(06-24-2021, 12:44 AM)Benton Wrote: End of the day, we've had a **** ****ing line for ****ing years. That's an organizational problem. It was a **** ****ing line under Marvin and it's a **** ****ing line under ZT.

Bring in whatever coach you want, they're going to suck elk butt if we keep thinking that an OL is least in priority.

The Bengals gave up the 7th fewest sacks in the league over the 16 years Marvin was our coach.

PFF started keeping team pass blocking stats in 2007 and over the first 9 seasons ('07-'15) they rated the Bengals #1 IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE in pass blocking.

(06-24-2021, 12:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Last five years Marvin was 4 games over .500 and made the playoffs twice.

Taylor has more talent but is somehow 19 games UNDER .500.

What does that tell you about those two coaches?

That you're comparing two completely different things?



You're picking the end of a successful ml run with the start of the lack of a decent roster because of the end of a ml run.

Ml's last few years weren't great with a roster he built. I don't expect anyone to do good with a #1 receiver who had a handicap placard, a QB who isn't even a backup on other teams and an ol that's basically just dudes hanging out.

(06-24-2021, 01:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The Bengals gave up the 7th fewest sacks in the league over the 16 years Marvin was our coach.

PFF started keeping team pass blocking stats in 2007 and over the first 9 seasons ('07-'15) they rated the Bengals #1 IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE in pass blocking.

Cool.

It ain't 2007. Or 2015.

It's 2021. And our ol has sucked for a few years now. Cool that it didn't duck a decade ago, though.

(06-24-2021, 01:12 AM)Benton Wrote: Cool.

It ain't 2007. Or 2015.

It's 2021. And our ol has sucked for a few years now. Cool that it didn't duck a decade ago, though.

Well it was impossible to know what time period you are talking about when you say "****ing years".


I am just tired of hearing this crap about how the Bengals think the O-line is a "least priority" when over the last four season we have added two first round picks and 1 second round pick; traded for the 8th highest paid OT in the league; and signed the tenth highest paid RT in free agency.

The Bengals have devoted more money and high draft picks to the O-line than any other position over the last 4 years, AND NO OTHER POSITION IS EVEN CLOSE.

I think we've all become intuitively cynical towards this team and even if the winningest coaching staff of all time took over we'd still feel deep down that there is going to be something go wrong..that winningest staff would suddenly become a bunch of waste case alcoholic wife beaters hell bent on destroying our hopes and dreams .. Just because..

(06-24-2021, 12:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Last five years Marvin was 4 games over .500 and made the playoffs twice.

Taylor has more talent but is somehow 19 games UNDER .500.

What does that tell you about those two coaches?

What it tells me is Marvin could coach to the talent level on his team.  He could integrate pieces and parts into his offensive and defensive system and didn't have to have just 1 system defensively and 1 system offensively. 

Marvin is twice the coach that Taylor is in my opinion and I'm not even a huge fan of Marvin.  

The thing I don't get is why so many people here give the excuse or leeway to Taylor because he didn't have the talent to fit his schemes.  When Marvin was hired in 2003, Did he hire a DC and OC that were complete opposite fits of the talent he had on the team?  No he kept the same OC, Brat, if I remember correctly.  He was smart to keep that continuity because it's what helped him succeed. 

(06-24-2021, 01:12 AM)Benton Wrote: Cool.

It ain't 2007. Or 2015.

It's 2021. And our ol has sucked for a few years now. Cool that it didn't duck a decade ago, though.

Yea our offensive line has sucked for a few years now and guess who hired the coach that coached that offensive line that sucked?  

Isn't the person to hold responsible for hiring that OL coach the reigning head coach?  He had to have a confidence in that OL that he'd turn them into what he wanted.  Yet that OL coach turned them into a pile of shit.  

Yea we let Turner go.  He should've been fired as soon as Burrow went down last season.  However, I don't give Taylor credit for that hire. I give credit to the front office for Pollack being hired due to their previous relationship.  If Taylor is fired this year, them Pollack will still be the OL coach when a new Head Coach is named next year.   That i'll guarantee. 

I'll say it isn't impossible that ZT wins this year, but I can also picture us a year from now pumped as hell to see what Burrow and co can do with a "real" HC.

(06-24-2021, 06:36 AM)grampahol Wrote: I think we've all become intuitively cynical towards this team and even if the winningest coaching staff of all time took over we'd still feel deep down that there is going to be something go wrong..that winningest staff would suddenly become a bunch of waste case alcoholic wife beaters hell bent on destroying our hopes and dreams .. Just because..

Gram, personally, if we would've went out in 2019 and hired a head coach say like Bruce Arians, or someone who's had a years in the NFL.  Successful OC or DC.  Had a few good years as a HC in the NFL but needed a change of scenery.   I would've taken this hire and being VERY excited about it.  

Granted, when Taylor was hired, I was excited about his youth and his ability to relate to the players and todays NFL offense.  However, you can never make up for experience and I think we have seen this the past 2 years.  Already, into year 3 we've made changes to the OL and DL, as well new WR coach, lost our RB coach.  That's a lot of turn over on a coaching staff just 2 years into your reign.  

Again, back to the topic at hand, I would've been stoked if we would've hired someone like Bruce Arians to come in and take over in 2019.   I liked him as OC in Shitsburg, and I liked him in Arizona, and I still kind of feel like Arizona is ran similarly to the Bengals to this day. 

(06-24-2021, 01:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Well it was impossible to know what time period you are talking about when you say "****ing years".


I am just tired of hearing this crap about how the Bengals think the O-line is a "least priority" when over the last four season we have added two first round picks and 1 second round pick; traded for the 8th highest paid OT in the league; and signed the tenth highest paid RT in free agency.

The Bengals have devoted more money and high draft picks to the O-line than any other position over the last 4 years, AND NO OTHER POSITION IS EVEN CLOSE.

The last part points out the real problem. The front office and coaching staff are not finding talent and are not coaching up talent. To spend so many resources on the OL and it's still a big issue shows a much bigger problem. Obviously just throwing money at it and drafting people isn't providing the desired results. Maybe its time to the team finally decides to take a different approach.

(06-24-2021, 01:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Well it was impossible to know what time period you are talking about when you say "****ing years".


I am just tired of hearing this crap about how the Bengals think the O-line is a "least priority" when over the last four season we have added two first round picks and 1 second round pick; traded for the 8th highest paid OT in the league; and signed the tenth highest paid RT in free agency.

The Bengals have devoted more money and high draft picks to the O-line than any other position over the last 4 years, AND NO OTHER POSITION IS EVEN CLOSE.

Facts are meaningless against a well established board narrative…

(06-24-2021, 11:04 AM)muskiesfan Wrote: The last part points out the real problem. The front office and coaching staff are not finding talent and are not coaching up talent. To spend so many resources on the OL and it's still a big issue shows a much bigger problem. Obviously just throwing money at it and drafting people isn't providing the desired results. Maybe its time to the team finally decides to take a different approach.

They were headed in the right direction when they replaced Alexander with Pollack. But ofc then we went backwards with Turner.

We could also use some damn luck with our young LT that we drafted 11th overall. A lot hinges on him staying healthy…

The big disaster was replacing Pollack (who had the OL moving in the right direction) with Turner (under whom everyone regressed).

Now with Pollack back hopefully we get back to coaching up all the new players properly. I’m not that worried about Jonah as even last year it was a freak injury and then he was ready but they held him out for at least the finale and possibly the game before that as well. Also we won’t be lining up MJ next to him so that is automatically a big improvement.

(06-24-2021, 01:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Well it was impossible to know what time period you are talking about when you say "****ing years".


I am just tired of hearing this crap about how the Bengals think the O-line is a "least priority" when over the last four season we have added two first round picks and 1 second round pick; traded for the 8th highest paid OT in the league; and signed the tenth highest paid RT in free agency.

The Bengals have devoted more money and high draft picks to the O-line than any other position over the last 4 years, AND NO OTHER POSITION IS EVEN CLOSE.

So we signed 2 DL that are 2 of the top 3 highest paid players on our roster in the past 2 years and during that same time we signed reiff to 7.5 mil and xsf to 3 mil, almost forgot we picked spain off scrap heap for the league minimum.  I think your math is a little fuzzy.  I also love that you chose 4 years other than 5 years for "DRAFT CAPITAL" so you can say AT NO OTHER POSITION HAVE WE INVESTED MORE AND ITS NOT CLOSE.  Cause if you got back 5 instead of 4 its pretty clear we have invested much more into WR.  2 top 10 picks and the 1st pick in the 2nd round are all premium picks spent on WR's.

(06-24-2021, 12:22 PM)mikey6866 Wrote:  Cause if you got back 5 instead of 4 its pretty clear we have invested much more into WR.  2 top 10 picks and the 1st pick in the 2nd round are all premium picks spent on WR's.

We have spent the exact same number of first and second round picks on O-linemen as we have WRs except in addition we traded for the 8th highest paid OT and signed the tenth highest paid RT in free agency.

(06-23-2021, 10:25 AM)TJ528 Wrote: If Zac Taylor doesn't win 10 games and make the playoffs this year, with all the money that's been spent in free agency, then he needs to be walked out the doors of PBS, and drag Lou's butt with him. 

"all the money that's been spent in free agency"

1. Was it ZT or DT who decided the FA signings?

2. Have the Bengals actually spent that much by NFL (rather than Mike Brown) standards? They're top 10 in cap space for both 2021 and 2022. They've spent FA money almost entirely on D and outside of a handful within Bengaldom nobody is saying the Bengals' D is stacked.

(06-25-2021, 12:23 PM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: "all the money that's been spent in free agency"

1. Was it ZT or DT who decided the FA signings?

2. Have the Bengals actually spent that much by NFL (rather than Mike Brown) standards? They're top 10 in cap space for both 2021 and 2022. They've spent FA money almost entirely on D and outside of a handful within Bengaldom nobody is saying the Bengals' D is stacked.

Who's standards do we go by NFL standards if so then there's a reason the rest of the NFL fans think the Bengals suck because we've had 5 shitty seasons.   As far as the money we've spent it's pretty damn significant compared to the previous 15 years under the Marvin Lewis regime.   I'd love to see what the most money spent in free agency was during Marvin's time period.  It couldn't have been that much.  When comparing it to what they've spent over the last 2 off seasons there has to be no comparison. 

I think there's talent on the defensive side of the ball but do i think we're deep on that side? No.  Our LB corp is young and slim.  One or two injuries and we'll be searching the waiver wire.  The only place on defense I'd say were stacked is the defensive backfield.  However, that's stacked with quite a few cast offs from other organizations.  However, I do like the starting pieces.  

You and I both know this organization is never going to spend all the money they have.  There always going to carry money over to the next NFL season because that's the way they've operated since Paul Brown.  

The more this organization changes and comes into 2021...the more it stays the same and stays in the 80/90's.  

(06-18-2021, 02:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: One could argue Year 1 was not intended to be a rebuild, but rather the expectation that Taylor would turn Marvin's 6-10 team into a winner.
It was then determined that a rebuild needed to happen because of the lack of fit that those existing players had in Taylor's and Anarumo's schemes.

That should have been the only sign we needed now we have wasted 2 more years.

(06-24-2021, 01:12 AM)Benton Wrote: Cool.

It ain't 2007. Or 2015.

It's 2021. And our ol has sucked for a few years now. Cool that it didn't duck a decade ago, though.

And the biggest change was coaching

(06-25-2021, 12:23 PM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: 1. Was it ZT or DT who decided the FA signings?

Taylor gets credit for the ones that work out and Tobin gets blamed for the flops.

Isn't that how it works?