(02-07-2018, 10:03 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: You do realize lesser teams or underdog teams sometimes beat better/favored teams in the postseason, correct? How many times have the Bengals done it under Lewis?


I think Belichick wants to win every single game he coaches, just as every coach does. He's also proven he can rise to the challenges of postseason play.

Marvin has yet to prove he can win a single playoff game.


They are coaches that achieved different levels of success in the postseason...but no, they aren't better than Belichick because Belichick is arguably the greatest of all-time.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that Marvin hasn't beaten anyone in the playoffs.


Again, Harbaugh was a good coach who was able to achieve a level of success in the postseason, but Belichick is perhap the greatest of all-time. So no, Harbaugh isn't better.

And once again, Marvin hasn't won a single playoff game.


You're point about Belichick here has no bearing on the reality of Marvin's failures. Of course Belichick's losses count. His teams lost those games and they're a part of his record. However, there is this thing called perspective. When you balance Belichick's losses with all the playoffs wins, SB appearances and Championships...it's fairly obvious that he's probably the best ever at competing in the postseason.

When you look at Marvin's playoff record, and apply the same perspective, you see that he has failed in the postseason in a way that defies probability. Only one coach in the entire history has failed to win a playoff game with at least 7 appearances and 15 seasons. Only one.


Yeah, I agree that using Belichick in an way, shape or form to make any type of analogy or comparison to a coach that has set NFL records in playoff futility would be absolutely crazy.

That is a lot of words to say nothing.  Do you even undertand the point I was trying to make?

If there is some special way to win in the playoffs then why do bad coaches sometimes beat good coaches?

If nothing matters but the coaching then why don't the same coaches win every single year?

Why do the same coaches win one year and then lose another year?

The fact that Marvin has not won a playoff game does not mean he can not win a playoff game.

(02-07-2018, 10:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is a lot of words to say nothing.  Do you even undertand the point I was trying to make?

Yes, it's just that the point fails when applied to Marvin because of the uniqueness of his situation.

Quote:If there is some special way to win in the playoffs then why do bad coaches sometimes beat good coaches?

You just demonstrated why your point fails when it comes to Marvin. Marvin has lost in pretty much every type of scenario...as a favorite, underdog, home, away, healthy, injured, etc. He's never won a playoff game he should have. He's never overcome to win a playoff game that he shouldn't have. He hasn't accomplished anything in 7 chances except record setting failure.

You can say, for example, that just because Mike McCoy beat Marvin in the playoffs, it doesn't mean McCoy was a better coach and that would be true. However, that does nothing to change Marvin's compilation of postseason futility.

Quote:If nothing matters but the coaching then why don't the same coaches win every single year?

Honestly, you're the only one I've seen using the words 'nothing matters but coaching'. I haven't seen anyone make that argument. Of course, there are a number of factors in each individual game, but there has also been one factor that has been constant in all...and that's Marvin.

Quote:Why do the same coaches win one year and then lose another year?

Because winning in the playoffs on a consistent basis is difficult. Unfortunately, in Marvin's case, winning a single playoff game has proven to be even more difficult.

Quote:The fact that Marvin has not won a playoff game does not mean he can not win a playoff game.

You're right in saying that the fact that Marvin hasn't won a playoff game doesn't mean that he won't ever win one. It's definitely not impossible. However, based on all the evidence we have to this point, I think it's fair to say it's more improbable than probable.

(02-07-2018, 10:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is a lot of words to say nothing.  Do you even undertand the point I was trying to make?

If there is some special way to win in the playoffs then why do bad coaches sometimes beat good coaches?

If nothing matters but the coaching then why don't the same coaches win every single year?

Why do the same coaches win one year and then lose another year?

The fact that Marvin has not won a playoff game does not mean he can not win a playoff game.

You dog the other guy but make no real point other than asking obtuse questions.

There is no special way to win. All coaches can win. All can lose. That said, the only thing the coach and organization can do is:

1: Building the best possible roster via the Draft and FA under the cap and bargaining constraints.

2: Strategically managing that roster to ensure continuity, thus minimizing talent deficiencies and holes in the roster.

3: Game Planning strategically to maximize the roster’s talents to give the best chances of beating the opponent

4: Hoping for the best possible injury luck while trying to have contingencies in place via 1 and 2. When injuries happen have a plan to surmount them. Do not give up hope because 1 key player is unavailable.

The reason the Pats and Belichick have been so successful for so long is that they do these 4 things better than all other organizations. They’ve obviously had Brady, but also made the Playoffs with Matt Cassel, and won games with Jacoby Bridgett, Jimmy G, and Brian Hoyer. They’ve won with and without their studs, including in the Playoffs.

The Pats are expert at mining other team’s castoffs and provide NF meaningful roles to maximize talent. Despite doing all this, no one team is guaranteed a victory. The best any team can do is to put themselves in the best possible position to win games, and let the chips fall where they may. More often than not, the Pats win, and that’s the best that can be expected in the Playoffs. Their record and titles are proof of it.

(02-08-2018, 12:30 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: You dog the other guy but make no real point other than asking obtuse questions.  

There is no special way to win.  All coaches can win. All can lose.  That said, the only thing the coach and organization can do  is:

1:  Building the best possible roster via the Draft and FA under the cap and bargaining constraints.

2:  Strategically managing that roster to ensure continuity, thus minimizing talent deficiencies and holes in the roster.

3:  Game Planning strategically to maximize the roster’s talents to give the best chances of beating the opponent

4:  Hoping for the best possible injury luck while trying to have contingencies in place via 1 and 2. When injuries happen have a plan to surmount them. Do not give up hope because 1 key player is unavailable.

And the exact same things apply to both regular season and playoff games, correct?

That is what gets me.  People claim that there is some special secret that applies to winning in the post season but does not exist during the regular season.  I just don't see that.

Some even claim that Marvin only wins during the regular season because other coaches don't try as hard.  This makes no sense because all the best teams want to win as many regular season games as possible.

(02-08-2018, 01:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And the exact same things apply to both regular season and playoff games, correct?

That is what gets me.  People claim that there is some special secret that applies to winning in the post season but does not exist during the regular season.  I just don't see that.

Some even claim that Marvin only wins during the regular season because other coaches don't try as hard.  This makes no sense because all the best teams want to win as many regular season games as possible.

You are absolutely correct. Winning is winning. The same principles apply in the regular season and post season. Teams that prep and execute to put themselves in the optimal position to succeed generally succeed the most, especially over the long term. It’s why the Pats have won the most over the last 20 years, and other teams like the Steelers are always in the thick of it. Teams that do not maximize roster construction, depth, strategy, and game planning generally do not climb to the top of the heap. The Playoffs magnify the prep and execution because the best teams are playing each other, and there is no game next week if you lose.

The reasons the Bengals do not compete for Lombardis are several. They do not maximize roster building via both the draft and FA, and do not display the drive to tweak the roster without regard for player feelings. They sign guys to team friendly contracts and keep the players for the length of the contract. Rarely does the underperforming player not see his entire contract here. While shrewd from an owner financial standpoint, it precludes the team from cutting underperformers and churning the roster to find better talent. The FO and coaching staff also displays strategy deficiencies game execution(esp. the dreaded 2nd half), and they cannot overcome injuries and win games.

The roster has glaring deficiencies each year. The team usually decides not to address the deficiencies via FA in a meaningful way, preferring to use the draft and signing a few lower tier bargains. Some years it’s weak LB’s, weak D-line, and safeties. This year it was a weak o-line. Those deficiencies are preyed upon by the good teams, especially in the Playoffs.

(02-07-2018, 06:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Number 2.  One playoff win can look like nothing but luck if the team is not consistently good.

If we don't win it all then one playoff win is not that big of a deal for me.  I would rather have an entire season of winning more games and making the playoffs.

I think you flip-flopped accidentally?
The question was which is considered more successful, which you said was "2) Two playoff appearances in a span of five years but one playoff victory," yet your explanation was more in line with 1) Five consecutive playoff appearances but no playoff wins.
I assume you meant #1 is considered more successful to you?

I think it's safe to say...

(02-08-2018, 10:46 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I think you flip-flopped accidentally?
The question was which is considered more successful, which you said was "2) Two playoff appearances in a span of five years but one playoff victory," yet your explanation was more in line with 1) Five consecutive playoff appearances but no playoff wins.
I assume you meant #1 is considered more successful to you?

No.  I think consistent winning is more successful.

But if you change "one playoff victory" to "one Super Bowl appearance" I would flip flop.

(02-08-2018, 10:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I think consistent winning is more successful.

But if you change "one playoff victory" to "one Super Bowl appearance" I would flip flop.

So then yes, you did list the wrong option based on your explanation.

You said #2 was considered more successful than #1, and #2 was only going to playoffs two years out of five but getting one playoff victory out of those two appearances.

You meant to say #1, which was five playoff appearances and no playoff wins.

And unless the Bengals go to the Super Bowl, you feel that making the playoffs and not winning a playoff game vs winning just one or two playoff games are essentially the same thing.

(02-07-2018, 10:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is a lot of words to say nothing.  Do you even undertand the point I was trying to make?

If there is some special way to win in the playoffs then why do bad coaches sometimes beat good coaches?

If nothing matters but the coaching then why don't the same coaches win every single year?

Why do the same coaches win one year and then lose another year?

The fact that Marvin has not won a playoff game does not mean he can not win a playoff game.

If one's an accident, two's a coincidence, and three is a pattern....what is 7?

(02-08-2018, 11:25 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: If one's an accident, two's a coincidence, and three is a pattern....what is 7?

I found Fred IRL

(02-07-2018, 10:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thanks for proving my point.  You were one of the guys who claimed Peko was so bad no other team would have him as a starter then a team with one of the best defenses in the league signs him for more than the Bengals paid him and made him a starter.

Kirkpatrick has not been garbage for years.  People who talk like this are just repeating message board myths.  And they think that if enough no-nothings agree with them then they must be right.  

Zeitler and Whit were far better players at their positions than Dre at his best.

Comparably speaking- we had several decent and even superior replacements for Dre if we had let him walk while the record shows that we had no replacement for Whit ( at the most important position on o line) and below average replacement for Zeitler. 

( maybe Westerman or Redmond will be above average but they did not get to play until the end of the year despite the season long awful performance by those picked by Mike Brown, Marv or Alexander to play ahead of them)

Signing Dre and letting Whit and Z walk yet another example of how factors other than quality ( or available replacements on roster) govern decisions by Mike Brown. The prime factor for all decisions is how it impacts Mike's bottom line.

I don't know how anyone can defend an organization with 3 or 4 playoff wins in 50 years in the parity NFL and no playoff wins since current GM took over more than 25 years ago.
That is not rational.

(02-08-2018, 11:52 AM)bengals67 Wrote: Zeitler and Whit were far better players at their positions than Dre at his best.

Comparably speaking- we had several decent and even superior replacements for Dre if we had let him walk while the record shows that we had no replacement for Whit ( at the most important position on o line) and below average replacement for Zeitler. 

( maybe Westerman or Redmond will be above average but they did not get to play until the end of the year despite the season long awful performance by those picked by Mike Brown, Marv or Alexander to play ahead of them)

Signing Dre and letting Whit and Z walk yet another example of how factors other than quality ( or available replacements on roster) govern decisions by Mike Brown. The prime factor for all decisions is how it impacts Mike's bottom line.

I don't know how anyone can defend an organization with 3 or 4 playoff wins in 50 years in the parity NFL and no playoff wins since current GM took over more than 25 years ago.
That is not rational.

Given how much stock Mike Brown has put into the last two games of the 2017 season, I think Westerman and/or Redmond will be considered highly for one of the starting OG spots.

(02-08-2018, 11:25 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: If one's an accident, two's a coincidence, and three is a pattern....what is 7?

Fred channeling his inner Mike Brown regarding a broken clock, "Just because our clock is broken doesn't mean our clock can't tell us the correct time twice a day. Matter of fact, we get the same information from our broken clock as the rest of the league gets from their clocks. So there is really no need to get another clock."

(02-08-2018, 12:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Fred channeling his inner Mike Brown regarding a broken clock, "Just because our clock is broken doesn't mean our clock can't tell us the correct time twice a day. Matter of fact, we get the same information from our broken clock as the rest of the league gets from their clocks. So there is really no need to get another clock."

Fans should be more appreciative of the fact that a broken clock will give the correct time twice a day.

(02-07-2018, 05:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "When we get to the playoffs" being the point I was making.

If the coaches were as bad as so many of you claim we would never make the playoffs to begin with.  We would not win more games than all but 5 other teams over the last 8 years.  I am not saying our coaches are great, but they are not as clueless as many  of you claim.  Especially when you factor in the handicap of having Mike Brown as owner.

And its not like a lot of the Bengal players who stunk in the playoffs have gone to other teams and been playoff game stars.  Carson Palmers postseason passer rating for the Bengals was 66.5 compared to 67.1 with the Cardinals.

In most of the playoff games Marvin has coached the other team had more talent.  And against the chargers I can't blame Marvin For Gio fumbling at the goal line and Dalton fumbling for no apparent reason.

In the end the coaches have to get the players ready for these big games is the point i was making.

We have had far more talent to work with than most rosters and that is why we have won so many regular season games over
the last 8 years. We had AJ Green, Geno Atkins, Vontaze Burfict, Carlos Dunlap, Reggie Nelson, Andrew Whitworth, Kevin Zeitler,
Leon Hall, George Iloka, Tyler Eifert etc.

With all these players we should of won atleast 1 playoff game in those chances. Especially the Chargers and Steelers games.

But we choked both away and that starts from coaching and demanding excellence from the players once we get in the Playoffs.

Hopefully with Pollack working with the O-line we can run the ball and take away the biggest problem with Marv's conservative
2nd half approach. If we can run the ball, it's all good.

(02-08-2018, 01:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And the exact same things apply to both regular season and playoff games, correct?

That is what gets me.  People claim that there is some special secret that applies to winning in the post season but does not exist during the regular season.  I just don't see that

Some even claim that Marvin only wins during the regular season because other coaches don't try as hard.  This makes no sense because all the best teams want to win as many regular season games as possible.

There are three people in the world who believe this.

Marv, mike brown, and you.

(02-08-2018, 01:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And the exact same things apply to both regular season and playoff games, correct?

That is what gets me.  People claim that there is some special secret that applies to winning in the post season but does not exist during the regular season.  I just don't see that.

Some even claim that Marvin only wins during the regular season because other coaches don't try as hard.  This makes no sense because all the best teams want to win as many regular season games as possible.

Fred, you've clearly never played sports on any kind of meaningful or high end level. Which is fine, of course. That doesn't make you any less of a fan, but you clearly have no understanding of the pressure of the moment. Pressure makes diamonds as I had a coach tell me once before a state tournament final. Marvin and his QB, as well as a few others, have cracked under it while the teams they have matched up against haven't. Wins on National TV are super rare. In fact, it's usually an embarrassing loss. And the playoffs have been the ultimate butt clinch for Marvin.

It's really that simple. A perfect example of a team and coach NOT cracking under pressure was the Eagles 4th and 1 TD in the 2nd quarter of the Superbowl. Marvin Lewis would have kicked the field goal in that game and in that situation or his team wouldn't have been prepared to run a successful play. Czan't you just picture them lining up to go for it and a false start leading to a field goal attempt in that situation? That's not a real leap to see that as likely. There's 15 years worth of failure in big moments to match against a sprinkling of successes backing this lack of confidence up. Its not like year 3 people were saying this stuff. It's year 15.

You're right in the sense that it's the same game. Only, with high stakes. Marvin isn't a high stakes winner. He's not mentaly built that way. Even 1 win at this point and it wouldn't change that narrative, IMO. He has to win big with a deep run (Superbowl) or have several years with playoff success to show that he's any different.

(02-08-2018, 11:12 AM)ochocincos Wrote: So then yes, you did list the wrong option based on your explanation.

You said #2 was considered more successful than #1, and #2 was only going to playoffs two years out of five but getting one playoff victory out of those two appearances.

You meant to say #1, which was five playoff appearances and no playoff wins.

And unless the Bengals go to the Super Bowl, you feel that making the playoffs and not winning a playoff game vs winning just one or two playoff games are essentially the same thing.

This got me thinking.

In 15 years under Marvin I would rather the Bengals go to 3 AFC championship games and then lose the other 12 seasons than I would lose in the first round every other year. So, basically, every 5 seasons they're good enough to make a run at it vs. being the first one voted off the island every 2 seasons. At least in the AFC Championship game you could say they were close or could maybe make it. At that point, I would think Marvin was a hell of a coach.

(02-05-2018, 12:16 AM)Derrick Wrote: Have to agree with your assessment of the situation.  Changing down-stream coaches likely doesn't change anything in the over all scheme because M&M are still in charge.  The publicity given to the press about big changes was intended to give fans their annual dose of hope - albeit false.

It gives the appearance that Mike cares, many have caught on though. Like these new coaches are going to be so much better than Zimm was. Even if they are good, they’ll leave before taking Marvin’s job.