(04-13-2016, 07:53 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Speaking of how the NFL works, how many teams besides Cincinnati would have a HC in place for 14 seasons that can't win a single playoff  game ?

What is zero, Alex?  

We hung onto him after 2010, which I had mixed feelings about.  But then we reel off five consecutive playoff appearances and still can't break through?  Unacceptable by any other owner's standards, but as long as Mike's bottom line is good, we know he could give a flying **** about winning.   

(04-13-2016, 09:19 PM)Awful Llama Wrote:  Unacceptable by any other owner's standards, but as long as Mike's bottom line is good, we know he could give a flying **** about winning.   

No other team in NFL history has ever fired a coach after making the playoffs 5 times in a row.

Check your ego, son.  It is possible for people to care about winning and still disagree with your opinion.  If your opinion was 100% correct you would be making millions working for an NFL team.

(04-13-2016, 07:53 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Speaking of how the NFL works, how many teams besides Cincinnati would have a HC in place for 14 seasons that can't win a single playoff  game ?

How many teams have fired their head coach after making the playoffs 5 years in a row?

(04-14-2016, 11:13 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How many teams have fired their head coach after making the playoffs 5 years in a row?

This is a catch 22 because how many of those coaches have lost in the first round each year and hold the record for most playoff losses without a win?

(04-14-2016, 11:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No other team in NFL history has ever fired a coach after making the playoffs 5 times in a row.

Check your ego, son.  It is possible for people to care about winning and still disagree with your opinion.  If your opinion was 100% correct you would be making millions working for an NFL team.

No other team in the NFL history has kept a head coach with an 0-7 playoff record or even remotely close to that.

(04-13-2016, 06:00 PM)wolfkaosaun Wrote: There's 24 coaches who have also coached 200+ games. 
And, again, he wasn't ranked 23rd, it was 25th.

Still needs some more reading lessons I see

(04-12-2016, 09:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, right.  It is so easy to coach as many games as Marvin and have a .543 winning %.

(04-14-2016, 11:15 AM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: This is a catch 22 because how many of those coaches have lost in the first round each year and hold the record for most playoff losses without a win?

(04-14-2016, 11:15 AM)GodFather Wrote: No other team in the NFL history has kept a head coach with an 0-7 playoff record or even remotely close to that.

This is my point exactly.

The Bengals are in a unique situation so you can't just make a blanket statement about what every other team would do.  I am willing to admit this, but many of the Marvin haters are not.

Instead they all think they are so perfect and their opinion is so infallible that it is impossible for any other person to disagree with them.  My ego is pretty big, but I would never be so arrogant to suggest that anyone who disagreed with me did not care about winning.

We ALL care about winning.  We just disagree on what the best strategy is to help us win the most.  The only people here who can play the "You don't want to win" card is a person who has been a GM of a Super Bowl champion team.

Everyone here is allowed to disagree.  NO ONE should be allowed to accuse other people of not wanting to win.

And it is absurd to suggest that the Bengals are winning so many games without even trying to win.

(04-14-2016, 11:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is my point exactly.

The Bengals are in a unique situation so you can't just make a blanket statement about what every other team would do.  I am willing to admit this, but many of the Marvin haters are not.

Instead they all think they are so perfect and their opinion is so infallible that it is impossible for any other person to disagree with them.  My ego is pretty big, but I would never be so arrogant to suggest that anyone who disagreed with me did not care about winning.

We ALL care about winning.  We just disagree on what the best strategy is to help us win the most.  The only people here who can play the "You don't want to win" card is a person who has been a GM of a Super Bowl champion team.

Everyone here is allowed to disagree.  NO ONE should be allowed to accuse other people of not wanting to win.

And it is absurd to suggest that the Bengals are winning so many games without even trying to win.

I can go along with this....but, when people see the Denver Broncos can John Fox for losing a Super Bowl, then go on to win after a change.....or other, older examples, people wonder just what the hell the Bengals are scared of.

(04-14-2016, 12:29 PM)Wyche Wrote: I can go along with this....but, when people see the Denver Broncos can John Fox for losing a Super Bowl, then go on to win after a change.....or other, older examples, people wonder just what the hell the Bengals are scared of.

The hundreds of other times that coaches have been fired and it did not help.

I can give examples of teams winning a Super Bowl with a sub par QB but I don't see every other team in the league trying to get by with a scrub QB.

(04-14-2016, 11:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Still needs some more reading lessons I see

He moves up to 2 spots and yet every other fact still remains.

He and Jim Mora are both the ONLY coaches to not have made in to a conference championship out of 31 coaches.

Marvin ranks 23rd in winning percentage.

22 coached had a higher winning percentage, but even coaches underneath him have won Super Bowls.

You're pointing out one fact about how good Marvin is but ignoring how he compares to the rest of coaches who coached as long as he.

Marvin Lewis is our Jim Mora.

Jim Mora did a lot of great things for the Saints. Made them become winners. But couldn't get over the hump. Sure things went south and they fired him, but even when he failed in the playoffs with the Colts the same core Saints team won their first every playoff game.

(04-14-2016, 12:29 PM)Wyche Wrote: I can go along with this....but, when people see the Denver Broncos can John Fox for losing a Super Bowl, then go on to win after a change.....or other, older examples, people wonder just what the hell the Bengals are scared of.

Fred will jump all over this, but I bring up Tampa Bay.  Both Sapp and Brooks have gone on record as saying that Dungy had taken the team as far as he could, and neither believe they would have won a Super Bowl.  Of course Dungy could at least advance in the playoffs, which only makes Marvin's record look even worse...

(04-14-2016, 02:18 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Fred will jump all over this, but I bring up Tampa Bay.  Both Sapp and Brooks have gone on record as saying that Dungy had taken the team as far as he could, and neither believe they would have won a Super Bowl.  Of course Dungy could at least advance in the playoffs, which only makes Marvin's record look even worse...

Well history proved that both Sapp and Brooks were wrong.

And not a single current or former Bengals has said anything like this about Marvin.

(04-14-2016, 02:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well history proved that both Sapp and Brooks were wrong.

And not a single current or former Bengals has said anything like this about Marvin.

It did? Because it took Dungy 5 more years with already-in-his-prime Peyton Manning to win a SB. Manning had 2 MVPs before he won the SB with Dungy.

Last I checked, that's sure as hell not Brad Johnson, so that doesn't prove shit. Give me a HoF QB who is one of the best QBs of all time, as well as two HoF WRs, and I am sure I could eventually win something too if you give me enough chances. Doesn't mean he'd ever win a SB with Brad Johnson and the Bucs.

7 years with Peyton Manning in top form and only 1 AFC Championship honestly is more of a point against him than anything.

(04-14-2016, 11:26 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is my point exactly.

The Bengals are in a unique situation so you can't just make a blanket statement about what every other team would do.  I am willing to admit this, but many of the Marvin haters are not.

Instead they all think they are so perfect and their opinion is so infallible that it is impossible for any other person to disagree with them.  My ego is pretty big, but I would never be so arrogant to suggest that anyone who disagreed with me did not care about winning.

We ALL care about winning.  We just disagree on what the best strategy is to help us win the most.  The only people here who can play the "You don't want to win" card is a person who has been a GM of a Super Bowl champion team.

Everyone here is allowed to disagree.  NO ONE should be allowed to accuse other people of not wanting to win.

And it is absurd to suggest that the Bengals are winning so many games without even trying to win.

There's no doubt that the Bengals situation is pretty unique (although not necessarily in a good way), as it relates to Marvin and NFL historical comparisons, as I tried to point out earlier in this thread. 

Only 4 head coaches in the entire history of the NFL reached 6 straight playoffs losses. Marty was fired after his 6th loss and never coached in the NFL again. Mora coached one more season after his 6th loss and never coached again. Steve Owen coached 3 more season (never making the PO's again), but had already been there for 20 years when his lost his 6th. 

And now Marvin's situation is truly unique, because no other head coach in the history of the NFL has ever lost 7 straight playoff games, or had 5 consecutive one and done's. Marvin has set new standards in terms of playoff failure. That's not an opinion or a skewing of comparisons, that's a very unfortunate reality.

Now that Marvin has 13 seasons and 7 playoff opportunities on his record, I think we can all agree that he's had the most success in the last 5 years. These are the years that are pointed to most often...5 consecutive winning seasons and playoff appearances. I think it's fair, if we want to evaluate what Marvin has done in recent years, to compare his results to those that are similar in the same time period. 

Over the last 5 years, the top 5 teams in terms of regular season success combined with playoff appearances are the Patriots, Packers, Broncos, Bengals and Seahawks. Of these five teams, only the Bengals failed to win a playoff game during that stretch. While the other 4 teams translated regular season success into 6 SB appearances and a multitude of playoff victories...Marvin and the Bengals were setting NFL records for playoff ineptness. Again, this is not opinion, this is a very unfortunate fact.

If we aren't able to compare Marvin and the Bengals to their peers, who have had the similar regular season success and playoff appearances during the last 5 years, then I'm not sure how you ever honestly evaluate them. 

(04-14-2016, 02:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well history proved that both Sapp and Brooks were wrong.

And not a single current or former Bengals has said anything like this about Marvin.

History did not prove them wrong.  Dungy did not win a Super Bowl with Tampa, Gruden did.  Yes, the team did start to break up after the Super Bowl, but they did win it after decades of futility.

(04-14-2016, 02:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It did? Because it took Dungy 5 more years with already-in-his-prime Peyton Manning to win a SB. Manning had 2 MVPs before he won the SB with Dungy.

Last I checked, that's sure as hell not Brad Johnson.

Yes it did prove them wrong.

Dungy had a much better record with the Bucs than Gruden did (.563 to.509)

Dungy had a much better record than Gruden after he left Tampa Bay (.759 to.509)

Dungy made the playoffs more often with the Bucs (4 times in 6 years) than Gruden (3 in 7), and also more often for his career (11 of 13) than Gruden (5 of 11)

Dungy won almost twice as many postseason games as Gruden (9 to 5)

Dungy was a better coach than Gruden no matter how you look at their accomplishments.  And the whole "He won because of Manning" is BS.  Peyton only won 2 Super Bowls in his 17 year career and Dan Marino won zero.  Plus Gruden could not even get to the Super Bowl when he had a guy who would win the league MVP (Gannon) playing QB for him in Oakland.

(04-14-2016, 02:57 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: If we aren't able to compare Marvin and the Bengals to their peers, who have had the similar regular season success and playoff appearances during the last 5 years, then I'm not sure how you ever honestly evaluate them. 

I have no problem with you comparing Marvin to the other top 5 teams in the league.

So go back and tell me how many times oneof the top 6 teams in the league has fired their coach.  It is very very rare.

(04-14-2016, 03:09 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: History did not prove them wrong.  Dungy did not win a Super Bowl with Tampa, Gruden did.  Yes, the team did start to break up after the Super Bowl, but they did win it after decades of futility.

But their claim that Dungy could not win a Super Bowl was proven wrong.

If the Bucs had kept Dungy they could possibly have won more Super Bowls than they did with Gruden.  By every single measurement available Dungy was a better coach than Gruden and Dungy proved he could win a Super Bowl.

(04-14-2016, 03:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it did prove them wrong.

Dungy had a much better record with the Bucs than Gruden did (.563 to.509)

Dungy had a much better record than Gruden after he left Tampa Bay (.759 to.509)

Dungy made the playoffs more often with the Bucs (4 times in 6 years) than Gruden (3 in 7), and also more often for his career (11 of 13) than Gruden (5 of 11)

Dungy won almost twice as many postseason games as Gruden (9 to 5)

Dungy was a better coach than Gruden no matter how you look at their accomplishments.  And the whole "He won because of Manning" is BS.  Peyton only won 2 Super Bowls in his 17 year career and Dan Marino won zero.  Plus Gruden could not even get to the Super Bowl when he had a guy who would win the league MVP (Gannon) playing QB for him in Oakland.

All great, except Gruden won a Super Bowl with Tampa and Dungy did not.  Logic would expect Dungy to have a better record after leaving Tampa... that is when he hooked up with one of the greatest, and some would say the greatest, quarterbacks of all time.

It is also worth noting that when he failed to reach the Super Bowl with Gannon, they did make the AFC Championship game where they faced the 2000 Ravens and one of the greatest defenses of all time.

(04-14-2016, 03:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But their claim that Dungy could not win a Super Bowl was proven wrong.

If the Bucs had kept Dungy they could possibly have won more Super Bowls than they did with Gruden.  By every single measurement available Dungy was a better coach than Gruden and Dungy proved he could win a Super Bowl.

Their claim is that Dungy took them, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, as far as he could.  That neither of them, and I will trust their word as they are both Hall of Famers who actually played on the team, believe that team would have won a Super Bowl with Dungy as the head coach.  Not trying to be rude, but this is not that difficult to understand.