(02-04-2022, 03:06 AM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2022, 02:26 AM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ]In addition to Andy Reid, he was also coached by Don Shula and Mike Holmgren. For those new to the country, those three legendary coaches rank #1, #5 and #16 in career wins in NFL history.
First, no one is guaranteeing a Super Bowl.
Second, your facts are mixed up. Six different coaches have been to the Super Bowl with two different teams. I don't have time at the moment to fact check your other statistic.
Third, if you don't think winning 75% of Super Bowls over the last two decades is better than winning 25% of Super Bowls, I'm not sure you are good at statistics.
My facts aren't mixed up, maybe you misunderstand, but I said it clearly.
Only 2 SB WINNING HCs ever made it back to another SB with a NEW TEAM as HC.
Only 7 out of 15 of those SB winning coaches had winning seasons with their new teams as a HC.
I didn't say anything about coaches making it to another SB, I said WINNING SUPER BOWL HCs.
As far as your "Third" comment. What are you even talking about? Are you trying to bring Belichick into this conversation or something? He has nothing to do with this conversation if that's the case.
(Emphasis added)
As to the point in bold, this is still vaguely worded.
Do you mean to say 2 coaches who won Super Bowls (as a general proposition) went to another Super Bowl with a subsequent team, or do you specifically mean coaches that won Super Bowls at their first coaching stop went to a SB at their subsequent team?
If it is the former interpretation, that is false.
Shula went to a Super Bowl with the Colts (SB III) went to the Dolphins and won two Super Bowls (VII and VIII).
Andy Reid last SB XXXIX with the Eagles but then won the Super Bowl with the Chiefs.
Bill Parcells and Mike Holmgren went to Super Bowls with two different teams, as did Dick Vermeil, John Fox (Carolina and Denver) and Dan Reeves (though he didn't win as a HC).
If it is the latter interpretation (they had to win a Super Bowl at their first stop to satisfy your condition), unless I have completely missed your point/misconstrued your argument, I don't understand why you would have that as a condition or use it as a negative against Pederson.
As a general rule, coaches who reach the Super Bowl are the overwhelming exception rather than the rule. Most coaches do not reach the Super Bowl, period. Even if they lose the Super Bowl they reach, it's still quite the accomplishment to get there, and with very few exceptions, it speaks volumes as to the job they did at least that year.
But this condition you have placed is troublesome on other levels, too.
Were Shula and Reid any less successful as coaches in Miami and KC because they didn't meet that condition?
Does a coach winning a Super bowl in his initial stop somehow make him less viable as a head coach for a subsequent team?
If so, to what do you attribute that?
As I indicated abve, it's hard for a coach to reach a Super Bowl with a team.
Just about everything has to go right.
They have to have the right ownership, management, and scouting departments.
They have to be relatively injury free during the year and have a favorable schedule. They have to have the right guys on the rosters. They have to catch the right teams at the right times. They have to get the right officiating calls, etc.
To have that happen in two different locations is a lot to ask. Because all of those factors do NOT fall into place the second time does not make the coach somehow lesser for it.
Is it possible that a coach that wins a Super Bowl in one spot somehow become less driven to succeed at his second? In theory, yes.
Is it possible that a coach that wins a Super Bowl in one spot will find that by the time he reaches his second team, the league may have adjusted to his schemes? In theory, yes.
But even assuming both of those factors play out, it doesn't mean he wouldn't have anything to offer the second team.
If all Pederson does here is develop Trevor Lawrence in to the best QB he can be, but never reaches the Super Bowl, his tenure here could be construed on some level as being successful.
But I think Pederson could do more than that. He was credited with changing the culture in a Philadelphia team that had never won a Super Bowl. I believe he can definitely do that here.
If your larger point is to suggest Pederson's past success is not guaranteed here, then I can agree with that as a general proposition. The Jauars still have the clear obligation to put all the right places in place for him to succeed. The journey doesn't end with Pederson. He's still part of the beginning.
But if you are making the point about Super Bowl winning coaches not being as successful with teams after leaving their Super Bowl winning teams as a way of knocking Pederson as a coach, I do not subscribe to that theory.