(02-02-2016, 06:45 PM)J24 Wrote: They would still be in the Superbowl with John Fox running the team. Honestly this shows how overrated a coach can be. It's all about how good your players are.

BINGO!!! We have a winner...a Bengal fan who truly gets it!

(02-04-2016, 05:39 PM)Wyche Wrote: Most likely so.....we had a wholesale coaching change under Marvin this offseason, if things don't improve, and we don't play with more discipline as a result, it's definitely time to get headed, imo.  How many shots, staff changes, and players changes do you get?

I sincerely think Marvin will be here for as long as he wants to be.  He and MB seem to have a good working relationship.  I think this will be Marvin's last job.

(02-02-2016, 06:45 PM)J24 Wrote: They would still be in the Superbowl with John Fox running the team. Honestly this shows how overrated a coach can be. It's all about how good your players are.

.....said not even a single 49ers fan after seeing the abomination that was the San Francisco 49ers after Harbaugh left.

(02-04-2016, 05:48 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I sincerely think Marvin will be here for as long as he wants to be.  He and MB seem to have a good working relationship.  I think this will be Marvin's last job.

Even if Mike Brown fired him, it'd still be his last job. He is literally the worst postseason coach in NFL history. I don't think any team can sell their fanbase on a guy who hasn't won a postseason game in a record 13 seasons, or is a record 0-7 in the postseason.

(02-04-2016, 05:50 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: .....said not even a single 49ers fan after seeing the abomination that was the San Francisco 49ers after Harbaugh left.

Niners did not even have a winning record in Harbaughs last season.

If the coach is all that matters why didn't he take them to the Super Bowl every year?

(02-04-2016, 06:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Niners did not even have a winning record in Harbaughs last season.

If the coach is all that matters why didn't he take them to the Super Bowl every year?

Probably because his last year it was already known he was leaving them for Michigan. He checked out, so his team checked out (and still didn't have a losing season in a really tough division).

Why does he have to take them every year?


They didn't have a winning season in EIGHT YEARS, Harbaugh comes in, and they rack off...
-13 wins and a playoff win
-11 wins and a SB appearance
-12 wins and 2 playoff wins.

...in his first three years. His quarterbacks were Alex Smith (an epic bust until Harbaugh), and Colin Kaepernick (who Harbaugh actually managed to make look like a franchise QB to a lot of people and turned back into a pumpkin after he left).

I know you're pushing your little agenda by saying coaching doesn't matter, but the fact is, it does. Not to mention I didn't say it was ALL that mattered. It does matter significantly though.

(02-04-2016, 05:54 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Even if Mike Brown fired him, it'd still be his last job. He is literally the worst postseason coach in NFL history. I don't think any team can sell their fanbase on a guy who hasn't won a postseason game in a record 13 seasons, or is a record 0-7 in the postseason.

Kansas City hired Crennell as head coach despite the fact he had gone 24-40 in his prior head coaching stint without even making the playoffs.

Cowboys hired Wade Phillips despite the fact that he had been a head coach fopr 4 different teams and never won a playoff game.

I know some guys like you would rather not go to the playoffs than go and lose, but most fans don't feel that way.  So if a guy who never even made the playoffs can get another head coaching job I am pretty sure their wpould be a long line to hire a guy who had made the postseason five straight years.

(02-04-2016, 06:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I know you're pushing your little agenda by saying coaching doesn't matter, but the fact is, it does. Not to mention I didn't say it was ALL that mattered. It does matter significantly though.

I have never said that coaching doesn't matter.  I am just saying that coaching is not all that matters.  Marvin has had inferior talent in many of his playoff losses.  The '13 loss to the Chargers is the only one where he really had the better team.

(02-04-2016, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You think it is misguided.  Others disagree.

The same people who claim that it is absolutely impossible for Marvin to win in the postseason would have said it was absolutely impossible for him to make the playoffs 5 years in a row.  They don't know the future any more than anyone else.  Their type of "logic" would have also "proven" that it was impossible for John Elway or the Saints to ever win a Super Bowl.

I can't speak for anyone else but i never said anything was "impossible". The fact remains, the current formula has produced zero playoff wins in 7 attempts over 13 years. That, so far, makes it misguided.

(02-04-2016, 05:03 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Why would you totally scrap a formula that gets you into the playoffs that often? It's not like they totally suck ass. I, like most others, don't think Marv can get us a SB win, but it's also not like we plug another head coach in we're automatically going to get to the SB.  Do you?

Totally discrediting how hard it is to win a - or even get to a SB - really is. 

Why would i want to keep trying a formula that has produced 7 first round playoff losses and zero playoff wins in 13 years? Where's the line? 8? 10? 15?

How many other NFL teams in history have kept a coach that was 0-7 in 13 years, then went on to win in the playoffs?

Answer: Zero

Marty Schottenheimer is the only coach with a worse - than Lewis. He's at -8, but he at least has 5 playoff wins. 

Marv stands alone in playoff futility. Of coaches with zero playoff wins, only Mora is close (0-6). But he did it with 2 teams. Next are Buddy Ryan and Allie Sherman at 0-3.

If people are happy winning enough to make the playoffs and bowing out in the first round every time, fine. I'm not.

(02-04-2016, 05:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, I agree your argument for firing Marvin might have been legit after the '10 season, but this is not '10.

If we had brought in a new coach for the '11 season and he had the exact same results as Marvin has produced since then many people here would be claiming he was a genius.

0-5 in five straight years? I'd question anyone's intelligence that called that genius. He'd get more leeway than Marvin, but wouldn't be close to genius.

(02-04-2016, 06:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have never said that coaching doesn't matter.  I am just saying that coaching is not all that matters.  Marvin has had inferior talent in many of his playoff losses.  The '13 loss to the Chargers is the only one where he really had the better team.

Inferior talent should still be able to win a playoff game occasionally. 

(02-04-2016, 06:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have never said that coaching doesn't matter.  I am just saying that coaching is not all that matters.  Marvin has had inferior talent in many of his playoff losses.  The '13 loss to the Chargers is the only one where he really had the better team.

Agree with this if the Palmer/Henry injury is being factored in in 2005. Think they split that year so it was about even or Bengals slightly favored if not for the injuries early in game imo.

Marvin has had some bad luck injuries at inopportune times. 

That is sports and competition though. You have to be good enough and then get the breaks when they count.  

(02-05-2016, 01:09 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: If people are happy winning enough to make the playoffs and bowing out in the first round every time, fine. I'm not.

Link to everyone who said they were happy with not winning playoff games.

Seriously, this lame line has been shot down so many times it is pathetic yo see people still try and use it.  You can't win an argument by just making something up.

(02-05-2016, 12:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link to everyone who said they were happy with not winning playoff games.

Seriously, this lame line has been shot down so many times it is pathetic yo see people still try and use it.  You can't win an argument by just making something up.

Yeah it really is.

There isn't a logical reason to think fans are content. We all want the Bengals to win a Super Bowl.

It feels stupid even having to point that out on a Bengals message board in Jungle Noise.

(02-05-2016, 01:09 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Why would i want to keep trying a formula that has produced 7 first round playoff losses and zero playoff wins in 13 years? Where's the line? 8? 10? 15?

How many other NFL teams in history have kept a coach that was 0-7 in 13 years, then went on to win in the playoffs?

Answer: Zero

Marty Schottenheimer is the only coach with a worse - than Lewis. He's at -8, but he at least has 5 playoff wins. 

Marv stands alone in playoff futility. Of coaches with zero playoff wins, only Mora is close (0-6). But he did it with 2 teams. Next are Buddy Ryan and Allie Sherman at 0-3.

If people are happy winning enough to make the playoffs and bowing out in the first round every time, fine. I'm not.

Their is definitely a mind set among some fans that, while they are disappointed with the playoff losses, are willing to continue along the same beaten path as long as we're making the playoffs and enjoying regular season success, year after year. 

For the fans who defended 5 straight, 6 straight and now an NFL record setting 7 straight playoffs losses...including adding to an already NFL record for consecutive one and done's...there really isn't a point now that they can say enough is enough, as long as the regular season success continues. If they're cool with 5,6 and 7 losses...then there's really no argument that can be made (that would be consistent with their previous comments)  as to why 0-8, 0-9 or 0-10 in the playoffs would ever warrant making a change.

I know that every single Bengals fan hates the playoff losses and no one wants them to continue. But, as I said...it does seem that some are willing to accept it and/or defend it, as long as we're winning in the regualar season and making the playoffs more often than not. I've said countless times how much I respect what Marvin has done, but Marvin has had an extended tenure and multiple opportunities to prove he is capable of leading a team to a single playoff win. Instead, he achieved a playoff history that proves otherwise.

I can't read through all of this, but let me play devil's advocate off the topic and first page:

Sample size too small for Kubiak.

Schottenheimer took over a 5-11 Chargers team in 2001.
He was fired after three winning seasons with two playoff appearances, the dagger of course being the divisional loss after a 14-2 season.
Yes, Norv Turner went 11-5 the next year and the Chargers went to the AFC title game. But since that 2007 season, the Chargers have had four winning seasons and have made the playoffs just three times. They have not won a playoff game and have had two head coaches.

Dungy took over for Sam Wyche in Tampa after a 7-9 season in 1995. Dungy built the Bucs into a playoff contender – four winning seasons, four playoff appearances, just one playoff win (1999). He’s fired, Gruden leads team to the SB in 2002. That changed worked in the short term. I agree that every Bucs fan should cherish that championship.
Since then, the Bucs have four winning seasons and have made the playoffs two times. They have not won a playoff game and are now on their fourth head coach in that time.

Jimmy Johnson took over for Tom Landry in Dallas after a 3-13 season in 1998. Of course, we know Johnson built the Cowboys to a dynasty and he quit/was fired after a Super Bowl in 1993. And we know that Barry Switzer maintained that (in the pre-free agency era, mind you) for the next two years – another Super Bowl, and an NFC title game loss. Since that last Super Bowl in 1995, the Cowboys have posted nine winning seasons and have made the playoffs eight times. They have won three playoff games (all wildcard) and have had five head coaches.

Here’s what I’m saying: I get the issues with Marvin. But as a guy who has come from the outside, who knows how NFL teams work out of market, it’s not crazy that the Bengals have kept him around.

Look, even after the bad seasons it probably proved wise.

Schottenheimer fired in Kansas City after a 7-9 season in 1998 because he couldn’t win a playoff game, right? Well, since then the Chiefs have had six head coaches and have posted just eight winning seasons, made the playoffs just five times, and just won their first playoff game since 1993.

In Minnesota, Dennis Green fired during a 5-11 season in 2001 after losing the NFC title game in 2000. Since then the Vikings are on their fourth head coach and have six winning seasons and made the playoffs four times. They have won two playoff games.

You guys have mentioned John Fox. After firing Lovie Smith after a 10-6 non-playoff year in 2012, the Bears are now on their second head coach since and have not yet had a winning season.

All I’m saying is that yes, sometimes change is good. But oftentimes, it is not. It makes perfect football sense for Marvin Lewis to still be the head coach of the Bengals in 2016.

Look. If you're okay with 0-7, then I think it's safe to say you'll be okay with 0-9, 0-12, 0-15, etc. There is no point where you'll think losing in the playoffs trumps winning in the regular season. Therefore, you are content/satisfied with the results. You approve of the job Marvin is doing, otherwise you'd want him to be replaced. Since you don't want him replaced, the only logical conclusion is that you're satisfied with the results, which include losing in the playoffs.

(02-05-2016, 01:27 PM)jowczarski Wrote: I can't read through all of this, but let me play devil's advocate off the topic and first page:

Sample size too small for Kubiak.

Schottenheimer took over a 5-11 Chargers team in 2001.
He was fired after three winning seasons with two playoff appearances, the dagger of course being the divisional loss after a 14-2 season.
Yes, Norv Turner went 11-5 the next year and the Chargers went to the AFC title game. But since that 2007 season, the Chargers have had four winning seasons and have made the playoffs just three times. They have not won a playoff game and have had two head coaches.

Dungy took over for Sam Wyche in Tampa after a 7-9 season in 1995. Dungy built the Bucs into a playoff contender – four winning seasons, four playoff appearances, just one playoff win (1999). He’s fired, Gruden leads team to the SB in 2002. That changed worked in the short term. I agree that every Bucs fan should cherish that championship.
Since then, the Bucs have four winning seasons and have made the playoffs two times. They have not won a playoff game and are now on their fourth head coach in that time.

Jimmy Johnson took over for Tom Landry in Dallas after a 3-13 season in 1998. Of course, we know Johnson built the Cowboys to a dynasty and he quit/was fired after a Super Bowl in 1993. And we know that Barry Switzer maintained that (in the pre-free agency era, mind you) for the next two years – another Super Bowl, and an NFC title game loss. Since that last Super Bowl in 1995, the Cowboys have posted nine winning seasons and have made the playoffs eight times. They have won three playoff games (all wildcard) and have had five head coaches.

Here’s what I’m saying: I get the issues with Marvin. But as a guy who has come from the outside, who knows how NFL teams work out of market, it’s not crazy that the Bengals have kept him around.

Look, even after the bad seasons it probably proved wise.

Schottenheimer fired in Kansas City after a 7-9 season in 1998 because he couldn’t win a playoff game, right? Well, since then the Chiefs have had six head coaches and have posted just eight winning seasons, made the playoffs just five times, and just won their first playoff game since 1993.

In Minnesota, Dennis Green fired during a 5-11 season in 2001 after losing the NFC title game in 2000. Since then the Vikings are on their fourth head coach and have six winning seasons and made the playoffs four times. They have won two playoff games.

You guys have mentioned John Fox. After firing Lovie Smith after a 10-6 non-playoff year in 2012, the Bears are now on their second head coach since and have not yet had a winning season.

All I’m saying is that yes, sometimes change is good. But oftentimes, it is not. It makes perfect football sense for Marvin Lewis to still be the head coach of the Bengals in 2016.

And this would lead to the point I was bringing up. If Marvin makes 'perfect football sense' after an NFL record 7 straight playoff losses and 5 consecutive one and done's, then it would follow that it would makes just as much sense to keep him after going 0-10 with 8 consecutive one and done's. There would be no point, as long as he continues to win in the regular season and make the playoffs more often than not, that it would ever make 'sense' to replace him...at least if we rely only on specific examples of occasions where it did not work out after changing coaches as the reasoning for why Marvin cannot be replaced.

(02-05-2016, 01:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Look. If you're okay with 0-7, then I think it's safe to say you'll be okay with 0-9, 0-12, 0-15, etc. There is no point where you'll think losing in the playoffs trumps winning in the regular season. Therefore, you are content/satisfied with the results. You approve of the job Marvin is doing, otherwise you'd want him to be replaced. Since you don't want him replaced, the only logical conclusion is that you're satisfied with the results, which include losing in the playoffs.

This is absurd.  The Bengals have had inferior talent pretty much every playoff loss except the '13 game against teh Chargers.

And I would be glad to replace Marvin if there was a proven up grade available.  For example if Sean Peyton was available after next year and we don't win a playoff game.

It is amazing that you think you are so 100% perfect that the only possible way anyone could disagree with you is if they don't want to win a playoff game.  The fact is that I do not see a proven upgrade over Marvin available to hire replace him right now.

If we hire a coach who has less success than Marvin would that not also be accepting mediocrity?  How could you be in favor of that?