Interim coaches are getting it done

There’s a fairly widespread belief that changing coaches won’t change a team’s fortunes.  While it make not deliver a Super Bowl win or even a playoff berth, the recent trend suggests that change helps.

Peter King of points out in his Monday Morning Quarterback column that the last seven interim coaches generated a better winning percentage than the men they replaced.

That said, the pre-interim coaches have generated a paltry winning percentage of only 23.6.  The interim coaches win at a rate of 38.3 percent.

The latest interim coach, Leslie Frazier of the Vikings, stands at 100 percent, given Sunday’s win over the Redskins.  Who knows?  Maybe he can finish his interim stint at that number, too.

9 responses to “Interim coaches are getting it done

  1. The only thing that changed for the cowboys was that the players actually tried to play well…and the OC modified the gameplan for the better. (Both should have happened all year but it seemed the OC wanted the HC job and tanked it until he got it) As for the Vikings, with Chilly gone, a huge weight is off their collective shoulders. He was a poor game manager and had issues with some of the players. The fan bases let up on the team bashing also.

  2. Playing the Redskins will do that for you. I’ll bet when the Vikings play the Bills they’ll also ‘get it done.’

  3. Yes, because 4 games are such a great representative sample size (and yes, I know King even bothered to go back for the past 3 or so seasons).

    Either way, be it the 4 interim-coached games this year or 3 year’s worth, not a great sample size and doesn’t convince me that a change in coach really does much…it’s still a sub .500 record which points moreso to the quality (or lack thereof) of the team – and perhaps the discipline of the team too.

    In fact, I’d say the change in coaches puts a temporary “fear of God” in some of the players to change their ways & step their game up in fear of losing their jobs too.

  4. Does it count as ‘getting it done’ if you’re winning games against teams like the Lions and the Redskins?

    These are both teams that have the talent, and also had the expectations to go deep into the playoffs, if not to the Super Bowl. The anomaly isn’t that they’re winning now, its that they weren’t before. They won with both fired coaches last year, so its not the game plans, or the players. Its down to dumb luck, or maybe they’re just over-rated?

  5. I don’t even have to say “small sample size.” You expect coaches to get fired at the lowest point of the season. Regression to the mean alone could more than explain this ‘trend’.

    Most teams fire their coaches at a time when it would be almost impossible for them to get any worse.

  6. what’s next, a headline that reads Vikes turn season around??? They beat the skins (an unimpressive team) in pretty unimpressive fashion. Give me a break.

    You can at least reference Garret on this, he’s had three hard fought games against some solid competition.

    The bigger issue is, (regarding the vikes) what the hell happens next year when Lord Favre relenquishes his grip on this franchise? A coach is only one of their many worries.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!