Speaking of our other favorite dominant regular-season team that flamed out in the postseason …
By now all this offseason Cubs stuff is totally old news. The North Siders parted ways with Kerry Wood, sadly dealt Mark DeRosa, smartly dealt Jason Marquis, and bizarrely signed Milton Bradley – which would have been a fantastic idea back in 2005, the last time we brought it up. Sorry! But it Boggles the mind why the Operation didn’t reach out to Milton sooner.
OK, I apologize. For real, come back. (Is this a rerun?)
I don’t mean to be skeptical, because I’m happy the Cubs have chosen to address the holes within their lineup (Fukudome) by signing Bradley, and have admitted their mistake in jettisoning the awful Marquis.
Though I don’t claim to believe fully in the intangibles, chemistry, or cohesion of sports teams’ constructions – too often it’s simply sportswriters pointing out the traits of players they get along with – but Mark DeRosa and Kerry Wood seemed to be absolute professionals. Each carried himself with aplomb, proved gracious to fans, engaged vigorously with the media, actually produced solid numbers (Better than I ever expected in DeRo‘s case), loved playing in Chicago, and enjoyed and understood the specific pressures and burdens Cubs baseball includes.
It’s tough to see them go, and while I can see the logic in both moves – not necessarily agreeing with it – it still makes me a bit queasy to watch two “glue guys” walk out the door. I don’t usually fret about the Tribune’s, Sam Zell‘s, or any owner’s pocketbooks – but it stands to reason the Cubs could have kept DeRosa if they hadn’t stupidly overpaid for Marquis two years ago in the first place. The Cubs had Sean Marshall back then, too.
Back to football. Let’s say two coaches weren’t necessarily on the market, but were necessarily included in the discussions of contemporary coaches’ success. Based on each’s career marks, whois most successful?
COACH A: 15 seasons, 149-90-1; .623 winning percentage, average finish 1.7, playoff record 12-9, one Super Bowl championship.
COACH B: 13 seasons, 139-69, .668 winning percentage, average divisional finish 1.8, playoff record 9-10, one Super Bowl championship.
Nearly identical, right? Both outstanding coaches, presumably whom fans could count on for regular division titles and playoff appearances. One wins a few more playoff games – which could fully be attributable to luck – and one wins a few more regular season games. Negligible, right?
Well, coach A is Bill Cowher. Yes, Bill Cowher is a great coach, out of work for two seasons, and now arguably the hottest coaching commodity in the NFL. Will some team land him? Sure – and they’ll pay at all costs.
Coach B is Tony Dungy. And, perhaps, Dungy has coached his last game as Colts head coach or any head coach for at least the forseeable future. This week, after the Colts’ postseason plummet, Dungy has been called a choker or pretender or worse, rather than praised for his repeated success.
In our comparison we left out Cowher’s additional AFC title, focusing mainly on regular season wins (the bulk of NFL fans’ attention) and Super Bowls (the ultimate goal.). Each delivered one ultimate prize – the jewel in crowns crammed with sustainable success.
Certainly in some aspects the Super Bowl is attributable for luck, because to some extent all playoffs are a crapshoot. Certainly in other aspects Super Bowl titles are borne out of motivational and tactical genius we can’t measure. But both coaches’ resumes are strikingly similar. We’re really ready to launch Cowher into rarified air just because of one additional AFC title? Why not then study each and every game, ranking caliber of opponents? Some sort of luck barometer?
Regardless, both are outstanding, professional, successful coaches who players routinely laud and sanctify – each a master motivator and grounded fully in realism. But in the overreactive, conventional-wisdom world of the NFL, today Cowher is some team’s savior while Dungy is the paper tiger.
Remarkable. Because Dungy wins with more regularity, the higher winning percentage and extra victories actually prove him the inferior coach. How in the world could that possibly make sense?
