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

[Shaw66]

17 hours ago, Augie said:

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

In case no one else answered, the answer is no, the thread still shows up.  I know from personal experience.  From that perspective, Einstein has done a valuable public service and should be commended. 

[LeGOATski]

Just now, Einstein said:

 

I will be honest and say that I worded my response to you very poorly. That’s not your fault.  I have since edited it to make it more 

Honest mistake. We all make them. I said I would let you change your answer, so go ahead.

[muppy]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

There are so many variables that go into these sort of comparisons that I prefer to look at it simply from the perspective of the McD reign alone. They’ve failed in the playoffs for the last few years after having really successful regular seasons and the last failures have come with some hard-to-repeat circumstances (injuries galore and thirteen seconds). If they fail again this year the resume is going to get really bruised. In fact, I believe failing to make the playoffs, might actually get him a mulligan as being chalked up to a ‘down year’. Whereas yet another playoff underperformance might be the last straw. 

IMO Coaching is not the be all and end all of who ends up winning an NFL championship.

 

One variable that I haven't read mentioned is the health of the roster. The availability of key players  in key games due to injuries incurred during the season.

 

Yes a coaches job is to adapt and game plan the most successfully they can with the hand they have been dealt in terms of roster post season.

 

All the grandest coaching and schemes go out the window when an opponent is smacking  you in the mouth. It is what it is. 

 

In other words again just my opinion coaching will only take a team so far the players decide the games. Variables indeed.

[DaggersEOD]

14 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.

Actually I’m pretty sure ascertainment bias is the new scientific standard. 

[LeGOATski]

20 minutes ago, muppy said:

IMO Coaching is not the be all and end all of who ends up winning an NFL championship.

 

One variable that I haven't read mentioned is the health of the roster. The availability of key players  in key games due to injuries incurred during the season.

 

Yes a coaches job is to adapt and game plan the most successfully they can with the hand they have been dealt in terms of roster post season.

 

All the grandest coaching and schemes go out the window when an opponent is smacking  you in the mouth. It is what it is. 

 

In other words again just my opinion coaching will only take a team so far the players decide the games. Variables indeed.

I agree it's more about the players. People on this board love to point out that Brady won another Super Bowl after leaving Belichick. 

 

Development, coaching, motivation, and Xs/Os only get you so far. There's no mystery there. The players ultimately decide what happens on the field.

 

To that point, I've wondered if the defensive coaching/system has been too rigid. In the case of 13 seconds or their last game against the Bengals, everyone could see what was happening on the field. Are the players not able to freelance a bit? Are they too stuck in McD's ways that they can't adjust themselves? McD always says he wants the players to play fast and loose. I think he coaches the system well enough and keeps it simple enough for that to happen. But is he allowing enough autonomy on the defense?

[SoCal Deek]

37 minutes ago, muppy said:

IMO Coaching is not the be all and end all of who ends up winning an NFL championship.

 

One variable that I haven't read mentioned is the health of the roster. The availability of key players  in key games due to injuries incurred during the season.

 

Yes a coaches job is to adapt and game plan the most successfully they can with the hand they have been dealt in terms of roster post season.

 

All the grandest coaching and schemes go out the window when an opponent is smacking  you in the mouth. It is what it is. 

 

In other words again just my opinion coaching will only take a team so far the players decide the games. Variables indeed.

I agree, but eventually you run out of excuses and I don’t doubt that McD knows that. I’ve always said that the key to winning in the playoffs is being present in the moment. You can’t get flustered by the ups and downs of the game. It’s not unlike when they say how the game ‘slows down’ for a QB after a season or two. The same is true for the coach. 

[MJS]

39 minutes ago, muppy said:

IMO Coaching is not the be all and end all of who ends up winning an NFL championship.

 

One variable that I haven't read mentioned is the health of the roster. The availability of key players  in key games due to injuries incurred during the season.

 

Yes a coaches job is to adapt and game plan the most successfully they can with the hand they have been dealt in terms of roster post season.

 

All the grandest coaching and schemes go out the window when an opponent is smacking  you in the mouth. It is what it is. 

 

In other words again just my opinion coaching will only take a team so far the players decide the games. Variables indeed.

On one hand the McDermott critics claim that the success of the team is all on Allen's shoulders, that coaching isn't why the team has been so successful, and then on the other hand they claim that coaching is THE reason why we can't win in the playoffs.

 

I don't think they can have it both ways. Either coaching is a big part of the game and and it isn't just about the QB, or it is on the players for why we can't get over the hump in the playoffs.

 

Coaching is only important to them when they want to blame someone, but meaningless when they want to recognize success.

[Albany,n.y.]

5 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

The best QB in a given season doesn’t always win the Super Bowl, but a lot of the arguments are that McDermott should’ve won with Allen. 
 

In the last 3 years Allen has lost to the best QB in the AFC and someone equal to Allen. When they played Houston Watson was a better QB.

So making the QB argument doesn’t work against McDermott, at least not yet. He’s facing teams with just as good QB play or better.

In 2 of the playoff losses, Houston & KC, it was the defense that fell apart at the end of the game.  Put the blame where it belongs, on Les Frazier.  That's why McDermott just got an extension & Less is no longer coaching defense for the Bills.  

[Augie]

1 hour ago, muppy said:

IMO Coaching is not the be all and end all of who ends up winning an NFL championship.

 

One variable that I haven't read mentioned is the health of the roster. The availability of key players  in key games due to injuries incurred during the season.

 

Yes a coaches job is to adapt and game plan the most successfully they can with the hand they have been dealt in terms of roster post season.

 

All the grandest coaching and schemes go out the window when an opponent is smacking  you in the mouth. It is what it is. 

 

In other words again just my opinion coaching will only take a team so far the players decide the games. Variables indeed.

 

I didn’t see Von’s ACL tear in any of that scientific mathy stuff presented earlier. There may be a problem with the formula. 

[Alphadawg7]

19 hours ago, Einstein said:

The tenure of Sean McDermott as head coach and the appropriate "leash" to allow him to lead this team to the Super Bowl has been a topic of considerable debate on this forum. While there's a consensus that he deserves additional time, the crux of the argument lies in determining the precise length of this leash.

 

To shed light on this, I conducted a simple data study, examining the trajectory of every NFL head coach who has led their team to the Super Bowl (not necessarily winning, just reaching the final game) over the past 40 NFL seasons.

 

Here is what the data revealed:

 

• On average, it takes a head coach 4.2 seasons to reach his first Super Bowl.

 

• Only 5 coaches in the past 40 years have made their inaugural Super Bowl appearance after 7 seasons of head coaching. This is particularly relevant as Sean McDermott is about to enter his seventh season as head coach

 

• The most frequent timeline for a coach's first Super Bowl appearance is two years, closely followed by five years. This trend suggests that many coaches are capable of assembling a Super Bowl-worthy team within the first 5 years of their tenure (77% of these coaches managed to make the Super Bowl within their first 5 seasons)

 

NOTE: The data is across the coaches entire NFL career. For example, if a coach spent 5 years on his first team, and 4 years on his second team (before making a Super Bowl) the data tallies 9 total seasons prior to his inaugural Super Bowl appearance.

 

NOTE 2: The Sean McDermott line is where McDermott will be after this upcoming season.

 

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

The moment I read the thread title I knew exactly who started this dumb thread to find another way to dump on McD.  

But I take solace in the fact that people like you are gonna be all worked up, upset, bothered, etc over the news of the extensions while the rest of us sit back, relax, smile and enjoy the news as we wait for camp and the season to begin. 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Alphadawg7

[NoSaint]

15 hours ago, MJS said:

No, he could not win in the playoffs. McDermott can. It is completely different.

do you ever think back on the 90s as bittersweet? Would you hate to have a similar albeit slightly less successful era with Josh Allen? 
 

the only thing that matters is getting the ring. 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, CincyBillsFan said:

First, I like McD and approve of the contract extension.  But that being said Allen did beat Mahomes in that 2021 playoff game by leading TWO epic 4th quarter TD drives.  That KC was able to get a FG with 13 seconds left is on McD and the coaching staff.  And no one will convince me otherwise.  So your basic premise is false IMO.

 

Second, the 3 QB's you mentioned - Mahomes, Burrow & Watson - all benefited from offenses that were stacked with talent in organizations that pushed the majority of their resources to surrounding their elite QB's with play makers and an effective O line.  By any criteria Allen has had much less to work with then the 3 QB's you brought up.

 

This is my biggest issue with McD.  He and Bean have focused on the D at the expense of the O and it has not led to a SB.  It has led to the Bills being one of the top 4 teams in the NFL over the last 3 seasons and winning 3 straight division titles. From what I can see this has started to change and will lead to a SB berth in the next couple of seasons.

 

So to part ways with McD over his failure to reach the SB in the face of his clear success is dumb.  To blame the failure to reach the SB on Allen is dumber.

 

Good post although I'll disagree that in our Houston playoff game that Watson's O was "stacked with talent," it was not.  Apart from Watson and Hopkins it was not good.  Hyde was a mediocre RB despite having posted his career best, yet a 13th on the season rushing ranking, and after Hopkins no one can name their other receivers without looking at their roster.  

 

But here's my issue insofar as it concerns McD in that particular game, and not that similar things can be said about no fewer than 7 of our 9 other playoff games, one that you reference above, but we were up 16-0 in that game.  McD is a defensively oriented coach.  IOW Defense is supposed to be his strength.  Yet he was responsible for Houston scoring 19 points in just over a quarter to push the game to OT and win it.  I have no idea how that isn't a coaching fail.  

 

 

1 hour ago, muppy said:

IMO Coaching is not the be all and end all of who ends up winning an NFL championship.

 

One variable that I haven't read mentioned is the health of the roster. The availability of key players  in key games due to injuries incurred during the season.

 

Yes a coaches job is to adapt and game plan the most successfully they can with the hand they have been dealt in terms of roster post season.

 

All the grandest coaching and schemes go out the window when an opponent is smacking  you in the mouth. It is what it is. 

 

In other words again just my opinion coaching will only take a team so far the players decide the games. Variables indeed.

 

Some good points therein.  

 

My basic argument is McD has actually been responsible for holding the team/players back come playoff time.  More than not anyway.  

 

So in light of your comment, allow me to ask, how does one explain our #1 & #2 rankings on D in the regular season, but below-average defensive performances, sometimes way below-average, and measured against other playoff performances as well, by us?  
 

BTW, I'm genuinely asking that question.  Do the players decide to relax then?  DC issues?  

 

 

[PBF81]

2 hours ago, 90sBills said:

Yes absolutely! We’re all in agreement with McDermott blowing 13sec. Allen absolutely did do enough to beat Mahomes in that game and it was heartbreaking to see how that turned out. But that’s 1 out of 3 games against the other top two qbs in the conference. He wasn’t great in the 1st playoff game against Mahomes and was completely terrible against Burrow this past season. He has to be better the next time.

 

I think he’s the #2 guy behind Mahomes. Allen is more talented than Burrow imo. 

 

McD hasn't been great in any of our playoff games except arguably vs. the Pats in '21 and the Ravens, but only defensively, the year prior.  

 

For example, how does one explain us giving up 19 points and nearly 200 yards in just over a quarter to allow Houston to tie us and then beat us in OT?  

 

Or how we couldn't generate more than 3 points in our 2017 playoff loss to Marrone/Bortles, and in our worst offensive performance of the season?  

 

Does coaching bear on that?  Some would say no, at least not significantly much less primarily, but I don't see how it doesn't.  

 

Thoughts?  

 

 

[Mikie2times]

I'm not weighing in on a side on this as much as I'm saying it doesn't make you a hack or troll to just be concerned over some of the things being discussed.

 

51 coaches have at least 8 playoff games, .444 winning % in the playoff ranks 42 of the 51

 

If you evaluate variance between regular season winning% and playoff winning%,  he ranks 45 of 51. 

 

It can all change in one year. It did for John Madden and Tony Dungy, who surround him in the second metric, but it never did for Dennis Green or Marty Schottenheimer who are also very close to him in the same category. 

 

I view the next few years as being pretty important to either cementing this narrative or blowing it up. That's all Einstein seems to be saying. 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

On one hand the McDermott critics claim that the success of the team is all on Allen's shoulders, that coaching isn't why the team has been so successful, and then on the other hand they claim that coaching is THE reason why we can't win in the playoffs.

 

I don't think they can have it both ways. Either coaching is a big part of the game and and it isn't just about the QB, or it is on the players for why we can't get over the hump in the playoffs.

 

Coaching is only important to them when they want to blame someone, but meaningless when they want to recognize success.

 

Not sure that you're representing the opposing (for you) argument fairly and accurately.  

 

I would say it like this, using your sentences edited, bolded added, [brackets] removed;  

 

Quote

McDermott critics claim that the reason for the success of the team is [all on] due to Allen's incredible personal progress [shoulders], that coaching isn't primarily why the team has been so successful, and then on the other hand they claim that coaching is THE primary reason why we can't win in the playoffs.

 

What's interesting about that is that no one when asked/challenged, wants to go through game-by-game and look at why we lost.  

 

As a direct result, I would phrase your second sentence like this, referring to the McD apologists;  

 

Quote

I don't think they can have it both ways. Either coaching isn't a big part of the game and and it isn't just about the QB, or it is on the coach [players] for why we can't get over the hump in the playoffs.  

 

What's interesting in contrast, is that we blame all of our past coaches, not the players, for their inability to be a game or two better than they were in achieving what McD achieved here in his first three seasons and for their teams' failures othewise.  So add Allen to the mix, but it's still primarily the coach (McD) that gets the credit when past coaches never had anything even approaching Allen in their arsenals.  

 

It also questions the arguments of those making them when McD isn't even a significant reason for our playoff failures.  

 

As to your last sentence, I would reword it like this;  

 

Quote

Coaching is only important to them when they want to credit [blame] someone, particularly with regular season success, but meaningless when they want to assess playoff failures [recognize success].

 

Perspectives.  But also to help clear up your understanding of those critical of McD. 

 

If you want to go through playoff game by playoff game and look at the reasons why we lost and regularly underperformed on one or both sides of the ball, I'm entirely game.  

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by PBF81

[Buffalo_Stampede]

56 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

In 2 of the playoff losses, Houston & KC, it was the defense that fell apart at the end of the game.  Put the blame where it belongs, on Les Frazier.  That's why McDermott just got an extension & Less is no longer coaching defense for the Bills.  

The Houston game was the players. Tre White got cooked by Hopkins. Milano couldn’t finish a great blitz call in OT, Watson broke loose. Bills lost on that play. 
 

Chiefs game was McDermott over thinking it. He was worried about Hill too much.

[PBF81]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

The Houston game was the players. Tre White got cooked by Hopkins. Milano couldn’t finish a great blitz call in OT, Watson broke loose. Bills lost on that play. 
 

Chiefs game was McDermott over thinking it. He was worried about Hill too much.

 

Well, to add to your Houston account, it's not entirely the players when a team surrenders 19 points and nearly 200 yards of offense in just over a quarter, and while leading 16-0.  Obviously they had done something right up until that point, on both sides.  My guess is that either Bill O'Brien made some adjustments and outcoached McD, or McD outcoached himself by making more "13 Seconds" or Cincy type adjustments.  

 

We can blame all that on Frasier, which for purposes of argument I for one am fine with for the moment, but having said that, it should all then entirely vaporize come this season's playoffs.  To take a stand oppositely would be to hedge.  

 

In short, McD has no more excuses this season/postseason.  Frasier's gone, Dorsey, his choice, is in his second season.  ALL of his senior decision-making partners are his pals from Carolina, every one of the four others.  

 

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

12 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Well, to add to your Houston account, it's not entirely the players when a team surrenders 19 points and nearly 200 yards of offense in just over a quarter, and while leading 16-0.  Obviously they had done something right up until that point, on both sides.  My guess is that either Bill O'Brien made some adjustments and outcoached McD, or McD outcoached himself by making more "13 Seconds" or Cincy type adjustments.  

 

We can blame all that on Frasier, which for purposes of argument I for one am fine with for the moment, but having said that, it should all then entirely vaporize come this season's playoffs.  To take a stand oppositely would be to hedge.  

 

In short, McD has no more excuses this season/postseason.  Frasier's gone, Dorsey, his choice, is in his second season.  ALL of his senior decision-making partners are his pals from Carolina, every one of the four others.  

 

 

Did you watch the game? Hopkins cooked White and the defense couldn’t tackle.

 

Allen and the offense could’ve been better.

[Einstein]

3 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Honest mistake. We all make them. I said I would let you change your answer, so go ahead.

 

It is actually a very difficult calculation. I have spent the last 2 hours trying to calculate it and there are many bottlenecks but I believe that I am almost there.

 

Here is where I am right now, and I am still refining it:

 

H denotes head coach
L denotes Playoffs
B denotes Super Bowl
S denotes more than 7 years of coaching

𝑛(𝐿) = 14

𝑛(𝐻) = 32

𝑛(𝐵) = 2

 

 

Probability of having more than 7 years coaching and making a super bowl is given by:

 

Since the probability of having more than 7 years of coaching experience is 1 (because we are considering only the case of having more than 7 years’ experience), in temporary conclusion we have:

 

 

But there is a flaw and that is the duplicates. They need to be accounted for and that will drive the number up.

 

.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Einstein

[Mikie2times]

I wonder if the narrative changes if we lost to the Colts who completely outplayed us at home. They had over 450 total yards on offense and over 150 on the ground. More than 25 first downs and over 50% on third down. That would have been two years we got ousted in the first round.