SDS Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 So I was right after all!! Thanks JDG! You da man! 581749[/snapback] I think he agreed with me - no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I think he agreed with me - no? 581767[/snapback] no...although not totally right...I was righter than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Great work! Still, in the final analysis, any head coach is only as good as his supporting cast. That includes assistant coaches, the front office, and the players. Jauron had some issues with all three of these phases during his time in Chicago -- some of it out of his control and some of it not. He can start things off right by binging in some high quality coordinators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Long Beach Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Very nice work! I also appreciated the nice detail about Jaurons stint during the turbulent Chicago years. I had forgotten just how screwy they really were. The whole playing in Champaign (I went there for grad work) was a joke. All the while the new GM was just itching to fire him without getting pilloried for it. I'm not thrilled with DJ, but I'm really tired of not-ready-for-prime-time coordinators too. Hopefully deficiencies can be covered up with everyone trully rowing together at the same time. Unlike the last 5 years. (short passing I mean power running attack anyone?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Eric Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Thanks for the analysis. What it comes down to is a 50-50 chance that a coach will be a success or a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 There is another way to look at some of this data. Some of these coaches might be considered solid "caretaker" head coaches. If the team is already stocked with some talent, then those sort of coaches can maintain the legacy and keep the old Buick running. Seifert is certainly the standard bearer of this type of coach. I think Wannstedt probably goes there as well as Barry Switzer. Mariucci seems to go in that group. Wade Phillips might belong in that group -- he followed two hall of fame coaches with not bad results. The point is that this may be the right class to put Sherman in. There are other coaches that are good "bootstrap" coaches. Guys that come into organizations that are a disaster zone and breath life into the team. Tony Dungy did that in Tampa. Jim Mora did it in New Orleans and Indianapolis. Bill Parcells has done it with 4 different teams. Jimmy Johnson did it in Dallas and, because of cap issues, rebuilt the Dolphins. Marv Levy did it in Buffalo. Quite frankly, the Bills are in a bad way right now. What they desperately need is leadership and teamwork -- everyone pulling on the oars in the same direction. The fact that some people see Dick Jauron as a "Levy, Mora, Dungy" sort of high-character, no-nonsense, team-first coach is a good thing. Let's hope that it is all true. The Bills positively need a coach that can bootstrap things and turn the ship around. One thing that will be different in Buffalo than his stint in Chicago, I hope, is that Jauron will get the full support of the rest of the Bills brain trust rather than having a GM actively working against him. 581298[/snapback] The more I think about it Kultarr, the more I keep coming back to your post. I think I have to agree that there are a few coaches who were very successful at inheriting outstanding programs, and keeping a good thing going. These coaches either don't have the "boot-strapping" skills to be a "program saviour" or else their previous HC'ing stints simply never developed these skills in the first place. In any event, I'll definitely be even more cautious about looking to inheritors of "Golden Ages" as recycled HC'ing candidates in the future. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 For sure, though in fairness, JJ set those own expectations for himself. Dave Wannstedt is another one, who off hand we would probably consider a failure in Miami, but in reality had a very strong overall record. Both JJ and Wannstedt's perceptions are probably affected by their perceived tendency for late-season collapses, which of course does not come out in this data.I actully was curious as to what definition of "success" I would use, and was a bit surprised to see that success darn near defined itself. Leaving aside my "Group 2", a successful coaching stint was generally an average of 8, and usually 9, or more wins with playoff berth in 50% of seasons. Unsuccessful coaching stints involved less than 8, often much less than 8, average wins, with only one playoff berth, if any. There were very few borderline cases. I have to disagree with your proposal that a Final Four appearance is required for a successful season. For one, that sets the bar for success too high - only 4 out of 32 teams. And it would completely skew the data, turning Bill Parcells into a near-failure in Dallas, and making others harder to judge. Moreover, I don't think that corresponds to reality - yes Indy fans are hungry for a Super Bowl - but how many fans of other teams wouldn't get on their knees and beg for a run like Indy's current one? Finally, I think it fails to control for strength of competition compared to other measures. For example, if you get to 10 wins and miss out on the playoffs because its a very tough year, I'm not going to hold that against you. (But in the converse, if you do make the playoffs with a weak record, I do count that in your favor, because just playing in the postseason tournament can take the sting off of a lot of other shortcomings.) So, while there is no doubt some disappointment in Indy, I think that overtime they will appreciate being the first team to clinch the #1 seed undefeated since 1972 (I think) and recognize that they still had a great run. Four months of ecstasy, followed by one month of disappointment is still superior to the four months of disappointment that Bills, Lions, and Cardinals fans are suffering through. Indy is just the victim of an extraordinarily unbalanced League, one in which 6 (Colts, Pats, Steelers, Broncos, Bengals, Chargers) of the Top 6-8 teams (Seahwaks and Panthers) were all in the AFC. If the Colts were in the NFC, they would have cruised to the Final Four - ditto if the Colts were playing in the early 90's AFC our Bills played in. So, I keep that in perspective. JDG 581434[/snapback] Thanks, what this points out for me is how relative the term "success" is, It really is skewed by the expectations which the situation or the words set (as with Jimmy Johnson coming to Miaimi after Dallas), In addition, the previous history of getting Ws for the team actually makes a big difference. Your pointing out that the Final Four standard would even bring Parcells into question is a good point. I consider Parcells work in NYJ to be phenomenal not because he immediately made them an SB team, but because he really righted the ship of state on a lousy team there. Merely making a team adequate when they were lousy before can be judged as a success IMHO. This also points out to me that how things occur is often just as important to me as what occured. For example, I think the Bills by most standards had a successful season in 2002. The team only finished 8-8, but coming off a 3-13 season and creating a lot of entertainment behind Bledsoe, Moulds and Henry earning Pro Bowl berths (heck even Mike Williams performance gave folks some legit hoped) I think it is clear that this season where th Bills were second in league history in W improvement was a successful year. However, after this success I began to call for firing of GW because it was clear to me that he did not have the "necessities" to be a quality HC in this game. So even after a successful season I think it can be legit to call for an HC;s head. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Good stuff, and maybe I missed it in your analysis, but I didn't see where you took into account the huge factor of the level of talent a coach had to work with. To look at a coach's won-loss records without considering the level of talent he had is incomplete, IMO. Coaches don't work in a vacuum. Oh my God, did I actually just validate Levy's decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRT88 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Great post, lots of interesting reading. Some coaches are better the second time around. Some are not. Soem coaches created a great situation, some got hired into one. Marv got hired at the right time. We had Smith, Reed, Kelly already and just after he arrived we added Bennett, Conlan, and Thomas but he really created the situation here. Maybe Juaron can do the same thing with Evans, JP, Willis and on the other side of the ball Schobal and Spikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 However, after this success I began to call for firing of GW because it was clear to me that he did not have the "necessities" to be a quality HC in this game. So even after a successful season I think it can be legit to call for an HC;s head. Go figure. 582985[/snapback] I think that in about 6-10 years, it is going to be veeeeeery interesting to redo this analysis, with Gregg Williams' second HC'ing stint factored in. And we'll always have to wonder how things would have been different had not Donahoe thrown Gregg Williams "under the bridge" by letting him play out a lame-duck contract, and using the 1st round pick on a guy who couldn't even play in Gregg Williams' contract year. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 Good stuff, and maybe I missed it in your analysis, but I didn't see where you took into account the huge factor of the level of talent a coach had to work with. To look at a coach's won-loss records without considering the level of talent he had is incomplete, IMO. 582992[/snapback] Well, I tried to keep the analysis as objective as possible - and talent evaluation is inherently successful. What is interesting to note, however, is that I don't think there is really much disputing of the groups I established for the coaches. i.e. you can't really take many of the ones in "Group 4" and argue that they should have been in "Group 5." Maybe Joe Bugel just never had any talent to work with - but on the other hand, it seems unlikely that he ever could have been a "savior" type coach in Group 4 - had he gotten a third chance. So, I think the analysis is still usefull. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Good stuff, and maybe I missed it in your analysis, but I didn't see where you took into account the huge factor of the level of talent a coach had to work with. To look at a coach's won-loss records without considering the level of talent he had is incomplete, IMO. Coaches don't work in a vacuum. Oh my God, did I actually just validate Levy's decision? 582992[/snapback] I think the correlation between these variables is very high though. In fact, there is also the front office/owner variable. Which is all just to say that it takes a team from top to bottom, everyone pulling on the oars in the same direction, to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts