Poll: How Much Time Does Holmgren Have (to reach SB)?
by Spidey on Jan 5, 2010 2:36 PM EST
Email
Print
With all of the talk about keeping or firing Mangini, I would like to turn to more pleasant thoughts - the dream of a Super Bowl for Cleveland. It's no secret why Holmgren was the top choice to fill the position of "czar": the guy has done nothing but win and get teams to the Super Bowl. It's a shame all of the attention is directed away from the true meaning that today (Holmgren's first full day on the job) brings.
So I ask you, how much longer do we have to wait? (You can choose to look at it as how long we wait to reach the Super Bowl OR how long we wait before canning Holmgren's sorry butt for failing to lead us to the promised land)
This is a fan-created post. Dawgs By Nature assumes no responsibility for the content listed.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If anyone chooses less than 5 years, they have completely unrealistic expectations. I expect the Browns to go to the playoff fairly soon (1-3 years), but the Super Bowl is a step above the playoffs that is very hard to predict. Even perennial playoff teams don’t reach the Super Bowl every 5 years (Eagles, Chargers, Colts, etc.). Remember, it took the Colts a number of years to reach the Super Bowl with Manning and they have not been back since they’ve won it.
The great ones make it to the SB within 5 years: Walsh, Parcells, Belichick, and (even) Holmgren. Andy Reid took achingly long to make it to the SB, and it happened in 6 years (he made it to the NFC Championship after 3 years and lost 3 times before winning). Really, expectations should be very high for Holmgren; a Super Bowl within 5 years is not unrealistic, barring catastrophe. And when I say catastrophe, I mean everything including major injuries, epic drives by the opponent, and fumbles on the goal line (I know, I know, this is Cleveland – we should be expecting that). But, the great ones find a way to overcome them and “make their own luck”.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
Bellichick did not make the Super Bowl in any of his first five seasons.
by TheDriveStillHurts on Jan 5, 2010 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
New England, Year 1, 2000 Season: 5-11
New England, Year 2, 2001 Season: 11-5, wins Super Bowl.
Yep, it happened within 5 years of starting at New England. It’s not hard to expect of Holmgren.
Holmgren made it to the Super Bowl in his fifth season at Green Bay and his seventh season at Seattle.
Parcells did it in his 4th season at NYG and 4th season at New England (he did not do it with NYJ or Dallas, but left after the 4th season with each)
Walsh did it in his third season at San Fran (and they were a complete laughingstock when he started)
I don’t have the time to look at all of the Super Bowl coaches, but a majority of them reach the Super Bowl within 5 years of becoming head coach/taking charge.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
but belichick also coached for about 5 seasons with the browns and had one playoff appearance then…you should specify that you are talking about 5 years with the team they win a superbowl with. belichick had been a coach for 7 years…and the team he inherited when he took over the franchise was a decent team with pieces in place that just needed a few more pieces and a good coach. there were some stars on that team but other holes needed to be filled…no matter what patriots people say the patriots back then had a lot of stars on their roster (Matt light,, bruschi, vrabel, troy brown, kevin faulk, ted johnson, roman phifer, willie McGinnest, Ty Law, Layer milloy, terrel Buckley, richard seymour). out of those guys, most were holdovers from the pete carrol regime and he really only got himself 2 of the stars on that first team…just pointing it out.
It won’t get to the point of mattering whether or not we’ve made a Superbowl for AT LEAST five years. Prior to that, if the team is strong and competitive – making the playoffs, the fanbase will worship Holmgren. Only after prolonged success in the regular season followed by repeated failure in the playoffs would the SB question become relevant.
If it comes to that, well then won’t that be a nice problem to have.
Also, it shows that you’re a true Cleveland fan in simply dreaming about an appearance and not a victory… we’ve certainly been trained to accept second best.
by danvail on Jan 5, 2010 3:18 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I was thinking about that – when a team makes it to the SB for the first time, that Conference Championship is sort of like the Super Bowl. Then the time leading up to the Super Bowl is one big party for the fans. To make it to the Super Bowl and be on the world stage. that would be sweet.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
I thought teams were supposed to be able to do a complete rebuild in one year (at least that’s what was being said in the first half of the season re: Mangini), so I voted 1-2 years.
Dawgs By Nature -- where Hitler, apparently, 'did some good things'.
by golanbatrac on Jan 5, 2010 3:33 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
You and Eric Mangini need to get a room already.
by Western Reserve on Jan 5, 2010 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
You wouldn’t be talking about the WR HS that’s near Atwater and such would you?
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 6, 2010 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
I’m not totally sure where WR is… I know they’re in the OCC and my Alma Mater (Ashland High School) made a habit of beating up on their football team while I was still in HS :-)
Well there’s two of them. My Alma Mater is near there.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 6, 2010 12:04 PM EST up reply actions
There’s a Western Reserve in Huron County (near Wakeman) that’s in the Firelands Conference, but that doesn’t sound like the one you’re talking about. I know there’s at least three difference high schools in Ohio called Western Reserve (although one is called Western Reserve Academy and I think it’s a private school).
I gave him three based off Mangini not coming back. Also I wonder what happens if his guy comes in and goes for 4 -5 wins? I don’t think anyone is after Fox or Zorn if those two guys are the choices and that they will be there next year. I think the best plan would be to give Mangini a year see what happens next year and then go from there.
They gone have to stop sleeping on me one day.. I gotta be one of the best
About 3 hours ago by Eric Wright Cleveland Browns – Cornerback
That is the though around here 1 yr and done if you don’t make it happen.But there is bias around here step easy around here you did not get the memo that Holmgren is the god the Browns was missing all along….
by Brownsfan4ever on Jan 6, 2010 7:06 AM EST up reply actions
I personally don’t think any coach should get the boot for not making or winning the Super Bowl. Only two teams make it every year, and I think that saying your coach has to be one of those 2 is so against the odds that it almost borders on an unrealistic expectation.
That being said, I think if Mangini stays as the head coach then if we don’t make the playoffs by the 3rd year then he’s going to get all the blame for it. If Holmgren brings in his own guy, then if we don’t make the playoffs by the 3rd year then people will feel much less attached to him. I don’t think his job would be in jeopardy (unless 2 of those 3 seasons are losing seasons), but he’d at least be close to seeing the hot seat.
It’s not really 2 out of 32 teams that make it to the Super Bowl. Most of those 32 teams suck and never had a chance. The better way is to look at it as 1 team out of 6 makes it from the AFC. And really, you can throw out 2 of those 6 as “pretenders”. In the end, you really have only 4 contenders from each conference. I expect Holmgren to have this team become a contender within 3 years (it’s not outside the realm for it to happen within 2). Then, the odds (25%) make it quite possible for the SB within 5.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
This just really isn’t true.
First off, there are 12 teams that make the playoffs every year, 6 from each division. Unless I’m mistaken, that makes the chances 6/16, or 37.5% that any given team will make the playoffs.
Then, out of those 6 teams that make the playoffs, only 1/6 teams make it to the superbowl. Even then, the odds of any given playoff team making the superbowl are about 16.5%, which is much less than your 25% chance that any given team will make the playoffs.
I don’t know how you get off with throwing out teams at random.
Of course, if you really want to base your evaluation on such false statements as “most of those 32 teams suck and never had a chance” then go for it. Last time I checked, though, there’s not really a mathematical allowance for “suck” or “pretenders.” I mean, I guess you can slap numbers like “2” or whatever you’d like with the term “pretenders,” but that would simply not be grounded in mathematical reality. If you still want to stick with them then that’s cool, you’re entitled to your own opinions I guess.
Mathematically, we have a 1/16 chance of making the superbowl. 6.25% chance. The chances aren’t that good that any team will make the superbowl. Even less, winning it: 3.13%.
So, at the start of this season, the Indianapolis Colts had a 6.25% chance of making it to the Super Bowl? Really? The same chance of making the Super Bowl as Cleveland? How do bookmakers make any money?
Let me clarify, I’m not talking about complete randomness – that does not exist in football. Sure there is some, but not complete randomness. We can apply very simple and reasonable conditions to reduce randomness; likely defensive performance, likely offensive performance, and so on.
I think it is quite fair to fire a coach who is unable to get his team to the Super Bowl. If the team has the talent to succeed and is on the doorstep but fails to break through, there is something wrong with the coach.
If it were complete randomness, we would find a lot more Rich Kotites and Chris Palmers on the list of Super Bowl coaches in place of the numerous times we see Bill Walsh, Marv Levy, and Bill Parcells on the list.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
Well shoot… I guess if we don’t have a Bill Walsh or Bill Parcells or Marv Levy available for hire, we should just pack up our bags and give up and go home because we don’t really have a chance to get to the super bowl.
I’m not a big gambling expert, so bear with me. But I don’t think any book keepers bet on who will make the Super Bowl. Don’t the take other people’s bets on who will make the Super Bowl? I’m guessing book makers wouldn’t make the money they do if it’s as easy to determine who will be in the Super Bowl as you say.
I don’t think you can really assume things such as likely defensive performance or offensive performance at the beginning of a season. I mean, possibly if we were judging in a situation where no one ever got injured and teams always play up to their hype… But we don’t. Just ask the Steelers.
Plus… Mike Holmgren is the President of Football Operations, I dunno why you’re all of a sudden talking about coaches… He’s really not a coach anymore, you know (at least for now).
Your gambling analogy is good but it must be pointed out that different teams have different odds of making the superbowl. How are those odds determined? Why are there long-shots and favorites? Overall, the odds makers are pretty good at figuring these differences out and so the long-shots are warranted—that is, bad teams are given better odds to make more people take the bet.
The NFL is not a completely random system and there are teams that you can pretty well eliminate based on last year’s performance, guys moving from the team, retirements, coaching changes, etc. So treating it as a completely random system and basing the odds as if every team has an equal chance of making it based on the fact that they are a part of the 32 teams and acting like you are drawing them out of a hat is unrealistic. You can make some educated guesses and thus modify the odds for given teams. You’d certainly do it in baseball as some teams are just plain uncompetitive. It is still true in football but to a lesser extent.
Brownsyup
I agree you can make good educated guesses as to who has a chance to make it to the Super Bowl. I’m not trying to dispute that. I guess in truth going the way of defending my point by using black and white numbers wasn’t the best way to go.
What I was trying to get at is that it’s just not every team that makes the Super Bowl. Lots of things have to go right for a team to make the Super Bowl. Like last year: If I remember correctly, the Patriots were a favorite to go to the Super Bowl, yes? Then Tom Brady went down with an injury. I don’t know if the Steelers were a favorite to go to the Super Bowl this year, but they were at least considered a lock for the playoffs. Then Polomalu had injury troubles and the team basically imploded. With all that in mind, I’ll still hold to the opinion that saying a team has X amount of years to make the Super Bowl is a bit unrealistic.
Sorry for my faulty use of odds and whatnot.
Definitely true that a lot of things have to go right. That is the point of hiring someone good who will make decisions to increase the odds of positive outcomes. For instance, I can say with fairly hog certainty (75-90%) that we will have a Pro Bowl calibre QB in Cleveland within 3 years. Holmgren has consistently done that and there is no reason to expect it will not happen here.
Once we have the Pro Bowl QB it is difficult for the team to avoid success. (Again barring catastrophe). We should also expect a Pro Bowl running back- Holmgren has consistently achieed that too.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jan 6, 2010 2:02 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Meant to be “high certainty” – darn auto spelling on this gadget!
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jan 7, 2010 11:45 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
that’s cool; but maybe we should try to make “fairly hog certainty” a term on our website. maybe chris can put it in the community guidelines. it’s kinda catchy if you ask me.
by Dawg Nuts on Jan 7, 2010 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I vote yes.
With fairy hog certainty.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 7, 2010 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
It fits Holmgren’s persona
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jan 7, 2010 2:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Or a Dick Vermeil
Bill Cowher
Marv Levy
Lovie Smith
Ken Whisenhunt
Jimmy Johnson
Joe Gibbs
Don Shula
Mike Ditka
Jeff Fisher
Mike Tomlin…
And the list goes on and on
A majority of coaches reaching the Super Bowl do so within 5 years of taking the position.
And the reason I am talking about the head coach is that we will have a new coach (or at least a coach with just one year of time in the role) this next season.
Expecting the Browns to have a strong chance of reaching the Super Bowl within the next five years is not far fetched.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
I understand what you’re saying. I haven’t looked at the actual numbers on this, but I would guess a lot of those coaches probably inherited a team that was at least pretty solid before they took over. I did look at the Steelers over the past few years… We know that the Steelers had a very solid foundation built before Mike Tomlin came in and won the Super Bowl. I’d assume history would probably provide a few more of those type of examples. I think it was very realistic to expect a Mike Tomlin to take the Steelers to the Super Bowl within 5 years because of the team he inherited. Now, taking over a mess like the Browns after a 4-12 season with expectations of a Super Bowl appearance in 5 years? I’d say that’s a little more farfetch’d.
I still don’t like the idea of saying a coach loses his job if he doesn’t make the Super Bowl in X number of years (explanation in my post before this in reply to Brownsyrup). I suppose my original post should have been more directly focused on the Browns instead of making a blanket statement about teams in general. Furthermore, I realize my use of odds were shaky at best. But I’m still going to stick with my opinion that Holmgren shouldn’t get the boot for not making the playoffs in 5 years. Can we make it there in 5 years? Of course we could.
I may misunderstand your stance, so lemme make sure: Are you saying that it’s POSSIBLE for us to make it to the Super Bowl in 5 years or that we SHOULD make it to the Super Bowl in 5 years (and if we don’t Holmgren is out)?
i choose to look at it as how long will it take before we have the right to be unhappy if we haven’t made a serious push toward that ultimate goal. as some mentioned above, it is unrealistic to say “super bowl or bust” within anything less than 5 years. but i voted for 5 yrs because i feel if he doesn’t have the team in a position to at least threaten to make the super bowl in that amount of time, its time to question things and be displeased.
Well, the five-year plan didn’t really work out so well for communism, but I think that’s the length of time we need to be looking at here, but I would consider that to be just the point for SB contention. As Shep pointed out, it’s long odds even for good teams.
The odds change with good teams. If you are “good” and get homefield in the playoffs, the “chances” of making the SB are quite high. And, I expect homefield in the playoffs to happen rather quickly.
Sure, there is the “chance” of having to face a Jordan or Elway when reaching the Conference Championship, but the great coaches and GMs find a way to knock them off.
BTW, you’re encroaching on copyright infringement with your avatar… ;-)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
I own the exact same Spiderman Halloween basket.
by SpecialBrownie on Jan 5, 2010 11:58 PM EST up reply actions
There is so much more that goes into weather or not Holmgren is successful over a given number of years. If we don’t make the superbowl in 5 years and don’t even make the playoffs… that would be pretty bad. If there were general anarchy and 3 new coaches in that time… it would be even worse. If we made the playoffs and were very competitive in 3 out of those 5 years, I think everyone would be on cloud nine. I know I would. I do think we have to see some real progress to include a winning season within 3 years.
Brownsyup
This team will have a winning season within 2 years (barring catastrophe) or else we start looking for other options. When examining past regime changes successful teams always win by season 2. Having a winning season by #2 does not guarantee success, but having 2 losing seasons at the start of a new regime pretty much means the regime is doomed. Again, I am excluding catastrophes.
We should expect success and very soon.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jan 6, 2010 1:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
yes. i think that all sounds right. but i think being a winning team and a super bowl team are very different, and i wouldn’t expect the latter to be anytime before 4 to 5 years.
make no mistake though: i’m with you on thinking we should have a winning season in 2 years.
Amen! Hallelujah! And pass the ammunition!
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge..." C. Darwin
by Spidey on Jan 6, 2010 2:07 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Follow DBN on Twitter
Browns Links
Local Media Sources
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities/Blogs
The Watercooler
Waiting for Next Year
Dawg Scooper
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
