11-21-2018, 06:38 PM
(11-21-2018, 04:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The first seems to be that coach Lewis was not given enough talent to succeed in a way that other coaches have. However, you go to great lengths to drive home the point that Lewis has made the playoffs seven times, which as you've implied, is an impressive feat. The problem that comes into play is when you then imply that coach Lewis was not given the proper talent to achieve said feat. Furthermore, you imply, rather vigorously, that it is a rather important aspect of his postseason inadequacies. Those assertions would logically seem to be in conflict with one another. If Lewis had rosters that were talented enough to reach the postseason seven times, it would follow that he should have had enough talent to win - at the least - a couple of those games. Moreover, given seven opportunities, one could logically assume - based on nothing more than probability - that he would've won at least one of those games in spite of any circumstance that may have suggested otherwise.
Another argument that I've noticed that has left me a bit perplexed is the one that suggests that the reason Lewis has failed is because of Brown. The problem with this argument is the rather similar to the previous. While it's true that Brown is not an ideal owner or general manager, Lewis has still managed to make the postseason seven times under him. You can laud that accomplishment as a great feat, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. However, you can't then excuse away the playoff losses as insurmountable plateaus. If Lewis could accomplish seven playoff berths under Brown, then once again, it would seem to follow that some playoff success should be probable as well.
First of all I am not the only one who claims the Bengals don't have enough talent. If you come around here during free agency you will see that everyone here agrees with me that Mike Brown's free agent policies hurt the teams chances of winning. The only time they try to deny this is when they want to blame everything on Marvin. So they end up contradicting themselves depending on who they want to criticize.
Second, the argument that if Marvin has the talent to make the playoffs then he has the talent to win in the playoffs is no different than saying if Marvin is a good enough coach to make the playoffs then he is a good enough coach to win in the playoffs. I just refuse to believe that some coaches don't try as hard to win in the regular season as they do in the playoffs. For example in '13 when we beat the Chargers on their own field in the regular season they were 5-6 and fighting as hard as they could to win every game to make the playoffs. If Mike McCoy could "outcoach" Marvin then he would have done it during the regular season when they were desperate for a win.
When you look at the big picture 7 games in 15 seasons is actually a pretty small sample size. Some of the losses were because we did not have enough talent, some of then were because players just had bad days (was Marvin the reason Dalton had 1 turnover against the Chargers in the regular season and 2 ints and 2 fumbles in the playoff game), and some of them might have been because Marvin made bad coaching decisions. I don't really understand it. Even Mike Zimmers defenses looked bad in the post season. Maybe the Bengals are just cursed.
All I know is that anyone who claims Mike Brown's free agency policy has nothing to do with the Bengals chances of winning is either clueless or lying. The teams with the most talent usual win in the postseason.
