(02-05-2016, 03:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Multiple seasons with less talent than the team they lost to in the playoffs.

Less talented teams always lose in the playoffs?

(02-05-2016, 03:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then you agree that it is possible for some people to have more hope in Marvin than another coach who has not accomplished as much.

No more accusing people who don't want Marvin fired of "being happy with losing in the playoffs"?

Sure. People will have different levels of hope. 

"being happy" is a generic term when so many others could be applied that mean the same thing. If someone doesn't want Marv fired, that's fine. I'm not going to question their judgement or intelligence. I'm just pointing out that there are those that look at the results of an accumulated 13 years and they're ready to move on, with good reason.

(02-05-2016, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We make changes every year.  

Except to...  ?

(02-05-2016, 04:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So what?  None of that matters.  All that matters is the coach, remember?

If the coach is the only thing that hasn't changed, yes. 

(02-05-2016, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And the 2011 Bengals were considered the least talented team in the league and projected to fininish dead last with a rookie starting QB and a new OC.

But, yeah, let's fire Marvin for taking that team to the playoffs.

Or you could fire him/promote him for taking 4 subsequent teams, with more experience and talent, to the playoffs and losing in the first round, regardless. 

(02-05-2016, 07:37 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Sure. People will have different levels of hope. 

"being happy" is a generic term when so many others could be applied that mean the same thing. If someone doesn't want Marv fired, that's fine. I'm not going to question their judgement or intelligence. I'm just pointing out that there are those that look at the results of an accumulated 13 years and they're ready to move on, with good reason.

Good.

I don't mind reasonable discussion.  I am just pointing out that there are some people who look at how consistently Marvin has been winning recently and all of the options available to replace him and decide to stick with Marvin for good reason.

No need to make up silly claims to try to back up either position.

(02-05-2016, 01:09 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: So
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.

Sorry for delayed response. Look, we are al angry at this. Read thru my comments and you'll see I'm not the biggest Marv fan. 

All I'm saying is changing a HC doesn't = a guaranteed shot at winning in the playoffs, neither does keeping Marv so that puts you at a crossroads. 

Blow it up (staff, various players, etc) and hope for best...

Or you stick to what you know. obviously this hasn't worked out, but I do understand why stick to it. I would also understand why they would fire him.

Doesn't mean either is wrong.

(02-02-2016, 04:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: One of the biggest mistakes the Bucs ever made.

Dungy won at a higher rate at Tampa Bay than Gruden did after he took over.

Dungy won at a higher rate once he left Tamps than Gruden did after he took over.

Gruden won a Super Bowl with Dungy's team and then ran it into the ground.  Dungy continued to win after he left the Bucs.

so we should hire Dungy? 

(02-05-2016, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Tom Landry did not have a winning season until his 7th year and only won one playoff game in his first decade as a head coach for the Cowboys.

Based on your logic it was clearly impossible for him to ever win a Super Bowl.

I asked you to name a coach who was "0 for". Landry won a game.

(02-05-2016, 05:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Carson and TJ did not play a single snap in '03.

Dillon quit on the team in order to get out of town (500 yards, 3.9 avg).

And since the same talent was there in '02 when they went 2-14 shouldn't Marvin get the credit for the massive improvement?

Still a ton of young talent there, even if you don't count those 3. Marvin should get some credit, but people should also acknowledge that there was a lot of young talent that was blossoming in 2003-05. 

(02-06-2016, 04:02 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I asked you to name a coach who was "0 for". Landry won a game.

And obsessing over one single playoff win is silly.

Even if Marvin had beaten the Jets in '09 you would still be calling for him to be fired right now.  If he wins just one playoff game next year all they same guys will want him fired because "all that matters is the Super Bowl".

Dom Capers won a playoff game as a head coach.  Why aren't you calling for us to hire him to replace Marvin?  Who cares if he only had one winning season in 8 years and just won a little over a third of his regular season games (48-80).  He wona playoff game and that makes him better than Marvin, right?

(02-07-2016, 11:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. And obsessing over one single playoff win is silly.

2. Even if Marvin had beaten the Jets in '09 you would still be calling for him to be fired right now.  3. If he wins just one playoff game next year all they same guys will want him fired because "all that matters is the Super Bowl".

4. Dom Capers won a playoff game as a head coach.  Why aren't you calling for us to hire him to replace Marvin?  Who cares if he only had one winning season in 8 years and just won a little over a third of his regular season games (48-80).  He wona playoff game and that makes him better than Marvin, right?

1. When a franchise hasn't won a playoff game in 25 years, no it's not. I've been a fan for 20+ years and I've never seen one.

2. No, I really wouldn't.

3. Honestly I think you're full of crap. If the Bengals won a playoff game, the fans would be on cloud 9. After the Burfict INT against the Steelers, some of the same folks you consider "haters" were saying they were going to cry tears of joy if the Bengals won. There was already an overwhelming sense of joy in the GD thread. Meanwhile all the so-called "homers" had long since checked out.

4. Straw man. I've never said that a single playoff win and years of losing is somehow greater than no playoff wins and years of winning. They're both important. Why can't we have both???

(02-07-2016, 12:47 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 1. When a franchise hasn't won a playoff game in 25 years, no it's not. I've been a fan for 20+ years and I've never seen one.

2. No, I really wouldn't.

3. Honestly I think you're full of crap. If the Bengals won a playoff game, the fans would be on cloud 9. After the Burfict INT against the Steelers, some of the same folks you consider "haters" were saying they were going to cry tears of joy if the Bengals won. There was already an overwhelming sense of joy in the GD thread. Meanwhile all the so-called "homers" had long since checked out.

4. Straw man. I've never said that a single playoff win and years of losing is somehow greater than no playoff wins and years of winning. They're both important. Why can't we have both???

Agree with almost all of this.

But would note that some of us homers on here were standing through the entire game, in the torrential rain, on a cold night, while facing a long wet drive home and could not be represented in thread. 

Did not notice many leaving game early, if any at all. Had to be prodded by friend several minutes after the horn had sounded as I stood in shock drenching wet at the debacle that just unfolded before me. 

Being a Bengals fan seems to be a vicious cycle that is being looped like video tape. 

It is kind of like, .......wake up, shower, brush, rinse, work, eat, have sex, sleep and then repeat. 

Without the sex of course. 

(02-07-2016, 02:57 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Agree with almost all of this.

But would note that some of us homers on here were standing through the entire game, in the torrential rain, on a cold night, while facing a long wet drive home and could not be represented in thread. 

Did not notice many leaving game early, if any at all. Had to be prodded by friend several minutes after the horn had sounded as I stood in shock drenching wet at the debacle that just unfolded before me. 

Being a Bengals fan seems to be a vicious cycle that is being looped like video tape. 

It is kind of like, .......wake up, shower, brush, rinse, work, eat, have sex, sleep and then repeat. 

Without the sex of course. 

I was referring to the game day thread, not PBS.

(02-07-2016, 12:47 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 1. When a franchise hasn't won a playoff game in 25 years, no it's not. I've been a fan for 20+ years and I've never seen one.

2. No, I really wouldn't.

3. Honestly I think you're full of crap. If the Bengals won a playoff game, the fans would be on cloud 9. After the Burfict INT against the Steelers, some of the same folks you consider "haters" were saying they were going to cry tears of joy if the Bengals won. There was already an overwhelming sense of joy in the GD thread. Meanwhile all the so-called "homers" had long since checked out.

4. Straw man. I've never said that a single playoff win and years of losing is somehow greater than no playoff wins and years of winning. They're both important. Why can't we have both???

Its amazing how the homers were also taunting fans on here for not being a true "fan" because of not having confidence in Marvin getting the Bengals a win in post season against the Steelers.

Some Homers disappeared after that game and have still yet to be seen since...but don't worry they will be back next season if it nothing has ever happened.

(02-05-2016, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We make changes every year.  

Jock straps don't count.

So with some members here saying coaching changes don't make a difference? Those who said lets have the discussion IF the Broncos win the Super Bowl. How about sometimes its good to keep the same coach because it could get worse. My personal favorite is...head coaches are overrated on how much they affect a team!

How about, say hello to this years Super Bowl winners...the Denver Broncos!

A head coaching change and you have an already good team now a Super Bowl 50 winning team.

As i stated in this original thread...something you'll never see in Cincinnati...EVER!

(02-04-2016, 12:49 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: How are they any better? There in the same exact position as last time. If he wins the Super Bowl there's a discussion.

Even the team they're facing is similar.

Guess its time for that discussion...

(02-04-2016, 02:23 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Bottom line is Kubiak has gotten just as far as Fox did in the post-season. That's all that matters on the forums right?

Until Kubiak wins he is no better. Then we can talk about if not being "content" pays off.

Again, ready to talk?

(02-05-2016, 01:27 PM)jowczarski Wrote: 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.

First let me say I do thoroughly enjoy your articles and posts here on the forum. 

My response to your post is simply, if the Broncos had that same mentality would they be sitting here right now as the Super Bowl Champions? No they wouldn't. They made the changes they needed to win a Super Bowl and made them with a coach who has had more success than Marvin Lewis has. 

Bengal fans will continue to be frustrated in 2016 with Marvin Lewis at the helm.

Denver: John Fox, 4 AFCW Championships, Playoff wins and a Super Bowl appearance= FIRED!
Replaced by Kubiak = SUPER BOWL CAMPS!

Cincinnati : Marvin Lewis, 13 season, 0-7 playoffs = MULTIPLE CONTRACT EXTENSIONS!

Case Closed!