(05-20-2021, 11:01 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Yes, strictly to support his claim of "lots of teams".  Because I know he'll need to provide examples like...

"Orville "Rickets" Rockenfield lasted 4 seasons for Cleveland Rams (1932-1935) despite a record of 9-12-3 through his first 3 seasons."... "He finished his career with a rousing 6-2 victory over the Toledo Mudflaps, and later went on to found a local hardare company with his wife Edith and his brother in-law Elmore."

Always glad to educate the one here who don't know as much about the NFL as I do.

Washington....Norv Turner 94-96
Tennessee......Jeff Fisher 04-06
Tampa...........Sam wyche 92-94, Rey Perkins 87-89
Pittsburgh......Chuck Noll 86-88
Jets................Bruce Coslet 92-94
Giants.............Ray Perkins 79-81
Kansas City....Marv Levy 78-80
Jacksonville...Gus Bradley 13-15
Lions.............Jim Schwartz 09-11, Darryl Rogers 85-87, Monte Clark 78-80
Falcons..........Dan Reeves 99-01, Dan Henning 83-85
Cardinals........Vince Tobin 97-99, Joe Bugel 90-92, Gene Stallings 86-88

Close....Browns did not fire Belichick after he only won 20 games 91-93 and unlike Marvin Lewis he had never had a winning season as a head coach at that time.

(05-20-2021, 02:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Pleas stop with this "every other team" BS.  

There have been lots of team who did not fire their coach after a winning just 19 games over three seasons.  Especially when the "disastrous" third season was without their Pro Bowl QB.

Not every team would fire their coach for a losing record the year after we was selected "NFL Coach of the Year".

Not every team would fire their head coach after the best season they had had in 35 years just because they lost a playoff game in the last seconds with their back up QB.

So feel free to give your opinion, but stop acting like every other team in the league would agree with you.

BTW I have to point out that if you had been running the Bengals you would have fired Sam Wyche for only winning 4 games in 1987 dropping his record to 29-34 with zero playoff appearances.

List the teams that entered a season with SB expectations, lost 10 straight, and kept the coach.

List the teams that kept a coach after 12+ seasons without a playoff win.

List the teams that kept a coach after 3 straight years of decline, and an 0-8 (or 1-11-1) in the 3rd year of decline.

And that's ignoring the worst examples, which are Shula and Coslet. Until you provide these lists, it's all salt and no substance from you.

Btw, I wouldn't have fired Wyche, as 1987 was the strike year.

(05-20-2021, 10:28 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: after 2010 we did let marvin go... then brought him back due to the lockout and a new coach would not have time with the players... Then we went to the playoffs 5 straight years.  marvin did a lot without nearly the support we have seen since we hired a bad coach

Marvin wasnt on the field for those plays. he can only control so much.  Also the Refs had been screwing us that whole game.  even before that final drive.

That was one of at least 3 times this team should've fired Marvin.

(05-20-2021, 11:06 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's why Coslet will always be one of my favorite HCs. He had the balls and knew when to step away. I wished soooo many times that Marv would have done that.

I definitely respected the move. He didn't hang around to cash checks.

(05-21-2021, 10:52 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Btw, I wouldn't have fired Wyche, as 1987 was the strike year.

Bengals had a better winning percentage with strike players than the regulars.

So why would you not have fired Wyche?  They had high expectations coming off a 10 win season and completely shit the bed.  

(05-21-2021, 10:52 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That was one of at least 3 times this team should've fired Marvin.

Yeah, it is always good to get rid of a coach right before he strings together the longest stretch of winning in the entire history of the franchise.

(05-21-2021, 11:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bengals had a better winning percentage with strike players than the regulars.

So why would you not have fired Wyche?  They had high expectations coming off a 10 win season and completely shit the bed.  

Because - clearly - that was a distraction.

(05-22-2021, 12:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, it is always good to get rid of a coach right before he strings together the longest stretch of winning in the entire history of the franchise.

Hindsight, Fred. The discussion started about whether or not the Bengals would surely fire Taylor if the Bengals are losers this year. They've shown themselves on numerous occasions to be reluctant to move on, even after several years of losing, regression or major failures.

Hence why I said I never take it for granted.

Btw, I still dont see any lists. If it's so common for teams to bring coaches back after such scenarios, it should be pretty easy to compile a list.

(05-22-2021, 12:16 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Btw, I still dont see any lists. If it's so common for teams to bring coaches back after such scenarios, it should be pretty easy to compile a list.

You did not see the list of all the teams that did not fire their head coach after 19 wins otr fewer over three seasons?  Why should I bothe rposting lists p[roving you wrong when you refuse to even look at them?

Lets see your list of teams that fired a coach after their best season in 35 years when they lost a playoff game in the final seconds while playing with their second string QB.

And finally why are you ignoring the fact that the Bengals only gave Dick LeBeau two off seasons to fix one of the wort teams in the league?  Oh wait, nevermind, I already know.  You just ignore anything that does not fit your narrative.

(05-22-2021, 12:16 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Because - clearly - that was a distraction.

Why was it "clearly" a distraction for the Bengals but not all of the other teams in the league?

(05-22-2021, 12:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You did not see the list of all the teams that did not fire their head coach after 19 wins otr fewer over three seasons?  Why should I bothe rposting lists p[roving you wrong when you refuse to even look at them?

Lets see your list of teams that fired a coach after their best season in 35 years when they lost a playoff game in the final seconds while playing with their second string QB.

And finally why are you ignoring the fact that the Bengals only gave Dick LeBeau two off seasons to fix one of the wort teams in the league?  Oh wait, nevermind, I already know.  You just ignore anything that does not fit your narrative.

19 wins in 3 seasons has no context behind it. A team could be steadily progressing and win 19 games in 3 seasons. Or...like with Marvin, they could be regressing hard. That's why I asked for lists involving similar circumstances and expectations.

(05-22-2021, 12:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Why was it "clearly" a distraction for the Bengals but not all of the other teams in the league?

It was a distraction for the entire league, yes. Hard to make any hard judgements on a year involving scab players. Surely you follow.

(05-22-2021, 01:24 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 19 wins in 3 seasons has no context behind it. A team could be steadily progressing and win 19 games in 3 seasons. Or...like with Marvin, they could be regressing hard. That's why I asked for lists involving similar circumstances and expectations.


It was a distraction for the entire league, yes. Hard to make any hard judgements on a year involving scab players. Surely you follow.

The only case I saw on the list he posted that was similar at all would be the situation in Tenn with Jeff Fisher. 

Pre-Marvin, I feel like that was the target for the NFL's weekly, "Why does he still have a job debate."


However, it is very important to note that Fisher unlike Marvin, won playoff games. 

(05-21-2021, 08:54 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Damn rights brother, it is more than about just winning but this type of stuff leads to lots of wins.

Dead on. It will be interesting to see if Zac can win the 7 point or less games this year.  His record with this is one of the worst. 

(05-22-2021, 01:24 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 19 wins in 3 seasons has no context behind it. A team could be steadily progressing and win 19 games in 3 seasons. Or...like with Marvin, they could be regressing hard. That's why I asked for lists involving similar circumstances and expectations.

Yet you want to completely ignore the fact that our starting QB was out for our 4 win 2008 season.  Or that the bad 2010 season was just one year after Marvin won NFL Coach of the Year by winning a division championship.

Our front office gave Marvin more slack than other teams would have because they recognized he was winning with less support in the scouting department and in free agency than any other coach in the league.

You know how pissed I was that Marvin was brought back after the 2017 season.  But He did more with less than any coach in the league while he was here.

(05-20-2021, 10:28 AM)XenoMorph Wrote:
after 2010 we did let marvin go... then brought him back due to the lockout and a new coach would not have time with the players...

This isn't true at all.

There were rumors towards the end of the season that Marvin didn't want to sign a new contract without concessions being made.  A lot of people thought he was going to walk away, not necessarily the Bengals walk away from him.

Fwiw, for anyone that considers me negative that very offseason has a ton to do with it.  That infamaous press conference is burned into my brain.  I remember watching it live and being absolutely disgusted with the way it was handled.

It was chalk full of gems.  I'm going to paraphrase a lot of this, but off the top of my head here were some of the highlights:

-"Marvin is keen on a practice facility and maybe me but not as much...." (Mike on practice facility)

-"With technology today you can get ahold of anyone at anytime." (Mike on scouting, apprarantly describing a cell phone of email)

-"You can keep asking the same questions and you'll get the same answer." (Mike being defensive and the end of Brad Johanson's career with the Bengals)

-"We think we do a pretty good job with scouting.  We don't apologize for that.  We're 10th in the league in players drafted who are still in the team."  (Mike making a coorelation between his team keeping shitty players and drafting well)

Later in the offseason came the Palmer stuff, the late firing of Bratkowski, the news that Lewis didn't have control over what players were active or inactive for gamedays, ect. etc. etc.  It was like a months long shitshow.

I just looked it up, that press conference was on January 5th, and the season ended on the 2nd.  You can read about it here:  https://www.cincyjungle.com/2011/1/5/1916318/mike-brown-press-conference-with-marvin-lewis-didnt-win-any-fans

Anyways, we never got rid of Marvin.  I think what you may be confusing is that after the fact a few people made the excuse that it wouldn't have been a good time to move on because of the impending lockout

I didn't follow the thread that close. Can someone explain to me how we ended up at 19 wins after 3 years in the first place?

Wouldn't the better discussion be 6 wins after 2 years if we're going to be making comparisons?

PS What's funny is that Zac Taylor will need to win 13 games this year (GREAT season) just to be equal to small list of names that got posted earlier.

(05-22-2021, 10:19 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I didn't follow the thread that close.  Can someone explain to me how we ended up at 19 wins  after 3 years in the first place?

Wouldn't the better discussion be 6 wins after 2 years if we're going to be making comparisons?

PS What's funny is that Zac Taylor will need to win 13 games this year (GREAT season) just to be equal to small list of names that got posted earlier.

And we both know he will be lucky to win half those games.

(05-22-2021, 09:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. Yet you want to completely ignore the fact that our starting QB was out for our 4 win 2008 season.  2. Or that the bad 2010 season was just one year after Marvin won NFL Coach of the Year by winning a division championship.

3. Our front office gave Marvin more slack than other teams would have because they recognized he was winning with less support in the scouting department and in free agency than any other coach in the league.

4. You know how pissed I was that Marvin was brought back after the 2017 season.  But He did more with less than any coach in the league while he was here.

1. We were 0-4 with Palmer in 2008, and Ryan Fitzpatrick was probably the best backup in the NFL. He wound up being a solid starter just 1 year later

2. Not ignoring that. That's part of the reason expectations were so high, but when you have SB aspirations and completely soil yourself on the way to 10...straight...losses...teams usually make heads roll after such disasters. Especially considering that 10-6 season looked like an anomaly looking at 2007 (7-9), 2008 (4-11-1), 2009 (10-6) and 2010 (4-12, 10 straight losses).

3. If our FO is "giving more slack" based on pity over their own frugality, that'd be hilariously sad. That said, it'd also prove my point, Freddo. The team is reluctant to move on with coaches, for whatever reason.

4. You seem to be offended that I brought Marv into this. So much so, that you're missing my overall point and just going into full blown Marv defense mode. I didn't hate Marvin Lewis. I think Marvin was a very good coach for a lot of years. Probably til the last 3 years, where he looked spent and was collecting checks.

That said, you'd have to be pretty dense not to see that there was several times where the Bengals would've been fully justified to fire him, based on results. Why are we even arguing about this? What I'm saying is 100% reasonable and based in reality.

(05-22-2021, 12:24 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 3. If our FO is "giving more slack" based on pity over their own frugality, that'd be hilariously sad. That said, it'd also prove my point, Freddo. The team is reluctant to move on with coaches, for whatever reason.

1.  No it is not proving your point.  If they gave Marvin slack because they would not give him any help in free agency then Taylor is not getting that slack.

2.  The team may be reluctant to move on from coaches, but you still can't play the "every other team in the league would have done it" card.

3.  And, finally I see that you still refused to even mention that LeBeau was only given 2 off seasons to turn around ne of the worst teams in the league.

(05-22-2021, 12:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And, finally I see that you still refused to even mention that LeBeau was only given 2 off seasons to turn around ne of the worst teams in the league.

Don't really think Lebeau is a great example.  Here's why:

1.) He was initially hired as the DC and became the interim head coach.  He only got the job because Coslet resigned.

2.) You're focuing on 2 offseasons while ignoring the fact he coached 13 games preceding this when he took over for Coslet.  They had 3 years of results to consider, not 2.

3.) His last year set a franchise record for losses.  The 2-14 was worse than even David "Steakhouse" Shula.

4.) He was 65 years old when he was fired.

5.) This is the most important one: His firing coincided with the opening of PBS.  They had a brand spanking new stadium opening, coming off the heels of telling the taxpayers of Hamilton County that they needed this to be more competitive (keeping Lebeau would send a terrible message).  They also had 25,000 more seats to fill (Riverfront @ 40k, PBS @ 65k) and a bunch of very expensive luxury boxes to sell.

To each their own, but I don't think the firing of Lebeau necessarily shows much at all.  He was already an old coach and it was never supposed to be his gig in the beginning.  He had 3 years to show the front office, and more importantly the fans that he could improve the team.  That obviously didn't happen.

I don't think the Bengals had any choice but to move on.  Nobody keeps a Senior Citizen head coach, who just had the worst record in franchise history, when they're about to open up a brand new stadium.

(05-22-2021, 09:27 AM)GodFather Wrote: Dead on. It will be interesting to see if Zac can win the 7 point or less games this year.  His record with this is one of the worst. 

Yeah, Andy Reid wins those close games.

(05-22-2021, 01:16 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Don't really think Lebeau is a great example.  Here's why:

1.) He was initially hired as the DC and became the interim head coach.  He only got the job because Coslet resigned.

2.) You're focuing on 2 offseasons while ignoring the fact he coached 13 games preceding this when he took over for Coslet.  They had 3 years of results to consider, not 2.

3.) His last year set a franchise record for losses.  The 2-14 was worse than even David "Steakhouse" Shula.

4.) He was 65 years old when he was fired.

5.) This is the most important one: His firing coincided with the opening of PBS.  They had a brand spanking new stadium opening, coming off the heels of telling the taxpayers of Hamilton County that they needed this to be more competitive (keeping Lebeau would send a terrible message).  They also had 25,000 more seats to fill (Riverfront @ 40k, PBS @ 65k) and a bunch of very expensive luxury boxes to sell.

To each their own, but I don't think the firing of Lebeau necessarily shows much at all.  He was already an old coach and it was never supposed to be his gig in the beginning.  He had 3 years to show the front office, and more importantly the fans that he could improve the team.  That obviously didn't happen.

I don't think the Bengals had any choice but to move on.  Nobody keeps a Senior Citizen head coach, who just had the worst record in franchise history, when they're about to open up a brand new stadium.

Not to mention that even after LeBeau left here and went back to Pitt and was a great DC again, for 10 years no one came calling for his services as a head coach.

Some guys are just not cut out to be more then coordinators.

(05-22-2021, 01:31 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: Not to mention that even after LeBeau left here and went back to Pitt and was a great DC again, for 10 years no one came calling for his services as a head coach.

Some guys are just not cut out to be more then coordinators.

Zim has actually been a decent HC though, gotta give him props. Would love to have him back here if Zac doesn't improve signif.