oldmanfan

You elect to choose a data endpoint to match your pre-conceived conclusion. I’ve seen enough authors try to do this over 40 years; it’s easy to recognize especially given the overall negativity of your posting. You’re not fooling anyone. You have numbers that you’ve really done nothing to analyze. You have not looked at any independent variables that could affect a coach making the dance. Oh, except when someone pointed out Belichick not making it in Cleveland - THEN it had nothing to do with the coach, you claimed it was because he didn’t have a franchise QB. So you apparently recognize the idea of variables, you just want to ignore them when they might cloud your preconceived notions. By the way the reason your company and Neilson and such know how many people to test is they do, or should do, power analyses to determine a statistically relevant sampling. Otherwise differences may not be relevant, I.e. random variation. Did you do a power analysis as to whether your sample size was sufficient to show that? I assume not.

The issue you have is you want to insist 2+2=5, and get upset when a lot of people tell you that you’re wrong. Your issue is you have concluded in your mind that you don’t like McD. And you go out to try and find data that is biased towards that view. Why choose getting to a SB? Why not choose winning a SB? It’s because you can twist the former to try and support your preconceived position. A classic example of ascertainment bias. And when you talk about analyzing the data, you’ve done no actual analysis. No stats, nothing. Just a bunch of numbers. And you’ve yet to provide any definitive conclusion that I can see. What you have is simply an observation. Nothing more. No reputable editor would accept this kind of analysis for any peer reviewed journal.

Correct Shaw. Basically it’s ascertainment bias but when that’s pointed out one gets accused of ad hominem attacks.

He’d withstand the physical hits better than most

And you could say that about his contemporaries as well. How well would the current guys do 30 years ago when guys like Bruce could actually hit QBs? Similar rational is why numbers for guys like Kelly, Marino and Elway exceeded HOFers from the 60s when DBs could mug receivers. You judge guys by the era they played in. Guys like Kelly and Marino could be expected to throw for 5000 yards today, given the rules that favor the passing game today. Allen will likely be a HOFer too. It is stupid to run down a former first round HOFer to support him. I would like to know how many criticizing Kelly actually saw him play. Nothing but common sense.

Comparing performances 30 years apart can’t be done because of all the rule changes. Kelly and the K Gun dominated teams. And while Allen has maybe the strongest arm ever Kelly could make all the throws. All of them. It is ridiculous to say Josh as talented as he is, is head and shoulders above a first ballot HOFer.

Did I say Kelly is better? No. You need to learn to read without trying to make everything spin to match your opinion. I said it is silly to say Allen is a country mile better than a first ballot HOFer. And I also said I love Josh. But because those go against your little narrative somehow they get omitted. Answer this for me: are you old enough to have actually watched Kelly? If you aren’t then you should try to learn something from those of us who did. If you did watch him then you should know he was tough too, and had no fear of running just like Josh. You should know that his arm, while maybe not Josh’s (which may be the strongest of all time) was plenty strong enough. Go back and watch tape of him throwing deep to Beebe, or darts down the seam to Reed. He had a huge arm. And called all the plays. Ge should have won the first SB. I would criticize him because Parcells and Belichick played to stop the K Gun; he should have just kept handing the ball to Thurman and let him run wild. The other 3 we lost to better teams. I think Allen has the potential to be an all-time great. I fully expect we will win at least one Lombardi with him at the helm, and with McD as HC. All-time greats are the ones who go into the HOF on the first ballot. Like Jim Kelly.

I could care less about doing a poll. You don’t like the current regime. Fine. But to try and say a younger guy like Josh is way better than a first ballot HOFer is silly. I would say with the rules against hitting QBs has extended QB life spans. But as long as you haven’t won improvement needs to happen, no question.

Quarterback’s prime years extend into their late 30s now. Josh has plenty of time. He talks about his analysis but he hasn’t actually analyzed anything. All he did was cherry pick a data set to match his preconceived agenda. No statistical analysis, no consideration of variables. What is his conclusion? We have some who, when challenged, can only revert to claiming ad hominem attacks.

Dismissing a first ballot HOF QB as miles behind Allen is nuts. I can only assume you are too young to have watched him.

We all want a Lombardi. To get one you have to make the playoffs. McD ads teams do that regularly. As for anyone being able to achieve that with Allen as QB, refer to Gunned’s post above about Payton. if any guy is on the hot seat it would be Dorsey.

Ridiculous.

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.