Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In 1992, IF the Bengals hired 2004 Marvin Lewis instead of Dave Shula...
#1
In 1992, IF the Bengals hired 2004 Marvin Lewis instead of Dave Shula...what would the 90's have been like?

So I keep reading people state how bad Marvin was as a coach and how replacing him will lead to more success, but there's no denying that he came to a team that had major issues and immediately made it respectable.

I would say that his impact on the Bengals was comparable to Dorsey's on the Browns.

If Marvin was the coach through the 90's, do you think we're as bad? Worse? or Better?

Back your analysis up!
Reply/Quote
#2
Most definitely would have been better than we were, but Marv still has a ceiling he could not breech. It would most likely been just another decade of either just missing the playoffs, or losing in the 1st round. Marvin did not seem able to get the team to produce in their biggest moments. That's on coaching...
Reply/Quote
#3
I would say just slightly better than Shula. Marvin had way better QBs to work with than Shula, and Marvin is a better defensive mind. Instead of being one of the worst teams in the NFL we would be a below average to average team.
Reply/Quote
#4
(06-11-2019, 10:51 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Most definitely would have been better than we were, but Marv still has a ceiling he could not breech. It would most likely been just another decade of either just missing the playoffs, or losing in the 1st round. Marvin did not seem able to get the team to produce in their biggest moments. That's on coaching...

Yep. Lewis' approach was to treat every primetime game like any other game. While obviously the intent behind it was likely to keep the players from getting nervous, it seemed to result in a lack of effort and/or preparation at times.
I love mock drafts!

"Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#5
(06-11-2019, 10:53 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I would say just slightly better than Shula. Marvin had way better QBs to work with than Shula, and Marvin is a better defensive mind. Instead of being one of the worst teams in the NFL we would be a below average to average team.

Well, we may have drafted different players with him here too. And the staff might have been different.
Reply/Quote
#6
I think it has been said many times on here, when ML got here, he brought energy and the players responded, but that just got stale after awhile. Do I think the 90's would have been better? No I don't. Just because MB pretty much had the last say or only say in what we did.
Reply/Quote
#7
What if we hired Zac Taylor in 1992? He would have been like 5 years old but still, it makes you wonder what might have happened.
Reply/Quote
#8
Hard to say. The 90’s teams were an absolute train wreck, and MB was at his peak of stinginess and incompetence. The team very well may have been “better”, but I doubt they would have been “good”.

Also, Marvin proved he wasn’t anything special himself. Sure he saved this team from the 90’s, but he inherited a very un-90’s roster. We had a pretty solid Oline, ball-hawking DB’s, an elite RB, rising star WR’s... the fairly quick turnaround didn’t surprise me (plus, my 14 year-old self thought Marvin was the next Bill Walsh at the time). Still, you gotta give Marvin credit for giving the fanbase hope before 2008.
Reply/Quote
#9
(06-11-2019, 11:53 AM)Nately120 Wrote: What if we hired Zac Taylor in 1992? He would have been like 5 years old but still, it makes you wonder what might have happened.

I think that most 5 year olds could at least match what happened in the 90’s.
Reply/Quote
#10
Pointing out that Marvin is a flawed coach is not the same as pointing out that Marvin is a bad coach. I think the vast majority of fans appreciate what he did in his time here, but there was no question that it was time for him to go.

How long is the Marvin Lewis white knighting going to continue on the boards? Some of y'all act like he was completely without fault in everything that happened over the last few years here and will jump through every hoop you can find to defend the guy... and these are the same people who will blast other fans for "settling for mediocrity"!
Reply/Quote
#11
(06-11-2019, 12:40 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Pointing out that Marvin is a flawed coach is not the same as pointing out that Marvin is a bad coach. I think the vast majority of fans appreciate what he did in his time here, but there was no question that it was time for him to go.

How long is the Marvin Lewis white knighting going to continue on the boards? Some of y'all act like he was completely without fault in everything that happened over the last few years here and will jump through every hoop you can find to defend the guy... and these are the same people who will blast other fans for "settling for mediocrity"!

No doubt Marvin needed to be gone...probably 5 years ago.

But, back to the premise of the thread: He did come in and restore a team to atleast average from bad. IF he were here since 1992, would he have had success in the 90's or would the team have still been bad?
Reply/Quote
#12
(06-11-2019, 12:13 PM)Pat5775 Wrote: Hard to say. The 90’s teams were an absolute train wreck, and MB was at his peak of stinginess and incompetence. The team very well may have been “better”, but I doubt they would have been “good”.

Also, Marvin proved he wasn’t anything special himself. Sure he saved this team from the 90’s, but he inherited a very un-90’s roster. We had a pretty solid Oline, ball-hawking DB’s, an elite RB, rising star WR’s... the fairly quick turnaround didn’t surprise me (plus, my 14 year-old self thought Marvin was the next Bill Walsh at the time). Still, you gotta give Marvin credit for giving the fanbase hope before 2008.

Our drafting and personnel decisions seemed to improve once he was here too.

But, like you said...he did inherit Justin Smith, Chad Johnson, TJ, Rudi Johnson, and the #1 overall pick which became Palmer.
Reply/Quote
#13
(06-11-2019, 01:35 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Our drafting and personnel decisions seemed to improve once he was here too.


Coaching effects everything.

People say we drafted worse in the '90's, but we had first round picks like Alfred Williams and Darryl Williams who became Pro Bowl and even All Pro players with other teams after leaving the Bengals.  Bob Dahl was a third round pick we cut before he ever played a game for us and he went on to start for 6 seasons with two other teams.

Our drafts in the 90's would have looked a lot better if the guys had been coached up better.

the 1990's Bengals would have been much better with Marvin as coach, but still don't know if they would have won any playoff games.


Reply/Quote
#14
(06-11-2019, 10:44 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: In 1992, IF the Bengals hired 2004 Marvin Lewis instead of Dave Shula...what would the 90's have been like?

So I keep reading people state how bad Marvin was as a coach and how replacing him will lead to more success, but there's no denying that he came to a team that had major issues and immediately made it respectable.

I would say that his impact on the Bengals was comparable to Dorsey's on the Browns.

If Marvin was the coach through the 90's, do you think we're as bad? Worse? or Better?

Back your analysis up!

I don't believe it would have been significantly better.

The biggest issue was that the organization was in disarray, after PB Sr died. It literally took Jr about a decade to learn nuances of running a football organization. Not just financially, but talent evaluation and development. PB Sr. ran the entire organization as the owner, GM, as well as system creator.

PB Jr. had to also adjust to Plan B and then the current FA system in '93.

Additionally, the Team that went to '88 SB Team was decimated. OL was non-existent, the defense was gone, and obviously the QB...

So, I don't think any coach would have had much success.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#15
(06-11-2019, 03:49 PM)XsandOs Wrote: I don't believe it would have been significantly better.

The biggest issue was that the organization was in disarray, after PB Sr died. It literally took Jr about a decade to learn nuances of running a football organization. Not just financially, but talent evaluation and development. PB Sr. ran the entire organization as the owner, GM, as well as system creator.

PB Jr. had to also adjust to Plan B and then the current FA system in '93.

Additionally, the Team that went to '88 SB Team was decimated. OL was non-existent, the defense was gone, and obviously the QB...

So, I don't think any coach would have had much success.

So then if we hired Dave Shula in 2004 would he had gotten similar results to Marvin?
Reply/Quote
#16
(06-11-2019, 03:59 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So then if we hired Dave Shula in 2004 would he had gotten similar results to Marvin?

Pistons, my post opined as to the difficulties any Bengal coach would have faced in the 90s.

I believe that Lewis was a better coach than Shula, and feel that he was better equipped to lead players in 2000s than Shula. I think Lewis brought some degree of credibility that spoke to those players - unlike Shula just possessing bloodlines.

But to your question of whether Shula would have succeeded in '04 as did Lewis, I think it would be unfair to assume that he wouldn't.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#17
(06-11-2019, 04:57 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Pistons, my post opined as to the difficulties any Bengal coach would have faced in the 90s.

I believe that Lewis was a better coach than Shula, and feel that he was better equipped to lead players in 2000s than Shula. I think Lewis brought some degree of credibility that spoke to those players - unlike Shula just possessing bloodlines.

But to your question of whether Shula would have succeeded in '04 as did Lewis, I think it would be unfair to assume that he wouldn't.

So essentially the front office improved?

With the Bengals it's really hard to say who's calling the shots. You could be right. Or maybe Marvin told them who to draft? Hard to really say.
Reply/Quote
#18
(06-11-2019, 10:44 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: In 1992, IF the Bengals hired 2004 Marvin Lewis instead of Dave Shula...what would the 90's have been like?

So I keep reading people state how bad Marvin was as a coach and how replacing him will lead to more success, but there's no denying that he came to a team that had major issues and immediately made it respectable.

I would say that his impact on the Bengals was comparable to Dorsey's on the Browns.

If Marvin was the coach through the 90's, do you think we're as bad? Worse? or Better?

Back your analysis up!

id have to say we would have probly become a dynasty.. As Future marvin would have 12 years worth of upcoming draft/player knowledge.. and be able to make all the right signings and draft picks to turn the team into an unstoppable force. and avoid some of the mistakes we made along the way.
Reply/Quote
#19
Tell you what; if Marvin was head coach in 1992, he drafts Troy Vincent instead of Klingler. He will take Daryl Williams with the second first-rounder and bang, secondary is now solid.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#20
This may be hyperbole, but the Bengals' fortunes in the 1990s may have largely hinged on game three of Shula's rookie season as head coach. They started out 2-0, and went to Lambeau Field and pretty much controlled the action till late. Brett Favre had come off the bench for an injured Don Majkowski and led the Packers to late scoring drives to come from behind. Now they may have still stunk up the rest of the season that year (they finished something like 4-12 I think), but I have often wondered what happens if they win that game.
Reply/Quote





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)