Goebbels strikes again

[*SHRacerX*]

(02-12-2017, 04:37 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: I simply don't agree that Mike Brown wants to win as much, or more, than the fans do. 

This is an owner who watched Dave Shula go 8-24 (5-11, 3-13) in his first two seasons an decided that performance warranted a 2 year extension.

This is the same owner that tried to talk Bruce Coslet into remaining the HC even though they had lost 25 of their previous 30 games, and Coslet had flat out told him that it wasn't working.

This is a owner that still sounded defiant after firing Dick LeBeau - following a franchise worst 2 win season - insisting that things weren't as bad as fans and the media said they were.

There are plenty of other things I could list, but there's nothing about Mike Brown's actions during his tenure that screams "I want to win more than anyone". I'm sure he likes to win. I'm sure he prefers to win. But...I don't think he has ever had any great 'passion' to win. 

Instead, I think he's been incredibly stubborn in the past, wanting to do things 'his way'...even when the results were painfully obvious that his way wasn't working. Doing it 'his way' certainly seemed more important than the actual results.

This is one area where I've always given Marvin credit. He was able to come in, work closely with Katie and then Duke, in a way that demonstrated to Mike that there was a better way. That eventually led to Marvin gaining more control during negotiations after the 2010 season that led to him re-signing. But even during that process, Mike was very stubborn...to the point where Marvin actually walked away from the table at one point.

Mike's role since 2011 has been more limited, and that's a good thing, but again...nothing from 1991-2010 about Mike Brown - the owner or the GM - conveyed a message of "I want to win more than anyone". At least not in my opinion.

To be fair, a lot of what you discuss here is ancient history....a league that had no rookie wage scale.  A team drafts consensus #1 picks and they are a litany of busts (Ki-Jana, Klingler, Wilkinson, Reinard Wilson, and so on and so on) that financially cripple your team for years.  You are stuck with that ridiculous contract and you have to keep trying to find a way to make them work.  Ironically, now a team drafts a dud in the first round (Ponder, Locker, Gabbert) were all first rounders that should have killed their teams, but they can move on MUCH faster now....and right when the Bengals seemingly went on a pretty good run of drafting.

A lot of what has transpired in the Marvin Lewis Era has been positive...you can quote playoff record and prime time games, etc. but this team has matured in to a legitimate contender that has been (IMHO) very close a few times.  That is such a dramatic improvement from the 90s that the owner wanted to stick with what got him there.  

I mean, if Palmer doesn't get Kimo'd in 2005?  If Dalton doesn't break his thumb in 2015?  He assembled those teams.  He helped assemble a great coaching staff.  He has helped expand the scouting department and Tobin was a great hire.

If the Bengals had won even one Super Bowl in that time, no one would be saying a thing.  But they haven't...and it all gets dumped on him as a failure.  It should fall on his shoulders, but how many teams that win say it is because of the owner?  Isn't it usually a function of the coaches and players?  Why is it the owner only when they don't win?