I was listening to Farrell on the Bench on the drive home tonight, and he was discussing the death of Dan Rooney with a guest from Pittsburgh area media. The one thing that instantly stood out from the whole conversation was when the guest mentioned that Rooney once fired his own brother and cut Franco Harris...a Steelers legend. The guest said that while Rooney was a great man to everyone he met, it was understood that winning always came first.

When I heard that, I couldn't help but think of how that contrasts with Mike Brown and his extreme loyalty...even in cases where that loyalty is obviously hindering our ability to win. I think Rooney also showed that you can be a good man to those around you while also having standards for the organization that must be adhered to. I doubt any former coach or player would say a bad thing about Rooney...even those he let go.

It's just unfortunate that Mike Brown can't see this, because there's little doubt in my mind that Mike Brown's extreme loyalty has been the biggest problem for this team since he took over the reigns.

Hate the steelers but may Mr Rooney RIP.

Totally agree with this. We lack discipline and the organization does not hold players nor coaches accountable.

To be fair, whenever the Bengals release a longtime star that's past his prime, the fanbase goes on suicide watch. Take Willie Anderson, for example.

The argument can also be made that he held onto Chuck Noll for too long. People would say the same thing about Cowher if he hadn't pulled off the SB in '05.

Too bad his franchise couldn't have died with him.

(04-14-2017, 09:24 AM)Beaker Wrote: Too bad his franchise couldn't have died with him.

In a sense, part of it did. I'm not sure how active he was till the end in the organization but his input and decisions will no longer be there.

I am 100% convinced that Mike Brown is a good and honorable man.

I am 100% convinced that Rooney was in a different universe than Mike measured by who is the better owner.

Steelers demand excellence on the field and there are consequences when a player or coach does not fulfill that standard

We keep a coach for 15 years with no playoff wins, who usually loses in prime time, and who generally loses to our main rival twice a year.

Marvin would have been fired by Rooney 10 years ago .

Does anyone else find it concerning that Roger Goodell stated that, "He talked to Dan Rooney every day for over 20 years" and "Dan Rooney was a mentor to him." I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but should one NFL team owner have that much sway/influence with the Commissioner of the league? Do you think Mike Brown talked with Goodell every day? I'd be surprised if Mike talked with him once a year. Regardless.....Rooney knew how to win and run a franchise. If only we were so lucky.

(04-14-2017, 09:11 AM)Whatever Wrote: To be fair, whenever the Bengals release a longtime star that's past his prime, the fanbase goes on suicide watch.  Take Willie Anderson, for example.

The argument can also be made that he held onto Chuck Noll for too long.  People would say the same thing about Cowher if he hadn't pulled off the SB in '05.

Take Willie Anderson as the only example. Not counting players whose contracts had expired and wound up signing for big money elsewhere - I can't think of any legendary Bengals that were cut once they started slipping. Mike must have been in a weird mood. Cutting both Willie and Rudi (9 years ago) was very uncharacteristic for him. 

As for Noll and Cowher...He kept a couple coaches that combined for 28 playoff wins and 5 championships. Even before Cowher's championship run, he had 8 playoff wins and a SB appearance. If Mike Brown kept guys like that "too long" I'd be just fine with it. Instead he holds on to guys like Shula, Coslet and Marvin Lewis.

You know it. Great stuff as well, Shake. Not a single thing to argue with here. BTW - Why is Shake not in the HOF yet? You got my vote!

(04-14-2017, 10:59 AM)Gamma Ray Tan Wrote: Does anyone else find it concerning that Roger Goodell stated that, "He talked to Dan Rooney every day for over 20 years" and "Dan Rooney was a mentor to him." I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but should one NFL team owner have that much sway/influence with the Commissioner of the league? Do you think Mike Brown talked with Goodell every day? I'd be surprised if Mike talked with him once a year. Regardless.....Rooney knew how to win and run a franchise. If only we were so lucky.

Goodell was extremely close with Kraft before Deflategate, and I have also read that he is close with the Mara family.  From what I understand, they all helped him get the Commissioner job to begin with.  If Mike has not figured out how to play the politics of the league by now... that is on him.

The difference between the Rooney family and the Brown family, is that one knows how to adapt and how to win in the NFL.

(04-14-2017, 10:21 AM)bengals67 Wrote: I am 100% convinced that Mike Brown is a good and honorable man.

I am 100% convinced that Rooney was in a different universe than Mike measured by who is the better owner.

Steelers demand excellence on the field and there are consequences when a player or coach does not fulfill that standard

We keep a coach for 15 years with no playoff wins, who usually loses in prime time, and who generally loses to our main rival twice a year.

Marvin would have been fired by Rooney 10 years ago .

so excellence is your coach getting involved on the field trying to trip players? or entice players from other teams?    Didn't see anything from the team on that.

(04-14-2017, 10:59 AM)Gamma Ray Tan Wrote: Does anyone else find it concerning that Roger Goodell stated that, "He talked to Dan Rooney every day for over 20 years" and "Dan Rooney was a mentor to him." I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but should one NFL team owner have that much sway/influence with the Commissioner of the league? Do you think Mike Brown talked with Goodell every day? I'd be surprised if Mike talked with him once a year. Regardless.....Rooney knew how to win and run a franchise. If only we were so lucky.

Rooneys got Roger his job. Of course they're best buddies. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just a fact that there's bias.

(04-14-2017, 11:02 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Take Willie Anderson as the only example. Not counting players whose contracts had expired and wound up signing for big money elsewhere - I can't think of any legendary Bengals that were cut once they started slipping. Mike must have been in a weird mood. Cutting both Willie and Rudi (9 years ago) was very uncharacteristic for him. 

As for Noll and Cowher...He kept a couple coaches that combined for 28 playoff wins and 5 championships. Even before Cowher's championship run, he had 8 playoff wins and a SB appearance. If Mike Brown kept guys like that "too long" I'd be just fine with it. Instead he holds on to guys like Shula, Coslet and Marvin Lewis.

Rudi was cut because he had a sub-3.0 YPC season. That's pretty much a guarantee to get cut as a RB, for anyone anywhere. Rudi was always terribly overrated anyway. 3 1k+ seasons, of 4.0, 4.3, and 3.8 YPC. Career sub-4.0 YPC. Only two seasons with a rush longer than 33 yards.

(04-14-2017, 01:07 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I was listening to Farrell on the Bench on the drive home tonight, and he was discussing the death of Dan Rooney with a guest from Pittsburgh area media. The one thing that instantly stood out from the whole conversation was when the guest mentioned that Rooney once fired his own brother and cut Franco Harris...a Steelers legend. The guest said that while Rooney was a great man to everyone he met, it was understood that winning always came first.

When I heard that, I couldn't help but think of how that contrasts with Mike Brown and his extreme loyalty...even in cases where that loyalty is obviously hindering our ability to win. I think Rooney also showed that you can be a good man to those around you while also having standards for the organization that must be adhered to. I doubt any former coach or player would say a bad thing about Rooney...even those he let go.

It's just unfortunate that Mike Brown can't see this, because there's little doubt in my mind that Mike Brown's extreme loyalty has been the biggest problem for this team since he took over the reigns.

Have to respect that even if he was a Steeler. Well said Shake.

RIP Dan Rooney.

(04-14-2017, 01:07 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I was listening to Farrell on the Bench on the drive home tonight, and he was discussing the death of Dan Rooney with a guest from Pittsburgh area media. The one thing that instantly stood out from the whole conversation was when the guest mentioned that Rooney once fired his own brother and cut Franco Harris...a Steelers legend. The guest said that while Rooney was a great man to everyone he met, it was understood that winning always came first.

When I heard that, I couldn't help but think of how that contrasts with Mike Brown and his extreme loyalty...even in cases where that loyalty is obviously hindering our ability to win. I think Rooney also showed that you can be a good man to those around you while also having standards for the organization that must be adhered to. I doubt any former coach or player would say a bad thing about Rooney...even those he let go.

It's just unfortunate that Mike Brown can't see this, because there's little doubt in my mind that Mike Brown's extreme loyalty has been the biggest problem for this team since he took over the reigns.

I would have bet a year's supply of Shake n Bake that you were going to say both would eat at Frisch's but Rooney would leave a better tip.

Your analysis, while surprising in light of my expectation, is hard to argue with.

(04-14-2017, 09:11 AM)Whatever Wrote: To be fair, whenever the Bengals release a longtime star that's past his prime, the fanbase goes on suicide watch.  Take Willie Anderson, for example.

The argument can also be made that he held onto Chuck Noll for too long.  People would say the same thing about Cowher if he hadn't pulled off the SB in '05.

Fans of any team will complain initially, but that complaining quickly goes away as long as the team keeps winning. The Steelers kept/keep winning, so all was forgiven. The Bengals haven't won anything of significance in over a quarter of a century, so the fans want to see their favorites kept to compensate.

I hope their new owner is as dumb as ours

(04-14-2017, 01:07 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I was listening to Farrell on the Bench on the drive home tonight, and he was discussing the death of Dan Rooney with a guest from Pittsburgh area media. The one thing that instantly stood out from the whole conversation was when the guest mentioned that Rooney once fired his own brother and cut Franco Harris...a Steelers legend. The guest said that while Rooney was a great man to everyone he met, it was understood that winning always came first.

When I heard that, I couldn't help but think of how that contrasts with Mike Brown and his extreme loyalty...even in cases where that loyalty is obviously hindering our ability to win. I think Rooney also showed that you can be a good man to those around you while also having standards for the organization that must be adhered to. I doubt any former coach or player would say a bad thing about Rooney...even those he let go.

It's just unfortunate that Mike Brown can't see this, because there's little doubt in my mind that Mike Brown's extreme loyalty has been the biggest problem for this team since he took over the reigns.

Spot on Shake,

Mike Brown has never been able to separate football and family. He's stuck in 1965 and thinks he's running the local mom and pop hardware store, he's Mr. Cunningham on Happy Days. He's even said he doesn't want to fire anybody because he seen what it did to his dad.

Sad but it's what we're stuck with. I'm holding out hope that when Katie takes over things will change, but who knows ?

The big difference is the Bengals hope to win and the Steelers expect to win .

It's been 26 years. At what point do we admit that Mike might have a hint that his method isn't going to bear fruit?