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

[Einstein]

12 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I’m confused here honestly it’s not hard to do
 

There are several coaches in the league that never make it to a Super Bowl. Don’t even make it to the playoffs.

 

Should it not be by definition, winning head coaches, and how long it takes them to get to a Super Bowl??

 

Great question. The answer is that the numbers are likely to be very close to the same, as many of the coaches have both won and lost Super Bowls.

[JerseyBills]

Interesting analysis but too many variables to really be accurate imo. Way different if this was a player for example 

[Bills!Win!]

2 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

Is John Gruden a great football head coach?

I think I could’ve coached that Bucs team to a Super Bowl victory. Top 5 defense all time 

[Don Otreply]

2 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.

You try way to hard to appear that you have risen to heights others only imagine, nuthin but luv, 😁👍

[DanDrasticHill]

1 hour ago, TheWei44 said:

Appreciate the effort compiling the data and presenting it in a digestible format.  As an economist, a chart like that might be a first step in the analysis.  But as others have stated, there are a bunch of variables that would need to be included to try to "explain" why some coaches reach their first Super Bowl quicker than others.  Some variables to consider: how many years as coordinator or head coach (i.e., coaching experience); whether a defensive or offensive coordinator previously; whether team in playoffs previous season; how many pro bowlers previous season; injury index; etc. etc.  Separately, there's the question of whether a SB appearance is the best way to measure the quality/success of a coach.  

 

I think it's fair to say SB victory is the gold standard of success for coaches, players, and franchises.

 

That said, a simple test is to compare the SB winners only, side by side with the original chart. If the OP's proposition is correct, you would expect victors to show this effect even more, i.e. with a lower or at least similar average number of years to reach the SB than SB losers. On the other hand, if the victors' average is higher and/or shows a wide variance, that would contradict the thesis. It's a very small sample size but you could also compare first playoff appearances with a much wider sample.

[danc]

3 minutes ago, JerseyBills said:

Interesting analysis but too many variables to really be accurate imo. Way different if this was a player for example 

What about coaches before and after free agency?  Would Knoll and Shula have won as many Super Bowls if there was free agency?  There might have been a couple of other coaches who would have won one instead of Knoll’s 4 and Shula’s 2.

[LeGOATski]

32 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

And when it does it typically happens within 7 years.

It just means McDermott has until the end of career to make it. That's all the data shows.

[PBF81]

8 minutes ago, danc said:

What about coaches before and after free agency?  Would Knoll and Shula have won as many Super Bowls if there was free agency?  There might have been a couple of other coaches who would have won one instead of Knoll’s 4 and Shula’s 2.

 

With regard to Shula if say he would have won more.  Marino was one of the top QBs on the league then, but the defenses back then that he had were not good.  Some free-agency tweaks there and it's reasonable to think that need have been more helped than hindered there.  

 

 

[Einstein]

9 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

It just means McDermott has until the end of career to make it. That's all the data shows.

 

I see that data analysis is not your strong suit.

[PBF81]

9 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

It just means McDermott has until the end of career to make it. That's all the data shows.

 

He won't have that long, he'll have until Allen's spent.  

 

Them they'll decide that they need to go in another direction.  LOL 

 

 

[Einstein]

25 minutes ago, JerseyBills said:

Interesting analysis but too many variables to really be accurate imo. Way different if this was a player for example 

 

The fact that there are so many different variables and the data is still so consistent is what makes it so remarkable. 

[JJGauna]

I bet the Browns decided to look at this chart then decided to move on from Bill Belichick. That worked out so well for them.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

It Took Andy Reid 21 years to win his first Super Bowl. It took him six seasons to get to his first one which he  lost to the patsies, as you well know. hang on for the ride, Einstein. 

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

It Took Andy Reid 21 years to win his first Super Bowl. It took him six seasons to get to his first one which he  lost to the patsies, as you well know. hang on for the ride, Einstein. 

What’s more relevant is how long it took Andy Reid after getting himself an elite QB. 

[LABILLBACKER]

3 hours ago, MJS said:

You should do an analysis of coaches who are fired after consecutive 10+ win seasons, winning the division, winning playoff games, and having top 10 ranked offenses and defenses. I bet the list is pretty small.

 

Not making a superbowl is not what will get a coach fired. Having subpar seasons will get you fired, such as missing the playoffs multiple times, or not being able to win a playoff game after a bunch of tries, or having losing seasons.

 

Getting to the playoffs and winning playoff games after winning the division and having excellent regular season records is just not going to get you fired, usually.

So in other words as long as McDermott has Josh as his qb, he'll never get fired. The job requirement is win in the regular season and maybe an occasional playoff game and your safe for life. Or at least as long as 17 is there.

[Albany,n.y.]

Since Einstein has determined the 4.2 year threshold to make a Super Bowl, now we know why the Bills have only played in 4 Super Bowls. The Bills just didn't give their coaches enough time.  The Bills have had 16 head coaches not counting interim coaches during the Super Boel era.  Only Saban, Knox, Levy and McDermott lasted at least 4.2 seasons.  Imagine if we had just let those other 12 guys coach long enough to make a Super Bowl.  They just left too soon.  How can we have expected more Super Bowls when 75% of the coaches weren't allowed to coach long enough to get there?  

 

Considering how often coaching turnover happens in the NFL, the 4.2 years to make a Super Bowl in the OP is total nonsense.  It's taking data that is beyond meaningless & spitting out a conclusion.  

 

I'd like to know how many HCs have made the playoffs 5 of their 1st 6 seasons.  I bet the list is pretty small.  How about a list of how long it took a coach to make the playoffs 5 times.  If you take every head coach in the Super Bowl era, I bet the % is very small since the majority don't even last 5 seasons.  

[Augie]

5 minutes ago, Gugny said:

What’s more relevant is how long it took Andy Reid after getting himself an elite QB. 

McNabb was unique for his time, and not a terrible player. Not great, but certainly not terrible. 

[oldmanfan]

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.

[Aussie Joe]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

I'll be celebrating right next to you.

I can see it now… “never been so happy to eat crow in all my life..”

[K-9]

14 minutes 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.

Outstanding. 
 

Kind of touches upon the idea of making statistics say anything you want them to say. But there is honest research and then there is the type of research posited by the resident genius who needs to support his agenda. 

[NoSaint]

3 hours ago, MJS said:

You should do an analysis of coaches who are fired after consecutive 10+ win seasons, winning the division, winning playoff games, and having top 10 ranked offenses and defenses. I bet the list is pretty small.

 

Not making a superbowl is not what will get a coach fired. Having subpar seasons will get you fired, such as missing the playoffs multiple times, or not being able to win a playoff game after a bunch of tries, or having losing seasons.

 

Getting to the playoffs and winning playoff games after winning the division and having excellent regular season records is just not going to get you fired, usually.

yea man, I’m sure bengals fans warmly miss the Marvin Lewis years 

29 minutes 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.

Even successful rosters see huge churn in 3 years. Taking over a team results in having a ton of your own guys inside of 2 off-seasons. Most importantly, a cost controlled quarterback 

[Gugny]

57 minutes ago, Augie said:

McNabb was unique for his time, and not a terrible player. Not great, but certainly not terrible. 

McNabb also had little talent around him.  I am a McNabb fan and he got screwed by Philly starting the night he was drafted.  
 

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, JJGauna said:

I bet the Browns decided to look at this chart then decided to move on from Bill Belichick. That worked out so well for them.

 

Belichick didn’t have a franchise QB in Cleveland.

[Augie]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

McNabb also had little talent around him.  I am a McNabb fan and he got screwed by Philly starting the night he was drafted.  
 

 

He couldn’t do crunches in the driveway like TO either, I’m guessing! So there is that, too! 

[Einstein]

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Success in football is a multi factorial process.

 

The fact that there are so many different variables and the data is still so consistent is what makes it so remarkable. 

 

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Take the 2 year data point.  It is intimated that a new HC can put together a winner in 2 years.

 

4.2 years is the average.

 

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 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.

 

You have no basis for this assertion.

 

This is a 40 year data set that proves the assertion.

 

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I believe stability in the front office gives a better chance of success than not. 

 

The data disproves this.

[MJS]

44 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

yea man, I’m sure bengals fans warmly miss the Marvin Lewis years

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

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, MJS said:

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

 

There are 16 current head coaches who have been in the playoffs.

 

McD is 13th among them, in playoff win percentage.

[oldmanfan]

10 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

The fact that there are so many different variables and the data is still so consistent is what makes it so remarkable. 

 

 

4.2 years is the average.

 

 

You have no basis for this assertion.

 

This is a 40 year data set that proves the assertion.

 

 

The data disproves this.

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.

[Einstein]

12 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

1.  You said the largest data point was 2 years to win.

 

You said that you are a scientist with experience in research. Surely you understand that the mode does not intimate the expected result. 

 

12 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

you chose an analysis designed to prove a preformed conclusion.

 

You already wrote this but, again, you have no basis for this assertion. Not a single shred of evidence.

 

While on the off-topic subject, what you said is complete nonsense. The pre-bias of the researcher is not grounds for dismissal of a study UNLESS the pre-bias directly affects the results. Show me a researcher without bias and i’ll show you a liar. Its called a hypothesis. Researchers tackle subjects that interest them, and subjects that interest people have inherent bias. Numerous studies - including massively funded, accepted and peer reviewed studies - were originated because the research team had a hypothesis that they were attempting to prove was true. If the data set as large as this one (40 years) and shows a consistent result, it is accepted regardless of intent. It would be peer reviewed and the data would stand on its own.

 

12 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The data does not disprove what I said, a stable front office includes GMs. 

 

In the vast majority of situations, the coach and GM are hired concurrently. And for many successful coaches, they ARE the gm. Belichick, Carrol, Reid (who hand picked his own GM), Payton (who is said to have control over personnel), etc.

 

.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Einstein

[ColoradoBills]

[NewEra]

How long does it take for the entire board to put pillar of negativity on ignore.  
 

 

the more you guys respond, the more the troll eats

[scuba guy]

3 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

That's incorrect. The complete data shows that it typically almost never happens.

I concur I believe he can't read his own results.  

[oldmanfan]

11 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

You said that you are a scientist with experience in research. Surely you understand that the mode does not intimate the expected result. 

 

 

You already wrote this but, again, you have no basis for this assertion. Not a single shred of evidence.

 

While on the off-topic subject, what you said is complete nonsense. The pre-bias of the researcher is not grounds for dismissal of a study UNLESS the pre-bias directly affects the results. Show me a researcher without bias and i’ll show you a liar. Its called a hypothesis. Researchers tackle subjects that interest them, and subjects that interest people have inherent bias. Numerous studies - including massively funded, accepted and peer reviewed studies - were originated because the research team had a hypothesis that they were attempting to prove was true. If the data set as large as this one (40 years) and shows a consistent result, it is accepted regardless of intent. It would be peer reviewed and the data would stand on its own.

 

 

In the vast majority of situations, the coach and GM are hired concurrently. And for many successful coaches, they ARE the gm. Belichick, Carrol, Reid (who hand picked his own GM), Payton (who is said to have control over personnel), etc.

 

.

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.

[first_and_ten]

5 hours ago, Draconator said:

This is pointless until you post your 2020 through 2023 tax return. 

 

And he didn't say whether it was a bull or bear market when these coaches reached the Super Bowl.

Edited June 25, 2023 by first_and_ten

[Einstein]

29 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I am well acquainted with the scientific method and hypotheses.  

 

You don’t seem to be.

 

29 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I am also well acquainted with trying to make data fit a hypothesis.  Which is what you are doing.  

 

You still have no basis for this assertion.

 

What is in all actuality happening is that you do not like the data, and with an extremely large data set of 40 years you know that there is very little that you can do to discredit the data. Therefore, you resort to ad hominem.

 

29 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

And if you wanted to focus on mean then why make the point about 2years.

 

It’s called presenting a full data set (I included both mean, mode, and range) to allow people to see the full data.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Einstein said:

 

You don’t seem to be.

 

 

You still have no basis for this assertion.

 

What is in all actuality happening is that you do not like the data, and with an extremely large data set of 40 years you know that there is very little that you can do to discredit the data. Therefore, you resort to ad hominem.

 

 

It’s called presenting a full data set (I included both mean, mode, and range) to allow people to see the full data.

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.  

[newcam2012]

5 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

McD has a .639% winning % as a Bills HC.  That’s #1 in Bills history eclipsing Saban and Levy.

 

Cut the McD passive aggressive crap Einstein.  It’s as transparent as the rest of you’re posts.

 

All you ever do is try and poke holes in anything that instills confidence in this fan base towards the team they love.

 

I’ll enjoy and remind you when we win the Lombardi.  It will happen one day and the Pegulas made a regal decision extending the dream team.

 

Well deserved!

 

Or do you want to go back to the drought for 17 years as I know those years painfully well.  We were a hot mess with poor decisions at all levels for decades.  It is the same second guessing decisions and quick ridiculous decisions that were short sighted that kept us in the Mohave Desert.

 

I never want to back to that HELL!

 The whole theme of you post is condescending. 

 

Then you predict a Bills SB win in the future and threaten to rub it in. 

 

Come on man stop with the non sense. 

[Einstein]

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

All you have done here is start with an assumption that McD is a bad coach

 

The hypothesis doesn’t invalidate the data. Your ruining your scientist ploy.

 

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

and took a very simple set of carefully selected data to justify that.  

 

All data in studies are selected. There is no other way to narrow the subject from the entire universe to the topic at hand.

 

I think what you meant to say is the data is cherry picked. Which, you would again be wrong, considering I used every Super Bowl attending coach for 40 year. It doesn’t get more large data set than that.

 

As said before - What is actually happening is that you do not like the conclusive results of the data, but you know that with an extremely large data set of 40 years, there is very little that you can do to discredit the data. Therefore, you resort to ad hominem.

[newcam2012]

2 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

So in other words as long as McDermott has Josh as his qb, he'll never get fired. The job requirement is win in the regular season and maybe an occasional playoff game and your safe for life. Or at least as long as 17 is there.

Bingo!

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

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.

 

Agree with you. Thanks for well thought posts.

Going to put that person ignore. 

 

@Einsteinhere is a song for you to listen till while you think about McDermott lol 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Buffalo Bills Fan