The playoff stats are a completely valid criticism of Mike Tomlin. But damn, do I hate the coaching tree argument. I think people use it to sound smart. A few things with that:
1) Let's say you have a good racehorse, and when the racing career is over, they put him out to stud. But he doesn't produce any offspring that are any good on the track. Does that take away from the fact that he was a good racehorse?
2) To me a tree doesn't mean much if it doesn't bare fruit or the branches die. So great, Belechick has had a tree. None of them have done anything, probably because they ain't Belechick, but they want to be like him. They don't have the credibility. Noll didn't really have a tree. Shula didn't. Lombardi didn't. Coaching trees really only started to be talked about, as I recall, because of one of the biggest self promoters in coaching liked to talk about how great he was. Bill Walsh.
3) Using the Bill Walsh tree as an example, should a tree even be something we aspire Tomlin to have? Do you think when the Packers got good in the 90s and started to beat the 49ers, the 49ers consoled themselves by saying, "Well, at least we lost to Holmgren, he's is part of Walsh's tree!" I wonder if that would have made them feel better.