This thread is maddening and it's comments like this that has made me give up on the conversation altogether. Not to pick on this poster, but the statistics he stated are saying the exact opposite of what he thinks they do.
Over 95% coaches fail to win a Superbowl. Fact. Statistics hold value. We simply can't ignore the statistics we don't like. If we appreciate that most coaches fail to win a Superbowl, then the statistics related to the coaches that do are also relevant. And like the poster say, it's hard to win a Superbowl and it's even harder to do twice. It's proven to be near impossible to do twice with a different team. We CAN deduce from this information that one of the newly hired first time coaches has a greater chance of winning a Superbowl than McCarthy doing it again. That's what the statistics state. When I tried to rationally present reasons why this is likely, it was dismissed. We have solid information to go off but yet we'd rather fall back on case by case excuses for why something hasn't happened. There's a reason sports science and analytics are widely used now.
And for the record, I think McCarthy can have success in New Orleans (more than Allen for sure). I just don't think, he'll win a Superbowl. A first time head coach may end up having a lower floor, but statistically the chance at a higher ceiling is appealing to me. I get that that's odd for some. Would you rather winning seasons of about 12-5 and no SBs over the possibility of having losing seasons but a slightly better statistical chance of winning one Superbowl? For me, the answer is No. I want the Saints to win a Superbowl always. That's my opinion and I'm not forcing it on anyone. It's probably crazy to most. But don't look at the real, actual statistics and make up some reason why McCarthy is a better choice. That's not what the numbers say.