On a bright note, watching Boomer this morning, he absolutely loves Teryl Austin, and said he should have been a head coach already.At the same time, he was less enthused about the Giants hiring Del Rio, to say the least. Perhaps we have nailed a good hire here.

(01-22-2018, 04:01 PM)Benton Wrote: But thats how hes always talked. "We did some things right, we just need to win games." And "We've got to focus on what we're doing right."

It's not like Marvin comes out and says "Yeah, we didn't change anything in the second half because we're basically hoping to coast into the final 2 minute warning." Or "the players are really, really good, I'm just a big dummy. Like, they asked me not to give advice to my grand kids Pop Warner team. Hell, I can't even legally drive I'm so incompetent. So don't blame they players, they're actually pretty decent when I'm not mucking up."

I'd like to see him abandon the current philosophy of "Hit 'em in the mouth, and hope they don't get back up".  

(01-22-2018, 01:00 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 1) That was different because that was because we had no choice and we did it (getting rid of Chad and T.O. and Bratkowski) in an attempt to keep Carson, but not really because we were looking to improve the team.  

Also, aside from those three (we had no choice with Carson), I don't remember many other changes being made, and definitely not with more quality coaches (besides for Gruden) and being more active in free agency. 

2) The fact that, in the one press conference that I recently linked, he talked about things like going out and winning games (instead of things like getting a lead and playing not to lose), being more aggressive, getting the most out of players (where previously he always tried to make players fit into the system), and just other things like that.

1) Different, shmiffernt. You asked a question and I answered it. Don't move the goalposts afterwards.

2) Show me where Merv has ever said in a press conference how he plays 'cautious' or that he plays 'not to lose'. Otherwise, I don't see how you can be excited that in his 16th year as head coach, Merv will suddenly coach differently.

(01-23-2018, 01:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 1) Different, shmiffernt. You asked a question and I answered it. Don't move the goalposts afterwards.

2) Show me where Merv has ever said in a press conference how he plays 'cautious' or that he plays 'not to lose'. Otherwise, I don't see how you can be excited that in his 16th year as head coach, Merv will suddenly coach differently.

 That cracks me up every time you call him that...great stuff

(01-23-2018, 02:10 PM)GodFather Wrote:  That cracks me up every time you call him that...great stuff

I really wish I remember who actually started it so I can give credit where it's due. 

(01-23-2018, 02:10 PM)GodFather Wrote:  That cracks me up every time you call him that...great stuff

I don't get it.  Who is the Merv they are comparing Marvin to?

(01-23-2018, 01:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 1) Different, shmiffernt. You asked a question and I answered it. Don't move the goalposts afterwards.

2) Show me where Merv has ever said in a press conference how he plays 'cautious' or that he plays 'not to lose'. Otherwise, I don't see how you can be excited that in his 16th year as head coach, Merv will suddenly coach differently.

1) that’s not an example because it was just a change in an attempt to keep Carson but not a change in the actual mindset of the team/franchise and in the way things are done.

2) have you not watched any games that he’s coached? It’s been his MO since he’s been here. Look at every game we won (and most we lost) when we’d get up one or two scores and try to run the ball to run out the clock and have to rely on Carson in the two-minute drill to win by 7 or less.

(01-23-2018, 05:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 2) have you not watched any games that he’s coached? It’s been his MO since he’s been here. Look at every game we won (and most we lost) when we’d get up one or two scores and try to run the ball to run out the clock and have to rely on Carson in the two-minute drill to win by 7 or less.

That claim is highly debatable, but that was not the point.

Marvin never said in any interview that he was only going to play "not to lose" instead of playing to win.  So you can not always believe everything a coach says in an interview.

(01-23-2018, 06:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That claim is highly debatable, but that was not the point.

Marvin never said in any interview that he was only going to play "not to lose" instead of playing to win.  So you can not always believe everything a coach says in an interview.

That claim is not even IN THE LEAST BIT debatable, which I provided '09 as the evidence to support my point.

Your second point makes no sense because he never said he was only going to play not to lose, but he did come out and say that he was going to play to win this season.

Also, what coach would play "not to lose"?  In his mind, he was playing to win, but his idea of playing to win was getting a lead of a score or two and then running the ball over-and-over to run out the clock, which is playing to not let the other team have a chance to beat you, which is playing "not to lose."

And before you say "every coach wants to give the other team as few chances to beat them as possible," which is true, but you do that by moving the chains, not just running on first and second down no matter what.

(01-23-2018, 06:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That claim is not even IN THE LEAST BIT debatable, which I provided '09 as the evidence to support my point.

My memory of all those close games Carson pulled out at the end involved us trailing the entire game or at least being very close.  The Bengals have never lost a game because Marvin played too conservative with a lead.  We have blown leads in the second half, but it has not been because we ran the ball too much or played too conservative.

But before this thread goes completely off the rails I just want to go back to my original point.  Coaches always say they are playing to win.  So I won't believe there are any big changes until I see it happen on the field.

(01-23-2018, 05:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 1) that’s not an example because it was just a change in an attempt to keep Carson but not a change in the actual mindset of the team/franchise and in the way things are done.

2) have you not watched any games that he’s coached? It’s been his MO since he’s been here. Look at every game we won (and most we lost) when we’d get up one or two scores and try to run the ball to run out the clock and have to rely on Carson in the two-minute drill to win by 7 or less.

1) You asked for when we had some massive changes prior to this offseason and I answered. It's not my fault you don't like the answer.

Also, they have yet to demonstrate there's a change in the "actual" mindset of the team/franchise and in the way things are done. Heck, in Mike's interview with Jim O. he basically reiterates for the umpteenth time that the Bengals are not changing the way they do things!

2) You're missing the point. Yes, it's his MO, No one would deny that. But Merv would never admit to coaching timidly. Hence, the fact that he SAYS we're going to be agressive means squat when he has never coached agressive before AND when you consider this isn't the first time he says he needs to be agressive.

Here's a quote from Merv after the 2nd Steelers game in 2012: 

Quote: We’re going to keep coaching and playing aggressively. I can’t do that and then put my tail between my legs. We’ve got to be aggressive.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't believe Merv saying he'll be aggressive when he's said it before yet still coaches like a p***y.

(01-24-2018, 09:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: My memory of all those close games Carson pulled out at the end involved us trailing the entire game or at least being very close.  The Bengals have never lost a game because Marvin played too conservative with a lead.  We have blown leads in the second half, but it has not been because we ran the ball too much or played too conservative.

But before this thread goes completely off the rails I just want to go back to my original point.  Coaches always say they are playing to win.  So I won't believe there are any big changes until I see it happen on the field.

Even if that were true, that still proves that he was playing conservative all game trying to play "not to lose" and keep it close because he knew Carson could run the two-minute drill late and pull out the win.

If he were playing to win the game, we could have been aggressive all game or at least tried to move the chains more instead of running the ball so much and trying to milk the clock.

(01-24-2018, 02:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 1) You asked for when we had some massive changes prior to this offseason and I answered. It's not my fault you don't like the answer.

Also, they have yet to demonstrate there's a change in the "actual" mindset of the team/franchise and in the way things are done. Heck, in Mike's interview with Jim O. he basically reiterates for the umpteenth time that the Bengals are not changing the way they do things!

2) You're missing the point. Yes, it's his MO, No one would deny that. But Merv would never admit to coaching timidly. Hence, the fact that he SAYS we're going to be agressive means squat when he has never coached agressive before AND when you consider this isn't the first time he says he needs to be agressive.

Here's a quote from Merv after the 2nd Steelers game in 2012: 

So, you'll excuse me if I don't believe Merv saying he'll be aggressive when he's said it before yet still coaches like a p***y.

1) Those weren't massive changes or changes in the organization, but just medium changes in the roster and coaches to try and keep Carson.  Nothing ever changed in the approach to free agency, the draft, Marvin's coaching, etc., like it looks like it has changed now.

From that interview:

Quote:We’ve had more changeover in the assistant coaching level than I can remember short of changing the head coach. That would bring a lot of fresh ideas in here. We’re in need of some fresh ideas. I look forward to how it will be put together a little differently than before.

Looks forward to different from before, so looks like a change in the way they do things.  

Also, Marvin saying they'll be aggressive in free agency and all that is a change in the way they do things, so that's yet to be seen, but looks promising.

2)  He said "keep coaching aggressively," which he never did in the first place, so how could he "keep" doing it?!  It has yet to be seen, I'll give you that, but it looks like Marvin knows that now's the time and he has to change and go after wins more.

Since the Andy Dalton-A.J. Green Era commenced in 2011, the Bengals led at the half 59 times. They finished 44-14-1 in those games. That .754 record ranks 18th in the NFL over the span.

That came from a Paul Dehner article in the Enquirer a few weeks back.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2018/01/07/mike-brown-marvin-lewis-fact-fiction-cincinnati-bengals-lacking-halftime-adjustments/1007231001/

(01-25-2018, 02:47 AM)sloSTI Wrote: Since the Andy Dalton-A.J. Green Era commenced in 2011, the Bengals led at the half 59 times. They finished 44-14-1 in those games. That .754 record ranks 18th in the NFL over the span.

That came from a Paul Dehner article in the Enquirer a few weeks back.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2018/01/07/mike-brown-marvin-lewis-fact-fiction-cincinnati-bengals-lacking-halftime-adjustments/1007231001/

This freaking post should be a sticky somewhere.

So on Offense we will have a Lasor Show and on Defense Austin Power.

(01-25-2018, 02:47 AM)sloSTI Wrote: Since the Andy Dalton-A.J. Green Era commenced in 2011, the Bengals led at the half 59 times. They finished 44-14-1 in those games. That .754 record ranks 18th in the NFL over the span.

That came from a Paul Dehner article in the Enquirer a few weeks back.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2018/01/07/mike-brown-marvin-lewis-fact-fiction-cincinnati-bengals-lacking-halftime-adjustments/1007231001/

(01-25-2018, 03:01 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: This freaking post should be a sticky somewhere.

Since the bengals rank 6th overall in winning percentage since 2011 if they rank 18th (pretty much league average) in games where they led at halftime that would mean they would have to rank very near the top in winning percentage in games where they did not lead at halftime.

Since it seems like there would be more adjustments when not leading than when leading (not as many adjustments needed when things are working) this indicates that Marvin and his staff are very good at making halftime adjustments.

I don't have the numbers for trailing at halftime, but since good teams make adjustments all through the game instead of just at halftime I think it is better to look at all "come back" wins.

Since Dalton arrived the Bengals are 37-45-2 in games where the bengals have trailed.  That .452 winning percentage is 7th best in the league.   If you go all the way back to the beginning of the Marvin era the Bengals have a .372 winning percentage in games where they have trailed and that is only good enough for 15th in the league.  Pretty much dead on average.

Dehner's numbers don't prove what they claim to prove at all.  The elements of protecting a lead have very little to do with halftime adjustments because most teams don't make a lot of adjustments when leading.  Instead prtecting a lead in the second half has more to do with the ability to run the ball.  So dehner's numbers probabaly show that the bengals struggle to run the ball making it harder for them to protect a lead.

The one thing I know for sure is that you can not talk about "halftime adjustments" without looking at how many times a team won when NOT leading at halftime.  Adjustments are much more important when things are not working than when they are and you have a lead.