(05-10-2021, 01:33 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The 2003 Bengals were pretty stacked with young ascending offensive talent. Willie, Levi, Braham, Chad, Housh, Warrick, Rudi, CD, etc.

The 2019 Bengals were littered with players at the end of their careers.

That doesn't mean Zac has an excuse for going 6-25-1...which is historically awful. But Marv was certainly given the better stitch.

In short, Marv was a solid coach who was given a solid roster (offensively). Zac is a bad coach who was given a deceptively bad roster. You add those two and you get 6-25-1.

The jury is still out on ZT. I’ll reserve judgement until after this season.

(05-10-2021, 08:47 AM)Waite Hoyt Wrote: The jury is still out on ZT. I’ll reserve judgement until after this season.

I guess the jury was out on Hue Jackson before 2018 as well.

(05-09-2021, 09:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Other new HCs have had instant success in Cleveland, Chicago, SF, LA, MIA and so on.  ZT and Adam Gase come to mind as guys who apparently had to stink for years to learn on the job.  

ZT has to make the playoffs or I've had my fill of him.  Any nfl roster is too important to serve as training wheels...but we actually look like we should be good right now. 

Also, have we had a HC who had a rough year or two before getting better?  Was Sam Wyche the most recent one? 

You seriously did not throw Cleveland out as instant success for a HC did you? How many top draft selections, HCs, and GMs later before they had "instant" success. 

(05-10-2021, 02:23 PM)OSUfan Wrote: You seriously did not throw Cleveland out as instant success for a HC did you? How many top draft selections, HCs, and GMs later before they had "instant" success. 

They had Freddie Kitchens...he looked like crap and they fired him and got a better HC and won 11 games and won a road playoff game his first season with a roster that hadn't had a winning season with Hue or Freddie Kitchens.  Both Hue and Kitchens had plausible excuses like ZT as to why they looked like they weren't fit to be head coaches, but the Browns pulled the plug.  Again, we are now way too talented to settle for a HC like ZT unless ZT turns things around on a dime.

I also find it a bit concerning that we are going down the John Ross route with ZT.  

He's gonna be an instant improvement!
Ok, well he needs a better roster
Ok, he needs better luck with this better roster
No one could have succeeded those first few years but he's gonna make us eat crow this year!

...and so on.  

(05-10-2021, 02:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: They had Freddie Kitchens...he looked like crap and they fired him and got a better HC and won 11 games and won a road playoff game his first season with a roster that hadn't had a winning season with Hue or Freddie Kitchens.  Both Hue and Kitchens had plausible excuses like ZT as to why they looked like they weren't fit to be head coaches, but the Browns pulled the plug.  Again, we are now way too talented to settle for a HC like ZT unless ZT turns things around on a dime.

I also find it a bit concerning that we are going down the John Ross route with ZT.  

He's gonna be an instant improvement!
Ok, well he needs a better roster
Ok, he needs better luck with this better roster
No one could have succeeded those first few years but he's gonna make us eat crow this year!

...and so on.  

I think this just goes to show you the future of your football team does rely on how good of coaching staff you bring on board. 

Stefanski was a very highly respected offensive coordinator in the NFL for multiple seasons.  He joined the Vikings organization in 2006 and grew into one of the most respected OC in the league. 

He came in and turned around the Browns in year one.  Freddie Kitchens was good OC.  He wasn't a good head coach. 

Zac Taylor hasn't been a good coach nor a good offensive coordinator.  

Maybe Zac turns that around this year.  Do i have faith he can...nope, but miracles happen every day and every season in the NFL. 

(05-10-2021, 02:48 PM)TJ528 Wrote: I think this just goes to show you the future of your football team does rely on how good of coaching staff you bring on board. 

Stefanski was a very highly respected offensive coordinator in the NFL for multiple seasons.  He joined the Vikings organization in 2006 and grew into one of the most respected OC in the league. 

He came in and turned around the Browns in year one.  Freddie Kitchens was good OC.  He wasn't a good head coach. 

Zac Taylor hasn't been a good coach nor a good offensive coordinator.  

Maybe Zac turns that around this year.  Do i have faith he can...nope, but miracles happen every day and every season in the NFL. 

Yep, and Marvin "8-8 in year 1" Lewis was a highly respected DC when we hired him.  My issue with ZT is that he came in here with a troubling resume and two seasons in he's lived up to his resume, and not beyond it as we had hoped.

He's been here since 2019...in that time span the Buccaneers went from a team with a 1st overall pick bust QB and 2 winning seasons in a decade to being SB champs and favorite to win in 2021 and the Browns went from "same old Browns" to "maybe not the same old Browns?"  Again, even outside of Cincy, I honestly don't know...how many HCs that go on to be really good start off as badly as ZT has?  Or even start off with two losing seasons?  The NFL has just really turned into a league that moves quickly and I just can't imagine most other fanbases twiddling their thumbs for 2+ years to see if a guy with a dreadful resume "gets it."

Or ZT makes the playoffs this year and all is well. 

(05-10-2021, 02:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yep, and Marvin "8-8 in year 1" Lewis was a highly respected DC when we hired him.  My issue with ZT is that he came in here with a troubling resume and two seasons in he's lived up to his resume, and not beyond it as we had hoped.

He's been here since 2019...in that time span the Buccaneers went from a team with a 1st overall pick bust QB and 2 winning seasons in a decade to being SB champs and favorite to win in 2021 and the Browns went from "same old Browns" to "maybe not the same old Browns?"  Again, even outside of Cincy, I honestly don't know...how many HCs that go on to be really good start off as badly as ZT has?  Or even start off with two losing seasons?  The NFL has just really turned into a league that moves quickly and I just can't imagine most other fanbases twiddling their thumbs for 2+ years to see if a guy with a dreadful resume "gets it."

Or ZT makes the playoffs this year and all is well. 

Ive seen it posted on here that Burrow wouldn't sign a 2nd contract with Cincinnati if Zac were to be fired.  Anyone who believes that Burrow's decision on a 2nd contract depends on whether Zac is the head coach is out of their mind. 

Burrow wants to win.  If Zac is fired and we bring in a competent staff with a good OC and head coach and we start winning then guess what Burrow will be more than happy to sign a 2nd contact with the team. 

However, if Joey decides its time to move on because we cut loose of Zac then we have another high draft pick, and high compensation pick and we can draft another QB.  

Personally, I think Burrow is in Cincinnati for the next 10 years but if he decided to leave because Zac got fired....Adios!! Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya" especially if we have 5 seasons of losing.  

(05-10-2021, 02:48 PM)TJ528 Wrote: I think this just goes to show you the future of your football team does rely on how good of coaching staff you bring on board. 

Stefanski was a very highly respected offensive coordinator in the NFL for multiple seasons.  He joined the Vikings organization in 2006 and grew into one of the most respected OC in the league. 

He came in and turned around the Browns in year one.  Freddie Kitchens was good OC.  He wasn't a good head coach. 

Zac Taylor hasn't been a good coach nor a good offensive coordinator.  

Maybe Zac turns that around this year.  Do i have faith he can...nope, but miracles happen every day and every season in the NFL. 

You really don’t see the difference in the roster ZT inherited and the Browns? Certainly coaching is very important to the success of any team but no coach wins without talent. ZT not only was dealing with lack of talent he had major injuries to key players in the 2 years he has coached.

(05-10-2021, 06:06 PM)Waite Hoyt Wrote: You really don’t see the difference in the roster ZT inherited and the Browns?  Certainly coaching is very important to the success of any team but no coach wins without talent. ZT not only was dealing with lack of talent he had major injuries to key players in the 2 years he has coached.

again there a difference between the 2 rosters plus IMO the Browns have had talent they've just had shitty coaching and people in the front office. 

Zac can only live off making excuses for so long. Chances are he's he's shitty coach. You are what your record says you are. I think the chances are higher Zac turns out like Dave Shula rather than Bill Bilichik after a failed 1st stint in the NFL

(05-10-2021, 01:33 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The 2003 Bengals were pretty stacked with young ascending offensive talent. Willie, Levi, Braham, Chad, Housh, Warrick, Rudi, CD, etc.

The 2019 Bengals were littered with players at the end of their careers.

That doesn't mean Zac has an excuse for going 6-25-1...which is historically awful. But Marv was certainly given the better stitch.

In short, Marv was a solid coach who was given a solid roster (offensively). Zac is a bad coach who was given a deceptively bad roster. You add those two and you get 6-25-1.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is a bit of almost revisionist history now.
The best that roster did was go 6-10 in 2001, that too by winning two straight to close the year. Perhaps another dead cast bounce.

Levi was drafted in 2002 so he wasn't even a part of it.
I think we're really underestimating the total rebuild/ culture shift that Marvin did in 2003. He brought in a slew of Tier 2 defensive free agents like Thornton, Tory James etc. Not to mention IIRC, Housh was nowhere near the player he became later on. I think he didn't really start playing at a high level until 2004 when Palmer stared. If I remember right, he was very close to being cut in 2003, with hamstring injuries never allowing him to consistently get in the field until then. I could be off by a year, but TJ was nowhere near the best he became later until Marvin showed up. And I think Warrick was in a similar boat, but obviously he flashed a little in 2003, never before and never after. And as you know Spikes left the same off-season that Marv showed up. Dillon only played a few games for Marv and left the next year. I'm also not sure if I should give any credit to Marv for drafting Steinbach or if it should all go to Duke.
But, until 2003 when Marv came in, I'm not sure this roster ever came close to reaching its potential and certainly the roster upgrade through FA is at least partially if not in majority a credit to Marv. But it was still mostly if not all tier 2 FAs.

I honestly don't think Taylor was given a bad roster. Lack of depth is partly his fault for not impressing upon the FO, the state of the roster. I would honestly submit that he had a comparably on par roster with that of Marv. It certainly wasn't so bad that it declined by 4 games the next year after Marv left.

(05-10-2021, 06:16 PM)TJ528 Wrote: again there a difference between the 2 rosters plus IMO the Browns have had talent they've just had shitty coaching and people in the front office. 

Zac can only live off making excuses for so long. Chances are he's he's shitty coach. You are what your record says you are. I think the chances are higher Zac turns out like Dave Shula rather than Bill Bilichik after a failed 1st stint in the NFL

I think when ZT was hired it was with the understanding that they were going to turn over the roster. It was almost a season of try outs. Dalton was sat a in favor of Finley for a few games. ZT inherited a complete rebuild. I believe last year we would have seen a few more wins had we not had major injury issues on both sides of the ball. Another point is for those complaining about the offense even with the injuries and lack of OL play this team still scored points. ZT is not the idiot some try to make him out to be. Also trying to compare him to Marvin is laughable. So many moving variables it that scenario.

With all that said I am expecting a much more competitive team this year on both sides of the ball.

(05-10-2021, 08:47 AM)Waite Hoyt Wrote: The jury is still out on ZT. I’ll reserve judgement until after this season.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury is not still out on Zac. He's been convicted- at least since the day that his quarterback had his knee put through a blender. I think a better way to look at it is that Zac's now on the way to his parole hearing, where he needs to convince the panel that he's been rehabilitated and can be a positive member of (Bengal) society. It's not about proving his innocence anymore. This is not like seeing whether Belichick can win without Brady, or Tomlin can overcome last year's collapse, or Andy Reid can put his champion back together. Zac is guilty. He's no longer owed the benefit of the doubt from anyone, and should approach the job accordingly imo.

(05-10-2021, 07:15 PM)tms Wrote: As far as I'm concerned, the jury is not still out on Zac. He's been convicted- at least since the day that his quarterback had his knee put through a blender. I think a better way to look at it is that Zac's now on the way to his parole hearing, where he needs to convince the panel that he's been rehabilitated and can be a positive member of (Bengal) society. It's not about proving his innocence anymore. This is not like seeing whether Belichick can win without Brady, or Tomlin can overcome last year's collapse, or Andy Reid can put his champion back together. Zac is guilty. He's no longer owed the benefit of the doubt from anyone, and should approach the job accordingly imo.

Will have to agree to disagree.

(05-10-2021, 06:41 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I don't necessarily disagree,  but I think this is a bit of almost revisionist history now.
The best that roster did was go 6-10 in 2001, that too by winning two straight to close the year. Perhaps another dead cast bounce.

Levi was drafted in 2002 so he wasn't even a part of it.
I think we're really underestimating the total rebuild/ culture shift that Marvin did in 2003. He brought in a slew of Tier 2 defensive free agents like Thornton,  Tory James etc.  Not to mention IIRC, Housh was nowhere near the player he became later on.  I think he didn't really start playing at a high level until 2004 when Palmer stared. If I remember right,  he was very close to being cut in 2003, with hamstring injuries never allowing him to consistently get in the field until then. I could be off by a year,  but TJ was nowhere near the best he became later until Marvin showed up. And I think Warrick was in a similar boat,  but obviously he flashed a little in 2003, never before and never after. And as you know Spikes left the same off-season that Marv showed up. Dillon only played a few games for Marv and left the next year. I'm also not sure if I should give any credit to Marv for drafting Steinbach or if it should all go to Duke.
But,  until 2003 when Marv came in,  I'm not sure this roster ever came close to reaching its potential and certainly the roster upgrade through FA is at least partially if not in majority a credit to Marv. But it was still mostly if not all tier 2 FAs.

I honestly don't think Taylor was given a bad roster. Lack of depth is partly his fault for not impressing upon the FO, the state of the roster. I would honestly submit that he had a comparably on par roster with that of Marv. It certainly wasn't so bad that it declined by 4 games the next year after Marv left.

Levi started 14 games in 2002, 16 in 2003.
Willie was a foundation by 2002 and got his first AP nod in 2003; he would have probably been considered one of the best at his position if he played on any other team.
Chad was already over 1,000 yards by 2002 and stayed there until he got injured (08?). 2003 was one of his best career seasons: 1,355 yards, 58% catch rate (second career highest) and 10 TDs (only time he got double digit TDs in a season).
Dillion averaged 4.2 YPC in 2002, 3.9 in what he played of 2003. Mixon was 4.1 in 2019 and 3.6 in 2020.
It kind of goes on and on.

The 2003 roster would've destroyed the 2019 roster. On paper, Zac inherited some of the best players of the last decade. It's kind of telling that a year later, many of them are backups, FAs or on their couch. And, no, it wasn't because ZT ruined AJ Green, it was because the Bengals FO held onto AJ for too long.

(05-10-2021, 10:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Levi started 14 games in 2002, 16 in 2003.
Willie was a foundation by 2002 and got his first AP nod in 2003; he would have probably been considered one of the best at his position if he played on any other team.
Chad was already over 1,000 yards by 2002 and stayed there until he got injured (08?). 2003 was one of his best career seasons: 1,355 yards, 58% catch rate (second career highest) and 10 TDs (only time he got double digit TDs in a season).
Dillion averaged 4.2 YPC in 2002, 3.9 in what he played of 2003. Mixon was 4.1 in 2019 and 3.6 in 2020.
It kind of goes on and on.

The 2003 roster would've destroyed the 2019 roster. On paper, Zac inherited some of the best players of the last decade. It's kind of telling that a year later, many of them are backups, FAs or on their couch. And, no, it wasn't because ZT ruined AJ Green, it was because the Bengals FO held onto AJ for too long.

See i disagree with you.  If Marvin was coaching the 2003 team against Zac i'll agree the 2003 team wins all day every day, because they have a competent coach leading them.  They have talent.  

However, if that 2003 team was coached by Dick Lebeau vs 2019 Bengals its a lot closer than you think because you have 2 shitty coaching staffs going against each other who couldn't game plan their way out of a paper bag.  

(05-10-2021, 07:01 PM)Waite Hoyt Wrote: I think when ZT was hired it was with the understanding that they were going to turn over the roster. It was almost a season of try outs. Dalton was sat a in favor of Finley for a few games. ZT inherited a complete rebuild. I believe last year we would have seen a few more wins had we not had major injury issues on both sides of the ball. Another point is for those complaining about the offense even with the injuries and lack of OL play this team still scored points. ZT is not the idiot some try to make him out to be. Also trying to compare him to Marvin is laughable. So many moving variables it that scenario.

With all that said I am expecting a much more competitive team this year on both sides of the ball.

his lightbalb has only come on maybe twice in the last 2 years for ZT....  Team scores points and puts up stats in some games but he cant manage a game to get the win which is more important than points scored   ZT might have made an okay OC but hes failed hard at HC so far

(05-10-2021, 10:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Levi started 14 games in 2002, 16 in 2003.
Willie was a foundation by 2002 and got his first AP nod in 2003; he would have probably been considered one of the best at his position if he played on any other team.
Chad was already over 1,000 yards by 2002 and stayed there until he got injured (08?). 2003 was one of his best career seasons: 1,355 yards, 58% catch rate (second career highest) and 10 TDs (only time he got double digit TDs in a season).
Dillion averaged 4.2 YPC in 2002, 3.9 in what he played of 2003. Mixon was 4.1 in 2019 and 3.6 in 2020.
It kind of goes on and on.

The 2003 roster would've destroyed the 2019 roster. On paper, Zac inherited some of the best players of the last decade. It's kind of telling that a year later, many of them are backups, FAs or on their couch. And, no, it wasn't because ZT ruined AJ Green, it was because the Bengals FO held onto AJ for too long.

I don't disagree with your first two paragraphs. For one, they don't really refute my point. For another reason, I didn't say anything to the contrary about Levi, Chad or Willie. Nor is any of that stuff I didn't know. But it's interesting that this roster couldn't win more than 2 games the year before Marvin came in. The reason I mentioned Spikes and Dillon is that, when Marvin took over in 2003, one of the (if not THE) best player from that defense was gone, and Dillon didn't play many games nor play at his best in the one year he played for Marv. I also pointed out how T.J was a fairly average player at best before Marvin's tenure. The fact that Marv took these players and finally got them to an 8-8 season after a bunch of losing seasons in a row leads me to give Marvin more credit in developing the level of many of these players (whether we're talking very good to great, or average to very good etc. ).

All of which means I totally disagree with your third paragraph. I think Marvin would have done much better than the two wins Taylor got in 2019 with the same roster. I can't say that I'm seeing players develop more under Taylor than Marvin. It's debatable that maybe Bates and Boyd wouldn't have gotten to their current levels under Marv, but at least it's debatable either way. I'm not sure Taylor has improved any players' level since he took over. And you could argue a few have regressed. So I wouldn't give the advantage to the 2003 roster, certainly not an overwhelming one. I believe the advantage in coaching is overwhelmingly in favor of Marvin.

(05-11-2021, 02:35 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I don't disagree with your first two paragraphs. For one, they don't really refute my point. For another reason, I didn't say anything to the contrary about Levi, Chad or Willie. Nor is any of that stuff I didn't know. But it's interesting that this roster couldn't win more than 2 games the year before Marvin came in. The reason I mentioned Spikes and Dillon is that, when Marvin took over in 2003, one of the (if not THE) best player from that defense was gone, and Dillon didn't play many games nor play at his best in the one year he played for Marv. I also pointed out how T.J was a fairly average player at best before Marvin's tenure. The fact that Marv took these players and finally got them to an 8-8 season after a bunch of losing seasons in a row leads me to give Marvin more credit in developing the level of many of these players (whether we're talking very good to great, or average to very good etc. ).

All of which means I totally disagree with your third paragraph. I think Marvin would have done much better than the two wins Taylor got in 2019 with the same roster. I can't say that I'm seeing players develop more under Taylor than Marvin. It's debatable that maybe Bates and Boyd wouldn't have gotten to their current levels under Marv, but at least it's debatable either way. I'm not sure Taylor has improved any players' level since he took over. And you could argue a few have regressed. So I wouldn't give the advantage to the 2003 roster, certainly not an overwhelming one. I believe the advantage in coaching is overwhelmingly in favor of Marvin.

In 2019 as the season moved along do you think we wanted to win more then 2 games? The first pick got us Burrow. Our roster was in turmoil. Dalton was benched, AJ was injured and the OL was terrible. I’ll also add that in 2020 our franchise QB had a BS training camp to deal with and no preseason. Hardly how you want to establish a chemistry with your receivers.

Defensively we had the worst collection of LB’s in the NFL.

In 2 years this roster has been almost completely turned over. That is what we should be grading ZT. The fruits of those changes will be graded this year. Real progress will need to be made and if not a change may be in order.

(05-11-2021, 03:03 PM)Waite Hoyt Wrote: In 2019 as the season moved along do you think we wanted to win more then 2 games? The first pick got us Burrow. Our roster was in turmoil. Dalton was benched, AJ was injured and the OL was terrible.

Defensively we had the worst collection of LB’s in the NFL.

In 2 years this roster has been almost completely turned over. That is what we should be grading ZT. The fruits of those changes will be graded this year. Real progress will need to be made and if not a change may be in order.

They started 0-8, benched Andy for three games and went back to him, and he won two out of the last five. There certainly wasn't a tanking air to the season until Finley started. And we certainly came within one overtime of losing out on Burrow. There certainly wasn't any plan or execution by Taylor to get Burrow like you seem to imply here. I still maintain that we would have won more than the two games if Marv coaches under the same circumstances.

EDIT:
Last season with Burrow didn't seem to improve Taylor's coaching a while lot either.

(05-11-2021, 01:05 PM)TJ528 Wrote: See i disagree with you.  If Marvin was coaching the 2003 team against Zac i'll agree the 2003 team wins all day every day, because they have a competent coach leading them.  They have talent.  

However, if that 2003 team was coached by Dick Lebeau vs 2019 Bengals its a lot closer than you think because you have 2 shitty coaching staffs going against each other who couldn't game plan their way out of a paper bag.  

(05-11-2021, 02:35 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I don't disagree with your first two paragraphs. For one,  they don't really refute my point. For another reason,  I didn't say anything to the contrary about Levi,  Chad or Willie. Nor is any of that stuff I didn't know. But it's interesting that this roster couldn't win more than 2 games the year before Marvin came in. The reason I mentioned Spikes and Dillon is that,  when Marvin took over in 2003, one of the (if not THE) best player from that defense was gone,  and Dillon didn't play many games nor play at his best in the one year he played for Marv. I also pointed out how T.J was a fairly average player at best before Marvin's tenure. The fact that Marv took these players and finally got them to an 8-8 season after a bunch of losing seasons in a row leads me to give Marvin more credit in developing the level of many of these players (whether we're talking very good to great,  or average to very good etc. ).

All of which means I totally disagree with your third paragraph.  I think Marvin would have done much better than the two wins Taylor got in 2019 with the same roster. I can't say that I'm seeing players develop more under Taylor than Marvin. It's debatable that maybe Bates and Boyd wouldn't have gotten to their current levels under Marv, but at least it's debatable either way. I'm not sure Taylor has improved any players' level since he took over. And you could argue a few have regressed. So I wouldn't give the advantage to the 2003 roster,  certainly not an overwhelming one. I believe the advantage in coaching is overwhelmingly in favor of Marvin.

Eh, the 2002 team had a horrid record because of bad coaching and a lot of it still being young. That's the exact opposite of the 2019 team (except for the coaching part). It was a bad team that was mostly old.

I don't disagree with the idea Marvin would have done better with that crappy roster. It was, in part, the crappy roster he assembled. Marvin had his style of ball, which was "don't lose". That's the kind of guys he looked for. Guys who weren't necessarily good, but who were consistent. 

So I agree Marvin would've won more than Zac did in 2019, but I completely disagree that the 2019 was a better roster than the 2003 roster. Hell, 2003 at least had an ol if nothing else.