(04-12-2016, 02:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If Alexander is as good as you claim, shouldn't the blocking schemes generate a better running attack without the extra OL?  Wouldn't that failure fall more upon the shoulders of the O line coach?

According to Footballoutsiders the 2015 Bengals O-line run blocking ranked #1 in "Adjusted Line Yards" while our RBs ranked 31st in "Open Field Yards".  This would indicate that the problem was with the RBs instead of the O-line.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

(04-12-2016, 12:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Really?

Please list all the Pro Bowl RBs with multiple 1000 yard seasons who had only 17 carries over their first two seasons.

I honestly can not think of a single one other than Rudi.

What's more likely?

A: Rudi was a talented RB who didn't get much PT because he was stuck behind a workhorse who happened to be the best RB in team history.
B: Rudi was a mediocre back who only looked good cuz Marvin.

(04-12-2016, 03:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: According to Footballoutsiders the 2015 Bengals O-line run blocking ranked #1 in "Adjusted Line Yards" while our RBs ranked 31st in "Open Field Yards".  This would indicate that the problem was with the RBs instead of the O-line.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

"A team with a very good running back will appear higher no matter how bad their line, and a team with a great line with appear lower if the running back is terrible."

How meaningful are those adjusted stats if one RB performs as well as Bernard and as poorly as Hill during the season?

(04-12-2016, 03:29 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: What's more likely?

A: Rudi was a talented RB who didn't get much PT because he was stuck behind Curtis Keaton, Brandon Bennett, Nick Luchey, and a workhorse who happened to be the best RB in team history.

B: Rudi was a mediocre back who only looked good cuz Marvin.

FIFY


And how silly of me to give coaches any credit when players blossom under them.  But the good news is that if coaches have nothing to do with how well players perform then Marvin deserves no blame at all for any losses by the Bengals.  No need to ever change coaches if they have nothing to do with how well players perform, right?

(04-12-2016, 02:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am sorry.  I know you like to make stuff up in order to make reality fit your opinion, but I did not realize that in your fantasy world Carson did not make the playoffs with the Bengals in '09, but did make the playoffs with Hue in '11.

Benson's miracle year and the defense took us to the playoffs in 09.  I often said Carson's 2-minute heroics did their part, but I seemed to recall being shouted down with that notion, so meh.

Again, I don't think I'm making stuff up, but if you want to argue that Marvin Lewis made the most of having a decent QB in Palmer and/or Dalton then we can just, as I previously stated, agree to disagree.

(04-12-2016, 03:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "A team with a very good running back will appear higher no matter how bad their line, and a team with a great line with appear lower if the running back is terrible."

How meaningful are those adjusted stats if one RB performs as well as Bernard and as poorly as Hill during the season?

Bernard did not perform well at all in the "open field yards" in 2015.

He was 28th in the league in carries (154), but 46 players had more runs of 40+ yards, and 50 players had more runs of 20+ yards.

(04-12-2016, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bernard did not perform well at all in the "open field yards" in 2015.

He was 28th in the league in carries (154), but 46 players had more runs of 40+ yards, and 50 players had more runs of 20+ yards.

There was a significant difference between their yards/carry in every down and distance category while they didn't rotate different Olines to block for a specific RB. So I'm not sure how valuable those adjusted stats are or if you can draw meaningful conclusions based upon them.

(04-12-2016, 12:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, Palmer got 2 legit shots at a playoff win and got to the conference championship at the age of 36.  Marvin Lewis has had 7 chances (maybe 6 if you consider losing Palmer as a hopeless situation in 2005) and he's never even lucked his way past the wild card round.  One time in 7 tries we came "close" to winning, so there is that.

Bruce Arians got more out of a short window, post-second ACL tear 36 year old Palmer than Marvin got out of the guy when he was a no-brainer #1 overall pick in his prime.  Then again, other than 2005 Palmer has only flirted with relevance when he has an offensive-minded HC in Hue and Arians, so maybe that just has that much more of an impact for him.  

Do I think Marvin is a bad coach?  Well, who knows...but I think he's got some pretty obvious flaws BUT he's operating under a less then ideal owner and pulling double-duty as a pseudo-GM so what can you do?  I do think it is fair to see Palmer and Dalton's long-term viability in the NFL as a knock against Marvin given his lack of post-season success.  Additionally, I would bet my left nut that Marvin wouldn't have done a thing with any of the QBs Lebeau and Coslet had to implement.

So, this isn't a Dalton vs. Palmer thing so much as me "wondering" why a team that has 2 decent QBs over a span of 13 years can't break through an obvious ceiling.

Why haven't any of you, in your arguing with Fred over this, realized that Fred brings up points that clearly go both ways while acknowledging only the side that furthers his agenda. See, he pointed out that the Bengals got better when Carson left while totally forgetting that they got better when he came back from injury in 2009.

Remember....

Marvin went 4-11-1 with an injured Carson for 4 games & Fitzpatrick the rest of the way in 2008. Then, in 2009 with a "healthy" (read: rehabbing) Carson went 10-6 and won the division.

Before....

Anyone comes in with the notion that Ryan Fitzpatrick sucks, keep in mind that he is currently a hotly contested property on the FA market and is about to get PAID. A lot of forum members, including Fredtoast, have often referenced FA contracts in debates and use them as a barometer of if a player is good or bad in the eyes of NFL teams.


Look....

The agenda the guy you're arguing with doesn't fall in line with the principals of his side of the argument so he begins to use logical fallacies in order to keep distancing the argument from the base facts which he doesn't care for.  He's the king of logical fallacies.  Read this for a few minutes and you'll start to recognize the errors of logic in some of his points. https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html 

(04-12-2016, 04:43 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Why haven't any of you, in your arguing with Fred over this, realized that Fred brings up points that clearly go both ways while acknowledging only the side that furthers his agenda. See, he pointed out that the Bengals got better when Carson left while totally forgetting that they got better when he came back from injury in 2009.

Equivocation.

The entire argument began with a discussion of the Bengals getting better when Carson left the team.  Carson never left the team in '08. We did not have months to prepare a replacement for him in '08.  We did not receive 2 additional draft picks when he got injured in '08.  we did not remove his presence from the locker room in '08.

Your logic is a complete fail.

(04-12-2016, 04:43 PM)PDub80 Wrote: The agenda the guy you're arguing with doesn't fall in line with the principals of his side of the argument so he begins to use logical fallacies in order to keep distancing the argument from the base facts which he doesn't care for.  He's the king of logical fallacies.  Read this for a few minutes and you'll start to recognize the errors of logic in some of his points. https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html 

You would not recognize a logical fallacy if it slapped you in the face.

In fact you can not find one single logical fallacy I have committed in this entire thread.

(04-12-2016, 05:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You would not recognize a logical fallacy if it slapped you in the face.

In fact you can not find one single logical fallacy I have committed in this entire thread.

Logical fallacies don't have hands. They can't slap anyone's face. Logically speaking, of course.

(04-12-2016, 04:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: FIFY


And how silly of me to give coaches any credit when players blossom under them.  But the good news is that if coaches have nothing to do with how well players perform then Marvin deserves no blame at all for any losses by the Bengals.  No need to ever change coaches if they have nothing to do with how well players perform, right?

Strange. Why did Rudi take over for CD while he was injured? Where were Keaton, Bennett and Luchey (a fullback)?

(04-13-2016, 12:08 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Strange. Why did Rudi take over for CD while he was injured? Where were Keaton, Bennett and Luchey (a fullback)?

Rudi didn't take over for Dillon until Marvin was HC.

At the end of the '02 season when Dillon was injured against the Saints Luchey took over at tailback and gained 60 yards on 12 carries.

(04-13-2016, 12:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Rudi didn't take over for Dillon until Marvin was HC.

At the end of the '02 season when Dillon was injured against the Saints Luchey took over at tailback and gained 60 yards on 12 carries.

You're not telling me anything I don't know and what you're saying is beside the point.

Are you saying Marvin saw Rudi's talent? Why did a (apparently) talent-less 5th string RB leapfrog everyone and take Corey Dillon's job and keep it once CD was healthy?

Why didn't Marv try to replace the scrub in the '04 offseason? Why wasn't Magic Marv able to do the same thing with Benson and Law Firm that he did with a 7th string scrub?

"Bengals Ownership Growing Impatient with Marin Screwus"



Thread Modes
BengalBengals Ownership Growing Impatient with Marvin Lewiss Ownership Growing Impatient with Marvin Lewis

(04-13-2016, 12:35 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Are you saying Marvin saw Rudi's talent?

Yes.  This is exactly what I am saying.  Marvin did a better job of either evaluating or developing the talent on the roster.

That is an important part of a coaches job.  Don't you agree?  Good coaches do it better than bad coaches.

(04-14-2016, 11:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  This is exactly what I am saying.  Marvin did a better job of either evaluating or developing the talent on the roster.

That is an important part of a coaches job.  Don't you agree?  Good coaches do it better than bad coaches.

Why is it when a player blossoms Marvin gets the credit, but when Paul Alexander doesn't evaluate and develop All Pro talent on the roster you blame the player?

(04-14-2016, 07:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why is it when a player blossoms Marvin gets the credit, but when Paul Alexander doesn't evaluate  and develop All Pro talent on the roster you blame the player?

Don't khow what you are trying to say.


Paul Alexander is unique among O-line coaches in the league in that he has NEVER had a single high round draft pick flop.

(04-15-2016, 10:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't khow what you are trying to say.


Paul Alexander is unique among O-line coaches in the league in that he has NEVER had a single high round draft pick flop.

He also had an All Pro OG sitting the bench behind Nate Livings. So if evaluating and developing talent is an important part of coaching, what happened there?

You're going to answer Mathis got fat. Still in better shape than Andre Smith.

You're going to answer Mathis got lazy. Motivating players is a part of coaching.

You're going to claim Alexander coached Livings and Andrews to huge contracts. If he coached them as successfully as you always claim, they wouldn't have been abject failures. They weren't good with the Bengals and they weren't good with their new teams. Difference being, their new teams didn't continue to play them once it was painfully obvious they weren't good. And they damn sure didn't give Andrews top 5 OT money. Only a lawyer would argue the scouting failures of Dallas and Philadelphia as a measure of Paul Alexander's success.

(04-15-2016, 02:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: He also had an All Pro OG sitting the bench behind Nate Livings. So if evaluating and developing talent is an important part of coaching, what happened there?

You're going to answer Mathis got fat. Still in better shape than Andre Smith.

You're going to answer Mathis got lazy. Motivating players is a part of coaching.

You can't be serious.

Is Belichick a bad coach because Albert Haynesworth was a total flop with the Patriots?

Alexander was giving Mathis starts before he got hurt in the middle of the '09 season.  After that Mathis was not very good for the Bengals.  Just like he ahd not been very good for the other two teams he had gone through in 4 years (Carolina, Miami).  There was tons of film on Mathis when he left the Bengals in free agency and he could only get a league minimum contract to be a back up.  If Alexander was "wrong" about Mathis at that time then you also have to admit that every other team in the league was "wrong" about him also.

A coach can only do so much.  A lot of a players success depends on the player.  Even the best coaches in the league like Belichick can not make every player work hard.  Mathis was an out of shape slob when he left the Bengals.  He even posted a video of himself getting back in shape.