How long does it take a HC to win a SB?

[renofox]

Lots of people here are arguing that our best chance of another SB is to stay with PC. I was curious how many SBs are won by coaches with a long tenure so I looked at all SB winning head coaches since the 2000 season to determine the odds.

Here is the number of seasons for each SB winning coach since the shorter of his hiring or his last SB win with the team:

2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 14, 5, 4, 2, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 10, 1, 2, 2, 2, 7, 2, 5, 3

# of seasons - total SB wins

1 - 2
2 - 8
3 - 1
4 - 4
5 - 4
7 - 1 (Andy Reed, Chiefs)
10 - 1 (Bill B, won 2004 next 2014)
14 - 1 (Bill Cowher, 2005*, not a real win)

So the 3 coaches who won after more than 5 years either had Tom Brady, Patrick Mahomes, or the Mighty Refs playing on their team.

11 of 23 SBs were won by coaches who were either in their first 2 seasons with the team (7), or had won a SB within the 2 prior seasons (4).

9 of 23 SBs were won by coaches who had been with the team 3-5 years (8) or had won a SB 3 years prior (1).

16 SBs won by coaches during their 1st 5 seasons with the team.
4 SBs won by BB after his 1st 5 seasons.
1 SB in season 7 (Ried)
1 SB in season 10 (Ried)
1 SB in season 14 (Cowher)

This backs up the idea that Head Coaches (who don't have Tom Brady) get "stale" after about 5 years.

Using this data, along with what we've seen of the "rebuilding" success since our last SB, along with the current state of coaching, what do you think the odds are that PC will win another SB with the Seahawks?

I think 0.001.

edit: p.s. This is PCs 14th season. In the 21st century, the only coach with longer tenure to win a SB is BB (at 16, 18 & 20 yrs)

 

[Spin Doctor]

I'd put the odds at very slim. Pete's getting old, we tend to forget his age, but he is now one of the oldest to ever coach the game. People might say that,he has enthusiasm and youthful energy, hell I hope I'm as energetic as Pete when I hit my 70s. What we truly need to key in on I believe is his thinking.

Pete has become rigid in his approach to the game. The NFL is increasingly moving towards deception and subterfuge. I'm rarely seeing teams line up straight anymore. Pressure is coming from all different angles, defense is disguised pre snap and showing a lot of different looks to QB's. In 2023, we're seeing some very sophisticated stuff being pulled on defense and it is stymying offenses in the NFL this year.

Our defense by comparison very straightforward in not a great way. We are also not really playing up to our defenses strengths. We're forcing Wagner and Brooks into impossible coverage assignments, consistently. The Cowboys isolating Bobby Wagner and attacking his zone with wide receivers. No linebacker, especially one at Bobby's age is going to be able to deal with that.

These have been issues under Pete for a long time. Our defense hasn't been top 10 since 2016 under Pete. In addition to this we're less likely to play rookies or young players over veterans, which was not what we did under the Pete led 2010-2014 Seahawks.

 

[49fansinceBrodie]

An interesting analysis; thinking about great coaches in the 80's and 90's, Parcells had 0 after year 10, Walsh won two before 10 years, won one at ten years and would have won another in 1989 had he stayed on. Shula won in his 10'th and 11'th years, but it was his 3'rd and 4'th years with the Dolphins and he never won again. Lombardi had all his success in 9 years and then retirement and cancer stopped his career. George Halas won 6 championships in his long career, years 2, 11, 18, 19, 21 and 36.

 

[knownone]

From an analysis perspective, this evidence doesn't support any conclusion. The sample size is far too small, and the probability of any coach winning a Super Bowl is already extremely low.

But why do more coaches win in their first five seasons? Simple probability. More coaches are in that stage of their careers than in that five+ range with a single team.

Similarly, if you don't factor out Belichick, the odds of winning past your 14th season are extraordinarily high (a product of the small sample size).

 

[James in PA]

I'd put the odds at very slim. Pete's getting old, we tend to forget his age, but he is now one of the oldest to ever coach the game. People might say that,he has enthusiasm and youthful energy, hell I hope I'm as energetic as Pete when I hit my 70s. What we truly need to key in on I believe is his thinking.

Pete has become rigid in his approach to the game. The NFL is increasingly moving towards deception and subterfuge. I'm rarely seeing teams line up straight anymore. Pressure is coming from all different angles, defense is disguised pre snap and showing a lot of different looks to QB's. In 2023, we're seeing some very sophisticated stuff being pulled on defense and it is stymying offenses in the NFL this year.

Our defense by comparison very straightforward in not a great way. We are also not really playing up to our defenses strengths. We're forcing Wagner and Brooks into impossible coverage assignments, consistently. The Cowboys isolating Bobby Wagner and attacking his zone with wide receivers. No linebacker, especially one at Bobby's age is going to be able to deal with that.

These have been issues under Pete for a long time. Our defense hasn't been top 10 since 2016 under Pete. In addition to this we're less likely to play rookies or young players over veterans, which was not what we did under the Pete led 2010-2014 Seahawks.

Good post. Pete literally said at his press conference the other day that "the game has become very intricate." At least he acknowledges that much, but he is still too stubborn to admit that he can't hang with these McVay and Shanny types. If he is still our HC next year and we don't get a HC with a background in modern NFL offenses, it's just gonna be a wasted season and delay us further.

 

[renofox]

From an analysis perspective, this evidence doesn't support any conclusion. The sample size is far too small, and the probability of any coach winning a Super Bowl is already extremely low.

That is why I did not put forth any conclusion. I used the data to support an inference. As to sample size, going back further changes the character of the NFL coaching situation so much that the data becomes unusable. Finally the low probability (1/32) does not affect the usability of the data since that is the precise subject being explored.

But why do more coaches win in their first five seasons? Simple probability. More coaches are in that stage of their careers than in that five+ range with a single team.

Possible thesis: when a HC is first hired, it is most often because the previous coach and/or GM underperformed. Odds are the roster isn't that great. The new HC and coordinators are starting from the ground floor; bringing in new ideas and systems and many new players. The team has now been reset and given hope. These coaches, schemes, and players are now evolving in a positive direction and, due to the evolution process, opponents have a tough time figuring them out and gameplanning against them. etc. Other theses may apply.

Most coaches spend more time in the 5- stage than the 5+ stage because most coaches aren't successful in rebuilding the team. With the exception of the Eagles, if a coach is successful in his 1st 5 years he is generally retained much longer. But even though these first-five-year successful coaches are retained, it is rare for them to become SB-competitive in their extended tenure.

Similarly, if you don't factor out Belichick, the odds of winning past your 14th season are extraordinarily high (a product of the small sample size).

I didn't factor out BB. If I did, it would show -0- HCs winning a SB after 14 years tenure..

Including BB, 3 of 23 SBs were won by a HC with 14+ years tenure. All with Brady at QB.

I would hesitate to say those are "extremely high" odds.

p.s. If I was trying to reach a conclusion, the biggest directly unaddressed issue is cause v. correlation. I've already written a.short story. I'm not going to write the novel that issue would require.

 

[knownone]

That is why I did not put forth any conclusion. I used the data to support an inference. As to sample size, going back further changes the character of the NFL coaching situation so much that the data becomes unusable. Finally the low probability (1/32) does not affect the usability of the data since that is the precise subject being explored.


Possible thesis: when a HC is first hired, it is most often because the previous coach and/or GM underperformed. Odds are the roster isn't that great. The new HC and coordinators are starting from the ground floor; bringing in new ideas and systems and many new players. The team has now been reset and given hope. These coaches, schemes, and players are now evolving in a positive direction and, due to the evolution process, opponents have a tough time figuring them out and gameplanning against them. etc. Other theses may apply.

Most coaches spend more time in the 5- stage than the 5+ stage because most coaches aren't successful in rebuilding the team. With the exception of the Eagles, if a coach is successful in his 1st 5 years he is generally retained much longer. But even though these first-five-year successful coaches are retained, it is rare for them to become SB-competitive in their extended tenure.


I didn't factor out BB. If I did, it would show -0- HCs winning a SB after 14 years tenure..

Including BB, 3 of 23 SBs were won by a HC with 14+ years tenure. All with Brady at QB.

I would hesitate to say those are "extremely high" odds.

p.s. If I was trying to reach a conclusion, the biggest directly unaddressed issue is cause v. correlation. I've already written a.short story. I'm not going to write the novel that issue would require.

A) "This backs up the idea that Head Coaches (who don't have Tom Brady) get "stale" after about 5 years." Correct me if I am misunderstanding, but is that not a conclusion that factors out Belichick?

B) "Including BB, 3 of 23 SBs were won by a HC with 14+ years tenure. All with Brady at QB. I would hesitate to say those are "extremely high" odds."

If we calculate the probability of winning after his 14th season, the sample size shrinks to 2014, and the likelihood is 3/10. Similarly, 3/23 is still 4x more likely than the mean. That's extremely high.

 

[oldhawkfan]

I think the data would be better understood if the entirety of the Super Bowl era was included in the dataset.

Since we are talking about Head Coaches, while Paul Allen was alive he went out and got the best coach he could regardless of their current position. Mora was a mistake he quickly learned from. Holmgren was hired away from GB. That’s a relative rarity in the league. PC was a wow hire on lots of levels.

So whenever PC goes away, who would you want regardless of where they are now? Every offseason there are the popular coordinators who seem ripe for a job. Thinking outside the box, who would be the guy under Paul Allen’s leadership?

 

[renofox]

A) "This backs up the idea that Head Coaches (who don't have Tom Brady) get "stale" after about 5 years." Correct me if I am misunderstanding, but is that not a conclusion that factors out Belichick?

I think we are just using different definitions..

Conclusion: HCs get stale after 5 years (explicitly stated, logically derived judgement).
Inference: Backs up the idea... (an educated guess using observation and judgment).

BB is explicitly discussed as an exception to the rule with "(who don't have Tom Brady)". BB is an anomaly that must always be accounted for when discussing 21st century SBs.

B) "Including BB, 3 of 23 SBs were won by a HC with 14+ years tenure. All with Brady at QB. I would hesitate to say those are "extremely high" odds."

If we calculate the probability of winning after his 14th season, the sample size shrinks to 2014, and the likelihood is 3/10. Similarly, 3/23 is still 4x more likely than the mean. That's extremely high.

I think you may be reversing my argument. I am looking at each year's SB winner to determine their characteristics. You are looking at a coaches characteristics to determine his outcomes in relation to his qualifying characteristics during years he won, and also utilizing a more limited sample to do so.

As to 3/23 you are correct that is a high outcome against probability that 1 unique coach wins that many SBs in the rarest of conditions. That is a separate discussion from the attributes of the other 15 SB winning coaches. BB has been great, but he is still an anomaly not likely to be replicated in my lifetime.

 

[AK49Hawk]

Wow!… Some folks have way to much time on their hands. Good post though.

 

[renofox]

Wow!… Some folks have way to much time on their hands. Good post though.

Yep. Can't do shit until physical therapy gets my shoulder working. I'm always frigging bored lately.

 

[Cyrus12]

Yep. Can't do shit until physical therapy gets my shoulder working. I'm always frigging bored lately.

Just had knee surgery so I'm online a lot more as well...

 

[knownone]

I think we are just using different definitions..

Conclusion: HCs get stale after 5 years (explicitly stated, logically derived judgement).
Inference: Backs up the idea... (an educated guess using observation and judgment).

BB is explicitly discussed as an exception to the rule with "(who don't have Tom Brady)". BB is an anomaly that must always be accounted for when discussing 21st century SBs.


I think you may be reversing my argument. I am looking at each year's SB winner to determine their characteristics. You are looking at a coaches characteristics to determine his outcomes in relation to his qualifying characteristics during years he won, and also utilizing a more limited sample to do so.

As to 3/23 you are correct that is a high outcome against probability that 1 unique coach wins that many SBs in the rarest of conditions. That is a separate discussion from the attributes of the other 15 SB winning coaches. BB has been great, but he is still an anomaly not likely to be replicated in my lifetime.

Gotcha. I was speaking colloquially. So, swap "conclusion" with "inference" in my initial comment. In other words, I don't think the evidence supports your inference that head coaches get stale after five years, either.

For clarity's sake, since you appear genuine in your analysis, let's examine your inference. Your title implies that you are using odds. You stated that (you think) Seattle's odds of winning another SB with Pete are 0.001. But 0.001 odds for something would be a probability of 0.0999%. That's about 30 times lower than the mean probability. So, from my vantage point, as someone who works in mathematics, I took your initial comment as a joke.

I wasn't looking at any characteristics or making a qualitative judgment on coaches. I took a sample of coach tenures over ten random seasons during that stretch and determined that in most seasons, about 25% of the league has a coach who's been with the team for over five years. Therefore, a newer coach (under five years) winning the SB has 3x higher proportional likelihood than a tenured coach in most seasons.

Let's break your sample down:

1st) If we're using five years as the stale factor, we'd have to omit seven combined SBs from Coughlin, Belichick, Cower, and Reid, who all won SBs well after five years. That shrinks our sample size to 16 seasons.

2nd) We can't include Belichick or Coughlin's remaining SBs because they also won after five years. So that puts our sample down to 11.

3rd) We must omit coaches who won within their first five years and came close to winning another several years after Sean Payton and Mike McCarthy. Here, I'm using title games as a cutoff. So that puts our usable sample at 9 seasons.

 

[SeAhAwKeR4life]

Sixty minutes, unless it goes into overtime.

 

[WarHawks]

We haven't been top ten on defense since 2016. Wow. That was seven years ago. Time to move on.