(05-09-2022, 11:30 PM)jason Wrote: I don't think so... Pretty sure we just sucked that year. I could be wrong though. That might've been the Auden Tate season.

Pretty sure Cordy Glen happened in 2018 though. Can't really pin that on Zac. I still think this is a really dumb argument that has broken out though... Makes me long for the days of Sewell vs Chase. If I hear culture one more damn time I'ma puke.

I guess it's either that time of year to find something to argue or we are in a good place and still need something small to argue about...

(05-10-2022, 12:12 AM)sandwedge Wrote: I guess it's either that time of year to find something to argue or we are in a good place and still need something small to argue about...

It is just the perfect issue to argue.  It is like religion.  The people who believe in the magic of chemistry and/or culture really can't point to any specific examples or facts to support their position.  They just believe because someone told them it was true.

There is really no logic to the argument that Zac's work at changing culture had any effect on winning when we saw two years of complete failure until he got the talent to win.  Then by some amazing coincidence the magic of "culture" started to have effects at the EXACT SAME TIME that we got a lot more healthy, talented players on the field.

It reminds me of the people who pray for someone for a long time but he doesn't get any better until a doctor performs surgery.  Then they give credit for the recovery to "the power of prayer".  And their only "evidence" is "look at how many people believe in it" or "even the person who recovered believed".  But for some reason almost all of them keep going to doctors and lots of people are cured without any prayer at all.

(05-10-2022, 08:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is just the perfect issue to argue.  It is like religion.  The people who believe in the magic of chemistry and/or culture really can't point to any specific examples or facts to support their position.  They just believe because someone told them it was true.

There is really no logic to the argument that Zac's work at changing culture had any effect on winning when we saw two years of complete failure until he got the talent to win.  Then by some amazing coincidence the magic of "culture" started to have effects at the EXACT SAME TIME that we got a lot more healthy, talented players on the field.

It reminds me of the people who pray for someone for a long time but he doesn't get any better until a doctor performs surgery.  Then they give credit for the recovery to "the power of prayer".  And their only "evidence" is "look at how many people believe in it" or "even the person who recovered believed".  But for some reason almost all of them keep going to doctors and lots of people are cured without any prayer at all.

Ken Anderson noticed and several players commented on it early last season. Nobody’s arguing that the culture prompted the winning. But neither did the winning prompt the culture shift. Yes we needed to win or all the things implemented culture wise wouldn’t have worked. But the culture contributed to last season’s success. But changing the crap culture ( not everybody but overall) Taylor inherited took time to turnaround

(05-09-2022, 02:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What exactly did Anderson claim to see that was evidence of this "culture and/or chemistry"?  I'd really like to hear that.


Cordy Glenn refusing to play after the doctors cleared him?

John Ross asking for a trade?

AJ Green giving his all to return from injury?

The teams reaction to the benching of Andy Dalton?

Lou Anarumo being "unapproachable"?

Jim Turner using abusive language in the players?

What exactly did Anderson see and how much access did he have to the Bengals locker room to see this stuff?

The article has been linked at least twice in the various pissing contests involving this topic. What he witnessed, in a nutshell, were spirited practices and walk throughs during the time in London against the Rams. The season was lost, the team wasn't very competitive, but absolutely no one had mailed it in according to Kenny. To him, and myself, that's a sign of building good team chemistry (culture) despite the losing. All of the players you mentioned were jettisoned out of Cincinnati.

(05-06-2022, 10:11 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: One thing I will offer (not to get in the Fred vs. Chemistry debate), but it was apparent from Day 1 that Joe liked ZTs vision and personality.  There were MANY in the media stating how the Bengals would ruin Joe Burrow and he should ***** his way out of playing for the Bengals.  Joe had a dearth of talent on the offensive line his first two years (although they tried to get some help in 2020, it just didn't pan out) yet he stayed the course and bought in to the plan 100%.

Funny how we don't hear about Burrow forcing his way out any more???  Maybe that is just Joe Burrow, some would argue, but I seriously doubt he would have stood for the shit show that was Urban Meyer.  Now, you can say that comparing ZT to the flaming turd Meyer is like comparing a model to the average female steelers fan, but still....Joe has been in ZTs camp from day 1 and never wavered.  Ditto EVERY player he has brought in via FA and the draft.  It says something to me.

Spot on. When Taylor was hired, he stated exactly what his vision and plan was for turning this team around. It made perfect sense to me! Bring in leaders, Captains and players from Championship teams who know what it takes to win and spread that culture and attidude through the locker room. Then hire a DC no one likes and is only here because no one else would take the job . Lot's of losses those first two years, but most of them by a TD or less, and the 2nd year and then the Burrow injury. All along, Taylor never wavered from what he said he was going to do in the first news conference. And Burrow had every excuse to demand trade after that injury if he didn't truly think Taylor could get it done here. 

(05-09-2022, 02:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What exactly did Anderson claim to see that was evidence of this "culture and/or chemistry"?  I'd really like to hear that.


Cordy Glenn refusing to play after the doctors cleared him?

John Ross asking for a trade?

AJ Green giving his all to return from injury?

The teams reaction to the benching of Andy Dalton?

Lou Anarumo being "unapproachable"?

Jim Turner using abusive language in the players?

What exactly did Anderson see and how much access did he have to the Bengals locker room to see this stuff?

Was that a Bates statement? I think it was but may be mistaken. Anyway, I had a Captain once that lots of officers thought was mean and unapproachable. When I was promoted to Sergeant, I was assigned to his sector only to find him to be one of the most approachable and easy to work for Captains on the PD. Sometimes perceptions are wrong. I don't think I've heard this perception stated again, so it was either wrong or a man Lou's age just all of a sudden changed. I'd say the latter is harder to believe. As much grief as fans gave Taylor over the first couple of years, the coach Bengaldom owes the biggest apology to is Lou. He was the DC hired "only because no one else would work for Taylor." remember? and yet all he has done is figure out how to shut down the most dynamic QB in recent history in Lamar Jackson, who was running wild on the league, and absolutely confusing the daylights out of one of the hottest QB's in recent history in Mahomes..... twice. 

You NEVER go Full Fred

(05-10-2022, 12:08 PM)Sled21 Wrote:  so it was either wrong or a man Lou's age just all of a sudden changed. I'd say the latter is harder to believe.

Yet you believe that Lou suddenly became a great DC after stinking his entire career.

And as for the claim that Anarumo was "unapproachable" Elise cited "multiple sources".   But in December after the story came out Bates was the one who told the media that commination with Anarumo "had improved".

Funny thing is I bet you believe Bates now.

(05-10-2022, 09:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yet you believe that Lou suddenly became a great DC after stinking his entire career.

And as for the claim that Anarumo was "unapproachable" Elise cited "multiple sources".   But in December after the story came out Bates was the one who told the media that commination with Anarumo "had improved".

Funny thing is I bet you believe Bates now.

That must have been one hell of a nap this afternoon

(05-10-2022, 09:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yet you believe that Lou suddenly became a great DC after stinking his entire career.

And as for the claim that Anarumo was "unapproachable" Elise cited "multiple sources".   But in December after the story came out Bates was the one who told the media that commination with Anarumo "had improved".

Funny thing is I bet you believe Bates now.

Can't help but think this may be some of the malcontents and perhaps there was a bit of influence with them on Bates.  All I know is these things seemed to disappear when the likes of Dunlap and WJIII were gone.  

(05-10-2022, 09:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yet you believe that Lou suddenly became a great DC after stinking his entire career.

And as for the claim that Anarumo was "unapproachable" Elise cited "multiple UNNAMED sources".   But in December after the story came out Bates was the one who told the media that commination with Anarumo "had improved".

Funny thing is I bet you believe Bates now.

Fixed it for ya....

(05-10-2022, 09:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote:
Yet you believe that Lou suddenly became a great DC after stinking his entire career.

And as for the claim that Anarumo was "unapproachable" Elise cited "multiple sources".   But in December after the story came out Bates was the one who told the media that commination with Anarumo "had improved".

Funny thing is I bet you believe Bates now.

I don't know about "suddenly," But I do believe almost all coaches improve with time, and Lou was given time to get the kind of players who would play within the system he designed, and got rid of the malcontents who wouldn't, even if they were more talented. 

(05-11-2022, 08:08 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Can't help but think this may be some of the malcontents and perhaps there was a bit of influence with them on Bates.  All I know is these things seemed to disappear when the likes of Dunlap and WJIII were gone.  

First of all thank you for admitting that you "can't help" but assume facts that support Zac.  I don't have that problem.  I am capable at looking at the situation objectively.

Bengal defense got worse when Dunlap left in 2020.

Yes, everyone was in a better mood in 2021 when we had enough healthy talent to win some games.  And, of course, it helped that we got rid of Zac's boys Bobby Hart and Jim Turner.

(05-11-2022, 10:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all thank you for admitting that you "can't help" but assume facts that support Zac.  I don't have that problem.  I am capable at looking at the situation objectively.

Bengal defense got worse when Dunlap left in 2020.

Yes, everyone was in a better mood in 2021 when we had enough healthy talent to win some games.  And, of course, it helped that we got rid of Zac's boys Bobby Hart and Jim Turner.

You know if you want anybody to take you serious you have to at least have some rationale to your statements. The Bobby Jack Hart mantra tying it to Zac is just bogus. It’s why nobody believes your crap. You look for anything negative to try to attach to Taylor and anything positive detach from Taylor. That’s just low brow. It’s why your thoughts on the Bengals inhabit an island.

(05-11-2022, 11:34 AM)Soonerpeace Wrote: The Bobby Jack Hart mantra tying it to Zac is just bogus. It’s why nobody believes your crap.

Bobby Hart was a free agent who got a 3 year deal from the Bengals when Zac was head coach.

If you want anyone to believe anything you say you have to post some actual facts to back up your claim.  Instead you just make stuff up in your head and claim it is true.

"The reason the Bengals hired Zac was his plan regarding the type of player he wanted to sign.  But then they don't let him have any say in the type of player they signed.  Derp."

(05-11-2022, 11:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Bobby Hart was a free agent who got a 3 year deal from the Bengals when Zac was head coach.

If you want anyone to believe anything you say you have to post some actual facts to back up your claim.  Instead you just make stuff up in your head and claim it is true.

"The reason the Bengals hired Zac was his plan regarding the type of player he wanted to sign.  But then they don't let him have any say in the type of player they signed.  Derp."

My opinion on Zac is like I live in Singapore and you live on Pluto. You’ve got zero believers. I don’t make anything up. Zac came in as coach late and he didn’t act like Bill Parcell’s or Bill Belicheck. His real influence didn’t start until the first draft and not much there. But FA and contracts little

(05-11-2022, 01:27 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: I don’t make anything up. Zac came in as coach late and he didn’t act like Bill Parcell’s or Bill Belicheck. His real influence didn’t start until the first draft and not much there. But FA and contracts little

Since you insist that you did not make this up please provide a link to your source.

The head coach either has influence or he doesn't.  He either gets to pick "his type" of players or he doesn't.

You can't just claim that Zac gets credit for all the good signings and draft picks then claim he had no influence on the ones you don't like.

You are just making this all up.

(05-11-2022, 01:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since you insist that you did not make this up please provide a link to your source.

The head coach either has influence or he doesn't.  He either gets to pick "his type" of players or he doesn't.

You can't just claim that Zac gets credit for all the good signings and draft picks then claim he had no influence on the ones you don't like.

You are just making this all up.

Again Bobby Jack Hart was a FA. Focus Fred. He signed the extension a month after Zac took over. I don’t give 2 ____ if you want to believe me or not. Zac had little influence on FA or contracts when he first got here. He had plenty of input on that first draft and FA and roster management the next year. He, Duke, and Mike make the draft decisions… today,tomorrow, and beyond. He gets the blame for any misses. I’m sure he’s the final decision maker more times than not. But we all know that all teams have misses. But what type of player characteristics he wanted he had enormous influence. It was part of his plan.

(05-11-2022, 02:17 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote:  I don’t give 2 ____ if you want to believe me or not. Zac had little influence on FA or contracts when he first got here.                             


But what type of player characteristics he wanted he had enormous influence. It was part of his plan.

Thanks for proving my point. You just admitted that you made this all up in your head. There is absolutely nothing to back up your claim.  Zero evidence.  

No team in the NFL hires a coach based on his vision and then refuse to let him execute his vision.  What kind of rube would believe something like that?

(05-11-2022, 02:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thanks for proving my point. You just admitted that you made this all up in your head. There is absolutely nothing to back up your claim.  Zero evidence.  

No team in the NFL hires a coach based on his vision and then refuse to let him execute his vision.  What kind of rube would believe something like that?

I made nothing up. I stand by my comments