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

[90sBills]

30 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Allen is mid-career.  He has put up record numbers in many regards.  His PRODUCTION has been top 3 for a couple of years.  The maturation has happened.  Bills fans should hope for an be happy if he maintains the current level of production.  Many many championships have been won with QBs producing far below Allen's level.  The burden is squarely on the coaches to figure out how to close the deal.  If the teams championship hopes are limited to Allen being more productive, then our chances are slim and none. 

I think there’s still room for Allen to improve. One of which is turnovers this past season. Take the playoff game against Mia. Bills jumped out to an early lead and should’ve cruised to a runaway victory. Then Allen got careless with the ball and started turning it over. People keep saying Skylar Thompson almost beat the Bills. But that was only possible because of all Allen’s poor decisions. That was not on coaching. Then that led to the game against Cincy where Allen was so tentative he didn’t seem like himself at all. He didn’t want to turn over the ball and that took away all his usual playmaking ability. Great players like Allen should step up on the biggest of stages. He has done that but not consistently. So I think there is still room for maturity and reflection on past performances. If you think this is the best Allen can be then the Bills really are in trouble. 

[Chaos]

8 minutes ago, 90sBills said:

I think there’s still room for Allen to improve.

the amount of room for improvement is miniscule. He could meaningully regress and be a top 5 QB.  As I said before if the only way the team can win a championship is for Allen to be the very best quarterback in the leauge, then our chances are slim. 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, 90sBills said:

Coaching absolutely has an impact on those situations. Especially since they were playoff games. To me McDermott coaches too tight in the playoffs. Especially in crunch time and trying to close out games. He coaches not to lose so to speak. This has to permeate to the players. So they play tight trying to not make mistakes which inevitably will lead to mistakes. Since he’ll be the head coach for the foreseeable future I can only hope that he learns from past failures to succeed going forward.

 

Obviously players also have tremendous impact on outcome of games. Especially the QB. As Allen matures he’ll have a reservoir past experiences to draw from that will help him. Tough situations that he could hopefully overcome where his previous versions couldn’t. 

 

Yes, good stuff there.  

 

In thinking this entire extension through, I've been trying to figure it out.  Yesterday it hit me, Pegula's doing the exact same thing with the new stadium & PSLs/Ticket-Sales.  I think that's why he did this, he seems to think that if there's a change then it could impact ticket sales and enthusiasm going into the new stadium in 2026, which IMO is going to be 2027, which is why he made it only two years and 'til then.  I could be wrong, but that's the only logical explanation I can think of. 

 

But here's the rub, exactly what you said.  In trying to achieve "stability" and "continuity," if McD has another two seasons, maybe even just one, of playoff futility and egregiously bad coaching, there's going to be a monster shift in the narrative surrounding McD and quite possibly even Beane, that could end up being worse.  And what if they cannot harness Allen and he suffers a bad injury, that will send them packing as well.  

 

We'll see, just my theory.  As everyone says, it makes no sense on the surface and Pegs has come out and made reference to it having to do with the grand opening.  

 

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

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

 

The odds are against him.

[90sBills]

43 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Yes, good stuff there.  

 

In thinking this entire extension through, I've been trying to figure it out.  Yesterday it hit me, Pegula's doing the exact same thing with the new stadium & PSLs/Ticket-Sales.  I think that's why he did this, he seems to think that if there's a change then it could impact ticket sales and enthusiasm going into the new stadium in 2026, which IMO is going to be 2027, which is why he made it only two years and 'til then.  I could be wrong, but that's the only logical explanation I can think of. 

 

But here's the rub, exactly what you said.  In trying to achieve "stability" and "continuity," if McD has another two seasons, maybe even just one, of playoff futility and egregiously bad coaching, there's going to be a monster shift in the narrative surrounding McD and quite possibly even Beane, that could end up being worse.  And what if they cannot harness Allen and he suffers a bad injury, that will send them packing as well.  

 

We'll see, just my theory.  As everyone says, it makes no sense on the surface and Pegs has come out and made reference to it having to do with the grand opening.  

 

 

Completely agree with you here. There really isn’t any reason for the extension except good business from Pegula’s pov. 

[WotAGuy]

12 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Actually, that’s exactly what i’m doing (on a simple level). Do you not understand how probability works? I’ll teach you. It’s simple math. For example, the probability of landing a heads or a tails on a two sided coin in 50%. Because there are two faces and 1/2 = 0.5. Or how about the probability of rolling a 6 on a six-sided die? The total number of outcomes is 6 (the die can land on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6). The number of favorable outcomes is 1. So the probability is P = 1 / 6 ≈ 0.1667.  

 Hey @Einstein:

I’m an abacus-based math person, but based on the above, isn’t the probability of McDermott winning the Super Bowl this year 1/32 or about 3%?   The single outcome is McDermott being the coach that wins the Super Bowl, and the possible outcomes are that 32 coaches have a chance to win the Super Bowl. 
 

Just like rolling dice, I don’t see how past events factor into the probability of a future event. Can you explain so I can understand how the past factors into a probability calculation like rolling dice, or winning a Super Bowl?

[Thurman#1]

On 6/25/2023 at 5:21 AM, 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.

 

 

First, the data is not there. There might be enough data at this point to be meaningful in terms of yes/no questions. But not enough for nuance.

 

Second, your extrapolations from the data don't particularly make sense.

 

You say that the fact that the most frequent timeline is two years, followed by five years, "suggests that many coaches are capable of assembling a Super Bowl worthy team within the first five years of their tenure."

 

And that's not what the data suggests. You are putting all of the responsibility for getting there on the coaches. Which is just dumb. What that actually suggests is something much much closer to "There just isn't enough data here to think that any of these trends mean much of anything. But if we analyze the data and pretend there's enough, what it says is that sometimes coaches win early and sometimes they win late. The fact that some win early shows it's possible, and the fact that some don't win till late shows that some guys who are perfectly capable of winning SBs don't get the right situation till late. Meaning for why some win late and some win early can't begin to be determined from the data. Situation, luck of playoff and Super Bowl opponent and how the matchups work, injuries, talent of lineup, talent and maturity of lineup in the year the coach takes over, whether the coach comes in with a GM doing a rebuild or a reload, and many many more factors play in. And coach is certainly one of those factors. That's about all that one can reasonably say."

 

Something along those lines.

 

If you assume, as you did, that this is all on the coaches, you're simply avoiding looking at the world as it is, you're giving in to confirmation bias.

 

Some coaches come in in good situations where it's more possible to have big success early. Some don't. Some have terrible luck in opponents who they don't match up well with in playoff battles. Some don't. Coaches who are implementing a rebuild are going to have a harder time early and if it's a good rebuild, an easier time later, which is the raison d'etre of a rebuild.

 

You've got a million factors affecting things, and only a bit under 60 data points, with results which are widely spread out. There's not enough here for data significance in the question you're asking. 

 

You can get good data on average time before Super Bowl appearance. That will have some predictive value on the same number in the future. But none of this affects the question of how long a leash should be. There's no way to know the reason why a coach took so long to get there. Were most of the factors beyond his control? No way to know.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Einstein]

11 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

And that's not what the data suggests. You are putting all of the responsibility for getting there on the coaches.

 

You’re confusing variables and suggestions. The data absolutely suggests what I wrote, but you’re correct that there are other variables that go into it.

 

That being said, the fact that there are so many variables and the results remain so consistent over 40 years is what makes it remarkable.

 

Five Thirty Eight (the polling website) did a similar study that concluded nearly the exact conclusion that I did. They showed that HC/QB combos have 5 years maximum to win their first SB.

[WotAGuy]

11 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

You’re confusing variables and suggestions. The data absolutely suggests what I wrote, but you’re correct that there are other variables that go into it.

 

That being said, the fact that there are so many variables and the results remain so consistent over 40 years is what makes it remarkable.

 

Five Thirty Eight (the polling website) did a similar study that concluded nearly the exact conclusion that I did. They showed that HC/QB combos have 5 years maximum to win their first SB.

Your conclusion is related to what has happened in the past. How does that bear on a future event probability-wise?  It doesn’t.  You seem to be taking a statistical calculation of what has happened in the past and projecting it into the future. True probability for a future event does not factor in past results. Just like flipping heads 10 times in a row does not change the probability that a future flip result will be 50% that heads occurs. 

[Freddie's Dead]

10 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

It is actually a very difficult calculation. I have spent the last 2 hours trying to calculate it and there are many bottlenecks but I believe that I am almost there.

 

Here is where I am right now, and I am still refining it:

 

H denotes head coach
L denotes Playoffs
B denotes Super Bowl
S denotes more than 7 years of coaching

𝑛(𝐿) = 14

𝑛(𝐻) = 32

𝑛(𝐵) = 2

 

 

Probability of having more than 7 years coaching and making a super bowl is given by:

 

Since the probability of having more than 7 years of coaching experience is 1 (because we are considering only the case of having more than 7 years’ experience), in temporary conclusion we have:

 

 

But there is a flaw and that is the duplicates. They need to be accounted for and that will drive the number up.

 

.

 

Nobody told me there'd be math....

[WotAGuy]

18 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

Nobody told me there'd be math....

……or it’s misuse. 

[LABILLBACKER]

2 hours ago, 90sBills said:

I think there’s still room for Allen to improve. One of which is turnovers this past season. Take the playoff game against Mia. Bills jumped out to an early lead and should’ve cruised to a runaway victory. Then Allen got careless with the ball and started turning it over. People keep saying Skylar Thompson almost beat the Bills. But that was only possible because of all Allen’s poor decisions. That was not on coaching. Then that led to the game against Cincy where Allen was so tentative he didn’t seem like himself at all. He didn’t want to turn over the ball and that took away all his usual playmaking ability. Great players like Allen should step up on the biggest of stages. He has done that but not consistently. So I think there is still room for maturity and reflection on past performances. If you think this is the best Allen can be then the Bills really are in trouble. 

No Josh has not peaked yet and there is room for improvement.  The turnovers must come down. Josh MUST realize the advantages of checkdowns in certain situations.  The OL absolutely MUST play better and keep him in that pocket. This will reduce the hero ball and increase good decisions.  And finally it will be up to Dorsey to put Josh in good situations. 

[GoBills808]

54 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Your conclusion is related to what has happened in the past. How does that bear on a future event probability-wise?  It doesn’t.  You seem to be taking a statistical calculation of what has happened in the past and projecting it into the future. True probability for a future event does not factor in past results. Just like flipping heads 10 times in a row does not change the probability that a future flip result will be 50% that heads occurs. 

That's how a majority of advanced stats that rely on EV/EPA are calculated, they're an aggregation of almost the entirety of previous NFL history on a play by play basis to determine a given value for a particular down. 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by GoBills808
Typo

[Mike in Horseheads]

29 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

That's how a majority of advanced stats that rely on EV/EPA are calculated, they're an aggregation of almost the entirety of previous NFL history on a play by play basis to determine a given value for a particular down. 

 

 

Don't bring analytics and stats on here sir!

[WotAGuy]

43 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

That's how a majority of advanced stats that rely on EV/EPA are calculated, they're an aggregation of almost the entirety of previous NFL history on a play by play basis to determine a given value for a particular down. 

 

 

But they are not presenting those as probabilities of future events. At least not according to Einstein’s example of what a probability is. 
 

The problem is Einstein is generating statistics from past events and using that to calculate the probability of a future event. That’s not what a probability is. I think he is meaning to generate odds of a future event, which is different from probability. 

[GoBills808]

20 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

But they are not presenting those as probabilities of future events. At least not according to Einstein’s example of what a probability is. 
 

The problem is Einstein is generating statistics from past events and using that to calculate the probability of a future event. That’s not what a probability is. I think he is meaning to generate odds of a future event, which is different from probability. 

I mean yes the terms mean slightly different things but they're still both representations of what one could reasonably expect to happen. The difference between probabilities and odds is just in how they're expressed, they're both estimating the likelihood of an event.

[WotAGuy]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

I mean yes the terms mean slightly different things but they're still both representations of what one could reasonably expect to happen. The difference between probabilities and odds is just in how they're expressed, they're both estimating the likelihood of an event.

Correct, and none of that has anything to do with past events.  Einstein basically calculated some statistics from past events and then made it into some kind of probability statement about future events. 

[GoBills808]

20 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Correct, and none of that has anything to do with past events.  Einstein basically calculated some statistics from past events and then made it into some kind of probability statement about future events. 

Ok but that happens all the time in these areas

 

I've repeated this example before but calculating the EV of a PAT vs 2pt try is using past events to determine future outcomes in present decision making

[Doc Brown]

39 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Correct, and none of that has anything to do with past events.  Einstein basically calculated some statistics from past events and then made it into some kind of probability statement about future events. 

I like to go by Vegas odds. 

 

We were 10 to 1 in 2020 (10% chance of making the Super Bowl), 5 to 1 in 2021 (20%), and 4 to 1 (25%) last year.  The odds of us making the Super Bowl over the last three seasons at least once based off that was 46%.

 

Now we're back to 5 to 1 (20%).  The odds of us making the Super Bowl is 20% this year.  However, if you factor in the last three seasons the odds of us making the Super Bowl once in these four years is approximately 57%.  That's what I'm going with this year and am going to choose to ignore Einstein's chart. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Doc Brown

[GoBills808]

27 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I like to go by Vegas odds. 

 

We were 10 to 1 in 2020 (10% chance of making the Super Bowl), 5 to 1 in 2021 (20%), and 4 to 1 (25%) last year.  The odds of us making the Super Bowl over the last three seasons at least once based off that was 46%.

 

Now we're back to 5 to 1 (20%).  The odds of us making the Super Bowl is 20% this year.  However, if you factor in the last three seasons the odds of us making the Super Bowl once in these four years is approximately 57%.  That's what I'm going with this year and am going to choose to ignore Einstein's chart. 

I actually get 44% for the first three seasons and 138/250 for the last 4 years on those odds given for 55.2% of the making the SB at least once in the last 4 years counting this upcoming season