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

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

So in other words as long as McDermott has Josh as his qb, he'll never get fired. The job requirement is win in the regular season and maybe an occasional playoff game and your safe for life. Or at least as long as 17 is there.

 

Pretty much.

[oldmanfan]

18 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

The hypothesis doesn’t invalidate the data. Your ruining your scientist ploy.

 

 

All data in studies are selected. There is no other way to narrow the subject from the entire universe to the topic at hand.

 

I think what you meant to say is the data is cherry picked. Which, you would again be wrong, considering I used every Super Bowl attending coach for 40 year. It doesn’t get more large data set than that.

 

As said before - What is actually happening is that you do not like the conclusive results of the data, but you know that with an extremely large data set of 40 years, there is very little that you can do to discredit the data. Therefore, you resort to ad hominem.

It is not ad hominem.  It is telling you that you have a preset idea and are trying to cherry pick ( a term you accurately use) data to prove it.  You call it ad hominem because you don’t like being challenged by someone who understands something about analyzing things.  You don’t even really have a hypothesis here.

 

You don’t take into account any independent variables in your thought process.  A great example would be a player who almost died on the field and the psychological effect on a team.  How might that factor into getting to a Super Bowl, and how does it relate to a coach’s abilities?  

Edited June 25, 2023 by oldmanfan

[newcam2012]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Success in football is a multi factorial process.  The analysis provided here is a good example of correlation not equaling causation.  Take the 2 year data point.  It is intimated that a new HC can put together a winner in 2 years.  The much more likely reason is that the necessary players were already there and the new coach had an advantage going in.  Gruden in Tampa Bay would be a good example.

 

While  I’m not an Einstein I am a scientist with 40 years experience in research, including acting as a reviewer for many journals and for the NIH and FDA.  What you see here is a classic example of deciding on a conclusion, then looking for data to support it, rather than asking a research question then looking at all data that relate to it.  The term is ascertainment bias.

 

I believe stability in the front office gives a better chance of success than not.  Having a consistent philosophy allows one to draft and select FAs that fit your philosophy vs. changing philosophies every time the HC or GM changes.

Great post. Stability and philosophy are important concepts to team building. A cohesive group of players on the same page certainly can increase winning probability. 

 

However, there always comes a time when difficult decisions need to be made. Those decisions are largely made with analysing data, sample size, results, weighing risks, and rewards. Of course, many other variables are at play. 

 

More specifically, how does all of the above pertain to McD? That's where the many differences of opinions have been expressed. 

[Einstein]

25 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It is not ad hominem.  It is telling you that you have a preset idea and are trying to cherry pick .

 

Im glad I was able to teach you the word that you meant to use. But no, using 40 years of every Super Bowl attending coach is not cherry picked data. It is as extensive as you get.

 

25 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You don’t take into account any independent variables in your thought process.  A great example would be a player who almost died on the field and the psychological effect on a team. 

 

Yeah, this part proved that you’re not a scientist nor a researcher…  To complain that a 40 year data set is invalidated due to a team (that is not even included in the data set) had a player almost die on the field?

 

It’s not only ignorant of data study, but it is also laughable.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Einstein

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

Great post. Stability and philosophy are important concepts to team building. A cohesive group of players on the same page certainly can increase winning probability. 

 

However, there always comes a time when difficult decisions need to be made. Those decisions are largely made with analysing data, sample size, results, weighing risks, and rewards. Of course, many other variables are at play. 

 

More specifically, how does all of the above pertain to McD? That's where the many differences of opinions have been expressed. 

Pertaining to McD if you were to change now it would be based on emotion and not data.  The guy has won a lot and had his team in the playoffs.  

Just now, Einstein said:

 

Im glad I was able to teach you the word that you meant to use. But no, using 40 years of every Super Bowl attending coach is not cherry picked data. It is as extensive as you get.

 

 

Yeah, you’re not a scientist nor a researcher…  To complain that a 40 year data set is invalidated due to a team (that is not even included in the data set) had a player almost die on the field?

 

It’s not only ignorant of data study, but it is also laughable.

Doctorate with 40 years, NIH funding, over 30 peer reviewed publications.  Try again.  How many do you have?

 

My example of an independent variable is just that, an example.  And it does not validate or invalidate your handpicked data set.  It points out that for your data set to mean anything you need to go deeper.  Which I suspect you won’t because it might invalidate your preconceived idea.

[Einstein]

PS, for everyone who is interested in this line of research.

 

Five Thirty Eight (the polling website) did an entire research column on an offshoot of this very subject. Rather than just looking at coaches, they looked at head coach and quarterback duos.

 

The result? They determined that HC/QB duo’s have only 5 years.

 

Very close to my 4.2 result.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-coaches-and-qbs-should-divorce-after-five-years-of-not-winning/amp/

[newcam2012]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Pertaining to McD if you were to change now it would be based on emotion and not data.  The guy has won a lot and had his team in the playoffs.  

That's more then fair. I totally get that viewpoint. 

 

However, there is plenty of data signifying the track record of McD in the playoffs. By all accounts, even the most optimistic can't conclude it's a positive result. 

 

That's exactly where the divide and the debate begins. No one is denying the fact that he wins games and gets to the playoffs. Ask yourself what has he done in the playoffs.

 

Take a hard look at the performance of the Bills coaching staff during McD tenure. Don't easily dismiss the last two years of borderline incompetence in the playoffs. It's not insignificant. 

 

Taking that into account the decision becomes much more analytical than emotional. 

 

Like I said, I acknowledge the validity of retaining McD. However, there is also validity in moving on as well. Imho, it's disingenuous to say the decision is emotional and not data driven. 

 

The question is what level of whining quest your thirst? What is a successful season? It's all relative. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

6 hours ago, Einstein said:

Exactly. That's why teams should always be searching for one who can.

 

 

And how do you do that?  If teams knew they'd have started doing that a long time ago.  For the most part the plan is to cycle through people and hope you get lucky.

 

Results likely need to be adjusted whether teams have franchise QB or not.  I'd imagine too that the reason the time to reach a SB is so short is many coaches don't even last 4 years with a team nor less worry about making playoffs or SB.  Just keep cycling so a few get lucky and make it.   Sean McVay made it, then went 5-9 the following year.  Pederson  won a SB, and got fired was it 2 or 3 years later?

[JerseyBills]

4 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

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

That's an excellent point.. Salute 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

3 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

So in other words as long as McDermott has Josh as his qb, he'll never get fired. The job requirement is win in the regular season and maybe an occasional playoff game and you’re safe for life. Or at least as long as 17 is there.

McDermott and the Bills won’t win the division every season or win a playoff game every season. But until that happens he’s not getting fired.

 

Also, if he continues to win the division every season and win a playoff game every season he will eventually make a Super Bowl. 
 

Also, Josh Allen isn’t the best QB in the AFC and he might not be the 2nd best QB in the AFC. He might never be unanimously thought of as the 2nd best QB in the AFC for the rest of his career. McDermott is only losing to the 2 QBs that are considered equal or better than Allen. So using the “He has Josh Allen” argument doesn’t work. They have Mahomes and Burrow.

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, newcam2012 said:

That's more then fair. I totally get that viewpoint. 

 

However, there is plenty of data signifying the track record of McD in the playoffs. By all accounts, even the most optimistic can't conclude it's a positive result. 

 

That's exactly where the divide and the debate begins. No one is denying the fact that he wins games and gets to the playoffs. Ask yourself what has he done in the playoffs.

 

Take a hard look at the performance of the Bills coaching staff during McD tenure. Don't easily dismiss the last two years of borderline incompetence in the playoffs. It's not insignificant. 

 

Taking that into account the decision becomes much more analytical than emotional. 

 

Like I said, I acknowledge the validity of retaining McD. However, there is also validity in moving on as well. Imho, it's disingenuous to say the decision is emotional and not data driven. 

 

The question is what level of whining quest your thirst? What is a successful season? It's all relative. 

His biggest failure was the 13 second game.  If you want to move on from a guy who has his team in the playoffs every year but one, in a sport where in any given year 1 of 32 coaches win and when multiple variables affect outcome independent if the coach, it’s emotional.  If he lost the locker room that could be a valid reason to me, but I don’t see that he has.

 

How do you define success?  The ultimate is winning a Lombardi.  Perhaps you should ask the OP why he chose getting to a SB game vs. winning one as his metric.

Edited June 25, 2023 by oldmanfan

[BillsFan692]

51 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

His biggest failure was the 13 second game.  If you want to move on from a guy who has his team in the playoffs every year but one, in a sport where in any given year 1 of 32 coaches win and when multiple variables affect outcome independent if the coach, it’s emotional.  If he lost the locker room that could be a valid reason to me, but I don’t see that he has.

 

How do you define success?  The ultimate is winning a Lombardi.  Perhaps you should ask the OP why he chose getting to a SB game vs. winning one as his metric.

 

 

Well you cant win one without getting to one so i dont see how it would affect the argument really.

 

There is some validity to the data but also with only 40 data points its not that large of a sample you are correct.

 

For example if they test medicine on 40 people and it seems fine they then have to then go out and test it on a 1000 people just to be sure. The larger the number of data points the more accurate and trustworthy the conclusions.

 

At same time, there is some merit to the source argument that a coach qb combo usually tend to get it done within 5 years. (Thats a long time!) 

 

The thing is there are exceptions to every rule and anomalies in every data set. Mcdermott could be an outlier. I think 90% of bills fan base is just happy contending and being relevant. I know I am! Beats the hell out of like 26 other teams in the league. I get to watch football in January thats exciting. Who really cares at the end of the day 97% of teams go home empty handed.

 

here is another data set:)

 

every coach who has ever won the superbowl had to win in the regular season and make it to the playoffs.

 

Seems the most important thing is to punch your ticket to the dance above all else. Whose to say  coaching / gm changes dont turn your once annual championship contender into a poverty franchise.

 

Id like to see the data on that. How often does a coach/gm change lead to a superbowl. Its astronomically low i am sure.

 

McDermott has to live with 13 seconds as do we all but lets not pretend like KC isnt an incredible football team with an incredible QB and an incredible coach. Miracles happen on the regular for Buffalo with Josh and McD but miracles happen often for KC as well. There is a reason why mahommes is that guy.

 

to bad reid didnt misuse any of his timeouts and unfortunate they were able to get a couple plays off but mahomes is a magic man and we left him enough time.

 

Josh is like that too. Which is why bills football is so exciting now. That game was still a moment for us to be proud of it is widely regarded as the best game of football ever played.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by BillsFan692

[newcam2012]

40 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

His biggest failure was the 13 second game.  If you want to move on from a guy who has his team in the playoffs every year but one, in a sport where in any given year 1 of 32 coaches win and when multiple variables affect outcome independent if the coach, it’s emotional.  If he lost the locker room that could be a valid reason to me, but I don’t see that he has.

 

How do you define success?  The ultimate is winning a Lombardi.  Perhaps you should ask the OP why he chose getting to a SB game vs. winning one as his metric.

Disagree with your interpretation. Your premise is incorrect. I'm not advocating moving on from him because if 13 seconds. That certainly plays a role in my thought process. However, that's too micro of a viewpoint.

 

Rather,  I'm looking at his entire playoff history. The 4-5 overall record, the Texans loss, Jags loss, the Indy win,  two KC losses which includes 13 seconds, and last year's two playoff games. When you look at the complete picture it's not a scathing record. In fact, it's poor by anyone's standard.

 

Look beyond the score and you can see how inept and poor the Bills coaching was. That doesn't exclude McD. I'd be confident to say the Bills coaching staff lost more playoff games than they won. Feel free to disagree. 

 

So hopefully you can see a more macro playoff version of McD. It's not pretty and it can be argued it's terminal results. 

 

 

[BillsFan692]

36 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

Disagree with your interpretation. Your premise is incorrect. I'm not advocating moving on from him because if 13 seconds. That certainly plays a role in my thought process. However, that's too micro of a viewpoint.

 

Rather,  I'm looking at his entire playoff history. The 4-5 overall record, the Texans loss, Jags loss, the Indy win,  two KC losses which includes 13 seconds, and last year's two playoff games. When you look at the complete picture it's not a scathing record. In fact, it's poor by anyone's standard.

 

Look beyond the score and you can see how inept and poor the Bills coaching was. That doesn't exclude McD. I'd be confident to say the Bills coaching staff lost more playoff games than they won. Feel free to disagree. 

 

So hopefully you can see a more macro playoff version of McD. It's not pretty and it can be argued it's terminal results. 

 

 

4-5 and winning games in january season after season is not terminal results what are you even talking about.

 

0-9 would be terminal results.

 

Hell 2-7 would be terminal.

 

4-5? Decent. Worth seeing more. If we win it all this year he'll be what?  8-5? Lol. It cant be terminal if one season can make it all better.

Edited June 25, 2023 by BillsFan692

[MJS]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

There are 16 current head coaches who have been in the playoffs.

 

McD is 13th among them, in playoff win percentage.

That isn't true. There are 23 head coaches who have been in the playoffs as head coaches. Sean McDermott is 15th in win percentage among them at 0.444.

 

If you want to just look at their current teams, there are 21 head coaches who have made the playoffs with their current teams. Sean McDermott is ranked 13th in playoff win percentage out of those 21. You omitted the 5 head coaches who have appeared in the playoffs but not won a playoff game, either on purpose to try to make McDermott look worse, or by accident.

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, newcam2012 said:

Disagree with your interpretation. Your premise is incorrect. I'm not advocating moving on from him because if 13 seconds. That certainly plays a role in my thought process. However, that's too micro of a viewpoint.

 

Rather,  I'm looking at his entire playoff history. The 4-5 overall record, the Texans loss, Jags loss, the Indy win,  two KC losses which includes 13 seconds, and last year's two playoff games. When you look at the complete picture it's not a scathing record. In fact, it's poor by anyone's standard.

 

Look beyond the score and you can see how inept and poor the Bills coaching was. That doesn't exclude McD. I'd be confident to say the Bills coaching staff lost more playoff games than they won. Feel free to disagree. 

 

So hopefully you can see a more macro playoff version of McD. It's not pretty and it can be argued it's terminal results. 

 

 

Well I clearly disagree.  The assumption is the grass is greener if you make a change.  That is rarely so.

1 hour ago, BillsFan692 said:

 

 

Well you cant win one without getting to one so i dont see how it would affect the argument really.

 

There is some validity to the data but also with only 40 data points its not that large of a sample you are correct.

 

For example if they test medicine on 40 people and it seems fine they then have to then go out and test it on a 1000 people just to be sure. The larger the number of data points the more accurate and trustworthy the conclusions.

 

At same time, there is some merit to the source argument that a coach qb combo usually tend to get it done within 5 years. (Thats a long time!) 

 

The thing is there are exceptions to every rule and anomalies in every data set. Mcdermott could be an outlier. I think 90% of bills fan base is just happy contending and being relevant. I know I am! Beats the hell out of like 26 other teams in the league. I get to watch football in January thats exciting. Who really cares at the end of the day 97% of teams go home empty handed.

 

here is another data set:)

 

every coach who has ever won the superbowl had to win in the regular season and make it to the playoffs.

 

Seems the most important thing is to punch your ticket to the dance above all else. Whose to say  coaching / gm changes dont turn your once annual championship contender into a poverty franchise.

 

Id like to see the data on that. How often does a coach/gm change lead to a superbowl. Its astronomically low i am sure.

 

McDermott has to live with 13 seconds as do we all but lets not pretend like KC isnt an incredible football team with an incredible QB and an incredible coach. Miracles happen on the regular for Buffalo with Josh and McD but miracles happen often for KC as well. There is a reason why mahommes is that guy.

 

to bad reid didnt misuse any of his timeouts and unfortunate they were able to get a couple plays off but mahomes is a magic man and we left him enough time.

 

Josh is like that too. Which is why bills football is so exciting now. That game was still a moment for us to be proud of it is widely regarded as the best game of football ever played.

 

 

 

 

It’s not that the data set is small necessarily, it’s that it was deliberately picked to support a preconceived idea.

[newcam2012]

2 hours ago, BillsFan692 said:

4-5 and winning games in january season after season is not terminal results what are you even talking about.

 

0-9 would be terminal results.

 

Hell 2-7 would be terminal.

 

4-5? Decent. Worth seeing more. If we win it all this year he'll be what?  8-5? Lol. It cant be terminal if one season can make it all better.

That's a pretty disingenuous post. 

 

The record itself doesn't tell the complete an accurate picture. Piece together the coaching decisions, game time adjustments, game plan, and schemes. It's been awful for far too long. 

 

As a fan, I want a coaching staff that can give it's team the best chance to win. A coaching staff that is an asset instead of a liability. How anyone can think the Bills coaching staff has done a decent job in the playoffs. It baffles me. They haven't and that's the point! We've seen it for numerous years. How many more mulligans does he get? How many more wasted opportunities? How many more excuses? 

 

The window is getting tighter and tighter folks. A healthy Allen surely helps out any coach. I welcome a change but obviously that's not coming soon. McD and Beane are safe and in complete control. Let's see what happens. 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by newcam2012

[newcam2012]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Well I clearly disagree.  The assumption is the grass is greener if you make a change.  That is rarely so.

It’s not that the data set is small necessarily, it’s that it was deliberately picked to support a preconceived idea.

What's there to lose if McD is not coaching the Bills? That's a serious question not trying to facetious. 

 

Of course, there is some risk but how much? 

 

I for one would be super excited if Payton was hired as the Bills coach. A welcome change if you will. 

 

Allen clearly mitigates the risk. Isn't that a fair statement?

 

A decent to solid coach is likely to have a good regular season record and make the playoffs. Especially with Allen and the  roster. Is that a fair statement?

 

The notion that the team is going to regress or fall apart without McD is unfounded and a fallacy.  The opposite is quite possible too. A new fresh start, innovative and creativity might be just what the Bills need. Ask yourself how much different is this year going to be with the same old regime? 

 

 

22 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Well I clearly disagree.  The assumption is the grass is greener if you make a change.  That is rarely so.

It’s not that the data set is small necessarily, it’s that it was deliberately picked to support a preconceived idea.

Is the grass is greener with staying with the status quo? 

[oldmanfan]

2 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

What's there to lose if McD is not coaching the Bills? That's a serious question not trying to facetious. 

 

Of course, there is some risk but how much? 

 

I for one would be super excited if Payton was hired as the Bills coach. A welcome change if you will. 

 

Allen clearly mitigates the risk. Isn't that a fair statement?

 

A decent to solid coach is likely to have a good regular season record and make the playoffs. Especially with Allen and the  roster. Is that a fair statement?

 

The notion that the team is going to regress or fall apart without McD is unfounded and a fallacy.  The opposite is quite possible too. A new fresh start, innovative and creativity might be just what the Bills need. Ask yourself how much different is this year going to be with the same old regime? 

 

 

Is the grass is greener with staying with the status quo? 

You don’t know.  That is the point.  No one is saying the team falls apart without McD.  Don’t be silly.  What I am saying is that you cannot just assume the next guy is going to be the answer. As for a guy like Payton, I could be wrong but I believe there has never been a case where a HC has won a SB for two different teams.

Edited June 25, 2023 by oldmanfan

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You don’t know.  That is the point.  No one is saying the team falls apart without McD.  Don’t be silly.  What I am saying is that you cannot just assume the next guy is going to be the answer. As for a guy like Payton, I could be wrong but I believe there has never been a case where a HC has won a SB for two different teams.

 

You are correct. Again, not sure if that proves anything. A bit like the original stat from @Einstein it is interesting but does not suggest causation. 

 

The point with Sean Payton for me (and I think he is second only to Andy Reid as a play caller) is that he had an elite level future HOF Quarterback for 15 years, won 1 Superbowl, missed the playoffs multiple times and has a list of disastrous playoff exits to teams the Saints were better than. It is one thing losing playoff games to Deshaun Watson, Patrick Mahomes and Joe Burrow. It's another losing to Matt Hasselbeck, Rex Grossman and Case Keenum. 

 

If the argument is about the Bills underachieving in the playoffs the antidote to that can't be Sean Payton, as good of a coach as I believe him to be.