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

[Augie]

25 minutes ago, eball said:

There are so many variables involved in reaching/winning a Super Bowl: talent, coaching, injuries, and plain old luck.  A good/great coach is one who has his team perennially in the mix to compete for a championship.  The "how many years to reach a Super Bowl" analysis is ridiculous.  By any measure McD is a good/great coach.

 

As an NFL fan, all you can realistically hope for is that your team is consistently "in the mix" to compete for a championship.  We have that.

 

I don't know what @Einstein's purpose is other than to be a self-aggrandizing blowhard on a fan football forum.

 

 

This seemed worth quoting…..just because I can. This “analysis” is just a bunch of silly crying out for attention. It means absolutely nothing in terms of predicting the future. Our HC was 14-4 last year, generally in line with his previous seasons. You don’t win it all until you win it all. That’s how it works. 

[teef]

7 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

This seemed worth quoting…..just because I can. This “analysis” is just a bunch of silly crying out for attention. It means absolutely nothing in terms of predicting the future. Our HC was 14-4 last year, generally in line with his previous seasons. You don’t win it all until you win it all. That’s how it works. 

i does seem like a lot of work to ultimately prove nothing.  i get that some people enjoy the analysis, but to spend hours calculating something that pushes an agenda seems like a massive waste of time.  time that someone who was extremely successful and intelligent just wouldn't have.  

[Fleezoid]

 

[SoCal Deek]

34 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Understood, but It is 40 years of data and it is not n=1. When those 50~ results come from a pool of over several hundred coaches, it has some meaning as it shows who out of that pool of several hundred (the real sample) was able to make it.

 

But I do understand that there will always be *some* reason for results we do not like to be discredited. I blame lab error for my cholesterol numbers.

 

It’s not really 40 years of data. It’s more like just forty rolls of a dice. That’s a very small sample size of anything. 

[Einstein]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

It’s not really 40 years of data. It’s more like just forty rolls of a dice. That’s a very small sample size of anything. 

 

If that dice landed on the same number 35 times you may be on to something with that dice being weighted toward a certain outcome.

[eball]

44 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

This seemed worth quoting…..just because I can. This “analysis” is just a bunch of silly crying out for attention. It means absolutely nothing in terms of predicting the future. Our HC was 14-4 last year, generally in line with his previous seasons. You don’t win it all until you win it all. That’s how it works. 

 

35 minutes ago, teef said:

i does seem like a lot of work to ultimately prove nothing.  i get that some people enjoy the analysis, but to spend hours calculating something that pushes an agenda seems like a massive waste of time.  time that someone who was extremely successful and intelligent just wouldn't have.  

 

I believe you two gentlemen have succinctly summed up @Einstein's presence in this forum.

 

[TBBills Fan]

16 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

The first two sausages…easy peasy.  That 3rd one…I had to take a deep breath.  

 

 

but you took 3 sausages in 1 sitting, thats pro level

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

If that dice landed on the same number 35 times you may be on to something with that dice being weighted toward a certain outcome.

Huh? There are only six sides on a dice. There are way more than six variables in this equation. While I absolutely loved Money Ball as a movie, the Oakland Athletics did not win the World Series that year. Sheeeesh! 

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, TBBills Fan said:

 

 

but you took 3 sausages in 1 sitting, thats pro level

 

Nothing is better than when you achieve a dream.

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Sorry but your math is wrong.

 

Odds (for example, the ones you listed at 10 to 1, 5 to 1, 4 to 1) do not translate directly into percentages (10%, 20%, 25%). Odds and probabilities are related, but they're not the same thing. Odds are a ratio of the probability of an event happening to the probability of it not happening, while probability is a ratio of the probability of an event happening to all possible outcomes.

 

In other words, 10 to 1 odds correspond to a probability of 1/11 (9.09%), 5 to 1 odds correspond to a probability of 1/6 (16.67%) and 4 to 1 odds correspond to a probability of 1/5 (20%).

So we have 0.9091 * 0.8333 * 0.8 = 0.604 

 

then

 

1 - 0.604 = 0.396 (39.6%)

 

The probability of making the Super Bowl one time in the past 3 years (given Vegas odds) are 39.6%

 

.

Yeah.  You're right.  I just always have in my mind that 4 to 1 odds means if you bet $25 you gain $100 if it hits (with no vig).  Good call and way to make me feel worse.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Doc Brown

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Huh? There are only six sides on a dice. There are way more than six variables in this equation. While I absolutely loved Money Ball as a movie, the Oakland Athletics did not win the World Series that year. Sheeeesh! 

 

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

 

[Einstein]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Yeah.  You're right.  I just always have in my mind that 4 to 1 odds means if you bet $25 you gain $100 if it hits.  Good call and way to make me feel worse.

 

Haha didn’t intend to make you feel bad. Most people do not understand probabilities and odds. The evidence of which is glaring throughout this thread.

[WotAGuy]

6 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Haha didn’t intend to make you feel bad. Most people do not understand probabilities and odds. The evidence of which is glaring throughout this thread.

Oh the irony!

[Einstein]

5 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Oh the irony!

 

When an expert engages in conversations with laypeople, it is not uncommon for the latter to feel confident in their own correctness and perceive the experts as being mistaken. I have grown accustomed to this dynamic.

 

[What a Tuel]

Why is "Super Bowl appearance" the threshold and why would it not just move to "Super Bowl win" if we make it there and lose?

 

Also we are really saying we have a statistically significant better chance of McDermott winning in year 6 vs year 7? Explain that? How does previous coach history on a different team and period affect the here and now? 

 

There are a lot of coaches that didn't win for a long time and never won a Super Bowl, but won one later on the same or different team.

 

There are a lot of coaches that won a super bowl in their first few years and never made it back again.

 

I bet the Chiefs front office were glad they didnt have Einstein in their ears for Year 7 of the Andy Reid HC gig. They had very little chance to make the super bowl according to this bc it proves he is just not capable of it bc other coaches didnt?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by What a Tuel

[Einstein]

Just now, What a Tuel said:

Why is "Super Bowl appearance" the threshold and why would it not just move to "Super Bowl win" if we make it there and lose?

 

Because we are trying to identify when coaches are most ready to make a Super Bowl run.

 

To be honest, I don’t think the results will be much different when looking at Super Bowl wins, but I can run the analysis for you if you’d like.

 

Just now, What a Tuel said:

Also we are really saying we have a statistically significant better chance of McDermott winning in year 6 vs year 7? Explain that?

 

A studies data simply provides the answer. This is followed by individuals proposing various hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. For instance, one hypothesis might suggest that as coaches extend their tenure in the NFL, teams decode their strategies and understand their gameplay, thus causing a decrease in their effectiveness over time. However, this is just one possible explanation and may not necessarily be the correct one.

[WotAGuy]

13 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

When an expert engages in conversations with laypeople, it is not uncommon for the latter to feel confident in their own correctness and perceive the experts as being mistaken. I have grown accustomed to this dynamic.

 

Don’t call yourself “laypeople”. You’re an Einstein!  

[Don Otreply]

On 6/24/2023 at 9:35 PM, NewEra said:

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

He is special isn’t he,  if you don’t believe me, ask him, he will be happy to tell anyone how special he is, oh, he did that already 😆🤣😂

[What a Tuel]

12 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Because we are trying to identify when coaches are most ready to make a Super Bowl run.

 

To be honest, I don’t think the results will be much different when looking at Super Bowl wins, but I can run the analysis for you if you’d like.

 

 

A studies data simply provides the answer. This is followed by individuals proposing various hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. For instance, one hypothesis might suggest that as coaches extend their tenure in the NFL, teams decode their strategies and understand their gameplay, thus causing a decrease in their effectiveness over time. However, this is just one possible explanation and may not necessarily be the correct one.

 

Accounting for team moves, it appears that coaches that coached anytime between 1980 and now, there are about 30 that have won a championship and it appears as though roughly 10 HC or 33% of them have won their first Super Bowl in their 7th+ year as a head coach. It decreases if you narrow it to having to have 7+ years on the same team but that opens up all kinds of questions. Was it the HC or was it the team? Front Office? Owner? 

 

Andy Reid, Pete Carroll, Bruce Arians, Gary Kubiak, Tom Coughlin are all recent examples of HC that moved to another team and won a Super Bowl. One could argue that their previous teams (obviosuly not NE and Pete Carroll) made a mistake giving up on them or not addressing the real issue.

Edited June 26, 2023 by What a Tuel

[Dopey]

17 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Not sure if they know it yet but this thread could easily be about Josh Allen.

 

The odds are against him.

Watch out, that would be considered blasphemy by the “Josh can do no wrong “ crowd. Even if rumors of cheating, being a baby daddy, cops showing up just before the Cincy playoff game are valid. He’s untouchable. Forget about the actual turnover issue he has. 

[Dopey]

5 hours ago, teef said:

i does seem like a lot of work to ultimately prove nothing.  i get that some people enjoy the analysis, but to spend hours calculating something that pushes an agenda seems like a massive waste of time.  time that someone who was extremely successful and intelligent just wouldn't have.  

[Einstein]

14 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

Accounting for team moves, it appears that coaches that coached anytime between 1980 and now, there are about 30 that have won a championship and it appears as though roughly 10 HC or 33% of them have won their first Super Bowl in their 7th+ year as a head coach. It decreases if you narrow it to having to have 7+ years on the same team but that opens up all kinds of questions. Was it the HC or was it the team? Front Office? Owner? 

 

Andy Reid, Pete Carroll, Bruce Arians, Gary Kubiak, Tom Coughlin are all recent examples of HC that moved to another team and won a Super Bowl. One could argue that their previous teams (obviosuly not NE and Pete Carroll) made a mistake giving up on them or not addressing the real issue.

 

All valid questions that can form a hypothesis.

[Augie]

11 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

Andy Reid, Pete Carroll, Bruce Arians, Gary Kubiak, Tom Coughlin are all recent examples of HC that moved to another team and won a Super Bowl. One could argue that their previous teams made a mistake giving up on them.

 Makes you wonder if the Browns would have been better off being patient with Belichick. Here’s a crazy concept for folks to ponder: Do you think people can get better at their job given some experience? But how do you squeeze that into our cute little “formula”? 

 

Coaches rarely get fired for not winning the Super Bowl. They get fired (all the time) for not winning. Period. McD wins, a lot. He has had missteps in the playoffs for sure, but he’s consistently there and I think his time will come. I’ll take him over door #2 on The Price Is Right. 

[muppy]

43 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

When an expert engages in conversations with laypeople, it is not uncommon for the latter to feel confident in their own correctness and perceive the experts as being mistaken. I have grown accustomed to this dynamic.

 

reading this post as Commander Data from Star Trek was pretty funny. It's a dead ringer

 

lol

[folz]

On 6/24/2023 at 4:21 PM, 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)

 

 

First of all, I find it interesting that you chose to include head coaches who have appeared in, but not won a Super Bowl because if McDermott took the Bills to the Super Bowl, but lost, you would be all over him saying, see he can't win the big game when it counts. From reading your posts, I am pretty sure you wouldn't be happy that he got us to a SB, you would be calling for his head because he lost it.

 

Secondly, I haven't crunched all of your data to see if it is correct, but there have been at least 7 coaches, not 5, who didn't make their inaugural Super Bowl until after 7 seasons of head coaching (there may be more, but I'm not sure as I only looked at Super Bowl winning coaches, not all coaches who have appeared in a Super Bowl).

 

And while your data can show some averages of what HAS happened, it is by no means predictive of what CAN or MAY happen.

 

Here are a some coaches who (at least generally) buck your trends/averages (again, I only looked at SB winning coaches):

 

Coach                Years to 1st SB appearance                Years to 1st Super Bowl victory

Tom Landry                      11                                                                12

Bill Belichick                       7                                                                 7

Andy Reid                          6                                                                21

Tom Coughlin                   12                                                                12

Pete Carroll                       8                                                                  8

Chuck Noll                        6                                                                  6

Bill Cowher                       4                                                                  14

Tony Dungy                     11                                                                  11

Dick Vermeil                     5                                                                  10

John Madden                   8                                                                   8

Gary Kubiak                     9                                                                    9

Bruce Arians                    8                                                                    8

 

Some damn fine coaches on that list.

[Shaw66]

I've refused to read this thread but I do check in from time to time just to see what's being said.  

 

Has anyone mentioned the fact that there were more than 100 NFL head coaches who had the job for four or fewer seasons.  Who's to say how many of those would have made it to a Super Bowl?  

 

Bottom line is that there simple isn't enough data to prove much of anything on this subject.

 

 

 

 

[GreggTX]

It took Andt Teid a long time. He got fired first.

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I've refused to read this thread but I do check in from time to time just to see what's being said.  

 

Has anyone mentioned the fact that there were more than 100 NFL head coaches who had the job for four or fewer seasons.  Who's to say how many of those would have made it to a Super Bowl?  

 

Bottom line is that there simple isn't enough data to prove much of anything on this subject.

 

 

 

 

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

Edited June 26, 2023 by oldmanfan

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

On 6/24/2023 at 5:18 PM, Einstein said:

 

What the data shows is that point in time typically happens within a coaches first 7 years.

Now do this chart with every coach in NFL history, including ones who never won one

 

We'll wait

 

[WhoTom]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

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

 

... or not being intelligent enough to understand the math.

 

 

[Augie]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I've refused to read this thread but I do check in from time to time just to see what's being said.  

 

Has anyone mentioned the fact that there were more than 100 NFL head coaches who had the job for four or fewer seasons.  Who's to say how many of those would have made it to a Super Bowl?  

 

Bottom line is that there simple isn't enough data to prove much of anything on this subject.

 

 

 

 

 

BUT, did you check out the mathy page? That was some definitive stuff there! Numbers and formulas everywhere! All to prove……exactly nothing.

 

But it was all carefully gathered by the OP who is trying to push his agenda and trick grade school kids into thinking he’s onto something. He’s at 56 posts and climbing in this effort, while the #2 poster has 14 posts. He must really want to prove he’s right, despite how obvious it seems to most of us that the math page was pure folly. It’s not math, it’s football!  

[Einstein]

2 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

Now do this chart with every coach in NFL history, including ones who never won one

 

We'll wait

 

 

Do what exactly?

 

Are you asking to go back 50-60 years instead of just 40?

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

... or not being intelligent enough to understand the math.

 

 

 

He is way more convincing that he's not a superior intelligence.  I think we are all convinced he's not.  We all have interacted with highly intelligent people enough to understand he's not one of them.  

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

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

 

That’s what we call coincidence not causation or prediction. 

[Einstein]

57 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s what we call coincidence not causation or prediction. 

 

A very consistent coincidence over 40 years of Super Bowls…

 

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

 Basically it’s ascertainment bias

 

 

I’m still open to you proving this, but every time I call you out on it, you simply repeat “sampling bias!”. That’s not proof - that’s simply a broken record.

 

.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Einstein

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, WhoTom said:

 

... or not being intelligent enough to understand the math.

 

 

 

Now that’s true.

 

I still chuckle about you thinking simple calculus needs to be peer reviewed 😂. I wasn’t the only poster who called you out on that nonsense.

[oldmanfan]

13 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Very large, consistent coincidence.

 

I’m still open to you proving this, but every time I call you out on it, you simply repeat “sampling bias!”. That’s not proof - that’s simply a broken record.

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.  

 

 

[Dopey]

17 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

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.  

 

 

He was actually on the win a SB(ultimate objective) and quickly or fire Mcd. He moved the goalposts after I pointed out some issues with his thoughts. Now it’s “make it to a SB, instead of winning it”. Wonder what’s next as his hypothesis gets ***** on. “How long can we win ugly playoff games and still have confidence ?” 
 

But it’s an observation by EINSTEIN. 

MENSA

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Dopey said:

He was actually on the win a SB(ultimate objective) and quickly or fire Mcd. He moved the goalposts after I pointed out some issues with his thoughts. Now it’s “make it to a SB, instead of winning it”. Wonder what’s next as his hypothesis gets ***** on. “How long can we win ugly playoff games and still have confidence ?” 
 

But it’s an observation by EINSTEIN. 

MENSA

 

Maybe I missed something? Did he really bring up MENSA? 

[Dopey]

Just now, Augie said:

 

Maybe I missed something? Did he really bring up MENSA? 

No. That’s on me.