oldmanfan

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.

Jim Kelly is a HOF QB that took a team to 4 straight Super Bowls. I love Josh but to say he is the best QB the franchise has ever had by a country mile is absurd and shows your willingness to say anything to bash the current coaching staff.

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.

So you think those three have done nothing this off-season to improve? That they aren’t all in to win? Wasn’t Diggs just in France? Come on now.

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.

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. 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.

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?

If you understood the scientific method you’d know that the null set is assumed, I.e. that hypotheses are incorrect. Experimentation and data with appropriate analysis then determine if the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected. All you have done here is start with an assumption that McD is a bad coach, and took a very simple set of carefully selected data to justify that. That is not how the work is done.

I am well acquainted with the scientific method and hypotheses. I am also well acquainted with trying to make data fit a hypothesis. Which is what you are doing. And if you wanted to focus on mean then why make the point about 2years.

1. You said the largest data point was 2 years to win. 2. I have reviewed hundreds of papers and grants. Your presentation would be rejected because you chose an analysis designed to prove a preformed conclusion. I see this all the time. 3. The data does not disprove what I said, a stable front office includes GMs. Pittsburg and NE have won the most SBs. Stable structures helped there but of course were not the only thing , such as having great QBs. Which is my point, and why yours is not necessarily meaningful.

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.

Good move. The best franchises have stability in the front office

If Diggs’ issue is not getting the ball more good thing we didn’t sign Hopkins. He’d take a lot of Diggs targets away.

The grass is always greener on the other side. Until you actually get to the other side.

Never listen to him. About the only thing I listen to is Mad Dog, and that's because it happens to be on when I'm driving home, and because it's entertaining to listen to him rant (not that his rants make any sense for the most part). Just win baby.

Quite a few: Marangi over Fergy Loved the trade for Sammy Watkins Supported draft Manuel Wanted Rosen over Josh

The hardest thing in sports is to predict who will or will not work out as a HC/manager. The required skill set is different than that needed for an assistant coach or coordinator.

You are being ridiculous at this point.

The quote about Marino and Allen is just silly. Moon and Kelly come to mind, both HOFers. If you’re going to be silly better not to comment.

Is anything I said incorrect regarding what we added?

Davis was hurt a lot of the season. I anticipate a much better year.

Our first two draft picks addressed offense. Best receiving TE in the draft to give Josh another weapon, big guy for the middle of the O line where we were vulnerable last year. Plus two other Guards in free agency and competition for Brown at RT. A bigger RB to complement what we have in the backfield. But we did nothing on offense. Right.

Whatever

They drafted the best receiving TE in the draft.

One way to handle it - have Von and Floyd find him, pin his ass to a wall, and tell him if he doesn't get his act together they will kick the tar out of him.