Retread Head Coaches (3 Viewers)

[St. Geezy]

There are 4 teams playing this weekend and 2 teams have retread HCs, the Chiefs and the Commanders.

 

[EvilMike]

A retread coach is what we will get because the Saints have dragged their feet and let someone else grab up the top candidate.

In 2006 they took a chance on an up and coming coach and it worked out better than any other Saints' head coach.

 

[webster]

Right but who are they?

Andy Reid, who notoriously ran a superbowl contender for over a decade in Philidelphia. Who then went to Kansas City and got a better QB, and we see the results. You can try to debate that he's improved, but the simple truth is that he just landed a generational talent at QB vs in Philadelphia he only had a good QB. He was a superbowl contender in Philly, now he's a superbowl contender in Kansas City but winning them with a much better QB.

Dan Quinn, who turned Atlanta into a superbowl contender. Has now put together a superbowl contender in Washington. Only now, he has what so far appears to also be a generational talent on QB. Its reasonable to believe that as long as JD5 does not regress, its only a matter of time before Washington walks away from a season with a ring.

Let's go a step further.

Dennis Allen, who was one of the worst coaches in history with the Raiders, coached New Orleans and was still one of the worst coaches in history.

There's quite literally a plethora of other examples were a retread coach continues to succeed, or fail as they did in their previous position. Sean Payton is another example, Tony Dungy, John Gruden, the list quite literally goes on and on.

On the flip side of that, what about coaches who have pulled a complete 180 to some degree?

Most know about Bellichek, and there's a few others. But very few coaches fail early to succeed later in a 2nd chance. Then you have the coaches who pulled a 180 in the other way, who were successful but came flops and never bounced back. They're not very numerous either.

It tends to be that whatever retread coach you get, they are very likely to continue to be who they were in the prior head coaching position, and the only difference leading to more or less success is the players, particularly the QB position.

Therefore, it seems to reason that retread coaches are not bad at all if they have a history of superbowl contending. They are more likely to still be a superbowl contending head coach then not. Leaving the question of, does your franchise already have a superior QB talent, or do you believe that coach can find one. Because if not, they likely may not be as successful as they would've been, but still somewhat successful.

Thomas, good analysis. Do you you know how many legacy head coaches have succeeded. There seems to have been many. Mora, Shula, etc..?

 

[SystemShock]

Belichick and Reid were rethreads.

 

[livefromDC]

Do you know how insanely hard it is to win a Super bowl ring? Let alone 2? Then do it with different teams. I just cannot believe that is a comment.

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.

 

[livefromDC]

Belichick and Reid were rethreads.

I can't see how you can thread either of those guys once much less twice. They're both big guys.

 

[SystemShock]

I can't see how you can thread either of those guys once much less twice. They're both big guys.

 

[StudioSaint]

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.

The only thing those statistics show is what has happened in the past. They only show a correlation. They do not show a causation. That's why they can not reasonably be used as any indication or prediction of future outcomes.

The outcomes of complex systems involving human beings, like NFL teams and seasons, can not be accurately predicted by relying on historical statistics of the performances of other complex systems. It's not just complicated, it's complex with too many variables that react and interact inconsistently with each other.

There's a reason sports science and analytics are widely used now.

The reason is because people are slinging it around as real gold when it's fool's gold and people have fallen for it. Just look at how many teams have lost games, because they went for it on fourth down instead of kicking a FG or punting. Look at the teams that lost games, because they went for 2 earlier in the game instead of 1.

Now that more teams are starting to go for it on fourth more often, it's failing more. Sample size is important. It's irrational to compare the success rates of a significantly smaller sample size to a larger one and weight them equally.

If the analytics saying go for it on 4th were any kind of a "scientific" indicator or predictor, then one would expect all teams to have fairly close success rates. They don't. Some teams do a lot better or worse than other teams. That's because the failure or success of a play has nothing to do with stats. It has everything to do with the actions and reactions of every person involved in that play. Stats don't run, pass, block, catch, kick or tackle. The players on the field do that.

This all started with modern astrophysics and space exploration. The universe is a very complicated system, but it's not that complex. Except for in very rare circumstances, the principles of physics don't change which means all non-living bits and pieces of the universe act in consistent and predictable ways. Astrophysicists learned a lot about the universe relatively fast by gathering extensive data and thoroughly analyzing it for patterns that lead to deeper understanding and predictive models of the universe.

Scientists in other fields of study did the same thing. An NFL team is a very complex system. How the individual parts of the system, the people, are going to react and interact with each other is inconsistent which makes the system unpredictable. People like predictable. Unpredictable makes them very nervous and uncomfortable. That lead toward people fooling themselves into believing that they can predict human behavior if they just get enough statistics and analytics.

The objective truth is that there is no way to know how any of these coaches would do if the Saints hired them. There's no way of knowing which coach would get the Saints the closest to winning a Super Bowl. Some people are really uncomfortable with the unknown, which leads them to convince themselves they know which coach would end up getting the Saints the closest to winning the Super Bowl.

 

[livefromDC]

The only thing those statistics show is what has happened in the past. They only show a correlation. They do not show a causation. That's why they can not reasonably be used as any indication or prediction of future outcomes.

The outcomes of complex systems involving human beings, like NFL teams and seasons, can not be accurately predicted by relying historical statistics of performance of other complex systems. It's not just complicated, it's complex with too many variables.


The reason is because people are slinging it around as real gold when it's fool's gold and people have fallen for it. Just look at how many teams have lost games, because they went for it on fourth down instead of kicking a FG or punting. Look at the teams that lost games, because they went for 2 earlier in the game instead of 1.

Now that more teams are starting to go for it on fourth more often, it's failing more. Sample size is important. It's irrational to compare the success rates of a significantly smaller sample size to a larger one and weight them equally. If the analytics saying go for it on 4th were any kind of a "scientific" indicator or predictor, then one would expect all teams to have fairly close success rates. They don't. Some teams do a lot better or worse than other teams.

This all started with modern astrophysics and space exploration. The universe is a very complicated system, but it's not that complex. Except for in very rare circumstances, the principles of physics don't change which means all non-living bits and pieces of the universe act in consistent and predictable ways. Astrophysicists learned a lot about the universe relatively fast by gathering extensive data and thoroughly analyzing it for patterns that lead to deeper understanding and predictive models of the universe.

Scientists in other fields of study did the same thing. An NFL team is a very complex system. How the individual parts of the system, the people, are going to react and interact with each other is inconsistent which makes the system unpredictable. People like predictable. Unpredictable makes them very nervous and uncomfortable. That lead toward people fooling themselves into believing that they can predict human behavior if they just get enough statistics and analytics.

The objective truth is that there is no way to know how any of these coaches would do if the Saints hired them. There's no way of knowing which coach would get the Saints the closest to winning a Super Bowl. Some people are really uncomfortable with the unknown, which leads them to convince themselves they know which coach would end up getting the Saints to closest to winning the Super Bowl.

There's a lot here to debate (and a lot thats unbased rambling), but Widge has already tired me out. I will say the most important variable is and continues to be time. That alone makes it less mysterious than you're trying to present it. I'll be surprised if McCarthy is still coaching in 2030 and for that reason, I trust the data.

 

[StudioSaint]

There's a lot here to debate (and a lot thats unbased rambling),..

How is it unbased? Rambling is in the eye of the beholder.

...less mysterious than you're trying to present it.

I just laid out the simple objective truth. The future can't be known and analytics can't accurately predict human performance. That's just simple, objective truth.

 

[HogsNSaints]

There are 4 teams playing this weekend and 2 teams have retread HCs, the Chiefs and the Commanders.

And the other two are in their first HC gig after being hired in their 30s/early 40s. So even using that small sample size - it’s a 50:50 thing that does not tip the scale in a retread’s favor.

 

[StudioSaint]

And the other two are in their first HC gig after being hired in their 30s/early 40s. So even using that small sample size - it’s a 50:50 thing that does not tip the scale in a retread’s favor.

It also doesn't tip the scales in favor of a young first time head coach.

 

[HogsNSaints]

It also doesn't tip the scales in favor of a young first time head coach.

I agree.

It does not change the debate for either side. When the big debate seems to be McCarthy v Brady and it is brought up as a pro-McCarthy argument to say 1/2 the last 4 playoff teams have retread coaches, while not bringing up the fact that the other 1/2 of the last 4 had the same first shot story as Joe Brady - that is pretty misleading, isn’t it?

 

[Cajun Chat]

This retread won 43 games over the past four years. That’s better than most of the coaches we’ve hired retread or otherwise.

For comparison, Sean Payton winning % - 61.5%, Mike McCarthy 60.8% - effectively a push. I'm not suggesting he is Sean Payton but if you go by the mantra you are who your record says your are....these are the facts. That said, I would take Sean back in a second if given the choice of the two but that's not going to happen.

 

[St. Geezy]

A retread coach is what we will get because the Saints have dragged their feet and let someone else grab up the top candidate.

In 2006 they took a chance on an up and coming coach and it worked out better than any other Saints' head coach.

Who was “the top candidate?”