The Schottenheimer Index (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/wordpress/?p=242

In the comments to The Dungy Index, Pat requested a different sort of coaching index. Today we’re going to analyze post-season coaching records from another angle, by predicting how many post-season wins a coach or team should have based on their number of regular season victories*.

To start with, we need to break the modern era into three sections. From 1970 to 1977**, the NFL had an eight team playoff field, and a fourteen game schedule. In 1978 the NFL expanded the regular season to 16 games and the post-season tournament to ten teams. In 1982 and 1987, the NFL did not have 16 game regular seasons, so I’ve omitted the strike seasons from the data***. In 1990, the NFL again expanded the playoff field by two teams, and since then 12 teams have made the playoffs each year. In 2002 the NFL realignment changed the ordering of the playoff teams, but I’ve decided to ignore that small change for the purpose of this post. The added specificity isn’t very probative, and unnecessarily reduces our sample size.

*The normal formula for victories is Wins + (Ties/2), since the NFL counts a

tie as half a win. Here, I'm just using actual wins, which essentially equates a tie to

a loss.

**From 1970 to 1975, the home team was chosen randomly, and not by best record.

This should be kept in mind when analyzing those coaching performances.

***Yes, I know Redskins fans have a legitimate beef with this, since I'm erasing

two of Joe Gibbs' Super Bowls. My apologies, and I'll address this later.

The Early Years: 1970-1977

RW is the number of regular season wins, PW is the number of playoff wins, #TM is the number of teams that made the playoffs with that number of regular season wins, and AvgPW is the average number of playoff wins for teams with that number of regular season wins.

RW PW #TM AvgPW 8 1 3 0.33 9 3 8 0.3810 18 27 0.6711 13 14 0.9312 15 10 1.5013 3 1 3.0014 3 1 3.00So what coaches exceeded expectations the most? Below is the list of coaches from the early period, with both their actual and expected (based on regular season record) number of wins.

Coach			   ActW   ExpW   DiffTom Landry			12	6	+6.0Chuck Noll			 8	5	+3.2Don McCafferty		 4	2	+2.4Don Shula			  8	7	+1.2Dick Nolan			 2	1	+0.6Red Miller			 2	2	+0.5John Madden			8	8	+0.3Jack Pardee			0	0	-0.4Lou Saban			  0	0	-0.4Bud Grant			  7	7	-0.4Dan Devine			 0	1	-0.7Hank Stram			 0	1	-0.7Joe Schmidt			0	1	-0.7Chuck Fairbanks		0	1	-0.9Nick Skorich		   0	1	-1.0George Allen		   2	3	-1.3Don Coryell			0	2	-1.6Paul Brown			 0	2	-1.9Chuck Knox			 3	5	-2.0Ted Marchibroda		0	2	-2.3

The Middle Years: 1978-1989

RW	PW	#TM	AvgPW 8	  0	 2	0.00 9	 11	17	0.6510	13	27	0.4811	19	23	0.8312	25	21	1.1913	 3	 2	1.5014	13	 6	2.1715	 6	 2	3.00

And the coaches:

Coach				ActW   ExpW  DiffBill Walsh			 10	6	+3.6Tom Flores			  7	4	+3.0Chuck Noll			  8	5	+2.9Bum Phillips			4	2	+1.9Raymond Berry		   3	2	+1.3George Seifert		  3	2	+0.8Sam Wyche			   2	1	+0.8Forrest Gregg		   2	1	+0.8Bill Parcells		   5	4	+0.5Bud Carson			  1	1	+0.4Ray Perkins			 1	1	+0.4Ray Malavasi			3	3	+0.3John Robinson		   4	4	+0.3Chuck Knox			  4	4	+0.2Dan Reeves			  4	4	+0.2Jerry Glanville		 1	1	-0.1John McKay			  1	1	-0.1Dick Vermeil			3	3	-0.1Joe Gibbs			   4	4	-0.2Joe Walton			  1	1	-0.3Jerry Burns			 1	1	-0.3John Mackovic		   0	0	-0.5Walt Michaels		   0	0	-0.5Neill Armstrong		 0	0	-0.5Don Coryell			 2	2	-0.5Monte Clark			 0	1	-0.6Bud Grant			   0	1	-0.6Marty Schottenheimer	1	2	-0.7Sam Rutigliano		  0	1	-0.8Bullough/Erhardt		0	1	-0.8Marv Levy			   1	2	-0.8Leeman Bennett		  1	2	-0.8Red Miller			  0	1	-1.0Tom Landry			  5	6	-1.1Buddy Ryan			  0	1	-1.3Mike Ditka			  5	7	-1.8Don Shula			   3	7	-3.7

The Later Years: 1990-2006

RW	PW	#TM	AvgPW8	  2	 7	0.299	 15	34	0.4410	26	51	0.5111	45	43	1.0512	44.5  33	1.3513	33.5  23	1.4614	19	11	1.7315	 2	 2	1.00

Note: The Colts and Bears have each been given a half win for their Super Bowl berth.How do the most recent coaches look?

Coach ActW ExpW DiffBill Belichick 13 7 +5.6Jimmy Johnson 9 5 +3.8Marv Levy 10 6 +3.7John Fox 5 2 +2.9Mike Holmgren 12 9 +2.8Joe Gibbs 6 3 +2.8Bill Cowher 12 9 +2.5Barry Switzer 5 3 +1.8Ted Marchibroda 2 0 +1.6Andy Reid 8 7 +1.2Brian Billick 5 4 +1.2Bill Callahan 2 1 +1.0Jon Gruden 5 4 +0.7Mike Tice 1 0 +0.7Bill Parcells 6 5 +0.7Vince Tobin 1 0 +0.6Sam Wyche 1 0 +0.6Sean Payton 1 1 +0.5Jim Haslett 1 1 +0.5Norv Turner 1 1 +0.5Jerry Glanville 1 1 +0.5Dan Reeves 5 5 +0.4Herman Edwards 2 2 +0.1Dick Vermeil 3 3 +0.1Pete Carroll 1 1 0.0Lovie Smith 2.5 3 0.0Ray Rhodes 1 1 0.0Jim Mora Jr. 1 1 0.0Rich Kotite 1 1 0.0Mike Shanahan 8 8 -0.1Bobby Ross 3 3 -0.3Bruce Coslet 0 0 -0.3Tony Dungy 8.5 9 -0.3Art Shell 2 2 -0.3Jeff Fisher 5 5 -0.3Don Shula 3 3 -0.3Dom Capers 1 1 -0.3Jim Fassel 2 2 -0.4Butch Davis 0 0 -0.4Lindy Infante 0 0 -0.4June Jones 0 0 -0.4Eric Mangini 0 1 -0.5Buddy Ryan 0 1 -0.5Dave Wannstedt 2 3 -0.5Chan Gailey 0 1 -0.8George Seifert 7 8 -0.8Mike Martz 3 4 -0.9Marvin Lewis 0 1 -1.0Mike Ditka 1 2 -1.1Jack Del Rio 0 1 -1.3Dennis Green 4 5 -1.4Dick Jauron 0 1 -1.5Tom Coughlin 4 6 -1.6Steve Mariucci 3 5 -1.7Mike Sherman 2 4 -1.7Wayne Fontes 1 3 -1.8Wade Phillips 0 2 -2.0Jack Pardee 1 3 -2.3Jim Mora 0 5 -4.6Marty Schottenheimer 3 10 -6.5Now, several coaches span the three eras, so we need to compile a career list. To avoid staring at 100 coaches, only coaches with at least 4 expected playoff wins are included:

Coach				ActW   ExpW   DiffChuck Noll			 16	10	+6.1Bill Belichick		 13	7	 +5.6Tom Landry			 17	12	+4.9Jimmy Johnson		   9	5	 +3.8Bill Walsh			 10	6	 +3.6Tom Flores			  7	4	 +3.0Marv Levy			  11	8	 +2.8Mike Holmgren		  12	9	 +2.8Joe Gibbs			  10	7	 +2.6Bill Cowher			12	9	 +2.5Andy Reid			   8	7	 +1.2Bill Parcells		  11	10	+1.2Jon Gruden			  5	4	 +0.7Dan Reeves			  9	8	 +0.6John Madden			 8	8	 +0.3George Seifert		 10	10	 0.0Mike Shanahan		   8	8	 -0.1Dick Vermeil			6	6	 -0.1Tony Dungy			  8.5  9	 -0.3Jeff Fisher			 5	5	 -0.3Bud Grant			   7	8	 -1.0Dennis Green			4	5	 -1.4Tom Coughlin			4	6	 -1.6Steve Mariucci		  3	5	 -1.7Chuck Knox			  7	9	 -1.8Don Coryell			 2	4	 -2.1Don Shula			  14	17	-2.8Mike Ditka			  6	9	 -2.9Jim Mora				0	5	 -4.6Marty Schottenheimer	4	11	-7.2

Now let me try and appease our Joe Gibbs fans. The 1982 Redskins went 8-1, which is close to 14-2. So we might want to give him 2.17 expected wins in 1982, except there was an additional round of the playoffs that year. That extra game was against the 4-5 Detroit Lions, so I don’t want to give Gibbs too much credit here. Let’s give him 3 expected wins with an 8-1 Redskins team, and since he won four playoff games that year, he should have one extra win in the “Diff” column.The 1987 Redskins went 11-4, but won all three games with replacement players. We should probably put them at 8-4, which we’ll make equivalent to 0.71 expected wins. Since Gibbs won three games, that’s an extra 2.3 wins for him. So while Gibbs is listed at +2.6, it’s probably fairer to place him at 5.9, which is right behind Chuck Noll for tops on the list.

General Thoughts

One problem here is sample size. Only two teams in the middle era made the playoffs with 8 wins, and neither won a game. Only two teams in the early era won thirteen or more games, and both won the Super Bowl. So John Madden and Don Shula get no credit for winning a Super Bowl since they were the only teams with those number of wins in the era, while Marty Schottenheimer and Bud Grant catch a break since the other coach also lost his playoff game with 8 wins. Note: this may be the only time I’ve ever seen it written that Schottenheimer or Grant caught a break.

Still, the data only has two real blips, when teams with more regular season wins are expected to have fewer post-season wins than teams with fewer regular season wins. Teams with ten wins in the middle years didn’t fare very well, and to the extent that a coach had several ten win seasons over that period, he’s probably not punished enough for his post-season losses (and he’s overcompensated for his post-season wins). The other blip is in the recent era, where only two teams had fifteen wins, and both teams went one and done. Based on the expected wins trend for 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 win teams, I think we’d be better off expecting 2.00 wins from teams that win 15 games than 1.00 wins. So you might want to subtract one win in the “Diff” column from Dennis Green and Bill Cowher.

If you do that, you might notice that before last year, Bill Cowher would have 1.5 fewer actual post-season wins than we’d expect. Of course, last year he won four games in the post-season en route to a Super Bowl victory. That’s not very surprising, though, because I don’t think there’s much value to any of the above data. Playoff numbers are overvalued, because the results mean so much more to fans, and the sample sizes are incredibly small. As a result, grandiose statements that aren’t statistically significant, are made. I don’t believe Bill Cowher changed anything in going from a “bad” post-season coach to tying the (Joe Gibbs) record for most post-season wins in 2005.

Which brings me to my last point. In addition to thinking the data doesn’t have much predictive value, I’m not sure it has any value at all. We might look at Marty Schottenheimer’s -7.2 rating and conclude that he’s a much better regular season coach than playoff coach. We could say that Chuck Noll was a much better playoff coach than regular season coach, as evidenced by his +6.1 rating. And the data would support that. But we could just as strongly argue that Marty Schottenheimer gets the most out of average players in the regular season, but in the playoffs, coaching talent is much less important than player talent. Conversely, one could state that Chuck Noll couldn’t reach his players, was a terrible coach, but because of how talented his team was, they always won in the post-season.

You might like the former theory better than the latter, but let’s be clear: the data equally support both theories. To suggest that coaching ability matters more than player ability in the playoffs, or vice versa, is purely speculative, and not proven by anything presented here.

 

[Gr00vus]

So you've again validated that Marty doesn't win playoff games (for whatever reason) to a (much) greater extent than anyone you analyzed.

At what point do you (in general, notChase specifically) stop looking for reasons and just accept that and maybe go in a less predictable direction in attempt to get a playoff win?

But here's the thing that doesn't get mentioned much in the Marty bashing threads. So far, the teams he's left after getting to the playoffs haven't exceeded their performance while he was there after he was gone - to this day in fact. Cle, KC, WAS have not exactly made much noise in the playoffs once they cast off Marty - in Cle's case I don't think they even made it back into the playoffs. Hmmmm.......

 

[The_Man]

Sport Magazine actually did a cover story similar to this back in the late 80s, in which they ranked the coaches whose win-loss records most greatly exceeded what could have been "expected." Although I think the way they came up with a team's "expected" record was by looking at the previous year's record and then estimating how many the team "should" have won the next year.

Gibbs actually came out on top in that survey and I think it was kind of a surprise because he hadn't won a second Super Bowl yet. John Madden was also very highly rated, as was Tom Landry.

EDIT TO ADD:

Amazing what you can find on the Internet. Here's that issue of Sport magazine.

Though it was Feb. 1988, so Gibbs had actually just won his second Super Bowl.

 

[BGP]

Wait, Gibbs went 3-0 with a bunch of replacement players, and that is a negative to you? I would think the biggest challenge of fielding an entire team on the fly would be getting them all on the same page and playing at some sort of consistent level. Gibbs did that. Getting consistent performance like that is a MAJOR plus, not a minus, imo.

Quite possibly in those 3 games, he did his best job of coaching ever.

 

[redman]

Interesting study, Chase. It would also be interesting to see how far each coach goes based upon playoff seeding, versus the average. Gibbs is tough to evaluate using your system, but I think your normalizing of the data is both fair and reflective of the reality.

So you've again validated that Marty doesn't win playoff games (for whatever reason) to a (much) greater extent than anyone you analyzed.At what point do you (in general, notChase specifically) stop looking for reasons and just accept that and maybe go in a less predictable direction in attempt to get a playoff win?But here's the thing that doesn't get mentioned much in the Marty bashing threads. So far, the teams he's left after getting to the playoffs haven't exceeded their performance while he was there after he was gone - to this day in fact. Cle, KC, WAS have not exactly made much noise in the playoffs once they cast off Marty - in Cle's case I don't think they even made it back into the playoffs. Hmmmm.......

Marty went 8-8 with Washington and they didn't make the playoffs that year. While it's true that they've not played that well since with a below .500 record, they do have a playoff appearance since then with a post-season win. With Washington, anyway, the sample size seems too small to evaluate in this fashion.

 

[redman]

Wait, Gibbs went 3-0 with a bunch of replacement players, and that is a negative to you? I would think the biggest challenge of fielding an entire team on the fly would be getting them all on the same page and playing at some sort of consistent level. Gibbs did that. Getting consistent performance like that is a MAJOR plus, not a minus, imo.Quite possibly in those 3 games, he did his best job of coaching ever.

The last of those three wins was with replacements over (mostly) Cowboys starters too. The real hero of the strike wins for Washington though was Beathard, who anticipated the strike and had a plan in place beforehand to scoop up the best personnel he could find off of the street. Most other teams were caught flat-footed.

 

[Gr00vus]

Marty went 8-8 with Washington and they didn't make the playoffs that year. While it's true that they've not played that well since with a below .500 record, they do have a playoff appearance since then with a post-season win. With Washington, anyway, the sample size seems too small to evaluate in this fashion.

My bad. Shows you how much I've been following the Skins recently.

 

[BGP]

Marty went 8-8 with Washington and they didn't make the playoffs that year. While it's true that they've not played that well since with a below .500 record, they do have a playoff appearance since then with a post-season win. With Washington, anyway, the sample size seems too small to evaluate in this fashion.

The NFL has chronically-low sample sizes. With the data that I use to compare teams at playoff time, my focus has always been on casting a pretty wide net. This year for example the final conclusion of my data is that either the Patriots, Ravens, or Bears should be Super Bowl Champs. But the data itself doesn't really go beyond that and nail one down.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Wait, Gibbs went 3-0 with a bunch of replacement players, and that is a negative to you? I would think the biggest challenge of fielding an entire team on the fly would be getting them all on the same page and playing at some sort of consistent level. Gibbs did that. Getting consistent performance like that is a MAJOR plus, not a minus, imo.

Quite possibly in those 3 games, he did his best job of coaching ever.

I'm not sure you understood the point of the study. Regardless of whether Gibbs did an excellent job coaching the players, this is a study on post-season success. If a team went 14-2, that's "a negative" in your terms because they're expected to win more games. A team that goes 9-7 is "a positive" in these terms as well, because even one win and the coach will be getting a bump up the list.The reason I removed the strike player's from the data is because they didn't play in the playoffs. The roster that Gibbs brought to the post-season went 8-4, and that's much more relevant to figuring out how that team would do in the playoffs than the replacement players going 3-0. But it's not a negative at all for Gibbs, because if I used 11-4 instead of 8-4, Gibbs' '87 team would have been expected to have more playoff wins, and thus his rating would go down.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So you've again validated that Marty doesn't win playoff games (for whatever reason) to a (much) greater extent than anyone you analyzed.At what point do you (in general, notChase specifically) stop looking for reasons and just accept that and maybe go in a less predictable direction in attempt to get a playoff win?

When you have reason to think that the correlation is representative of some causation. Don Shula and Mike Ditka won Super Bowls, and are at the bottom of the list too. If the theory that coaching matters more in the regular season than player ability, and in the post-season player ability comes to the forefront, then getting Marty more talented players would seem to be the solution. (This is all hypothetical, of course, because we can't get Schottenheimer's Cleveland teams more talented players. He only had one playoff game last year, and we can't base anything off of that. Especially since it appeared that Schottenheimer did a good job of coaching up that team that game.)

 

[BGP]

Wait, Gibbs went 3-0 with a bunch of replacement players, and that is a negative to you? I would think the biggest challenge of fielding an entire team on the fly would be getting them all on the same page and playing at some sort of consistent level. Gibbs did that. Getting consistent performance like that is a MAJOR plus, not a minus, imo.

Quite possibly in those 3 games, he did his best job of coaching ever.

I'm not sure you understood the point of the study. Regardless of whether Gibbs did an excellent job coaching the players, this is a study on post-season success. If a team went 14-2, that's "a negative" in your terms because they're expected to win more games. A team that goes 9-7 is "a positive" in these terms as well, because even one win and the coach will be getting a bump up the list.The reason I removed the strike player's from the data is because they didn't play in the playoffs. The roster that Gibbs brought to the post-season went 8-4, and that's much more relevant to figuring out how that team would do in the playoffs than the replacement players going 3-0. But it's not a negative at all for Gibbs, because if I used 11-4 instead of 8-4, Gibbs' '87 team would have been expected to have more playoff wins, and thus his rating would go down.

Ok, I can see I misunderstood that one. My mistake.

 

[Gr00vus]

Don Shula and Mike Ditka won Super Bowls, and are at the bottom of the list too.

But Marty's sucktitude index (to coin a phrase) is more than twice that of Ditka or Shula. The magnitude of Marty's sucktitude is greater than the magnitude of greatness of the best ranked coach (Knoll). Marty seems to be in nearly his own strata in this index. Also in Ditka's case I'm not sure that it wasn't the talent that got him SB moreso than his coaching ability (I don't think Ditka was any great shakes as a coach), so is he a favorable comparison to Marty? This year's Charger team was a very talented squad, so the getting him more skilled players idea doesn't hold water this season at least.

 

[BGP]

When you have reason to think that the correlation is representative of some causation. Don Shula and Mike Ditka won Super Bowls, and are at the bottom of the list too. If the theory that coaching matters more in the regular season than player ability, and in the post-season player ability comes to the forefront, then getting Marty more talented players would seem to be the solution.

Where did you get the theory that player ability matters more in the postseaason than in the regular season?

 

[Chase Stuart]

This year's Charger team was a very talented squad, so the getting him more skilled players idea doesn't hold water this season at least.

I'd say his receivers and punt returner could use some hands. I think Schottenheimer did a fine job coaching in that game, and Schottenheimer and co. (this includes his staff -- I'm not sure how to apportion credit) outcoached Belichick and co.The Patriots couldn't stop LT, and the Chargers shut down Brady. The Patriots didn't rattle the untested QB, who kept finding open receivers (that would drop the ball) most of the game. The Patriots running game never got started.Some of the individual decisions were head scratchers (4th and 11, maybe the challenge), but that's not why the Chargers lost the game. In addition to the Chargers players losing the game, there was a lot of freak luck in that one too. If it had been Belichick coaching the Chargers, you can be sure no one would have blamed him for that loss. Conversely, if Schottenheimer came out of a timeout with 12 men in the huddle in the final minutes of the AFCC game, you can be sure that he would have been villified.Personally, I think Schottenheimer's track record is excellent. I'm not sure what to make about his poor playoff record. People get on him for the Nate Kaeding kick against the Jets, but that's only because he missed. Andy Reid did the same thing with David Akers from farther away in much worse weather against the Giants, and nobody says a peep.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When you have reason to think that the correlation is representative of some causation. Don Shula and Mike Ditka won Super Bowls, and are at the bottom of the list too. If the theory that coaching matters more in the regular season than player ability, and in the post-season player ability comes to the forefront, then getting Marty more talented players would seem to be the solution.

Where did you get the theory that player ability matters more in the postseaason than in the regular season?

I pulled it out of thin air, right next to the theory that coaching ability matters more in the post-season than the regular season. (If that latter theory isn't true, I don't know how Schottenheimer can be called anything but a great coach, since he's a terrific regular season coach). I've yet to see any data showing that coaching matters more in the regular season than the playoffs, that player ability matters more in the regular season than the playoffs, or that prior playoff performance is a better indicator of future playoff performance than prior regular season performance.

 

[BGP]

I'd say his receivers and punt returner could use some hands. I think Schottenheimer did a fine job coaching in that game, and Schottenheimer and co. (this includes his staff -- I'm not sure how to apportion credit) outcoached Belichick and co.The Patriots couldn't stop LT, and the Chargers shut down Brady. The Patriots didn't rattle the untested QB, who kept finding open receivers (that would drop the ball) most of the game. The Patriots running game never got started.Some of the individual decisions were head scratchers (4th and 11, maybe the challenge), but that's not why the Chargers lost the game. In addition to the Chargers players losing the game, there was a lot of freak luck in that one too.

As a Browns fan that has closely watched Belichick teams in the past, I disagree with this assessment of the Charger game. Belichick purposefully consutrcts football teams that are thugs. His goal is to intimidate and otherwise cause the opponent to commit mistakes. Belichick wants to win UGLY. And that's usually what his games are like. That game played out like a typical Belichick game. That was what he wanted by design, imho.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd say his receivers and punt returner could use some hands. I think Schottenheimer did a fine job coaching in that game, and Schottenheimer and co. (this includes his staff -- I'm not sure how to apportion credit) outcoached Belichick and co.The Patriots couldn't stop LT, and the Chargers shut down Brady. The Patriots didn't rattle the untested QB, who kept finding open receivers (that would drop the ball) most of the game. The Patriots running game never got started.Some of the individual decisions were head scratchers (4th and 11, maybe the challenge), but that's not why the Chargers lost the game. In addition to the Chargers players losing the game, there was a lot of freak luck in that one too.

As a Browns fan that has closely watched Belichick teams in the past, I disagree with this assessment of the Charger game. Belichick purposefully consutrcts football teams that are thugs. His goal is to intimidate and otherwise cause the opponent to commit mistakes. Belichick wants to win UGLY. And that's usually what his games are like. That game played out like a typical Belichick game. That was what he wanted by design, imho.

If Brown doesn't force that fumble, the Patriots lose.If the Chargers get a first down late in the game, the Patriots lose.I think an argument could be made that in the regular season, New England was a better team than San Diego this year, because they had a much harder schedule and beat many more tough teams. I don't think New England was the better team against the Chargers, and I think if the Chargers didn't play so poorly it could have been a blowout. (See the thread on the million mistakes by the Chargers). There were two or three other easy picks that were dropped. The Patriots played hard and took advantage of many mistakes, but I don't see how you could have come out of that game impressed with the Patriots coaching.The personal foul calls also hurt San Diego, but you can't say that's because Marty's a bad coach. Ellis Hobbs did the exact same thing but the officials just missed it later.

 

[BGP]

I'd say his receivers and punt returner could use some hands. I think Schottenheimer did a fine job coaching in that game, and Schottenheimer and co. (this includes his staff -- I'm not sure how to apportion credit) outcoached Belichick and co.The Patriots couldn't stop LT, and the Chargers shut down Brady. The Patriots didn't rattle the untested QB, who kept finding open receivers (that would drop the ball) most of the game. The Patriots running game never got started.Some of the individual decisions were head scratchers (4th and 11, maybe the challenge), but that's not why the Chargers lost the game. In addition to the Chargers players losing the game, there was a lot of freak luck in that one too.

As a Browns fan that has closely watched Belichick teams in the past, I disagree with this assessment of the Charger game. Belichick purposefully consutrcts football teams that are thugs. His goal is to intimidate and otherwise cause the opponent to commit mistakes. Belichick wants to win UGLY. And that's usually what his games are like. That game played out like a typical Belichick game. That was what he wanted by design, imho.

If Brown doesn't force that fumble, the Patriots lose.If the Chargers get a first down late in the game, the Patriots lose.I think an argument could be made that in the regular season, New England was a better team than San Diego this year, because they had a much harder schedule and beat many more tough teams. I don't think New England was the better team against the Chargers, and I think if the Chargers didn't play so poorly it could have been a blowout. (See the thread on the million mistakes by the Chargers). There were two or three other easy picks that were dropped. The Patriots played hard and took advantage of many mistakes, but I don't see how you could have come out of that game impressed with the Patriots coaching.The personal foul calls also hurt San Diego, but you can't say that's because Marty's a bad coach. Ellis Hobbs did the exact same thing but the officials just missed it later.

I think the Patriots' defense is well-trained. They are awesome at tackling. They hit hard. They get in your face. Its not hard for me to imagine that the Chargers' offense would feel intimidated or frustrated. In fact, I've seen Belichick's playstyle do that quite a bit to opponents. So yes I give the coaching the credit.

 

[Gr00vus]

I'd say his receivers and punt returner could use some hands. I think Schottenheimer did a fine job coaching in that game, and Schottenheimer and co. (this includes his staff -- I'm not sure how to apportion credit) outcoached Belichick and co.The Patriots couldn't stop LT, and the Chargers shut down Brady. The Patriots didn't rattle the untested QB, who kept finding open receivers (that would drop the ball) most of the game. The Patriots running game never got started.Some of the individual decisions were head scratchers (4th and 11, maybe the challenge), but that's not why the Chargers lost the game. In addition to the Chargers players losing the game, there was a lot of freak luck in that one too.

As a Browns fan that has closely watched Belichick teams in the past, I disagree with this assessment of the Charger game. Belichick purposefully consutrcts football teams that are thugs. His goal is to intimidate and otherwise cause the opponent to commit mistakes. Belichick wants to win UGLY. And that's usually what his games are like. That game played out like a typical Belichick game. That was what he wanted by design, imho.

I disagree. San Diego beat the Pats up, they definitely out physicaled the Pats, and I think it cost the Pats the AFC Championship as they were too worn out (especially the defense) along with possibly being flu ridden to close out the game against the Colts. In the divisional game the Chargers way outthugged the Pats, but the Pats outsmarted the Chargers.

 

[Gr00vus]

This year's Charger team was a very talented squad, so the getting him more skilled players idea doesn't hold water this season at least.

I'd say his receivers and punt returner could use some hands.

Sure, but top to bottom I'm certain there wasn't a more talented roster than SD this year, and I think they were in fact the most talented overall.

I think Schottenheimer did a fine job coaching in that game, and Schottenheimer and co. (this includes his staff -- I'm not sure how to apportion credit) outcoached Belichick and co.The Patriots couldn't stop LT

I have a problem with these two ideas, I think they conflict. I agree the Pats couldn't stop LaDainian. I disagree that Marty and the coaching staff did a good job because LaDainian didn't get the ball enough, especially in the second half, especially at the end of the game. He touched the ball something like 9 times in the 2nd half. Not getting the ball, and I mean forcing it to him if necessary, to the best player in the NFL this season with everything on the line is a gigantic, unforgivable coaching error. Ergo I think Marty did not do a fine job in that game mainly for this reason, but also for a few other ones. Having talent on the squad, Marty (coaches) made the least of it possible, and lost. Belichick gave his most talented player (Brady) every opportunity (51 passing attempts!) and won. The Chargers/Marty definitely had some bad breaks, but they could have overcome them if they just gave LaDainian the damn ball.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This year's Charger team was a very talented squad, so the getting him more skilled players idea doesn't hold water this season at least.

I'd say his receivers and punt returner could use some hands.

Sure, but top to bottom I'm certain there wasn't a more talented roster than SD this year, and I think they were in fact the most talented overall.

I think Schottenheimer did a fine job coaching in that game, and Schottenheimer and co. (this includes his staff -- I'm not sure how to apportion credit) outcoached Belichick and co.The Patriots couldn't stop LT

I have a problem with these two ideas, I think they conflict. I agree the Pats couldn't stop LaDainian. I disagree that Marty and the coaching staff did a good job because LaDainian didn't get the ball enough, especially in the second half, especially at the end of the game. He touched the ball something like 9 times in the 2nd half. Not getting the ball, and I mean forcing it to him if necessary, to the best player in the NFL this season with everything on the line is a gigantic, unforgivable coaching error. Ergo I think Marty did not do a fine job in that game mainly for this reason, but also for a few other ones. Having talent on the squad, Marty (coaches) made the least of it possible, and lost.

Marty doesn't call the plays, though.Either way, I've got no interest in nit-picking through specific plays here. Even if we agree that the Chargers were the most talented team in the NFL, the most talented team wins the Super Bowl less than 25% of the time.

 

[pettifogger]

Seems hard to me to compare across eras. Before the salary cap the spread of talent from top to bottom was much wider. This would affect in season W/L. Post season, with expanded palayoffs, there are a lot more teams just over .500 sneaking in now and an extra round to pad up records.

As for Marty, when he lost a couple of playoff games in KC with Montana at QB I bought into the "he's not a good playoff coach" notion and he has not changed my mind since.

But, maybe a better way to test this would be to compare records against point spreads published before the games (to see which teams outperformed expectations) or to use seasonal points scored and points against for each team in each playoff game to see who has exceeded expectations.

 

[Gr00vus]

Marty doesn't call the plays, though.Either way, I've got no interest in nit-picking through specific plays here. Even if we agree that the Chargers were the most talented team in the NFL, the most talented team wins the Super Bowl less than 25% of the time.

At some point you need to use your head coaching perogative and tell Cam to get LaDainian the ball - it's great to revel in taking your hands off the wheel, and it was needed to a good extent this year, but at the end of the day the trainwreck is yours and if you can do something to avert it as HC you need to do it. He didn't.I can't speak to your Super Bowl win/talent percentage (where do you get that number from), but regardless we're talking about playoff wins, not just Super Bowl wins. More to the point eventually the Marty's teams overachieve just to get to the playoffs idea loses traction when he loses playoff games with very talented teams. We're running out of excuses here.

 

[BGP]

When you have reason to think that the correlation is representative of some causation. Don Shula and Mike Ditka won Super Bowls, and are at the bottom of the list too. If the theory that coaching matters more in the regular season than player ability, and in the post-season player ability comes to the forefront, then getting Marty more talented players would seem to be the solution.

Where did you get the theory that player ability matters more in the postseaason than in the regular season?

I pulled it out of thin air, right next to the theory that coaching ability matters more in the post-season than the regular season. (If that latter theory isn't true, I don't know how Schottenheimer can be called anything but a great coach, since he's a terrific regular season coach). I've yet to see any data showing that coaching matters more in the regular season than the playoffs, that player ability matters more in the regular season than the playoffs, or that prior playoff performance is a better indicator of future playoff performance than prior regular season performance.

Well one of the things that lead us to suspect that coaching is more important than the players in the regular season is when we see Bill Belichick win super bowls over the course of decades with different teams and totally different players, teams he had a huge hand in constructing, while we see Schottenheimers consistently come up short over decades with different teams and different players. Its not out of thin air.You also don't have to get the reverse theory out of thin air. You point to Siefert and Switzer.

 

[Gr00vus]

Well one of the things that lead us to suspect that coaching is more important than the players in the regular season is when we see Bill Belichick win super bowls over the course of decades with different teams and totally different players, teams he had a huge hand in constructing, while we see Schottenheimers consistently come up short over decades with different teams and different players. Its not out of thin air.You also don't have to get the reverse theory out of thin air. You point to Siefert and Switzer.

 

[BGP]

I'd say his receivers and punt returner could use some hands. I think Schottenheimer did a fine job coaching in that game, and Schottenheimer and co. (this includes his staff -- I'm not sure how to apportion credit) outcoached Belichick and co.The Patriots couldn't stop LT, and the Chargers shut down Brady. The Patriots didn't rattle the untested QB, who kept finding open receivers (that would drop the ball) most of the game. The Patriots running game never got started.Some of the individual decisions were head scratchers (4th and 11, maybe the challenge), but that's not why the Chargers lost the game. In addition to the Chargers players losing the game, there was a lot of freak luck in that one too.

As a Browns fan that has closely watched Belichick teams in the past, I disagree with this assessment of the Charger game. Belichick purposefully consutrcts football teams that are thugs. His goal is to intimidate and otherwise cause the opponent to commit mistakes. Belichick wants to win UGLY. And that's usually what his games are like. That game played out like a typical Belichick game. That was what he wanted by design, imho.

I disagree. San Diego beat the Pats up, they definitely out physicaled the Pats, and I think it cost the Pats the AFC Championship as they were too worn out (especially the defense) along with possibly being flu ridden to close out the game against the Colts. In the divisional game the Chargers way outthugged the Pats, but the Pats outsmarted the Chargers.

I have the game on tape and you know how many times the Patriots' defense missed a tackle in the second half? Just two. One of those was behind the los when the defender had to determine who had the ball and adjust first. That is NOT indicitive of a team that got outphysicaled. Uncharacteristic turnovers ARE.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Marty doesn't call the plays, though.

Either way, I've got no interest in nit-picking through specific plays here. Even if we agree that the Chargers were the most talented team in the NFL, the most talented team wins the Super Bowl less than 25% of the time.

At some point you need to use your head coaching perogative and tell Cam to get LaDainian the ball - it's great to revel in taking your hands off the wheel, and it was needed to a good extent this year, but at the end of the day the trainwreck is yours and if you can do something to avert it as HC you need to do it. He didn't.I can't speak to your Super Bowl win/talent percentage (where do you get that number from), but regardless we're talking about playoff wins, not just Super Bowl wins. More to the point eventually the Marty's teams overachieve just to get to the playoffs idea loses traction when he loses playoff games with very talented teams. We're running out of excuses here.

I really have no interest in judging a coach by two plays. That's pretty silly. Sure, the Chargers didn't run enough, but there's nothing inherently bad with that. He averaged 23 carries per game this year, and had 23 carries against New England. San Diego won five games this year with LT not even hitting 20 carries. The Patriots called 20 runs against Indianapolis in a game they were up by 18 in. That's much worse to me. But that doesn't make Belichick a bad coach. I think it's a silly exercise to nitpick every playcall, and any call that doesn't work out can be considered stupid.

I'm not making an excuse for Schottenheimer any more than you're blaming him. My theory is that Schottenheimer's players (over the course of his career) were average, but his great coaching has led to a 200-126 regular season record. He gets the most out of his players, doesn't let them get too high or low, makes sure they don't overlook opponents, blah blah blah. Whatever it is we think that great coaches should do.

But there's a limit to what a coach can do, and only the most talented teams make the playoffs. Then, talent wins out and Schottenheimer, as great as he is, can't overcome that.

Now that's just a theory, and maybe I don't even believe it. But you can't present me any data that would disprove that theory. Leaving the 2006 Chargers aside for a moment, the data perfectly supports my theory. The data also would support a theory that Schottenheimer's a terrible coach, he's always had really good players, and in the regular season his teams have won in spite of him. Come playoff time though, his awfulness becomes magnified and his teams lose. The data wouldn't disprove that either.

FWIW, I don't think Schottenheimer's past teams have been incredibly talented. And if you think the 2006 Chargers are the most talented team in the league, maybe it's because Marty made them that way. I mean geez, look what he's doing with an undrafted TE and a totally inexperienced QB.

You want to cast stones at Marty, and that's fine. But I don't think there's any evidence to support that. Further, even if you adamantly believe that Schottenheimer's been a terrible playoff coach, what makes you think he's going to be a bad playoff coach in the future? Tom Landry went from +6.0 (early years) to -1.1 (middle years). Don Shula went from +1.2 to -3.7 to -0.3.

Here is Bill Parcells' breakdown over his career.

2006 -0.44

2003 -0.51

1998 -0.35

1996 +0.95

1994 -0.51

1990 +1.54

1989 -1.19

1986 +0.83

1985 +0.52

1984 +0.35

If that's not over the map, I don't know what is.

 

[Chase Stuart]

When you have reason to think that the correlation is representative of some causation. Don Shula and Mike Ditka won Super Bowls, and are at the bottom of the list too. If the theory that coaching matters more in the regular season than player ability, and in the post-season player ability comes to the forefront, then getting Marty more talented players would seem to be the solution.

Where did you get the theory that player ability matters more in the postseaason than in the regular season?

I pulled it out of thin air, right next to the theory that coaching ability matters more in the post-season than the regular season. (If that latter theory isn't true, I don't know how Schottenheimer can be called anything but a great coach, since he's a terrific regular season coach). I've yet to see any data showing that coaching matters more in the regular season than the playoffs, that player ability matters more in the regular season than the playoffs, or that prior playoff performance is a better indicator of future playoff performance than prior regular season performance.

Well one of the things that lead us to suspect that coaching is more important than the players in the regular season is when we see Bill Belichick win super bowls over the course of decades with different teams and totally different players, teams he had a huge hand in constructing, while we see Schottenheimers consistently come up short over decades with different teams and different players. Its not out of thin air.You also don't have to get the reverse theory out of thin air. You point to Siefert and Switzer.

I seem to recall Bill Belichick's team winning more regular season games than any other coach ever. His teams went 23 of 34 and 35-3 over some stretches, so I think you can certainly point to his regular season success to say "great coaching matters more in the regular season".Like I said, I don't even know where I fall on this debate. I haven't given it much thought. But I think it's nonsense to believe that the data shows that Schottenheimer's a bad coach because he has underperformed in the regular season. That's writing an answer that the data wasn't designed for.You could also point to Montana's right hand as an example of how great players matter most in the playoffs, and coaching is minimized. Of course, we really don't know the answer. But what is really crazy is when people want to say Manning AND Dungy are bad playoff performers, since it's certainly either one or the other's fault and not both.

 

[Gr00vus]

And if you think the 2006 Chargers are the most talented team in the league, maybe it's because Marty made them that way. I mean geez, look what he's doing with an undrafted TE and a totally inexperienced QB. You want to cast stones at Marty, and that's fine. But I don't think there's any evidence to support that. Further, even if you adamantly believe that Schottenheimer's been a terrible playoff coach, what makes you think he's going to be a bad playoff coach in the future?

Marty has had ZERO to do with assembling the players on the Chargers - that's all A.J. He gets no credit for having the talent on the squad.I'm not casting stones, I'm seemingly stating the obvious - Marty doesn't win in the playoffs. This isn't a surmise on my part, it's a fact. Like I said before in relation to the why of it - maybe he got his other squads to overachieve and they met their limits when playoff time came around (which seemingly Bellichick doesn't have a problem with for some reason), or he just has received an incredibly high proportion of bad breaks. But that's wearing thin to me, especially in light of this season. I'm a believer that if you stay at it long enough the breaks pretty much even out, and I find it hard to believe he hasn't had other talented teams in the past (some of those Chief teams were pretty damn good talent wise). At some point you need to get it done, you need to make your own luck. And he just plain hasn't - how many more chances does he get?

 

[Chase Stuart]

And if you think the 2006 Chargers are the most talented team in the league, maybe it's because Marty made them that way. I mean geez, look what he's doing with an undrafted TE and a totally inexperienced QB.

You want to cast stones at Marty, and that's fine. But I don't think there's any evidence to support that. Further, even if you adamantly believe that Schottenheimer's been a terrible playoff coach, what makes you think he's going to be a bad playoff coach in the future?

Marty has had ZERO to do with assembling the players on the Chargers - that's all A.J. He gets no credit for having the talent on the squad.

That's not responsive to my statement. A.J. gave Schottenheimer an undrafted TE and look what Schottenheimer turned him into.

I'm not casting stones, I'm seemingly stating the obvious - Marty doesn't win in the playoffs. This isn't a surmise on my part, it's a fact. Like I said before in relation to the why of it - maybe he got his other squads to overachieve and they met their limits when playoff time came around (which seemingly Bellichick doesn't have a problem with for some reason), or he just has received an incredibly high proportion of bad breaks. But that's wearing thin to me, especially in light of this season. I'm a believer that if you stay at it long enough the breaks pretty much even out, and I find it hard to believe he hasn't had other talented teams in the past (some of those Chief teams were pretty damn good talent wise). At some point you need to get it done, you need to make your own luck. And he just plain hasn't - how many more chances does he get?

We've got two "facts" here as you put it. One is that Marty doesn't win in the playoffs. The other is that Marty doesn't lose in the regular season. Considering the sample size is 19 vs. 325, I'd be inclined to put more weight on the latter. But even assuming the sample is representative, can you explain why Schottenheimer is a great regular season coach but a terrible playoff coach? And why Bill Cowher Tony Dungy other coaches are also like this?

 

[Gr00vus]

That's not responsive to my statement. A.J. gave Schottenheimer an undrafted TE and look what Schottenheimer turned him into.

You're kidding right? Marty somehow injected Gates with his raw natural talent? Marty identified Gates's talent and signed him? Marty taught Gates how to play TE the way he does? Marty designed the playbook to make use of Gates?I don't think he did. No, wait, I know he didn't.

I'm not casting stones, I'm seemingly stating the obvious - Marty doesn't win in the playoffs. This isn't a surmise on my part, it's a fact. Like I said before in relation to the why of it - maybe he got his other squads to overachieve and they met their limits when playoff time came around (which seemingly Bellichick doesn't have a problem with for some reason), or he just has received an incredibly high proportion of bad breaks. But that's wearing thin to me, especially in light of this season. I'm a believer that if you stay at it long enough the breaks pretty much even out, and I find it hard to believe he hasn't had other talented teams in the past (some of those Chief teams were pretty damn good talent wise). At some point you need to get it done, you need to make your own luck. And he just plain hasn't - how many more chances does he get?

We've got two "facts" here as you put it. One is that Marty doesn't win in the playoffs. The other is that Marty doesn't lose in the regular season. Considering the sample size is 19 vs. 325, I'd be inclined to put more weight on the latter. But even assuming the sample is representative, can you explain why Schottenheimer is a great regular season coach but a terrible playoff coach? And why Bill Cowher Tony Dungy other coaches are also like this?

Never questioned his success in the regular season. The fact on the table is that his teams don't win in the playoffs - your own crazy index indicates to an extent unheard of anywhere/anytime in the NFL. We've kicked a couple of hypothesis around here - not enough talent, bad luck - but I don't think they wash at this point when he's got such a long an proven track record of failure in this arena. We've discussed bad decisions he's made in one game (which you're not prepared to accept for some reason), maybe we should be breaking down other bad decisions he's made in the others? I think we might find a pattern there that could be informative in the question of whether the continued failure of Marty teams in the playoffs is not really his fault or in fact just maybe Marty does actually have problems coaching in the playoffs.I just have a hard time living with the idea that it's everybody/thing else that keeps Marty's teams from winning in the playoffs when the common factor is Marty.

 

[radballs]

Nice breakdown Chase. I'm not sure how well it supports the premise, but I do strongly believe that Marty as well as other coaches are deified and criticized much too often on things completely out of their control or insufficiently large enough sample sizes.

 

[Bri]

We've got two "facts" here as you put it. One is that Marty doesn't win in the playoffs. The other is that Marty doesn't lose in the regular season. Considering the sample size is 19 vs. 325, I'd be inclined to put more weight on the latter. But even assuming the sample is representative, can you explain why Schottenheimer is a great regular season coach but a terrible playoff coach? And why Bill Cowher Tony Dungy other coaches are also like this?

Guess of 4 things-Running, a real dedication to the run maybe not just nice yardage total but also high # of attempts.

Stopping the run.

QB that either makes no mistakes or is a star that makes precious few mistakes and can overcome them.

3rd down "money" WR

Best playoff QB Marty ever had was old Joe.

Gibbs or Parcells would have run Tomlinson or Edge 30 times and thought about giving em' 40 carries. Thought about "breaking the other team's back" with an 8 minute drive then maybe doing it again.

Kordell and his mistakes. Shaun King? Hines Ward is an excellent WR but Plax sure dropped his share in Pitt and somewhat cancelled out Ward's sure handedness.

Dungy's Colts have never made me feel like they were a great run stuffing team.

Marty not making the Supe in Cleveland is possibly the most "are you kidding me" bad luck thing I've ever seen. Byner fumbling near the goalline in successive seasons had to have been "murder" for Browns fans.

 

[Bri]

Nice breakdown Chase. I'm not sure how well it supports the premise, but I do strongly believe that Marty as well as other coaches are deified and criticized much too often on things completely out of their control or insufficiently large enough sample sizes.

I thought Okoye was awesome. He and Word made up one of the more impressive backfields IMO. The sheer power of Okoye on some runs was jaw dropping.IMO If they lost, he didn't run them enough.