Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

04 Aug 2017

Steelers Extend Mike Tomlin

The Pittsburgh Steelers have announced a two-year contract extension for head coach Mike Tomlin that will last through the 2020 season. Financial terms were not disclosed.

In ten seasons under Tomlin, Pittsburgh has gone 103-57 in the regular season, a .644 win rate that is third behind Green Bay (.666) (seriously) and New England (.788) in that span. Tomlin has never had a losing record (he has gone 8-8 three times), and has made the playoffs seven times.

Assuming he coaches at least through 2020, Tomlin will have spent 14 years as the Steelers' head coach, following the 15-year tenure of Bill Cowher, who followed the 23-year tenure of Chuck Noll. That's three head coaches in 52 years, a stat that would be remarkable for any job, let alone something as competitive as NFL head coach.

Posted by: Vincent Verhei on 04 Aug 2017

130 comments, Last at 12 Aug 2017, 3:18pm by mrt1212


by MilkmanDanimal :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 4:29pm

Well, I can think of one regular FO poster who should just be overjoyed with this news.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 4:34pm

I started laughing as soon as I saw the headline, for exactly that reason.

by PaddyPat :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 4:38pm

Awww man, you don't say!

Seriously, Tomlin has his flaws, and I think he profits enormously from the organization he works in, but for a job that seems exceedingly easy to perform poorly in, he has consistently gotten results. What more can you really ask for? If they didn't extend him and the next guy had an average performance, say a few 6-10 seasons and a 3-13 year, the Rooneys would be insane!

by theslothook :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 4:50pm

He only looks bad because he isn't Belichick. I guess that is the standard now between acceptable coaching and pond scum.

by Subrata Sircar :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 5:34pm

I too was disappointed when I saw the headline but didn't see a post from our favorite poster and his bete noir.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 5:52am

And if you took Belichick out of the AFC, it's likely the Steelers would have been a lot more successful especially as the Pats are the one team they struggle against.

Since Tomlin took over in 2006 - record of AFC teams in the SB ... Patriots 2-2; Colts, Steelers, Broncos 1-1; Ravens 1-0. If you're only interested in SB wins (which is a tough measure) then bear in mind that even Belichick didn't win a Lombardi from 2005-2014.

Note also that the Steelers have the Ravens and Bengals to compete with for their division every year. I'd point out that Tomlin has outperformed John Harbaugh over the past four years. Maybe it's some sort of division of mediocrity as the Bengals keep renewing Marvin Lewis despite never having won in the playoffs.

I doubt the Steelers ownership aspires to being an also-ran but I think they're realistic enough to know that currently Tomlin has kept them as one of the AFC powerhouses for the last decade. Remember what happened to the Broncos in the years immediately after they got rid of Shanahan for three consecutive 8-8 years - Tomlin's been nowhere close to that lacking.

by Independent George :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 5:51pm

That's just it - we've seen so many coaches fall hard in good situations that I would hesitate to get rid of a flawed but successful one. There's no guarantee that the next guy will be better, and part of what makes Pittsburgh's organization so good is its willingness to give the HC space to work without constantly looking over his shoulder.

For that matter, are Tomlin's flaws any worse than Cowher's was? If you go down the list of every HC not named Belichick, it's really not hard to come up with a list of their deficiencies as long as your arm. Those flaws have to be balanced against their strengths, though, and Tomlin has earned the benefit of the doubt.

by t.d. :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 7:02pm

I was ambivalent about Tomlin, but one of the posters here convinced me he's a damned good coach. It's hard, anywhere, to coach successfully for 10 years. And the beat goes on in Pittsburgh...

Since there no Tannehill post, thought I'd mention that the biggest obstacle for the Dolphins in this has got to be that the didn't budget for a second starting caliber quarterback. (I think Kaep would be a solid fit, but a tough sell, and I wouldn't mind seeing Cutler behind what could bee a decent line, but I was under the impression that money was a factor in his walking away)

by Noah Arkadia :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 10:36am

I don't see the decent line, the interior looks as bad as ever, unless Pouncey miraculously plays 16 games. Even then, the guards seem weak, Tunsil is unproven at tackle and James had a bad year last year. Frankly I wasn't overly optimistic even before the injury.

by t.d. :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 6:18pm

with three 1st round picks in their 20s on the line, it's a real indictment of the front offices that put it together if it isn't a strength. guards are somewhat fungible like running backs, but repeating that to myself the last couple years has done nothing to help my team's (Jags) interior line get any better, so i get you. they seemed at least pretty good at run blocking last year (from a distance). don't know how they compare to the bears' current line, but i'm pretty sure cutler's seen worse

by theslothook :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 6:55pm

I remember reading how the Jaguars are utilizing the latest in analytics. If that's the case, I'm left scratching my head by their recent coach hiring and recent first round pick. Even a cursory look at the "analytics" would have painted a pretty grim expectation for both rehiring a fired coach with no success and drafting a running back high in todays nfl.

But then, this is all low hanging fruit. I remember a quote from Tony Khan about how Gabbert had a high qbr when he was spared pressure from the right tackle position - implying Gabbert as a qb is just fine and its the right tackle position thats the problem. I guess a cursory look at the statistics might lead you to that conclusion, but its a dangerous, lazy haphazard way of looking at things.

by t.d. :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 7:47pm

analytics in football seem less advanced, compared to basketball (especially) and baseball. I'm guessing it's more moving parts, and less clarity of specifically assigned roles, and it's hard to tell what they've actually implemented.
I think the marrone hire, while disappointing, is defensible. pretty sure belicheck and carroll were regarded as retreads at one point (for carroll, the nadir would've been coming off the pats firing- by the time he left usc he'd rebuilt his rep). while i wouldn't call his buffalo tenure a success, it wasn't a failure, either (though i personally figure jim schwartz was the driving force behind the good things they did). from all appearances, coughlin's in charge. i also think the gm, caldwell, has done a good job of pulling the roster from the abyss- now i'd say our only major weakness is bortles. having said that, according to chase stuart's research, the cost of whiffing on a 1st round qb is getting fired, so if caldwell goes, i'm ok with it. As for why they kept marrone, i think they wanted to hire coughlin as coach, but they trial ballooned it and the fans hated the idea.

i think the fournette pick was an error- it's only worth it if he becomes the next AP. too many rbs taken really high have just been ok, and our line still sucks, and he doesn't really fit our offense (his numbers setting up in 3 wide, shotgun formation at lsu sucked, and our one great position group is wr)

barnwell has us pegged at 6 to 9 wins, good enough to blow our draft slot so we get stuck with bortles another year. it'd be a nitemare.

by Noah Arkadia :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 7:58pm

I gotta say, the Jags line is one of the few I wouldn't trade the Dolphins' one for. And with Bortles at QB needing help to develop, it looks like an impossible situation. I don't mind picking an RB high so much, but if you don't have the line, what's the point? And RBs have short shelf-lives to boot.

by t.d. :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 8:26pm

Yeah, our line is awful, and has been for almost a decade. They knew this after the blaine gabbert experience, and they shoulda done something. Was really looking forward to 35 year old Albert shoring up our line at left tackle

by t.d. :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 7:49pm


by Theo :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 8:55pm

Tomlin is the poster boy of riding a HOF QB and a HOF DC. He has turned it into a 4-2 or 2-4 but I have many doubts that's on him.
Hit offense is major if his offensive starters are not suspended. So I won't give him credit there.
I seriously have to wonder where Tomlin gets any due.
He talks a good game. I guess that goes a long way. But his history of game and time management goofs just makes me think he's a monkey with sunglasses.
Fuck him.
He messes up major time in time management, he is infamous against sub 500 opponents.
Yet his team has talent enough to win 12 games a season. That's not onto him.
He is the best paid yada yada in the world.
I don't know what I just typed, but I know it is true.

by theslothook :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 10:46pm

Can you list some names of coaches that you feel are better than Tomlin? Because unless their name is Belichik, I can come up with a long list of things they do wrong or reasons why it's not because of them that they are successful

by Theo :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 6:41pm

Carroll. Harbaugh. Payton. Reid. McCarthy. Arians. All current better coaches.
Sure they all have their problems - but that doesn't mean Tomlin doesn't. And that my main problem with him - he doesn't learn. He basically has a contract for life and doesn't take a course in time management or when-do-I-use-my-backup-runningback.
Le'veon Bell has been out of the playoffs last years because of injuries - DeAngelo Williams had few touches to keep Bell healthy.

by theslothook :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 9:12pm

Payton has a HOF qb that is way better than big Ben and has missed the playoffs the last 3 years. His division is also way easier than the afc north. Harbaugh has fielded awful offenses every year and owes all his success to defense and special teams, something he has in common w his less heralded predecessor.

Reid's time management has been beyond miserable and has cost him multiple times in the playoffs.

Also, any argument you make against Tomlin you can make against McCarthy. In fact, I do t understand how McCarthy is supposed to be different from Tomlin.

by Steve B :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 4:32pm

Given that Ben will end up in Canton,too, it seems like hyperbole to say that Brees is "way better".

by theslothook :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 5:04pm

Ben is a hall of famer. Tremendous. Drew Brees is a top 10 all the qb. Yes he is, in my mind, way better.

by Noah Arkadia :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 6:08pm

I agree, Big Ben is low tier HoF and Brees is top tier... and much healthier, too. And to take advantage of the arguments above, Ben has Antonio Brown and Bell, and he had HoF RB Bettis and borderline HoF Burress, etc. Brees makes do with far less spectacular players and makes them look great.

by Steve B :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 7:22pm

And of course Ben deserves no credit in how those around him look. Never mind that AB didn't exactly look all world when he had the ghost of Michael Vick throwing him the football.

Wait, "borderline HoF" Burress?

by Noah Arkadia :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 8:08pm

It sure matters, but other WRs don't look like HoF when Ben is throwing them the ball and neither do the ones Brees throws to, or other great QBs like Rodgers, for that matter. My point is we can tell pretty well when a QB is making several receivers produce at a strong level (Brees' specialty) and when one guy or two guys stand out head and shoulders above their teammates.

About Burress, I don't think he is, but I've heard some people make the argument.

by t.d. :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 8:17pm

Ah, the NY media. Meanwhile, Jimmy Smith was twice the player he was, and will never have a shot

by Steve B :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 7:16pm

Guess it depends on your definition of "way better". Mine would be more like the difference between a Brees or a Roethlisberger and...I'll say Blake Bortles. Not two QBs that we both agree we'll be enshrined in Canton.

by theslothook :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 7:25pm

Fine, obviously Ben is a lot closer to Brees than either are to Blake Bortles.

While Ben is a great qb, there is a level of Brees' prime that I've never seen consistently from Ben over a full season - here I am referring to the stretch between 09-13(or 14) where Brees efficiency was on a plane above Roethlisburger.

In some ways, this is akin to comparing a 50 win team in basketball to a 60 win team in basketball. Yes, its only a 10 win difference, but that 10 wins is the hardest to make and very few reach that plane.

In my lifetime of watching(since around 2000), I've only seen 4 quarterbacks that have hit that level. Brees is one, Big ben is not.

by Steve B :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 9:17pm

Brees has also had a lot more opportunities throw the ball than Ben has. Sure, some of that is because of the time Ben's missed. However, Brees has also been on more losing teams with bad (in a few cases REALLY bad) defenses. That means more games where he could (or had to) throw, throw, throw.

by theslothook :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 11:47pm

Look - your arguments are fair and reasonable. I can throw more statistical evidence on my side, but football is a hard sport to isolate individual play so that won't really settle this.

Personally - having watched the two and followed the football statistics as closely as I do, I can just say that to me - Brees is a clear notch above Big Ben(or was anyway). I can accept if you don't agree or think they are much closer, but that's just my view. Its not like Im saying either pales in comparison to the all mighty joe webb or anything.

For what its worth - ben's recent play the last few years has radically changed my view of him as a player. I use to think ROmo and Rivers were better, but now I think he's better than both.

by t.d. :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 6:21pm

mccarthy's worse

by Will Allen :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 3:52pm

98 guys have coached 100 or more NFL regular season games. 11 of them have a better winning percentage than Tomlin. 58 guys have coached 150 or more NFL games. 8 of them have a better winning percentage than Tomlin. The Steelers have never played in a bottom rung division in Tomlin's time there.

Does Tomlin have significant flaws? Sure, nearly every coach does, including HOFers. The chance, however, that a coach with Tolin's winning percentage, over 160 games, is actually a bad NFL head coach, is pretty small. The irrationality that sometimes surrounds discussing Tomlin, however (seriously, "fuck" Tomlin ? Huh?) Is really, really, bizarre.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 4:17pm

trotting this debunked line of argument out again, huh?

The standard is the standard!

by Will Allen :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 4:26pm

I prefer to not engage with you, but if somebody is going to imply it has been "debunked" that winning percentage over 100-150 plus games is a metric that can provide illumination as to the quality of the coaching, I'll take the time to note that the word "debunked" has an actual definition, and employing the word in this fashion is indicative of ignorance with regard to that definition.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 4:37pm

It's a stupid metric.

1) the best coach ever could die on the field in game 99 due to a heart attack

2) the length of seasons has changed over time

3) the likelihood (and value)of ties has changed over time

4) would you argue a coach is great if they go 16-0 every year and then lose 83-7 in their first playoff game every year?

5) winning meangingless games that harm the franchise long term inflates this stat. just as losing strageically to improve a franchise hurts this stat

6) etc etc etc

7) the stat is out of date and wrong now.
(try not copy-pasting from ages ago, idiot)

8) 100-150 plus doesn't make sense anyways. that's a range of 51 or more, not 50 . or surely you have some logic for that selection interval, right? (We'll ignore in general for the reasons above it's basically cherry picking)

9) go back to just calling me a racist for disliking him. it's at least slightly less embarrassing and wrong for you.

10) when Tomlin's W/L is adjusted for the Browns every year, it closely, closely tracks his playoff W/L %--- which is not very good. Cute how you always ignore that.
The standard is the standard!

by Will Allen :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 4:58pm

Like I said, I prefer to not engage with you, but feel free to cherry pick another sample size of games, inless you want to get entirely too small, which to me would be 60 games or so. Yes, it would be preferred if we had a play by play metric like DVOA for all these coach's teams. We don't have it, unfortunately.

I'll give you the last word, and again politely request that you avoid engaging with me.

by theslothook :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 10:39pm

Can you be civilized and not call people idiots? I'm not the pc police, but I like to think these boards are respectful even in disagreement.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 11:25pm

can you not be a biased hypocritical hack? he attacked me first with personal insults.

of course, calling him out doesn't fit into your agenda, does it?

The standard is the standard!

by theslothook :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 4:47am

"Will, you are an idiot"


by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Thu, 08/10/2017 - 1:39pm

The standard is the standard!

by Noah Arkadia :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 11:00am

You take this stuff way too seriously. Suppose you are wrong. Is it really that terrible? And imagine you're right. Is it really that big? The wins argument is also pretty good because you are a Steelers fan, right? Isn't winning that matters to a fan? Why are you so unhappy? Nearly every other franchise has it worse and therefore their fans -aka, nearly all of us posting here. That's why you find so little sympathy around here. And I don't mean your arguments, I mean your ranting.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 11:56am

It's not even an argument because there is no acknowledgement that Tomlin has some decent qualities.

All we get is "He's got a Hof QB, inherited a great team, gets to play the Browns twice per year".

We don't get any credit to the facts that:
- Tomlin didn't Ray Handley or Richie Petitbon the team when took over from Cowher.
- as well as easy wins against the Browns, he also plays the Ravens and Bengals twice per year.
- his wins percentage is very good
- that along with Denver and Indianapolis has the joint 2nd best record of AFC teams during the past decade.
- being a HC means you're ultimately in charge and that it's very easy to screw up and lose the locker room if you're that bad. See Wade Phillips in 2010, Brad Childress in 2010, Gary Kubiak in 2013 among others.

As I've said to friends when encountering intransigent people who won't change their opinion to even acknowledge basic facts ... "can't argue with ignorance".

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Thu, 08/10/2017 - 1:41pm

I've said before that Tomlin is exceptional at giving BS press conferences. He makes Sarah Sanders blush.

The standard is the standard!

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Thu, 08/10/2017 - 1:40pm

Yes, because your franchise sucks I should accept mediocrity from mine when it has the potential for more
The standard is the standard!

by theslothook :: Thu, 08/10/2017 - 5:41pm

2 sbs, 1 win, perennial playoffs... mediocrity ain't what it use to be.

by LionInAZ :: Fri, 08/11/2017 - 5:08pm

Some people just can't handle success.

by Alex51 :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 7:35am

1) the best coach ever could die on the field in game 99 due to a heart attack

8) 100-150 plus doesn't make sense anyways. that's a range of 51 or more, not 50 . or surely you have some logic for that selection interval, right? (We'll ignore in general for the reasons above it's basically cherry picking)

You can lower or raise the threshold as far as you want, but you won’t find a number of games where his winning percentage is not very, very impressive. For instance, 449 coaches have coached at least 5 games - Tomlin’s winning percentage ranks 38th among them. 212 coaches have coached at least 40 games - Tomlin’s winning percentage ranks 22nd. 171 coaches have coached at least 50 games - Tomlin’s winning percentage ranks 21st. No matter how you slice it, he’s got a great W-L record, if nothing else.

10) when Tomlin's W/L is adjusted for the Browns every year, it closely, closely tracks his playoff W/L %--- which is not very good. Cute how you always ignore that.

Removing the games played against the Browns from his record would lower his winning percentage to .614, which would rank 7th among active coaches (some of whom also benefit from playing a few games a year against bottom dwellers). This is higher than his winning percentage in the playoffs - which is .571. And I would say that his playoff winning percentage is actually very good compared to the rest of the league’s coaches. I suppose we can split hairs about the definition of “very”, but an 8-6 record in the playoffs is certainly better than average.

Also, it’s hardly surprising that his winning percentage in regular season games against non-awful opponents closely tracks his winning percentage in the playoffs, given that he only faces non-awful opponents in the playoffs. It’d be kind of weird if he did significantly better against good teams in the playoffs than he did against good teams in the regular season.

by jtr :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 8:25am

The "well they get to beat up on the Browns" argument is silly anyways, because pretty much every division has at least one bottom-feeder every year. I checked the standings from the last five years, and there were only four times that a division failed to have a team with six wins or fewer. So 90% of the time (36 times out of 40), your division has at least one cupcake in it. One of the exceptions? The Cleveland Browns won 7 games as the last place team in the 2014 AFC North.

It's just silly to discount wins against bad teams. Every good team gets a bunch of wins against bad teams. Are we going to adjust Belichick's record for every season that the Jets, Bills, or Dolphins were completely awful? Plus, wins against bad teams are far from a foregone conclusion; look at how the Seaheawks have struggled against terrible Rams teams through the whole Pete Carroll era.

by The Ninjalectual :: Fri, 08/11/2017 - 9:26pm

That's some good research!

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Sat, 08/12/2017 - 1:16pm

"It's just silly to discount wins against bad teams."

then it's equally 'just silly' to overrate wins against good teams (such as in the AFCCG or the SB)


The standard is the standard!

by The Ninjalectual :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 5:30pm

I thought you were going to debunk WillAllen's argument about a coach's W% over a significant period of time not being a good indicator. When do you plan on following through with that?

by Independent George :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 7:51pm

I agree with Will, but there is one good counter to his main point:

George Seifert, 1989-1996: 98-30 (.766)
George Seifert, 1999-2001: 16-32 (.333)

That's an example of a coach who put up an all-time great record with a HoF QB and stacked roster, but fell hard without those advantages.

by theslothook :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 7:55pm

Which makes the unwavering Jeff Fisher 500 mediocrity in perpetuity look so darn impressive. Whether a stacked roster or a lousy roster, Jeff Fisher will coach that team straight to 500.

by Independent George :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 8:07pm

In all seriousness, it also supports my belief that Marty Schottenheimer is the single most underrated coach in NFL history.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 9:55pm

When I develop robot coaches and players to do advanced football experiments, my two coaches will be Robo-Parcells and Robo-Schottenheimer, as I rotate thousands of players through their rosters, to see who can be most efficient with widest variety of quality.

by Digit :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 2:13pm

Will Robo-Parcells come with Robo-Belichick on defense or without? With-Belichick Parcells seems like a very different coach from without-Belichick Parcells.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 9:49pm

The Seifert example informs us that using w-l records for much less than 100 games can be problematic. One disastrous season, or one great season, in a 3 season sample, can really skew our evaluation.

by theslothook :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 10:55pm

The Siefert example though also shows just how dramatically different the results can be when one thinks about context.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 3:22am

Of course, if you're going to talk context then you have to recognise that Seifert took on the extra responsibilities of being a GM as well as HC when he joined Carolina.

Few have done that successfully especially not since the complexity of organisations grew in the past couple of decades.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 3:33am

Doesn't Seifert also show what can happen when you fire your lucky coach too early? The next guy goes .594 and then the franchise descends into hell for a decade or so.

Could also point at Tony Dungy being fired from the Bucs and Jon Gruden being traded from the Raiders in his place as bad decisions to get rid of coaches.

by Independent George :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 5:34pm

The age/injury-related decline of their HoF QB, plus years of salary cap shenanigans probably had quite a bit to do with it.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 8:31am

True, context is important.

I guess if Ben actually retires after this season as he's talked about we'll find out how good a coach Tomlin is.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Thu, 08/10/2017 - 1:42pm

I have, the last time he brought it up. I'm adding onto the pile.

The standard is the standard!

by Theo :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 6:45pm

honestly, I can coach a winning team out of a HOF QB, HB, WR and a defense coached by Lebeau/Butler.
When Ben retires and Bell is traded to the Cardinals we will see the real Tomlin.

by Will Allen :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 7:28pm

You have entirely overrated your abilities, and I don't mean that as crticism of your coaching ability. If you want to supply a list of coaches who have compiled an outstanding winning percentage over 5 seasons or more, without great players, I'd like seeing it.

by ChrisS :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 11:32am

It's somewhat of a chicken and egg question. Do Good coaches make good players or do good players make good coaches. I tend to favor the latter as more explanatory but it is hard to be definitive.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 12:18pm

What the great coaches do is cut the right guys, and hire assistants that really make players 5 through 53 better, along with doing some teaching themselves. The in game coaching can be critical in the ultra tight contests; Belichik got the better of Carroll and Quinn in the last two Patriot championship games, but most games are won during the week and offseason.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 1:56pm

I would argue Belichick had little to do with the last title game.

The Pats were out-coached and out-planned. Atlanta did more of what they wanted to do than NE did, and Belichick's various gamesmanship moves mostly didn't work. NE was forced into a single-tactic offense, which eventually ground down an talent-limited ATL defense via attrition, in part becayse ATL had a weird habit of scoring too quickly. The difference was a poorly-timed strip-sack and an indefensible sack taken in FG range were worth more than a pick-6.

In a weird way, the NCAA title game was very similar.

by Will Allen :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 2:16pm

I should have been more clear that it was Quinn screwing the pooch worse that Belichick which was critical.

by t.d. :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 4:10pm

The one thing that they did an exceptional job of in the last Super Bowl was extending the game. It felt like they took the hurry-up to another level, passing on almost every down, doing everything they could to make the game long enough that they could win it. That relentlessness is one of the best characteristics of the Brady/Belicheck Pats. (of course it helps that the Falcons choked- the injury to Mack really killed them)

by RobotBoy :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 2:56am

I don't think one other coach in the league makes that comeback. To say BB was 'outcoached and outplanned' and point to the strip sack and the following sack as being freak occurrences that changed the game is to cherry pick details to shape an extremely biased narrative. The only reason that NE was down by so much and 'forced into a single-tactic offense' was due to a pick-six interception and a Blount fumble that led to 14 Atlanta points. That was not due to better coaching, it was due to very bad luck - Brady had two interceptions during the entire regular season and Blount only two fumbles. Blount's fumble was at the Atlanta 33 at the beginning of the second quarter in a then-scoreless game. Brady's interception was at the Atlanta 23. Without those random occurrences we're talking about a quite possibly a tie-game going into the second half.
Atlanta's defense was not 'talent-limited' but rather quite young and had greatly improved over the season. BB's strategy going in was almost certainly to wear the defense down over the course of the game because while the Atlanta's D was quite fast, it did lack size and depth relative to NE.
At 28-3, BB doubled down on his initial strategy because it was the only possible way to win the game. At that point a lot had to go right - yet still not as much as had gone wrong for NE in the first half (The Patriots D didn't score a touchdown and the Patriots still had two turnovers to Atlanta's one). New England played about as perfectly as a team could play, partially due, of course, to coaching.
It's fine to harp on the sack in FG range as being a terrible coaching decision that possibly cost Atlanta the game, but of course Atlanta was only in that position because of a miraculous catch a few plays earlier. Atlanta might have 'scored too fast' but scoring too fast is better than not scoring at all, and Atlanta not playing conservatively is what got them the big lead and into field goal range. NE's run defense was quite a bit better than its pass defense and two runs into the line against a defense expecting run followed by a non-gimme FG would have launched all kinds of criticism as well.
TLDR version: It was luck that put Atlanta up by 25 and when that luck turned, great coaching and execution from the Patriots gave them a chance to pull off a miracle.

by Dave Bernreuther :: Thu, 08/10/2017 - 1:36pm

A bad throw is not a "random occurrence" or "bad luck." I don't care how few interceptions Brady had during a stellar season; he threw a bad pass that should've been picked, and it was one of five that he threw like that in what was easily his worst game of the season. Now we'll both agree that the Edelman catch was a fair piece of karma after 2007, but it wasn't what any sane observer would call a good throw.

I agree that that's not coaching either... but to dismiss that as simple bad luck is the wrong path to take here.

by ChrisS :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 3:05pm

I can certainly see your point, as a bad coach can ruin any level of talent, but without those top 4-5 guys it is difficult for the team to win enough for the coach to stay around long enought to get the wins to show their abilities (Belechik in Cleveland).

by Noah Arkadia :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 10:55am

I'm going to take particular exception to the DC argument. HCs hire their DCs. I believe that good HCs are good in no small part because they surround themselves with the right people. Counterexample: Sean Payton, Rob Ryan. Not just coordinators, mind you, position coaches, etc.

Also, Ben is a good QB, but he's no Aaron Rodgers and on top of that he's often injured, as is Bell. It's a good situation, sure, but I'd rather have Rodgers or Brees by himself than Roth+Bell+Brown. Those guys are dependable no matter who is around and they are rarely injured.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 10:01am

Blaming Tomlin for LeBeau is like blaming Belichick for Scarnecchia.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 4:16pm

Ignoring all the correct things you point out....

My absolute favorite is the 1-time example when he actually pulled his head out of his ass and played press man against the Pats-- and it worked.

Then in some quadruple-reverse-psychology-meta-allin-with-72offsuit-gambit he went back to 15deep soft cover 3 .... amazingly, the results have spoken.

The standard is the standard!

by Alex51 :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 8:01am

I seriously have to wonder where Tomlin gets any due.
He talks a good game. I guess that goes a long way. But his history of game and time management goofs just makes me think he's a monkey with sunglasses.

Lots of coaches have walked into great situations and done worse than Tomlin. Few have ever done much better. I’m not saying he’s the best coach in the NFL, but he’s not bad, either.

Also, just a word of caution: In some cultures (and especially in America), it’s considered quite offensive to refer to a black person as a monkey. I’m not saying that’s how you meant it, but it might not be a bad idea to find a different way to badmouth him.

by Theo :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 12:36pm

I meant it in the way that he's just doing tricks and saying mantras instead of learning anything in 10 years.
He made the same time management goofs as he did early in his career.
He still runs the wheels of his starting runningback when it it totally not necessary (end of games, end of season).
Sure - he does some good things, but if he had learned anything instead of following his 'gut', his playoff record would be much better the last 5 years.

by theslothook :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 1:14pm

As a colts fan, believe me, you can do a lot worse.

by Theo :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 4:15pm

"you can do a lot worse" is not an argument to think Tomlin has many many flaws.
"A is worse than B, therefore B is acceptable" is a bad argument.

by Eddo :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 4:38pm

And "A is worse than B, therefore A is unacceptable" is an equally bad argument.

by theslothook :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 6:28pm

I think the point is - on average - you WILL do worse replacing Tomlin than better. Might you luck into a Bruce Arians or Pete Carrol? Maybe. Its not even clear that Andy Reid with his time management is a real upgrade over Tomlin. Ditto for Harbaugh and Sean Payton - who basically run teams with one arm tied behind their backs every season. Is Tomlin better than they are? Maybe. I actually think not, but we don't know. And that's the point.

For a team that has been a perennial winner, whos team has been to two superbowls and won one, I never expected to see such a vocal contingent saying he's a complete dunce.

by Alex51 :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 6:10am

Okay, but can you name a coach in the NFL who's been around for 10+ years who doesn't have a few significant flaws in their game that they haven't corrected? It's frustrating to see that sort of thing happen, but it's also a fairly ubiquitous problem. The only coaches that don't have significant, persistent flaws are coaches who get fired before their flaws can be said to have meaningfully persisted.

I mean, if Belichick or Andy Reid or Pete Carroll were available and interested in the job, I could see getting rid of Tomlin. But coaches like that aren't easy to find, because most of them already have jobs coaching other teams. The alternatives to Tomlin that are actually available to the Steelers are almost certainly much worse.

by Theo :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 12:02pm

I am not saying Tomlin is the only one who has flaws - everyone has.
But to not have the willingness to correct them is what annoys me. And some of them are easy to correct.

by mrt1212 :: Sat, 08/12/2017 - 3:12pm

I think you tapped on something that ultimately subverts your point though.

Andy Reid still can't manage a game in crunch time. He still wins a boat load of games in regular season yet drops some he shouldn't because in the last 4 minutes of a game he loses his goddamn mind.

Every coach has a cognitive defects, every coordinator, every position coach. Tom Cable is a charlatan who can't even accidentally fall into an average OL with a variety of draft capital he gets to mold and craft from day 1 and yet he is an inscrutable barnacle on the Seahawks. Carroll is loyal to a fault with his coaches. But he also wins a boatload of games.

I think the hallmark of a good coach is succeeding in spite of not changing at all during their tenure. If Tomlin's faults were really as awful as imagined then he is either stupid lucky or smart enough to not step on his dick more than his peers.

by mrwalterisgod :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 9:50pm

You could do worse than Tomlin, but, he inherited a FANTASTIC situation. Young, well established franchise QB. A defense loaded with guys in their prime coached by a legendary defensive mind. Good offensive line, if not great. Stable ownership, I mean, this guy walked into it all.

I don't think Tomlin is anything special as a defensive strategist, but he's got a knack for getting the most out of his guys. Secondary hasn't been very good since Troy left, but the front 7 is still solid, if not the pass rushing nightmare it was a decade ago.

It's fair to question if the Steelers have underperformed the last 5-6 years, but without the losing records I can't kill the guy.

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 4:14pm

they get 2 free wins a year against Cleveland .

his W/L record is impossible to measure until you account for that.

The standard is the standard!

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 4:46am

Pretty much every decent HC in history has had at least two free wins from the cellar dwellar of their division ... Gibbs/Parcells/Landry had the Cardinals; Bill Walsh had the Falcons and early 80s Saints; Shula got a perfect season by only playing two games against teams with a winning record; and Belichick gets six free games per year (or four if Rex Ryan is in the division).

John Harbaugh and Marvin Lewis get two free wins from the Browns every year and their records are not as good as Tomlin. Who do you want to coach the Steelers instead?

by RobotBoy :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 3:10am

Ah, the old 'AFC East is a weak division' myth. No matter how often it's debunked, the myth remains.
In fact, the Patriots record inside and outside the division is basically the same. NE just fatten up on weak teams in the same division (unlike Seattle, or Green Bay, or Indy), they fatten up on everybody. Since 2001, the Pats have had the best record in the league against teams with winning records and playoff teams. The AFC East has also been far from a bottom feeder in that time.
The primary difficulty for AFC East teams is having to play NE twice a year. It's quite possible that if NE played in another division the record would be even better. Here's a link that breaks down some of the numbers.

by Damon :: Fri, 08/04/2017 - 10:51pm

Tomlin has entered that Tony Dungy "when are you going to beat Belichick AND Brady in a game....then when are you going to beat them in the playoffs" phase and won't truly be accepted by Steelers fans until he does.

by justanothersteve :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 12:49am

There are several coaches who inherited situations as good as Tomlin did and didn't do as well. Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl then the Cowboys quickly fell apart. Ray Rhodes turned the Packers into a .500 team in Favre's prime. And look what recently happened in San Francisco.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 5:57am

I can't never even remember the name of the guy who took over the XXV Giants in 1991 after Parcells left

And I think it was Richie Petitbon who took over from Gibbs in Washington in 1993.

by Damon :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 9:45am

"I can't never even remember the name of the guy who took over the XXV Giants in 1991 after Parcells left"

Ray Handley

by Jerry :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 1:44am

I'll just quote myself from when Tomlin was hired, back before FO verified posters:

by Jerry (not verified) :: Mon, 01/22/2007 - 8:37pm

Give me a coach who will put his team in the playoffs every year and I'll take my chances on what happens in the post-season.

As far as the Tomlin hiring goes, it occurs to me that the Steelers are probably the only organization that conducts coaching searches in terms of "Can we see this guy still coaching here in 2020?" Not that Tomlin's guaranteed to achieve that, but it's an interesting approach to take.

by Independent George :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 6:37pm

Man, that takes me back. I remember a user name that displayed as "I Am the World's Greatest Lover(Not Verified)".

by Tomlin_Is_Infallible :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 4:19pm

ps, when is the new site going online?

The standard is the standard!

by Will Allen :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 6:15pm

Hey,Aaron, in my long standing effort to tell you what to do, it may be interesting to rank coaches since 1978 by average point differential per season, at least until, if ever, we have DVOA that goes back that far (I can't remember what year comprehensive play by play records began). Maybe the list would so closely match winning percentage as to be redundant, but it also might provide some insights.

Yes, this is a tacit admission that I"m too lazy to do it myself.

by Vincent Verhei :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 8:53pm

PFR uses a stat they call Simple Rating System, which is just average scoring margin adjusted for strength of schedule, that correlates very highly with DVOA. (I forget the exact correlation, but I'm pretty sure it's over .900.) Here are the average SRS numbers per season for some of the coaches mentioned in this thread:

Belichick: +6.5 (-0.5 with CLE, +8.5 with NE)
McCarthy: +5.3
Tomlin: +4.5
Carroll: +4.4 (-2.2 with NYJ, +3.8 with NE, +5.6 with SEA)
Reid: +4.0 (+3.2 with PHI, +6.6 with KC)
Bruce Arians: +3.5 (-4.7 with IND in 2012, when Arians coached 12 of 16 games, +5.6 with ARI)
Payton: +2.9

by Will Allen :: Sat, 08/05/2017 - 10:27pm

Thanks, I'll do some exploration; sounds interesting.

by stinkubus :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 2:44pm

Anyone who wants to argue that Tomlin only rides Ben's coattails has to contend with the fact that Ben has missed significant playing time over his career, including during several play off chases. The last time Pit made a Super Bowl Charlie Batch had to start the first four games and they went 3-1. If you're a fan then you know how badly Mike Vick struggled two years ago and the Steelers still managed to win some of those games. Overall the Steelers are about .500 w/o Ben during Tomlin's tenure, and considering they haven't had a running game or defense for all of those seasons (Pit hasn't had a legit D since 2010) or a servicable back up I'd say it's an accomplishment.

If anything has derailed the Steelers in his tenure it's been bad injury and suspension luck.

by t.d. :: Sun, 08/06/2017 - 6:39pm

...and coaching at the same time in the same conference as belicheck and brady. those pats don't let anybody have any fun

by RobotBoy :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 1:44am

Always felt like Tomlin coaches the same way Doc Rivers does. Not a great X's and O's guy and hands off but someone players respect and are comfortable with and who doesn't create problems where there aren't any. If that sounds like faint praise, well, look at how many coaches can't do those things.

by serutan :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 2:11pm

Now that the subject of Tomlin's coaching chops (or lack thereof) has been beaten into subatomic particles, we need to shift to the subject of whether GB's win percentage over the last 10 years is the signal for the End of Days.
Was wr

by justanothersteve :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 2:46pm

I'm curious why both Tomlin and McCarthy's time management clusters and in-game decisions are reasons for pointing out why they're not excellent coaches, while Andy Reid is considered an excellent coach who just has time management and decision issues.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 3:12pm

It's an interesting differentiation.

My guess is that Reid's four consecutive NFC Championship games at the start of his coaching career cemented a reputation as being good with some issues.

by theslothook :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 3:42pm

Ditto for his success with the Chiefs.

by Independent George :: Mon, 08/07/2017 - 7:57pm

Reid has demonstrated one skill that neither of the others have: he has consistently proven able to extract good performance out of marginal QB talents. For all his well-documented faults, one might plausibly argue that is also the single most difficult coaching skill in the NFL.

by BJR :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 10:00am

Yes, and beyond this are there even any HOF calibre players in any position that Reid has coached? Dawkins maybe? Half a year of TO? Berry or Houston may end up there but have a ways to go. He certainly hasn't benefited from obviously superior talent the way other coaches have.

by justanothersteve :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 12:02pm

McCarthy almost coached Matt Flynn to an upset of the Patriots at Foxboro in 2010. He also got better performances out of Flynn and Scott Tolzien in 2015 when Rodgers was injured than anyone else has gotten out of them. And his work with Rodgers, a #25 pick, was better than Reid's work to develop McNabb, a #2 pick. And as far as working with marginal QB talents, McCarthy made a starting QB out of Aaron Brooks while both were in New Orleans which may be one of the great QB coaching jobs of all time.

I can't speak for Tomlin. But someone else pointed out the Steelers have still won when Roethlisberger was sidelined, and he misses a fair number of games with injuries. So I'm still wondering why is Reid considered a better coach?

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 1:53pm

Seems to me that all the neutrals believe the three are good coaches with flaws.

So maybe it's that Steelers and Packers fans are used to winning Lombardi's and appearing in SBs and Tomlin and McCarthy have been a disappointment since 2010-11. Therefore their glass half-empty view is to find what's wrong with their coaches and believe they can do better.

Whereas Philly and Kansas fans have rarely tasted success and are grateful just to be in the playoffs and appreciate Reid for getting them that far. Let's not forget that Reid did eventually get fired from Philly.

Just guessing ...

by theslothook :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 2:54pm

The problem is - all these coaching flaws are coming to the forefront because all of these coaches don't have more than 1 sb to their credit. Somehow, these days it takes at least two superbowls to validate a run(since, apparently, winning one could have been dumb luck). You can see this with how sour everyone has become with Tomlin, McCarthy, Payton, and maybe Harbaugh(though he gets a huge pass since Joe Flacco is his qb). If the Seahawks don't win another sb, I wonder if the same will be said of Carrol and their overall run. All that talent and one superbowl.

Let us instead recognize the real elephant in the room - why do none of these teams have more than 1 superbowl. The answer? They don't have Tom Brady and they especially don't have Bill Belichick. He changes the calculus. Once you realize that is the reason, you tend to have a more positive view of all these other coaches.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 3:30pm

Yeah great summary.

Take out the Pats and the league is very even. Any given Sunday and all that.

The NFC has a different representative almost every year. Their only double winner of the past 15 years or so is Tom Coughlin and he has the same regular season record as Jeff Fisher! Pete Carroll is the only other NFC coach to reach two SBs since 2000.

by Independent George :: Tue, 08/08/2017 - 8:48pm

Heck, let's look at the full list of every HC to even make it to a Super Bowl since 2000. How many can we really say don't have any significant flaws?

Belichick (2016, 2014, 2011, 2007, 2004, 2003, 2001)
Quinn (2016)
Kubiak (2015)
Rivera (2015)
Carroll (2014, 2013)
Fox (2013, 2003)
John Harbaugh (2012)
Jim Harbaugh (2012)
Coughlin (2011, 2007)
McCarthy (2010)
Tomlin (2010, 2008)
Caldwell (2009)
Payton (2009)
Whisenhunt (2008)
Dungy (2006)
Cowher (2005)
Holmgren (2005)
Reid (2004)
Gruden (2002)
Callahan (2002)
Marz (2001)
Fischer (2000)
Vermeil (2000)

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 2:08am

"How many can we really say don't have any significant flaws?" -

Answer - only one.

Seriously, is there another coach in any sport that has this kind of ability? I can think of only one other true rival to Belichick and his name is Popavich.

by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 8:29am

Alex Ferguson (now retired). Man Utd finished top 2 of the Premier League almost every year. Lots of other teams came and went in the meantime, as did his players. The team collapsed from being champions by 9-pts to 7th place finish after he left.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 8:57am

He's 83 now, and stopped coaching in 2002, but since he had very important front office jobs for 4 Stanley Cup winners since then, with two different teams, meaning he has a total of 14 cups on his resume, 9 as head coach, I'm going to recognize Scotty Bowman. In fact, given that hockey has so much randomness with regard to champions, it being so often determined by the hot goaltender,Bowman's achievement may be underrated.

by ChrisS :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 10:33am

As a Red Wings fan that name is the first one to come to mind as well. And before he screwed the Pooch in NY perhaps Phil Jackson.

by Independent George :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 11:07am

The Knicks don't count. That's the equivalent of Belichick working for Snyder.

I would add John Wooden.

by nat :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 11:58am

Belichick working for Snyder

I'm pretty sure that scenario is mentioned in Revelations as a harbinger of the End Times.

by Independent George :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 6:29pm

And a red horse did appear
whose rider is Dan
and is crowned in feathers
And Bill did follow him

For Dan brought forth gold
and shed much blood
to summon forth Bill
to lead his legions

But then great strife
did tear the legions apart
As Dan did then exile
Bill's favored captain

And Bill selected another
Whom Dan did then smite
and chose one himself
unknown to Bill or others

by Will Allen :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 12:26pm

Well, if we are going to include the fully retired or deceased, then you bring in the likes of Auerbach and Lombardi. If Len Bias stays away from cocaine, Red may well have had his fingerprints all over, who knows, 18 or 19 championships in 35 plus years, instead of 16 in 30. If Lombardi had been given 5 more years of health, I think there's a decent chance he ends up with 7 championships in 15 years, with two formerly horrible teams, instead of 5 in 10, with one formerly horrible team. Lombardi wasn't like George Allen, too reliant on old players. I think it likely he would have made the good D.C. teams of the first half of the 70s substantially better.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 1:34pm

Lombardi's era was also less sophisticated and the number of teams was much smaller.

Ditto for Auerbach and those teams were made of hall of famers.

Phil is a complicated case. I can buy it I suppose, but Popovich seems to have done a better job. Remember, San Antonio is built almost entirely through team play and culture. Ok, Tim Duncan is transcendent, but those teams weren't always Tim Duncan Led. By the time the 2010 period rolled around - they were a whirling machine of attack and slice and spread. They keep winning 60 games in perpetuity it seems, regardless of who is on the roster. No Kawhi? No problem.

Ok, Belichick has Brady and that undeniably helps him. He would not sniff 5 championship) without Brady. Still, there are mitigating factors to consider.

Even if Brady gets unanimous credit for the Patriots pass game; the Patriots still:
1) nearly always field excellent special teams. For a unit thats hugely volatile, their consistent excellence is insane.
2) nearly always field dominant run games - another aspect of team play thats highly volatile. Most underrated aspect of their dynasty that almost no on ever talks about.
3) fields defenses without ace pass rushers or even particularly dominant set of defensive players manning the secondary and usually get competent results- practically unheard in today's nfl
4) fields consistently good offensive lines(when not decimated by injuries). Ask any fan of Seattle, Arizona, Minnesota, or practically the entire league how easy this feat is.

by nat :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 2:40pm

2) nearly always field dominant run games - another aspect of team play that's highly volatile. Most underrated aspect of their dynasty that almost no on ever talks about.
It doesn't get talked about because it isn't true.

You could fairly say that their run game consistently fails to suck, often is quite good, and once in a while manages to be dominant...

...which is what you can get when you build your run game around scheme, blocking skill, and a strong passing attack, rather than around a hot-shot RB.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 2:57pm

That's a reasonable summary. I am particularly impressed by an 8 year stretch where they finished in the top 10 in run dvoa. Most of the time, they average no worse than 16th.

Is that a product of the pass game? Maybe, but I've run correlations on pass offense and run offense. One may object about correlation and causation, but the fact that the relationship seems weak suggests its not a simply a function of a great passing attack - which you sort of concede.

Anyways - the point was to give the Patriots there due on this. Its an accomplishment that hasn't been seen in looking at DVOA from any team.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 3:37pm

I am puzzled that a talent evaluator would be given a demerit for loading his roster with Hall of Famers. Red Auerbach track record is strengthened by trading Joe Barry Carroll for Robert Parrish and Kevin McHale, and for drafting Russell, Havlicek, etc..

Ultimately. I usually try to avoid GOAT debates, because the urge is to pretend to be able to make fine discernments that really aren't warranted.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 8:59pm

Is greg Seifert a better coach with the 49ers than he was with the Panthers? If i went by record and number of hall of famers- the answer would say he was Bill Belichick and then turned into Greg Schiano

by Will Allen :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 10:50pm

That's why it is a mistake to divide the sample into smaller samples. The record is the record, to be evaluated as a whole.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/09/2017 - 11:22pm

But what does it tell you of him as a coach. You can read the evidence two ways. Either hes useless and its only talent. Or hes good when he has talent and no good when he has none. Or he elevated a hall of fame team into the stratosphere and elevated the worst team ever into just garden variety horrible.

We can't know from just wins and losses.

by Will Allen :: Thu, 08/10/2017 - 12:09am

You can't get a large enough sample to have slightest idea what it is telling you, and you are better off simply acknowledging that, as opposed to allowing your confirmation bias to convince yourself that you "know" something that you can't possibly know.

by Will Allen :: Thu, 08/10/2017 - 12:10am


by mrt1212 :: Sat, 08/12/2017 - 3:18pm

And yet, he also actively subverts his team's chances worse than other coaches in his orbit.