Update Saints will interview Mike McCarthy in person during this week, Jan. 20-Jan. 25 [Underhill: McCarthy would have to be the current favorite] (52 Viewers)

[St. Geezy]

No, it's not skewed. It's just a small data set. The results are not randomized in any way. You can still draw meaningful results from a small sample. We're not using a small sample to predict the coaching success of all coaches across any sport. We're specifically talking about the results of NFL head coaches which is a very small sample size. Because there's only been about 500 coaches doesn't mean you can't draw meaningful results about that pool ever. You certainly can. That repeat winners have done so with the same teams only is statistically significant. That Super Bowl winning coaches who start coaching new teams in their 60s have all retired rather than continuing with their new team is also significant.

But I mean, it's snowing in South Louisiana. Anything can happen.

I will ask you the same questions I just asked in another thread…

What if we are doing these interviews and the “not safe” hires are indeed showing us that they are not safe? Why does everyone just assume all of these interviews are going 1000% perfectly?

What if we are making calls around the league to people they have worked with before and are coming away unimpressed?

What if we are asking them simple questions that they don’t have a plan for?

What if we don’t like the demeanor of a candidate and have a hard time seeing them leading the organization, representing it in front of the media, etc.?

We just don’t know. All fans are going by literally is stat sheets of stacked teams these guys happened to be coaching.

 

[j4m2b]

I remember absolutely hating when he left the saints. He took a bunch of no namers into the playoffs and helped beat the defending super bowl champions. I cant remember the name of the wr opposite of joe horn but he was older vet and absolutely flourished that season.

 

[SonOfNOLA]

I can't agree with your reasoning. Cowboys certainly have loads of talent. You're pointing to stats and if they had a better coach those stats likely would be better. They're viewed year in and year out as a top 10 team in the NFL talent wise. The simple fact that they're not living up to it is exactly why McCarthy is not a good coach anymore and keeps losing against good teams while we watch the exact opposite happen in Denver with Sean Payton and one of the least talented NFL teams drastically over achieve.

“Loads of talent” continues sounding like an exaggeration to downplay McCarthy. Stats and accolades would validate exaggerated terms like loaded, monster, and top 10 player. At least in impactful categories like TDs, first downs, conversions, ypc, catch %. Outside of Dak, Lamb, and the OL, Dallas’ offensive talent were not having anywhere close to loaded or monster seasons when McCarthy led them to 12-5 3x. They aren’t players that could even be considered definite starter caliber. At best, they were decent role players, with very short windows, supporting the two best players on Dallas’ offense, the QB and WR1. McCarthy’s scheme and playcalling enabled the RBs, WR2/WR3/WR4, & TEs to be productive players. They aren’t producing better than they have outside of his system.

Brandin Cooks declined in year 2 in Dallas despite Lamb missing games. Jake Ferguson’s yards and ypc regressed in year 2 as a starter in 2024. TE Dalton Schultz hasn’t replicated his best Dallas seasons in Houston. Elliott was declining even while sharing the backfield with Pollard. Tony Pollard struggled to cross 1k as the lead back in Tennessee. Those are comically role player ceiling guys. The loads of talent was strictly a healthy Dak, Lamb and their blockers on the line. The rest of the offense were invisible without them.
If Jerry Jones would’ve drafted another Lamb type of WR talent to line up opposite of Lamb, McCarthy beats the 49ers in the playoffs back to back years and he wouldn’t be available right now.

49ers on the other hand actually have the loads of talent that people were falsely labeling Dallas offenses as. Undeniable top 5, All-Pro TE. Two All-Pro WRs when healthy. A top 3 satellite RB. Dallas had one playmaker in Lamb and undependable JAGs everywhere else when it matters. Dallas offense looked great because of McCarthy paired with a franchise QB.

 

[TruSaint]

Is Joe Brady an option or he wants to stay in buffalo?

 

[livefromDC]

Pretty much how I feel, I think age is a legit concern and he would probably be here less than 5 years but if he gets us back in the playoffs and trending upward I'm cool with that....the issue I have is that if we pass on a potentially great younger HC (like my 1st choice Brady) it's just possible we could have had a decade of success or more.....don't think we are getting that with McCarthy....



All good points, it's a risk going with a young 1st time HC for sure...

Right. If you point out that signing a good but aging RB (over 31) from a different team is generally a bad idea, it's like you're stating the obvious. But if you point out that signing a good but aging HC (over 61) could be a bad idea, people act like you're trying to outlaw Christmas.

 

[St. Geezy]

I remember absolutely hating when he left the saints. He took a bunch of no namers into the playoffs and helped beat the defending super bowl champions. I cant remember the name of the wr opposite of joe horn but he was older vet and absolutely flourished that season.

Willie Jackson!

 

[sfidc3]

Right. If you point out that signing a good but aging RB (over 31) from a different team is generally a bad idea, it's like you're stating the obvious. But if you point out that signing a good but aging HC (over 61) could be a bad idea, people act like you're trying to outlaw Christmas.

Haha!!!! One thing for sure, no one really knows what's going to happen, TBH I'm hopeful and just glad we are finally rid of the incompetent clown that some folks defended until the end.....

 

[nakadish]

That was my initial sense too. I can’t say I’m in love with any of the 3 apparent front runners—McCarthy, Glenn, and Brady. I don’t think Glenn’s defenses in Detroit have been that great, McCarthy w/o prime Aaron Rogers is just a good (not great) coach, and Brady outside of his X’s and O’s is an unknown. I am starting to sour on Glenn a bit, but the Jets may be about to hire him anyway, so he may not end up being a real option for the Saints.

That's the thing with McCarthy. You get good, not great, but you have a high floor. With someone else, you have a chance at great. But the odds are that it will be more like DA. That's why there's a high turnover on HCs in the NFL, because most HCs in the NFL fail.

But I think McCarthy + Loomis > McCarthy + Jerry.

 

[livefromDC]

Not a strawman…showing you an example of the data you are extrapolating being limited and based on something that is low odds to begin with.

Geezy, the data is not limited. We have ALL the data on Super Bowl winning coaches. It's a small sample, but it is complete. If 35 coaches have won a SuperBowl, 8.5% have been in their 30s. We're not missing any numbers so it's not limited. We're not extrapolating. That's fact.

There's a greater chance of a coach in their 30s winning a super bowl than a coach attempting to win a 2nd Super Bowl with a new team in their 60s. There's nothing refutable about that.

 

[livefromDC]

I will ask you the same questions I just asked in another thread…

What if we are doing these interviews and the “not safe” hires are indeed showing us that they are not safe? Why does everyone just assume all of these interviews are going 1000% perfectly?

What if we are making calls around the league to people they have worked with before and are coming away unimpressed?

What if we are asking them simple questions that they don’t have a plan for?

What if we don’t like the demeanor of a candidate and have a hard time seeing them leading the organization, representing it in front of the media, etc.?

We just don’t know. All fans are going by literally is stat sheets of stacked teams these guys happened to be coaching.

Given your scenario, that would make McCarthy the best option. McCarthy may be the best option the Saints have. I'm not refuting that. I just hope he's not. Given the data, it doesn't point to long term success for the Saints. Both can be true.

 

[St. Geezy]

Geezy, the data is not limited. We have ALL the data on Super Bowl winning coaches. It's a small sample, but it is complete. If 35 coaches have won a SuperBowl, 8.5% have been in their 30s. We're not missing any numbers so it's not limited. We're not extrapolating. That's fact.

There's a greater chance of a coach in their 30s winning a super bowl than a coach attempting to win a 2nd Super Bowl with a new team in their 60s. There's nothing refutable about that.

You’re missing the point.

Fact - only approximately 6% of coaches all time have won a Super Bowl.

It is hard to do for EVERYONE.

You can’t single out a minuscule subset of coaches and say it is egregiously harder for them to do it.

 

[texasjefe]

I'm accepting that it may be McCarthy, but can Joe Brady pleez interview too?

 

[St. Widge]

Right. If you point out that signing a good but aging RB (over 31) from a different team is generally a bad idea, it's like you're stating the obvious. But if you point out that signing a good but aging HC (over 61) could be a bad idea, people act like you're trying to outlaw Christmas.

I mean, one is based on the physical pounding a RB takes and the fact that few RBs are still near the same level after age 30 or 31. With coaches you are assuming a cognitive or effort decline at 61. But I don't see any evidence that older coaches don't win. Who has won most of the recent Super Bowls, Bruce Arians (68), Andy Reid (66 now), Belichick (72 now). McVay is really the only recent winner that was relatively young. But, just because there is correlation doesn't mean there is causation (as you know) so I wouldn't refuse to hire a young coach based on that correlation any more than I would refuse to hire a coach that has won a SB with another team based on correlation.

I get age as a concern regarding how long he would stay, but not as a concern that he can't win. As far as how long he stays, he should be able to get this team back to a regular playoff team before he leaves which would put us in a much better position while looking for a new coach, and probably a new GM given Loomis' age, in 3 to 5 years.

 

[St. Widge]

I'm accepting that it may be McCarthy, but can Joe Brady pleez interview too?

I believe that can/will happen next week.

 

[Hubig]

He's probably gonna be the guy unless Joe Brady absolutely blew them away. Looks like the Jets are bringing in a GM Glenn is very familiar with. It would be shocking if that deal doesn't get done today.