Only Eight NFL coaches have been with their current team for five seasons or more.

[PlayoffsPlease]

Only Eight NFL coaches have been with their current team for five seasons or more.   Except for Jason Garret.  All are highly accomplished coaches.  NFL owners make it clear by their actions that there is not a premium on patience or continuity. Continuity comes from success. Not vice versa.

[Mr. WEO]

It's hard to win in the NFL...

[GunnerBill]

28 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

Only Eight NFL coaches have been with their current team for five seasons or more.   Except for Jason Garret.  All are highly accomplished coaches.  NFL owners make it clear by their actions that there is not a premium on patience or continuity. Continuity comes from success. Not vice versa.

 

To be fair of those eight there are two who had two losing seasons right out of the blocks - Carroll and Rivera - and a third - Garrett - had to wait until year 4 to have a winning record. 

 

So there is still some patience shown in those cases.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

34 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

Only Eight NFL coaches have been with their current team for five seasons or more.   Except for Jason Garret.  All are highly accomplished coaches.  NFL owners make it clear by their actions that there is not a premium on patience or continuity. Continuity comes from success. Not vice versa.

 

I don't think anyone can successfully argue the point that continuity contributes to success.

Belichick*** would exemplify your point.  He turned the team around from 5-11 to 11-5 his second year and has only had one season with less than 10 wins since that time.

 

But New Orleans stuck with Payton through a 3 year 7-9 drought ending in 2017.  Oh, but he had success already, you say, but they also stuck with him early-on when first year success was followed by 2 years of mediocrity, and they were rewarded for patience.

 

What would be interesting at some point, would be to compare results of teams with similar records who make a HC change after a couple year's mediocrity, with those who don't.

For example, Rivera had two years of losing at the start, and the Panthers stuck with him.   Compare with another team that lost for 2 years under a new HC and gave him the boot.

etc.  (it's interesting, but I'm not doing it today)

 

Edit: also, what Gunner said.

 

[SDS]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't think anyone can successfully argue the point that continuity contributes to success.

Belichick*** would exemplify your point.  He turned the team around from 5-11 to 11-5 his second year and has only had one season with less than 10 wins since that time.

 

But New Orleans stuck with Payton through a 3 year 7-9 drought ending in 2017.  Oh, but he had success already, you say, but they also stuck with him early-on when first year success was followed by 2 years of mediocrity, and they were rewarded for patience.

 

What would be interesting at some point, would be to compare results of teams with similar records who make a HC change after a couple year's mediocrity, with those who don't.

For example, Rivera had two years of losing at the start, and the Panthers stuck with him.   Compare with another team that lost for 2 years under a new HC and gave him the boot.

etc.  (it's interesting, but I'm not doing it today)

 

Edit: also, what Gunner said.

 

 

This analysis has already been done. They have found that coaching changes are near meaningless to a team’s record. What happens is a coach gets a string of bad luck, has a poorer than normal record and the next season the team regresses to the mean making the new coach appear better out of the gate. But it doesn’t last. 

 

I dont remember who did the analysis. Maybe the author of the The Black Swan or someone like that. 

[Green Lightning]

It's really nice to not be in FO turmoil and drama. There's a plan and path for this team that is easily ascertained and we are now in a position to pursue it. I hope the McBeane train keeps a rollin' for many years.

[SDS]

16 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't think anyone can successfully argue the point that continuity contributes to success.

Belichick*** would exemplify your point.  He turned the team around from 5-11 to 11-5 his second year and has only had one season with less than 10 wins since that time.

 

But New Orleans stuck with Payton through a 3 year 7-9 drought ending in 2017.  Oh, but he had success already, you say, but they also stuck with him early-on when first year success was followed by 2 years of mediocrity, and they were rewarded for patience.

 

What would be interesting at some point, would be to compare results of teams with similar records who make a HC change after a couple year's mediocrity, with those who don't.

For example, Rivera had two years of losing at the start, and the Panthers stuck with him.   Compare with another team that lost for 2 years under a new HC and gave him the boot.

etc.  (it's interesting, but I'm not doing it today)

 

Edit: also, what Gunner said.

 

 

This analysis has already been done. They have found that coaching changes are near meaningless to a team’s record. What happens is a coach gets a string of bad luck, has a poorer than normal record and the next season the team regresses to the mean making the new coach appear better out of the gate. But it doesn’t last. 

 

I dont remember who did the analysis. Maybe the author of the The Black Swan or someone like that. 

 

http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/

[Fr. Jerk]

39 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

It's hard to win in the NFL...

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, SDS said:

 

This analysis has already been done. They have found that coaching changes are near meaningless to a team’s record. What happens is a coach gets a string of bad luck, has a poorer than normal record and the next season the team regresses to the mean making the new coach appear better out of the gate. But it doesn’t last. 

 

I dont remember who did the analysis. Maybe the author of the The Black Swan or someone like that. 

 

Well, if it comes to your mind or you find it, please share - I'd love to see it.

 

Intuitively, it doesn't make sense to me that coaching changes are meaningless to a team's record, only because with coaching changes often come scheme changes.

And scheme changes almost always result in shedding good or capable NFL players who "don't fit the new coach's scheme", which almost always sets the talent level of the new team back.

 

 

4 minutes ago, SDS said:

 

This analysis has already been done. They have found that coaching changes are near meaningless to a team’s record. What happens is a coach gets a string of bad luck, has a poorer than normal record and the next season the team regresses to the mean making the new coach appear better out of the gate. But it doesn’t last. 

 

I dont remember who did the analysis. Maybe the author of the The Black Swan or someone like that. 

 

http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/

 

Thanks!

Synopsis:

-college football

-started with an assessment of program strength at the time of the coaching change

" So these authors find that if you are a bad team, changing your coach didn’t make a difference.  And if you are “not bad,” a new coach makes it worse. "

[jlgarsh]

3 minutes ago, SDS said:

 

This analysis has already been done. They have found that coaching changes are near meaningless to a team’s record. What happens is a coach gets a string of bad luck, has a poorer than normal record and the next season the team regresses to the mean making the new coach appear better out of the gate. But it doesn’t last. 

 

I dont remember who did the analysis. Maybe the author of the The Black Swan or someone like that. 

 

http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/

 

Ditching Rex was addition by subtraction.  Jauron we kept too long.  Considering the lack of talent he had to work with overall, Gailey did a good job with the offense.  Too bad his defenses were disasters.  

[SDS]

22 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Well, if it comes to your mind or you find it, please share - I'd love to see it.

 

Intuitively, it doesn't make sense to me that coaching changes are meaningless to a team's record, only because with coaching changes often come scheme changes.

And scheme changes almost always result in shedding good or capable NFL players who "don't fit the new coach's scheme", which almost always sets the talent level of the new team back.

 

 

 

Thanks!

Synopsis:

-college football

-started with an assessment of program strength at the time of the coaching change

" So these authors find that if you are a bad team, changing your coach didn’t make a difference.  And if you are “not bad,” a new coach makes it worse. "

 

That article wasn’t what I was looking for. There is an NFL one that said the same thing, specifically addressing regression to the mean.

 

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2009/02/fighter-pilots-and-firing-coaches.html?m=1

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18400460/does-firing-head-coaches-nfl-lead-more-wins-2016

[Hapless Bills Fan]

22 minutes ago, SDS said:

 

Tjat article wasn’t what I was looking for. There is an NFL one that said the same thing, specifically addressing regression to the mean.

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2009/02/fighter-pilots-and-firing-coaches.html?m=1

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18400460/does-firing-head-coaches-nfl-lead-more-wins-2016

 

Both interesting articles, but don't really provide the details of the analysis.

Food for thought though!

[Jrb1979]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

It's hard to win in the NFL...

Only Bills fans believe that. 

[Scott7975]

59 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Both interesting articles, but don't really provide the details of the analysis.

Food for thought though!

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/8qy5vb/do-nfl-coach-firings-make-any-immediate-difference

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2016/01/03/nfl-black-monday-insights-how-much-does-the-coach-really-matter/#7bdf6f625126

 

Here are a couple more.

[PlayoffsPlease]

1 hour ago, Green Lightning said:

It's really nice to not be in FO turmoil and drama. There's a plan and path for this team that is easily ascertained and we are now in a position to pursue it. I hope the McBeane train keeps a rollin' for many years.

Its one year at a time.  If the Bills are 6-10 next year, ownership's concern will be raised.  

[row_33]

What is the norm the last 40 years?

 

[PlayoffsPlease]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't think anyone can successfully argue the point that continuity contributes to success.

Belichick*** would exemplify your point.  He turned the team around from 5-11 to 11-5 his second year and has only had one season with less than 10 wins since that time.

 

But New Orleans stuck with Payton through a 3 year 7-9 drought ending in 2017.  Oh, but he had success already, you say, but they also stuck with him early-on when first year success was followed by 2 years of mediocrity, and they were rewarded for patience.

 

What would be interesting at some point, would be to compare results of teams with similar records who make a HC change after a couple year's mediocrity, with those who don't.

For example, Rivera had two years of losing at the start, and the Panthers stuck with him.   Compare with another team that lost for 2 years under a new HC and gave him the boot.

etc.  (it's interesting, but I'm not doing it today)

 

Edit: also, what Gunner said.

 

There is a major fan fallacy when analyzing wins and losses correlation in the NFL.  This fallacy is based on not fully appreciating the impact of  losing teams playing other losing teams. 

For example, lets assume that there are eight coaches in the NFL who year in and year out deliver better than 8-8 records. Lets say this set of 8 coaches averages 11 wins per season.  Ignoring ties, 16 teams win each week.  At years end that means there are 256 wins in the regular season (16 x 16).  Our assumed superior coaches generate 88 (8 x 11)  wins.  That leaves 168 wins for the other 24 teams. If all other coaches were exactly even, and the talent distribution and other factors were exactly equal (of course they are not) , then each other team has expected win total of 7.  (168 divided by 24).  The distribution of these 168 wins is a fairly normal distributed bell curve with 7 at the center.  There are a few outliers, Hue Jackson at 0 for example (extraordinarily bad coach).   The Bills have had competent coaches for the most part this sentry.  They have not found a break through coach yet.  This contributes to the 7-9 forever. 

Where the fan confusion comes in is when they see "progress" going from 5 wins to 7 wins to 8 wins. Or a step back from 9 wins to 6 wins.  In all likelihood, this is just the expected results of what average coaches do, because they mostly play other average coaches.  

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by PlayoffsPlease

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 hours ago, Green Lightning said:

It's really nice to not be in FO turmoil and drama. There's a plan and path for this team that is easily ascertained and we are now in a position to pursue it. I hope the McBeane train keeps a rollin' for many years.

 

 

..DEAD on necessity that McBeane MUST address the big picture....screw this "nepotism or good 'ol boyz" network........why should there be a double standard for evaluating PERSONNEL?.....personnel is personnel whether players, coaches, FO staff, etc........they are ALL on the payroll.....if you're going out to get the best possible PLAYER personnel, don't you want the best possible coaching personnel developing them?....as an aside, becomes an irritant for OTAG to hear this whining about how OBD coaches are "poor victims of lousy personnel".....seriously want me to believe we have 53 SLUGS (except for a few) making $170 mil a year?...isn't the sign of a GOOD coach one who molds, trains, develops and continually corrects player personnel, developing a scheme that plays to their strengths and masks their weaknesses......sorry bud, but NONE of these "Three Amigos" canned are worth 47 cents for a sympathy card IMO.........

[GunnerBill]

55 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

There is a major fan fallacy when analyzing wins and losses correlation in the NFL.  This fallacy is based on not fully appreciating the impact of  losing teams playing other losing teams. 

For example, lets assume that there are eight coaches in the NFL who year in and year out deliver better than 8-8 records. Lets say this set of 8 coaches averages 11 wins per season.  Ignoring ties, 16 teams win each week.  At years end that means there are 256 wins in the regular season (16 x 16).  Our assumed superior coaches generate 88 (8 x 11)  wins.  That leaves 168 wins for the other 24 teams. If all other coaches were exactly even, and the talent distribution and other factors were exactly equal (of course they are not) , then each other team has expected win total of 7.  (168 divided by 24).  The distribution of these 168 wins is a fairly normal distributed bell curve with 7 at the center.  There are a few outliers, Hue Jackson at 0 for example (extraordinarily bad coach).   The Bills have had competent coaches for the most part this sentry.  They have not found a break through coach yet.  This contributes to the 7-9 forever. 

Where the fan confusion comes in is when they see "progress" going from 5 wins to 7 wins to 8 wins. Or a step back from 9 wins to 6 wins.  In all likelihood, this is just the expected results of what average coaches do, because they mostly play other average coaches.  

 

 

I don't think, even if there are 8 teams who regularly win 11 games, that the coaches of those teams are for the most part as significant a factor as the Quarterbacks. If we looked at the AFC over the last 10 years the only teams who would average 11 wins are the ones QB'd by Brady, Big Ben and Peyton Manning. John Fox averaged 12 wins a year the 3 years he had Peyton Manning in Denver. After he was fired and ended up in Chicago he averaged 5 wins. 

 

I am not going as far as saying that Head Coaches don't matter. But the common thread between teams who are consistent contenders is the Quarterback not the coach.

[chris heff]

I’m pretty sure the Bills don’t go to four Super Bowls with Hank Bullough as head coach.

[Artem Lipatov]

A coach must deserve the right for continuity. Owners and fans don't want to lose several years waiting when he starts to give results. Two seasons is enough to asses the future under this coach. For example Rex Ryan in Bills - after 2 seasons everybody understood that no 3rd season is required to realize he is trash.

After 2 seasong under McBeane we still don't understand his future ceiling. This season was weak. But the fact he has stopped 17-years drought in his 1st season is strong trump for him.

[PlayoffsPlease]

44 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't think, even if there are 8 teams who regularly win 11 games, that the coaches of those teams are for the most part as significant a factor as the Quarterbacks. If we looked at the AFC over the last 10 years the only teams who would average 11 wins are the ones QB'd by Brady, Big Ben and Peyton Manning. John Fox averaged 12 wins a year the 3 years he had Peyton Manning in Denver. After he was fired and ended up in Chicago he averaged 5 wins. 

 

I am not going as far as saying that Head Coaches don't matter. But the common thread between teams who are consistent contenders is the Quarterback not the coach.

The analysis is true if you substitute QB for coach.   The point being that are lots and lots of decent head coaches.  And a handful of consistent winning coaches, Payton, Tomlin, Andy Reid Bellicheck john harbaugh .  The difference in win/loss impact among the Gases, Gaileys Marrones, Garrets Ryans and Bowles has demonstrably been negligible over time.  This is why owners turn over coaches relatively quickly.  Doug Pedersen seems to have shown a spark.  Frank Reich is defying expectations.  Maybe they are part of a new wave consistently winning coaches.  If winning championships is the goal, then hanging on to a Marvin Lewis for fear of getting a Hue Jackson, doesn't seem to pan out. Lots and lots of mediocre guys available all the time. 

[GunnerBill]

There are lots and lots of decent Quarterbacks. And a small number of consistent winning QBs. 

[Reader]

50 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

The analysis is true if you substitute QB for coach.   The point being that are lots and lots of decent head coaches.  And a handful of consistent winning coaches, Payton, Tomlin, Andy Reid Bellicheck john harbaugh .  The difference in win/loss impact among the Gases, Gaileys Marrones, Garrets Ryans and Bowles has demonstrably been negligible over time.  This is why owners turn over coaches relatively quickly.  Doug Pedersen seems to have shown a spark.  Frank Reich is defying expectations.  Maybe they are part of a new wave consistently winning coaches.  If winning championships is the goal, then hanging on to a Marvin Lewis for fear of getting a Hue Jackson, doesn't seem to pan out. Lots and lots of mediocre guys available all the time. 

 

Even of the consistently good coaches most seem to have seasons that are underwhelming. Being that the average coach would go 8-8 I wonder if even good coaches are being let go for not being great as opposed to being mediocre.

[Green Lightning]

3 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

..DEAD on necessity that McBeane MUST address the big picture....screw this "nepotism or good 'ol boyz" network........why should there be a double standard for evaluating PERSONNEL?.....personnel is personnel whether players, coaches, FO staff, etc........they are ALL on the payroll.....if you're going out to get the best possible PLAYER personnel, don't you want the best possible coaching personnel developing them?....as an aside, becomes an irritant for OTAG to hear this whining about how OBD coaches are "poor victims of lousy personnel".....seriously want me to believe we have 53 SLUGS (except for a few) making $170 mil a year?...isn't the sign of a GOOD coach one who molds, trains, develops and continually corrects player personnel, developing a scheme that plays to their strengths and masks their weaknesses......sorry bud, but NONE of these "Three Amigos" canned are worth 47 cents for a sympathy card IMO.........

You kind of lost me here Old Time. I was referring to the head coach and GM, who just acted upon what you were talking about by losing 3 coaches. They're constantly fiddling with the roster and trying to improve it.  Hell, they even got rid of their number 1 and 2 receivers to change things up when it wasn't working. They also had a huge dead money situation they had to be cleared up and it's done. So I don't quite know what you're getting at here as it relates to my original post.