Now that Tony Dungy has retired, his greatness as a coach will start getting a tad overstated, before revisionism sets in and his “legacy” is taken to the woodshed. Everything and everybody looks better in the rear-view mirror. Of course, everything and everyone also looks SMALLER in that mirror. Which is why, as time passes, even the legitimately, eternally great athletes and sports figures of the past are diminished.
Dungy isn’t one of those immortals. He lost too many playoff games ever to be considered in that category. But neither does he deserve the retrospective downgrading that’s sure to be coming his way.
He certainly hasn’t been a bad head coach. Far from it. In fact, for the most part, he’s been close to incredible, except in the playoffs, where the main “incredibility” has been how often his teams lose to lesser opposition. Mind you, Jeff Fisher’s and Marty Schottenheimer’s teams — and for many years, Bill Cowher’s — have for all but a handful of seasons had the same kind of postseason underachievement. The difference is that Dungy’s gotten more of a pass for that than those worthies.
And it’s not because of politically correct reverse racism, either. I’m sure all three of those other coaches are fine human beings. It’s just that Dungy is really special. Dumping on him profanely, the way talk show callers love to do with most players and coaches, is as obviously inappropriate as, I don’t know, Photoshopping Mother Teresa’s head on a porn star’s body — and no, I don’t mean Ron Jeremy’s. Because he’s so obviously upright, and treats his players, opponents, the press, and pretty much everybody with respect, it’s hard to take real zinger shots at him.
There’s a lot in his coaching record to admire. Forget the ridiculous string of seasons at Indy with 12 wins or more — in this period of league “parity.” The record is hardly to be sneezed at, but he’s had the benefit of one of the all-time great regular-season QBs, and lots of good players, put in place by Bill Polian, who’s no slouch at running an organization. So, outstanding as it was, his W-L record with the Colts was only to be expected. Of course, there’s a big difference between HAVING talent and WINNING with it, but that’s a distinction that seems to escape most people.
It’s his performance at Tampa Bay, in his first head-coaching gig, though, that really impresses me. Just because Jon Gruden came along and won the Super Bowl first time out of the gate with the same players with whom Dungy had fallen short time after time, people forget just what an impressive job Dungy did to turn around the Bucs and set the table for Gruden.
Given that Mr. Gruden has never again approached that kind of success, and in fact has only been back to the playoffs twice since 2002, losing in the wild card game both times, maybe there should be a bit more appreciation of Dungy’s accomplishment. Heck, take away Gruden’s Super Bowl year, when the Bucs went 12-4, and he’s had a dreadful 45-51 record there. Sure, all tends to be forgiven when a team wins a Super Bowl, but 45-51 — including this year’s inexcusable meltdown — is a fair indication of what the Tampa job was like before Dungy turned things around.
No hyperbole there. From the 1982 season, when they failed or refused to re-sign Doug Williams, until Dungy took over in 1996, the Bucs suffered through 14 straight losing seasons, including 12 with 10 or more losses. It was the Sargasso Sea, the Bermuda Triangle, the innermost circle of Hell — choose your own metaphor — for coaching jobs. All Dungy did was go 54-42 in his six seasons — 48-32 after 1996. True, his last season was 9-7, just like Gruden’s last couple.
I originally wrote that the difference was that Gruden’s contributions have been appreciated, and he seems to be in no danger of being fired. Naturally, events overtook me, and Gruden was — deservedly — fired, along with GM Bill Allen. I’m not overjoyed at Gruden’s and Allen’s misfortune, but it’s good to know that the Glazers, who own the Bucs, are equal-opportunity churls and a-holes.
The big knock on Dungy has always been that his teams just didn’t win in the playoffs. He was 2-4 at Tampa, and only 7-6 with the Colts’ juggernaut, and leaves with a combined career playoff record below .500. I can rationalize justify the record at Tampa, given the dreck Dungy started with. But no one can defend the postseason record. It is what it is, and what it is, isn’t pretty.
Some of the onus surely falls on the broad, but sloping shoulders of Peyton Manning, who for all his skills, intelligence, and leadership has exactly as many Super Bowl rings as his less-accomplished younger brother, and who, in the Super Bowl year, was appallingly inefficient. But Dungy has to be assigned some of the blame. It’s not just that he’s had only one Super Bowl winner in 13 years. It’s how many times his teams have lost first-round games they were favored to win.
One could make excuses. Losing to the Patriots when they were the best team in the league, or the Eagles when they were the NFC’s best team, isn’t necessarily anyone’s fault. But even against those teams when they were at their best, the Colts, or the Bucs, as the case may be, had their chances. Winners capitalize on those chances; losers don’t.
The criticism is fair. But it’s a shame that Dungy’s great and enviable achievements — not just as the highest-profile and most successful African-American coach ever, but as a coach of any color — shouldn’t be diminished by being reduced to the one-line caption of “couldn’t win the money games.” There’s been a lot more substance to his career than that. In the end, though, fairly or not, coaches are judged in large measure by two things: Super Bowl wins, and playoff record. Dungy, a sure Hall of Famer, has the former but not the latter.
I don’t have any idea what Mark Sanchez’s pro potential is. I’m pretty sure, though, that his draft potential is unlikely ever to be higher, no matter what logic and statistics a dyspeptic Pete Carroll posted on his website.
It’s true that Sanchez has had only one full season as a starting QB, and that he had only a couple of “signature” games as a starter. He probably could have benefited in many ways from another year of college ball. But, heck, he’s already been at USC for 4 years, and will have his degree this spring. It’s not as if he’s leaving as an underclassman. Had he stayed another year, his academic activities would have been as big a joke as Matt Leinart’s: ballroom dancing, basket-weaving and — in Leinart’s case, anyway — coed impregnation.
True, Peyton Manning got his Bachelor’s in 3 years, and earned a Master’s degree when he stayed for his senior year — so it’s possible to major in more than just “eligibility” in that extra year — but even Manning stayed in school only 4 years. Carson Palmer did stay a 5th year, and benefited mightily, winning a Heisman and going high in the draft, after having been a disappointment and an underachiever the previous 4 years — not necessarily through any fault of his own. But Palmer was a special case. He really needed that 5th year because of the crappy and inconsistent coaching he’d been receiving amidst the turmoil of the pre-Carroll years, which pretty obviously retarded his development.
And in Palmer’s 5th year, he was tutored by Norm Chow, who increased his skills and draft prospects exponentially. Who knows who the Hell would be guiding Sanchez in HIS 5th year? At this moment, it’s not even clear that USC has an offensive coordinator, since its coordinator-designate, who hasn’t yet run a practice on campus, is actually considering a couple of NFL offers.
Even more importantly — far more importantly — there are other high-profile, highly touted QBs around who are also expected to go high in the draft. As it happens, three of them who might have taken money out of Sanchez’s pocket — Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, and even Tim Tebow — all decided to defer their decision for another year. Had Sanchez waited, who knows where he’d have been selected next year, with all that competition? It’s safe to say that, with fewer high-profile QBs in this year’s draft, he stands a better chance of being picked high and getting a nice little nest-egg.
Sure, solid college QBs like Chase Daniel and Pat White will also be in this year’s draft, but, great as they’ve been in college, they’re both considered small for NFL QBs, and also have skill-sets more associated with college spread offenses than with pro requirements. Sanchez is taller and heavier than those two, and has a bigger arm. Not that I believe size and arm strength are the be-all and end-all for consideration, but scouts and personnel directors do. So, all in all, it sure seems like a smart financial decision for Sanchez, despite Pete Carroll’s hissy fit.
It’s not clear to me that Greg Oden, who had as many personal fouls as boards against the Lakers the last time they played (4 each), and pretty much disgraced himself last night against the less-than-imposing Nets with one stinkin’ rebound to go with 2 points and 1 block, is a bust — yet. But it does seem abundantly evident that he’s not the second coming of Bill Walton in Rip City, either, except in the frequency of his injuries. He’s on a career arc to develop into something better than Kwame Brown or Eddy Curry and worse than, say, Andrew Bogut — a serviceable big man who defends and rebounds adequately, passes adequately out of the post, and has no offensive moves to speak of.
He’s someone who should have a long, decent and remunerative NBA career as long as the knees hold up because, as they say, “you can’t teach tall.” After all, Dan Gadzuric is still in the league, isn’t he? But when a No. 1 draft pick big man isn’t good enough to edge Joel Pryzbilla out of the starting lineup, it’s not unfair to start using the “bust” word before his first season is half over. The Blazers need more rebounding and toughness, and they’re not getting it from Oden.
That’s why I’m intrigued by the rumors that the Blazers, Clippers and Knicks have been talking about a three-way deal that would send Marcus Camby to New York, David Lee to the Blazers, and some forgettable loser to the Clippers.
That last was a bit harsh, I know, but Clipperland is pretty much where every promising career goes to die, or at least to hibernate. Actually, the publicly available information a week or so ago was that the trade would also send former Knick Channing Frye back to the Knicks, and former Clipper Q. Richardson, now a Knick, back to L.A. Q-Rich isn’t a bum, but unless he’s surrounded by Amare Stoudamire, the younger Joe Johnson and the pre-injury Shawn Marion, and being fed by Steve Nash in a frenetically uptempo style, he most certainly is not what the Clippers need. And to give up Camby, flawed and incomplete though his game is, to wind up with Richardson? I rest my case.
If all the Blazers had to give up was Frye, essentially straight-up for Lee, that would be a steal ranking below — but not all that far below — Pau Gasol for his brother, Kwame Brown and J-Crit. Or, maybe more accurately, on the level of B. Cook for Trevor Ariza. Not gonna happen, though — despite concerns about Lee’s potential restricted free agent deal next year impacting any ability to clear space for the LeBron James pipe dream — now that Lee’s exploded on offense with the return of Jared Jeffries to play center, while still averaging over 10 boards a game. Still, Portland can dream, can’t it?
At least this dream is a bit more pleasant than the looming nightmare that Darius Miles might play 2 more NBA games this season, and screw Portland’s cap space for years. I still don’t quite understand how that works. Miles was examined by LEAGUE doctors, and deemed to have a career-ending injury, allowing the Blazers to buy out his albatross of a contract and remove it from their salary cap rolls. Now that other doctors have decided that maybe the injury wasn’t quite so final, and Memphis signed Miles just to screw with Portland, Portland not only is on the hook for a luxury tax payment, in addition to all the money it paid that incompetent coach-killer just to be rid of him? ‘T’ain’t fair, I tell you. Either the Portland management team isn’t as smart as it’s been cracked up to be — would the Spurs ever have wound up in this situation? — or the NBA salary rules need a major overhaul.
Speaking of Frye, given how little he’s contributing to Portland, having previously contributed only marginally more to the Knicks, it’s easy to forget that he was taken 8th in the 2005 draft, 2 spots ahead of Andrew Bynum. Despite Bynum’s lack of consistency, and his distressingly low rebounding totals lately, I don’t think anybody would take Frye over Bynum right now were there a do-over, to put it delicately.
Lakers’ fans love to hate Bynum, whose development is either stalled or retrogressing after tall the pre-injury promise he showed last season. And it’s true, Bynum’s still got a lot of growing up to do, doesn’t always use his size and bulk to best advantage, and keeps making the same irritating mistakes over and over. But would any team in the league rather have Raymond Felton (taken 5th), Martell Webster (6th), Charlie Villanueva (7th), Frye, or Ike Diogu (9th) instead over even the flawed Bynum we see on the court right now? Marvin Williams (2nd)? Toss-up at best.
Heck, although Andrew Bogut, drafted No.1, came into the league more developed, and is at this point a better-rounded center than Bynum, and certainly a better rebounder — though Bynum averages more points and blocks per game — I’d bet that plenty of teams would rather have Bynum than Bogut, all other things being equal.
The only unequivocally “better” draft picks than Bynum in 2005 were Chris Paul (4th) and Deron Williams (3rd). Just in case anybody’s keeping score. The much-derided judgment of The Kupcake/Jim Buss is starting to look better and better.
The intrigue around LaDainian Tomlinson, who may soon be an ex-Charger, gets thicker and juicier, doesn’t it? The Chargers put out word, before the playoff loss to Pittsburgh, that LT was sidelined with a “groin strain.” LT, for his part, has confirmed that it wasn’t just a “strain,” but a far more severe detachment of a tendon that connects one of his muscles to his pubic bone, saying, “If it was a strain I’d be able to play with it, trust me. A lot of guys have strains.” Now that we know what LT’s injury really was, the fact that he played in the Colts’ game at all — and actually managed to rush for a TD before coming out — shows that he’s not a prima donna, sitting out with the proverbial “hangnail.”
I understand why clubs don’t like to publicize the seriousness and extent of their players’ injuries. But it seems to me that if they’re going to play cute, and underplay the seriousness of a player’s injury, it’s only fair that they should have his back, and not leave him to twist slowly, slowly in the wind, as ignorant sports talk show hosts and mouth but underinformed callers bash the injured player as a quitter, a pantywaist, or worse.
Yet, Chargers’ management, never known as “player-friendly” even on its best days, did exactly that: lie about the extent of LT’s injury and allow — even invite — unfair criticism of his ability to play with pain. And not for the first time, either. When LT sat out most of last season’s AFC Championship game against New England with a knee ligament injury so bad that it appeared to linger into this season — so bad that Norv Turner admitted that he knew LT couldn’t have returned — the Chargers persisted in characterizing the problem as a mere “sore knee.”
I’m no great fan of LT, and I certainly have no inside information. But I agree with Petros Papadakis, who’s been there at the college level, that anybody who gets as many carries as LT, game-in, game-out and year-in, year-out, regularly plays with pain and wouldn’t sit out unless the “pain” was abnormally great, or his condition threatened worse injury. He shouldn’t have to prove his toughness to the great unwashed. And he certainly shouldn’t have to do it because his team deliberately and callously underplayed the severity of his injuries. But, as always in pro sports, “loyalty” extends only one way — from players to management — and is rarely reciprocated.
Please send comments and criticism — especially criticism — to thonglaw@sprynet.com, where it will be dealt with appropriately.
