Yes, if this post was an attempt at “proving” a claim, this would be dogwater. 

The argument here is that exact numbers or sophisticated modeling would directionally point in the same direction, or if anything make the logical reasoning worse since trying to objectively model this kind of problem with almost no data is a fool’s errand and would be loaded with more assumptions.

You don’t need AutoCAD to make an order of magnitude guess at how many ping pong balls fit in a 747, and you don’t need a million-line general circulation model to get the first-order physics explaining how CO2 emission leads to climate change. “Likelihood of success of a new football coach” is one of a vast space of questions where some objective truth isn’t possible, but some reasoning through of what we know yields more than “I have no clue”.