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

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Again. Where is the proof?

 

You have not shown a single shred of evidence that I did what you are accusing me of.

 

You’re just regurgitating the same unproven assertion.

 

 

You can variable any meaningful stat into extinction.

 

For example. Why count INT’s? There are many variables for why a QB may have thrown one. 

Show me proof you didn’t decide on your conclusion first.  We can play that game all day.  I’ve reviewed hundreds of papers and rejected many because you can tell when there is ascertainment bias.

 

As for variables, you used one to exclude Belichick (lack of a great QB in Cleveland) because it would negate your preconceived conclusion about McD.  There are many independent variables that can affect a team getting to the big game.  Deciding to just ignore that shows your motivation here.

 

Foljs, ignore this guy and what he’s trying to do here.  No more comment from me since you refuse to acknowledge basic aspects of scientific investigation.

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, Chaos said:

Since the thread is only about making the Super Bowl, there are over a 100 samples. 

 

Technically the sample includes several hundred, since the probability is calculated by comparing all coaches to the coaches who made the Super Bowl.

18 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Show me proof you didn’t decide on your conclusion first.  

This is called "shifting the burden of proof." The burden of proof lies with the accuser - you. You are responsible for presenting evidence and arguments to support your claim that I used sampling bias. When you shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, you are essentially demanding that the other party prove their innocence instead. Which is… insane.

 

You can’t show a single shred of evidence that I used sampling bias because there is none. Which is why you continue to regurgitate that comment with any proof.

[What a Tuel]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m pretty sure you and I would/will agree on the right time to pull the trigger. I’m just saying that if I was his boss I wouldn’t do it because of ANYTHING any other coach’s had historically done or will do. I think it’ll be obvious when he’s reached his ceiling. Is it next year? I don’t know. But the chances obviously get higher with each playoff failure. Is that statistics? Maybe. I just call it common sense. 

 

It's exactly this.

 

I also feel like he could do a better analysis by going through the fired head coaches after 7+ years and find out why they were fired. 

 

I mean John Fox was fired after 9 years in Carolina  and made a Super Bowl but missed the playoffs 4 of the last 5 years he was there. Subsequently took Denver to a Super Bowl shortly after with Peyton Manning.

 

Lovie Smith was fired after 9 years in Chicago and while he did take them to one Super Bowl, his last 5 out of 6 years he missed the playoffs.

 

Jeff Fischer spent 17 years in Tennessee and did make one Super Bowl but his last 5 out of 7 years he missed the playoffs.

 

Until McDermott has us consistently missing the playoffs, he is safe whether history shows you other coaches never made it happen after 5, 10, 15 or 20 years or not. He has to do something on his own to blow his job.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Technically the sample includes several hundred, since the probability is calculated by comparing all coaches to the coaches who made the Super Bowl.

This is called "shifting the burden of proof." The burden of proof lies with the accuser - you. You are responsible for presenting evidence and arguments to support your claim that I used sampling bias. When you shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, you are essentially demanding that the other party prove their innocence instead. Which is… insane.

 

You can’t show a single shred of evidence that I used sampling bias because there is none. Which is why you continue to regurgitate that comment with any proof.

 

The proof is your posting history. I bet the McDermott rhetoric existed in years 4, 5, 6 when your model doesn't reflect poorly on him.

Edited June 27, 2023 by What a Tuel

[folz]

1 hour ago, Chaos said:

Lets just agree it is much closer to 100 than to 50

 

 

For what it's worth, the precise number of head coaches appearing in a Super Bowl for the first time is 60 (25 head coaches made it to at least 2 SBs, with Belichick at the top with 9 appearances).

 

There have been 306 NFL head coaches in the Super Bowl era (coached 1966 or later)

There have been 57 Super Bowls

60 NFL head coaches have made a Super Bowl appearance (19.6% of all head coaches, in the SB era)

35 NFL head coaches have won a Super Bowl (only 11.44% of all head coaches, in the SB era)

 

Just FYI to anyone who is interested.

 

 

[Chaos]

2 minutes ago, folz said:

 

For what it's worth, the precise number of head coaches appearing in a Super Bowl for the first time is 60 (25 head coaches made it to at least 2 SBs, with Belichick at the top with 9 appearances).

 

There have been 306 NFL head coaches in the Super Bowl era (coached 1966 or later)

There have been 57 Super Bowls

60 NFL head coaches have made a Super Bowl appearance (19.6% of all head coaches, in the SB era)

35 NFL head coaches have won a Super Bowl (only 11.44% of all head coaches, in the SB era)

 

Just FYI to anyone who is interested.

 

 

I will believe you and stand corrected. But I will verify at some future point. 

[Einstein]

2 minutes ago, Chaos said:

I will believe you and stand corrected. But I will verify at some future point. 

 

But again, the sample is not only first time coaches.  Technically the sample includes several hundred, since the probability is calculated by comparing all coaches to the coaches who made the Super Bowl in 40 years.

[SoCal Deek]

What does ANY of this have to with whether they should’ve kept Edmunds at MLB? 😂😂😂

[808]

Feel like the main point is you cant have a top tier qb and not win a championship for much longer before you have to move on. 
If you cant figure it out. The team shouldnt be forced to be his training wheels to learn it. Some guys figure it out faster than others. 
but you just cant waste a top tier qb in his prime. Anything less than a championship is failure. Fair or not. Thats the measuring stick when you finally have a qb. 

[GunnerBill]

10 hours ago, Einstein said:

So let me ask you - how much longer would YOU give him? Indefinitely? Would you be willing to spend Allen's entire career waiting for McDermott to figure it out and not make mistakes in the playoffs? 2 more years? 3 more yeas? What, in your opinion, should be McDermott's leash?

 

 

I don't actually think this is the right question. Because it shouldn't be just a number. That is too blunt. It lacks nuance. It isn't proper analysis. My view is if there is ever another playoff defeat that is primarily on coaching - as 13 seconds was - then I'd fire McDermott and move on. You can have one mulligan in the playoffs. You don't get 2 or 3.

 

If we lost a playoff game to a team we were clearly superior to then I'd put him firmly on the hot seat and might consider firing him depending on the circumstances. So far that has never been the case. We have always lost to teams who are at least as good as the Bills at that point. 

 

If neither of those things happen then to me the crunch point comes when you need to extend Josh as he hits his 30s. At that point I might be tempted to make a change for change's sake to see if it sparked a new energy to get us over the top. 

 

So the maximum leash is the length of Josh's deal. But there are routes for the leash to be shorter (to my mind). But I suspect Terry Pegula views it differently for all the reasons discussed in the other thread. I even think McDermott might survive another 13 second style meltdown. He shouldn't, I'm clear on that. But I have always suspected and continue to suspect that the wider context means he is on much more secure ground with ownership than people think. 

[Einstein]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

My view is if there is ever another playoff defeat that is primarily on coaching - as 13 seconds was - then I'd fire McDermott and move on. You can have one mulligan in the playoffs. You don't get 2 or 3.

 

Bingo. That is exactly how I feel as well.

 

Though, while I certainly wouldn’t say the Cincinnati loss was completely on coaching, I do not think McDermott did much right that day either.

 

 

[teef]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't actually think this is the right question. Because it shouldn't be just a number. That is too blunt. It lacks nuance. It isn't proper analysis. My view is if there is ever another playoff defeat that is primarily on coaching - as 13 seconds was - then I'd fire McDermott and move on. You can have one mulligan in the playoffs. You don't get 2 or 3.

 

If we lost a playoff game to a team we were clearly superior to then I'd put him firmly on the hot seat and might consider firing him depending on the circumstances. So far that has never been the case. We have always lost to teams who are at least as good as the Bills at that point. 

 

If neither of those things happen then to me the crunch point comes when you need to extend Josh as he hits his 30s. At that point I might be tempted to make a change for change's sake to see if it sparked a new energy to get us over the top. 

 

So the maximum leash is the length of Josh's deal. But there are routes for the leash to be shorter (to my mind). But I suspect Terry Pegula views it differently for all the reasons discussed in the other thread. I even think McDermott might survive another 13 second style meltdown. He shouldn't, I'm clear on that. But I have always suspected and continue to suspect that the wider context means he is on much more secure ground with ownership than people think. 

i think this is it too.  the fear is that this team now has a malaise going into the playoffs, and if we have a third year of this, you have to imagine it's officially a habit.  i really like mcd as a leader and coach, but that can't keep happening.  

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Bingo. That is exactly how I feel as well.

 

Though, while I certainly wouldn’t say the Cincinnati loss was completely on coaching, I do not think McDermott did much right that day either.

 

 

I think we’ve all come around to the same conclusion and I also don’t think the recent contract extension will save him if the playoff swoons persist. On the contrary, I actually think the extension was a purposeful psychological bolstering just in the case McD was starting to second guess himself. Now, is the clock ticking? Obviously yes. But there are a few circumstances that could put that clock on snooze. For example, if Josh gets injured. Or another pesky league wide labor dispute. Or a horrific referee’s call at a critical moment in a playoff game. Beyond those….tick, tick, tick. However again that’s neither analytics or unusual. It’s common sense. 

[GunnerBill]

47 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Bingo. That is exactly how I feel as well.

 

Though, while I certainly wouldn’t say the Cincinnati loss was completely on coaching, I do not think McDermott did much right that day either.

 

You know my take on the Cincy game. It was overwhelmingly a players loss. 

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I think we’ve all come around to the same conclusion 

 

Honestly, not all of us. Plenty of posters are happy to just make the playoffs. There was a thread a day or two ago, where a poster wrote that he would rather have 10 years of playoff appearances, but no Super Bowls, than five years of playoff appearances, and 1 Super Bowl win.

[Beck Water]

On 6/24/2023 at 3:21 PM, Einstein said:

the chart cuts off some of the names because the list is so long, but the data is there.

 

Data are there.  I normally don't nitpick grammar, but surely a highly successful and wealthy MENSA member such as yourself should be aware that datum is singular, data is the plural.

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Honestly, not all of us. Plenty of posters are happy to just make the playoffs. There was a thread a day or two ago, where a poster wrote that he would rather have 10 years of playoff appearances, but no Super Bowls, than five years of playoff appearances, and 1 Super Bowl win.

Maybe, but I seriously doubt it. Everyone has a different personality and different level of tolerance. While you and I can clearly see the potential inevitable future, others think they can avoid it by ignoring it or that it’s even bad mojo to speculate about it. But….I’ll put it to you that even the most ardent supporters are going to get exhausted from the playoff disappointment if it goes on for the next decade. 

[Beck Water]

On 6/24/2023 at 3:37 PM, MJS said:

You should do an analysis of coaches who are fired after consecutive 10+ win seasons, winning the division, winning playoff games, and having top 10 ranked offenses and defenses. I bet the list is pretty small.

 

Not making a superbowl is not what will get a coach fired. Having subpar seasons will get you fired, such as missing the playoffs multiple times, or not being able to win a playoff game after a bunch of tries, or having losing seasons.

 

Getting to the playoffs and winning playoff games after winning the division and having excellent regular season records is just not going to get you fired, usually.

 

I think perhaps sometimes it is.

Consider the case of Gary Kubiak, who was fired after Denver had a winning season 9-7.

 

This was 1 season after winning the Superbowl and after 4 consecutive 12 and 13 win seasons, and with 7th round pick Trevor Siemian at QB.

 

Kubiak didn't miss the playoffs multiple times, didn't have a losing season.  Yet it was clearly considered "subpar" to go 9-7 after winning a Superbowl.  I think Superbowl (or at least deep into playoffs) had become the expectation in Denver, so Kubiak was considered to have under-achieved.

 

A good related question is "how often is firing a winning coach for 'underachieving' high expectations a successful strategy for the firing team?"  Denver hasn't had a winning season in the 6 years and 3 HC since they fired Kubiak

 

On 6/24/2023 at 3:44 PM, Augie said:

So, if someone is on ignore, does that mean the threads they start don’t show up? Asking for a friend. 

 

The threads they start still show up. Answering for your friend.

A little grayed-out bar "You've chosen to ignore content by ScreenName. " shows up for each post that person makes, with an Options drop down which allows you to choose to see that person's post.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Beck Water

[Einstein]

4 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Data are there.  I normally don't nitpick grammar, but surely a highly successful and wealthy MENSA member such as yourself should be aware that datum is singular, data is the plural.

 

Data is technically plural, however it is often handled as a collective noun, resulting in its pairing with singular verbs and pronouns. Hence, "data is" is an appropriate usage.

 

Or if you don’t believe me, you can check with    grammar software: 

 

 

[Beck Water]

On 6/24/2023 at 6:47 PM, Gugny said:

What’s more relevant is how long it took Andy Reid after getting himself an elite QB. 

 

Is the fact that Reid coached a playoff-contending 11, 10, 12 win team without an elite QB the 5 seasons before he started his elite QB considered relevant?

[MJS]

28 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I think perhaps sometimes it is.

Consider the case of Gary Kubiak, who was fired after Denver had a winning season 9-7.

 

This was 1 season after winning the Superbowl and after 4 consecutive 12 and 13 win seasons, and with 7th round pick Trevor Siemian at QB.

 

Kubiak didn't miss the playoffs multiple times, didn't have a losing season.  Yet it was clearly considered "subpar" to go 9-7 after winning a Superbowl.  I think Superbowl (or at least deep into playoffs) had become the expectation in Denver, so Kubiak was considered to have under-achieved.

 

A good related question is "how often is firing a winning coach for 'underachieving' high expectations a successful strategy for the firing team?"  Denver hasn't had a winning season in the 6 years and 3 HC since they fired Kubiak

And, I think most would agree that was exceptional. Most coaches do not get fired under those circumstances.

 

There are exceptions, and this is one of them. And it usually does not work out. Sometimes it does, but often the team regresses.