Coaching Success as Measured by Average Depth of Playoff Run

[Chaos]

From my personal perspective, I like watching the Bills play every week of the season. During the four year Super Bowl run, I got to watch the Bills play every week.  This was more important to me than winning the Super Bowl (would like to win one though some day).  I was curious which coaches (with their current teams) where the most successful at extending their teams seasons.   Please note, this is not an assessement of which coach is "best".  Vince Lombardi was the same quality coach in Washington as he was in Green Bay, just less successful.  It is just an objective measure of success.  The first thing that startled me was that the NFL currently has 12 rookie coaches. NFL owners/gms are not a patient group.   In terms of extending the season, a bye is the same as a playoff game for this measure.  I was surprised to realize that Matt Lafleur is the most successful by this measure without actually getting to the Super Bowl.  It also appears that the Steelers are by far the most patient ownership. 

[Billsfan1972]

Don't see a whole lot there.  Yes Owners/GMs are not a patient bunch.  

 

With Buffalo & McD, it is right now about winning and pundits will say 3-0 at home, 0-4 on the road (0-2 vs. KC).  Oh & 0-2 in OT😡.

 

  

 

 

[Rigotz]

Interesting, but doesn’t really mean much to me, as Matt LeFleur has proven to be one of the worst coaches on that list.

 

NFC is a much easier path. Also, schedule luck plays into this a lot. KC played Buffalo in round 2 last year. Bengals played the Titans. All this excel sheet sees is Bengals 1-0, Bills 0-1.

[TheBrownBear]

Thanks Chaos.  I'm not sure how much we can glean from this in evaluating the coaches, especially those with less experience, but it's interesting nonetheless.  It would appear that a ratio of around 1.0 is the baseline for "success" and maintaining your job after a few years.  

[Heavy Kevi]

1 hour ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Don't see a whole lot there.  Yes Owners/GMs are not a patient bunch.  

 

With Buffalo & McD, it is right now about winning and pundits will say 3-0 at home, 0-4 on the road (0-2 vs. KC).  Oh & 0-2 in OT😡.

 

  

 

 

 

And that's why we need the 1 seed

 

Get that AFCCG in Buffalo and there's a different outcome

[Chaos]

1 hour ago, Rigotz said:

Interesting, but doesn’t really mean much to me, as Matt LeFleur has proven to be one of the worst coaches on that list.

 

NFC is a much easier path. Also, schedule luck plays into this a lot. KC played Buffalo in round 2 last year. Bengals played the Titans. All this excel sheet sees is Bengals 1-0, Bills 0-1.

Whats your proof? One bad season? Or something else? 

[Scott7975]

Wow 12 rookie coaches? I never actually realized that. 

[Chaos]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBear said:

Thanks Chaos.  I'm not sure how much we can glean from this in evaluating the coaches, especially those with less experience, but it's interesting nonetheless.  It would appear that a ratio of around 1.0 is the baseline for "success" and maintaining your job after a few years.  

I am not sure there is a ton to be gleaned. Its not an analysis of how good a coach it. It may be worth noting that 3 of the top 4 had Hall of Fame QBs on the roster for much of their success.  Sean McVays run is remarkable compared to all others, when you consider the QBs he has had to work with.   

[JerseyBills]

He'll be top 5 in a cpl years.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Don't see a whole lot there.  Yes Owners/GMs are not a patient bunch.  

 

With Buffalo & McD, it is right now about winning and pundits will say 3-0 at home, 0-4 on the road (0-2 vs. KC).  Oh & 0-2 in OT😡.

 

  

 

 

 

Pundits will? Or you will?

[TheFunPolice]

Lefleur is not a good coach.

 

He's wasted Rodgers best years. He's a guy with a headset that brings nothing to the table.

 

Reminds me of Manning's coaches aside from Dungy. 

[Chaos]

7 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

Lefleur is not a good coach.

 

He's wasted Rodgers best years. He's a guy with a headset that brings nothing to the table.

 

Reminds me of Manning's coaches aside from Dungy. 

Lafleur has only been there since 2019.  He went 13-3, 13-3, 13-4 and made the championship game twice.  Did Aaron Rodgers best years really start in 2019  when he was 36? 

[transient]

10 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

Lefleur is not a good coach.

 

He's wasted Rodgers best years. He's a guy with a headset that brings nothing to the table.

 

Reminds me of Manning's coaches aside from Dungy. 

To be fair, he hasn’t wasted all of them himself. Mike McCarthy had a pretty big hand in that as well. 

[TheFunPolice]

27 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Lafleur has only been there since 2019.  He went 13-3, 13-3, 13-4 and made the championship game twice.  Did Aaron Rodgers best years really start in 2019  when he was 36? 

 

It's a good question, but Brady's best years started when he was 37

[Chaos]

17 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

 

It's a good question, but Brady's best years started when he was 37

Brady won three super bowls before he was 28.  All of his years were pretty good. 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Chaos

[Billsfan1972]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Pundits will? Or you will?

I said pundits. Oh and I guess stating facts is a No-No?

[LABILLBACKER]

3 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Don't see a whole lot there.  Yes Owners/GMs are not a patient bunch.  

 

With Buffalo & McD, it is right now about winning and pundits will say 3-0 at home, 0-4 on the road (0-2 vs. KC).  Oh & 0-2 in OT😡.

 

  

 

 

I just want to see our Defense in the playoffs have more stamina. We tend to get gassed in the 2nd half of playoff games.  That's the ratio I care about. 

[Punching Bag]

If your front office is talented it makes a big difference in how well the coaches can do,

When Pegulas came to Bills they did not insist coaches use friends of management which is big improvement.

[GunnerBill]

19 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

I said pundits. Oh and I guess stating facts is a No-No?

 

Facts are fine. But most pundits recognise the reality.

[todd]

22 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

I said pundits. Oh and I guess stating facts is a No-No?

 

For you as long as those facts support your anti-McDermott crusade, I guess so. Otherwise, seems like no.

[Chaos]

When the Bills win the Super Bowl this year, McDermott moves into the top 5.  

[Billsfan1972]

1 minute ago, todd said:

 

For you as long as those facts support your anti-McDermott crusade, I guess so. Otherwise, seems like no.

The prior two years and this year the Bills have a team that is/was good enough to win the Super Bowl. Let's hope this is the year. Can we agree on that?

 

Again you're reading into what I wrote. I stated nothing but facts. I made no personal comment as to McD.

 

 

[AuntieEm]

2 hours ago, Heavy Kevi said:

 

And that's why we need the 1 seed

 

Get that AFCCG in Buffalo and there's a different outcome

 

   While I always rather the team wins HFA it really shouldn't matter to the players.  Anytime you are playing for a championship you give it your best game and won't matter the location.

[Rigotz]

6 hours ago, Chaos said:

Whats your proof? One bad season? Or something else? 

Never making it to the Super Bowl with an elite QB and elite supporting cast 4 years in a row and bottoming out this season. Also, head scratching moments in big situations like this:

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/02/01/matt-lafleur-stands-by-field-goal-decision-in-nfc-championship-game/

 

Also… he’s 2-3 in the playoffs total, so if you’re measuring ACTUAL playoff performance, you might not want to include Byes. He’s in a weak division and conference.

[Chaos]

1 minute ago, Rigotz said:

Never making it to the Super Bowl with an elite QB and elite supporting cast 4 years in a row and bottoming out this season. Also, head scratching moments in big situations like this:

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/02/01/matt-lafleur-stands-by-field-goal-decision-in-nfc-championship-game/

 

Also… he’s 2-3 in the playoffs total, so if you’re measuring ACTUAL playoff performance, you might not want to include Byes. He’s in a weak division and conference.

So you have no proof he is a bad coach.

[Thurman#1]

 

4 hours ago, todd said:

 

For you as long as those facts support your anti-McDermott crusade, I guess so. Otherwise, seems like no.

 

 

It gets sad, and clueless, doesn't it?

 

I'm guessing next comes a study of hair length as an objective measure of success, with long hair better, followed by frequency of clapping as an objective measure of failure.

[Thurman#1]

 

8 hours ago, Rigotz said:

Interesting, but doesn’t really mean much to me, as Matt LeFleur has proven to be one of the worst coaches on that list.

 

NFC is a much easier path. Also, schedule luck plays into this a lot. KC played Buffalo in round 2 last year. Bengals played the Titans. All this excel sheet sees is Bengals 1-0, Bills 0-1.

 

 

Yeah.

 

Thing is,  this artificial stat isn't a measure of coaching success. it's a measure of team success. As is any look at any type of wins. The key to this is that the length is being artificially adjusted to the length of the coach's service.

 

This measure will unfairly punish teams who have their coach go through a rebuild. Teams with coaches brought in to turn around a crap team are punished. Regardless of whether or not they successfully did turn around that team, they're punished for the years of the rebuild while teams with coaches brought into a situation built for quick success in a reload, such as LaFleur, are unfairly rewarded.

 

It also unfairly rewards coaches with long terms, as there's only one year it looks at where there's one bye. All the rest have two.

 

By this measure, the great Barry Switzer would be seen as the third-best NFL coach on the list. If he'd been looked at after his first two years he'd have been seen as far beyond any coach on the list and one of the greatest of all time, with a 3.5. Perhaps even the greatest of all time, without going through every coach. (Spoiler alert for those who don't remember Barry. He was not a great coach. He was a coach given a great team at the beginning of his term.)

 

Again, it's a measure of team success, not coaching. And a weird measure, at that.

 

Coaching certainly has an effect on team success. So do many other things. 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Thurman#1

[LeGOATski]

Gotta consider QBs and I have to give McVay, Harbaugh, Vrabel (as much as I hate the Titans) credit for doing more with less. Although, Stafford and Lamar are pretty good.

[Billsfan1972]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

It gets sad, and clueless, doesn't it?

 

I'm guessing next comes a study of hair length as an objective measure of success, with long hair better, followed by frequency of clapping as an objective measure of failure.

Geez how sad, I've said not a single thing about McD, but stated the record and what we will hear from pundits come the playoffs until things change.  

 

I will not even begin to comment on my thoughts about McD, but stated that the Bills haven't won on the road, vs. KC or OT.  

 

But keep piling on.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Billsfan1972

[ChasBB]

I still remember the days when Andy Reid couldn't win a conference championship game to save his life back in his Eagles days.  He lost a divisional playoff game followed by losing 3 NFC championship games before finally making it to Super Bowl (which he lost).  No one expects Reid to lose these days!  McDermott needs to stick around - his time will come and likely very soon.

[Thurman#1]

4 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Geez how sad, I've said not a single thing about McD, but stated the record and what we will hear from pundits come the playoffs until things change.  

 

I will not even begin to comment on my thoughts about McD, but stated that the Bills haven't won on the road, vs. KC or OT.  

 

But keep piling on.

 

 

What's sad? Oh, you're talking about your own opinion? Yeah, wouldn't have expected that of you, but nice call.

 

And if you call that  piling on, you live a sad and sheltered life. What I said there are facts. Does that sound familiar by the way? The difference being you used facts to draw unwarranted inferences. And I pointed out that the facts didn't show what you thought they did.

[SinceThe70s]

15 hours ago, Chaos said:

From my personal perspective, I like watching the Bills play every week of the season. During the four year Super Bowl run, I got to watch the Bills play every week.  This was more important to me than winning the Super Bowl (would like to win one though some day).  I was curious which coaches (with their current teams) where the most successful at extending their teams seasons.   Please note, this is not an assessement of which coach is "best".  Vince Lombardi was the same quality coach in Washington as he was in Green Bay, just less successful.  It is just an objective measure of success.  The first thing that startled me was that the NFL currently has 12 rookie coaches. NFL owners/gms are not a patient group.   In terms of extending the season, a bye is the same as a playoff game for this measure.  I was surprised to realize that Matt Lafleur is the most successful by this measure without actually getting to the Super Bowl.  It also appears that the Steelers are by far the most patient ownership. 

 

 

I could not agree more with the bolded. I always used Elway to try to make a similar point- he didn't suddenly become great because he won a SB, he was great all along IMO.

 

Also JMO, but Lafleur might be the opposite side of the spectrum - his success may be due more to Rodgers. Kind of like when Switzer inherited Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

19 hours ago, Chaos said:

From my personal perspective, I like watching the Bills play every week of the season. During the four year Super Bowl run, I got to watch the Bills play every week.  This was more important to me than winning the Super Bowl (would like to win one though some day).  I was curious which coaches (with their current teams) where the most successful at extending their teams seasons.   Please note, this is not an assessement of which coach is "best".  Vince Lombardi was the same quality coach in Washington as he was in Green Bay, just less successful.  It is just an objective measure of success.  The first thing that startled me was that the NFL currently has 12 rookie coaches. NFL owners/gms are not a patient group.   In terms of extending the season, a bye is the same as a playoff game for this measure.  I was surprised to realize that Matt Lafleur is the most successful by this measure without actually getting to the Super Bowl.  It also appears that the Steelers are by far the most patient ownership. 

LeFleur is dropping some spots in this list after adding a season with zero appearances 

[GunnerBill]

12 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Geez how sad, I've said not a single thing about McD, but stated the record and what we will hear from pundits come the playoffs until things change.  

 

I will not even begin to comment on my thoughts about McD, but stated that the Bills haven't won on the road, vs. KC or OT.  

 

But keep piling on.

 

The problem is you present stats in your threads which support your position and when someone presents equally relevant counter stats you call them excuses. 

 

Then in a thread started by someone presenting stats that don't support your position you present counter stats and resent anyone questioning whether they are the winning argument. 

 

That is the point. Nobody is against discussion and debate on McDermott and the staff. Or arguing that there is no validity to some of the points you make. They are certainly not faultless. They are 0-4 on the road in the playoffs, that is a fact. The problem is you are not really interested in engaging in the elements of the debate that don't support your (already reached) conclusion. 

[Chaos]

21 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The problem is you present stats in your threads which support your position and when someone presents equally relevant counter stats you call them excuses. 

 

Then in a thread started by someone presenting stats that don't support your position you present counter stats and resent anyone questioning whether they are the winning argument. 

 

That is the point. Nobody is against discussion and debate on McDermott and the staff. Or arguing that there is no validity to some of the points you make. They are certainly not faultless. They are 0-4 on the road in the playoffs, that is a fact. The problem is you are not really interested in engaging in the elements of the debate that don't support your (already reached) conclusion. 

The other poster misses the point of the thread.  A playoff loss is magnitudes better than not making the playoffs. 18 teams miss the playoffs.  6 teams end with their season with a loss in the wild card round. 4 teams end with a loss in the divisional round. 2 teams end a season with a loss in the championship games. 1 ends with a loss in the super bowl.  1 wins the super bowl.  According to the posters 0-4 logic, it would seem the 18 teams who missed the playoffs had a better coaching year than the team than lost in the championship game or lost in the super bowl. The measure of success in the thread is who gets the furthest down the road. 

[Chaos]

7 hours ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

I could not agree more with the bolded. I always used Elway to try to make a similar point- he didn't suddenly become great because he won a SB, he was great all along IMO.

 

Also JMO, but Lafleur might be the opposite side of the spectrum - his success may be due more to Rodgers. Kind of like when Switzer inherited Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys.

Lafleur seemed to have better success than McCarthy had been having. I am not sure to another posters point that makes Lafluer "one of the worst coaches in the league"

[Billsfan1972]

45 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The problem is you present stats in your threads which support your position and when someone presents equally relevant counter stats you call them excuses. 

 

Then in a thread started by someone presenting stats that don't support your position you present counter stats and resent anyone questioning whether they are the winning argument. 

 

That is the point. Nobody is against discussion and debate on McDermott and the staff. Or arguing that there is no validity to some of the points you make. They are certainly not faultless. They are 0-4 on the road in the playoffs, that is a fact. The problem is you are not really interested in engaging in the elements of the debate that don't support your (already reached) conclusion. 

And McD's and the #'s should increase this year.  Making the SB get's you 4 points on this scale (bye included).  That would bring McD to 1.8333 should they make the SB.

 

What position?  I made it  clear it was interesting, particularly how many rookie coaches and those with minimal tenure there are.  I then proceeded to say I didn't think it meant a whole lot.

 

McD is 5th on the list in his 6th season.  

 

And yes I broke down his stats and stated that this is what the pundits will say.  Yes Lafleur will get a lot of flack too, as did others on the list until they won (particularly Reid).

[Rigotz]

16 hours ago, Chaos said:

So you have no proof he is a bad coach.

What proof are you looking for….

 

I showed you an example of a really dumb decision from LaFleur, explained his bad playoff record, and contrasted his playoff record to the talent on his roster.

 

There is no other concrete “proof” one can provide that a coach isn’t the best in the league.

[Chaos]

3 minutes ago, Rigotz said:

What proof are you looking for….

 

I showed you an example of a really dumb decision from LaFleur, explained his bad playoff record, and contrasted his playoff record to the talent on his roster.

 

There is no other concrete “proof” one can provide that a coach isn’t the best in the league.

Please reread the original post.  This time do it with what the kids call "reading comprehension".  The post clearly says it is not a measure of who is the best coach.  

[Billsfan1972]

13 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Please reread the original post.  This time do it with what the kids call "reading comprehension".  The post clearly says it is not a measure of who is the best coach.  

Yes you were very clear, however people then decide to take it in different directions.  

 

What it shows to me is that to remain an NFL coach, make the playoffs continually.😉