(12-04-2023, 11:11 AM)casear2727 Wrote: And again, that doesnt put Zac at Andy Reid's level.    I guess you think Stefanski is tiers above Zac since he has owned him?

Never said Zac was at Andy Reid’s level but his 3-1 record deserves merit. As far as Stefanski obviously Cleveland is a bad matchup for us. Like I said Zac is 10-5 the last 3 years vs SF, KC, Bills, and Balt. Doesn’t mean he’s a better coach than Kyle or Andy but the thread title is the focus here.

(12-03-2023, 11:35 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Mahomes has not produced a TD in the first half and recently against Denver no TD’s the whole game. But Andy Reid’s a genius. Well he got fired at Philly because of QB play. Amazing how that works. He’s 1-3 vs Zac

(12-04-2023, 11:15 AM)Soonerpeace Wrote: No I think Cleveland is a bad matchup for us. But with Zac 10-5 from ‘21-‘23 vs SF. KC, Bills, and Balt is a much better sample size.

So why was the first comment necessary? You actually posted it twice. Zac has a LONG way to go to be considered on Reids tier. And if we are being honest what is Zac's record vs Bmore with Lamar actually playing?

(12-03-2023, 11:46 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Not trying to be argumentative but when Bengals are in a slump it’s all Zac’s fault. But dare Shanahan be blamed when they are in a slump?

Well Shanahan has had reasonable success the places he's been and Taylor has only had success as a play caller with Burrow. Shanahan also has an amazing scheme and while Purdy is a good QB and deserves credit his best attribute is working within the scheme. 

(12-04-2023, 12:38 AM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: I’ll second this I also think Zac seems like a really nice guy. I’m just not convinced he’s an offensive genius. I can’t imagine what burrow would do if he were paired with shannahan, or Reid, or Belicheck with an oc of his choosing.

I have nothing against Zac. He’s done a lot for this organization. He got us into position to draft burrow and chase. He helped in drafting a great roster. He’s built a winning culture. I’m just not sure he’s a briilant offensive mind. I would love nothing more than for him to be a brilliant offensive mind. But too often I see his elite players struggling to find open space.

I get it. These two players certainly changed our franchise and we did need to actually make the picks so that counts for something. But being absolutely terrible at your job to get us into that position shouldn't count as a positive for you. In my opinion.

(12-03-2023, 01:03 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I left off Stafford because while I don't consider him a bum, I don't consider him one of the top 10 QBs in the league.
He's not Top 10 in QB Rating, pass yards, pass TDs, etc.
He's better than what the Bengals have right now without Burrow though, I'll give you that.

Exactly. Hell, if we had a Minshew, Bridgewater, Dalton type of backup, I'd say they better finish over .500. 

(12-04-2023, 11:22 AM)casear2727 Wrote: So why was the first comment necessary? You actually posted it twice. Zac has a LONG way to go to be considered on Reids tier. And if we are being honest what is Zac's record vs Bmore with Lamar actually playing?

Lamar vs Joe the last 3 seasons is 2-1 ( not counting the second game this year when Joe went down the second quarter. Does count the first game this year where we lost 27-24 with Joe not 100%. Cincy 82-63 in points scored.

(12-04-2023, 11:47 AM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Well Shanahan has had reasonable success the places he's been and Taylor has only had success as a play caller with Burrow. Shanahan also has an amazing scheme and while Purdy is a good QB and deserves credit his best attribute is working within the scheme. 

Shanahan deserves credit for getting the most of of whatever QB is in his system. He did it with Hoyer, Ryan, Garappalo, Purdy; etc. His decision making on the biggest stages are really sus though. 

I'd take Shanahan over Taylor any day, but I get this creeping feeling that we'd be having the same conversations about him that we do Taylor if it actually happened. 

(12-03-2023, 10:13 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I don't want to discount what the Bengals did against the 49ers. We needed the win and we went into there house and took care of business. But let's also realize we caught them at a pretty good time. No Deebo and they seemed to be in a little bit of a slump at the time. The Bengals were playing pretty good. But isn't what all these arguments are about is whether it's Burrow making everyone better and whether a different playcaller could improve his game even more.

Good coaches scheme around injury.

(12-04-2023, 11:54 AM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I get it. These two players certainly changed our franchise and we did need to actually make the picks so that counts for something. But being absolutely terrible at your job to get us into that position shouldn't count as a positive for you. In my opinion.

Like HOF coach Jimmy Johnson? He inherited a crap roster and started 8-24 and got a #1 QB HOF’s Emmit Smith & Michael Irvin. Zac gets Joe and Chase. Sound familiar? Zac started almost identical to Jimmy Johnson at 6-25-1.

(12-04-2023, 12:15 PM)Wyche Wrote: Good coaches scheme around injury.

I'm sure they were. My point was we did not face a full strength 49ers team. People pointing out what we did to the 49ers compared to what the 49ers do to another team when they are full strength isn't a fair comparison.

(12-04-2023, 12:21 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I'm sure they were. My point was we did not face a full strength 49ers team. People pointing out what we did to the 49ers compared to what the 49ers do to another team when they are full strength isn't a fair comparison.

It's not. On the other hand, we're giving Zac shit for not scheming around a once injured, now lost, starting QB....but giving Shanahan a pass because he couldn't scheme around the loss of a WR. Just seems a little disingenuous to me. 

(12-04-2023, 12:36 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: It's not. On the other hand, we're giving Zac shit for not scheming around a once injured, now lost, starting QB....but giving Shanahan a pass because he couldn't scheme around the loss of a WR. Just seems a little disingenuous to me. 

Well said. And sums up the bias by so many. We lose Chase last year but did we lose a game? No but here it goes in response … Oh that was Joe not Zac.

(12-04-2023, 12:36 PM)Wyche Wrote: It's not. On the other hand, we're giving Zac shit for not scheming around a once injured, now lost, starting QB....but giving Shanahan a pass because he couldn't scheme around the loss of a WR. Just seems a little disingenuous to me. 

I never even brought up the scheming with or without Deebo just merely mentioned him being out. But not changing your scheme a little to deal with a hobbled QB and not changing your scheme to deal with the loss of a WR are not even in the same ballpark. If we can't look at this situation honestly we can't have a conversation. 

(12-04-2023, 12:18 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Like HOF coach Jimmy Johnson? He inherited a crap roster and started 8-24 and got a #1 QB HOF’s Emmit Smith & Michael Irvin. Zac gets Joe and Chase. Sound familiar? Zac started almost identical to Jimmy Johnson at 6-25-1.

Um correct me if I'm wrong but Jimmy Johnson was a defensive coach? He also had success before he came to the cowboy's. So he had a bad record when he 1st came to the cowboy's seems to be about the only thing he has in common with Zac. But we know our team so we should be able to look at that 1st year and know if Taylor's bad record that 1st year was him or the talent of players. While we might not have won a superbowl or even made the playoffs. Our record that year certainly had more to do with Taylor being bad than our talent level. 

(12-04-2023, 12:40 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: But not changing your scheme a little to deal with a hobbled QB and not changing your scheme to deal with the loss of a WR are not even in the same ballpark. 

Except we did, though. It may not have been successful, but we switched to a 100% shotgun, short passing, QB ain't moving, get the ball out NOW scheme. Argue all you want about what other options Zac, Callahan, and Burrow should've chosen instead, but to say they didn't change their scheme even "a little" is disingenuous

(12-04-2023, 12:40 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote:  If we can't look at this situation honestly we can't have a conversation. 

I agree, too bad people aren't looking at this situation honestly. 

(12-04-2023, 12:46 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Um correct me if I'm wrong but Jimmy Johnson was a defensive coach? He also had success before he came to the cowboy's. So he had a bad record when he 1st came to the cowboy's seems to be about the only thing he has in common with Zac. 

2 things: 
1) Most coaches we consider great NOW had bad 1st seasons (some more than the 1st)

2) If Jimmy Johnson had success before arriving in Dallas, wouldn't you agree that the expectations for him were higher and thus if his record was the same as Zac's it's actually WORSE for JJ?

(12-04-2023, 12:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 2 things: 
1) Most coaches we consider great NOW had bad 1st seasons (some more than the 1st)

2) If Jimmy Johnson had success before arriving in Dallas, wouldn't you agree that the expectations for him were higher and thus if his record was the same as Zac's it's actually WORSE for JJ?

Great point

(12-04-2023, 12:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 2 things: 
1) Most coaches we consider great NOW had bad 1st seasons (some more than the 1st)

Following up with this point:
Bill Belichick's first 3 seasons were losing seasons - record of 19-28; not horrible, but still losing seasons

Andy Reid's first season 5-11 (proceeded to win 11 or more wins the next 5 seasons)

Kyle Shanahan's first 2 seasons - 10-22

(12-04-2023, 12:46 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Um correct me if I'm wrong but Jimmy Johnson was a defensive coach? He also had success before he came to the cowboy's. So he had a bad record when he 1st came to the cowboy's seems to be about the only thing he has in common with Zac. But we know our team so we should be able to look at that 1st year and know if Taylor's bad record that 1st year was him or the talent of players. While we might not have won a superbowl or even made the playoffs. Our record that year certainly had more to do with Taylor being bad than our talent level. 

I dunno about that, Miami had some high powered offenses during his tenure with the Canes. 

(12-04-2023, 12:40 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I never even brought up the scheming with or without Deebo just merely mentioned him being out. But not changing your scheme a little to deal with a hobbled QB and not changing your scheme to deal with the loss of a WR are not even in the same ballpark. If we can't look at this situation honestly we can't have a conversation. 

Well, I am being honest. Our fans are talking up an opponent's HC. Our fans are bashing our HC because he can't scheme around Jake Browning to win. I just pointed out Shanny couldn't scheme around losing Deebo, because their offense was anemic while he was out. It's almost like losing your best player affects a team.....