[washingtonismoney]

Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

At the time of his hire into USC, he had a 33-31 record at the Jets and Patriots (52% winning percentage).  He had gone to the playoffs twice in four years, and his worst season was 6-10.

Most of his .593 record and the Super Bowl came from a .619 winning percentage in a dozen seasons in Seattle.  But, none of this could have possibly been foreseen at the time of his hiring into USC.  Sure, you can retrospectively look at his record and say he was a great NFL head coach, but you could not possibly have known that or foreseen it at the time.  I mean, if Garrett is hired and is successful at Stanford, bolts to the NFL, and wins a Super Bowl, then retrospectively it would seem like a no-brainer hire.

BC

I agree we couldn't've known it retrospectively. But neither are we required to ignore new evidence as it comes in. If we look at all the evidence from Pete Carroll's career, the notion that he was an ineffectual NFL coach who then romped his way through the kids' playpen of college seems a bit fanciful. Perhaps Carroll was a bad NFL coach after his first couple of tenures, he learned a bunch, and then became a good one, or perhaps Carroll was always a good coach who had some unlucky years for whatever reason.* 

*(for example, one famous way for an NFL coach to be unlucky is to be stuck with a bad or unstable QB situation. For example I think most NFL fans think Frank Reich is a reasonably good coach who suffered from upheaval at the QB position. Fortunately this also describes Jason Garrett, who coached notably bad QBs Tony Romo and Dak Prescott.)

[washingtonismoney]

Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

At the time of his hire into USC, he had a 33-31 record at the Jets and Patriots (52% winning percentage).  He had gone to the playoffs twice in four years, and his worst season was 6-10.

Most of his .593 record and the Super Bowl came from a .619 winning percentage in a dozen seasons in Seattle.  But, none of this could have possibly been foreseen at the time of his hiring into USC.  Sure, you can retrospectively look at his record and say he was a great NFL head coach, but you could not possibly have known that or foreseen it at the time.  I mean, if Garrett is hired and is successful at Stanford, bolts to the NFL, and wins a Super Bowl, then retrospectively it would seem like a no-brainer hire.

BC

I agree we couldn't've known it retrospectively. But neither are we required to ignore new evidence as it comes in. If we look at all the evidence from Pete Carroll's career, the notion that he was an ineffectual NFL coach who then romped his way through the kids' playpen of college seems a bit fanciful. Perhaps Carroll was a bad NFL coach after his first couple of tenures, he learned a bunch, and then became a good one, or perhaps Carroll was always a good coach who had some unlucky years for whatever reason.* 

*(for example, one famous way for an NFL coach to be unlucky is to be stuck with a bad or unstable QB situation. For example I think most NFL fans think Frank Reich is a reasonably good coach who suffered from upheaval at the QB position. Fortunately this also describes Jason Garrett, who coached notably bad QBs Tony Romo and Dak Prescott.)