(11-21-2018, 02:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So Marvin would have been fired after the '05 season after the first winning season by the team in 14 years?

Thanks for proving my point about how people just make stuff up and state it like a fact.

BTW if Marvin just plays Nickerson because of his dad then why didn't he start last year?  Was Marvin not friend with Hardy's dad last year?

Hardy played a lot (and stunk) last year too. Especially towards the end.

Sure, after the meltdown of the 2005 playoff game when Chad beat Hue up, Marvin lost the team at half time (when we were actually ahead still) and TJ completely melted down.... It's not like we haven't seen coaches fired before after losing a playoff game. Especially like that.

They would have been smart to because these meltdowns happened over and over again in primetime and playoff games with different players and in different "rebuilds" for years to come. Marvin is the only common denominator left. Can you really say we are better off now then we were in 2005? And if not, then it's not outrageous to think he should have and could have been fired if with another Organization.

(11-21-2018, 04:02 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Its stupid to continually tout a player who has 22 catches over three YEARS . If Tate only has one catch a game over the next two and a half years he will have twice as many catches as Core.

So let me get this straight.  It is stupid to tout a guy who has actually made some catches, but not stupid to tout a guy who had zero coming into Sunday's game.

 

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

(11-21-2018, 04:35 PM)jj22 Wrote: Sure, after the meltdown of the 2005 playoff game when Chad beat Hue up, Marvin lost the team at half time (when we were actually ahead still) and TJ completely melted down.... It's not like we haven't seen coaches fired before after losing a playoff game. Especially like that.

This is getting silly.

Chad did not bet up Hue.

Marvin did not lose the team at halftime.

And, no, never in the history of the NFL has a coach been fired after three seasons with no losing records and guiding the team to their first playoof appearance (and winning record) in 14 years.  Never happened and never will.  You are delusional if you believe otherwise.

(11-21-2018, 04:35 PM)jj22 Wrote:  Marvin is the only common denominator left.

Wow.

Really?

No other common denominator that goes back to way before Marvin arrived?

Thanks for proving how much you understand the situation.

(11-21-2018, 04:13 PM)Wyche Wrote: You remember Core's big drop(s) against Pitt? I do.

That is a big part of the problem here.

People only remember the bad things that they want to remember and forget everything else.

Core had five catches on five targets since the Steeler game.

(11-21-2018, 04:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is a big part of the problem here.

People only remember the bad things that they want to remember and forget everything else.

Core had five catches on five targets since the Steeler game.

He squandered two games by himself.  It's not like they weren't at criticial/pivotal points in those games.  So he caught five passes in two massive beatdowns,  (one in garbage time from the backup QB) and in a game that the Bengals were in full control of until the typical meltdown on defense.  Yeah, not impressed.

It's like having a kicker that can make kicks when you're down 35 in the 4th qtr, or when you're up 35 in the 4th quarter, but misses two gimme kicks when you need them.  I've seen enough of Cody Core, find someone else to run out there.  I don't care who it is.

(11-21-2018, 05:01 PM)Wyche Wrote:  It's not like they weren't at criticial/pivotal points in those games.  So he caught five passes in two massive beatdowns,  (one in garbage time from the backup QB) and in a game that the Bengals were in full control of until the typical meltdown on defense.  Yeah, not impressed.

It's like having a kicker that can make kicks when you're down 35 in the 4th qtr, or when you're up 35 in the 4th quarter, but misses two gimme kicks when you need them. 

So if Core's catches against the Saints are meaningless because they were under such easy conditions then what does that say about Tates drop against the Saints.  If he can't make a catch under the easiest of conditions why trust him in crunch time?

(11-21-2018, 05:01 PM)Wyche Wrote: He squandered two games by himself.

But he had not at the time they made the decision to put him in the game.

This is why so many people here think they are so smart.  They make the decision AFTER they have seen what happens.

(11-21-2018, 04:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wow.

Really?

No other common denominator that goes back to way before Marvin arrived?

Thanks for proving how much you understand the situation.

Coaches? Ok. Hue is back if you want to count him. My fault. I'm trying to think of which coaches were here before Marvin. You've stumped me.

(11-21-2018, 04:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is getting silly.

Chad did not bet up Hue.

Marvin did not lose the team at halftime.

And, no, never in the history of the NFL has a coach been fired after three seasons with no losing records and guiding the team to their first playoof appearance (and winning record) in 14 years.  Never happened and never will.  You are delusional if you believe otherwise.

You might have forgotten a lot about that game. Specifically the second half meltdown when we were ahead and Hue getting put in a headlock, Chad benched coming out of the half, and reports of all hell breaking lose in the locker room at halftime. It's been over a decade so that's understandable.

(11-21-2018, 05:26 PM)jj22 Wrote: You might have forgotten a lot about that game. Specifically the second half meltdown and Hue getting put in a headlock. It's been over a decade so I understand.

I remember that game very well.

I specifically remember that absolutely NO ONE was saying we should fire Marvin after it was over.

And if you remember the game you would know that the "meltdown" started way before halftime.  The Steelers went on two long scoring drives before the end of the half.  We had the 28th ranked defense and they had a Super Bowl Champion offense.  They just did what good offenses had been doing to us all year.  With Kitna fumbling and throwing picks in the second half we had no chance.  It had nothing to do with Marvin "losing the team".

(11-21-2018, 04:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is getting silly.

Chad did not bet up Hue.

Marvin did not lose the team at halftime.

And, no, never in the history of the NFL has a coach been fired after three seasons with no losing records and guiding the team to their first playoof appearance (and winning record) in 14 years.  Never happened and never will.  You are delusional if you believe otherwise.

Hey... you should never say never.

Jim Caldwell was fired after four seasons as head coach of the Lions, accumulating a 36-28 regular season record with an 0-2 mark in the playoffs.
Titans parted ways with Mike Mularkey, who had produced winning seasons in each of his two full years at the helm in Tennessee and after he won a game in the Playoffs.
Lovie Smith was fired by the Bears after a 10-6 season and an 81-63 record (with a Super Bowl appearance) in nine years.
Tony Dungy would become the first Buccaneer coach to be fired with a winning record.
Marty Schottenheimer, who holds the records for most wins without a Super Bowl, still couldn't get it done in the playoffs.

(11-21-2018, 04:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So let me get this straight.  It is stupid to tout a guy who has actually made some catches, but not stupid to tout a guy who had zero coming into Sunday's game.

 

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

He was on the practice team, even AJ couldn't catch one from there. Core came in as Sanu and Jones were going out the door so of course he has had more opportunities.

Freds still defending cody core it looks like lol. Even joe goodberry said on the locked on bengals pod cast that cody core has dropped a lot of passes with his playing time and going to him was a low percentage play. They might as well threw long to ross he said,same percentage type of play. It was a stupid play call by our stupid coaches. Watch how real offenses operate compared to us,we aint winning nothing this year. I can already see the writing on the wall what will hapoen,we will be something like 8-7 or 9-6 going to play pitt and get embarrassed once again. In the offseason theyll try to sell lazor getting fired and rehiring hue, vance joseph as dc and everyone will talk about the draft and how we need a lb and a tight end. Next year will come,injuries will happen and our coaching and qb flaws will show again. Hit rinse wash and repeat every year till merv is gone.

I thought Tate made a great catch - snatching the ball outta the air like that, with the defender in tight coverage. It kinda looked like the exact same route that CC ran on the 4th down play.

Sometimes, a gem can be found on the practice squad. Maybe Auden isn’t, but he made the catch on the same play.

Speaking of unknowns; I wonder why they haven’t used J Franks more than they have?

(11-22-2018, 10:11 AM)Devils Advocate Wrote: I thought Tate made a great catch - snatching the ball outta the air like that, with the defender in tight coverage. It kinda looked like the exact same route that CC ran on the 4th down play.

Sometimes, a gem can be found on the practice squad. Maybe Auden isn’t, but he made the catch on the same play.

Speaking of unknowns; I wonder why they haven’t used J Franks more than they have?

It was a great catch.  But Marvin pointed out the problem, the route was wrong.  It was supposed to be a deeper route.  If the route was deeper, the catch doesn't need to be as spectacular as the ball is lower, and it results in a first down.

We saw it with Ross, and we are seeing it with Tate, run the route wrong and you don't get the snaps.  Nor should you, as the QB is going to throw the ball to where the receiver SHOULD be.  If you aren't there, it can be an easy turnover, so you are hurting the team.

No one wants to see guys drop balls, but until you can trust a guy is going to be in the correct position, you can't play him.  Even Tate stated he understands exactly what he needs to do better to get on the field and intends to work hard at it.



As to Jordan Franks, I think his role is expanding little by little as he learns the offense.  I think he still has limited knowledge of the playbook, but as he is learning more he is involved more.  With limited knowledge, though, he can only be a situational substitution.  Otherwise you can't go hurry up or audible at the line.  So far he looks like he can be a contributor.

(11-22-2018, 12:37 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: It was a great catch.  But Marvin pointed out the problem, the route was wrong.  It was supposed to be a deeper route.  If the route was deeper, the catch doesn't need to be as spectacular as the ball is lower, and it results in a first down.

We saw it with Ross, and we are seeing it with Tate, run the route wrong and you don't get the snaps.  Nor should you, as the QB is going to throw the ball to where the receiver SHOULD be.  If you aren't there, it can be an easy turnover, so you are hurting the team.

No one wants to see guys drop balls, but until you can trust a guy is going to be in the correct position, you can't play him.  Even Tate stated he understands exactly what he needs to do better to get on the field and intends to work hard at it.



As to Jordan Franks, I think his role is expanding little by little as he learns the offense.  I think he still has limited knowledge of the playbook, but as he is learning more he is involved more.  With limited knowledge, though, he can only be a situational substitution.  Otherwise you can't go hurry up or audible at the line.  So far he looks like he can be a contributor.

With all due respect, how long does it take to learn seven plays?

Als, if playing time is earned, Core should never play another down.

(11-21-2018, 05:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So if Core's catches against the Saints are meaningless because they were under such easy conditions then what does that say about Tates drop against the Saints.  If he can't make a catch under the easiest of conditions why trust him in crunch time?


But he had not at the time they made the decision to put him in the game.

This is why so many people here think they are so smart.  They make the decision AFTER they have seen what happens.

He actually caught three of those miraculous catches at KC in garbage time, one from Driskell. He's simply very good.....and as I said in my last line....try someone else, don't care who it is.

(11-22-2018, 12:37 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: It was a great catch.  But Marvin pointed out the problem, the route was wrong.  It was supposed to be a deeper route.  If the route was deeper, the catch doesn't need to be as spectacular as the ball is lower, and it results in a first down.

We saw it with Ross, and we are seeing it with Tate, run the route wrong and you don't get the snaps.  Nor should you, as the QB is going to throw the ball to where the receiver SHOULD be.  If you aren't there, it can be an easy turnover, so you are hurting the team.

No one wants to see guys drop balls, but until you can trust a guy is going to be in the correct position, you can't play him.  Even Tate stated he understands exactly what he needs to do better to get on the field and intends to work hard at it.



As to Jordan Franks, I think his role is expanding little by little as he learns the offense.  I think he still has limited knowledge of the playbook, but as he is learning more he is involved more.  With limited knowledge, though, he can only be a situational substitution.  Otherwise you can't go hurry up or audible at the line.  So far he looks like he can be a contributor.

I dont really care about someone getting benched for that. But they at least should be consistent about it team wide. How many times this year has a defensive player been out of position, yet was never benched? Marvin even said after a game that the 'defensive players need to be in better positions that they were told to be in', basically which is the equivalent of running a route wrong. Yet I never heard of any getting benched for being in the wrong spot on certain coverages or covering the wrong lanes or whatnot.

Here is what it all boils down to.

Neither Core nor Tate is a great WR. They both have flaws and they have both made mistakes. Overall Core has made a lot more catches in preseason and in regular season games. His rookie preseason and regular season performance was superior to Tate, but none of us really consider him to be a great WR. But for some reason a few people here have decided that Tate is much better than Core. The coaches have seen both of these players perform much more than any of us have. They made their decision based on a lot more knowledge than any of us have. And if yoiu say Tate should be benched fro a drop you have to say that tate should also be benched for his drops.

Personally I don't see either of them being a regular player for us, but since the coaches have so much more information than any of us I am not going to criticize them for playing Core over Tate. Most of the people here are basing their criticism on the fact that Core did not make the catch. The coaches did not know that would happen at the time they made their decision.

(11-21-2018, 05:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hey... you should never say never.

Jim Caldwell was fired after four seasons as head coach of the Lions, accumulating a 36-28 regular season record with an 0-2 mark in the playoffs.
Titans parted ways with Mike Mularkey, who had produced winning seasons in each of his two full years at the helm in Tennessee and after he won a game in the Playoffs.
Lovie Smith was fired by the Bears after a 10-6 season and an 81-63 record (with a Super Bowl appearance) in nine years.
Tony Dungy would become the first Buccaneer coach to be fired with a winning record.
Marty Schottenheimer, who holds the records for most wins without a Super Bowl, still couldn't get it done in the playoffs.

This post is getting ignored, and it shouldn’t be