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

[MJS]

1 minute ago, boater said:

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?

I'll be honest, I don't think the drought should have anything to do with keeping McDermott and Beane. Are they good at their jobs? Do they elevate the team? Do they put the players into position to succeed? Do they offer good leadership, direction, accountability, etc for the team? Are they capable of leading the team to the superbowl? Have they demonstrated the ability to do these things and win games, including playoff games, in the past?

 

Those are the things that should be considered. We can be greatful that they were part of getting the Bills out of the drought, but the drought shouldn't have much of anything to do with measuring their success.

 

I think it would be very foolish to move on from McDermott and Beane right now. That could change in the future, though. Hopefully, they are here for a long, long time and prove all their doubters wrong.

[Einstein]

6 hours ago, MJS said:

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.

 

Odds and probability are not the same.

[Billsflyer12]

18 minutes ago, boater said:

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?

I do have a memory, one of losing 4 straight Super Bowls which pain exceeds by a lot the drought.

 

When you tell people you are a Bills fan now, losing 4 straight Super Bowls is ALWAYS mentioned by them, never the drought.  My pain, the stain on our team and city doesn’t end till they win a Super Bowl.  Being just a playoff team every year and flaming does nothing for many and the Bills historically.

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Billsflyer12

[boater]

2 minutes ago, Billsflyer12 said:

I do have a memory, one of losing 4 straight Super Bowls which pain exceeds by a lot the drought.

 

When you tell people you are a Bills fan now, losing 4 straight Super Bowls is ALWAYS mentioned by them, never the drought.  My pain, the stain on our team and city doesn’t end till they win a Super Bowl.  Being just a playoff team every year and flaming does nothing for many and the Bills historically.

 

You have classic PTSD symptoms. Intrusive bad memories, easily brought up.

[Einstein]

9 hours 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.  

 

lol. Yes they do.

 

The “some of us” you mention just B word and complain on repeat about other posters who are bitching and complaining. 

 

Guess what? At the end of the day, it’s all bitching and complaining.

[Mikie2times]

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Odds and probability are not the same.

Odds are just an implied probability on an outcome. So yes, they're basically the same thing. Any odd range can be entered into an implied probability calculator. If the outcome occurs more than the implied probability of the odds you will make money long term. If it doesn't you will lose money long term. 

 

Here is a calculator 

https://www.gamingtoday.com/tools/implied-probability/

 

The Chiefs are currently +650 which is an implied probability of 13.33%. 

[Einstein]

34 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

Odds are just an implied probability on an outcome. So yes, they're basically the same thing.

 

No.

 

Implied probability is not the same as probability.

 

Probability is a measure of the likelihood that a given event will occur.

 

Implied probability is the probability of an event occurring as implied by the odds given on that event. Because implied probability uses the odds given to calculate, it becomes a recursive (or circular).

 

The Chiefs at +650 does not means the Chiefs have a 13.3% probability of winning the Super Bowl. It means that at +650, oddsmakers feel most comfortable hedging bets at the 13.3% mark.

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

No.

 

Implied probability is not the same as probability.

 

Probability is a measure of the likelihood that a given event will occur.

 

Implied probability is the probability of an event occurring as implied by the odds given on that event. Because implied probability uses the odds given to calculate, it becomes a recursive (or circular).

 

The Chiefs at +650 does not means the Chiefs have a 13.3% probability of winning the Super Bowl. It means that at +650, oddsmakers feel most comfortable hedging bets at the 13.3% mark.

So the vig is what 50 cents on that line in that price range? So the actual probability is +600 or 14.29% or if you want a call the vig a buck, +550 at 15.38%. The book wants to split the take, sure, but if that number doesn't match the actual probability once you account for the vig the book would be exposed. Vegas doesn't think KC has much better of a 15% probability to win it all. If you think they have a 20% probability I would place your wager. 

 

[MJS]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

Odds and probability are not the same.

Yes, but there aren't any measures of probability to win the Super Bowl. Odds are probably the best we can do.

[Royale with Cheese]

16 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

lol. Yes they do.

 

The “some of us” you mention just B word and complain on repeat about other posters who are bitching and complaining. 

 

Guess what? At the end of the day, it’s all bitching and complaining.

If this is what you have to tell yourself to feel better.

 

You’re a self admitted scorned fan with massive insecurities….you fit the profile.

[Einstein]

6 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

You’re a self admitted scorned fan with massive insecurities….you fit the profile.

 

I love when a reply proves the post it quotes. lol.

Bitching about bitching.

[90sBills]

15 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

So the vig is what 50 cents on that line in that price range? So the actual probability is +600 or 14.29% or if you want a call the vig a buck, +550 at 15.38%. The book wants to split the take, sure, but if that number doesn't match the actual probability once you account for the vig the book would be exposed. Vegas doesn't think KC has much better of a 15% probability to win it all. If you think they have a 20% probability I would place your wager. 

 

Don’t mean to get in between the discussion with you guys. Just want to point out there’s no juice (vig) when the line is + like this. Almost all future lines are +. They’re sucker bets to begin with so if one has to pay juice it’d be adding insult to injury.

[Mikie2times]

3 minutes ago, 90sBills said:

Don’t mean to get in between the discussion with you guys. Just want to point out there’s no juice (vig) when the line is + like this. Almost all future lines are +. They’re sucker bets to begin with so if one has to pay juice it’d be adding insult to injury.

+ lines always have Juice, you're paying the tax in reduction of the total payout, not in an additional cost to place the wager to win even money 

 

a normal line would be something like -110 vs +100, if the + team had no juice, they would be +110 or +105 depending on how much vig you pay. 

[90sBills]

21 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

+ lines always have Juice, you're paying the tax in reduction of the total payout, not in an additional cost to place the wager to win even money 

 

a normal line would be something like -110 vs +100, if the + team had no juice, they would be +110 or +105 depending on how much vig you pay. 

-110 line would be -10 juice

+100 line would be even money

+110 line means you gain +10

 

The Chiefs winning superbowl line for next season is +650. Meaning you lay $100 to win $650. If you place the $100 bet you’d get $750 back if it hits. There’s no juice. Unless you’re referring to something else.

 

This is just from my experience. Sports wagering is a hobby for me. 

[Einstein]

1 hour ago, 90sBills said:

-110 line would be -10 juice

+100 line would be even money

+110 line means you gain +10

 

The Chiefs winning superbowl line for next season is +650. Meaning you lay $100 to win $650. If you place the $100 bet you’d get $750 back if it hits. There’s no juice. Unless you’re referring to something else.

 

This is just from my experience. Sports wagering is a hobby for me. 

 

This is correct.

[Mikie2times]

2 hours ago, 90sBills said:

-110 line would be -10 juice

+100 line would be even money

+110 line means you gain +10

 

The Chiefs winning superbowl line for next season is +650. Meaning you lay $100 to win $650. If you place the $100 bet you’d get $750 back if it hits. There’s no juice. Unless you’re referring to something else.

 

This is just from my experience. Sports wagering is a hobby for me. 

Your examples are correct regarding payouts. But any team that is + money still has “vig” it’s just built into the price.
 

As an example a team that is +100 (bet 100 win 100) will actually have a real probability of between +105 or +110 (you can convert this into a % outcome)

 

48% or so would be an example. A team with a 48%  projected outcome will be priced at around +100. Which means if the outcome is half the time exactly, you still lose money. That is the vig. It’s the price you pay above and beyond the projected true odds and it always occurs ok both sides. Just more transparent on a favorite. 👍

[Shaw66]

21 hours ago, Billsflyer12 said:

I do have a memory, one of losing 4 straight Super Bowls which pain exceeds by a lot the drought.

 

When you tell people you are a Bills fan now, losing 4 straight Super Bowls is ALWAYS mentioned by them, never the drought.  My pain, the stain on our team and city doesn’t end till they win a Super Bowl.  Being just a playoff team every year and flaming does nothing for many and the Bills historically.

 

It's this attitude that drives me crazy.  As MJS said, the drought has nothing to do with it.   And the Super Bowl losses have nothing to do with it.  Your personal disappointment has nothing to do with it.  

 

Whether the Bills win a Super Bowl has nothing to do with the "many."   And history will be what it will be.  And I don't believe it, for a minute, when Josh and all these guys say they're objective is to win a Super Bowl for the fans.   

 

There's one thing going on here, and only one thing.   It's sports competition.   It's a team of 60-odd players and 20-odd coaches with a personal burning desire to win a championship.   Many of us tried to do that in high school, in one sport or another, and some of us tried to do it in college.   Most of us have had the experience at one time or another - trying to win the championship.   The Bills are trying to win a Lombardi, one of the toughest championships in the world for a team to win.  It takes talent, hard work, determination, guts, and a half dozen other things.   It's really difficult.  Really difficult.  

 

The only thing relevant to the conversation about Beane and McDermott is whether they are the right people to do something that's very difficult to do.   That's all.  Whether one fan or million want them to win doesn't matter.  Whether there is some bad history to be erased, whether it's the drought or the four Super Bowls, or whatever, doesn't matter.  And whether no coach has won a Super Bowl after five years of coaching or ten years of coaching doesn't matter.   Whether Mike Tomlin won one in his second season doesn't matter.  NONE of it matters.  All that matters is whether Beane and McDermott are the right people.   MJS is correct.  

[MJS]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

It's this attitude that drives me crazy.  As MJS said, the drought has nothing to do with it.   And the Super Bowl losses have nothing to do with it.  Your personal disappointment has nothing to do with it.  

 

Whether the Bills win a Super Bowl has nothing to do with the "many."   And history will be what it will be.  And I don't believe it, for a minute, when Josh and all these guys say they're objective is to win a Super Bowl for the fans.   

 

There's one thing going on here, and only one thing.   It's sports competition.   It's a team of 60-odd players and 20-odd coaches with a personal burning desire to win a championship.   Many of us tried to do that in high school, in one sport or another, and some of us tried to do it in college.   Most of us have had the experience at one time or another - trying to win the championship.   The Bills are trying to win a Lombardi, one of the toughest championships in the world for a team to win.  It takes talent, hard work, determination, guts, and a half dozen other things.   It's really difficult.  Really difficult.  

 

The only thing relevant to the conversation about Beane and McDermott is whether they are the right people to do something that's very difficult to do.   That's all.  Whether one fan or million want them to win doesn't matter.  Whether there is some bad history to be erased, whether it's the drought or the four Super Bowls, or whatever, doesn't matter.  And whether no coach has won a Super Bowl after five years of coaching or ten years of coaching doesn't matter.   Whether Mike Tomlin won one in his second season doesn't matter.  NONE of it matters.  All that matters is whether Beane and McDermott are the right people.   MJS is correct.  

I'll say this: that first year of McDermott coming in and rallying a talent deficient team and getting them to the playoffs speaks volumes about his ability as a coach and leader to me, and it is one of the reasons I have faith in him. I think the fact that he did it with a franchise with such a long history of futility does add to what he did and should be considered as part of his resume of achievement.

 

But saying "we can't change coaches because times are better now than they were when we were a historic laughing stock during the drought" is not a good argument. Not being terrible is not a good enough reason to keep him. I think there is plenty of evidence in favor of McDermott and Beane to speak to. The drought is not a part of that.

[T master]

I guess you would have to lump all of those coaches that have won a Super Bowl & average out how many years it took each of them to get to the big game and win it . That being said i'm not positive that that thinking would be correct way to figure it out .

 

But with that being said i hope McD is here until he doesn't want to be here because then there would be a stability like the Steelers have had for years to come & the Bills would be contenders every year .

 

Some say he needs to be gotten rid of right now that to me is foolish to go back to what the Bills were doing before he came here & turned the ship around . One thing they seem to forget is that in the grand scheme of things he's still a very young HC & seems to learn from his mistakes so i'm hoping it won't take long for the learning process to bring the Bills a Lombardy !!

 

GO BILLS !!! 

Edited July 7, 2023 by T master

[Billsflyer12]

4 hours ago, T master said:

I guess you would have to lump all of those coaches that have won a Super Bowl & average out how many years it took each of them to get to the big game and win it . That being said i'm not positive that that thinking would be correct way to figure it out .

 

But with that being said i hope McD is here until he doesn't want to be here because then there would be a stability like the Steelers have had for years to come & the Bills would be contenders every year .

 

Some say he needs to be gotten rid of right now that to me is foolish to go back to what the Bills were doing before he came here & turned the ship around . One thing they seem to forget is that in the grand scheme of things he's still a very young HC & seems to learn from his mistakes so i'm hoping it won't take long for the learning process to bring the Bills a Lombardy !!

 

GO BILLS !!! 

It’s been posted before in a number of threads, John Madden in 1974 is the only head coach to make his 1st Super Bowl appearance after his 7th year.  John did it in his 8th season.  Tom Landry made his 1st Championship game appearance in his 7th year.  So other then the 2 all head coaches have made their 1st Super Bowl appearance in less time then McD has coached the Bills.