New Coaches Rarely make Playoffs

[ScottLawrence]

New Coaches Rarely Reap
Read Full Article at http://profootballweekly.com



How unusual is it for a team with a first-year, first-time head coach to make it to the playoffs? In the last four seasons only six of the 48 teams in the playoffs have had first-year head coaches, and only two of those clubs have been led by true rookies, Jim Haslett’s Saints in 2000 and Herm Edwards’ Jets in ’01.

Though Dave Wannstedt took the Dolphins to the playoffs in 2000, Jon Gruden with the Bucs and Tony Dungy with the Colts in ’02, and Bill Parcells with the Cowboys in ’03, all four had already led other teams to the playoffs. Gruden (in ’02) and Don McCafferty (in 1970 with the Baltimore Colts) were the only coaches in history to win a Super Bowl in their first season with a team, and McCafferty is the only first-time coach ever to win a Super Bowl.

With that in mind, what should we expect from the Redskins, Giants, Falcons, Bears, Cardinals, Bills and Raiders, the seven NFL teams that will kick off 2004 with new coaches? For starters, recent history suggests that the Falcons, Bills and Bears have marginally better than two chances in a hundred to make the playoffs..............


Mike Mularkey’s challenges are the opposite in Buffalo. The Bills were 30th in total offense last year, 21st in rushing, 28th in passing and tied for 30th in points scored. Even if top draft choice Lee Evans becomes the NFL Rookie of the Year, the Bills’ offensive line is weaker with the loss of OG Ruben Brown, and it’s unclear how much gas QB Drew Bledsoe has left in the tank. An 8-8 record would be a huge accomplishment in Buffalo this year.


http://profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2004/harkush1904.htm

I thought it was a good read..... Its going to be a tough task for Mularkey but, the 2001 Jets give me hope. I believe we have better talent then that team had.

[Dozerdog]

Hey Scott- If you could in the futurte just give us the link and the first few paragraphs that would be great- we can't run the whole article for legal reasons.


The question you need to ask yourself is- "Why are they a new coach"- the team had to suck and the coach had to get fired. Usually that equalls a poor roster.

You have to narrow the field to new coaches taking over good rosters. Waanstadt is a good example. While our roster might not be Super Bowl caliber yet it's not terrible. This isn't a 2-14 club.

[ScottLawrence]

Yea my bad.

I'll edit it.

[Dozerdog]

Great article, though- I'm going to put it on the front page!:up:

[Jan Reimers]

We may very well reverse this trend. We have a good D coming back, and some new offensive weapons. This is a good team which needs good coaching. I think we'll get it.

[Tatonka]

history is not on our side, that is for sure.. but i do really like the staff we have.. i really dont have a single complaint..

so for better or worse.. playoffs or not.. i think it will still be a good year and we will make great strides.

[chernobylwraiths]

Originally posted by ScottLawrence
...the Bills’ offensive line is weaker with the loss of OG Ruben Brown...

I thought this was funny. It's amazing that he wasn't just snapped up and paid millions since he is a pro bowl guard. :)

[Canadian'eh!]

....

my response is this. USUALLY the reason a head coach gets fired is because the team is outright bad. not because his horrid horrid coaching prevents the team from winning. I feel the talent was there last year just the coaching was some of the worst i've seen. poor game plan with no in game adjustments. just pure poor coaching in Offense. GW was never an O cach so KG was left to screw it up all alone.

ANYWAY.... if it makes you feel any better, this guy named Larry Brown just won a championship in his first year coaching a talented Pistons team.

[TigerJ]

My thoughts echo Dozer's and Canadien's We for the most part think Buffalo last year was a good team personnel wise with an offensive coaching staff that blew. That would make it an exception to the usual situation where the team personnel also sucks when a coaching change is made.

I also take issue with how PFW interprets their statistics. I don't think it is valid just to take a ratio of new coaches who took their teams to the playoffs vs established coaches. They need to use a different ratio the percentage of new coaches (out of all new coaches) who take their teams to the playoffs versus the percentage of established coaches (out of all established coaches) who take teams to the playoffs. If there is a 25% turnover of coaches in a given offseason then the law of averages says there will be three times as many established coaches in the playoffs before you even begin to talk about the quality of teams the new coaches have taken over. In the article it is suggested that established coaches are 8 times more likely to make the playoffs than newcomers. If however there are three times as many established coaches in the league the real edge that established coaches have is only a little better than 2 to 1.

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by Tatonka
history is not on our side, that is for sure.. but i do really like the staff we have.. i really dont have a single complaint..

so for better or worse.. playoffs or not.. i think it will still be a good year and we will make great strides.

that's all I am looking for...a team to be more disciplined and play better football than under GW...8-8 would help.

[Halbert]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
While our roster might not be Super Bowl caliber yet it's not terrible.
Actually I think the Bills do have SB caliber talent. If Marv were coach with that roster we'd be labeling them AFC favorites.