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

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, MJS said:

And, I think most would agree that was exceptional. Most coaches do not get fired under those circumstances.

 

There are exceptions, and this is one of them. And it usually does not work out. Sometimes it does, but often the team regresses.

 

I think you're probably correct on the "exceptions", though depending upon how you slice it there are probably others.

 

The Rams firing Mike Martz 4 years after a Superbowl appearance and during a down year after 2 straight division losses, would possibly be another.  Took the Rams 12 seasons and 4 different HC to manage another winning season and playoff appearance.

 

The Cowboys firing Phillips during a down season after 3 winning seasons and two division losses (11 and 13 wins) could be another.   Took them 5 seasons under their new HC to achieve another winning season/playoff appearance and they haven't gone any deeper than the Division round.

 

I do agree that most coaches are fired because the team is losing and they fail to turn it around.  But there might be more "fired for underachieving expectations" firings than one thinks, I don't have energy about it to do something systematic.

[PromoTheRobot]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_head_coaches#:~:text=In the 103-year history,a career spanning 40 years.

 

There have been 518 head coaches in the history of the NFL.

Only 35 have won either a Super Bowl or an NFL championship. That's 6.8%. 

Only 78 won 4 playoff games in a career.  That's 15%.

Only 140 have ever won a playoff game. That's 27%.

Only 187 ever made a playoff game. That's 36%.

 

So if you dump our top 15% coach, there's only a one-in-three chance the new coach will even make the playoffs.

Edited June 27, 2023 by PromoTheRobot

[Patrick Duffy]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

Is the fact that Reid coached a playoff-contending 11, 10, 12 win team without an elite QB the 5 seasons before he started his elite QB considered relevant?

 

There are many that considered McNabb "elite" at that time (if that's around the time you mean)

[Beck Water]

33 minutes ago, Patrick Duffy said:

 

There are many that considered McNabb "elite" at that time (if that's around the time you mean)

 

No, I was talking about the 5 years Reid coached in Kansas City (11, 9, 11, 12, and 10 win seasons, 4 playoff appearances) prior to starting his elite QB.

 

No one could reasonably argue that Mahomes didn't elevate that offense to an entire new level.  But it's also a fair point that KC had the #6 offense in the league the year before Mahomes first started, and a top-10 offense 3 of those 5 years.  They also had a top-10 defense 4 of those 5 years. 

 

The point is, they were a team with considerable offensive and defensive talent in place and with an established culture of winning and knowing what it takes to win, before the elite Mahomes was given the keys.

[Billy Claude]

3 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

I think perhaps sometimes it is.

Consider the case of Gary Kubiak, who was fired after Denver had a winning season 9-7.

 

This was 1 season after winning the Superbowl and after 4 consecutive 12 and 13 win seasons, and with 7th round pick Trevor Siemian at QB.

 

Kubiak didn't miss the playoffs multiple times, didn't have a losing season.  Yet it was clearly considered "subpar" to go 9-7 after winning a Superbowl.  I think Superbowl (or at least deep into playoffs) had become the expectation in Denver, so Kubiak was considered to have under-achieved.

 

 

 

I thought Kubiak retired from the Broncos due to health issues rather then being fired.  He did miss games that year due to health. 

 

 

 

Some of these obvious examples of coaches have been mentioned in previous threads:

 

John Fox was fired after going 12-4, 13-3, and 13-3 record the previous three years (most recent listed first) but going 3-4 in the playoffs.  His record is probably closest to McDermott's.  Of course. Kubiak won the Super Bowl the next year and then the Broncos went 9-7 and then 5-11 the years after that.

 

Marty Shottenheimer was fired after going 10-6, 10-5, and 12-4 in the previous three years with the Browns and 2-4 in the playoffs.  The Browns went 9-6-1 and 3-13 the next two years under Bud Carson.

 

Shottenheimer was also fired after going 12-4, 9.-7, 12-4 the previous 3 year with San Diego and 0-2 in the playoffs.  The Chargers when 11-5 and 8-8 the next two years under Norv Turner.

 

He was also fired from the KC Chiefs after a lot of very good regular seasons but went 7-9 the year before he was fired (so it doesn't count).

 

Tony Dungy after going 9-7. 10-6  and 11-5 the previous 3 years with Tampa Bay and 2-4 in the playoffs.  Jon Gruden won the Super Bowl the next year and then  7-9 and 5-11 the two years after that.

 

So some teams have definitely achieved the pinnacle firing successful head coaches.

 

 

 

 

[reddogblitz]

Took Tom Landry 11 years.

[Beck Water]

5 minutes ago, Billy Claude said:

I thought Kubiak retired from the Broncos due to health issues rather then being fired.  He did miss games that year due to health.

 

That's one of those "who knows?" things.  He stood up and announced he was "stepping away due to health issues".  He def. did have some health issues, but he ws only 57 🤷‍♂️

 

So opinions vary, just as they do as to whether Frazier legit chose to step back for a year, or was pushed out by being told McD would call plays, or was shadow-fired.

 

5 minutes ago, Billy Claude said:

 

Some of these obvious examples of coaches have been mentioned in previous threads:

 

John Fox was fired after going 12-4, 13-3, and 13-3 record the previous three years (most recent listed first) but going 3-4 in the playoffs.  His record is probably closest to McDermott's.  Of course. Kubiak won the Super Bowl the next year and then the Broncos went 9-7 and then 5-11 the years after that.

 

Marty Shottenheimer was fired after going 10-6, 10-5, and 12-4 in the previous three years with the Browns and 2-4 in the playoffs.  The Browns went 9-6-1 and 3-13 the next two years under Bud Carson.

 

Shottenheimer was also fired after going 12-4, 9.-7, 12-4 the previous 3 year with San Diego and 0-2 in the playoffs.  The Chargers when 11-5 and 8-8 the next two years under Norv Turner.

 

He was also fired from the KC Chiefs after a lot of very good regular seasons but went 7-9 the year before he was fired (so it doesn't count).

 

Tony Dungy after going 9-7. 10-6  and 11-5 the previous 3 years with Tampa Bay and 2-4 in the playoffs.  Jon Gruden won the Super Bowl the next year and then  7-9 and 5-11 the two years after that.

 

So some teams have definitely achieved the pinnacle firing successful head coaches.

 

There's no question on the last.  My only point is that it's hardly the sure bet to jettison a winning coach and bring in someone new, that some folks seem to believe.  It may lead to a better result, it may not.

[Billy Claude]

27 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

That's one of those "who knows?" things.  He stood up and announced he was "stepping away due to health issues".  He def. did have some health issues, but he ws only 57 🤷‍♂️

 

So opinions vary, just as they do as to whether Frazier legit chose to step back for a year, or was pushed out by being told McD would call plays, or was shadow-fired.

 

 

There's no question on the last.  My only point is that it's hardly the sure bet to jettison a winning coach and bring in someone new, that some folks seem to believe.  It may lead to a better result, it may not.

 

 

Yes.  I know that there were rumors that Elway pressured him out.  Given Kubiak's confirmed medical issues and that he was able to get to 9-7 with Trevor Siemian, I find it difficult that even John Elway would lose patience that quickly.  However, Elway's interference might have also been a factor in his resignation.

 

On the last part, I definitely agreed, no matter how much one argues the point, you just don't know.  However, given Pegula's experience with  how difficult it is to find even a competent coach with the Sabres, I think it would take a player revolt type of season for McDermott to be fired after this season.   I can see him getting fired the year after that if the Bills continue to mess up in the playoffs.

 

I guess you just don't know doesn't make for good conversation on a message board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Billy Claude

[hondo in seattle]

On 6/27/2023 at 10:41 AM, PromoTheRobot said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_head_coaches#:~:text=In the 103-year history,a career spanning 40 years.

 

There have been 518 head coaches in the history of the NFL.

Only 35 have won either a Super Bowl or an NFL championship. That's 6.8%. 

Only 78 won 4 playoff games in a career.  That's 15%.

Only 140 have ever won a playoff game. That's 27%.

Only 187 ever made a playoff game. That's 36%.

 

So if you dump our top 15% coach, there's only a one-in-three chance the new coach will even make the playoffs.

 

Statistical gymnastics...

 

There is a 3% chance each year of any particular team winning the SB.  

 

This is McD's 7th year.  Of coaches who have coached in the Super Bowl era, roughly 25% (20 of 780) who coached for 7 or more years win a Super Bowl.  

 

Roughly half (13 of 27) of all coaches who coach for 13 or more years win a Super Bowl.

The longer we hang on the McD, the better the odds.  

 

 

[LABILLBACKER]

On 6/27/2023 at 10:41 AM, PromoTheRobot said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_head_coaches#:~:text=In the 103-year history,a career spanning 40 years.

 

There have been 518 head coaches in the history of the NFL.

Only 35 have won either a Super Bowl or an NFL championship. That's 6.8%. 

Only 78 won 4 playoff games in a career.  That's 15%.

Only 140 have ever won a playoff game. That's 27%.

Only 187 ever made a playoff game. That's 36%.

 

So if you dump our top 15% coach, there's only a one-in-three chance the new coach will even make the playoffs.

There's going to be a moment when you have to ask yourself a question?  Does the qb factor more into all these win percentages or the coach?  Without Josh, McDermott doesn't even sniff the 36%.  And eventually Terry will get fed up watching this team hit a wall in the divisional round of the playoffs. 

[Chaos]

On 6/27/2023 at 1:41 PM, PromoTheRobot said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_head_coaches#:~:text=In the 103-year history,a career spanning 40 years.

 

There have been 518 head coaches in the history of the NFL.

Only 35 have won either a Super Bowl or an NFL championship. That's 6.8%. 

Only 78 won 4 playoff games in a career.  That's 15%.

Only 140 have ever won a playoff game. That's 27%.

Only 187 ever made a playoff game. That's 36%.

 

So if you dump our top 15% coach, there's only a one-in-three chance the new coach will even make the playoffs.

So you are saying it is super easy to find coaches who don't win the Super Bowl.  I think most of us already knew this. 

[Buckets]

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)

 

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.

How long did it take Belecheat?

[Augie]

5 minutes ago, Buckets said:

How long did it take Belecheat?

 

I believe I read Tom Landry was 11 years. Every coach and situation are different. Period. Bill Callahan made the Super Bowl with the Raiders. With his .409 winning percentage in the NFL. Making/winning a SB is not the ONLY measure of success, even if it is the ultimate goal. 

[Chaos]

On 6/27/2023 at 12:15 PM, MJS said:

And, I think most would agree that was exceptional. Most coaches do not get fired under those circumstances.

 

There are exceptions, and this is one of them. And it usually does not work out. Sometimes it does, but often the team regresses.

Ron Riviera, Mike McCarthy, Doug Pederson were all fired after winning Super Bowls.  Extending / firing coaches seems to have "expectations" as a significant component of the decision making.  For example when you have Aaron Rodgers as your QB, a couple of super bowl appearance, a super bowl win and regular playoff appearances does not carry a coach indefinitely. 

[Einstein]

3 hours ago, Buckets said:

How long did it take Belecheat?

 

7 seasons.

This is McDermotts 7th season.

 

 

7 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

This is McD's 7th year.  Of coaches who have coached in the Super Bowl era, roughly 25% (20 of 780) who coached for 7 or more years win a Super Bowl.  

But most of them won that Super Bowl BEFORE year 7.

 

What your stats actually show is that coaches who won a Super Bowl were given a longer leash and therefore had a longer tenure with the team.

 

7 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

The longer we hang on the McD, the better the odds.  

 

History shows the complete opposite.

[Chaos]

4 hours ago, Augie said:

 

I believe I read Tom Landry was 11 years. Every coach and situation are different. Period. Bill Callahan made the Super Bowl with the Raiders. With his .409 winning percentage in the NFL. Making/winning a SB is not the ONLY measure of success, even if it is the ultimate goal. 

The Tom Landry experience from the 1960's and 70's was fifty+ years ago. People would have thought you are silly if you were discussing Red Grange or Jim Thorpe during the Super Bowl.  But in any case, once Landy had his franchise QB, Roger Staubach in place, things went pretty quickly from there.  It is actually pointless to compare win-loss success among coaches with HOF caliber QBs to coaches without them. 

[Billsflyer12]

On 6/27/2023 at 1:45 PM, reddogblitz said:

Took Tom Landry 11 years.

Tom Landry made his 1st NFL Championship Game appearance(pre Super Bowl) in Season 7.

 

John Madden is only coach to ever make his 1st Super Bowl appearance beyond season 7.  He did it in Season 8.

[90sBills]

4 hours ago, Buckets said:

How long did it take Belecheat?

As long as it took Brady to show up. And Reid took as long as Mahomes to show up. There’s a correlation in there somewhere. Just can’t put my finger on it. 🤔

[Billsflyer12]

42 minutes ago, 90sBills said:

As long as it took Brady to show up. And Reid took as long as Mahomes to show up. There’s a correlation in there somewhere. Just can’t put my finger on it. 🤔

And somehow McDermott cant even make an SB appearance with one of those level QBs.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Billsflyer12

[PromoTheRobot]

6 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

There's going to be a moment when you have to ask yourself a question?  Does the qb factor more into all these win percentages or the coach?  Without Josh, McDermott doesn't even sniff the 36%.  And eventually Terry will get fed up watching this team hit a wall in the divisional round of the playoffs. 

 

LOL. "I'm sick and tired of seeing my team in the playoffs" said no one ever...except Bills fans.

[Einstein]

9 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

LOL. "I'm sick and tired of seeing my team in the playoffs" said no one ever...except Bills fans.

 

You didn’t finish the sentence.

 

”I’m sick and tired of seeing my team in the playoffs after finally acquiring a franchise QB that we waited for for 20 years, only to watch the coaching staff fall short repeatedly”

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

12 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

LOL. "I'm sick and tired of seeing my team in the playoffs" said no one ever...except Bills fans.

I think Bengals fans were definitely saying that at the tail end of the Andy Dalton / Marvin Lewis era. 

[hondo in seattle]

2 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

7 seasons.

This is McDermotts 7th season.

 

 

But most of them won that Super Bowl BEFORE year 7.

 

What your stats actually show is that coaches who won a Super Bowl were given a longer leash and therefore had a longer tenure with the team.

 

 

History shows the complete opposite.

 

You make pronouncements that you pass off as facts.  They are not.  The data can be interpreted in different ways.   I began my post with the preamble of "statistical gymnastics" because there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Stats are just numbers.  You can use them to tell nearly any story you want.  

But here's the statistical story I believe: stability pays off.  Over the past 50 years, the average Steeler coach lasted for about 17 years.  Their three coaches won 6 Lombardi's.

 

In the same period, our average HC lasted about 2.8 years.  Our endless parade of coaches have never won a Lombardi.   Being decisive - often considered a good trait in many situations - and quickly pulling plugs is not a smart strategy to take with HCs.  Patience and perseverance pay off.  

 

The average team has a 3% of winning the Super Bowl.  Good GMs and HCs can increase their probability to maybe 10%.  It took Beane and McD two, or three years to reach that level.  They've been at that level for maybe 3, maybe 4, years now.  From a mathematical perspective, it's not time to panic.   You don't fire the coach that brought you from 0-1% to 10% just because he hasn't hit on his 1-in-10 shot yet.  

 

There is no one path to the Super Bowl.  Of those Steeler coaches, Cowher won in his 14th season.  Tomlin won in his 2nd.   They both contributed in their own way to Pittsburgh's enviable haul of six trophies.   

[Einstein]

9 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

But here's the statistical story I believe:

 

Surely you see the problem here…

11 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

Over the past 50 years, the average Steeler coach lasted for about 17 years.  Their three coaches won 6 Lombardi's.

 

In the same period, our average HC lasted about 2.8 years.  The average team has a 3% of winning the Super Bowl. 

 

I thought there is “lies, damn lies, and statistics”? Why are you using statistics here?

[Billsflyer12]

27 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

You make pronouncements that you pass off as facts.  They are not.  The data can be interpreted in different ways.   I began my post with the preamble of "statistical gymnastics" because there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Stats are just numbers.  You can use them to tell nearly any story you want.  

But here's the statistical story I believe: stability pays off.  Over the past 50 years, the average Steeler coach lasted for about 17 years.  Their three coaches won 6 Lombardi's.

 

In the same period, our average HC lasted about 2.8 years.  Our endless parade of coaches have never won a Lombardi.   Being decisive - often considered a good trait in many situations - and quickly pulling plugs is not a smart strategy to take with HCs.  Patience and perseverance pay off.  

 

The average team has a 3% of winning the Super Bowl.  Good GMs and HCs can increase their probability to maybe 10%.  It took Beane and McD two, or three years to reach that level.  They've been at that level for maybe 3, maybe 4, years now.  From a mathematical perspective, it's not time to panic.   You don't fire the coach that brought you from 0-1% to 10% just because he hasn't hit on his 1-in-10 shot yet.  

 

There is no one path to the Super Bowl.  Of those Steeler coaches, Cowher won in his 14th season.  Tomlin won in his 2nd.   They both contributed in their own way to Pittsburgh's enviable haul of six trophies.   

Chuck Koll won his 1st Super Bowl in his 6th season.  Cowher made his 1st Super Bowl in his 4th season.  Tomlin won his 1st in his 2nd season.

 

Point being all the Super Bowl winning Steeler coaches had at least a Super Bowl appearance by their 6th season.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Billsflyer12

[MJS]

2 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

I think Bengals fans were definitely saying that at the tail end of the Andy Dalton / Marvin Lewis era. 

Sure, but they couldn't win a single playoff game.

[newcam2012]

On 6/27/2023 at 12:46 PM, Beck Water said:

 

That's one of those "who knows?" things.  He stood up and announced he was "stepping away due to health issues".  He def. did have some health issues, but he ws only 57 🤷‍♂️

 

So opinions vary, just as they do as to whether Frazier legit chose to step back for a year, or was pushed out by being told McD would call plays, or was shadow-fired.

 

 

There's no question on the last.  My only point is that it's hardly the sure bet to jettison a winning coach and bring in someone new, that some folks seem to believe.  It may lead to a better result, it may not.

It's all about risk vs reward. 

 

Are you content with where McD has led the team? Do you think he will process the team to a SB? 

 

Do you think a new HC can do better? Worse? 

 

Is the team ready for change? Will it be too disruptive or jump start the team? 

 

No one really knows. What's know is McD is a very good regular season coach and mediocre come playoff time. 

 

I keep asking myself what solid HC could really fail with Allen as your QB? He's the stability of the team. 

[newcam2012]

3 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

LOL. "I'm sick and tired of seeing my team in the playoffs" said no one ever...except Bills fans.

This is a short sighted approach here. 

 

Ask yourself if a solid HC replacement would make the playoffs with Allen. I think the only reasonable answer is yes. 

 

Put it in that context and perhaps McD doesn't look so special. Solid yes but is that good enough. 

 

Fans in Buffalo want a SB appearence and a Lombardi Trophy. At this point, making the playoffs doesn't cut it for lots of fans. 

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

You didn’t finish the sentence.

 

”I’m sick and tired of seeing my team in the playoffs after finally acquiring a franchise QB that we waited for for 20 years, only to watch the coaching staff fall short repeatedly”

Exactly! Frame this!

[newcam2012]

3 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

You make pronouncements that you pass off as facts.  They are not.  The data can be interpreted in different ways.   I began my post with the preamble of "statistical gymnastics" because there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Stats are just numbers.  You can use them to tell nearly any story you want.  

But here's the statistical story I believe: stability pays off.  Over the past 50 years, the average Steeler coach lasted for about 17 years.  Their three coaches won 6 Lombardi's.

 

In the same period, our average HC lasted about 2.8 years.  Our endless parade of coaches have never won a Lombardi.   Being decisive - often considered a good trait in many situations - and quickly pulling plugs is not a smart strategy to take with HCs.  Patience and perseverance pay off.  

 

The average team has a 3% of winning the Super Bowl.  Good GMs and HCs can increase their probability to maybe 10%.  It took Beane and McD two, or three years to reach that level.  They've been at that level for maybe 3, maybe 4, years now.  From a mathematical perspective, it's not time to panic.   You don't fire the coach that brought you from 0-1% to 10% just because he hasn't hit on his 1-in-10 shot yet.  

 

There is no one path to the Super Bowl.  Of those Steeler coaches, Cowher won in his 14th season.  Tomlin won in his 2nd.   They both contributed in their own way to Pittsburgh's enviable haul of six trophies.   

Stats only tell part of the story. You have to do the "eye ball" test." What do your eyes see? Do you trust what you are seeing? 

 

I'm not going to go playoff game by playoff game under the McD regime. All I can say is my eyes see a coach that hasn't get it done. A coach that has repeatedly failed under duress and the big game. A coach who has been out coached, out schemed, and out prepared. 

 

Maybe your eyes see it differently. Maybe you are satisfied with the Bills current playoff appearences. Everything else might be gravy on top. 

[Royale with Cheese]

6 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

Stats only tell part of the story. You have to do the "eye ball" test." What do your eyes see? Do you trust what you are seeing? 

 

I'm not going to go playoff game by playoff game under the McD regime. All I can say is my eyes see a coach that hasn't get it done. A coach that has repeatedly failed under duress and the big game. A coach who has been out coached, out schemed, and out prepared. 

 

Maybe your eyes see it differently. Maybe you are satisfied with the Bills current playoff appearences. Everything else might be gravy on top. 

 

Or maybe some of us don't b**** and complain on repeat every time we're on this message board.  

Scorned adult on a message board constantly complaining is not the look most of us want or go for.

 

And to your earlier post about McD owes the fan base an apology...I don't need one.  You can wait to see if he gives you one to ease your emotional struggles but I wouldn't hold my breath.  

[newcam2012]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Or maybe some of us don't b**** and complain on repeat every time we're on this message board.  

Scorned adult on a message board constantly complaining is not the look most of us want or go for.

 

And to your earlier post about McD owes the fan base an apology...I don't need one.  You can wait to see if he gives you one to ease your emotional struggles but I wouldn't hold my breath.  

No need for an apology. He will be shown the door in two years. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

10 hours ago, MJS said:

Sure, but they couldn't win a single playoff game.

they never had Super Bowl expectations in any of theirs seasons though either. 
 

the level of postseason failure is about the same if we measure it with the weight of expectations. 

[MJS]

26 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

they never had Super Bowl expectations in any of theirs seasons though either. 
 

the level of postseason failure is about the same if we measure it with the weight of expectations. 

Superbowl expectations are dumb to begin with. Even the best teams in the NFL should not EXPECT a superbowl. Go look at the betting odds. Kansas City, the best team in the NFL with the best odds of winning it, has like a 14% chance of winning the superbowl, according to the odds.

 

There is no such thing as a "good chance" of winning the superbowl.

 

If you expected the Bills to win the superbowl the last couple of years, you were a fool. Hoping for a superbowl, or believing that it is possible, is one thing, but EXPECTING one? That is just unrealistic fan hubris.

 

Fans need to stop viewing it that way. It is asinine, entitled, and pathetically naive, not to mention annoying.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

Just now, MJS said:

Superbowl expectations are dumb to begin with. Even the best teams in the NFL should not EXPECT a superbowl. Go look at the betting odds. Kansas City, the best team in the NFL with the best odds of winning it, has like a 14% chance of winning the superbowl, according to the odds.

 

There is no such thing as a "good chance" of winning the superbowl.

 

If you expected the Bills to win the superbowl the last couple of years, you were a fool. Hoping for a superbowl, or believing that it is possible, is one thing, but EXPECTING one? That is just unrealistic fan hubris.

 

Fans need to stop viewing it that way. It is asinine, entitled, and pathetically naive, not to mention annoying.

you don’t have to win or even get to the Super Bowl though. But the bar is set at getting to the conference championship game at a decent rate.  Bills have failed to achieve that two years in a row while having Super Bowl caliber expectations.

 

Cheifs have made it every year since Mahomes became the starter. bengals have made it two straight years. Bills haven’t been in two straight years and are trending backwards. 

[GoBills808]

30 minutes ago, MJS said:

Superbowl expectations are dumb to begin with. Even the best teams in the NFL should not EXPECT a superbowl. Go look at the betting odds. Kansas City, the best team in the NFL with the best odds of winning it, has like a 14% chance of winning the superbowl, according to the odds.

 

There is no such thing as a "good chance" of winning the superbowl.

 

If you expected the Bills to win the superbowl the last couple of years, you were a fool. Hoping for a superbowl, or believing that it is possible, is one thing, but EXPECTING one? That is just unrealistic fan hubris.

 

Fans need to stop viewing it that way. It is asinine, entitled, and pathetically naive, not to mention annoying.

Bemoaning 'fan hubris' and then immediately telling people how to think and act is just beautiful

[MJS]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Bemoaning 'fan hubris' and then immediately telling people how to think and act is just beautiful

Sorry if you don't want to accept reality.

[GoBills808]

Just now, MJS said:

Sorry if you don't want to accept reality.

Self-appointed Arbiter of Both Reality and Hubris

 

getting even stronger lol

[MJS]

32 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

you don’t have to win or even get to the Super Bowl though. But the bar is set at getting to the conference championship game at a decent rate.  Bills have failed to achieve that two years in a row while having Super Bowl caliber expectations.

 

Cheifs have made it every year since Mahomes became the starter. bengals have made it two straight years. Bills haven’t been in two straight years and are trending backwards. 

I want the Bills to get there too. The fact is, there have been 20 teams in the conference championship game the past 10 seasons. Most don't get back to it. 5 got back to it twice, and 4 teams have been a cut above and gotten back to it regularly: New England (that's done now), Kansas City, San Francisco, and Green Bay (that's done now).

 

I sure hope the Bills can get into that territory and be one of those handful of teams who get to the conference championship regularly. That would be awesome.

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Self-appointed Arbiter of Both Reality and Hubris

 

getting even stronger lol

I offer data, you offer insults. We'll allow the information to speak for itself.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, MJS said:

I offer data

...

43 minutes ago, MJS said:

Superbowl expectations are dumb to begin with. ...if you expected the Bills to win the superbowl the last couple of years, you were a fool....asinine, entitled, and pathetically naive, not to mention annoying.

 

[boater]

6 hours ago, MJS said:

Superbowl expectations are dumb to begin with. Even the best teams in the NFL should not EXPECT a superbowl. Go look at the betting odds. Kansas City, the best team in the NFL with the best odds of winning it, has like a 14% chance of winning the superbowl, according to the odds.

 

There is no such thing as a "good chance" of winning the superbowl.

 

If you expected the Bills to win the superbowl the last couple of years, you were a fool. Hoping for a superbowl, or believing that it is possible, is one thing, but EXPECTING one? That is just unrealistic fan hubris.

 

Fans need to stop viewing it that way. It is asinine, entitled, and pathetically naive, not to mention annoying.

Post of the week.

 

So tired of the fans who want to fire Beane and McDermott if they fail to deliver the Lombardi. Have they no memory of the drought?