Does Parcells belong in the Pats HOF?

[Ring 6]

Trust me - I'm not hurt that you and others don't agree with my opinion on Parcells.

Quite the contrary, I'm pleased and proud that the Patriots staff, Patriots media, and former Patriots player all agree with my assessment of the Parcells years.

You seem to be by the tone of your posts.

Again, it is Ernie Adams, an equipment manager and a statistician that you are calling 'the Patriots staff' and 3 players that were retired before Parcells arrived that you are using (without knowing how they voted) as 'former Patriot players.
If all of those 6 chose someone other than Parcells, he could well have been nominated anyway.
I will stick by my opinion that hardcore Patriots fans are a better judge of who belongs in the Patriots HOF than the media members that voted.
I guess you have ceded your opinion to them, so you will no longer be able to disagree with any of them?

By the way, nominating him does not mean they agree with your assessment of his era, it means they found him as one of the 3 best choices out of eligible Patriots. There is a large difference there.

 

[Ring 6]

Baseball is slightly different just because there are still a lot of older writers on the Hall of Fame committee who still remember Rice, the politics for the voting on the HOF for baseball is way more political and petty, and number of votes to get in is so stringent. I mean there are guys who will never allow anyone to be a first ballot HOF because of what happened decades ago.

I didnt say its the same, but it is still a flawed source of judgment.

I have already said it was unforgivable, but it also doesn't diminish the positives he did for this team some of which we still feel today.

I guess we define unforgivable differently because you sound like you are forgiving him.
I never said he didnt bring positives to the organization, but those positives (.500 record and a trip to the SB in a stay that lasted only 4 years) are not HOF worthy.

People down on them for a year or two is different than the attitude circa 1992 where they were compared to the Bucs and Saints as a franchise that was a mess from the players, coaches, and owners and may never be good ever again. It was prior to parity in the NFL which really started late in the 90s and the attitudes have changed and doomed franchises like Tampa and New Orleans could actually turn it around and win a Super Bowl.

You are talking about the hope of the fans. All that it takes to change that is winning, going .500 for 4 years is not a magical accomplishment, nor is getting to a SB and losing.
The Bucs and Saints recovered fine from those years without Parcells. The contending for a while before someone else gets you to Championships is not a prerequisite.

If Parcells came in today, it would be a different thing because the league has changed dramatically in the last 15 years. It was before free agency and the cap really kicked into gear and people thought there were haves and have nots. The cap/free agency system changed all that within a decade's time.

I don't think the HOF should be based upon coming in when the team was bad and getting it to decent.
32-32 and a SB loss is probably a pretty good achievement for what he inherited, but not one worthy of the HOF.
Had he stayed, he would have had a nice start toward being a Patriot HOFer but he wasn't here long enough and didnt accomplish enough to be considered for such a lofty accolade.

 

[Ring 6]

OK, in that case I might have to make an exception...

I'd certainly give him the nod over Tuna just on cause and effect principle. Although if I'm going to start inducting coaches under whom the record/impact vs. tenure warrants consideration, RAC and Charlie would qualify ahead of Parcells IMO.

Right, my point was giving Parcells credit because some of the players drafted when he was here (still don't know how he gets credit for the draft picks when he bailed because he wasn't allowed to make them)
is a bizarre reason to enshrine him in the teams Hall of Fame.
Agree on Crennel and Weis as well.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I don't think that Bill Parcells' years in New England are the strongest part of his resume and I do not think he belongs in the Patriots HOF:

1) The strongest argument that can be made in support of Parcells' selection is that, upon his arrival, his reputation and two SB rings, one of which was "still warm" from its casting, rejuvenated interest in the team.

2) But, otherwise, his time here is not the highlight of his coaching resume. As others have pointed out, he lost as many regular season games as he won and did the same in the Playoffs.

3) While he took the Pats to the SB, he also made himself the story of that Super Bowl week. Like many, I thought at the time and continue to think to this day that he caused an undue distraction to his players that week. Was that the difference between their winning and losing that day? Probably not, but we'll never be able to know. In addition, Pete Carroll took the same team to a 10--6 Record the next season and came within a point of bringing them back to the Conference Championship.

4) In his four years, he improved the team a lot; there's no rational arguing against that fact. But crediting him with "turning the Patriots around," by implication into the team of the 2000's? No. that credit belongs to Kraft, Belichick and Brady.

So, Bill, you might get to Canton and you'll certainly belong in the Giants HOF, but not in Patriot Place.

 

[JoeSixPat]

By the way, nominating him does not mean they agree with your assessment of his era, it means they found him as one of the 3 best choices out of eligible Patriots. There is a large difference there.

Well let's just take a quick look at how the official New England Patriots website characterizes the nomination (you know, that organization that's biased and brainwashed into liking Parcells?)

The 2011 Patriots Hall of Fame finalists were selected by a panel of media, staff and alumni who meet each year to nominate the three former Patriots players or head coaches who they feel are most deserving of Hall of Fame induction.

So when they say "most deserving of Hall of Fame induction" to you that means "NOT most deserving of Hall of Fame induction"

I, and others, for some bizarre reason you can't seem to fathom, take that to mean that the nominators feel that Parcells is among those "most deserving of Hall of Fame induction."

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[RayClay]

Well let's just take a quick look at how the official New England Patriots website characterizes the nomination (you know, that organization that's biased and brainwashed into liking Parcells?)

So when they say "most deserving of Hall of Fame induction" to you that means "not necessarilly deserving of Hall of Fame induction"

I, and others, for some bizarre reason you can't seem to fathom, take that to mean that the nominators feel that Parcells is among those "most deserving of Hall of Fame induction."

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

So, the fact that he was nominated, means he was deserving, because the fact of him being nominated means he was deserving, because the nominators nominated those they felt most deserving, therefore the fact that they nominated him proves he was more deserving than anyone they didn't nominate, because, had they felt someone else was more deserving, they would have nominated someone else, yet they didn't which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, he was the most deserving candidate.

It's hard to argue with that.

 

[JoeSixPat]

So, the fact that he was nominated, means he was deserving, because the fact of him being nominated means he was deserving, because the nominators nominated those they felt most deserving, therefore the fact that they nominated him proves he was more deserving than anyone they didn't nominate, because, had they felt someone else was more deserving, they would have nominated someone else, yet they didn't which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, he was the most deserving candidate.

It's hard to argue with that.

Read what it says again, and I promise all will be clear.

They nominated the three most deserving candidates

They did not factor in poor reading comprehension, but they do make it clear that they view Parcells one of the three most deserving candidates.

Aside from that, your logic tree is correct... that they - the staff, media and former players that Bob Kraft and the entire Patriots organization trust to be on their Hall of Fame nomination committee, do in fact have a VERY high regard for Parcells and what he meant to the organization.

 

[Ring 6]

Well let's just take a quick look at how the official New England Patriots website characterizes the nomination (you know, that organization that's biased and brainwashed into liking Parcells?)

The criteria for nomination and the opinion you are arguing are not even close.

So when they say "most deserving of Hall of Fame induction" to you that means "NOT most deserving of Hall of Fame induction"

How does that come close to describing my point of view.

I, and others, for some bizarre reason you can't seem to fathom, take that to mean that the nominators feel that Parcells is among those "most deserving of Hall of Fame induction."

I take it that way too. I disagree that he is among the most deserving.
Seriously, this is a debate AFTER he was nominated about whether or not he is deserving.
The fact that the people who vote to nominate felt he should be nominated is assunmed before the discussion began.
The discussion is essentially "He was nominated, do you think he deserves to get in".
Your argument, after numerous pitfalls along the way, has now turned into:

Q: He was nominated, does he deserve to get it?
A: Of course he does because he was nominated.

Brilliant.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I don't know how 'we' diasgree on an argument you are having with yourself.
If you make up my side of the argument WITH ZERO BASIS TO DO SO FROM ANYTHING I HAVE POSTED, I wonder what point you are trying to make.

 

[Ring 6]

Read what it says again, and I promise all will be clear.

They nominated the three most deserving candidates

They did not factor in poor reading comprehension, but they do make it clear that they view Parcells one of the three most deserving candidates.

Aside from that, your logic tree is correct... that they - the staff, media and former players that Bob Kraft and the entire Patriots organization trust to be on their Hall of Fame nomination committee, do in fact have a VERY high regard for Parcells and what he meant to the organization.

It took 147 posts for you to change "Bill Parcells saved the Patriots" to "They nominated him didn't they".
Seriously, if your first post was "I think the fact that he was nominated proves he belongs" We could have saved pages of ridiculous overstatement of his contributions.

 

[Ring 6]

Well let's just take a quick look at how the official New England Patriots website characterizes the nomination (you know, that organization that's biased and brainwashed into liking Parcells?)



So when they say "most deserving of Hall of Fame induction" to you that means "NOT most deserving of Hall of Fame induction"

I, and others, for some bizarre reason you can't seem to fathom, take that to mean that the nominators feel that Parcells is among those "most deserving of Hall of Fame induction."

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Really, do you actually read anything you respond to?

I posted that the fact he was nominated is not proof that you argument which overexxagerates his contribution is correct.

You respond that I think that being nominated means he is NOT the most deserving.

Its like you are arguing that 2+2=3 and your argument consists of stating the + means add together and since I think it = 4 I clearly think + means mulitply.

Parcells is one of 3 HCs to take the Patriots to a SB. Some find that deserving of potential HOF induction. Those people do not have to agree with any of the outlandish arguments you are making in order to nominate him.
All people who vote have criteria. The fact that they voted the same way as you would have does not endorse that they view the criteria in the same way that you do.
Chris Hanburger was voted into the HOF this year. I cannot argue that I think he changed the position of LB and without him teams would have abandoned the 4-3 defense, and then say I have to be right because the knowledgable people that vote for the HOF elected him. Thats the same thing you are doing here.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Let's just agree that the New England Patriots Official Hall of Fame Selection Committee, made up of representatives chosen by the New England Patriots to select members of the New England Patriots Hall of Fame has nominated Bill Parcells as one of three individuals they deem "deserving of induction in the Hall of Fame"

You disagree with them. Their vote on that one counts and yours, thankfully, does not.

I actually have a bit of pride that in SPITE of all that went on with Parcell's departure etc that the players, staff and writers would still be objective and impartial making the nomination that they did.

That's classy in my eyes - recognizing someone's significant contributions even if it didn't end well.

That's the sort of thing that I feel always set the Patriots organization apart from so many others.

I actually expected most of the fans to echo that sentiment.

I'm a bit saddened to see that's not the case.

I don't think Parcells stands a shot against Bledsoe and who knows how he'll fare now or in the future. What's clear is that the nominating committee would have no problem with Parcells being inducted, and I very much feel the same way.

If Parcells wins he'll win for exactly the reason the nominating committee nominated him for... because he deserves it. Given this interchange that's going to be a VERY bitter pill for some to swallow. But it's a still a possibility given the fact that the nominating committee has deemed him "deserving"

 

[RayClay]

Read what it says again, and I promise all will be clear.

They nominated the three most deserving candidates

They did not factor in poor reading comprehension, but they do make it clear that they view Parcells one of the three most deserving candidates.

Aside from that, your logic tree is correct... that they - the staff, media and former players that Bob Kraft and the entire Patriots organization trust to be on their Hall of Fame nomination committee, do in fact have a VERY high regard for Parcells and what he meant to the organization.

They nominated Ron Burton. Does that mean he was one of the absolute best three candidates at the time? This is not a circular question, by the way, it's a yes no.

By the way, I don't have a problem with his being nominated (or Berry or Fairbanks, for that matter), but I do have a problem with circular logic.

 

[townes]

This is where we disagree.
Lets say for example, that the Patriots from 1993-2000 were totally mediocre or even inept. What they did from 2001 to today would not be diminished at all by that.

I agree that Parcells improved the team in the 4 years he was here. I would debate that he left it in good shape for Carroll, but that is debatable. There is no way his efforts reached all the way to 2001, in any greater degree than any coach who had been with a team for 4 years, 5 seasons ago.

Yes, Parcells made 1993-1996 more enjoyable.
That is not Hall of Fame worthy.

I agree that what they did between 2001-2010 wouldn't be diminished had the 90's gone worse but imo it does enhance the Patriots as a franchise because the fact of the matter is that they are the best team in football over the last 20 years, and the Parcells and Bledsoe era's play major roles in that. I haven't done the math but i'm almost certain no team has won more SB's, more conference championships, more division titles, and more games than the Patriots have in the last 20 years. I don't believe any team has enjoyed more success in the last 20 years but i'd like to see the argument one has. I believe that Parcells and Bledsoe changed the culture of the Patriots and we have enjoyed the fruits of that, they became consistent winners and remain that.

I didn't think Parcells left the Patriots in great shape for Carroll and disliked the whole dog and pony show that became the SB. On the other hand he brought them some of their great winners, e.g...Bruschi, McGinest, Brown, and Faulk and introduced them to Belichik, and i doubt Belichik would ever have become their HC had he not been there during Parcells tenure. Kraft deserves the bulk of the credit for giving up what it took to bring Belichik here but Parcells set the stage for that by bringing him in to start with.


I don't think that a statistical argument supports Parcells in the Patriots HOF but I think he belongs there, on the other hand I think a statistical argument supports Bledsoe for both the Patriots and Pro Football HOF but I believe he only belongs in the Patriots. In short I think there is more to it than simply the numbers and believe Parcells was the beginning of a sea change in NE and should get in for playing such an important role in the Patriots subsequent success. He brought winners and winning to NE and they have been on a roll ever since. I can see the arguments against and they are for the most part sound, i just see it differently. Big shock there.

 

[townes]

Now that I think of it faulk was probably a Carroll pick.

 

[RayClay]

Now that I think of it faulk was probably a Carroll pick.

Grier pick. Carroll had zero personnel authority, I believe and I'm sure he's glad not to be blamed for every pick besides Faulk (Woody was so so, for a 1st rounder).

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Grier pick. Carroll had zero personnel authority, I believe and I'm sure he's glad not to be blamed for every pick besides Faulk (Woody was so so, for a 1st rounder).

The 97 and 98 drafts were awful but 99 included Woody, Faulk, Sean Morey and Katzenmoyer who had a very good rookie year before his neck injury.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I don't think that a statistical argument supports Parcells in the Patriots HOF but I think he belongs there, on the other hand I think a statistical argument supports Bledsoe for both the Patriots and Pro Football HOF but I believe he only belongs in the Patriots. In short I think there is more to it than simply the numbers and believe Parcells was the beginning of a sea change in NE and should get in for playing such an important role in the Patriots subsequent success. He brought winners and winning to NE and they have been on a roll ever since. I can see the arguments against and they are for the most part sound, i just see it differently. Big shock there.

Thank you. You've restored some hope for me that there's ample reason and sanity among Patfandom.

As you've assessed, so too did the selection committee look beyond simple stats to assess the big picture of football in New England at a VERY pivotal and tumultuous time, recognizing Parcells role restoring credibility and establishing a winning attitude.

Of course the selection committee isn't going to get caught up in Parcells W-L record - and while they might share some fans emotional reactions akin to that of a boyfriend jilted at the prom relevant to his exit, they're not going to let that cloud their assessment of the big picture.

Although I don't expect the Parcells Haters to understand, they might want to recognize that the selection committee DID deem him worthy of the Hall of Fame - and they might want to stop the hate and reflect on just why they did that.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Thank you. You've restored some hope for me that there's ample reason and sanity among Patfandom.

As you've assessed, so too did the selection committee look beyond simple stats to assess the big picture of football in New England at a VERY pivotal and tumultuous time, recognizing Parcells role restoring credibility and establishing a winning attitude.

Of course the selection committee isn't going to get caught up in Parcells W-L record - and while they might share some fans emotional reactions akin to that of a boyfriend jilted at the prom relevant to his exit, they're not going to let that cloud their assessment of the big picture.

Although I don't expect the Parcells Haters to understand, they might want to recognize that the selection committee DID deem him worthy of the Hall of Fame - and they might want to stop the hate and reflect on just why they did that.

So the guy who says there is a statistical argument that Bledsoe belongs in the Pro Football Hall of Fame is your idea of proof there is reason and sanity among Pats fans? Good luck with that.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree that what they did between 2001-2010 wouldn't be diminished had the 90's gone worse but imo it does enhance the Patriots as a franchise because the fact of the matter is that they are the best team in football over the last 20 years, and the Parcells and Bledsoe era's play major roles in that. I haven't done the math but i'm almost certain no team has won more SB's, more conference championships, more division titles, and more games than the Patriots have in the last 20 years. I don't believe any team has enjoyed more success in the last 20 years but i'd like to see the argument one has. I believe that Parcells and Bledsoe changed the culture of the Patriots and we have enjoyed the fruits of that, they became consistent winners and remain that.

They are the best of the last 10. They are only the best of the last 20 because of those 10. We could call them the best of the last 25 and include Berry, Rust and McPherson, but thats kinda silly.
The 4 years of 32-32 dont weigh heavily on why they were the best of the last X years.

I disagree with the 'changed the culture' argument, because the culture after Tuna was awful. I dont think you change the culture, have it change then change again and take credit for the 3rd incarnation.

 

[reflexblue]

Just "changing the culture" is Not a reason to put someone in a hall of fame. IMO HOF equals 8-10 years of very winning football, hopefully (but not necessarily) a SB.