How long does it take an NFL head coach to reach his 1st Super Bowl?

[Augie]

25 minutes ago, eball said:

There are so many variables involved in reaching/winning a Super Bowl: talent, coaching, injuries, and plain old luck.  A good/great coach is one who has his team perennially in the mix to compete for a championship.  The "how many years to reach a Super Bowl" analysis is ridiculous.  By any measure McD is a good/great coach.

 

As an NFL fan, all you can realistically hope for is that your team is consistently "in the mix" to compete for a championship.  We have that.

 

I don't know what @Einstein's purpose is other than to be a self-aggrandizing blowhard on a fan football forum.

 

 

This seemed worth quoting…..just because I can. This “analysis” is just a bunch of silly crying out for attention. It means absolutely nothing in terms of predicting the future. Our HC was 14-4 last year, generally in line with his previous seasons. You don’t win it all until you win it all. That’s how it works. 

[teef]

7 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

This seemed worth quoting…..just because I can. This “analysis” is just a bunch of silly crying out for attention. It means absolutely nothing in terms of predicting the future. Our HC was 14-4 last year, generally in line with his previous seasons. You don’t win it all until you win it all. That’s how it works. 

i does seem like a lot of work to ultimately prove nothing.  i get that some people enjoy the analysis, but to spend hours calculating something that pushes an agenda seems like a massive waste of time.  time that someone who was extremely successful and intelligent just wouldn't have.  

[Fleezoid]

 

[SoCal Deek]

34 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Understood, but It is 40 years of data and it is not n=1. When those 50~ results come from a pool of over several hundred coaches, it has some meaning as it shows who out of that pool of several hundred (the real sample) was able to make it.

 

But I do understand that there will always be *some* reason for results we do not like to be discredited. I blame lab error for my cholesterol numbers.

 

It’s not really 40 years of data. It’s more like just forty rolls of a dice. That’s a very small sample size of anything. 

[Einstein]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

It’s not really 40 years of data. It’s more like just forty rolls of a dice. That’s a very small sample size of anything. 

 

If that dice landed on the same number 35 times you may be on to something with that dice being weighted toward a certain outcome.

[eball]

44 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

This seemed worth quoting…..just because I can. This “analysis” is just a bunch of silly crying out for attention. It means absolutely nothing in terms of predicting the future. Our HC was 14-4 last year, generally in line with his previous seasons. You don’t win it all until you win it all. That’s how it works. 

 

35 minutes ago, teef said:

i does seem like a lot of work to ultimately prove nothing.  i get that some people enjoy the analysis, but to spend hours calculating something that pushes an agenda seems like a massive waste of time.  time that someone who was extremely successful and intelligent just wouldn't have.  

 

I believe you two gentlemen have succinctly summed up @Einstein's presence in this forum.

 

[TBBills Fan]

16 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

The first two sausages…easy peasy.  That 3rd one…I had to take a deep breath.  

 

 

but you took 3 sausages in 1 sitting, thats pro level

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

If that dice landed on the same number 35 times you may be on to something with that dice being weighted toward a certain outcome.

Huh? There are only six sides on a dice. There are way more than six variables in this equation. While I absolutely loved Money Ball as a movie, the Oakland Athletics did not win the World Series that year. Sheeeesh! 

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, TBBills Fan said:

 

 

but you took 3 sausages in 1 sitting, thats pro level

 

Nothing is better than when you achieve a dream.

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Sorry but your math is wrong.

 

Odds (for example, the ones you listed at 10 to 1, 5 to 1, 4 to 1) do not translate directly into percentages (10%, 20%, 25%). Odds and probabilities are related, but they're not the same thing. Odds are a ratio of the probability of an event happening to the probability of it not happening, while probability is a ratio of the probability of an event happening to all possible outcomes.

 

In other words, 10 to 1 odds correspond to a probability of 1/11 (9.09%), 5 to 1 odds correspond to a probability of 1/6 (16.67%) and 4 to 1 odds correspond to a probability of 1/5 (20%).

So we have 0.9091 * 0.8333 * 0.8 = 0.604 

 

then

 

1 - 0.604 = 0.396 (39.6%)

 

The probability of making the Super Bowl one time in the past 3 years (given Vegas odds) are 39.6%

 

.

Yeah.  You're right.  I just always have in my mind that 4 to 1 odds means if you bet $25 you gain $100 if it hits (with no vig).  Good call and way to make me feel worse.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Doc Brown

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Huh? There are only six sides on a dice. There are way more than six variables in this equation. While I absolutely loved Money Ball as a movie, the Oakland Athletics did not win the World Series that year. Sheeeesh! 

 

The fact that there are so many different variables and yet the data is still so consistent is what makes it so remarkable and notable.

 

[Einstein]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Yeah.  You're right.  I just always have in my mind that 4 to 1 odds means if you bet $25 you gain $100 if it hits.  Good call and way to make me feel worse.

 

Haha didn’t intend to make you feel bad. Most people do not understand probabilities and odds. The evidence of which is glaring throughout this thread.

[WotAGuy]

6 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Haha didn’t intend to make you feel bad. Most people do not understand probabilities and odds. The evidence of which is glaring throughout this thread.

Oh the irony!

[Einstein]

5 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Oh the irony!

 

When an expert engages in conversations with laypeople, it is not uncommon for the latter to feel confident in their own correctness and perceive the experts as being mistaken. I have grown accustomed to this dynamic.

 

[What a Tuel]

Why is "Super Bowl appearance" the threshold and why would it not just move to "Super Bowl win" if we make it there and lose?

 

Also we are really saying we have a statistically significant better chance of McDermott winning in year 6 vs year 7? Explain that? How does previous coach history on a different team and period affect the here and now? 

 

There are a lot of coaches that didn't win for a long time and never won a Super Bowl, but won one later on the same or different team.

 

There are a lot of coaches that won a super bowl in their first few years and never made it back again.

 

I bet the Chiefs front office were glad they didnt have Einstein in their ears for Year 7 of the Andy Reid HC gig. They had very little chance to make the super bowl according to this bc it proves he is just not capable of it bc other coaches didnt?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by What a Tuel

[Einstein]

Just now, What a Tuel said:

Why is "Super Bowl appearance" the threshold and why would it not just move to "Super Bowl win" if we make it there and lose?

 

Because we are trying to identify when coaches are most ready to make a Super Bowl run.

 

To be honest, I don’t think the results will be much different when looking at Super Bowl wins, but I can run the analysis for you if you’d like.

 

Just now, What a Tuel said:

Also we are really saying we have a statistically significant better chance of McDermott winning in year 6 vs year 7? Explain that?

 

A studies data simply provides the answer. This is followed by individuals proposing various hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. For instance, one hypothesis might suggest that as coaches extend their tenure in the NFL, teams decode their strategies and understand their gameplay, thus causing a decrease in their effectiveness over time. However, this is just one possible explanation and may not necessarily be the correct one.

[WotAGuy]

13 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

When an expert engages in conversations with laypeople, it is not uncommon for the latter to feel confident in their own correctness and perceive the experts as being mistaken. I have grown accustomed to this dynamic.

 

Don’t call yourself “laypeople”. You’re an Einstein!  

[Don Otreply]

On 6/24/2023 at 9:35 PM, NewEra said:

How long does it take for the entire board to put pillar of negativity on ignore.  
 

 

the more you guys respond, the more the troll eats

He is special isn’t he,  if you don’t believe me, ask him, he will be happy to tell anyone how special he is, oh, he did that already 😆🤣😂

[What a Tuel]

12 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Because we are trying to identify when coaches are most ready to make a Super Bowl run.

 

To be honest, I don’t think the results will be much different when looking at Super Bowl wins, but I can run the analysis for you if you’d like.

 

 

A studies data simply provides the answer. This is followed by individuals proposing various hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. For instance, one hypothesis might suggest that as coaches extend their tenure in the NFL, teams decode their strategies and understand their gameplay, thus causing a decrease in their effectiveness over time. However, this is just one possible explanation and may not necessarily be the correct one.

 

Accounting for team moves, it appears that coaches that coached anytime between 1980 and now, there are about 30 that have won a championship and it appears as though roughly 10 HC or 33% of them have won their first Super Bowl in their 7th+ year as a head coach. It decreases if you narrow it to having to have 7+ years on the same team but that opens up all kinds of questions. Was it the HC or was it the team? Front Office? Owner? 

 

Andy Reid, Pete Carroll, Bruce Arians, Gary Kubiak, Tom Coughlin are all recent examples of HC that moved to another team and won a Super Bowl. One could argue that their previous teams (obviosuly not NE and Pete Carroll) made a mistake giving up on them or not addressing the real issue.

Edited June 26, 2023 by What a Tuel

[Dopey]

17 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Not sure if they know it yet but this thread could easily be about Josh Allen.

 

The odds are against him.

Watch out, that would be considered blasphemy by the “Josh can do no wrong “ crowd. Even if rumors of cheating, being a baby daddy, cops showing up just before the Cincy playoff game are valid. He’s untouchable. Forget about the actual turnover issue he has.