Answers in Search of a Question: Fast Track to the Super Bowl (The Sequel)
"We learn more by looking for the answer to a question and not finding it than we do from learning the answer itself." -- Lloyd Alexander.
In ASQ: The Fast Track to the Super Bowl, I addressed the changing trend of how quickly coaches are getting their teams to the Super Bowl. This discussion was prompted by a comment in a thread about how coaches have to get their teams to the Super Bowl quickly, or risk not getting there at all. I walked into that topic with absolutely no idea of what the history would tell me. I chose, at that time, for simplicity's sake to restrict my research to the coaches who had won the Super Bowl. In this article, I'm going to bring in the coaches who got to the Super Bowl, but failed to win it.
There have been 44 Super Bowls played; that's 88 Head Coaching slots. Remarkably enough, only 47 coaches have filled these slots. In the last article, we took brief look at the 27 who have won the big dance. This means that there were 20 coaches who got their team to the Super Bowl, but failed to win it. More about all of this after the fold.
Era #1: 1966-1969
| Super Bowl |
Winning Coach |
Seasons w/Team |
Losing Coach |
Seasons w/Team |
| I |
Vince Lombardi, Green Bay |
8 |
Hank Stram, Kansas City |
7 |
| II |
Vince Lombardi, Green Bay (2) |
9 |
John Rauch, Oakland |
2 |
| III |
Weeb Ewbank, NY Jets |
6 |
Don Shula, Baltimore Colts |
6 |
| IV |
Hank Stram, Kansas City (2) |
10 |
Bud Grant, Minnesota |
3 |
This period covered four Super Bowls. That's eight coach slots, but only 6 coaches got their teams to the SB. The average tenure of the winning coaches was 8.25 years. By comparison, the average tenure of the losing coaches was 4.5 years. In three of the four SBs the longer tenured coach won. No coach got his team to the SB without having been with that team for 2 or more years. No coach with less than 6 years with his team won the SB. There were no coaches in their first year with their team. Coaches in their 2nd or 3rd year were a combined 0-2 in the SB. Coaches with 6-8 years were 2-2. Coaches with 9+ years were 2-0.
Era #2: 1970-1980
| Super Bowl |
Winning Coach |
Seasons w/Team |
Losing Coach |
Seasons w/Team |
| V |
Don McCafferty, Baltimore Colts |
1 |
Tom Landry, Dallas |
11 |
| VI |
Tom Landry, Dallas (2) |
12 |
Don Shula, Miami (2) |
2 |
| VII |
Don Shula, Miami (3) |
3 |
George Allen, Washington |
2 |
| VIII |
Don Shula, Miami (4) |
4 |
Bud Grant, Minnesota (2) |
7 |
| IX |
Chuck Knoll, Pittsburgh |
6 |
Bud Grant, Minnesota (3) |
8 |
| X |
Chuck Knoll, Pittsburgh (2) |
7 |
Tom Landry, Dallas (3) |
16 |
| XI |
John Madden, Oakland |
8 |
Bud Grant, Minnesota (4) |
10 |
| XII |
Tom Landry, Dallas (4) |
18 |
Red Miller, Denver |
1 |
| XIII |
Chuck Noll, Pittsburgh (3) |
10 |
Tom Landry, Dallas (5) |
19 |
| XIV |
Chuck Noll, Pittsburgh (4) |
11 |
Ray Malavasi, LA Rams |
2 |
| XV |
Tom Flores, Oakland |
2 |
Dick Vermeil, Philadelphia |
5 |
This time period saw eleven SBs played. The 22 coach slots were filled by just 11 coaches. Tom Landry accounted for 5 of the 22 slots. Bud Grant and Chuck Noll had 4 each. Don Shula accounted for 3. Thus we can see that 16 out of the 22 coaching slots were filled by just 4 coaches. The average tenure of the winning coaches was 7.5 years. The average tenure of the losing coaches was 7.5 years. Oddly enough, only 4 of the SBs were won by the longer tenured coach. Having said that, however, it has to be noted that Don Shula -- who lost in his 2nd season with Miami, then won in his 3rd and 4th seasons with them, had logged 7 years as the coach of the Baltimore Colts, prior to taking over the Dolphins. It can also be argued that McCafferty's win over Landry should come as no surprise, since McCafferty had inherited a team that had played in SB III, just 2 years before, while Landry's Cowboys were appearing in that game for the first time. First year coaches (McCafferty, Miller) went 1-1. Second year coaches went 1-3. The sole third & fourth year coach went 2-0 -- but again, that's deceptive since it was Shula's 3rd & 4th SB appearances, and his 10th season as an HC. Coaches with 6+ years with their teams went a combined 7-6.
Era #3: 1981-1991
| Super Bowl |
Winning Coach |
Seasons w/Team |
Losing Coach |
Seasons w/Team |
| XVI |
Bill Walsh, San Francisco |
3 |
Forrest Gregg, Cincinnati |
2 |
| XVII |
Joe Gibbs, Washington |
2 |
Don Shula, Miami (5) |
13 |
| XVIII |
Tom Flores, Oakland (2) |
5 |
Joe Gibbs, Washington (2) |
3 |
| XIX |
Bill Walsh, San Francisco (2) |
6 |
Don Shula, Miami (6) |
15 |
| XX |
Mike Ditka, Chicago |
4 |
Raymond Berry, New England |
1 |
| XXI |
Bill Parcells, NY Giants |
4 |
Dan Reeves, Denver |
6 |
| XXII |
Joe Gibbs, Washington (3) |
7 |
Dan Reeves, Denver (2) |
7 |
| XXIII |
Bill Walsh, San Francisco (3) |
10 |
Sam Wyche, Cincinnati |
5 |
| XXIV |
George Seifert, San Francisco |
1 |
Dan Reeves, Denver (3) |
9 |
| XXV |
Bill Parcells, NY Giants (2) |
8 |
Marv Levy, Buffalo |
4 |
| XXVI |
Joe Gibbs, Washington (4) |
11 |
Marv Levy, Buffalo (2) |
5 |
The third of the SB eras again covered 11 SBs, or 22 coaching slots. This time, twelve different coaches brought their teams to the big game. Gibbs accounted for 4 of the slots. Walsh and Reeves each took 3 spots. Shula, Parcells and Levy each claimed 2. Thus, we can see that 16 of the 22 coaching slots were taken by 6 coaches. In other words, half of the coaches accounted for 73% of the coaching slots during this time period. The average tenure of the winning coaches was 5.5 years. In an interesting shift, the average tenure of the losing coaches was 6.3 years. In 6 of the 11 SBs, the longer tenured coach won. It should be noted, however, that two things skew our perception of this period: (1)Don Shula appearing twice, in his 13th & 15th seasons, significantly raised the average tenure of the losing coaches. The other coaches during this period ranged between 2 and 9 years. First year coaches (Seifert, Berry) went 1-1. It must be noted that Seifert took over a 49ers team that had won the SB the previous year under Bill Walsh. Second and third year coaches also went 1-1, respectively.
Era #4: 1992-2009
| Super Bowl |
Winning Coach |
Seasons w/Team |
Losing Coach |
Seasons w/Team |
| XXVII |
Jimmy Johnson, Dallas |
4 |
Marv Levy, Buffalo (3) |
6 |
| XXVIII |
Jimmy Johnson, Dallas |
5 |
Marv Levy, Buffalo (4) |
7 |
| XXIX |
George Seifert, San Francisco (2) |
6 |
Bobby Ross, San Diego |
3 |
| XXX |
Barry Switzer, Dallas |
2 |
Bill Cowher, Pittsburgh |
4 |
| XXXI |
Mike Holmgren, Green Bay |
5 |
Bill Parcells, New England (3) |
4 |
| XXXII |
Mike Shanahan, Denver |
3 |
Mike Holmgren, Green Bay (2) |
6 |
| XXXIII |
Mike Shanahan, Denver (2) |
4 |
Dan Reeves, Atlanta (4) |
2 |
| XXXIV |
Dick Vermeil, St Louis Rams (2) |
3 |
Jeff Fisher, Tennessee |
5 |
| XXXV |
Brian Billick, Baltimore Ravens |
2 |
Jim Fassel, NY Giants |
4 |
| XXXVI |
Bill Belichick, New England |
2 |
Mike Martz, St Louis Rams |
2 |
| XXXVII |
Jon Gruden, Tampa Bay |
1 |
Bill Callahan, Oakland |
1 |
| XXXVIII |
Bill Belichick, New England (2) |
4 |
John Fox, Carolina |
2 |
| XXXIX |
Bill Belichick, New England (3) |
5 |
Andy Reid, Philadelphia |
6 |
| XL |
Bill Cowher, Pittsburgh (2) |
14 |
Mike Holmgren, Seattle |
7 |
| XLI |
Tony Dungy, Indianapolis |
5 |
Lovie Smith, Chicago |
3 |
| XLII |
Tom Coughlin, NY Giants |
4 |
Bill Belichick, New England (4) |
8 |
| XLIII |
Mike Tomlin, Pittsburgh |
2 |
Ken Whisenhunt, Arizona |
2 |
| XLIV |
Sean Payton, New Orleans |
4 |
Jim Caldwell, Indianapolis |
1 |
The most recent of the SB eras covered 18 SBs. This means that there were 36 coaching slots available. This was the most diversified grouping of coaches with 28 different coaches participating. Belichick had the most appearances with 4. Holmgren logged 3, while Johnson, Levy, Cowher and Shanahan each accounted for 2. Thus, 42% of the coaching slots were filled by 6 coaches. The average tenure of the winning coaches was 4.2 years. The average tenure of the losing coaches was 4.1 years. In only 7 of the 18 SBs, do we see a longer tenured coach defeating a coach with a shorter tenure. This seems to bear out the concept that originally started this discussion and it's predecessor -- that coaches need to get to the SB quickly, or risk not getting there at all.
The first thing that struck me in doing this research was the relatively small number of coaches who have actually made it to a Super Bowl. Only 47 coaches have taken their team to the SB. Forty-seven coaches to fill 88 coaching slots. What's even more remarkable, is that 62 out of the 88 slots have been filled by just 19 coaches. The following table can be found at wikipedia.org (though I added the coaches with just a single SB appearance; bold indicates a SB win):
| Coach |
SB Record |
Super Bowls |
Team(s) |
| Don Shula |
2-4 |
III, VI, VII, VIII, XVII, XIX |
Baltimore Colts, Miami Dolphins |
| Tom Landry |
2-3 |
V, VI, X, XII, XIII |
Dallas Cowboys |
| Bud Grant |
0-4 |
IV, VIII, IX, XI |
Minnesota Vikings |
| Chuck Knoll |
4-0 |
IX, X, XIII, XIV |
Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Joe Gibbs |
3-1 |
XVII, XVIII, XXII, XXVI |
Washington Redskins |
| Marv Levy |
0-4 |
XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII |
Buffalo Bills |
| Dan Reeves |
0-4 |
XXI, XXII, XXIV, XXXIII |
Denver Broncos, Atlanta Falcons |
| Bill Belichick |
3-1 |
XXXVI, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLII |
New England Patriots |
| Bill Walsh |
3-0 |
XVI, XIX, XXIII |
San Francisco 49ers |
| Bill Parcells |
2-1 |
XXI, XXV, XXXI |
New York Giants, New England Patriots |
| Mike Holmgren |
1-2 |
XXXI, XXXII, XL |
Green Bay Packers, Seattle Seahawks |
| Vince Lombardi |
2-0 |
I, II |
Green Bay Packers |
| Hank Stram |
1-1 |
I, IV |
Kansas City Chiefs |
| Tom Flores |
2-0 |
XV, XVIII |
Oakland Raiders |
| Jimmy Johnson |
2-0 |
XXVII, XXVIII |
Dallas Cowboys |
| George Seifert |
2-0 |
XXIV, XXIX |
San Francisco 49ers |
| Mike Shanahan |
2-0 |
XXXII, XXXIII |
Denver Broncos |
| Dick Vermeil |
1-1 |
XV, XXXIV |
Philadelphia Eagles, St Louis Rams |
| Bill Cowher |
1-1 |
XXX, XL |
Pittsburgh Steelers |
| John Rauch |
0-1 |
II |
Oakland Raider |
| Weeb Ewbank |
1-0 |
III |
New York Jets |
| Don McCafferty |
1-0 |
V |
Baltimore Colts |
| George Allen |
0-1 |
VII |
Washington Redskins |
| John Madden |
1-0 |
XI |
Oakland Raider |
| Red Miller |
0-1 |
XII |
Denver Broncos |
| Ray Malavasi |
0-1 |
XIV |
Los Angeles Rams |
| Forrest Gregg |
0-1 |
XVI |
Cincinnati Bengals |
| Mike Ditka |
1-0 |
XX |
Chicago Bears |
| Raymond Berry |
0-1 |
XX |
New England Patriots |
| Sam Wyche |
0-1 |
XXIII |
Cincinnati Bengals |
| Bobby Ross |
0-1 |
XXXIX |
San Diego Chargers |
| Barry Switzer |
1-0 |
XXX |
Dallas Cowboys |
| Jeff Fisher |
0-1 |
XXIV |
Tennessee Titans |
| Jim Fassel |
0-1 |
XXV |
New York Giants |
| Mike Martz |
0-1 |
XXXVI |
St Louis Rams |
| Jon Gruden |
1-0 |
XXXVII |
Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
| John Fox |
0-1 |
XXXVIII |
Carolina Panthers |
| Andy Reid |
0-1 |
XXXIX |
Philadelphia Eagles |
| Tony Dungy |
1-0 |
XLI |
Indianapolis Colts |
| Lovie Smith |
0-1 |
XLI |
Chicago Bears |
| Tom Coughlin |
1-0 |
XLII |
New York Giants |
| Mike Tomlin |
1-0 |
XLIII |
Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Ken Whisenhunt |
0-1 |
XLIII |
Arizona Cardinals |
| Sean Payton |
1-0 |
XLIV |
New Orleans Saints |
| Jim Caldwell |
0-1 |
XLIV |
Indianpolis Colts |
| Brian Billick |
1-0 |
XXXV |
Baltimore Raven |
| Bill Callahan |
0-1 |
XXXVII |
Oakland Raiders |
There are 28 coaches who have appeared but once in the SB. Their combined record is 11-17, a winning percentage of 39%. The other 19 coaches have a combined record of 33-27; a winning percentage of 55%. Something to think about when considering how we want our coach to structure his team. The overwhelming majority of multiple appearances by the coaches took place in the first half of the Super Bowl era. Since then, we have seen a steady pattern of declining tenures by the coaches, leading to additional pressures to reach the Super Bowl quickly.
At the same time, however, there can also be seen a pattern of building teams to endure over time. So, there is a no-brainer trend that goes against what has been happening among coaches in the NFL in the last decade: the more times you can get to the Super Bowl, the better your chances of winning it (unless your name is Bud Grant, Marv Levy or Dan Reeves).
Let me offer up three examples from the AFC -- teams that are generally touted at the beginning of each season to "have a shot." Over the last ten years, few teams have been able to match the consistency of (and please don't kick me off of MHR for daring to say this): the Indianapolis Colts, the New England Patriots, and the Pittsburgh Steelers. These three teams have accomplished something remarkable in the last decade:
| Team |
Coaches |
Longest Tenure |
Losing Seasons |
10+ Win Seasons |
Playoff Appearances |
Super Bowl Appearances |
Super Bowl Wins |
| Indianapolis |
3 |
7 yrs |
1 |
9 |
9 |
2 |
1 |
| New England |
1 |
10 yrs |
1 |
8 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
| Pittsburgh |
2 |
7 yrs |
1 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
Whether we like to admit it or not, these three teams have been doing it right. The starting point is keeping their head coach in place. Does this mean we should have keep Shanahan in place? After all, he had a long tenure with the Broncos, had won 2 SBs, shouldn't we have kept him around? Not necessarily. Let's look at the same categories for Denver over the last 10 years.
| Team |
Coaches |
Longest Tenure |
Losing Seasons |
10+ Win Seasons |
Playoff Appearances |
Super Bowl Appearances |
Super Bowl Wins |
| Denver |
2 |
9 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
While a cursory glance at the Denver table could give the impression that Denver was unwise to make a coaching change, the tables do not give a complete view. Denver's playoff appearances all occurred within the first 6 years of the decade, and the Broncos have now gone 4 years without a playoff appearance. This despite having a coach who had won 2 SBs. Indianapolis, by comparison has only missed the playoffs 1 year, while New England and Pittsburgh have spread their appearances throughout the decade. For this reason, if McDaniels wants to build a foundation modeled after New England's approach -- 1 losing season, 8 10+ win seasons, 7 playoff appearance, 4 Super Bowl appearances, 2 Super Bowl wins in 10 years -- I'm good with that.
A Brief Word About Rookie Head Coaches and the Super Bowl
There have been 5 rookie head coaches who have managed to lead their teams to the SB. Two of them won the big game -- Don McCafferty (1970, Baltimore Colts, SB V), and George Seifert (1989, San Francisco 49ers, SB XXIV). McCafferty was a Baltimore assistant coach under Don Shula who was promoted to the HC position after Shula moved to Miami. He took over the team just 2 years after Baltimore had been in the Super Bowl. Seifert had been the San Francisco Defensive Coordinator the previous year when the 49ers won the Super Bowl. In essence, both of these rookie HC's inherited Super Bowl ready teams. This is not to take anything away from their accomplishments, but to simply recognize that they started the process well ahead of where many rookie coaches start out -- they knew their players and coaches, and they had teams that had the experience of having been able to get to the big dance.
Three other rookie HC's have managed to get their teams to the SB in their first year. Those coaches were: Red Miller (1977, Denver Broncos, SB XII), Bill Callahan (2002, Oakland, SB XXXVII), and Jim Caldwell (2009, Indianapolis Colts, SB XLIV). Red Miller had the hardest road in this process. The previous year he had been an assistant coach for the Boston Patriots. He inherited a 9-5 team that had never been to the playoffs in their history, a team that had only had 3 winning seasons in their entire history before Miller came on board. Callahan was promoted from the Offensive Coordinator's slot after HC Jon Gruden went to Tampa Bay. He inherited a 10-6 team that Gruden had taken to the playoffs each of the previous two years. Caldwell had been the assistant head coach for Indianapolis the previous year. He inherited a 12-4 team that had won the SB three years before, and had been in the playoffs each of the two intervening years.
A Conclusion or Three
The first thing that leapt out at me is how incredibly small the circle of SB coaches is. Even further, it was startling to discover that 70% of the possible SB coaching slots were filled by 40% of the coaches who actually made it to the championship game. This made me realize how unrealistic all of the talk about McDaniels getting us to the Super Bowl in his first year was, even after the 6-0 start. Only 5 rookie HCs have made it to the big game, which is only 11% of the coaches to make it there, and even more telling only 6% of the possible coaching slots. Further, of those 5 rookie HCs, 4 inherited playoff ready teams, and 3 of them inherited teams with SB experience.
Another thing which stood out was the interesting dynamic tension between the coaches with multiple SB appearances/wins and the growing trend in the NFL for coaches to have shorter tenures with their teams. The win now or move on attitude that has grown out of the emphasis on parity has made it hard for teams to build philosophies and strategies that endure over longer periods of time. On the average, NFL teams are changing coaches nearly as often as the United States looks at changing presidents. Only a few teams, such as Indianpolis, New England and Pittsburgh (though I'm sure there are others) have been able to more or less successfully buck this trend.
Finally, while it would be very easy to buy into the win now attitude, I find myself moving more in the direction of wanting to see a modern version of the long-tenured coaching that was dominant in the early years of the Super Bowl. I would like to see McDaniels and Company to take us down the path followed by Indianapolis and New England -- the building of a team that is consistently in the hunt for the title. For this reason, I am more than willing to allow McDaniels at least 6 years to show that he can build that kind of team.
10 recs |
82 comments
|
Comments
Thats a loaded question if I've ever seen one HAHA
Who wouldn’t want a 4-0 SB record? what exactly is the point of that question though? I mean….who would choose 1-3 over 4-0?
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
- Thomas Alva Edison
"Success is not a place at which one arrives, but rather... the spirit with which one undertakes and continues the journey."
- Alex Noble
Well, given the fact that some voters in the previous poll
voted that they’d rather have an immediate SB win even if it never meant getting another one rather than having to wait a while to see multiple wins . . .
And yes, it was a loaded question. It addresses the issue of what is the end result we want to see from our coach, players, team.
I’m a great believer in backward planning: you start by determining what you want the final result to be, then start laying out the steps you need to get there, starting with the ones closest to that end result and moving gradually back to where you currently are. I’m inclined to believe that this is the approach being used by McDaniels/Xanders. I believe they are attempting to build the Broncos into a team that will win multiple Super Bowls, and therefore are committed to the long-term, even if it means not getting there in the short term.
The poll was largely to remind each of us that we all want the same thing: a team that is competitive and wins multiple SBs. When assessing the moves made by Bowlen, McDaniels, Xanders, et al, IMHO, we need to view them in terms of what end product they are trying to put into place.
The MSM, and by extension, many fans want to see the immediate, quick fix. IMHO, that is what Shanahan got trapped into doing with his draft and FA choices, and we saw the results — 10 years of mediocrity. Indianapolis, New England and Pittsburgh (winners of 6 of the last 10 Super Bowls) are currently the best models of how to build a consistently competitive team.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by BShrout on Mar 8, 2010 11:52 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Strategy and Tactics
you start by determining what you want the final result to be, then start laying out the steps you need to get there, starting with the ones closest to that end result and moving gradually back to where you currently are.
What Brian has laid ou6t in this quote is the essential difference between strategy and tactics. In tactics, you sit down, consider where you are and one by one, implement the steps that you think that you will need to accomplish the goal. But, what is the goal? That’s the point of strategy, which is established by doing precisely what Brian recommends. Tactics are the means that you use to accomplish your goal, while strategy is the overarching development of figuring what the goal really is. Strategy takes tactics into account and uses them when working backwards. Tactics, being more short-term in nature, are established by the opposite approach.
This is another great article – rec’d. Each time I see your name on an article, I know that I’m going to enjoy it. Thanks again, Brian
Don't say rebuild - say reload...
Thanks Doc,
I’m going to have to steal your wording the next time I try make that statement. LOL
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Best model
So the best model right now is a prolonged period of utter suckage followed by the acquisition of a franchise QB, that is what Indy and New England did and to some extend Pittsburgh, which leads one to believe that New Orleans and San Diego should both be candidates for long runs of great success in the next decade.
I have to say, I don’t think you can find a head coach out there who is not trying to win multiple super bowls, but winning multiple super bowls must necesarily be prefaced by at least moderate success, would Chuck Noll had ever won 4 super bowls if he had not improved the team markedly ever year previously?
Ultimately you can’t judge a move based on winning multiple super bowls, for a number of reasons, 1 that takes a long time, 2 very rarely does one move make or break a team that wins several super bowls, 3 it is highly unlikely (only 5 teams have won 3 or more super bowls in a 10 year window). A much easier and much more realistic meassure is, did this improve the team noticibly? if a move improves the team then it is also fair to assume that should the team win multiple super bowls then that move contributed in some way, but it is not necesary to win multiple super bowls to judge the move.
Backward planning is great if you are working in a timeframe and setup that allows for early failure. However the NFL is very a much a what have you done for me lately league and while it is nice to have the setup to win in the playoffs it doesn’t help if you can’t get there. It seems to me that the wiser choice would be the build a playoff team first before worrying about a super bowl team – not the other way around.
Gylden, thank you for your contribution
And for underscoring my point: the best approach is to plan for the long-term:
The goal of every team is to win the Super Bowl,
To win the SB, you have to be able to win the conference,
To win the conference you have to be able to win the divisional round,
To win the divisional round, you have to be able to either win the division, or the wildcard spot
To win the wildcard, you have to win more than you lose
To win more than you lose, you have to have your players play as a single unit
To have your players play as a single unit, you have to get the right players in place
etc. etc.
The point is, you define your end goal, and then lay out all of the steps that are needed to get there. You then make the moves necessary to achieve each of those steps. Getting to the playoffs is definitely one of the steps — but it is simply an intermediate step and if that’s all you are planning for, chances are that is all you will ever achieve.
I would agree that the NFL has become a “what have you done for me lately” league, and we can see that especially in the NFC, which has fielded 9 different teams in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. While on the other side of the league, the AFC has sent only 5 teams. Two of those (Oakland & Baltimore) only appeared once. Pittsburgh and Indianapolis have each appeared twice. New England has made the trip 4 times. Those 3 teams have also won 5 out of those 10 Super Bowls. That kind of run simply cannot happen without long-term planning.
It should be noted that I’m not suggesting that winning multiple SBs is necessary for judging moves. Rather, what I have suggested is that the teams that have won multiple SB’s are, IMHO, obviously doing something right, and it behooves us to examine what that is. The other side of the coin is to ask how a particular choice moves the team towards both the next intermediate step and the ultimate goal.
Finally, I’m not convinced that taking such a long view will doom us to “a prolonged period of utter suckage,” as you put it. Take a look at what the 3 teams I suggested we look at accomplished:
Indianapolis: Pre-Manning 3-13, Post-Manning: 3-13, 13-3 (Div. Loss), 10-6 (WC loss), 6-10, 10-6 (WC loss), 12-4 (AFC Champ loss), 12-4 (Div loss), 14-2 (Div loss), 12-4 (SB Win), 13-3 (Div loss), 12-4 (WC loss), 14-2 (SB loss).
New England: Pre-Brady: 10-6 (SB loss), 9-7, 8-8, 5-11, Post-Brady: 11-5 (SB win), 9-7, 14-2 (SB win), 14-2 (SB win), 10-6 (Div loss), 12-4 (AFC Champ loss), 16-0 (SB loss), 11-5, 10-6 (WC loss)
Pittsburgh: Pre-Big Ben: 11-5 (AFC Champ loss), 7-9, 6-10, 9-7, 13-3 (AFC Champ loss), 10-5-1 (Div loss), 6-10, Post-Big Ben: 15-1 (AFC Champ loss), 11-5 (SB win), 8-8, 10-6 (WC loss), 12-4 (SB Win), 9-7
Pittsburgh comes the closest to your description. Yet I still have a problem with describing a run of a playoff appearance on the average of every other year as “sucky.”
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by BShrout on Mar 8, 2010 3:40 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
using behooves in a comment on a sports blog...
gets a comment rec’d in my book… good work sir…
My roots are in Denver, but my branches grew in Nebraska and my leaves fell in Lincoln.
by Blackshirt4Broncos on Mar 9, 2010 3:03 AM MST up reply actions
the completion backwards principle
Was a sales training technique in which you visualized closing the sale, and then worked your way back through the steps that got you there (also the basic premise for a fine Tubes album). I try to use this theory when planning long term projects, and appreciate that McX is with the program. Thanks for applying this concept to the football world!
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick
total fallacy here
The problem is, you can’t build a team that is “likely to get to, but lose the superbowl”
With the exception of the small sample size (which means there is likely no real difference), the 2-3 coach clearly is better because they had 5 very good teams/superbowl quality teams, while the 4-0 guy had only 4 good seasons.
Folks put so much weight on the last 3 games of the year, but those games are probably 75%+ luck because ALL the teams are good once you make the playoffs. Dynastys come from a combination of good coaching and transcendant players (Mannings/Bradys/steel curtain DEF/etc), not any inherent differences in coaching quality.
Now I’m not saying that with more detail, you couldnt look at a team and say for example that they only make the playoffs every year because the rest of their division sucked, but in general all you can do is get a coach that builds a very good playoff team every year and hope for the best in the playoffs.
Looking at SB wins, or even playoff record, as a quality of a coach therefore strikes me as ridiculous to the extreme.
by cjfarls on Mar 9, 2010 11:53 AM MST via mobile up reply actions
Apparently quite a few.....
I suffered through 3 of the Broncos 4 Super Bowl losses….I don’t ever want to see them lose another.
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
The guy formerly known as ZAPPA
I had the dubious pleasure of watching all 4 of them
It was totally depressing.
By the same token, the 2 wins were glorious.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Depressing is living through the '60's and early '70's
1976 through today have been a cross between Purgatory (no, not Purgatory, CO) and Heaven. I’ll take a truly competitive team over a team in chaos and weekly losing blowouts any time.
Make those miracles happen - Jon Keyworth
Tell me about it
My parents moved to Denver in 69 — so while I can’t claim to have lived through all of the 60’s as a Broncos’ fan, I did have to endure 5 years before seeing a winning record.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
I voted 2-4 without a 2nd thought
I want to get there every season so we have a chance to win that one game. If you are a HC who consistently gets to the SB, but doesn’t win then you are significantly better than about 75% of the HCs out there.
Of course if you do that and are really successful the MSM will tear you apart for the -4 part of that record
No kidding
Look at Bud Grant and Marv Levy. :)
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
No kidding.
He did really well in those 1st 4 years.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
19 coaches have garnered over 71%
of the SB appearences. Interesting.
88.64% of SBs were attended by 18 of the 32 teams.
That was one of the stats that stunned me
I knew it was a small select group, I just had no idea of how small.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Strange
But it really shows how hard it is to find a coach who can get you to the SB, similar to finding a top 5 QB, it’s just as hard to find a coach who will get you to the SB. But it should be noted that it takes time to make that judgement, those who called for McDaniels head after this season, should take note.
by maxwellsdemon on Mar 8, 2010 1:04 PM MST up reply actions
it also, moreso lends to the understanding that it requires a lot of things BESIDES a superbowl caliber coach...
by Whidbey Bronco on Mar 8, 2010 2:10 PM MST up reply actions
Absolutely
In fact, I would argue that a coach cannot become a SB caliber coach without the ability to put all of the necessary pieces into place. That requires a vision built upon the foundation of what has proven successful for other coaches, a commitment to bring in the coaches, FO personnel and players who will buy into that vision and be able to successfully execute it.
No single coach or player can make it happen in isolation from the rest of the team. The HC has to set the bar (or goal) then enable his players and coaches to reach it.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Brian, way to take the time to break all of this down for us.
This is a lot of work and you distilled it nicely.
This point:
The win now or move on attitude that has grown out of the emphasis on parity has made it hard for teams to build philosophies and strategies that endure over longer periods of time.
in particular struck me. It makes it harder to be a fan as well, let alone buy a jersey!
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Thanks TJ
The hope, IMHO, is that there are teams that have bucked the trend in the last decade; specifically Indianapolis, New England and Pittsburgh.
My belief, and hope, is that McDaniels is trying to model his transformation of the Broncos after those teams.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
those teams really have little in common except wins and good QB play. How you you pick a mold that matched those three teams? Please!
by Whidbey Bronco on Mar 8, 2010 2:13 PM MST up reply actions
How'd the steelers mold work for them before Big Ben? Assuming you're not saying they have the same mold now as with Terry...
I know you’re going to run some vague ideal of taking only ‘team first’/‘character’ players…
You better throw the Cowboys & 49ers in there too because the ‘mold’ is really of the hand with the rings, right?
1. Give me a team of talented guys like those teams had, with two or three leaders.
1b. If it’s going to be more than one win, give me an AMAZING QB.
2. Coach them toughly but according to their specific abilities.
3. Avoid injuries.
4. Avoid the other SB quality teams…
…13. Choose only high character/team 1st players.
This isn’t church. You wouldn’t invite a lot of these teams’ players over to a family dinner. I want em smart, mean, ambitious …& then high character.
I love the MHR idea of the NE molded player but really? Every team in the league wants this kind of player.
by Whidbey Bronco on Mar 8, 2010 2:34 PM MST up reply actions
BTW
Where’s the 2-4 option? I couldn’t vote because I couldn’t find it….
lol
by Whidbey Bronco on Mar 8, 2010 2:38 PM MST up reply actions
LOL
It’s the first option in the poll and reflects the record of the Cowboy’s Tom Landry.
Denver’s 2-4 record came from 3 different coaches (Red Miller 0-1, Dan Reeves 0-3, Mike Shanahan 2-0).
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Whidbey,
With all due respect, I’m inclined to think that you’re missing the point I was trying to make.
The teams I referenced, for their record in the last decade, are teams that appear to have been working from an intentional long term plan, rather than settling for quick fixes. I believe this is why the majority of the NFL teams struggle from year to year — they want the quick fix, the one-player who will be their salvation. Look how well that worked out for Washington when they landed Haynesworth.
For a team to be consistently competitive year in & year out, it requires no little degree of patience and a lot of hard work to build a team culture and process that will get you there.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Also, if you'll notice
I made no comment about player character.
I’ve simply stressed the importance of a long-term goal and backwards planning. Part of that process will most likely involving passing on some players and picking others. That was heard in Xanders presser at the Combine when he said that they (McDaniels/Xanders/the coaches) have a list of criteria for each position, including body size, strength, etc etc, and yes, personal character.
All I’m suggesting is that we try to look at the moves the FO makes from a perspective of not only how does that immediately impact the team, but how will that impact the team over a longer period of time.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Sorry, as usual i'm in absolute agreement with you and apon further review i'm thinking my rant had very little to do with your post...
Of course I agree with you on the basic principals at work here… your example of Snyder throwing money at a situation has been the model for failure for quite a few years… you could hardly say that the majority of losing teams have reached that depth through there search of the quick fixes though, as most teams don’t really get involved in free agency to any serious degree. I’ll be curious though, how well the Lions and Chicago’s quick fix moves do over the next few years… but then by that rationale you could call McX’s approach to the draft and FA last year the ‘quick fix’ route! I guess there’s more than one way to skin a cat. Bottom line is you have to choose the right players, for the right money, at the right time. haha simple!
My irritation was not in response to your post… I shouldn’t have posted it here sorry. Wasn’t thinking. But you must understand my rant was obviously not thought out or organized well enough to stand on it’s own…. Maybe MHR should consider an ‘Off Hand Ranting’ section?
It’s been on my mind of late that the guidelines you establish above are something that most teams (that aren’t the Raiders, Redskins or Cowboys) would certainly claim to adhere to. Bill B. certainly didn’t author it any more than the folks from Indy or Pitt. Indy especially is a product of the QB. Period. I would further say that the reasons Indy particularly hasn’t won more are no more measurable than the reasons the Bills or Moon’s Oilers never won… These teams pretty much did everything right. They built their teams with patience and intelligence. They had talent, character and were well coached….. they played very well but were simply beat on a given Sunday by teams they might very well have been better than… Hell, Tarkenton’s Vikes were a well built dynasty ….except for those pesky SB titles. Dan Reeves’ Broncos were pretty solid…
Ok, so my point could’ve been made in the one line that began my last paragraph…. I guess I was bored….
by Whidbey Bronco on Mar 8, 2010 6:09 PM MST up reply actions
No worries Whidbey
It’s through these give and takes that we all learn. Even “rants” (and btw, your comments above did not strike me as rant) demand that I carefully examine my position and look for places where I can deepen my own understanding.
I agree that every team aspires to the kind of planning that I’m advocating. Some simply are able to achieve it better than others. And certainly, timing has a lot to do with it — the right coach, the right plan, the right players, the right time.
My advice to those who are frustrated with McDaniels is to try to view his choices through the lens of an intentional plan to build for consistent, long-term success, as opposed to an quicker, more immediate return. I’m inclined to think that some choices, such as the Alphonso Smith pick, make more sense in that light than in the light of an immediate impact player.
I could also be dead wrong. LOL.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Hmmm. Winnner or Loser?
In the word of Mike Singletar " WE WANT WINNERS"
what was the point of that poll?
Read
I’m pretty sure BShrout already answered that, you might want to read other comments before posting.
by maxwellsdemon on Mar 8, 2010 1:05 PM MST up reply actions
Oh okay
No. I understand the point he is trying to make but I still would rather take Chuck Knoll, his 4-0 Superbowl record than 2-4. I understand the point is to build a winning team but there is no reason why you would rather have 2 superbowls rather than 4, its ludacris. I understand the point and ummmm I did read the posts and the article.
How about we have a 4-0 superbowl record and build a constant winning team? Maybe lose in the AFC championship instead of the Super Bowl?
Whats one thing common in those 3 teams that have the winning tenures?
Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger= Franchise Quarterbacks
2 of those Quarterbacks will go down as the 2 of the greatest to play the position. I strongly believe Manning is the greatest to play the position.
Would the Indinapolis Colts really be a great team without Peyton Manning?
Yes they have built winning teams but they also got so bad they got the #1 Pick int he Draft. And then the savior came.
My point is that we need a franchise quarterback. Sometiems you get lucky and get a franchise quarterback and sometimes you find one in the rough and use a system to make him great.
Its a good article, and I understand the point, I still don’t understand the poll, I’ll take the 4-0 in a Superbowl vs 2-4 any day.
In the word of Mike Singletary “We want winners”
I agree with you ndrwbrgr
I’d much rather have a 4-0 SB record than a 2-4 one.
As I mentioned above, this poll was created out of the way people voted on the poll that accompanied the prequel article. I was surprise that a number people voted that they wanted an immediate SB win (even if it meant not getting back to the SB) over building a team that could win multiple ones.
My suspicion is that the people who chose things other than the 4-0 were mostly just messing around with the poll.
And I think you made an excellent point here:
Sometiems you get lucky and get a franchise quarterback and sometimes you find one in the rough and use a system to make him great.
The hard part is telling which you have until he’s had a chance to be fully immersed and mastered the system while at the same time being surrounded by the necessary supporting cast.
In Manning you appear to have the former. In Brady you appear to have the latter (remember, he was a 6th round draft pick). And it must always be considered whether or not any premier QB would have been as successful within a different setting.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Fair points
At this point, we could have the next Belichick, but we could just as easily have the next Wade Phillips (proof that Bowlen makes mistakes). We won’t know for another year or two at least. Also, even if McD is destined to become a great coach, it may not be here.
And with the 32nd pick in the 2009 NHL draft, the Red Wings select: Someone other than Ryan O'Reilly. LOL@Detoilet.
by Bob in Boulder on Mar 9, 2010 11:04 AM MST up reply actions
I think the point is that the 4-0 coach took 6 years to build his team. People are
choosing 2-4 because the Broncos made it to 6 superbowls but only won 2. The error with that is that it was with 3 different coaches so that isn’t an accurate selection on their part. I would much rather give my coach 6 years to build his team if it meant consistently getting to the playoffs and winning superbowls for years to come. I like the vision that McDaniels has and even though I may not agree will all of his decisions I am willing to give him the time it takes to make it happen.
by BroncoMath101 on Mar 9, 2010 11:22 AM MST up reply actions
Curiosity on my part
As to whether people wanted more SB appearances (2-4) or wins (1-0 to 4-0).
As I mentioned above I was surprised that a number of people voted for winning immediately even if it meant not getting back to the SB over waiting for a while if it meant getting there multiple times.
For the rest of my rationale, scroll up to my response to DenBronx.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
You know BShrout, there was something very fun about this post......................
As I went through all your mighty-fine tables of stats, I relived each of the games. Sometimes I regrett getting old, but sometimes I have memories that youngsters cannot. I know you did not mean this as the end, but thanks for the tour of sometime forgotten thoughts.
Guardian of the Gate to La La Land!
Gonsoulin, Taylor, Little, Wright, Gradishar, Atwater, Davis, and Sharpe...
Why are they not in the Hall...I just don't understand.
Cool, an unintended benefit.
Glad I could bring some fun.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
He's Baaack!..I was thinking the same thing...Nice to see ya Mike!
-Stick to the fight when you are hardest hit - it's when things seem worst that you must not quit!
by BroncoSense72 on Mar 8, 2010 3:53 PM MST up reply actions
I agree that
their intention is building for long term success. However, you do that through the draft. Their first draft was a disaster. I agree that they had a short time line to prepare, but the consequences are what they are. If this upcoming one resembles the last one, then regardless of their intentions, they need to go.
I’d also like to hear from the people that picked super bowl records other than 4-0. I presume they were f$%$ing with your poll, but you never know.
Agreed. Agreed. Disagree. Disagree. Agreed.
LOL
I agree that from what I’ve seen, the FO has some definite long term success goals.
I agree that the draft is where you begin to build that success (and use FA to provide the immediate impact players while the draftees are being developed).
I disagree with the evaluation of the first draft for two reasons: (1)If the purpose of the draft is to provide you the players of the future, then they need to be given the time to be developed, and (2)From what I’ve read, the general consensus is that it takes up to 3 years to truly know what you have in a draftee; if that’s true, then it’s rather premature to declare a player or draft a bust after a single season. I’m not necessarily endorsing the choices of the 2009 draft. Rather, I simply believe that I do not have sufficient evidence to make a definitive declaration of success or failure.
I disagree with your suggestion that if this draft resembles the last one they need to go. Again, without a clear understanding of the plan, it is hard for me to advocate removing a coach. I would also suggest that the same points I made regarding draft players apply here also.
I agree with your idea that those who picked things other than 4-0 in the poll were most likely just trying to mess with the curve. It’s the same suspicion I had with the last poll. That being said, I’m also suspicious that some fans would much rather have an immediate SB win followed by another extended period of mediocrity rather than patiently waiting for the team to be transformed into one that achieves the kinds of success demonstrated by Indianapolis, New England and Pittsburgh.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
i think the sane folks that voted for the immediate win over the chance of extended success...
have simply seen too many well built teams win NOTHING. It’s SO HARD to even win one, that given that one sure win versus the probability of future wins, no matter how high the probability …I could see jumping at the one!
…I didn’t vote that way though lol
by Whidbey Bronco on Mar 8, 2010 6:19 PM MST up reply actions
I think you are most likely absolutely spot on with that observation.
It would be interesting (and probably impossible) to see a breakdown of how long and when people became a fan of the Broncos with how they voted in the first poll.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
You can't grade the outcome of McDaniels' first draft and it certainly can't be called a disaster yet.
Now, it could be a disaster in your eyes if the coach didn’t draft any of the players you wanted. With a 60% turn over in player personel the draft last year wasn’t that bad. I’m working on a post right now about last years draft and it should be done by the end of the week. Stay tuned..
And our current coach
As a head coach, is 0-0. That wasn’t even an option. This is an outrage!
And with the 32nd pick in the 2009 NHL draft, the Red Wings select: Someone other than Ryan O'Reilly. LOL@Detoilet.
Breathe deep Bob,
I hope the outrage you’re referring to is the lack of a 0-0 option. ;-p
If not:
Remember that only 5 rookie HC’s in the history of the SB got their teams there. And 4 of those 5 inherited teams that had been in the playoffs within the two years prior to their taking over the reins.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Yes, I was just joking. Not very well, evidently.
And with the 32nd pick in the 2009 NHL draft, the Red Wings select: Someone other than Ryan O'Reilly. LOL@Detoilet.
by Bob in Boulder on Mar 8, 2010 6:11 PM MST up reply actions
No worries
I thought that you probably were, but sometimes it’s hard to be sure in the typed word.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Evidently some of us got your joke... especially amongst all the seriousness!
Well played sir!
There is a sports radio talk show that I catch from time to time that uses a sample of Obama saying, “It’s an outrage.”
I can’t remember exactly what show, but if anyone else has heard it they know what I’m talking about.
Either way… the only double zero I root for pays out 35 to 1…
My roots are in Denver, but my branches grew in Nebraska and my leaves fell in Lincoln.
by Blackshirt4Broncos on Mar 9, 2010 3:24 AM MST up reply actions
also...
at least in my opinion, humor that requires thought is 4-0 in my book…
My roots are in Denver, but my branches grew in Nebraska and my leaves fell in Lincoln.
by Blackshirt4Broncos on Mar 9, 2010 3:29 AM MST up reply actions
0-4 sounds pretty good
:]
CentSports free 10 cents to bet with Better than Fantasy Football, pick'em!!
Get Hadnot!!!
Pretty awesome stuff Brian and thank you for bringing this out.
I hope we write the name of Josh McDaniels in there several times in the next 10 years.
Excellent
Hey I’m just a colts fan who likes to read MHR due to the excellent quality of the analysis and I wanted to say that I love this article for the data it provided.
I also wanted to let you know that I made a fanpost about it in regards for us colts fan having a better perspective when we place the past decade within a historical context.
I used something you mentioned in one of your comments, I hope you don’t mind.
Oh and this isn’t a plug for my admittedly shallow fanpost but I just wanted to let you know that I used some of your stuff.
-Ben
Wow, Ben, Thanks
I’m very flattered that you like some of it well enough to use. To me, that’s the ultimate compliment.
If you would, email me a link (my email can be found at the bottom of the page. I’d love to read your article.
I truly do believe that the Colts are one of the best examples of a team that has intentionally structured/positioned itself for success.
Thanks again.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
I voted 1-0 btw
Think I got side tracked after reading this yesterday. Def got my rec, well thought, as always.
As to the poll, I want my coach to win a single MF SB. I’ll move forward after that, but I’ll forgive for a lesser result;.. to a point.
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
Thanks Elvis.
I think 1-0 is a good intermediate step. Heck, I’d take 0-1 from McDaniels and company as a starting point. :)
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
I love your quote btw
I subscribe and aspire to learn more than teach.
Good luck with the Redskins Mr. Mike! I'll be watching and cheering for a non-Bronco team for the first time in my life. Well, except when they play the Broncos!
Nice read... thanks for taking the time to share your research.
It’s my nature to take something good and make it great and in that spirit I want to bring attention to something you touched on briefly that I think should have maybe, possibly been included with your charts is how many overall years the Head Coach had been a Head Coach with all teams. It is one thing for Don Shula to switch teams and win the Super Bowl in his 3rd year with Miami when he’s been a Head Coach for what, 9+ years already? It is another thing for a Head Coach to win the Super in his 3rd year with a team when it is also only his 3rd year as a Head Coach overall. I would appreciate the comparison.
I was also wondering if, by chance, you came across any data linking other variables to your coaching data? Such as including the Offensive/Defensive Coordinators and front office?
I think it would be interesting to know such data regarding how long the Head Coach had worked with the Coordinators or General Manager on average.
If the point here is to draw conclusions as to what it takes to win multiple Super Bowls I think for the sake of comparison it would be interesting to know which variable had the greatest influence. I mean, which “variable” has the highest correlation to Super Bowl appearances and wins?
The number of years a Head Coach has been with a team is one variable which is great for a micro view, but what do you think about going macro?
Who would win the correlation sweepstakes? The number of years the Head Coach has been with a team? Or does the number of years a Head Coach has worked with the same Offensive Coordinator equate to more Super Bowl wins and appearances? The Defensive Coordinator? How about the number of years the Head Coach and both Coordinators have worked together? Then throw the GM into the mix. Etc., etc., etc. Of course, for the sake of this, the players are completely disregarded, but is centered around the Head Coach.
I’d also like to know what the chances are that someone wants to take the time to sort all that data together, lol.
Thoughts? Thanks again for the article.
My roots are in Denver, but my branches grew in Nebraska and my leaves fell in Lincoln.
by Blackshirt4Broncos on Mar 9, 2010 4:00 AM MST reply actions
Oh, and don't forget the Owners...
Have any Head Coaches won multiple Super Bowls with two different owners?
I did not come out and say it, but what I’m throwing out there is the idea that a cohesive front office and coaching staff working together is going make more of an impact than solely the number of years a Head Coach has been with one particular team.
Again, I appreciate the micro view, but I just want more!
My roots are in Denver, but my branches grew in Nebraska and my leaves fell in Lincoln.
by Blackshirt4Broncos on Mar 9, 2010 4:07 AM MST up reply actions
You know . . . you're devilish.
These are just the sort of question that hook the attention and cry out for answers. I may just have to add them to my growing list of questions posed by MHR members. LOL
I may just have to do a bit of digging. Sheesh, another project. Thanks so much. (JK)
Actually those were great questions, and I’m guessing we will see some correlations.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
If nothing else you've managed to use devlish as a compliment...
At least that is how I am going to take it!
On the bright side, at least this type of research has no finite end. It is not like preparing season previews or the like.
I know there are all sorts of great minds that help out with things like stats (the Dude?) and “stuff” – (btw) did he help with this research or do you fly solo on such missions?
Either way, especially considering the fact I posed the questions, if you care to share how you may need help with a project like that please do not hesitate to speak up.
Raising a glass, “here’s to insomnia.”
My roots are in Denver, but my branches grew in Nebraska and my leaves fell in Lincoln.
by Blackshirt4Broncos on Mar 9, 2010 4:26 AM MST up reply actions
LOL
Devilish was intended as a compliment.
Open Ended Projects can be fun.
I tend to ask TJ (the Dude) where I can find stuff, but the spin on the stats is my own.
Thanks for the offer of help, you may well come to regret it. LMAO
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Regrets are for the birds!
Play hard or go home… right?
I’ve dabbled in journalism, stats, and graphic design… so don’t be shy to ask for help. The worst that will happen is I change my mind and say, ugh, no sir, you’re on your own with this one buddy.
My roots are in Denver, but my branches grew in Nebraska and my leaves fell in Lincoln.
by Blackshirt4Broncos on Mar 9, 2010 2:15 PM MST up reply actions

by 





























