(02-05-2016, 01:41 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: 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.

You know why so many teams keep firing coaches and never getting any better?  it is because they think like you.  they think that the only possible reason a team could lose would be the coach.  But this just is not true.  talent has a lot to do with it and Marvin has had inferior talent in every playoff game except one.

so in the simplistic world were the only thing that matters is the coach I guess every team should fire their coach every year that they don't win a playoff game.  but in the real world where people look at all the variables it makes sense to keep a coach who is winning instead of firing him and replacing him with someone who has not accomplished as much.  if the team was losing every year then it is okay to take a chance on an unknown, but when  a tyeam is winning consistently you should not fire the coach unless you have a proven upgrade.  or unless he is losing with clearly superior talent.

(02-05-2016, 01:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You know why so many teams keep firing coaches and never getting any better?  it is because they think like you.  they think that the only possible reason a team could lose would be the coach.  But this just is not true.  talent has a lot to do with it and Marvin has had inferior talent in every playoff game except one.

so in the simplistic world were the only thing that matters is the coach I guess every team should fire their coach every year that they don't win a playoff game.  but in the real world where people look at all the variables it makes sense to keep a coach who is winning instead of firing him and replacing him with someone who has not accomplished as much.  if the team was losing every year then it is okay to take a chance on an unknown, but when  a tyeam is winning consistently you should not fire the coach unless you have a proven upgrade.  or unless he is losing with clearly superior talent.

WTF are you talking about? Broncos fired their coach.... BETTER. Panthers... BETTER. Jets... BETTER. Cardinals... BETTER. And that is just recent memory.

The Bengals have had one of the most talented rosters in the NFL the past 2 or 3 seasons and were better or even to the Texans both games, better than the Chargers, worse than the Colts, and better than the Steelers. Marvin's squads with Carson that went to the Playoffs were better or even to the Steelers in 2005 and better than the Jets team that they lost to as well.

He's also had better talent in prime time and his record is trash there, too. Players play within a game plan just like a soldier fights within battle plan. Coaches coach just like generals lead. Marvin Lewis chokes in prime time and especially the playoffs and he has done it regardless of talent or roster over a 13 year head coaching career. To ignore such and make excuses for him is asinine. Other coaches around the league keep getting it done with much less and you keep making excuses why this guy can't do jack rabbit with much more.

Your post above is just the absolute most disgusting head up ass example of homer-ism I have maybe ever seen on either message board old or new. You and Marvin should get a room.

(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.

I'm a bit of two minds on this. If we were to let go of someone like Marvin Lewis, then we'd have to find someone better to replace him with or the exercise would backfire. That's the long and short of it.

I'm not sure who that would be. It's too late for Zimmer or Hue Jackson and I'm far from sold on anyone else on the staff.

It's sorta like what to do with Andy Dalton after the 2014 Cleveland game or after the 2013 playoff meltdown he had. There just wasn't a better QB available to the team who you could expect to come in and lead the team better. So, the option chosen was to work with him to get him to improve. This paid off in 2015 when he played his best football. Over his first four years he was really a borderline franchise QB. It took 5 years to get him to really be "the guy".

Now, I have seen improvement in Lewis over the past year. Specifically, I've seen an improvement with in-game adjustments and better game planning overall. Sure there were occasions where that didn't work out too well, like in Houston this year. But overall there was improvement over previous years.

It's too bad that it's taken so many years to get Marvin and the team and owner Mike Brown to the point where they are putting a good product on the field. But there has been significant improvement since Marv took over, even as gradual as it was.

I still haven't forgiven Mike Brown completely for the debacle the Bengals became once he took over ownership, but some day I probably will. It'll take a SB appearance to make that happen most likely.

But the question remains, if Marvin Lewis is to go, then who is going to be the guy we are certain is going to do a better job? To make a change for the sake of change isn't going to work. You have to change to "something else" and that something else needs to be an improvement, otherwise it's just a step back one is inflicting on oneself.

(02-05-2016, 01:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

I never said there are people who don't want to win a playoff game. I'm just saying that some put little emphasis on it. At least not as much emphasis as they put on the regular season. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so quick to endorse Marvin.

As for there being no "proven upgrade" "right now", of course there isn't. It's February. The best proven coaches are with teams right now.

(02-05-2016, 02:10 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I never said there are people who don't want to win a playoff game. I'm just saying that some put little emphasis on it. At least not as much emphasis as they put on the regular season. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so quick to endorse Marvin.

As for there being no "proven upgrade" "right now", of course there isn't. It's February. The best proven coaches are with teams right now.

I think it's hypocritical when these ML nut swingers demand a PROVEN replacement and then back Marvin Lewis who came in as UNPROVEN.... Oh, wait. He's proven now, right? Because he has proven he CAN'T get it done.

(02-05-2016, 01:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You know why so many teams keep firing coaches and never getting any better?  it is because they think like you.  they think that the only possible reason a team could lose would be the coach.  But this just is not true.  talent has a lot to do with it and Marvin has had inferior talent in every playoff game except one.

so in the simplistic world were the only thing that matters is the coach I guess every team should fire their coach every year that they don't win a playoff game.  but in the real world where people look at all the variables it makes sense to keep a coach who is winning instead of firing him and replacing him with someone who has not accomplished as much.  if the team was losing every year then it is okay to take a chance on an unknown, but when  a tyeam is winning consistently you should not fire the coach unless you have a proven upgrade.  or unless he is losing with clearly superior talent.

Show me a comment from one owner or Gm that has ever said that they think the 'only possible reason' they are losing is the head coach. Go ahead, I'll wait. No one thinks that, including myself or anyone who shares my stance on Marvin. Of course there is much more to a team's winning than 'just' the HC. However, the HC is the captain of the ship. He's the one providing the direction, the approach, and the vision. He's the one calling the shots, signing off on gameplans, making the final decisions, etc, etc, etc. At the end of the day, he's the one who has to ultimately be responsible. Don't pretend that you're not aware of that fact. Marvin has been the constant. Different QB's, different coordinators...one HC. At what point do you ever hold Marvin accountable for anything?

No NFL coach has ever reached the levels of playoff futility that Marvin has. That's a fact. No team has ever had a HC who has went 0-7, with 5 straight one and done's. To replace a HC after 13 seasons and 7 failed playoff chances isn't exactly a knee jerk, whimsical decision. As I said before, as long as they keep winning in the regular season, those who share your mind set will never have a reason to want Marvin replaced, no matter how many playoff failures occur in the process.

(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.

Zero playoff wins in 13 years. 0-7. None of that is made up.

That lame line has never been shot down.

To your point: If someone wants to keep trying the same formula when there is nothing else to compare it to, regarding Marv, they are content/happy/willing to settle/not upset enough, to make a change. It's not like they can go "oh, look. We made it to the AFCCG x year, or we made it to the SB one year...". You can't even say, "oh, look. We won a playoff game once". 

Nothing about this current formula shows an ability to win a single playoff game to date. And they've had 7 tries over a 13 year span. You can not dispute that in any form or fashion. You have absolutely nothing to draw from that shows success with the current MB, ML, Bengals formula. Not until the current group actually wins a playoff game. Marv stands alone in playoff futility.

How long are you willing to wait for that to happen?

(02-05-2016, 12:31 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: 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.

If you defend a coach that is 0-7 with 13 years to get it right, and you want to keep giving him a try...you are content not winning a playoff game. Content, happy, willing to settle... i don't care what word/terminology you use. It's the same thing.

Zero playoff wins. Thirteen years. This has now gone on longer than the lost decade. It's been more enjoyable, sure. But it has been just as completely unfulfilling if you want your team to win the big trophy, or even get a real chance to play for it.

(02-05-2016, 01:07 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: 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.

Yep. 

(02-05-2016, 02:09 PM)BengalChris Wrote: I'm a bit of two minds on this. If we were to let go of someone like Marvin Lewis, then we'd have to find someone better to replace him with or the exercise would backfire. That's the long and short of it.

But the question remains, if Marvin Lewis is to go, then who is going to be the guy we are certain is going to do a better job? To make a change for the sake of change isn't going to work. You have to change to "something else" and that something else needs to be an improvement, otherwise it's just a step back one is inflicting on oneself.

Here's the thing about only being able to replace Marvin with a better/proven coach...there are no guarantees. You could hire a guy like Sean Payton or Tom Coughlin, and they may never get you back to the playoffs. You could hire a coordinator that's never been a HC, and he may take you to the SB. There's just no way of knowing. I do have faith that a committee of Mike, Katie, Troy and maybe Duke could land a solid replacement. After all, Mike and Katie did give us Marvin. But again, there are no guarantees, and if that's the determining factor for replacing Marvin...then Marvin is never leaving.

I'd bet that over the past 4 year, Marvin's "Pro Bowl" participants have been close to Fox' in Denver.

(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.

Did Hobson hack your account?  kidding

I don't disagree that keeping him around has proven to be a recipe for remaining relevant/consistently making the playoffs. Truth be told, Marv may still not be the one keeping the Bengals from getting over the hump. Injuries/bad luck have played a big part in playoff losses, no doubt but even injured/less talented teams have gotten a playoff win occasionally. 

I've always been a big proponent in targeting one or two top tier FA and then building the core of your team through the draft. The problem is, the Bengals staunchly refuse to throw big money at any top FA in the prime of their career. Anyone wanting to chime in at this point about Washington/Tampa and others that constantly fail at FA, please don't bother. I believe Marv and the FO are smart enough to target one guy that could provide immediate help at a key position without crushing the cap. The fact that they haven't even tried to do that is telling in itself. 

At this pace, there's always a chance the Bengals can break through the playoff win barrier before the Dalton era is over, but there's really nothing more than speculation that it will happen. 

12 years of the "lost decade". 13 more years of no playoff wins. That's 25 seasons that Bengals fans have been waiting. 

How many more before they try something different?

(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.

Yep.

(02-05-2016, 02:18 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I think it's hypocritical when these ML nut swingers demand a PROVEN replacement and then back Marvin Lewis who came in as UNPROVEN.... Oh, wait. He's proven now, right? Because he has proven he CAN'T get it done.

Yep. I was just thinking the same thing. Marvin had no HC experience when he came in. So why are we demanding a "proven" upgrade?

Fwiw though, I think Coughlin would've been a perfect upgrade. That said, some of the best candidates aren't proven at all. 

(02-05-2016, 02:18 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Show me a comment from one owner or Gm that has ever said that they think the 'only possible reason' they are losing is the head coach. Go ahead, I'll wait. No one thinks that, including myself or anyone who shares my stance on Marvin. Of course there is much more to a team's winning than 'just' the HC. However, the HC is the captain of the ship. He's the one providing the direction, the approach, and the vision. He's the one calling the shots, signing off on gameplans, making the final decisions, etc, etc, etc. At the end of the day, he's the one who has to ultimately be responsible. Don't pretend that you're not aware of that fact. Marvin has been the constant. Different QB's, different coordinators...one HC. At what point do you ever hold Marvin accountable for anything?

No NFL coach has ever reached the levels of playoff futility that Marvin has. That's a fact. No team has ever had a HC who has went 0-7, with 5 straight one and done's. To replace a HC after 13 seasons and 7 failed playoff chances isn't exactly a knee jerk, whimsical decision. As I said before, as long as they keep winning in the regular season, those who share your mind set will never have a reason to want Marvin replaced, no matter how many playoff failures occur in the process.

Multiple QBs, multiple RBs, multiple Olines, multiple defenses, multiple OCs, multiple DCs, multiple coaches. 

One HC, one owner. 

How hard is it to see where the logical conclusion comes from?

Marvin Lewis is like my gf..... one day she will get skinny... one day....

(02-05-2016, 02:32 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Here's the thing about only being able to replace Marvin with a better/proven coach...there are no guarantees. You could hire a guy like Sean Payton or Tom Coughlin, and they may never get you back to the playoffs. You could hire a coordinator that's never been a HC, and he may take you to the SB. There's just no way of knowing. I do have faith that a committee of Mike, Katie, Troy and maybe Duke could land a solid replacement. After all, Mike and Katie did give us Marvin. But again, there are no guarantees, and if that's the determining factor for replacing Marvin...then Marvin is never leaving.

Absolute truth. Nothing is guaranteed, i don't care how "proven" a coach is. 

So the options are; stay the course which has proven ineffective so far, or, make a change in the hope things improve. 

Hope that Marv gets them over the hump: Hope that another coach gets them over the hump. 

It's the same thing. A word (hope) that has no tangible measurement. 

(02-05-2016, 02:42 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Multiple QBs, multiple RBs, multiple Olines, multiple defenses, multiple OCs, multiple DCs, multiple coaches. 

One HC, one owner. 

How hard is it to see where the logical conclusion comes from?

If a company has unsatisfactory results, they usually fire some employees and bring in new qualified candidates. If they continue failing to achieve desired results through multiple waves of employees, supervisors and equipment, they will surely start to look at the GM or whoever is in charge at the ground level. 

It's the same concept with a football team. It's all about chain of command. I'm not sure why some make it so complicated. Coaches get fired in the NFL when they fail to achieve the desired results, which usually vary based on current expectations. For example, if a losing team continues to lose, the coach gets fired. If a winning team continually fails to progress through the playoffs, the coach often gets fired (see Schotty, Dungy, Mora, Fox, etc).

That's just how the NFL works. Now either you trust how the rest of the NFL operates, or you can trust the same Bengals' brass who have failed to win a single playoff game in a quarter century. That's not a tough choice for me.

(02-05-2016, 02:42 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Multiple QBs, multiple RBs, multiple Olines, multiple defenses, multiple OCs, multiple DCs, multiple coaches. 

One HC, one owner. 

How hard is it to see where the logical conclusion comes from?

Multiple seasons with less talent than the team they lost to in the playoffs.

(02-05-2016, 02:57 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That's just how the NFL works. Now either you trust how the rest of the NFL operates, or you can trust the same Bengals' brass who have failed to win a single playoff game in a quarter century. That's not a tough choice for me.

Why don't you look at the results instead of the firings?