(10-21-2016, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The two are exactly equivalent.

Both Marvin and Elway had had a lot of success but failed at a certain level.  Bronco fans claimed that the failure was 100% proof that Elway could not win a Super Bowl.  Some Bengal fans claim that it is 100% proof that Marvin will never win a playoff game.  The Bronco fans who claimed it was 100% proven were wrong.  The Bengal fans may be right or they may be wrong.  We don't know yet.  But we do know that past failure is not 100% of future failure.

A better comparison would be Dan Reeves.  What did the Broncos do to rectify that situation......and go on to win it all?

(10-21-2016, 01:08 PM)Wyche Wrote: A better comparison would be Dan Reeves.  What did the Broncos do to rectify that situation......and go on to win it all?

No.  That is not a better comparison at all because I am talking about the Bronco fans (and many media experts) who claimed Elway would never win a Super Bowl.  Reeves has nothing to do with it.

(10-21-2016, 01:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  That is not a better comparison at all because I am talking about the Bronco fans (and many media experts) who claimed Elway would never win a Super Bowl.  Reeves has nothing to do with it.

He was the head coach in all four losses......I'm sure there were questions about him as well.....same as there are about Andy here.  Marv to Reeves, Elway to Dalton.

(10-21-2016, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The two are exactly equivalent.

Both Marvin and Elway had had a lot of success but failed at a certain level.  Bronco fans claimed that the failure was 100% proof that Elway could not win a Super Bowl.  Some Bengal fans claim that it is 100% proof that Marvin will never win a playoff game.  The Bronco fans who claimed it was 100% proven were wrong.  The Bengal fans may be right or they may be wrong.  We don't know yet.  But we do know that past failure is not 100% of future failure.

I don't see the goal as winning "a playoff game".  The goal should be the Super Bowl.  If you have a coach that can't make it past the wild card round in seven attempts, and is in his 14th season as head coach, there is little reason to believe he is suddenly going to go on a post season run.  History does not always show you the future, but it can be a good predictor. 

(10-21-2016, 01:23 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote:  History does not always show you the future. 

Thank you.

Marvin may never win a playoff game, but it has not been proven that he will not.

(10-21-2016, 01:23 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I don't see the goal as winning "a playoff game".  The goal should be the Super Bowl.  If you have a coach that can't make it past the wild card round in seven attempts, and is in his 14th season as head coach, there is little reason to believe he is suddenly going to go on a post season run.  History does not always show you the future, but it can be a good predictor. 

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

(10-21-2016, 01:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thank you.

Marvin may never win a playoff game, but it has not been proven that he will not.

You conveniently ignored the part where Orlando said it was a good predictor.....and he's right.

(10-21-2016, 01:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  That is not a better comparison at all because I am talking about the Bronco fans (and many media experts) who claimed Elway would never win a Super Bowl.  Reeves has nothing to do with it.

Reeves got his team as far as the Super Bowl... and when he couldn't get beyond, he got fired. The Broncos got a better coach and won two Super Bowls.

Marvin has gotten his team as far as the playoffs... hopefully another coach would be able to have that same success as you're pointing out and take us to the next level.

Gotta say, I'm surprised to see you drawing this point that we need to move on from Marv before we waste our Elway like Reeves nearly did.

(10-21-2016, 01:42 PM)Wyche Wrote: You conveniently ignored the part where Orlando said it was a good predictor.....and he's right.

No I did not.

I was making a point to the people who claim "Case closed".

(10-21-2016, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No I did not.

I was making a point to the people who claim "Case closed".

Yeah you did, you ignored the rest of the post that you did not agree with as usual.

(10-21-2016, 02:55 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yeah you did, you ignored the rest of the post that you did not agree with as usual.

Don't know what you are talking about.  I have admitted that Marvin may never win a playoff game.  I agree it can be a predictor.  I was just addressing the people who claim "0-7 Case closed" when it really isn't.

The problem with this line of thinking from Fred is that there is no end. Marv could literally go 0-20 in the playoffs, and there would still be "no proof" that Marv was very unlikely to win in the future. By that kind of logic, no coach should ever be fired. Why fire Dave Shula? Just because he went like 19-52 doesn't mean he couldn't turn it around and win in the future.

As for the Broncos and Elway, QB's have been known to turn it around under new coaches/regimes. When has a Head Coach with a lengthy history (say 10+ years) of failure at a certain level ever turned it around? Reeves went on to lose yet another SB elsewhere. Mora never got better. Levy never got a ring.

Marv's legacy will be coaching teams that were occasionally very good - but never great. Teams that would get your hopes up, only to lead to inevitable disappointment on the playoff stage. He will also be remembered for failure to control Odell/Henry and then to a lesser extent, Burfict and Pacman.

As a Bengals fan, I want to remember Marv as the guy who helped turn the franchise around, and eventually ended the playoff streak. Unfortunately I don't see it happening. The past can often tell you what's likely to happen in the future. Just as it has for the last 5 years. The sun has risen every day for a long time now. I'd say it's safe to say it'll rise again tomorrow.

(10-21-2016, 05:10 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The problem with this line of thinking from Fred is that there is no end. Marv could literally go 0-20 in the playoffs, and there would still be "no proof" that Marv was very unlikely to win in the future. By that kind of logic, no coach should ever be fired. Why fire Dave Shula? Just because he went like 19-52 doesn't mean he couldn't turn it around and win in the future.

And based on your logic every coach who has not won a Super Bowl should be fired every year.


If they have not won a Super Bowl then that ios  proof that they can't, right?

(10-21-2016, 05:10 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote:  When has a Head Coach with a lengthy history (say 10+ years) of failure at a certain level ever turned it around?

Jimmy Conzelman did not win a single post season game until he won the NFL Championship in his 15th season as a head coach (1947 Chicago Cardinals)

Bill Cowher did not win a Super Bowl until his 14th season.

(10-21-2016, 05:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Jimmy Conzelman did not win a single post season game until he won the NFL Championship in his 15th season as a head coach (1947 Chicago Cardinals)

Bill Cowher did not win a Super Bowl until his 14th season.

Did Conzelman struggle in the playoffs prior to winning?

Did Cowher struggle in Super Bowls prior to winning his?

We're talking about coaches who struggled at a certain level. Either regular season, post season, or the Super Bowl.

(10-21-2016, 05:46 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Did Cowher struggle in Super Bowls prior to winning his?

Yes.

(10-21-2016, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And based on your logic every coach who has not won a Super Bowl should be fired every year.


If they have not won a Super Bowl then that ios  proof that they can't, right?

If a coach loses 3-4 Super Bowls without winning one, it's fair to question whether that coach can win one. Nothing is impossible, but which would surprise you more? A playoff run for Marv, or yet another loss? I know when Burfict intercepted that pass in January, you probably felt the same way we all did. We all couldn't believe that they were finally going to pull one out. Why were we all so surprised?

(10-21-2016, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.

Sorry, but one loss doesn't qualify as "struggling" to most people. Marv didn't develop his current reputation after 1 loss.

(10-21-2016, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And based on your logic every coach who has not won a Super Bowl should be fired every year.


If they have not won a Super Bowl then that ios  proof that they can't, right?

there's a vast difference in going 0-7 and going 0-1 or 0-2.

(10-20-2016, 05:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Ogbuehi sucked so bad in college then why did all the draft experts have him ranked so high?

It's all about potential. But they didn't really rank him "so high". CBS ranked him 7th in his position. Walterfootball ranked him 6th. Lance Zierlin from NFL.com ranked him 8th. Drafttek had him at 9th. Daniel Jeremiah had him as a bordeline 1st round talent behind others, along with Mayock.

There's no doubt that there's a ton of potential with him. But if you look at EVERY talk about him, his weaknesses are what we see. Struggles with strength to stay engaged in blocks and anchoring, along with technique issues.

Now, can those be fixed? Absolutely. But those have been his issues in college and we're seeing them in the NFL. If he isn't coached up then he will be a bust. He's a very big boom-bust draft pick for us. It's too early to call him a bust by any means, but he's been struggling a lot lately. And that quote by Boling about Alexander not coaching players up during the season is very concerning. Especially when you see how this offensive line is struggling.