Why Jerry must hope Garrett is Bill Cowher

[links18]

He's hoping he is Mike Tomlin. But, he is no Mike Tomlin.

 

[Diehardblues]

Greg, you have an understandable, reasoned opinion about the Jerry situation. I’ve read it many times and you argue it well. But there are other opinions that are also well reasoned and valid. Many I agree with, many I don’t. Can’t we just share opinions?

Certainly . I thought we were. If my argument is more compelling shouldn’t it be more seriously considered influencing others?

When those opinions create a false or questionable narrative without real solutions based on the actual causes then I think it’s necessary to challenge and shoot down if needed.

Calling for a great HC when everyone should know Jerry isn’t interested in such appears to be a false or at least uniformed opinion or narrative IMO.

 

[JustChip]

Wasn't that great a post.

Let's start with the reality that yes, Marv Levy and Bud Grant aren't thought of as highly as SB winning coaches. That's just the truth. For as good as Levy was, he's not considered the coach say Walsh was or Joe Gibbs was. Why? Because those guys won SBs and Levy never did.

Further, how any of this applies to Garrett is peculiar. Guys like Levy and Bud Grant and Andy Reid and Bill Cowher had WAY MORE SUCCESS than Garrett did in their first 8 years in Buffalo, Minnesota, Philly and Pittsburgh.

The point of his post was the incorrect notion that winning the SB is the litmus test for a good coach. So, was Brian Billick a better coach than Marv Levy? Or was Dick Vermeil an inferior coach prior to his Rams stint because he took the Eagles to a SB and lost, but then a superior coach after he won it with the Rams? Maybe he learned from the Philly experience, but maybe it was just the right time, right place, right players.

What most people refuse to acknowledge is that circumstances matter. A play here, a play there and it completely alters the perception and narrative. Case in point is SP - back to back years where 1 play, which had nothing to do with coaching, changed the fortunes of his team. Change those 2 plays and he's gone to 2 SBs, 3 if they beat NO last year, and maybe won 3. As it is, he's only gone to 3 NFCC and 1 SB in 12 years.

Do you consider Landry inferior to Noll? After all, Noll was 4-0 in SBs and Landry was 2-3 with 2 of the losses against Noll.

In a nutshell, one's perception drives what one believe to be the truth.

I don't hold Garrett on the same level as any of the coaches you cite which you seem to think I do. He is better than some coaches, not as good as some, and probably on par with most. The fact that he coaches in Jerry's 3 Ring Circus makes it truly difficult to judge him. But, as I've said numerous times, at some point, regardless of merit, a change has to be made. For me, if I was the one responsible for making the decision, it's whether I had lost faith that he can get me where I want to go. Obviously, Jerry hasn't reached that point (granted, the bar for reaching that point is affected by Jerry's ego and need to be right).

 

[Diehardblues]

This OP is not at all like that. It simply shows that in the 52 years of the super bowl, 90% of the time, the winning coach wins one within the first five years of being with that team. That’s not 100%. But it is certainly a real factor.

But you didn’t just display the graphics or stats which would have been fine on their own merit. You also added a dialogue and attempted to present a narrative attached with the Cowher comparison.

 

[_sturt_]

@Bobhaze for you to say "it's not at all like that" suggests we're not communicating... either I'm failing in the pass attempt or you're failing in the receiving part.

May I have a mulligan?

I could try to analyze whether it is more likely that any given person will have a car accident within a 25-50 mile radius of his home, or more likely within a 0-25 radius of his home.

That's the same as saying I'm trying to analyze whether it's more likely that a given coach will get to a Super Bowl within 5-10 years of a his arrival, or more likely within 0-5 years.

Given that the majority of a given person's miles are naturally within 0-25 miles, it's NOT ENOUGH to simply look at number of accidents that people have within 0-25 miles... the frequency of that happening in comparison to the frequency of driving in the 25-50 mile range HAS TO BE TAKEN into account to ACTUALLY ARRIVE AT A VALID CONCLUSION.

There is a ratio that has to be determined before any conclusions can be reached.

Same here.

There is a ratio that has to be determined before any conclusions can be reached... given that there are so comparatively less coaches who get to the 5-10 year range.

Go get those numbers. Then we can talk.

Right now, all you've said is, effectively, Garrett is less likely to have an accident because he's now driven beyond 25 miles radius of his home.

Hope that helps so that we can, at least, be on the same page.

 

[_sturt_]

@Sydla that's a good start.



So, granted, it's rare that a head coach who has been in the league 10 years without winning a Super Bowl has went on to win one after 10 years.

And, granted, it's rare that a head coach gets to continue being a head coach for 10 years without winning a Super Bowl.

Granted, once a head coach has won a Super Bowl, it increases the likelihood that he will continue being a head coach.

And, granted, naturally, if it increases the likelihood that he will continue to be a head coach, it necessarily also increases the likelihood that he will have an opportunity to get to another Super Bowl.

So, earlier success (defined as competing in a Super Bowl) predicts more opportunity (keeping one's job) for future success (competing in a Super Bowl).

Lack of early success (defined as failure to make a Super Bowl) predicts less opportunity (keeping one's job) for future success (competing in a Super Bowl).

The more opportunity, the more possibility for future success.

The less opportunity, the less possibility for future success.

Possibility for success is dependent upon degree of opportunity, which is largely predicated, in turn, on degree of early success.

To the extent that opportunity has been extended, we have grounds to expect success... which translates into a percentage... e.g., how many first-year head coaches competed in a Super Bowl compared to the overall number of head coaches who had at least 1 year of opportunity given to them... how many second-year head coaches competed in comparison to the overall number who received at least 2 years of opportunity... how many third-year head coaches compared to those who got at least 3 years... and so on.

I haven't dove into the numbers yet myself, but suffice it to say, at some point... 8 years... 10 years... 12 years... we run into a situation where the number of opportunities is so small that the conclusions drawn from the equation are invalid.

So, it doesn't seem very useful to look at it from that perspective.





A better baseline, imo, can be taken from looking at it from a probability perspective...

So, in terms of mathematical probability, all other things being equal, a team can expect:

- To win a Super Bowl once every 32 years

- To get to win a Conference Championship, and thus, compete in a Super Bowl once every 16 years

- To compete in a Conference Championship once every 8 years

- To compete in the playoffs once every 3.75 years.

Thus... if your head coach hasn't gotten your team to the playoffs within a 4 year period, he's behind schedule and though there are multiple factors that may help explain why that hasn't happened which are better assigned to others in the organization or on the field, it at least is well-grounded to consider if a coaching change should be made.

The same, then, for competing in a championship game... and for competing in a Super Bowl... and for winning a Super Bowl.

Applied to Garrett, he's competed in the playoffs once every 3.00 years, and of course, not made a conference championship game at all in his 9 years.

Now, whether he gets some wiggle room because he came as close as he did to winning except for the catch-that-wasn't-ruled-a-catch and for some Aaron Rodgers heroics is subject to the eye and attitude of the beholder...

Maybe we can all agree on this much... that, for many fans, there is no wiggle room... Garrett is now one season beyond what probability says should have been sufficient to compete in a conference championship... but where Jerry Jones is concerned, there's some.

How much? Not only can none of us say, Jerry himself probably isn't all that sure at the moment.

On the shortest end, Garrett could meet the same fate as his predecessor and be gone sometime next season... but not all that likely... and on the longest end, Garrett could be getting a contract extension of as many as 3-5 years even before the season starts... and again, but that's not very likely either.

Best guess here is that Garrett goes into 2019 with everything riding on a conference championship game appearance. Anything less has career consequences, and by the same token, that or anything more gets him another 4 years in the driver's seat.

 

[Bobhaze]

The point of his post was the incorrect notion that winning the SB is the litmus test for a good coach. So, was Brian Billick a better coach than Marv Levy? Or was Dick Vermeil an inferior coach prior to his Rams stint because he took the Eagles to a SB and lost, but then a superior coach after he won it with the Rams? Maybe he learned from the Philly experience, but maybe it was just the right time, right place, right players.

What most people refuse to acknowledge is that circumstances matter. A play here, a play there and it completely alters the perception and narrative. Case in point is SP - back to back years where 1 play, which had nothing to do with coaching, changed the fortunes of his team. Change those 2 plays and he's gone to 2 SBs, 3 if they beat NO last year, and maybe won 3. As it is, he's only gone to 3 NFCC and 1 SB in 12 years.

Do you consider Landry inferior to Noll? After all, Noll was 4-0 in SBs and Landry was 2-3 with 2 of the losses against Noll.

In a nutshell, one's perception drives what one believe to be the truth.

I don't hold Garrett on the same level as any of the coaches you cite which you seem to think I do. He is better than some coaches, not as good as some, and probably on par with most. The fact that he coaches in Jerry's 3 Ring Circus makes it truly difficult to judge him. But, as I've said numerous times, at some point, regardless of merit, a change has to be made. For me, if I was the one responsible for making the decision, it's whether I had lost faith that he can get me where I want to go. Obviously, Jerry hasn't reached that point (granted, the bar for reaching that point is affected by Jerry's ego and need to be right).

That was not my original point in this post, although you can certainly disagree with it.

In fact my point was that if the Super Bowl is the goal, almost all HCs who win a SB do it in the first five years with that team. That doesn’t in any way suggest that non SB winning coaches are all bad.

 

[JustChip]

That was not my original point in this post, although you can certainly disagree with it.

In fact my point was that if the Super Bowl is the goal, almost all HCs who win a SB do it in the first five years with that team. That doesn’t in any way suggest that non SB winning coaches are all bad.

Understand.

It's kind of a rabbit trail, but I was responding to @Sydla who had responded to me where I responded to @Diehardblues. What I was really saying is that it's ridiculous to measure coaches purely, or even mostly on SB wins (same with QBs). To me, what Marv Levy did going to 4 straight even though he lost them all is way more difficult than what Billick or Pederson or John Harbaugh. Even what Bud Grant did, who took a team to the big game 4 times over a 10 year period, but won none was more difficult. You don't do what they did simply by getting lucky or riding a hot streak, but you can with going to one and winning it. I absolutely would love to have the Cowboys go to a SB and win it, but I much prefer them to be competitive over a long period of time and have an opportunity to go to a SB than go, win and then have a decade of losing seasons.

I realize my little dissertation doesn't exactly address your point. Your point is, Garrett is battling historical odds to win a Super Bowl since he's been here longer than 5 years. But by the 5 year rule, the Vikings should've moved on from Bud Grant after 1972 if winning the SB was the goal (6 years in without a SB win and 3 one and done playoff years). Had they, maybe they win one of the ensuing 3 SBs, but maybe they don't even get to those SBs.

 

[JustChip]

@Sydla that's a good start.



So, granted, it's rare that a head coach who has been in the league 10 years without winning a Super Bowl has went on to win one after 10 years.

And, granted, it's rare that a head coach gets to continue being a head coach for 10 years without winning a Super Bowl.

Granted, once a head coach has won a Super Bowl, it increases the likelihood that he will continue being a head coach.

And, granted, naturally, if it increases the likelihood that he will continue to be a head coach, it necessarily also increases the likelihood that he will have an opportunity to get to another Super Bowl.

So, earlier success (defined as competing in a Super Bowl) predicts more opportunity (keeping one's job) for future success (competing in a Super Bowl).

Lack of early success (defined as failure to make a Super Bowl) predicts less opportunity (keeping one's job) for future success (competing in a Super Bowl).

The more opportunity, the more possibility for future success.

The less opportunity, the less possibility for future success.

Possibility for success is dependent upon degree of opportunity, which is largely predicated, in turn, on degree of early success.

To the extent that opportunity has been extended, we have grounds to expect success... which translates into a percentage... e.g., how many first-year head coaches competed in a Super Bowl compared to the overall number of head coaches who had at least 1 year of opportunity given to them... how many second-year head coaches competed in comparison to the overall number who received at least 2 years of opportunity... how many third-year head coaches compared to those who got at least 3 years... and so on.

I haven't dove into the numbers yet myself, but suffice it to say, at some point... 8 years... 10 years... 12 years... we run into a situation where the number of opportunities is so small that the conclusions drawn from the equation are invalid.

So, it doesn't seem very useful to look at it from that perspective.





A better baseline, imo, can be taken from looking at it from a probability perspective...

So, in terms of mathematical probability, all other things being equal, a team can expect:

- To win a Super Bowl once every 32 years

- To get to win a Conference Championship, and thus, compete in a Super Bowl once every 16 years

- To compete in a Conference Championship once every 8 years

- To compete in the playoffs once every 3.75 years.

Thus... if your head coach hasn't gotten your team to the playoffs within a 4 year period, he's behind schedule and though there are multiple factors that may help explain why that hasn't happened which are better assigned to others in the organization or on the field, it at least is well-grounded to consider if a coaching change should be made.

The same, then, for competing in a championship game... and for competing in a Super Bowl... and for winning a Super Bowl.

Applied to Garrett, he's competed in the playoffs once every 3.00 years, and of course, not made a conference championship game at all in his 9 years.

Now, whether he gets some wiggle room because he came as close as he did to winning except for the catch-that-wasn't-ruled-a-catch and for some Aaron Rodgers heroics is subject to the eye and attitude of the beholder...

Maybe we can all agree on this much... that, for many fans, there is no wiggle room... Garrett is now one season beyond what probability says should have been sufficient to compete in a conference championship... but where Jerry Jones is concerned, there's some.

How much? Not only can none of us say, Jerry himself probably isn't all that sure at the moment.

On the shortest end, Garrett could meet the same fate as his predecessor and be gone sometime next season... but not all that likely... and on the longest end, Garrett could be getting a contract extension of as many as 3-5 years even before the season starts... and again, but that's not very likely either.

Best guess here is that Garrett goes into 2019 with everything riding on a conference championship game appearance. Anything less has career consequences, and by the same token, that or anything more gets him another 4 years in the driver's seat.

Excellent post, sir. The only thing I would take exception to is the NFCC game or bust. Maybe that's where Jerry and Stephen are. But they may be more along my line of thinking - it all depends on how the season unfolds and ends. I do think, absent some extraordinary circumstances, failure to make the playoffs would be a death knell for Garrett. But if Dak goes down and the FO hasn't arranged for a suitable backup, IMO, it would be ridiculous to hold Garrett accountable. After all, Mike McCarthy couldn't make the playoffs without AR.

 

[_sturt_]

@JustChip ... acknowledged... see "room, wiggle."

 

[Sydla]

sturt, I deleted the post as there was a few mistakes as I dug deeper. For example, the list was based on total years coached, not in any one place. So for example, there were a couple of coaches on the list who coached 6 or 7 years but not in one place. I don't have the data in front of me right now and changing a few doesn't change the percentages all that much, but in the matter of fair and accurate, I pulled the post. I will re-post later if I get the chance.

 

[_sturt_]

Acknowledged.

 

[CowboyRoy]

So Garrett is a success because we get to compare him to Phillips and Chan Gailey?

None of those 3 clowns was a success. Sad how far some of these fans have fallen eh?

 

[CowboyRoy]

I certainly believe since we are a talent dependent driven franchise that having a more elite QB would enhance our success with our current coaching staff and dysfunctional organization.

And I would argue despite Garretts obvious coaching weaknesses he does appear to be one of the most effective puppets we’ve seen within the parameters Jerry’s selfish endeavors allows.

So your saying our team would be better with Mahones then Dak? LOL Genius stuff there.

 

[Diehardblues]

So your saying our team would be better with Mahones then Dak? LOL Genius stuff there.

For some reason we have fans who are determined to try and win it with our current QB .

I’d certainly like our chances much more with an elite QB like Mahomes especially since we’re already handicapped with our coaching staff and front office.

To me it’s like a triple whammy or 3 strikes you’re out.

 

[jwitten82]

Lol Cowher made the playoffs 6 times in his first 8 seasons, 3 championship games, and 1 SB appearance. Garrett is Marvin Lewis, that simple

 

[CowboyRoy]

For some reason we have fans who are determined to try and win it with our current QB .

I’d certainly like our chances much more with an elite QB like Mahomes especially since we’re already handicapped with our coaching staff and front office.

To me it’s like a triple whammy or 3 strikes you’re out.

Determined? LOL

What choice do we have? Your suggestion to cut Dak and rebuild the team from scratch is ridiculous. Getting a DAK with a 4th round pick is a stroke of luck.

I would say that out of all the posters on here you have the most illogical theories on the team and football. You don't even make sense to be honest.

Your like a cry baby whining that they want Tom Brady. With no realistic sense that getting a guy like that is NEAR impossible. Mahones is a ONCE in a generation type QB. And his development in only his 2nd season is even more unbelievable.

Chances are that even if we traded two years worth of high picks to go up and get a top 2 or 3 pick QB that its probably a 20% chance he is becomes elite. And even if you hit on that 20% your going to have to wait 3 to 4 years before the kid is typically ready to be SB savvy.

Then with the talent challenged Jerry, how are you going to build a team around him with two years worth of high picks gone?

Then you want to put that guy up against DAk that would be in his prime at 7 years in the league? Doesn't even make sense.

IN ALL TRUTH....……..The ONLY way we could EVER win a SB with these FO clowns is to get lucky like we did on a 4th round pick. That's about it. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY. Able to then use all those other picks on Jaylon Smith, LVE, Gallop, Awuzie, ect….ect….

Fact of the matter is that once this Oline is healthy, this offense is going to ball big time. Dak in his 4th season, Frederick coming back, Williams another year in the weight room, Gallup no longer a rookie, Cooper an offseason in the system and a new OC to devise a better scheme?

Chance are very high that this offense is going to look a lot like 2016 or better very soon. Chances are that you Dak hating types will continue to look worse and worse.

 

[john van brocklin]

My point was I don’t feel Cowher is a good parallel. Let me describe a head coach for you, and you try and guess who it is:

He started his HCing career stringing together a bunch of 8-8 seasons, and the team kept bringing him back partly because it was still better than they knew before that, and partly because he was a ‘safe’ choice. He would make the playoffs occasionally, but his biggest knock was he couldn’t get the team out of the divisional round for the first time in decades. He has a QB who puts up relatively pretty stats, but no one outside of that region thinks he’s more than ‘slight above average’ at best. It doesn’t matter how many times he wins 4-8 games, he always seems to win just enough the next year to save his job and keep chugging. His legacy thus far is other fans quoting his total playoff wins and going to his usual january vacation resort while the other teams in his division win Super Bowls on his watch.





Marvin Lewis.

Sounded like Garrett

 

[Diehardblues]

Determined? LOL

What choice do we have? Your suggestion to cut Dak and rebuild the team from scratch is ridiculous. Getting a DAK with a 4th round pick is a stroke of luck.

I would say that out of all the posters on here you have the most illogical theories on the team and football. You don't even make sense to be honest.

Your like a cry baby whining that they want Tom Brady. With no realistic sense that getting a guy like that is NEAR impossible. Mahones is a ONCE in a generation type QB. And his development in only his 2nd season is even more unbelievable.

Chances are that even if we traded two years worth of high picks to go up and get a top 2 or 3 pick QB that its probably a 20% chance he is becomes elite. And even if you hit on that 20% your going to have to wait 3 to 4 years before the kid is typically ready to be SB savvy.

Then with the talent challenged Jerry, how are you going to build a team around him with two years worth of high picks gone?

Then you want to put that guy up against DAk that would be in his prime at 7 years in the league? Doesn't even make sense.

IN ALL TRUTH....……..The ONLY way we could EVER win a SB with these FO clowns is to get lucky like we did on a 4th round pick. That's about it. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY. Able to then use all those other picks on Jaylon Smith, LVE, Gallop, Awuzie, ect….ect….

Fact of the matter is that once this Oline is healthy, this offense is going to ball big time. Dak in his 4th season, Frederick coming back, Williams another year in the weight room, Gallup no longer a rookie, Cooper an offseason in the system and a new OC to devise a better scheme?

Chance are very high that this offense is going to look a lot like 2016 or better very soon. Chances are that you Dak hating types will continue to look worse and worse.

Who said anything about cutting Dak? But I’d definitely look to continue drafting qb until we find a greater one . It was lucky we finally found a great backup we can win with.

Our dysfunctional organization will struggle winning with a qb with Daks ability . Probably more than with Romo.

I hope you’re right and it certainly looks like we’re going to find out.

We’ve been talent dependent and why with our clowns it’s difficult to see Dak being enough to overcome.

and you really should refrain from your emotional outburst and personal insults or place me on ignore.

 

[_sturt_]

Marvin Lewis has had some dreadful seasons, but somehow scraped and clawed his way to a career record cresting just above .500. He is winless in 7 wild card game appearances. And/but it's not all his fault, in the least... I've said it for a long time, as have others, there is no more dysfunctional franchise in the NFL than the Brown family ATM machine that plays games at Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati. This is a franchise that never, ever goes out and pays money for a free agent to resolve a problem position. And for years, by the account of many, Mike Brown gave Lewis very little say on draft day, but that eventually changed.

Someone's going to get themselves an excellent coach when they get Marvin Lewis on staff, as long as that somebody runs a halfway competent front office.