Larry Coker was the first name that popped into my head. Lucked into being able to coach that 2001 Miami team... Matt Millen could have guided that team to a National Title.
this may be of some local interest
Larry Coker was the first name that popped into my head. Lucked into being able to coach that 2001 Miami team... Matt Millen could have guided that team to a National Title.
Barry Switzer at Dallas also come to mind.
Barry Switzer ends this argument every time. I can't think of a single worse coach to win a championship, unless the Cavs win the NBA title. Mike Brown is useless.
Switzer was the main architect of the wishbone offense and won three national titles at OU. I agree that a lot of guys probably could have won with that Cowboys team, but it isn't like Switzer is some scrub off the streets.
at least in terms of wins and losses. He was a bad NFL coach. Head coach in the NFL is a very different position from college head coach--you don't need to know how to recruit or manage a bunch of 18-22 year olds, but you need to run more complex schemes and deal with subordinates who often make more money than you do.
He had one good season with the team Jimmy Johnson built, and then things started to unravel. Bill Callahan had one good season with the team Jon Gruden built, but that doesn't make him a successful NFL coach.
Switzer is one of the greatest college coaches of all time (I think he ranks 4th in winning percentage). He lost 29 games in 16 years at OU, won three national titles, won 7 major bowl games, and finished in the top-ten 12 times.
In four years in the NFL, he won a Super Bowl and won his division three times. He had one losing season as the players who made up the Cowboys dynasty got old/injured/retired and they haven't been as good at any point since he left as they were with him as the coach.
Which has more to do with the retirements of Aikman, Emmit and Irvin than it does with Barry Switzer. Read "Boys Will Be Boys" by Jeff Pearlman. The man was an awful coach in Dallas. Winning at OU doesn't change the fact that by the time he was with the Cowboys, he was the worst coach to win a championship.
The earlier poster said Switzer was "a good college coach." This is an enormous understatement (he was one of the very best ever). He also said that Switzer only had one good season in Dallas, which is not true. In his first year the team went to the NFC championship game and lost to the eventual Super Bowl champions (what I would call a damn good season), in his second they won the Super Bowl (awesome season), and in his third they won their division at 10-6 and won a playoff game (a pretty decent season for most teams). In his fourth year the team had a losing record with aging players, lots of injuries, and a very combustible locker room situation, and he left.
Those teams were very talented in Dallas and maybe other coaches could have equaled those accomplishments but I can't think of many who would have surpassed them. Obviously whatever he was doing worked out pretty well. For a guy with that level of success at multiple stops, it is going to take more than some sportswriter's opinion to convince me that he was not a very good coach.
while a great team, was out of control institutionally. believe they're the only team ever to win the natl championship while on ncaa probabtion. there were rapes and shootings in the athletics dorms. he got the kind of help i imagine carroll did out at usc before he ran off to seattle.
It's not often that a college football coach gets shown the door only a few years removed from a national title, on purely performance-based grounds. He inherited a juggernaut and watched it progressively decline.
That is all.
My main hate for Tressel stems from the fact that he is the coach of OSU. Other than that, I think he's proven that he is at least a good, maybe even great coach.
You can't argue with the success that he's had...his track record is basically the same as Coach Carr's - Early NC, solid play in conference and Big Ten titles, and then flopping in Bowl games on the national stage.
Sounds like Lloyd Carr's Wolverines, and I thought Carr was a great coach.
I agree with you he is a pretty good coach but when I saw this line "Who would you nominate, who drives you crazy that they've won it all?" I instinctively answered.
It pains me to say it, but Tressel is better than Carr (and not just because of the head-to-head record). Tressel won four I-AA national titles. He has gone on to appear in the I-A national title game three times. He's a Hall of Fame coach.
I would give you minus a billion if I could.
Get over your bias.
Tressel is a fantastic coach.
Ask yourself this question: would you have taken his performance from 2001 until now if he were Michigan's corch?
I don't think Tressel is a bad coach at all. I actually never made a comment at all about Tressel's ability to coach. I was trying to make a joke about how I didn't want to hear good things about Ohio State (which, like, hello). If I were to read a blog for Washington State soccer, I could be completely objective, but at the end of the say I'm a Michigan fan and I don't intend to "get over my bias."
I'm sorry if I offended you guys. I didn't realize throwing in an OSU jab was out of bounds now.
Tressel's resume in nine years at OSU: 1 outright national title, a share of 6 Big Ten championships, 7 BCS bowl appearances, 4 BCS bowl wins, 8-1 against UM (including 6-1 against Carr)
Carr's resume in thirteen years at UM: 1 split national title, a share of 5 Big Ten championships, 5 BCS bowl appearances, 2 BCS bowl wins, 6-7 against OSU (including 1-6 against Tressel)
It isn't much of a contest unless you are wearing the most Maize and Blue of glasses.
I was saying it because, truth or not, you just don't say something like that around here. I don't hang out in Long Island saying "you know Hitler was actually a really smart guy."
And Lloyd only went to 4 BCS bowls and won 1 (The Brady-Terrell Orange Bowl).
EDIT: I'm guessing you were thinking of the 98 Rose Bowl. That was before the BCS.
That kind of mindset belongs on boards like RCMB. The fact that my post didn't get negbanged goes to show that this community is a little more thoughtful than that.
but he is still Jim Tressel who I believe may be the Prince of Darkness.
Jim Tressel may be the most underrated Satan ever.
but I would throw Phil Jackson in the mix. I think I could win championships if I had tandems like MJ and Scottie Pippen or Kobe and Shaq playing for me. Besides, all of his zen teaching stuff really creeps me out. (I realize he won a title after shaq left)
Him and Phil Jackson both had bought and paid for all-star rosters. All they had to do was keep the peace in the locker room/club house and championships were sure to follow.
Joe Torre I agree with. He had an all-star line-up and only won the World Series every now and then. He had the best team in the league for the last 10 years he was there and only won the series once in that stretch.
OTOH, when Phil had an all-star team, he won the title almost every time.
my vote goes to Ozzie Guillen. What a loudmouthed clown.
Joe Torre managed 4 World Series Champions and came within one win of 4 World Series titles in a row. The Yankees lost twice in the world series during Torre's reign as manager.
Winning at least 3 World Series in a row hadn't been done since the early 70's Oakland A's, and has only been done 2 other times; Yankees (5) in the 50's and (4) in the 30's. Helluva record for the worst coach to ever win a major championship
But with the lack of salary cap in MLB, there were only a handful of teams each year during Torre's career at NY that could come close to beating the Yanks in a series. They had the best record either in the AL or the MLB for most of the last decade and had little to show for it until last year.
My point was that Phil Jackson's teams were loaded with talent, but they won a championship more often than not. Joe Torre's teams were even more loaded with talent (compared to the opposition) and outside of the 3 in a row in the late 90's, he didn't do much at all.
He pulled the same stunt last fall in LA. His team had the best record in the NL (despite playing without Manny for 50 games) and he got smoked in the NLDS. Not a good coach.
Okay you want to dismiss 3 in a row plus another one, plus 2 other appearences in the World Series.
outside of the 3 in a row in the late 90's, he didn't do much at all.
I don't want to dismiss it at all, but look at the teams he was leading, they were always better than the team they played. If he won the World Series half of the seasons he managed the Yankees it wouldn't be enough.
My point wasn't to dismiss the 3 in a row, it was to discuss Torre as a manager after that. Would it have been better if I said he was a good manager in the 90's and a bad one in the 2000's? In any other sport, those 3 would be good enough to make him great. But unfortunately the playing field isn't even in baseball. That Yankees were an all-star team the last 15 years, and didn't have as much to show for it as they should.
If we change the argument to
"Worst coach to ever win 3 major championships in a row"
you might have a point, otherwise your argument is ludicrous IMHO
See, for any other sport I would agree with you. But I think about half the men who have managed in the MLB in the last 15 years could have won as many World Series titles in that period as Torre did.
This post was about the worst coaches who have won titles, not the worst coaches period.
Torre did the least with the most.
As a contemporary of Torre's, Bobby Cox would make a better case for your argument, although it is not an argument I would make
Similar situation, but the talent level on those Braves teams wasn't the same as what the Yanks had in the 2000's. Some years they had 5+ all-stars in their line-up not to mention the pitching. And they were winning 100 games a year, but they couldn't make it happen in October.
Okay I'm done with this silliness, now we are changing the argument to "worst of the 2000's" so we can bypass those darn 3 World Series Championships in a row in the late 90's.
We're not bypassing those. They are a requisite for the topic. We're not bring up coaches who never sniffed a title because they don't qualify for the thread.
You seem to see "number of titles" as the only stat that counts. The Yankees' talent (and their payroll, not coincidentally) was so far above the rest of the MLB for most of the Torre years, yet they only won the WS 4 times in about 15 years, and none in the last 9. To me, that's not a great coach. Perhaps you disagree.
Now I have mods going through negging my posts because I have a comment about his favorite baseball team that he disagrees with?
I'm not a mod.
You think the yankees should have won at least half the WS over the last 15 years b/c they have the largest payroll in the game. it's baseball, man. the yankees could play the mud hens 10 times and win only 8. that's the nature of the game.
you compare that to Phil jacksons teams. it's apples and oranges. there should be no comparison. the nature of the games are different.
the yankees have the largest payroll. as a result, they made the post season 15 consecutive years. in baseball, the playoffs are a crapshoot. 6 teams make it. even with best of 7 series', the odds aren't much better than 1 in 6, maybe one in 5 for the most talented team.
stop hating on the yankees b/c they play the game better than most.
They might beat the Mudhens 8 out of 10 times, but in a 7 game series they would almost never lose. If the playoffs really are the crapshoot you claim they are, then why did the Yankees go to the playoffs so many years in a row and not win the Series more times?
Or if it really is a crapshoot, then the only reason they won 3 in a row was because of luck then, right? You can't claim the wins because they are so good, and the losses because "it's a crapshoot anyay."
8 teams make the playoffs.
And people don't hate the Yankees because they play the game better than most. People hate the Yankees because they pay their team 5 times more than whatever other team those people cheer for and because of that they win a lot. If it was fair (salary cap) like in other sports, people wouldn't hate them so much, but then they probably wouldn't win so much either.
He won four world series in twelve seasons with the yankees. That is 33% when the crapshoot odds are 12.5% just for teams that make the playoffs (and high payroll doesn't necessarily guarantee a playoff spot). He also made the world series in half his seasons in NY. He just happened to win his titles in one bunch, but I think it says something that his most successful teams were filled with more homegrown players and that the big payroll rosters with Jeter, Giambi, etc. are the ones that didn't win.
Are we really buying the crapshoot theory?
If so, then the conversation is over because it doesn't matter how good the coach is once the playoffs come, it's all luck.
I think the stat people are pretty much in agreement that playoff baseball is extremely ineffective if the goal is to determine who the best team is. Performance is much less steady over a short window than sports like basketball and football.
then why did the Yankees go to the playoffs so many years in a row and not win the Series more times?
b/c their payroll produces a better than 90% chance that they make the playoffs and due to the small sample size of baseball playoffs and the nature of the game, they don't have a much better chance than one in 8 (yeah, why i thought 6 i have no idea) once they get there.
If it was fair...
lol. there's no crying. there's no crying in baseball. / Hanks
I'm not complaining about the payroll issue. I'm a Tigers fan and we have wealthy owner who likes to shell it out too. But if I was a fan of the Marlins or the Pirates or the A's who lose their good players to the Sox or the Yanks or the Dodgers because we couldn't pay them enough, I'd be pissed.
And fine, if baseball playoffs are such a crapshoot, then it's completely moot to discuss which managers are good in the playoffs. Then Torre wasn't good nor bad, he got what he got.
And fine, if baseball playoffs are such a crapshoot, then it's completely moot to discuss which managers are good in the playoffs.
as a teacher, i wish i could get my students to make my point for me in such an efficient way.
I'm agreeing with you then. I wasn't working under this assumption before, and neither were the people I was arguing with.
The guy saying "No, Torre is a good manager because look at all these World Series" wasn't working under that premise either.
The highest all time winning percentages team: all time record
The Yankees are first
... at a whopping .567
best post war win %age in a single season:
over a 7 game series, the best reg. season team in post war history would be expected to win .721* 7 = 5 games against the median team in MLB. the playoffs obviously have teams that are better than the hypotheitcal median team, so the best team in reg season history (post war) would be expected to win less than 5 games in a 7 game series.
This would have been a good first post, before all the mmmhmms, uh-huhs and wows.
Agree 100%. Jackson has never won a championship without arguably one of the 2 best players to ever play the game. It was MJ and Kobe's will to win that brought Phil championships. How many rings would Chuck Daly have if he coached MJ and Kobe both in their primes?
run along, nothing to see here
to applaude you for the awesomeness of this comment!
It's all well and good to suggest that Phil Jackson has always had all-star lineups. But the key to establishing that a "bad coach" has won is to show that he can't make teams perform to their potential or above their potential. We have never seen any evidence that Phil does not get his teams to live up to their potential. This may be due to a lack of opportunity, but the evidence simply isn't there.
I see where you're going with this, but any schmuck could win a championship with the teams he had, but not win 10. And this last one his team wasn't as stacked as his previous teams - he has Kobe and really no other major stars, maybe Pau Gasol, be he's barely an All-Star.
Pau Gasol is probably a hall of famer, one of the most skilled big men in the league. AndrewBynum is one of the better centers in the league. Then there's Lamar Odom, who basically averages a double double and is one of the most versatile forwards in the game. Three players on the front line who can score and get 10 rebound a game. Ron Artest isn't all that he used to be, but he's still one of the league's premier defenders. And that's surrounding the best 2-guard in the game, one of the best of all time. No other team can match that talent, Phil has it easy
there is Derek Fisher, who is pretty clutch when he needs to be.
Pau Gasol in NOT a HOFer, unless he has 8-10 more seasons where he plays good step better than he has so far. He's been an all-star 3 times, and all-NBA 3rd team twice. He averages 18 and 9 for his career (not bad, but Webber was better than that over a long career, and had double the assist avg.). This does not a HOFer make.
Bynum is one of the better centers in the league, I agree. But not top 3 or anything. And when you bring up Lamar Odom in this discussion when comparing the talent of this team to his previous championship winners, I know the convo needs to end. He averages 10 and 10 and doesn't even start. Come on.
Doesn't the basketball HoF basically let in everybody?
I think I've made it in twice, once as a coach for a Russian team, and once as a WNBAer.
They're pretty lax... ;-P
While your points are all true, you do have to think about it the other way as well. Jordan, Pippen and Kobe never won without Phil either. It's a symbiotic relationship, and I don't think you can fault Jackson for that. The man has 10 titles, he knows what he's doing. Do you fault Red for having Bill Russell?
Great players don't leave a Phil Jackson team, they want to play on his teams (same for Torre in NYY, and now LA).
Neither have been the coach of a bad team and they always win.
Stories of Jackson's mind-games on a teams full of assholes and entitled superstars (in both LA and Chicago) are legendary. Maybe you don't need to know Xs and Os to win when you have the top talent, but you need to know how to manage people. So, "if" they aren't great "coaches" (which can always be argued) they are at least amazing managers.
Jackson has also been smart enough to keep Tex Winter around, who definitely know the X's and O's.
Where can I find such stories?
If you're going to even bring up Jackson, you can't not bring up Red Auerbach. Talk about having a stacked team in a weak league.....I know Simmons tried squashing the idea that Boston was so much better than the rest of the league during Auerbach's era but I wasn't buying it. They had four HOFs in their starting lineup at one point. The better question would have been who couldn't win with that team?
At one point the Lakers had 4 HOFers in their starting line-up (Shaq, Kobe, The Mailman and Gary Payton) and the lost to THE PISTONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
While technically true, Payton and Malone were at the very end of their careers and were no longer playing at a Hall of Fame level. Payton especially had lost a step - he was a downright liability against the Pistons.
Point of clarification: I am a Pistons fan and I was saying that even though the Lakers had all that talent, they still couldn't beat the Pistons.
What sport doesn't this apply to though? If you have the best players your chances of winning are far greater.
true but basketball is the only major sport where one guy can win the game by himself. People can put in good performances in other sports but how often do we see lebron, kobe, jordan, etc, say fuck this i am not going to let us lose this game. The next closes thing is a QB in football, but then thats why dynasties always have hall of fame Qb's
A hockey goalie has more impact on the outcome of a game than any basketball player. Anyway, there have been many games in which a losing team had a guy that scored 40+ points. LeBron's never won a title and Jordan/Kobe didn't until they had a fellow superstar to play with.
ok maybe not, but he was coker before coker
Bump Elliot generally gets viewed as our worst coach, but he inherited a far worse program than Oosterbaan did. Oosterbaan allowed one of the greatest programs in the country to decline into mediocrity.
Backed into the title game with two losses after inheriting a talented team and a recruiting powerhouse from Saban. Beat a pretty average OSU team with Todd Boeckman at QB. Program appears to be slipping the further they get from the Saban/Miles transition.
Time will tell I guess.
I don't think he's a good coach. He's a good CEO type guy who hires and manages great coordinators, which is a decent model. The trouble is when those coordinators leave, and he had to get lucky and find new guys who were just as great as the old coordinators.
I guess time will tell, but I definitely think its Miles.
Yeah but they smoked OSU that year, and won the SEC. It's still a championship.
But OSU, with the great Todd Boeckman at QB, also was hardly worthy of being in the title game. There basically shouldn't have been a 2007 national champion.
You are saying that Jackson and Torre may be the worst coaches to win a championship because they had highly talented players that other teams could win with, but you excuse Miles, who had the same situation and only won the NCAA championship because he was incredibly lucky that West Virginia lost to Pitt. Then, his teams began declining. Also, Miles has demonstrated major deficiencies when it comes to clock management, which is a pretty basic coaching skill.
In recent history it's got to be Les Miles. This man can recruit and hire good coordinators, but he clueless on the sidelines.
Anyone see their Chinese fire drill style attempts at running a 2 minute drill the last 2 years? Beyond embarrassing. LSU fans have already given up on him.
They win despite him, not because of him... this is only going to get more obvious over time.
All this Westhead bashing ignores what he was able to do at LMU, which had never been seen before at the college level. That team without the Gathers tragedy contends for a title. He's got a WNBA title, for whatever that's worth (not much, but still - his system has worked in many places). LA fired him due to conflicts with Magic, not sucking.
Maybe a crappy NBA head coach, but NOT an awful basketball coach, and no way he's the worst coach to ever win a title in any sport. That's like saying Pitino is the worst coach ever with a title because he was terrible with the Celtics (where his winning % was well under 45%).
Supposed to be an offensive genius, and yet their offense sucks. Only due to Marvin Lewis's defense did they win a Super Bowl.
Coker. 'Nuff said.
Don't know if this counts, but Derrike Cope. Dude was literally handed the Daytona 500 when Earnhardt cut a tire in the closing laps. Won another race that same year and didn't sniff Victory Lane for the rest of his career.
are we going to start bringing up PBA bowlers, synchronized swimmers, and championship poker players as well?
I bet we could find our fair share of Poker Players who won the WS and never did anything of note after that...
He took a team that Tony Dungy put together, won a championship with it, and proceeded to run it into the ground. The Bucs were under .500 overall in the next 6 years, and he never won another playoff game.
Fortunately he's found his calling as a guru to Tim Tebow.
Gruden also turned the Raiders into a winner and probably would have won the Super Bowl there had he stayed.
The Bucs traded away a shitload of draft choices for Gruden. The ensuing lack of picks, combined with incompetence on the part of the GM, pretty much put Gruden in a no-win situation by his third year. I would have "voted" for Gruden, but look at what happened to the Bucs the first year after he left. They were far worse without him.
The Bucs traded draft picks to get Gruden? Tell me how this works.
After compiling a 40–28 win-loss record in four seasons with the Raiders, Gruden replaced the fired Tony Dungy as head coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2002, via a high-stakes trade that included Tampa Bay's 2002 and 2003 first-round draft picks, 2002 and 2004 second-round draft picks, and $8 million in cash. The trade took place for a number of reasons, including Davis' desire for a more vertical passing attack rather than Gruden's horizontal pass attack, the fact that Gruden's contract would expire a year after the trade, and Davis' uncertainty over whether Gruden was worth as much money as his next contract was sure to pay him. Gruden signed a five-year contract with the Buccaneers worth $17.5 million.
How about any Illinois coach who won the Big 10?
but the 1st person who popped into my mind was Steve Fisher.
Gotta be Larry Coker.
I don't know how anybody could say Switzer. If you only looked
at his college record you'd say he's a great (if dirty) coach.
That alone makes him better than guys like Coker.
And there are very few coaches to have pulled off the NCAA/NFL title combo. Many great college coaches were NFL flops.
Switzer and Johnson, and they did it with the same team. Both also played at Arkansas along with Jerry Jones.
NBA- Doc Rivers. I'm not old enough to remember Westhead, but I'll claim it was harder to win in the NBA in the early 80's.
MLB- Bob Brenly, D'backs. He almost single handedly game another title to the Yankees. Just rode Schilling and Johnson to the title , while allowing KIm to blow 3 straight games on 3 straight days...He pitched him 3 straight days when he threw 30 + pitches the first and 68 pitches on the 2nd!!!! Did nothing else.
Cfootball- Coker although I'lld be willing to listen to MIles in a few years. Right now he gets an incomplete
NFL- Switzer if you only count NFL , I can't think of another example. The Indy coach would have been a phenemenal chocie if they would have won.
I'm not a big fan of Doc Rivers, but I'm not really sure how it would have been harder to win in the NBA in the 1980s. Back then there were 23 teams. Now there are 30. Mathematically speaking, any team's odds of winning it all are reduced.
Back then, they expected you to have 3 great players to win (or 9 really good ones if you went the Pistons route). Now, you're lucky to have two. And can win it with one. When the Celtics put together those 3, though hardly up to the greatness of yesteryear, they're a good deal ahead of the rest of the League.
Earlier in the thread it was said that Gasol wasn't a HoF. So you're basically have a defending and maybe 2 time champ with one great player. The 80's greats of the Lakers, Sixers, Celtics, Pistons and Bulls would be running off a ridiculous amount of championships in a row if they were around now. They just had to get through each other then, and won less (other than the Bulls, who came in at the tail end as all those teams were declining and dead, and had the League to themselves...one much worse than the League now, even).
If the talent is more spread out now, doesn't it stand to reason that there is consequently more parity, making it harder to win? The 1980s champs often cruised until at least the conference finals, and sometimes until the Finals.
If your talent is spread out too. With the Celtics, it wasn't. They acquired 3 great players, in a time when most others good teams had two. I'm not sure it's much different now. No one really thinks anyone but the Lakers will come out of the West, and there are 2-3 Eastern teams bashing it out. So the matching level of competition may be the same, yes. But the quality you were beating to get there is way down because of it. So maybe it's not "easier"...maybe it's just less impressive.
But pick your favorite team of yesteryear, and compare them position to position, player to player...and they just don't match up as well now. Because some great player that would be the second or third options for a team then is playing for a team in...Memphis.
I agree that the championship teams of yesteryear had better depth than teams now, but that's neither here nor there. The question was whether it's easier for a coach to win a championship now than it was 25 years ago. I don't agree that it is. The talent is more spread out and teams have to win four best-of-seven series to claim the title.
Les Miles took what saban left him and won at LSU. Not a National Powerhouse anymore. Maybe not worst coach to win a championship. But he isn't a championship level coach.
Not to mention that the 2007 was such a cluster fuck that LSU actually backed into the NC game. A 2 loss national champion? What a crock of shit.
Well, let's try and figure this out. My opinions:
(1) NBA - KC Jones. He didn't have to coach at all with Bird, McHale, and Parish on the Celtics.
(2) NFL - John Gruden. He won with Dungy's team.
(3) MLB - Brenley, listed above.
The guy did a tremendous job in Oakland going to back to back AFC title games after inheriting a mess (as most Raider coaches do). In Tampa, I felt like he provided an extra spark to get them over the hump. That was a veteran team that had perennially underachieved in the playoffs with Dungy (who wasn't much of a clutch performer with the Colts either). After two down years following the Super Bowl win and the exodus of some older players, he went 11-5 and then had back to back 9-7 seasons to close out his tenure (not exactly running the team into the ground as some here have suggested).
I think if he had stayed in Oakland they would have won the title there (his knowledge of the Raiders was I think the big difference maker in that Super Bowl).
Gruden won with Brad Johnson as his starting quarterback. I don't care what you're left with, if you can win a championship with a perennial backup, you've done a hell of a job.
He inherited a team after the regular season was over. Then, won his first 6 games with a really hot Glenn Rice, and 3 other successful pros.
Sure, he had the other 2 final fours (unofficially), but those had very little to do with coaching.
but the fact that he has turned San Diego State into a winner disqualifies him from this discussion imo.
Fisher was mediocre, and his "ostrich approach" to discipline set the groundwork for Ed Martin to gain a foothold into the program, but he was far from the worst coach to ever win a major championship. The fact that he took a team that chronically underachieved under Bill Frieder and won the tournament with it has to count for something.
I don't really have an answer for this question because I have a tendency to respect anyone who wins a championship as a player or a coach, but I would definitely say no to Fisher even being considered.
Rick Comley, no question.
I can't believe that no one mentioned this sooner in the thread. His teams goon it up something awful, and he's had multiple disaster seasons. Trouble is, the anarchy of college hockey playoffs, plus the fact that MSU will always recruit well in hockey (as we will as well, of course) lead him to stumble his way into that title a few years back. Still pisses me off that he won, and that Kevin Porter didn't get one in his Hobey year. Damn high-variance sport.
finally! i had to stumble my way through this clusterfuck of a thread to get to comley. i would have thought he would have been much closer to the top.
Larry Brown, I just don't like me any Larry Brown, whata dick.
Don't most championship teams have good players? So why are you going to dock Phil Jackson? Sports are much more about the quality of your players than the quality of your coaching.
They answer has to be Westhead, because he was a loser over a decently sized career.
How can Phil Jackson even be mentioned? He has 10 rings! It has to take good coaching to win Championships. If he's on the list, we might as well add Scotty Bowman. I mean look at the players he had to work with: Mahovlich (2), Lemaire, Lafluer, Tremblay, Dryden, Gainey, Robinson, Cournoyer with Montreal...Lemieux, Jagr, Francis, Tocchet, Barrasso with the Penguins (coming off a Cup in 91)...Yzerman, Federov, Konstantinov, Lidstrom, Hull, Shanahan, Robitaille, Datsyuk, Chelios, Hasek, Vernon, Osgood with the Wings.
That Bowman guy really must have sucked...I bet he couldn't have won one without all those players.
Straight up. Mike Keenan.
Universally hated in the NHL, yet just accomplished enough to have coached a dozen different teams. Won a Cup with Messier's Rangers, yet acknowledged widely as the most unlikeable dickhead in the history of coaching- by players and front office alike.
Marc Crawford with the Avs in '96.
Yes, yes, yes. Crawford is a horrible coach, as well as Keenan. He hasn't done crap since the Avs. Plus he is just an overall douchebag. He went after Scotty Bowman multiple times, plus the whole Steve Moore incident. Sure, Burtuzzi has the rainstorm over his head because of Moore, but Crawford told him to do it.
Oosterban and Coker are probably the two NCAA football coaches on that list. They had virtually identical careers (won a national title the 1st year and eventually saw their programs plummet from not just their heights, but their historical norms). Coker can still write his story at UT-SA though while Oosterban, obviously, can not.
Slappie....Mike Keenan was/is a terrible coach. Messier won that Cup in New York, not Keenan....he's basically destroyed (albiet slowly) every organization he's coached in...thank God Mike Illitch was persuaded to not hire him instead of Scotty Bowman....
Tom Kelly won two World Series with the Twins (1987 and 1991) but had a losing record for his manegerial career (1140-1244, .478) and had a sub-.500 record in 10 of his 15 years as manager. Lucky for him the two times he made the playoffs the Twins won it all.
going with tom kelly doesn't jim leyland have to be thrown into this conversation??? leyland has a .496 career winning percentage and the tigers are the only team that he has a winning record with... true he had a couple of great teams in pitt, a championship team BOUGHT for him in florida, but other than that what has he done since??? i'll give him a pass on the 1998 season because that team was sold off after the season was over, but he basically walked away from the rockies because he was "tired" of baseball... then he comes back and takes a tigers team that no one gave a chance to the world series and that has been it... since then his teams have underachieved, but yet the fans of detroit give him a free pass for it because of 2006...
I could have led the 2001 Maimi Hurricanes to the national title. The only game I can't fault him for losing was the 2002 championship game. The refs took that game into their own hands.
Tubby Smith hasn't done anything since winning it all with Pitino's team. Definitely Larry Coker could take this title. Doc Rivers was on the verge of being fired, then he was handed 2 hall of famers and all of the sudden he's great, I'm not buying it. I hate to say this because I love Jon Gruden, but what has he really done since winning it all with Tony Dungy's team??
save_me_forcier with his well thought out and reasoned arguments has convinced me, JIM "Dumb Ass" LEYLAND is the worst manager to ever win anything. Don't bother arguing with me, I'm frustrated, so of course, I'm right