Stealers fans would get a kick out of seeing it, since that franchise basically owned him.

(01-18-2022, 10:54 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: No, he had a good record but not amazing. He had longevity but not playoff success. He changed the organization for the better but then it stagnated.

He deserves respect and to be appreciated for what he did for our franchise but not at a ring of honor level. Any coach who is around for 16 years is going to have a big impact on the franchise. His was no greater than any other teams coach with similar tenure. In fact his winning % was barely over .500 while other current coaches with 14+ years all have winning percentages of over .600.

He “did some good things”, but he’s not a ring of honor caliber coach. I hope to see him back from time to time for events or games but that is the type of recognition he deserves.

Agreed.

Absolutely not. The ROH should be reserved for the truly special. Those that were among the very best at what they did. And by league standards, not just this franchise. The way I see it is if you have to think about it very hard then that person probably doesn’t belong up there.

Just because our history is littered with bad coaches doesn’t mean you put one in for being slightly above average.

I think he should be in the Bengals HoF, but idk about RoH. Green, Atkins and maybe Chad for me are the only sure things from the ML era as for RoH.

(01-19-2022, 11:04 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Absolutely not. The ROH should be reserved for the truly special. Those that were among the very best at what they did. And by league standards, not just this franchise. The way I see it is if you have to think about it very hard then that person probably doesn’t belong up there.

Just because our history is littered with bad coaches doesn’t mean you put one in for being slightly above average.

100% in agreement. I don't want them throwing up a name in the Ring of Honor only because the owner, GM, coach, or player was successful within the context of the organization's history. I want the individual to have stood out amongst peers in the league as well as compared to their fellow Bengals. Marvin's coaching career meets the compared to his Bengals peers standard, but is only average compared to his contemporary coaching peers. 

(01-19-2022, 02:52 AM)Bengalholic Wrote: I'm torn on this one. 

I love Sam and Forrest was a helluva coach. They both took teams to the SB, but neither won and they only had 5 winning seasons between them. Marvin led 5 straight trips to the playoffs, which was a pretty damn impressive feat, but also failed miserably in the postseason 7 times. 

I think there's legitimate arguments both ways on this.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. I don't see a single thing in his favor. Longevity shouldn't be a criteria for getting in. If it was, there would be a number of players that played a long time but didn't really do anything of significance. 

As far as coaches go, a SB win should be the standard, so as much as i liked Gregg and Wyche, they haven't done enough to get in either. 

Unfortunately, the bar is really low for this Bengals organization due to the relative "lack" of success over 50+ years. That's the only reason Marv would be debated. 

It isn't just the longevity, it's the number of playoffs. A few of them were out of his control, a fumble by Hill, a meltdown by Burfict and Pacman, fumbles by Andy and Gio, a playoff game in which playmakers were out with injury. Plus he had to deal with Mike Brown's stubbornness over taking on players who were always in trouble, and his refusal to spend money on free agents. I think he will get in but not anytime soon. People tend to forget the bad stuff over time. I just hope it isn't posthumous.

I believe Marvin should be included.

No.

Too many good players. Not enough space.

Let's start with the guys whose photos are already on the wall inside the stadium.

They should have a “Ring of Sustained Mediocrity and Underachieving”. Then I’d vote for Marvin. I like the guy and all, but putting him in there waters it down, in my opinion.

By comparison just look at UK Basketball. Tubby Smith coached there for I think 9 years and won a National Championship in his first season. But the Championship was won with Rick Pitino's players. After that his teams were good, they always went to the NCAA tournament but usually didn't get far. And by the time he was fired most everyone was glad to see him go. Most people liked him and appreciated him but he just wasn't getting the job done, they lost to Vanderbilt four games in a row, which meant that two of those games were in Rupp Arena.

Fast forward to this season 13 years after leaving UK his current team High Point came to Rupp for a game and UK hung a banner for Tubby in the rafters at UK. There are some big time names up there and no one seemed to object to Tubby being there although I doubt when he left UK people would have been thrilled about it. It only shows how opinions and feelings change over time. I think most people will feel the same about Marvin over time.

(01-19-2022, 01:25 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm gonna have to disagree with you. I don't see a single thing in his favor. Longevity shouldn't be a criteria for getting in. If it was, there would be a number of players that played a long time but didn't really do anything of significance. 

As far as coaches go, a SB win should be the standard, so as much as i liked Gregg and Wyche, they haven't done enough to get in either. 

Unfortunately, the bar is really low for this Bengals organization due to the relative "lack" of success over 50+ years. That's the only reason Marv would be debated. 

Like I said, I'm kind of torn on it. I do think there are some things in his favor, even though I was very critical his last 5 years here.

I will say though, the one negative that REALLY stands out for me...more than the playoff or primetime issues, was his record against the Steelers and especially at home. Those games at PBS were generally so bad, it was embarrassing.

Yes..

(01-19-2022, 01:58 PM)Speedy Thomas Wrote: No.

Too many good players.  Not enough space.

Let's start with the guys whose photos are already on the wall inside the stadium.

This is why when I started the poll I said some day. I knew he wouldn't go in immediately.

Should the head coach who has coached twice as many games as any other coach in Bengals history, has more than twice as many wins as any other coach in Bengals history, has led this team to the most post season appearances in Bengals history, who has the most division championships in Bengals history, who has the 3rd highest winning percentage and the highest win percentage since 1984 be in the ring of honor?

If he doesn't deserve to be in the ring of honor, that would mean no coach should be in.

I suppose it doesn't hurt to point out that Marvin's name likely isn't coming up for consideration soon. There are still many players to enshrine in the Ring of Honor.

Current Ring of Honor Members (https://www.bengals.com/team/ring-of-honor/):
Ken Anderson
Paul Brown
Anthony Munoz
Ken Riley

During the offseason we'll have to transition the discussion to who should get enshrined next. If Willie makes Canton, he's automatically in the Bengals Ring of Honor.

(01-19-2022, 02:14 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Should the head coach who has coached twice as many games as any other coach in Bengals history, has more than twice as many wins as any other coach in Bengals history, has led this team to the most post season appearances in Bengals history, who has the most division championships in Bengals history, who has the 3rd highest winning percentage and the highest win percentage since 1984 be in the ring of honor?

If he doesn't deserve to be in the ring of honor, that would mean no coach should be in.

Which would you prefer?

A: Zac Taylor coaches for another dozen years, never winning a Super Bowl title, but winning 8-9 games per year.
B: He wins one this year and promptly retires?

Which one of those situations would get him more praise among Bengals fans? You honor people when they do something exceptional, BOM when they do something ok for a long time.

NO. This really shouldn't even be debatable, but that just like... my opinion, man.

(01-19-2022, 07:31 AM)Clark W Griswold Wrote: No for the same reasons that have already been statEd.
I am shocked that so many are voting yes.  This would actually be an embarrassing addition to the ROH.
I am not big on putting coaches in before players and he would at least be the third choice for coaches.  

Lewis did some wonderful things here but there’s no way he should ever even be a candidate for the Ring of Honor.  If you voted yes then IMO you need to follow the lead of the current Bengals and raise your standards.

Yep.

(01-19-2022, 02:23 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Which would you prefer?

A: Zac Taylor coaches for another dozen years, never winning a Super Bowl title, but winning 8-9 games per year.
B: He wins one this year and promptly retires?

Which one of those situations would get him more praise among Bengals fans? You honor people when they do something exceptional, BOM when they do something ok for a long time.

The question isn't about Zac Taylor. It's about Marvin. And it's a fact that Marvin is the most successful head coach we've ever had in a wide variety of metrics. If he doesn't deserve to be in the Ring of Honor, then they just shouldn't include coaches in the ring of honor.