(01-10-2016, 07:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one has said that that is the ONLY possible.  But history shows that most coaching changes don't improve the team, and that is even considering that most coaching changes come from losing teams.




http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.829181?journalCode=rael20


 I examine the effects of coaching changes for National Football League (NFL) teams between the 1995 and 2012 seasons. A variety of factors contribute to an NFL team’s performance reverting towards league-average levels between seasons. Thus, a nominal improvement in team performance could be due to improved management or it could simply be mean reversion. I find that, after accounting for the highly significant mean reversion effect during this time period, firing a coach reduces a team’s expected performance during the next season and the team’s average performance over the next two seasons. This effect is present when wins are used to measure performance, but also when performance is measured by point differential and playoff appearances, two variables that avoid some shortcomings of using team wins as a measure of performance. I conclude that teams are firing coaches an inefficiently high percentage of the time.

In 13 seasons with Marvin, we have exactly zero playoff wins. So, you tell me when the time is correct to make a change. Is it after 15 seasons with no playoff wins? 20 seasons? How long of a leash should Marvin be given? I really want to know the answer to that question. Marvin himself stated that 'just getting there isn't enough', so when is the cutoff line, or is there even a line at all in your opinion?

What 'could happen' in the future is nothing but conjecture, good or bad. But, what's happened in the past is a fact. A fact that hasn't been altered in 13 years under Marvin's leadership. As I said in the OP, I respect the hell out of Marvin for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day...if all we're left with is excuses for why we fail in the postseason, instead of at least one victory, then how much more time should be invested in a HC that has proven he can't achieve the end result?

Without a specific replacement in mind it's not realistic to move on.    

Hue is a Marvin clone who talks trash.   They coach the same way.    

Coughlin would be the only coach who could step in....    But he is 70 and has inferior staff than what we already have...  

So who else?

Sean Payton? Is he worth a 2nd rounder? And he was the bounty gate coach.... So you think he reigns guys in?

(01-10-2016, 04:24 PM)samhain Wrote: Sorry, I just don't see Marvin going anywhere.  This team prides itself on continuity.  They do not believe in knee-jerk personnel decisions.   A team that operates by the Bengals model doesn't fire a coach that goes 12-4.

or 4-12 

....   Sorry I couldn't resist the OP's title.

(01-10-2016, 07:25 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: In 13 seasons with Marvin, we have exactly zero playoff wins. So, you tell me when the time is correct to make a change. Is it after 15 seasons with no playoff wins? 20 seasons? How long of a leash should Marvin be given? I really want to know the answer to that question. Marvin himself stated that 'just getting there isn't enough', so when is the cutoff line, or is there even a line at all in your opinion?

What 'could happen' in the future is nothing but conjecture, good or bad. But, what's happened in the past is a fact. A fact that hasn't been altered in 13 years under Marvin's leadership. As I said in the OP, I respect the hell out of Marvin for a number of reasons, but at the end of the day...if all we're left with is excuses for why we fail in the postseason, instead of at least one victory, then how much more time should be invested in a HC that has proven he can't achieve the end result?

What happened last night is probably a double edged sword.  The method of losing is reason for termination.  OTOH, the fact that they were so close to winning is reason enough to MB to stay the course, as if he would do anything else.

(01-10-2016, 05:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically you hate Marvin more than you like the Bengals.

You don't care if the team gets worse as long as Marvin gets fired.

Who says it gets worse? I said I don't care if it does. Will it? Won't know until you try it, right?

(01-10-2016, 07:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Without a specific replacement in mind it's not realistic to move on.    

Hue is a Marvin clone who talks trash.   They coach the same way.    

Coughlin would be the only coach who could step in....    But he is 70 and has inferior staff than what we already have...  

So who else?

Sean Payton?  Is he worth a 2nd rounder?  And he was the bounty gate coach....  So you think he reigns guys in?

Coughlin turns 70 when the season begins, but for him I don't think that is an issue or will be for a few more years. The issue as I see it is the bond between Mike Brown and Marvin. While it took years for Marvin to earn Mike's trust, it doesn't seem to be something Mike will give up on. Right/wrong/indifferent, they believe in their chosen path so much that they will die trying to prove themselves.....to themselves if no one else.

As fans, we either accept it or go crazy ....

(01-10-2016, 08:21 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Who says it gets worse? I said I don't care if it does.

And that means you dislike Marvin more than you like the Bengals.

I am a bengals fan and I would care a lot if they got worse.

What was worse, getting skunked by a SD Chargers team the Bengals should have annihilated two years ago or fumbling away a victory to the Steelers?

Oh well, the Chiefs are going to kill them or Denver anyway.

Maybe the Bengals should throw next season to get some good draft picks? And the next year re-emerge as an underdog? It is really getting old to see them squander playoff opportunities.