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

[GoBills808]

26 minutes ago, folz said:

 

👍 Fair enough.

 

And yes, with Landry, it's fair to take him off my list (as an outlier---due to coaching  6 years prior to SBs). But you definitely can't equate him going to and losing an NFL Championship (in a 15-team league, the same year as SBI) the same as going to a Super Bowl. The Super Bowl actually existed that year and Landry wasn't in it.

So, I'm fine taking him out of the discussion altogether on both sides.

 

 

I don't know...it just seems in these discussions that the bar keeps getting set higher and higher for McDermott. The only coach who didn't win appear in a Super Bowl in 5 6 7 8 seasons, with the same team, with a top QB for more than 5 years (no discussion of how raw that QB was), when the president was a democrat, and Mercury was in retrograde.

 

I know, I'm being a bit over the top there, but it just seems that the more variables get added, the less useful the stat is in showing any kind of true trend or to be used as any type of predictor.

 

Look, we're all Bills fans. We all want a Super Bowl. We differ on our feelings about our head coach getting us there. It's all good.

It's not that complicated I think

 

No team that has ever started the same HC/QB combo for more than 5 years w no SB has seen them go on to win a championship

[oldmanfan]

10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

It's not that complicated I think

 

No team that has ever started the same HC/QB combo for more than 5 years w no SB has seen them go on to win a championship

Which only means the first time it happens will be the first time it happens.  It is not predictive necessarily.  I would say if your QB starts tuning out your HC that might be worthy of a change, but I don’t think it means you automatically make a change.

[GoBills808]

16 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Which only means the first time it happens will be the first time it happens.  It is not predictive necessarily.  I would say if your QB starts tuning out your HC that might be worthy of a change, but I don’t think it means you automatically make a change.

I mean yes but that's what predictive models do, analyze past data and trends to assess likelihood of future outcomes

 

Like we might double our expected annual rainfall next year but I'm not going to bet my crop on it

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I mean yes but that's what predictive models do, analyze past data and trends to assess likelihood of future outcomes

 

Like we might double our expected annual rainfall next year but I'm not going to bet my crop on it

 

That isn't a good comparison though. Because there are reasons for rainfall levels and why they tend not to diverge much from the mean. The coach / QB not winning SB thing is an interesting pattern, but there is no reason beyond that pattern to suggest that there couldn't be outliers. 

 

It is an interesting stat to reflect on but I am not persuaded there is any causation. I don't think it makes the Bills any more or less likely to win the Superbowl in 2023.

Edited July 9, 2023 by GunnerBill

[oldmanfan]

13 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I mean yes but that's what predictive models do, analyze past data and trends to assess likelihood of future outcomes

 

Like we might double our expected annual rainfall next year but I'm not going to bet my crop on it

Predictive models take into account independent variables

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That isn't a good comparison though. Because there are reasons for rainfall levels and why they tend not to diverge much from the mean. The coach / QB not winning SB things is an interesting pattern, but there is no reason beyond that pattern to suggest that there couldn't be outliers. 

 

It is an interesting stat to reflect on but I am not persuaded there is any causation. I don't think it makes the Bills any more or less likely to win the Superbowl in 2023.

Why isn't it a good comparison? We are talking about sets of data points modelling outcomes, they're alike in that regard

[GunnerBill]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

Why isn't it a good comparison? We are talking about sets of data points modelling outcomes, they're alike in that regard

 

Because one has external factors that make that pattern considerably more likely to repeat. With the other it could just as likely be coincidence, and none of the arguments put forward in this threat really take it beyond "there is a pattern". 

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Predictive models take into account independent variables

Your contention is that in this particular data set, the 5 year threshold for winning the Super Bowl is an independent variable?

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Because one has external factors that make that pattern considerably more likely to repeat. With the other it could just as likely be coincidence, and none of the arguments put forward in this threat really take it beyond "there is a pattern". 

You are saying there are no external factors on a football team/HC QB relationship/lockerroom politics/overall NFL landscape that might influence this 5 year threshold?

 

 

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

You are saying there are no external factors on a football team/HC QB relationship/lockerroom politics/overall NFL landscape that might influence this 5 year threshold?

 

 

 

There are. But whereas the factors that affect climate and weather are the same underlying factors year on year - though not necessarily to the ssme degrees. 

 

But the factors are not anywhere near as consistent between each one of the HC/QB situations that have tried more than 5 times and failed. And that is why it could easily be coincidence. 

 

It is a pattern. I don't dismiss that. But I see no evidence of any causation.

Edited July 9, 2023 by GunnerBill

[HOUSE]

In Cleveland, 70 years 

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There are. But whereas the factors that affect climate and weather are the same underlying factors year on year - though not necessarily to the ssme degrees. 

 

But the factors are not anywhere near as consistent between each one of the HC/QB situations that have tried more than 5 times and failed. And that is why it could easily be coincidence. 

 

It is a pattern. I don't dismiss that. But I see no evidence of any causation.

I guess

 

I see it as a valid comparison. w weather we look at all different climates, elevations, latitudes etc and you still get pretty reliable data from the past to make determinations about what might occur in the future. In the NFL we have different teams from different eras with different HC/QB combos, different locker rooms and different ownership but all with the same 5 year threshold for winning a Super Bowl...that would be enough for me to make a determination and feel fairly confident

[Einstein]

16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Because one has external factors 

Everything stat has external factors. But we (as humans) tend to only bring up those external factors when it suits us.

 

For example, why do we even mention INT totals for bad QB's? Weather, game plan, tipped passes, etc all are factors that could change this statistic. 

 

Another example is test scores. We  use standardized test scores to measure the performance of a student? After all, external factors such as socio-economic status, parental education levels, language barriers, quality of teaching, and even the student's health and nutrition can significantly affect these scores. That persons not dumb, they're just unhealthy!

 

And why blame weight gain on poor eating habits? Numerous other factors like metabolism, genetics, mental health, medications, and socioeconomic status also play a huge role. That person's not fat, they're just poor!

 

We can "external factor" our way out of every statistic to ever exist if we wanted to.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

 

48 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Which only means the first time it happens will be the first time it happens.  It is not predictive necessarily.  I would say if your QB starts tuning out your HC that might be worthy of a change, but I don’t think it means you automatically make a change.

 

It’s particular important because it tells us owners have a short leash on HC’s once the team has a franchise QB. 
 

That’s the history. That’s why the stat exists.

 

If more franchises were run like Philly when Reid was there and given 14 seasons with 10 consecutive seasons with McMabb as the starting QB (despite no Super Bowl victory anyway) we would likely have a handful of HC/QB combos with rings well past season 5 together. 

 

But Reid and McNabb were a very rare combo that stayed together for a long time. And still they never got their ring. 
 

Elway and Dan Reeves may have won a ring together eventually if they were together for all of Elway’s 16 seasons. 
 

As it was, they lasted 10 seasons together just like McNabb and Reid. 
 

I think McDermott and Allen are likely to follow the Reeves and Reid model and last 10 seasons together even without a ring. But staying together that long is often the exception. Would be hard to think McDermott’s seat would not be on fire come season 8 and 9. 
 

The key will be staying competitive in the postseason. Got to get back to a conference championship game again in at least one of the next three seasons I think to keep his seat cool.
 

 

15 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

 

It is a pattern. I don't dismiss that. But I see no evidence of any causation.

The causation is simply the tendency for owners to become impatient. 
 

I agree, simply year to year the Bills or any other team have as good a chance to win the Super Bowl as any other year. 
 

What increases as the years go by is the chance the owner / GM pulls the plug.

 

Extreme patience seems to be about 10 years and even in those rare examples the ultimate goal of winning a Super Bowl was unsuccessful.

[Einstein]

27 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Predictive models take into account independent variables

 

Not the type of independent variables that you are speaking of.

 

Like my evidence in the first post, Auto Regressive models literally use past values and past prediction errors to predict future values. It's the entire purpose.

 

For example, in an autoregressive model, the estimate for a variable's value at a given time point 't' is derived from an amalgamation of its preceding values—designated as ('t-1', 't-2') and so forth. Despite their temporal antecedence, these values serve as the model's surrogate "independent variables", even though they are, in fact, antecedent observations of the very variable being forecasted. They are not a completely separate independent variable like you are talking about (weather, injuries, whatever).

 

Really an time series data model, like recurrent neural neworks. They are specifically designed to "remember" patterns over time, without excuses, which makes them great for univariate time series forecasting.

[Augie]

9 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Not the type of independent variables that you are speaking of.

 

Like my evidence in the first post, Auto Regressive models literally use past values and past prediction errors to predict future values. It's the entire purpose.

 

For example, in an autoregressive model, the estimate for a variable's value at a given time point 't' is derived from an amalgamation of its preceding values—designated as ('t-1', 't-2') and so forth. Despite their temporal antecedence, these values serve as the model's surrogate "independent variables", even though they are, in fact, antecedent observations of the very variable being forecasted. They are not a completely separate independent variable like you are talking about (weather, injuries, whatever).

 

Really an time series data model, like recurrent neural neworks. They are specifically designed to "remember" patterns over time, without excuses, which makes them great for univariate time series forecasting.

 

It’s sports, not math. 

[Einstein]

8 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

Why do you assume that if we move on from McDermott we will replace him with a clown show?

 

It's called framing an argument.

 

McDermott supporters have run out of runway with their original arguments due to another disastrous playoffs so they must now frame the argument as a "Stick with McDermott and at least win the regular season" or "LOSE FOREVERRRR".

 

It's not like a team could fire a successful coach (Pederson in Philly) and then immediately hire a coach that takes them to the Super Bowl (oh wait, Sirianni in Phily). That would be impossible.

 

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Except the data does not support that.

What data supports that McDermott is a good in-game strategist?

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

It's called framing an argument.

 

McDermott supporters have run out of runway with their original arguments due to another disastrous playoffs so they must now frame the argument as a "Stick with McDermott and at least win the regular season" or "LOSE FOREVERRRR".

 

It's not like a team could fire a successful coach (Pederson in Philly) and then immediately hire a coach that takes them to the Super Bowl (oh wait, Sirianni in Phily). That would be impossible.

 

What data supports that McDermott is a good in-game strategist?

You framed the argument by deciding what you wanted as an answer and then setting up your analysis to give you what you wanted.  You deny it, but it is obvious.

[Einstein]

54 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You framed the argument by deciding what you wanted as an answer and then setting up your analysis to give you what you wanted.  You deny it, but it is obvious.

 

Yeah you have attempted to make this claim several times but have still yet to prove it.

 

That’s called an unsubstantiated claim. 

[oldmanfan]

39 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Yeah you have attempted to make this claim several times but have still yet to prove it.

 

That’s called an unsubstantiated claim. 

I don’t have to prove offering an opinion.  But I base my opinion on 40 years in research and as a reviewer for multiple professional journals.  You began your biased undertaking by starting with an assumption that has been obvious to all that have seen your posts:  that McD is bad and needs to be replaced.  So you made up an assumption (that many people are thinking McD can’t get a team to a SB) then chose that endpoint because you realized you could slant data to fit the conclusion you wanted.  Then when challenged started spouting off all kinds of esoteric statistical formulae.  
 

So if I were reviewing this for a journal, I would first ask why you framed your research question as you did.  I would ask why you did not for example chose winning a SB instead of getting to a SB, since winning one is the ultimate goal.  And because one could point to coaches such as Reid and Belichick.  So at first one asks whether the research question has any relevance.  Let’s assume your does.  Then you look at Materials and methods.  And here you never explain why you ignore or throw out data that could impact your analysis.  You’d have to look at whether critical injuries kept teams from winning a conference, whether there was a GM change that may have impacted results, and many others.  You provide no reason why you did not do so.  I would bet you’ll want to say it normalizes out, but without actual data on that you have no way to know that.  Finally I would get an independent review from colleagues in the Statistics Department to evaluate the statistical methods.  After 40 years I can tell you that the vast majority of the time (over 90%) they tell me the stats are wrongly applied.
 

I and many other reviewers would thus reject this paper because it is fatally flawed.  So while the only way I could “prove” your intent would be to do a Vulcan mind meld of the brain or something similar, my experience tells me all I need to know.  You go ahead and keep playing your let’s figure out how to bash McD stuff; most here realize what you’re doing and why.  McD may win, he may not.  At some point in his career he will likely get fired, because the vast majority of coaches in any major league sport do.  But it won’t be because of your “analysis”.  It will be because he either has an inpatient owner or because the team starts tuning him out.  There is no evidence for either at present.

Edited July 10, 2023 by oldmanfan

[GoBills808]

'Sean McDermott is unlikely to ever win a Super Bowl because no HC/QB combo ever has after their first five seasons together'...you need an independent statistics department review to make that analysis

 

'Sean McDermott is a great head coach because he has a high win%...applause

 

 

[oldmanfan]

39 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

'Sean McDermott is unlikely to ever win a Super Bowl because no HC/QB combo ever has after their first five seasons together'...you need an independent statistics department review to make that analysis

 

'Sean McDermott is a great head coach because he has a high win%...applause

 

 

This is just sophomoric.  It is not a black and white, yes or no issue.  Putting it that way again just shows bias.  I would not put McD in a group of great coaches.  Those are guys with many years to evaluate.  McD is a good coach.  He communicates well, has a defined philosophy of play and works in concert with the GM to field a team that has been a consistent winner.  He needs to continue to improve on game day decision making, I think he should have gotten rid of Frazier earlier as a couple negatives. 
 

If we’re going to have this kind of discussion, have it honestly instead of making up fake straw men.

Edited July 10, 2023 by oldmanfan

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

This is just sophomoric.  It is not a black and white, yes or no issue.  Putting it that way again just shows bias.  I would not put McD in a group of great coaches.  Those are guys with many ears to evaluate.  McD is a good coach.  He communicates well, has a defined philosophy of play and works in concert with the GM to field a team that has been a consistent winner.  He needs to continue to improve on game day decision making, I think he should have gotten rid of Frazier earlier as a couple negatives. 
 

If we’re going to have this kind of discussion, have it honestly instead of making up fake straw men.

Of course I'm biased against McDermott, I think he's a fraud

 

and at least I can admit it. You go around accusing people of being biased' as if you ask for citations and peer reviews on opinions you happen to agree with. You are not some arbiter of objectivity.

[Einstein]

37 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I don’t have to prove offering an opinion.  But I base my opinion on 40 years in research and as a reviewer for multiple professional journals.  You began your biased undertaking by starting with an assumption that has been obvious to all that have seen your posts:  that McD is bad and needs to be replaced.  So you made up an assumption (that many people are thinking McD can’t get a team to a SB) then chose that endpoint because you realized you could slant data to fit the conclusion you wanted.  Then when challenged started spouting off all kinds of esoteric statistical formulae.  
 

So if I were reviewing this for a journal, I would first ask why you framed your research question as you did.  I would ask why you did not for example chose winning a SB instead of getting to a SB, since winning one is the ultimate goal.  And because one could point to coaches such as Reid and Belichick.  So at first one asks whether the research question has any relevance.  Let’s assume your does.  Then you look at Materials and methods.  And here you never explain why you ignore or throw out data that could impact your analysis.  You’d have to look at whether critical injuries kept teams from winning a conference, whether there was a GM change that may have impacted results, and many others.  You provide no reason why you did not do so.  I would bet you’ll want to say it normalizes out, but without actual data on that you have no way to know that.  Finally I would get an independent review from colleagues in the Statistics Department to evaluate the statistical methods.  After 40 years I can tell you that the vast majority of the time (over 90%) they tell me the stats are wrongly applied.
 

I and many other reviewers would thus reject this paper because it is fatally flawed.  So while the only way I could “prove” your intent would be to do a Vulcan mind meld of the brain or something similar, my experience tells me all I need to know.  You go ahead and keep playing your let’s figure out how to bash McD stuff; most here realize what you’re doing and why.  McD may win, he may not.  At some point in his career he will likely get fired, because the vast majority of coaches in any major league sport do.  But it won’t be because of your “analysis”.  It will be because he either has an inpatient owner or because the team starts tuning him out.  There is no evidence for either at present.

 

That's a lot of bloviating to simply say: "I have zero proof".

11 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

and at least I can admit it. You go around accusing people of being biased' as if you ask for citations and peer reviews on opinions you happen to agree with. You are not some arbiter of objectivity.

 

It's comical, isn't it? He wants to hold others to the standard of peer-review yet cant provide a shed of proof for anything he writes.

I've asked him before for his name, or work email, or anything. He refuses to give it. 

 

I don't believe he actually posses the credentials he claims.

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Of course I'm biased against McDermott, I think he's a fraud

 

and at least I can admit it. You go around accusing people of being biased' as if you ask for citations and peer reviews on opinions you happen to agree with. You are not some arbiter of objectivity.

Actually I am more objective than most.  What I’m doing is pointing out flaws in an argument.  You don’t like them because it goes against your anti-McD bias.  That’s too bad.

2 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

That's a lot of bloviating to simply say: "I have zero proof".

Here’s the thing.  You keep saying because I can’t prove your intent.  True.   You can’t prove what goes on inside somebody’s head, like what you did with this “study”.  But you can use experience with research and by reading someone’s thread history to gain insight into intent.  So we all know what you’re trying to do, and it’s stale and tiring.  McD will make it or not but he sure as hell isn’t getting fired based on the stuff you’ve posted.

[Einstein]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Actually I am more objective than most. 

 

A person can not be the judge of their own objectivity. It's literally recursive. 

 

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

A person can not be the judge of their own objectivity. It's literally recursive. 

 

Go look through the many posts I’ve made on this and other subjects.

[GoBills808]

'nobody's more objective than me!' 😂😂

[oldmanfan]

28 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Of course I'm biased against McDermott, I think he's a fraud

 

and at least I can admit it. You go around accusing people of being biased' as if you ask for citations and peer reviews on opinions you happen to agree with. You are not some arbiter of objectivity.

So now a good family man who has made  his team into a consistent winner, and who held his team together when a player almost died in the field is a fraud?  You need to check yourself.

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Go look through the many posts I’ve made on this and other subjects.

 

It’s not worth your time. Have a nice night. 

[Einstein]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

'nobody's more objective than me!' 😂😂

 

'my lack of personal biases have told me that I have no biases'

 

18 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

Here’s the thing.  You keep saying because I can’t prove your intent.  True.   

 

Ding, ding, ding, ding! He finally gets it!

 

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

So now a good family man 

 

I thought you're objective!?

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

So now a good family man who has made  his team into a consistent winner, and who held his team together when a player almost died in the field is a fraud?  You need to check yourself.

I don't care about his family values, and I think it's great he has cultivated a strong locker room. I always thought he'd make a great college or HS coach. I'd love for my son to play for him. I don't love him as the HC of the Bills.

 

So I won't be checking *****. The goal in the NFL is to win Super Bowls and I don't think he can hack it.

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

'my lack of personal biases have told me that I have no biases'

 

 

Ding, ding, ding, ding! He finally gets it!

 

 

I thought you're objective!?

Yes I am.  McD is a good family man. All available data tells us that. He has done some good things as a HC and needs to improve in others, which is what I said and is pretty much a definition of objectivity.   As for your banal proof thing, no one can absolutely prove another man’s thoughts.  They can infer the intent of their actions.  You thinking you’ve won something on that point is childish.

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I don't care about his family values, and I think it's great he has cultivated a strong locker room. I always thought he'd make a great college or HS coach. I'd love for my son to play for him. I don't love him as the HC of the Bills.

 

So I won't be checking *****. The goal in the NFL is to win Super Bowls and I don't think he can hack it.

Not thinking a coach can win a SB is a far cry from calling him a fraud.  The former is opinion and is reasonable.  Some will agree and some not.  The latter is something a third grader would say.

[Einstein]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes I am.  McD is a good family man.

Im starting to think you dont know what objective means.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

Im starting to think you dont know what objective means.

I do.  From every news source and story I have seen McD is a devoted father and husband.  That is what one forms opinions on.  If we had data that he’s divorced and never sees his kids, I’d say he was not a good family man.

 

Your have two issues.  One is your dislike of McD blinds you to any arguments against your position.  The second is you think you’re the smartest guy in the town in and can’t deal with it when others challenge you.

[SoMAn]

All the way to the very end of the season 

[folz]

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

It's not that complicated I think

 

No team that has ever started the same HC/QB combo for more than 5 years w no SB has seen them go on to win a championship

 

But as others have noted, there is no context for that stat.

 

How many of those QBs started as rookies (their first 5 years in the league)? How many were as raw as Josh?

How many of those coaches had prior head coaching experience?

How many of those teams were in a rebuild? Or how many were already well-established teams when either the QB or HC took over?

What were the circumstances those teams went through in those 5 years? Injuries, etc.?

How many duos ended due to either the QB or HC retiring?

Who is the owner and GM, what is their relationship with the coach, how do they handle business?

ETC.

 

None of that discounts the stat itself, or says it isn't a true stat, but it kind of shows why the stat isn't necessarily predictive of future outcomes. Because each situation is unique. 

 

Obviously, Sean will be coaching the team this year and no way Terry fires him mid-season. So, we will all have a new perspective at the end of the season. Either the Bills win the SB and we're all happy, or we will dissect the reasons for not making it or not winning it and adjust our thought processes. If the Bills fail to make the playoffs or something (without some crazy circumstances), or get crushed in the playoffs, or lose to a much lesser team in the POs, then I think you'll find a lot more people agreeing with you. But if they lose a hard-fought game to a very good team in either the AFC Championship game or SB, then you'll probably have to deal with another off-season of fans (and Terry) still backing McDermott. 

 

We'll see, but until this season plays out, this argument will just go in circles. You guys have no PROOF that Sean McDermott can't or won't win a Super Bowl, and I and other McD supporters have no PROOF that he can or will. It is all opinion and conjecture. One stat doesn't make something so.

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

McDermott supporters have run out of runway with their original arguments due to another disastrous playoffs so they must now frame the argument as a "Stick with McDermott and at least win the regular season" or "LOSE FOREVERRRR".

 

It's not like a team could fire a successful coach (Pederson in Philly) and then immediately hire a coach that takes them to the Super Bowl (oh wait, Sirianni in Phily). That would be impossible.

 

 

I think you are painting McDermott supporters inaccurately. Just because someone wants to stick with the coach doesn't mean they only care about regular season wins and/or don't want a Super Bowl. And no one is saying if he were fired there is no chance that someone else could come in and win a SB. It's an odds thing. For me, there are far greater odds that the next coach could set the team back, rather than win a Super Bowl. For every Siirianni and Gruden, there are 10-20 examples of it not happening. Besides Sirianni hasn't won anything yet. Now if McDermott were a mediocre or bad coach, then sure, you take that chance and make a switch. But when you have a winning coach, who built your program, you give him time (based on the circumstances of his tenure).

 

Some of you guys act like McD walked into a Super Bowl roster and he has failed miserably for 6 years. His first year, he inherited a severely talent-needy team with a below average QB; year two's team had even less talent (as they blew things up to start again and fix the cap) with an extremely raw, but talented QB; year three, still building up talent and Josh was still no where near what he became. So, in essence, it has only been three years where the team was talented enough to really compete. Yet he has a .639 win percentage, despite a 2-3 year rebuild. We don't point out his record because we only care about regular season wins, but to show that he is actually a very good coach. You can't fake it for 6 seasons. [Currently his percentage ranks 21st of all-time for NFL head coaches, just .002 behind Andy Reid.] It is not foolish or some ploy to point out a coach's record. That is one of three main things by which a coach is judged: record, playoff appearances, Super Bowls. Sean has two out of three. I think the arrow is still pointing up. You don't. And that's fine. But at least be honest in your posts. You know McDermott's supporters don't think the way you painted them above.

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, folz said:

 

But as others have noted, there is no context for that stat.

 

How many of those QBs started as rookies (their first 5 years in the league)? How many were as raw as Josh?

How many of those coaches had prior head coaching experience?

How many of those teams were in a rebuild? Or how many were already well-established teams when either the QB or HC took over?

What were the circumstances those teams went through in those 5 years? Injuries, etc.?

How many duos ended due to either the QB or HC retiring?

Who is the owner and GM, what is their relationship with the coach, how do they handle business?

ETC.

 

None of that discounts the stat itself, or says it isn't a true stat, but it kind of shows why the stat isn't necessarily predictive of future outcomes. Because each situation is unique. 

 

Obviously, Sean will be coaching the team this year and no way Terry fires him mid-season. So, we will all have a new perspective at the end of the season. Either the Bills win the SB and we're all happy, or we will dissect the reasons for not making it or not winning it and adjust our thought processes. If the Bills fail to make the playoffs or something (without some crazy circumstances), or get crushed in the playoffs, or lose to a much lesser team in the POs, then I think you'll find a lot more people agreeing with you. But if they lose a hard-fought game to a very good team in either the AFC Championship game or SB, then you'll probably have to deal with another off-season of fans (and Terry) still backing McDermott. 

 

We'll see, but until this season plays out, this argument will just go in circles. You guys have no PROOF that Sean McDermott can't or won't win a Super Bowl, and I and other McD supporters have no PROOF that he can or will. It is all opinion and conjecture. One stat doesn't make something so.

 

 

 

 

I think you are painting McDermott supporters inaccurately. Just because someone wants to stick with the coach doesn't mean they only care about regular season wins and/or don't want a Super Bowl. And no one is saying if he were fired there is no chance that someone else could come in and win a SB. It's an odds thing. For me, there are far greater odds that the next coach could set the team back, rather than win a Super Bowl. For every Siirianni and Gruden, there are 10-20 examples of it not happening. Besides Sirianni hasn't won anything yet. Now if McDermott were a mediocre or bad coach, then sure, you take that chance and make a switch. But when you have a winning coach, who built your program, you give him time (based on the circumstances of his tenure).

 

Some of you guys act like McD walked into a Super Bowl roster and he has failed miserably for 6 years. His first year, he inherited a severely talent-needy team with a below average QB; year two's team had even less talent (as they blew things up to start again and fix the cap) with an extremely raw, but talented QB; year three, still building up talent and Josh was still no where near what he became. So, in essence, it has only been three years where the team was talented enough to really compete. Yet he has a .639 win percentage, despite a 2-3 year rebuild. We don't point out his record because we only care about regular season wins, but to show that he is actually a very good coach. You can't fake it for 6 seasons. [Currently his percentage ranks 21st of all-time for NFL head coaches, just .002 behind Andy Reid.] It is not foolish or some ploy to point out a coach's record. That is one of three main things by which a coach is judged: record, playoff appearances, Super Bowls. Sean has two out of three. I think the arrow is still pointing up. You don't. And that's fine. But at least be honest in your posts. You know McDermott's supporters don't think the way you painted them above.

I know, it's how we support our arguments

 

Like I could go through McDermott's win% and ask how many other coaches lucked into one of the weakest divisions sans Brady or were saddled w bad owners or a bad GM or no QB or whatever...but that's reductive. As valid as your line of questioning but just noise imo. There are easy criticisms of every method we can use to judge...the merits of your argument have to rest in your competence in explaining yourself, not how many holes you think you're poking in the other guy's logic.

[Einstein]

17 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

That is what one forms opinions on.

 

Yeah, that's why I said you don't seem to know what the word means.

 

Objectivity is assessing a situation without personal bias or subjective influence. Personal opinions, being inherently subjective, literally negate your objective view!

 

17 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

can’t deal with it when others challenge you.

 

I actually enjoy when someone can challenge me.

The trouble is when small-brained mosquitos nibble on my legs.

[oldmanfan]

13 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Yeah, that's why I said you don't seem to know what the word means.

 

Objectivity is assessing a situation without personal bias or subjective influence. Personal opinions, being inherently subjective, literally negate your objective view!

 

 

I actually enjoy when someone can challenge me.

The trouble is when small-brained mosquitos nibble on my legs.

The next sentence I said is that kind of data.  When you have to cherry-pick and take words out of context you show your colors.  Not surprised of course.

[What a Tuel]

5 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

It's not that complicated I think

 

No team that has ever started the same HC/QB combo for more than 5 years w no SB has seen them go on to win a championship

 

This is such a stupid statistic. You really think the owner should base his decision making not on the performance of the coaching staff but on the past record of other coaches? 😂

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The next sentence I said is that kind of data.  When you have to cherry-pick and take words out of context you show your colors.  Not surprised of course.

 

Don't even bother man. The guy thinks that the cost of production is higher in 2023 than 1990 and won't be told otherwise. How is he ever going to accept that he has bias towards our current HC without evidence despite his posting history knocking the HC consistently. 😂

Edited July 10, 2023 by What a Tuel