(11-19-2018, 04:56 PM)I_C_DeadPeople Wrote: Not sure it is that desirable. The owner will not make the moves needed to win a championship (regardless of how much he may talk about it) so how is that desirable for a highly motivated coach? If the coach says 'we needs help in the following areas.." and the owner says 'we will go to war with what we have", how is this desirable? Sounds more frustrating to me. 

Are you kidding me?  They all talk a lot of shit about wanting a championship when their number one priority is money, plain and simple.   A guy could come in here and make his family secure for generations.  And if he won here like Marvin should have done, he'd be a hero's hero.  Marvin has done less than he should have here.  A better guy could have made a SB run.

(11-19-2018, 05:02 PM)McC Wrote: A better guy could have made a SB run.

Name a coach who has made it to the Super Bowl with out a single top tier free agent on his roster.

I don't know of any.  Marvin has had some talented teams but they all had holes that needed to be filled before they could make Super Bowl run.  The 2015 team might have made it if Dalton had not been injured.  The '14 team went into the playoffs with Kevin Brock starting at TE and Rex Burkehead at WR.  The 2013 team is probably the only one that could have come close to a super bowl run.

(11-19-2018, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Marvin works his ass off to try and get the Bengals to win.  He has a huge ego and his personal reputation is defined by the won loss record of the Bengals.  It is ridiculous to claim he "isn't trying" or is "content with losing".  The fact is it is very hard to win in the NFL.  If there ever was an NFL coach who was "content with losing" I guarantee he would not have a winning record like Marvin.

So, I'm curious brother. How exactly do you 'define' Marvin's tenure here?

He had a very good stretch from 2011-2015 where he had 5 straight winning seasons and playoff appearances.

In the 7 years prior to that, he was 60-67-1 and in the 3 years after that, he's 18-23-1.

He deserves a lot of credit for that 5 year run, but he has a losing record in the 11 years outside of it.

That isn't even talking into account the playoff losses, the primetime record and so forth. 
 

(11-19-2018, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Name a coach who has made it to the Super Bowl with out a single top tier free agent on his roster.

I don't know of any.  Marvin has had some talented teams but they all had holes that needed to be filled before they could make Super Bowl run.  The 2015 team might have made it if Dalton had not been injured.  The '14 team went into the playoffs with Kevin Brock starting at TE and Rex Burkehead at WR.  The 2013 team is probably the only one that could have come close to a super bowl run.

Teams like the Packers and Giants have won Super Bowls with rosters that were hit hard by injuries. Other teams have made it to Super Bowls with rosters that had weaknesses. These constant excuses for why Marvin has failed are tiring. Other teams have overcome obstacles to at least win a playoff game here and there.

Marvin and his teams haven't been able to overcome any obstacles, not a single one...in multiple opportunities. What does that say about the head coach?

(11-19-2018, 05:43 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, I'm curious brother. How exactly do you 'define' Marvin's tenure here?

He had a very good stretch from 2011-2015 where he had 5 straight winning seasons and playoff appearances.

In the 7 years prior to that, he was 60-67-1 and in the 3 years after that, he's 18-23-1.

He deserves a lot of credit for that 5 year run, but he has a losing record in the 11 years outside of it.

That isn't even talking into account the playoff losses, the primetime record and so forth. 
 


Teams like the Packers and Giants have won Super Bowls with rosters that were hit hard by injuries. Other teams have won Super Bowls with rosters that had weaknesses. These constant excuses for why Marvin has failed are tiring. Other teams have overcome obstacles to at least win a playoff game here and there. Marvin and his teams haven't been able to overcome any obstacles, not a single one...in multiple opportunities. What does that say about the head coach?

Sadly, it says it all--highly rewarded under achiever.

I'm sure a lot of us have coaching experience of one kind or another. There will be times when your players are over matched or undermanned in one way or another. These are the times when they look at you, their coach, for answers. Marvin is out of answers.

(11-18-2018, 09:52 PM)hotweales Wrote: Someone from the Andy Reid tree. I should also say that Kansas City has 27 on coaching staff and the Bengals have 21. Just another example of tight ass Mike Brown

It's actually pretty impressive to see how Andy Reid's been able to evolve his teams from 1999 to now. The game clearly didn't pass him by like it has other outdated coaches. I would support anyone from under Andy Reid. Maybe pursue Eric Bieniemy, their first-year OC who was their RB coach previously?

(11-19-2018, 05:52 PM)ochocincos Wrote: It's actually pretty impressive to see how Andy Reid's been able to evolve his teams from 1999 to now. The game clearly didn't pass him by like it has other outdated coaches. I would support anyone from under Andy Reid. Maybe pursue Eric Bieniemy, their first-year OC who was their RB coach previously?

He also has a Bengal history.

But honestly, this is a little like sitting around talking about what we'll do when we win the billion dollar lottery.

(11-19-2018, 05:53 PM)McC Wrote: He also has a Bengal history.

But honestly, this is a little like sitting around talking about what we'll do when we win the billion dollar lottery.

Or waiting on the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders to show up naked at your front door.

(11-19-2018, 05:43 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, I'm curious brother. How exactly do you 'define' Marvin's tenure here?

He had a very good stretch from 2011-2015 where he had 5 straight winning seasons and playoff appearances.

In the 7 years prior to that, he was 60-67-1 and in the 3 years after that, he's 18-23-1.

He deserves a lot of credit for that 5 year run, but he has a losing record in the 11 years outside of it.

That isn't even talking into account the playoff losses, the primetime record and so forth. 
 


Teams like the Packers and Giants have won Super Bowls with rosters that were hit hard by injuries. Other teams have made it to Super Bowls with rosters that had weaknesses. These constant excuses for why Marvin has failed are tiring. Other teams have overcome obstacles to at least win a playoff game here and there.

Marvin and his teams haven't been able to overcome any obstacles, not a single one...in multiple opportunities. What does that say about the head coach?

The Patriots back in 03 or whatever, not looking it up, had an injury list a mile long and still won the Super Bowl.

Marvin's failures were out of excuses a long. long, time ago

(11-19-2018, 05:43 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, I'm curious brother. How exactly do you 'define' Marvin's tenure here?

He had a very good stretch from 2011-2015 where he had 5 straight winning seasons and playoff appearances.

In the 7 years prior to that, he was 60-67-1 and in the 3 years after that, he's 18-23-1.

He deserves a lot of credit for that 5 year run, but he has a losing record in the 11 years outside of it.

That isn't even talking into account the playoff losses, the primetime record and so forth. 

Marvin has had success despite being handicapped by one of the worst owners in professional sports.  His record is far from great, but it is pretty good considering what he was given to work with.

(11-19-2018, 05:43 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Teams like the Packers and Giants have won Super Bowls with rosters that were hit hard by injuries. 

Because they signed free agents to help with both starters and depth.  Perfect example is the 2011 team.  In the offseason the Bengals admitted they needed help at OG when they tried to sign Deuce Lutui, but when that deal fell apart they did not go after anyone else.  We end up in the playoffs with Mike McGlynn starting at OG.  Multiple years we needed a LB and they signed an over the hill guy like Hawk, Harrison, or Minter instead of brining in real talent.  In 2009 we made the playoffs with an O-line that was mostly unsigned free agents with no starting experience (Cook, Livings, Roland).

(11-19-2018, 06:03 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: The Patriots back in 03 or whatever, not looking it up, had an injury list a mile long and still one the Super Bowl.

Marvin's failures were out of excuses a long. long, time ago

But those are the rare exceptions instead of the rule.

I had an uncle who smoked his whole life but never had heart or lung disease.  Does that mean smoking does not contribute to heart and lung disease?

(11-18-2018, 09:08 PM)mon4078 Wrote: If Marvin is let go at the end of the season,do we go after a offensive or defensive coach. Who would you look at for the job.

Not going to happen its a waste of conversation..

(11-19-2018, 06:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Marvin has had success despite being handicapped by one of the worst owners in professional sports.  His record is far from great, but it is pretty good considering what he was given to work with.

Marvin knew who he was choosing to work for in 2003. He continued to know exactly who he was working for each time he signed an extension and decided to keep working for him. Once he decided to work for Mike, and continue working for Mike, he has to take his fair share of blame for what happens under his watch and his direction. Hell, I think having Mike as an owner is a selling point for Marvin. He knows he'll never be held responsible in any real way.

Quote:Because they signed free agents to help with both starters and depth.  Perfect example is the 2011 team.  In the offseason the Bengals admitted they needed help at OG when they tried to sign Deuce Lutui, but when that deal fell apart they did not go after anyone else.  We end up in the playoffs with Mike McGlynn starting at OG.  Multiple years we needed a LB and they signed an over the hill guy like Hawk, Harrison, or Minter instead of brining in real talent.  In 2009 we made the playoffs with an O-line that was mostly unsigned free agents with no starting experience (Cook, Livings, Roland).

So, those issues didn't stop him from getting to the playoffs (like some other teams through the years that have had issues in certain areas)...but once he makes it there, those same issues leave him helpless and incapable of winning?

If someone told you in 2003 that we we're hiring a coach that would be given a new contract after 15 years, an NFL record for playoff losses without a win, a dismal primetime record, complete ownage by the Steelers at PBS...would you have been excited about the hire?

(11-19-2018, 06:43 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Marvin knew who he was choosing to work for in 2003. He continued to know exactly who he was working for each time he signed an extension and decided to keep working for him. Once he decided to work for Mike, and continue working for Mike, he has to take his fair share of blame for what happens under his watch and his direction. 

Why should Marvin take blame for player moves that were NOT under his direction?

That makes no sense at all.

(11-19-2018, 06:43 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, those issues didn't stop him from getting to the playoffs (like some other teams through the years that have had issues in certain areas)...but once he makes it there, those same issues leave him helpless and incapable of winning?

Yes.  It is harder to win in the playoffs than it is to make the playoffs.

Surely you don't disagree with that do you?

(11-19-2018, 06:43 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: If someone told you in 2003 that we we're hiring a coach that would be given a new contract after 15 years, an NFL record for playoff losses without a win, a dismal primetime record, complete ownage by the Steelers at PBS...would you have been excited about the hire?

If someone had told me what Marvin would be able to accomplish while working under Mike Brown I would have said he must be a very good coach and so would you if you would be honest.

Every year during free agency the same crowd crucifies Mike Brown, but then during the season suddenly Mike Brown has nothing to do with the troubles the Bengals run into.  It is pure cognitive dissonance. 

And this has nothing to do with being "excited" or "satisfied" with what Marvin has accomplished.  It is simply judging him fairly based on the handicap he faces with the Bengals.  

(11-19-2018, 07:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If someone had told me what Marvin would be able to accomplish while working under Mike Brown I would have said he must be a very good coach and so would you if you would be honest.

Every year during free agency the same crowd crucifies Mike Brown, but then during the season suddenly Mike Brown has nothing to do with the troubles the Bengals run into.  It is pure cognitive dissonance. 

And this has nothing to do with being "excited" or "satisfied" with what Marvin has accomplished.  It is simply judging him fairly based on the handicap he faces with the Bengals.  

So you expect us to believe Marvin can't beat the Steelers because of a lack of FA's/talent ? Marvin can't win in prime time or any time the heat is really on because of a lack of talent ? He hasn't won a single playoff game (after making it there) all because MB won't sign FA's ? BS !

Marvin has plenty of talent to win a playoff game in 16 years Fred, it's a lame arguement. Fact is Fred Marvin get horribly outcoached by all the top teams in the league 9X out of 10.

(11-19-2018, 06:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why should Marvin take blame for player moves that were NOT under his direction?

That makes no sense at all.

Are you saying Marvin hasn't been involved in any player moves?

(11-19-2018, 07:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  It is harder to win in the playoffs than it is to make the playoffs.

Surely you don't disagree with that do you?

I'm not sure what you're answering here because I asked a completely different question. 

(11-19-2018, 07:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If someone had told me what Marvin would be able to accomplish while working under Mike Brown I would have said he must be a very good coach and so would you if you would be honest.

Every year during free agency the same crowd crucifies Mike Brown, but then during the season suddenly Mike Brown has nothing to do with the troubles the Bengals run into.  It is pure cognitive dissonance. 

And this has nothing to do with being "excited" or "satisfied" with what Marvin has accomplished.  It is simply judging him fairly based on the handicap he faces with the Bengals.  

If you're truly judging him fairly, then you can't give him all the credit and say he shares none of the blame.

If he's good enough to make the playoffs 7 times, then there's absolutely no excuse for not having at least one playoff win. I'm sure you'll agree that's a fair assessment, right?

(11-19-2018, 07:36 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Are you saying Marvin hasn't been involved in any player moves?

I am saying Marvin does not get to sign or cut the players he wants to.  Mike has that control.

You honestly think Marvin says "No, we never need any quality free agents to fill any holes on this roster"?

(11-19-2018, 07:36 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: If he's good enough to make the playoffs 7 times, then there's absolutely no excuse for not having at least one playoff win. I'm sure you'll agree that's a fair assessment, right?

No.  It is possible to make the playoffs multiple times and be the underdog every time.

Marvin has been the underdog in most of his playoff games.  He clearly should have won was after the '13 season, but that is not enough to say the problem has always been the coaching instead of the talent level.