(08-03-2015, 08:43 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: My dad was born in California, raised in Indiana went to school in Texas. 
He calls Cincinnati home because he likes it here more than he did those other places. 

......I'm starting to get a clearer picture about your mental state now.......











 

(08-03-2015, 11:20 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: As far as your 3 out of 19 stat I really don't even know what you're trying to say. 

So we have a 4th round guard, who started more games than all but 3 others?  What exactly does this mean as far as PA is concerned?  

I don't know how to use any smaller words so that you can understand.

If it was nothing special to develope a 4th round pick into a very good starter then there would be a higher success rate than 3 out of 18.

How can you not grasp such a simple concept.

(08-03-2015, 11:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How can you not grasp such a simple concept.

Because it's a ***** ******** concept. (That because Paul Alexander "coached up" a mid-round pick to be a decent starter, he's obivously a good coach)

Every team league in the league, in probably every single year the league has been in existence, has had middle round players become legitimate starters.

4th round, 5th round, 6th round. 7th round.  The league is littered with starting players from these rounds.  Because a position group has a a player or two that wasn't drafted in the first couple of rounds, it doesn't automatically mean their position coach is great.

Think of it this way, a team doesn't take any OL at in the first two rounds for 5 consecutive seasons, nor do they add any FA's.  As a result their current starting lineup is all guys drafted between round 3-7.  Can we automatically assume that their OL is very good because he coached up a bunch of later picks to be starters.  Or do we need to actually look at the circumstances that lead to this, and try to gauge the performance on the field, relative to value?

And at what point does scouting come into play?  What if a top-notch scouting department finds a diamond in the rough, that required little no more coaching than his higher drafted counterparts, but really only required the opportunity?  Who gets credit? Ex:  Who gets sole credit for Geno Atkins, Jay Hayes, or Bill Tobin?  Or is it combined effort?

PS Boling started from day 1. Exactly how much coaching did he need to be a starting caliber guard?

(08-04-2015, 12:00 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Because it's a ***** ******** concept. (That because Paul Alexander "coached up" a mid-round pick to be a decent starter, he's obivously a good coach)

Every team league in the league, in probably every single year the league has been in existence, has had middle round players become legitimate starters.

4th round, 5th round, 6th round. 7th round.  The league is littered with starting players from these rounds.  Because a position group has a a player or two that wasn't drafted in the first couple of rounds, it doesn't automatically mean their position coach is great.

Then why ion the hell did you make a big deal about Paul not being able to develop later round picks into good players?  You are talking in circles in order to cover your ass.  First you claimed that it was a sign of a good O-line coach to develop mid to late round picks, and now you say that it is meaningless becuase every O-line coach does it.

This is ridiculous.  How do you determine if an O-line coach is good or not?

There hjave been lots of high round picks that flop, but Paul has never had one.

Paul has also developed undrafted and lower drafted O-linemen into good starters.

So what else do you want him to do?  Everytime I point out what he has done you say it is meaningless.  

(08-04-2015, 12:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why ion the hell did you make a big deal about Paul not being able to develop later round picks into good players?  You are talking in circles in order to cover your ass.  First you claimed that it was a sign of a good O-line coach to develop mid to late round picks, and now you say that it is meaningless becuase every O-line coach does it.

This is ridiculous.  How do you determine if an O-line coach is good or not?

There hjave been lots of high round picks that flop, but Paul has never had one.

Paul has also developed undrafted and lower drafted O-linemen into good starters.

So what else do you want him to do?  Everytime I point out what he has done you say it is meaningless.  

Where did I make a "big deal" about Paul not being able to develop later round picks?

Show me.  I'll wait....

I believe what I said, and maybe you just have me confused with someone else, is that he only produces above average units when he has an abundance of talent.  That's as a whole, his group as whole.  IMO, he only produces better than average lines when he's given well more than an above average amount of talent to work with.

It seems to me that if anyone is running in circles it's you.  I've never seen someone so often desperately further a losing argument by putting words in their opponents mouths more than you.  

(08-04-2015, 12:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote:   First you claimed that it was a sign of a good O-line coach to develop mid to late round picks, and now you say that it is meaningless becuase every O-line coach does it.
 

Show me an example of this and I won't post on here until week of the regular season.

(08-03-2015, 08:13 PM)Wyche Wrote: He's from NewYork, played college ball at New York's Cortland State......he's not home in Cincy.  Son of Paul won't can him, of course he doesn't want to leave.

That said, unlike our illustrious QB coach, at least he played the damn position at one point in his life! Lol

He would have so many job offers if we let him go. Why do you think he is Asst head coach? He had offers then to go. He stays because he is loyal, and one of his best friends is Jim McNally, and jim pushed hard for Paul when he left.. Because Jim loves the bengals.

(08-04-2015, 12:39 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Where did I make a "big deal" about Paul not being able to develop later round picks?

Show me.  I'll wait....

(08-04-2015, 12:44 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Show me an example of this and I won't post on here until week of the regular season.

You clearly said that the best way to judge a coach is the level of play of the guys he has coached.  Then you claimed that he has failed in his opportunity to "coach up" players.

(08-03-2015, 01:44 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I mean, call me crazy, but wouldn't the best way to judge a coaches job on a player be the actual level of play?


  Pretty weak list for the dozens upon dozens of players he's had the opportunity to coach up.

And if you deny that this is how you judge a coach then please tell me how you do?  I asked you once and you have not answered.  Why exactly do you say Paul is not a good coach if you don't judge him by the way his players perform?

(08-04-2015, 12:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How do you determine if an O-line coach is good or not?

Being in the NFL for 20 years is good enough for me. NFL is not for people who don't know what they're doing. You'll get eaten up and spit out. Simple as that really.

(08-04-2015, 01:34 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He would have so many job offers if we let him go.   Why do you think he is Asst head coach?  He had offers then to go.    He stays because he is loyal, and one of his best friends is Jim McNally, and jim pushed hard for Paul when he left.. Because Jim loves the bengals.

Because Mikey gets a twofer when he uses Piano Man to play his dinner parties?

(08-03-2015, 05:43 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: He's a good coach. Sure he could find a few good guys who weren't top picks but he isn't going to find 5 at the same time. Almost a statistical impossibility. 
Who were the RBs? That played a factor in 11-13 as well as Gruden wanting to work without a FB while having an OL that wasn't built to block 2nd level like they were asked.
So what did they do? Andre and Whit slimmed down a bit. Transformed themselves as blockers. 

They weren't good lead backs, but stout run blocking would've/should've been enough for them to finish better than 27th or 28th in ypc. Benny's ypc here (3.7) was less than in NE (4.0), yet I'd bet quite a few probably think we have a better line than NE.

(08-04-2015, 01:34 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He would have so many job offers if we let him go.   Why do you think he is Asst head coach?  He had offers then to go.    He stays because he is loyal, and one of his best friends is Jim McNally, and jim pushed hard for Paul when he left.. Because Jim loves the bengals.

That was either Dick Lebeau or Mike Brown's decision. Would you trust the decision making of either?

(08-04-2015, 09:17 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That was either Dick Lebeau or Mike Brown's decision. Would you trust the decision making of either?

.....well, that too, but I still say it has more to do with Mikey getting two uses out of Mozart, Jr. than anything.....more bang for the buck ya know.

(08-04-2015, 09:59 AM)Wyche Wrote: .....well, that too, but I still say it has more to do with Mikey getting two uses out of Mozart, Jr. than anything.....more bang for the buck ya know.

Well now that I think about it, I remember hearing rumors back then that Mikey considered Paul for the head coaching gig.

Can you imagine? 

(08-04-2015, 03:34 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well now that I think about it, I remember hearing rumors back then that Mikey considered Paul for the head coaching gig.

Can you imagine? 

I'll never get that out of my mind.......*shudders*.....

(08-04-2015, 08:34 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Being in the NFL for 20 years is good enough for me. NFL is not for people who don't know what they're doing. You'll get eaten up and spit out. Simple as that really.

Yet Mike Brown has collected a GM bonus all of these years.

(08-04-2015, 02:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You clearly said that the best way to judge a coach is the level of play of the guys he has coached.  Then you claimed that he has failed in his opportunity to "coach up" players.





And if you deny that this is how you judge a coach then please tell me how you do?  I asked you once and you have not answered.  Why exactly do you say Paul is not a good coach if you don't judge him by the way his players perform?

Wtf are you talking about.  I specifically said that my opinion was that he only produces above average units when he has an abundance of talent.  Do I really need to define that for you?  I then went on to say, in response to you, that judging the play on the field is a better way to determine how well they were coached than looking at the contract amount.

Somehow you went on to accuse me of saying that Paul never coached up a later pick.  Show me where I said that.  Talking about an abundance of talent across the OL group as a whole is not at all like saying he's never had a middle round player do well.  And saying that the list of success stories he has over 20 years is weak is not at all the same as saying it's never happened.

(08-04-2015, 09:17 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That was either Dick Lebeau or Mike Brown's decision. Would you trust the decision making of either?

I'm not the biggest PA fan, but the Asst. HC title came from Marvin. I believe Paul was considering moving on after the 02 season. Marvin talked to him and convinced Mike to give him the title to keep him here.

(08-03-2015, 12:33 PM)McC Wrote: First of all, how high was their level of play?   Second, maybe it just means the signing teams made a big mistake and nothing more.  A couple teams after the Eagles got nothing out of Andrews either.

(08-04-2015, 04:26 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Wtf are you talking about.  I specifically said that my opinion was that he only produces above average units when he has an abundance of talent.  Do I really need to define that for you?  I then went on to say, in response to you, that judging the play on the field is a better way to determine how well they were coached than looking at the contract amount.

Somehow you went on to accuse me of saying that Paul never coached up a later pick.  Show me where I said that.  Talking about an abundance of talent across the OL group as a whole is not at all like saying he's never had a middle round player do well.  And saying that the list of success stories he has over 20 years is weak is not at all the same as saying it's never happened.

Well, show me one O-line coach that produces a great O-line without an abundance of talent.

The bottom line is that nearly every one of the top offensive lines in the league is comprised of a couple first rounders and some mid round picks.  That's just the way it works.

(08-04-2015, 05:14 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Well, show me one O-line coach that produces a great O-line without an abundance of talent.

The bottom line is that nearly every one of the top offensive lines in the league is comprised of a couple first rounders and some mid round picks.  That's just the way it works.

That doesn't matter. The fact that he got NOTHING for 5 years is no excuse apparently