The Concept of Giving a Coach a Few Years to Build a Team

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-18-2019, 09:51 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: In the offseason, there was a narrative that Marvin Lewis and Company were just some inept coaches and bringing in a new staff would improve us by default. Players would improve. Then, with better health we'd be a contender. Well that hasn't happened.

Now people blame lack of talent, Bengals management, coaching, etc. So I read some posts that say lets give Zac a few years to build a team before we judge him. Nobody could win with these players.

The thing is, it's pretty clear to see that we have players regressing. Guys like Bates, Jackson, Mixon, etc. Even the offensive line. It's hard to fathom Mixon leading the AFC in rushing last year and now the running game being this terrible. PFF numbers bear this out that outside of a few outliers...every player is worse than last year. Plus, through 5 games this defense had given up the most yards in franchise history.

I think the staff should be coaching for their jobs. IF players don't show improvement the rest of the season, they almost all have to be let go. The reason is, IF most of the team regresses...giving this staff 2-3 years could set the franchise back a half decade.

There is/was talent here. Guys like Bates and Jackson looked like budding Pro Bowl-caliber players. Mixon looked like a future star. On defense, we have talent on the defensive line with future HOFer in Atkins. Even at LB, a guy like Preston Brown was a solid LB in Buffalo. Heck, even Vigil looked decent last year in the games he played. A 2-LB scheme is just a terrible fit for him and Vigil.

Which brings me to my next point - adjustments and customization. So it's no secret that our defense can't stop outside runs and misdirection. Did you notice how the 49ers, Steelers, and teams with good staffs attack us that way? Then, mediocre HC's like the Cardinals did very little of this. Well, it seems to me that the Bengals gameplan on offense and defense is the same EVERY week. We don't seem to scout other teams and identify and attack weaknesses. We just try the same things over and over.

I'm not saying fire these coaches automatically IF we win 2 games...but I think we need to atleast see some evidence that they can help players improve and show some progress before we keep them for Year 2. Keeping them by default if the trend of the entire team regressing continues will have devastating consequences.

I do feel bad for Taylor. He was very naieve. You basically need a Parcells-level genius to win in Cincy...where Coaches have to scout college and NFL free agents. Evaluate the roster. Create the playbook. Structure practices. Coach, etc. It's a huge ask to have all those skills at a high level in 1 person. Maybe that 1 person is good at 2 of those things. That works on other teams. Not here.

Thoughts?

You're embellishing the end of last year a bit...with the exception of a couple people who would claim anyone could do better. Those people are exceptions rather than the rule. 

At the end of last year, Marv was totally stale. His voice, his approach, his everything was done and played out. The team needed something new, something different. 

Many good coaches started off bad with new teams. Maybe not this bad--i don't know, i haven't studied it. Any coach that comes in and inherits a bad team, is more than likely to produce bad results. The critical injuries (a Bengals theme for sure) have multiplied the bad start. It remains to be seen if Taylor is a good or bad NFL head coach, his previous coaching stints notwithstanding   , he should be given a chance to tweak his coaching staff and try to build the team in a way he prefers (which of course could be limited by what MB believes). 

In any event, 6 games is way too early to call someone a confirmed hit or miss. 

Also, keep in mind, it is possible that one player or one position group can make another player look worse than they looked previously.