In 1992, IF the Bengals hired 2004 Marvin Lewis instead of Dave Shula...

[XsandOs]

(06-13-2019, 05:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except I back my opinion up with facts.

If Esiason was "shot" like you claim then how did he finish 8th in passer rating and get selected to a Pro Bowl the next season?




You were the one who started with the personal shots, not me.

Fred, your demeanor on this board is confrontational.

You have picked on one part of multiple reasons I provided for why Shula was at a disadvantage in '92 than Marvin in '03.

Just so you know, Boomer was a fast ball passer both in baseball and football. What he learned in NFL was touch.

After 8 years in NFL, he lost his fastball. He could no longer throw the deep comebacks from the opposite hash. He made a comment on an interview that he was throwing them high and out, to not get intercepted.

But as you always do Fred, you chose one area of an argument and hope it somehow proves a point. It doesn't.

Three out of five OL positions were lost entering '92. Rookie LT, C moved to LG, RG and C with one year in the league.

Billups gone, Fulcher was washed up and on his way out, Krumrie was done, Williams was a rookie, Brooks was gone, Pickens was a rookie, etc.

So you want to talk about providing evidence to embarrass me? Really? You? Fred Toast???

BTW, Marvins' success was directly related to the offense - which was driven by having Levi, Willie, Steinbach and then Williams. That OL helped Kitna and Palmer succeed.

I assume you watched the Bengals last year and the year before. Given the state of our OL, how did that work out? The '92 OL was worse.

So Fred, I'll explain it to you again, it is unfair to say that Shula would not have succeeded in '03. That is an opinion Fred. Just as is yours.

The difference is that I don't call your opinion ridiculous and comically proclaim that you could somehow embarrass me with your evidence.