So...where are all the interviews for Marvin Lewis?

[Shake n Blake]

(01-08-2019, 06:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the roster was loaded, but not winning then how can you not give the credit to Marv.  

How can the players get any credit if they were 2-14 without Marvin?

BTW as soon as Marvin arrived he lost the best player on offense (Dillon) and the best player on defense (Spikes)

I didn't say the roster was "loaded", just that the vast majority of the core that won 11 games in 2005 was drafted pre-Marvin (and Carson was a free gift for showing up). Hard to deny this. 

As for why they went 2-14, I already answered that. LeBeau was a terrible HC and the players were very green. Some of them weren't even playing much yet. Rudi and Housh had barely played. Palmer wasn't on the 2002 team. I'm not saying Marv played zero part. People take things to extremes intentionally to discredit arguments they don't like. 

I'm saying we had a great young cast of talent ready to go for whoever the next coach was. Plus an owner willing to spend in year 1. We just needed seasoning and competent coaching. Marv was competent...but so were Coughlin and Green. People act like only Marv could've led that team to a turnaround. I'm just showing why I don't think that's the case. 

Marv never was a one-in-a-million coach. He was just competent and had a very good young core of players. Everyone wants to debate me on this, but no one will answer a simple question: Do you think Coughlin or Green could've had a similar turnaround had they been hired instead?

(01-09-2019, 07:38 AM)BonnieBengal Wrote: I thought about that but he's been an NFL head coach for 16 years straight.  He can easily retire.  Maybe he doesn't want to work.  I'm not saying he's in demand by any means, but he probably isn't in any hurry to go back to work.

Maybe he decided he no longer wanted to coach. Maybe the options aren't there. I just think if there was any real interest, we'd hear that some team reached out to him, but he's not interested.