multiple Lombari trophies. Heck, Tom Coughlin has two, and not too many people consider him HOF material.

You're exactly right about Holmgren the GM. The man had a huge ego. Players used to refer to him as "The Show".

Among his peers of his era, maybe he deserves HoF. In the modern era, getting multiple trophies is pretty hard. Only HoF lock I see for coaches with the multiple Lombardi's in the modern era is Bill B. Everyone else seems lucky to get even one. Coughlin is one of the only others with multiple since what? 2000s?

I hope he gets in. He took 2 different teams to the SB, won 1 and was ripped off in the other.
He was also the HC of very competitive teams over the course of his coaching career.

NorthHawk wrote:I hope he gets in. He took 2 different teams to the SB, won 1 and was ripped off in the other.
He was also the HC of very competitive teams over the course of his coaching career.

I agree north . Good post

Here's a complete list of the semifinalists for the coach/contributor class of 2023, listed in alphabetical order:

K.S. "Bud" Adams Jr.
Roone Arledge
C.O. Brocato
Don Coryell
Otho Davis
Ralph Hay
Mike Holmgren
Frank "Bucko" Kilroy
Eddie Kotal
Robert Kraft
Rich McKay
John McVay
Art Modell
Clint Murchison Jr.
Buddy Parker
Carl Peterson
Dan Reeves
Lee Remmel
Art Rooney Jr.
Marty Schottenheimer
Jerry Seeman
Mike Shanahan
Clark Shaughnessy
Seymour Siwoff
Amy Trask
Jim Tunney
Jack Vainisi
Lloyd Wells

https://www.nfl.com/news/pro-football-h ... -in-senior

There's not that many inductees out of each class, from 4-8. Last year, there was 15, but that was due to there being no class in 2020 due to the pandemic. Plus this is just one category from which they may take just one or two. With that few of inductees, it would seem doubtful that The Walrus will make the cut.

Some would appear to me to be heads and shoulders above Holmgren, like Bud Adams, who was a charter owner in the old AFL, and Don Coryell, an innovative coach that was ahead of his time with his "Air Coryell" offense. Dan Reeves was a solid starting player with an 8-year playing career including a SB ring in addition to being a head coach with 3 SB appearances. Roone Arledge was a television producer credited with the creation of Monday Night Football that took the game into the modern era.

Last I checked neither Reeves nor Coryell ever won a single championship . Coryell never went . Part of my argument for Holmgren and our other guy Pete is the body of work . And in the case of Pete that legendary run of defenses . I do believe Holmgren was cheated out of XL. We all were . He didn’t help himself by losing his $h@T with the officials but even Bill Leavy admitted “ I booted a couple calls that affected the outcome of the game “ .

If losing that game is a minus surely getting the Seattle chickens to their first one is a huge plus . That’s a daunting list to survive but Holmgren with 3 trips and a Lombardi and competetive teams most years of career is deserving of the honor at some point .

I'm surprised Coryell isn't already in the HoF.
He was a pioneer of today's Offenses and his concepts and many of his plays are still being used today.
That kind of influence on the game should have been rewarded years ago even if he didn't make it to a championship.

Hawktawk wrote:Last I checked neither Reeves nor Coryell ever won a single championship . Coryell never went . Part of my argument for Holmgren and our other guy Pete is the body of work . And in the case of Pete that legendary run of defenses . I do believe Holmgren was cheated out of XL. We all were . He didn’t help himself by losing his $h@T with the officials but even Bill Leavy admitted “ I booted a couple calls that affected the outcome of the game “ .

If losing that game is a minus surely getting the Seattle chickens to their first one is a huge plus . That’s a daunting list to survive but Holmgren with 3 trips and a Lombardi and competetive teams most years of career is deserving of the honor at some point .

Winning a championship isn't the only criteria. There are several coaches in the HOF that never won a championship, including Bud Grant, George Allen, and Marv Levy. Here's what Wiki had to say about Dan Reeves:

After acquiring quarterback John Elway in a trade, Reeves guided the Broncos to six post-season appearances, five divisional titles, three AFC championships, and three Super Bowl appearances (Super Bowl XXI, Super Bowl XXII, and Super Bowl XXIV) during his twelve year tenure. He was the only AFC coach in the decade of the 1980s to lead his team to consecutive Super Bowl berths, and his Broncos appeared in the Super Bowl three times during a span of four years.

Whether or not that trumps Holmgren's resume is debatable but puts him in the conversation. Plus Reeves was a much better player than Holmgren. The Walrus never even appeared in an NFL game where as Reeves set several club records with the Cowboys and is in the Texas Sports HOF.

As far as Coryell is concerned, North Hawk put it well, that he was an innovator.

I don’t necessarily disagree with Coryell. Those teams with Fouts were tough although I’d credit the genius bill Walsh within much more influence on the pro passing offense . Coryell always seemed to have excellent skill pieces around Fouts . They were done in first by the marathon in Miami then the frigid weather in Cincy after being emotionally and physically drained . Great coaches and players often never win a Super Bowl . Those who do win one or even go should be thankful .
You have to be lucky and good . Better to be lucky and good then great and unlucky . If you’re great and lucky it’s a dynasty . 2 words . Tuck rule. Tennessee stopped on the one after winning the Memphis miracle game . Our 2014 hawks a yard from winning a game they had absolutely no business being in to begin with. Joe Burrow a millisecond from a game winning TD pass but Donald got there first . It’s not easy .I think maybe we judge coaches too harshly based on superbowls .

Coryell is the father of today's passing game.
Bill Walsh is the father of the WCO. The WCO uses some of the concepts from Coryell's Offenses as do all of today's Offenses at all levels.

RiverDog wrote:CANTON, Ohio -- Super Bowl-winning coaches Mike Shanahan and Mike Holmgren are among 54 seniors, coaches and contributors named as semifinalists for the Pro Football Hall of Fame's class of 2023.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/342 ... ifinalists

IMO his resume comes up a little short and I'd be surprised if he makes the final cut, but it seems like my personal bar for players and coaches is considerably higher than that of the HOF committee that makes the call.

I agree but how did Tom Flores make in River?

RiverDog wrote:CANTON, Ohio -- Super Bowl-winning coaches Mike Shanahan and Mike Holmgren are among 54 seniors, coaches and contributors named as semifinalists for the Pro Football Hall of Fame's class of 2023.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/342 ... ifinalists

IMO his resume comes up a little short and I'd be surprised if he makes the final cut, but it seems like my personal bar for players and coaches is considerably higher than that of the HOF committee that makes the call.

obiken wrote:I agree but how did Tom Flores make in River?

I'm not sure how Flores made it in. Maybe he had some Polaroids of Roger Goodell in some compromising positions.

Flores is a good example of a way too liberal HOF committee. They've lowered the bar so much that they've cheapened the honor. It's reflected in my own opinion of who is a HOF candidate and who isn't. For example, I personally feel that RW needs a league MVP or a SB MVP to ensure induction or a little more beefy stats where he gets well within the top 10 in the major statistical category like his contemporaries, ie Brees and Brady. But that's neither here nor there.

Hawktawk wrote:I don’t necessarily disagree with Coryell. Those teams with Fouts were tough although I’d credit the genius bill Walsh within much more influence on the pro passing offense . Coryell always seemed to have excellent skill pieces around Fouts . They were done in first by the marathon in Miami then the frigid weather in Cincy after being emotionally and physically drained . Great coaches and players often never win a Super Bowl . Those who do win one or even go should be thankful .

If you want to get technical, Paul Brown was the creator of what became known as the west coast offense. Walsh was the OC for Brown when the two were in Cincinatti, a team that Brown himself literally created. Brown was arguably the biggest innovator in the game. That's not to take away anything from Walsh. He took what Brown taught him and took it to the next level. They were both brilliant football minds.

Coryell's offense was summed up by passing to set up the pass. Running was an afterthought. I think of Coryell similar to how I think of Sid Gillman, the original Charger's head coach and also a member of the HOF. Coryell belongs in the Hall. It's because of those guys that I get offended when they induct a coach like Flores, who was a midget in comparison.

Only in retrospect am I happy or grateful for winning a Super Bowl. I am not satisfied unless we actually win one, and it's a huge disappointment for me when our season ends without a Lombardi. I'm a little selfish in that respect.

RiverDog wrote:If you want to get technical, Paul Brown was the creator of what became known as the west coast offense. Walsh was the OC for Brown when the two were in Cincinatti, a team that Brown himself literally created. Brown was arguably the biggest innovator in the game. That's not to take away anything from Walsh. He took what Brown taught him and took it to the next level. They were both brilliant football minds.

Coryell's offense was summed up by passing to set up the pass. Running was an afterthought. I think of Coryell similar to how I think of Sid Gillman, the original Charger's head coach and also a member of the HOF. Coryell belongs in the Hall. It's because of those guys that I get offended when they induct a coach like Flores, who was a midget in comparison.

Only in retrospect am I happy or grateful for winning a Super Bowl. I am not satisfied unless we actually win one, and it's a huge disappointment for me when our season ends without a Lombardi. I'm a little selfish in that respect.

Not sure how you stayed a Seattle fan given how little we win Championships with any of our teams. At least you're not a flavor of the year team jumper when Seattle is doing badly, which has been the case most of their history if a Super Bowl at the end of the year is satisfaction.

I enjoy watching myself. I have no power over whether Seattle wins or loses. I stick with the team because I was born here and I like to root for the home teams. I did follow the Bulls when Michael Jordan was there, but I wasn't a Bulls fan. I was a Jordan fan. When he left, I never paid any attention to the Bulls again. At this point, I wouldn't mind having a basketball team back. It's nice to have home teams to follow during the sports seasons. I don't like hockey and soccer enough to follow those teams, though I'd probably watch a championship series with hockey maybe.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Not sure how you stayed a Seattle fan given how little we win Championships with any of our teams. At least you're not a flavor of the year team jumper when Seattle is doing badly, which has been the case most of their history if a Super Bowl at the end of the year is satisfaction.

I enjoy watching myself. I have power over whether Seattle wins or loses. I stick with the team because I was born here and I like to root for the home teams. I did follow the Bulls when Michael Jordan was there, but I wasn't a Bulls fan. I was a Jordan fan. When he left, I never paid any attention to the Bulls again. At this point, I wouldn't mind having a basketball team back. It's nice to have home teams to follow during the sports seasons. I don't like hockey and soccer enough to follow those teams, though I'd probably watch a championship series with hockey maybe.

Trust me, I always have been, and always will be, a diehard Seahawk fan. The fact that I have ended every season but one hugely disappointed hasn't and won't deter me from soldiering on. It's one of those things with me: Never settle for being 2nd best. Always strive to be better. Never give up.

Seattle has been a sort of home away from home all of my life. My aunt lived there, and we visited at least a couple times a year, so I've followed the Sonics, Pilots, Mariners, and Seahawks, all from the day they were born, religiously, as did my parents.

RiverDog wrote:Trust me, I always have been, and always will be, a diehard Seahawk fan. The fact that I have ended every season but one hugely disappointed hasn't and won't deter me from soldiering on. It's one of those things with me: Never settle for being 2nd best. Always strive to be better. Never give up.

Seattle has been a sort of home away from home all of my life. My aunt lived there, and we visited at least a couple times a year, so I've followed the Sonics, Pilots, Mariners, and Seahawks, all from the day they were born, religiously, as did my parents.

I've heard that delusion about "never settle for second best" or "2nd place is the first loser." Never bought into myself. You'd never do or pursue anything if that really was the criteria for competition. Why bother competing every year if there is only one winner? Pretty pointless to even try at that point as 99.9999% of people will never be good enough to win much of anything.

I do believe strongly in self-improvement and competition providing a guide to self-improvement though most will mostly compete against themselves and what they did before. Winning is nice, but the process is more important than the end result. It follows that should you continue the process, the end result should eventually be a championship or some positive end result like making more money, getting stronger, or some goal you set out as well as all the positives gained from engaging in the process. I don't bother with worrying too much about the end result as it will take care of itself if you have a very good process. I would never taint my team with feelings of failure should they not "win" the championship. I would analyze what went wrong in the game before the loss and correct that, then it would fix itself.

Championships are the result of a very well-designed process or system. That is why teams like the Patriots and Steelers have more than most. They have a very good system in place for producing them under their current regimes. That's why I liked Paul Allen as owner. He had a good process for producing a competitive team. It's too bad he didn't have kids like the Rooney Family to pass on the team to and continue the system.

I imagine if you really believed as you do, you would have stopped watching sports teams, especially Seattle sports teams, a long time ago. So you must just enjoy watching them yearly and growing towards hopefully a championship as well.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I've heard that delusion about "never settle for second best" or "2nd place is the first loser." Never bought into myself. You'd never do or pursue anything if that really was the criteria for competition. Why bother competing every year if there is only one winner? Pretty pointless to even try at that point as 99.9999% of people will never be good enough to win much of anything.

I do believe strongly in self-improvement and competition providing a guide to self-improvement though most will mostly compete against themselves and what they did before. Winning is nice, but the process is more important than the end result. It follows that should you continue the process, the end result should eventually be a championship or some positive end result like making more money, getting stronger, or some goal you set out as well as all the positives gained from engaging in the process. I don't bother with worrying too much about the end result as it will take care of itself if you have a very good process. I would never taint my team with feelings of failure should they not "win" the championship. I would analyze what went wrong in the game before the loss and correct that, then it would fix itself.

Championships are the result of a very well-designed process or system. That is why teams like the Patriots and Steelers have more than most. They have a very good system in place for producing them under their current regimes. That's why I liked Paul Allen as owner. He had a good process for producing a competitive team. It's too bad he didn't have kids like the Rooney Family to pass on the team to and continue the system.

I imagine if you really believed as you do, you would have stopped watching sports teams, especially Seattle sports teams, a long time ago. So you must just enjoy watching them yearly and growing towards hopefully a championship as well.

As you might have suspected, I've read a lot about JFK and the Kennedy family. The old man, Joseph Sr., taught his kids never to settle for 2nd best, that the only thing that mattered was winning, that anything else was unsatisfactory. One night at the supper table, Bobby announced to the family that he was going to become a priest, to which the old man replied "Good! It will be nice to have a Pope in the family."

You don't want to settle for 2nd best, and what I mean by 'settle' isn't to be associated with being a poor sport or demeaning anyone that doesn't finish first. What I mean by 'settle' is not to be satisfied, to push yourself to greater heights, don't rest on your laurels.

You've mentioned to me that you work out regularly. Working out involves goal setting, that you want to do X number of minutes on the aerobic machine, lift X number of pounds on the bench press. If you achieve that goal, are you satisfied with your performance, or on the next day, do you push yourself to lift 10 more pounds, go an extra 2 minutes beyond what you did before? That's not a perfect analogy, but it's as close as I can come to explaining how I approach my expectations for my favorite teams.

RiverDog wrote:As you might have suspected, I've read a lot about JFK and the Kennedy family. The old man, Joseph Sr., taught his kids never to settle for 2nd best, that the only thing that mattered was winning, that anything else was unsatisfactory. One night at the supper table, Bobby announced to the family that he was going to become a priest, to which the old man replied "Good! It will be nice to have a Pope in the family."

You don't want to settle for 2nd best, and what I mean by 'settle' isn't to be associated with being a poor sport or demeaning anyone that doesn't finish first. What I mean by 'settle' is not to be satisfied, to push yourself to greater heights, don't rest on your laurels.

You've mentioned to me that you work out regularly. Working out involves goal setting, that you want to do X number of minutes on the aerobic machine, lift X number of pounds on the bench press. If you achieve that goal, are you satisfied with your performance, or on the next day, do you push yourself to lift 10 more pounds, go an extra 2 minutes beyond what you did before? That's not a perfect analogy, but it's as close as I can come to explaining how I approach my expectations for my favorite teams.

When I was younger, I did go after certain goals. Not being first place or any of that, but certain goals. Bench 400 lbs or four plates, get 20 inch arms, and squat 500 lbs. I did bench 400 lbs. Only got my arms to 17 3/4 inches and about 19 inches pumped muscular. Found out to have muscular 20 inch arms naturally required very good genetics otherwise you would have to use steroids as that was extremely uncommon. I did squat 525 lbs. I still lift now and it helps keep me in shape. That's what I'm talking about when I say the process is more important than the end result. If I had never started lifting, I would never have gained the benefits of lifting. If my only criteria was being "1st place in something" and anything else made my effort not worthwhile, then what would I do? Stop lifting because I couldn't be the best or win 1st place at some contest?

There are literally thousands of people who probably told themselves to be the best at something. Yet there are only a handful of people that ever are or can come close to making that claim. I learned that fact early on. So I came to the conclusion if you enjoy the process or activity, you should pursue it. You can push it as far as your natural genetics, environment, and will allow. If that is all the way to the NFL and a championship, awesome. If not and you still enjoy what you're doing, keep doing it regardless of the result.

I'm not the best investor. I'm not Warren Buffett or Stanley Druckenmiller. I still make money, sometimes quite a bit, and the activity of investing is interesting, productive, and much better than the alternative of blowing my cash on crap that does nothing and then complaining rich people are screwing me.

I understand the underlying idea of people who use that phrase, but it's not a necessary criteria to accomplish a great deal. Goal setting can be accomplished without being number one and you will still be better for it.

Most people that do end up winning, they lose a lot before they win and dedicate a lot of their life to that single pursuit. If it's worth it to you, then you go for it. But even for those who will never win, they will benefit greatly from undertaking the process of goal making and self-improvement. I think using ideas like "2nd place is the first loser" or similar ideas is more discouraging than teaching goal setting and good process which is less intimidating, still highly productive, and often leads to the same end goal as well without obsessing over who is number one. At least that is how I see it.

Never let losing deter you from competing or engaging in an activity you enjoy. Even the very best to ever do it lose more than the win as far as championships go. It's because they got out there are competed that even allowed them to have a shot at winning it all.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Among his peers of his era, maybe he deserves HoF. In the modern era, getting multiple trophies is pretty hard. Only HoF lock I see for coaches with the multiple Lombardi's in the modern era is Bill B. Everyone else seems lucky to get even one. Coughlin is one of the only others with multiple since what? 2000s?

Excellent point! Especially since the changes made to the draft by the NFL that penalize teams who succeed.

I was trying to find another coach who won more than one and I couldn't find one other than Coughlin and Bill B.

There are multiple teams that won two Super Bowls in the 2000s since the salary cap, but usually with different coaches. I think modern coaching Hall of Fame criteria may differ from the past where multiple Lombardis was the drive.

What other coaches have won twice during the last 20 years?

Aseahawkfan wrote:I was trying to find another coach who won more than one and I couldn't find one other than Coughlin and Bill B.

There are multiple teams that won two Super Bowls in the 2000s since the salary cap, but usually with different coaches. I think modern coaching Hall of Fame criteria may differ from the past where multiple Lombardis was the drive.

What other coaches have won twice during the last 20 years?

Does getting your team to the Superbowl and winning one, make you a HOFamer? I dont know, I Marv Leavy was a great coach who got there 4 times, along with Bud Grant, they are HOFamers. Holmy, I would say yes, because he took two teams to the SB and won one. Flowers, no way!

obiken wrote:Does getting your team to the Superbowl and winning one, make you a HOFamer? I dont know, I Marv Leavy was a great coach who got there 4 times, along with Bud Grant, they are HOFamers. Holmy, I would say yes, because he took two teams to the SB and won one. Flowers, no way!

I think Pete Carroll has a better chance of making it into the Hall of myself once he's done. He has a back to back Super Bowls and 4 points away from winning. He built a legendary defense that set the NFL record with four straight years of number one points allowed and earned the name The Legion of Boom. He took an under-sized QB and put him as the leader of his team with spectacular success.

I feel like if Holmgren makes it, Pete should make it. But we'll see how it goes. Pete would almost guarantee his trip if he could win one more Super Bowl.

obiken wrote:Does getting your team to the Superbowl and winning one, make you a HOFamer? I dont know, I Marv Leavy was a great coach who got there 4 times, along with Bud Grant, they are HOFamers. Holmy, I would say yes, because he took two teams to the SB and won one. Flowers, no way!

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think Pete Carroll has a better chance of making it into the Hall of myself once he's done. He has a back to back Super Bowls and 4 points away from winning. He built a legendary defense that set the NFL record with four straight years of number one points allowed and earned the name The Legion of Boom. He took an under-sized QB and put him as the leader of his team with spectacular success.

I feel like if Holmgren makes it, Pete should make it. But we'll see how it goes. Pete would almost guarantee his trip if he could win one more Super Bowl.

Outside of Belichek, I don't see any HOF quality coaches since 2000, according to my own personal standards. Mike Reid, maybe, if he gets another Lombardi. Parity is a killer as far as coaches go.

There's a couple of things that sets Holmgren above Pete. The first is that Pete got fired from two NFL jobs. Not so with Holmgren. The Walrus took two different teams to the SB. Pete has had just the one. Holmgren's coaching tree is much more impressive than Pete's, with Andy Reid, Steve Mariucci, Dick Jauron, Ray Rhodes, and Jon Gruden compared to Pete's Lane Kiffen, Dan Quinn, and Gus Bradley.

Outside of Belichek, I don't see any HOF quality coaches since 2000, according to my own personal standards. Mike Reid, maybe, if he gets another Lombardi. Parity is a killer as far as coaches go.

There's a couple of things that sets Holmgren above Pete. The first is that Pete got fired from two NFL jobs. Not so with Holmgren. The Walrus took two different teams to the SB. Pete has had just the one. Holmgren's coaching tree is much more impressive than Pete's, with Andy Reid, Steve Mariucci, Dick Jauron, Ray Rhodes, and Jon Gruden compared to Pete's Lane Kiffen, Dan Quinn, and Gus Bradley.

I think it goes on Wins, and Reid is home. He has almost 80 wins more than PC, (233) That's why I think Mary Shotty gets in. Reid is better than Holmy IF you go by wins and winning percentage, and wins he has 70 more wins than Holmy. Flores has only 97 wins and only a 527 win %.

RiverDog wrote:Outside of Belichek, I don't see any HOF quality coaches since 2000, according to my own personal standards. Mike Reid, maybe, if he gets another Lombardi. Parity is a killer as far as coaches go.

There's a couple of things that sets Holmgren above Pete. The first is that Pete got fired from two NFL jobs. Not so with Holmgren. The Walrus took two different teams to the SB. Pete has had just the one. Holmgren's coaching tree is much more impressive than Pete's, with Andy Reid, Steve Mariucci, Dick Jauron, Ray Rhodes, and Jon Gruden compared to Pete's Lane Kiffen, Dan Quinn, and Gus Bradley.

I think Carroll is a shoe in with one more Lombardi. Holmgren never a built a defense like the Legion of Boom. In fact, historically they beat out defenses like the Steel Curtain, Baltimore's legendary defense, Purple People Eaters, Doomsday Defense, and every great defense in history for most years leading the league in points allowed. That's pretty big on a coaching resume.

RiverDog wrote:Outside of Belichek, I don't see any HOF quality coaches since 2000, according to my own personal standards. Mike Reid, maybe, if he gets another Lombardi. Parity is a killer as far as coaches go.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think Carroll is a shoe in with one more Lombardi. Holmgren never a built a defense like the Legion of Boom. In fact, historically they beat out defenses like the Steel Curtain, Baltimore's legendary defense, Purple People Eaters, Doomsday Defense, and every great defense in history for most years leading the league in points allowed. That's pretty big on a coaching resume.

If Pete wins another Lombardi, I agree that it elevates him to shoe in status. Even if he just gets to another one or even takes a couple teams to conference championship games, it would be a very strong statement that likely gets him in as it would obviously improve his record in other categories that the committee looks at.

But, on the other hand, if he finishes out his coaching career with more .500ish, one and done playoff teams as we've seen in these past 7 seasons, I doubt that he makes it as it would sink him down to the same group of active coaches that Harbaugh and McCarthy are in.

Here's a comparison of the active NFL coaches. The columns don't line up making it difficult to read, but if you click on the link, you can get a better feel for it and rank them according to category. As far as regular season winning percentages go, Pete's .593 ranks him way down the list of active NFL coaches, not even in the top 10 and only 7th if you limit it to 100+ games:

Regular Season Record Service Championships
Name Team Seasons Gms W L T Pct Yrs Post DIV CON LG SB
Bill Belichick NE 1991-95,00-22 433 290 143 0 .670 28 19 17 9 6 6
Andy Reid KC 1999-22 369 233 135 1 .633 24 17 12 3 1 1
Mike Tomlin PIT 2007-22 241 154 85 2 .643 16 10 7 2 1 1
Pete Carroll SEA 1994,97-99,10-22 257 152 104 1 .593 17 11 6 2 1 1
Mike McCarthy DAL 2006-18,20-22 237 143 92 2 .608 16 10 7 1 1 1
John Harbaugh BAL 2008-22 225 137 88 0 .609 15 9 4 1 1 1

https://www.footballdb.com/coaches/inde ... %20rows%20

Posted this early today under "talk about Denver" post but here it is for this post:


You guys have interesting opinions on what makes a candidate for Hall of Fame whether player or coach...so I'll offer mine. To begin with the selection committee itself is a media representative board :

The Committee consists of one media representative from each pro football city — with two from New York and two from Los Angeles, as those cities each have two teams in the National Football League. There are 16 at-large Selectors, who are active members of the media or persons intricately involved in professional football, including one representative of the Pro Football Writers of America. All appointments are open-ended and approved annually by a majority vote of the Hall of Fame's Board of Trustees.

The committee itself does not nominate...nominations are received from a variety of sources...but the committee decides from those nominations who actually gets enshrined. Certain standards...minimum thresholds can be assumed by career statistics or the achievement of some pinnacle event like a Super Bowl or World Series...but the intention is to recognize the people who embodied/are representative of...the ideal merits/influence of the sport they represent whether it be a combination of career stats/character/influence...something that draws a collective appeal to honor and single out those individuals that made a difference ...in the minds of those committee members.

Career stats are always filtered by being relative to the time period they were made...that is what makes them standout otherwise all career stats would be plagued by an "asterisk"...rule changes...equipment changes can alter how an individual performs...even subtle changes in the way colleges play their seasons can help shape the odds of when a player can "jump start" their career. Opportunity and what an individual does with that opportunity can often shape the time era they influenced. An individual who "transforms" a sport often gets first time enshrinement...Walter Payton...Wilt Chamberlain...Hank Aaron...Wayne Gretzky. Several Seahawk individuals past and present may one day merit themselves as viable consideration for the Hall of Fame.

Yeah, the HOF discussion belongs here, not in the Mayfield thread. Sometimes our discussions go off on some weird tangents.

To sum up my thoughts on the various HOF discussions:

1. I do not think that Mike Holmgren has a good enough resume to be given a gold jacket. 2. I think that Pete is a peg below Holmgren at this point of his career, and that if he were to retire today, he won't get inducted. 3. With the exception of Bill B., the only NFL head coach in the 21st century era that is a first round HOF'er is Andy Reid. 4. I fully recognize that my standard for HOF inclusion, for both players and coaches, is higher than the committee's. Like a lot of fans, I tend to think solely in terms of how I would vote and not necessarily in terms of their actual chances.

RiverDog wrote:
To sum up my thoughts on the various HOF discussions:

1. I do not think that Mike Holmgren has a good enough resume to be given a gold jacket. 2. I think that Pete is a peg below Holmgren at this point of his career, and that if he were to retire today, he won't get inducted. 3. With the exception of Bill B., the only NFL head coach in the 21st century era that is a first round HOF'er is Andy Reid. 4. I fully recognize that my standard for HOF inclusion, for both players and coaches, is higher than the committee's. Like a lot of fans, I tend to think solely in terms of how I would vote and not necessarily in terms of their actual chances.

If you’re putting guys like Coryell who never went to or Levy who never won one you gotta put Holmgren in with 3 appearances including Seattle’s first and a Lombardi. I have him a peg under Carroll . Holmgren had a GM named Ron Wolf who filled his every wish including Reggie White and Brett Favre , stars at the skill positions seemingly every year , great O lines . And when Favre threw the pick to lose to Denver in the second SB a wolf was furious at Holmgren , said of the ruined dynasty “ were a fart in the wind” , could t wait to get rid of him .and in the travesty that was XL Holmgrens outbursts and temper tantrums made a bad situation worse . In Seattle his teams were soft , couldn’t beat anyone on the east coast , never won a playoff game on the road .

Pete built his team . Pete built the greatest defense of the modern era in terms of longevity . Pete picked a 5’10” runt over a guy making 20 million who was signed as the presumed starter . That took balls . That helped Russel greatly in his career as it helped Seattle . and for all the crap about Bevell he designed a read option offense and a ground and pound run game to utilize Russell’s strengths . That second super bowl doesn’t happen without the team Pete put around Wilson when special teams and defense was the only reason along with luck that we were in overtime with Russels dreadful performance . In the end he put the ball in Russels hands to win it and he threw it to the other team . Bad call and worse execution
Still in all I think Pete should be in as well .

RiverDog wrote:
To sum up my thoughts on the various HOF discussions:

1. I do not think that Mike Holmgren has a good enough resume to be given a gold jacket. 2. I think that Pete is a peg below Holmgren at this point of his career, and that if he were to retire today, he won't get inducted. 3. With the exception of Bill B., the only NFL head coach in the 21st century era that is a first round HOF'er is Andy Reid. 4. I fully recognize that my standard for HOF inclusion, for both players and coaches, is higher than the committee's. Like a lot of fans, I tend to think solely in terms of how I would vote and not necessarily in terms of their actual chances.

Hawktawk wrote:If you’re putting guys like Coryell who never went to or Levy who never won one you gotta put Holmgren in with 3 appearances including Seattle’s first and a Lombardi. I have him a peg under Carroll . Holmgren had a GM named Ron Wolf who filled his every wish including Reggie White and Brett Favre , stars at the skill positions seemingly every year , great O lines . And when Favre threw the pick to lose to Denver in the second SB a wolf was furious at Holmgren , said of the ruined dynasty “ were a fart in the wind” , could t wait to get rid of him .and in the travesty that was XL Holmgrens outbursts and temper tantrums made a bad situation worse . In Seattle his teams were soft , couldn’t beat anyone on the east coast , never won a playoff game on the road .

Pete built his team . Pete built the greatest defense of the modern era in terms of longevity . Pete picked a 5’10” runt over a guy making 20 million who was signed as the presumed starter . That took balls . That helped Russel greatly in his career as it helped Seattle . and for all the crap about Bevell he designed a read option offense and a ground and pound run game to utilize Russell’s strengths . That second super bowl doesn’t happen without the team Pete put around Wilson when special teams and defense was the only reason along with luck that we were in overtime with Russels dreadful performance . In the end he put the ball in Russels hands to win it and he threw it to the other team . Bad call and worse execution
Still in all I think Pete should be in as well .

No, I don't 'gotta' put Holmgren ahead of Levy and Coryell. As was discussed, it's not all about championships and W/L records. Levy went to four consecutive SB's, a feat that has never been done before and unlikely to be done any time in the future. It's a feat comparable to Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak. Coryell was a true innovator, and arguably changed the game.

Neither Holmgren or Pete did anything that hasn't been done before, so their resumes are more likely to be more statistical in nature, ie W/L records and percentages, SB championships, playoff appearances, that sort of thing. But it's hard to tell how the committee will vote or what criteria they'll use. If they use the same criteria they used to admit Flores, there's a whole bunch of coaches that have a legitimate case.

RiverDog wrote:Yeah, the HOF discussion belongs here, not in the Mayfield thread. Sometimes our discussions go off on some weird tangents.

To sum up my thoughts on the various HOF discussions:

1. I do not think that Mike Holmgren has a good enough resume to be given a gold jacket. 2. I think that Pete is a peg below Holmgren at this point of his career, and that if he were to retire today, he won't get inducted. 3. With the exception of Bill B., the only NFL head coach in the 21st century era that is a first round HOF'er is Andy Reid. 4. I fully recognize that my standard for HOF inclusion, for both players and coaches, is higher than the committee's. Like a lot of fans, I tend to think solely in terms of how I would vote and not necessarily in terms of their actual chances.

Why would you give it to Andy Reid? I never cared for Reid as a coach myself. I've seen that guy get outcoached in big games too often. I couldn't pick Reid myself, though I guess for pure longevity and regular season wins he would make it in. And he finally has a Super Bowl because Patrick Mahomes is elite.

The criteria in the modern era will be lower or no coaches would make it in but Bill B. Not even sure Reid would make it in unless he wins another Lombardi.

RiverDog wrote:Yeah, the HOF discussion belongs here, not in the Mayfield thread. Sometimes our discussions go off on some weird tangents.

To sum up my thoughts on the various HOF discussions:

1. I do not think that Mike Holmgren has a good enough resume to be given a gold jacket. 2. I think that Pete is a peg below Holmgren at this point of his career, and that if he were to retire today, he won't get inducted. 3. With the exception of Bill B., the only NFL head coach in the 21st century era that is a first round HOF'er is Andy Reid. 4. I fully recognize that my standard for HOF inclusion, for both players and coaches, is higher than the committee's. Like a lot of fans, I tend to think solely in terms of how I would vote and not necessarily in terms of their actual chances.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Why would you give it to Andy Reid? I never cared for Reid as a coach myself. I've seen that guy get outcoached in big games too often. I couldn't pick Reid myself, though I guess for pure longevity and regular season wins he would make it in. And he finally has a Super Bowl because Patrick Mahomes is elite.

The criteria in the modern era will be lower or no coaches would make it in but Bill B. Not even sure Reid would make it in unless he wins another Lombardi.

[/quote]

Andy Reid currently ranks 5th all time in number of coaching wins and has a shot of passing Landry to claim the #4 spot. That alone is going to get him some serious consideration. His winning percentage is better than current modern day HOF coaches Joe Gibbs, Bill Cowher, Bill Walsh, Bill Parcells, Marv Levy, Jimmy Johnson, Tom Flores, and Dick Vermeil, among others. His teams have appeared in the playoffs in 17 of his 23 seasons. He is tied for 3rd with Don Shula for most playoff wins. Two more playoff wins and the only one above him will be Belichick.

I can't see how anyone in their right mind would put in Tom Flores or Bill Cowher in ahead of Andy Reid.

Reid is a great coach . Great . As I recall KC was a doormat when they hired him . He made several playoff appearances with Alex smith and he chose Mahomes and after one year moved away from Smith who was a proven solid if not spectacular qb. He’s made Philly look foolish firing him but of course they fired Doug Peterson 2 years after he won a Super Bowl with them . Reid has been a winning coach for 2 decades . It’s no coincidence Holmgren won with him as OC but when he left Holmgren lost . I always considered him better then Holmgren , even early on .

Hawktawk wrote:Reid is a great coach . Great . As I recall KC was a doormat when they hired him . He made several playoff appearances with Alex smith and he chose Mahomes and after one year moved away from Smith who was a proven solid if not spectacular qb. He’s made Philly look foolish firing him but of course they fired Doug Peterson 2 years after he won a Super Bowl with them . Reid has been a winning coach for 2 decades . It’s no coincidence Holmgren won with him as OC but when he left Holmgren lost . I always considered him better then Holmgren , even early on .

I pretty much agree with you about Reid, although I don't blame Philly for firing him. It's all hindsight now, but back then, it wasn't apparent that he was a great coach as he was more along the lines of a Marty Schottenheimer or Tom Coughlin, a similar situation to where us and Baltimore are with Pete and Harbaugh. Reid was getting a little stale in Philly, and both parties needed a change.

Hawktawk wrote:Reid is a great coach . Great . As I recall KC was a doormat when they hired him . He made several playoff appearances with Alex smith and he chose Mahomes and after one year moved away from Smith who was a proven solid if not spectacular qb. He’s made Philly look foolish firing him but of course they fired Doug Peterson 2 years after he won a Super Bowl with them . Reid has been a winning coach for 2 decades . It’s no coincidence Holmgren won with him as OC but when he left Holmgren lost . I always considered him better then Holmgren , even early on .

Me too, but go watch a football life Mike Holmgren. Farve, Young, and Hass, all say he was the best coach they ever played for. He was IMHO, the the best QB developer of the modern era. Montana, Young, and Farve all mentioned him at their HOF speeches. You cannot argue numbers, wins, and stats. Under your logic IF you win a league MVP, your in the Hall, sorry I dont see Spam Newton in the Hall waiting to see if Russ makes it in. Russ's numbers are just too glaring.

RiverDog wrote:Andy Reid currently ranks 5th all time in number of coaching wins and has a shot of passing Landry to claim the #4 spot. That alone is going to get him some serious consideration. His winning percentage is better than current modern day HOF coaches Joe Gibbs, Bill Cowher, Bill Walsh, Bill Parcells, Marv Levy, Jimmy Johnson, Tom Flores, and Dick Vermeil, among others. His teams have appeared in the playoffs in 17 of his 23 seasons. He is tied for 3rd with Don Shula for most playoff wins. Two more playoff wins and the only one above him will be Belichick.

I can't see how anyone in their right mind would put in Tom Flores or Bill Cowher in ahead of Andy Reid.

You're making my point for me. It don't take near as much to get in the Hall of Fame now. Cowher has one Super Bowl. Tom Flores, sheesh, what a joke.

So Pete and Holmgren got a shot.

You're making my point for me. It don't take near as much to get in the Hall of Fame now. Cowher has one Super Bowl. Tom Flores, sheesh, what a joke.

So Pete and Holmgren got a shot.

Holmy is in, period. Flores was a joke, and Pete IF he was to rebuild and just get us to the playoffs again okay, but I dont think he survives after next year. Does Tom Coghlin make it in? To me its an even bet but who knows. What a bout Chuck Knox? I think when you take 3 teams to the playoffs, that you rebuilt, I think you should be in the Hall.

RiverDog wrote:Andy Reid currently ranks 5th all time in number of coaching wins and has a shot of passing Landry to claim the #4 spot. That alone is going to get him some serious consideration. His winning percentage is better than current modern day HOF coaches Joe Gibbs, Bill Cowher, Bill Walsh, Bill Parcells, Marv Levy, Jimmy Johnson, Tom Flores, and Dick Vermeil, among others. His teams have appeared in the playoffs in 17 of his 23 seasons. He is tied for 3rd with Don Shula for most playoff wins. Two more playoff wins and the only one above him will be Belichick.

I can't see how anyone in their right mind would put in Tom Flores or Bill Cowher in ahead of Andy Reid.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You're making my point for me. It don't take near as much to get in the Hall of Fame now. Cowher has one Super Bowl. Tom Flores, sheesh, what a joke.

So Pete and Holmgren got a shot.

Obviously, they have a shot. I never said they didn't. My point was that Reid had a better shot than either Holmgren or Pete, that he's a legitimate candidate, IMO first ballot.

My reason for bringing up Flores and Cowher was to express my opinion that the Hall is way too liberal as to who they admit to the Hall, both players and coaches. It had nothing to do with any point regarding the Walrus and Pete's chances.

Looking at the list of candidates, I don't think that Holmgren gets in on this try. That was just a semifinalist list, meaning there's two more cut downs to survive before they can put on a gold jacket, and the Hall doesn't admit more than 8 total candidates in any given year. There's 27 names on the "coaches/contributors" list, of which they will pare down to 12 finalists, of which they'll likely just select one or two.