(11-22-2018, 12:42 PM)Beaker Wrote: Stop it. You're going to spoil the negativity.

No it won't, because practically every word that comes out of incompetent yet foolishly arrogant Marv's pie hole is gasoline poured on the fire of negativity.  And Marv will go on feeding the fire as long as he is here and probably for a while after he's gone, if he ever leaves.  Plus, he's got the deadly one two combo of stupid words and stupid deeds.


If watching the whole operation go straight down the crapper doesn't elicit a negative response from you, so be it.  Maybe instead of snarky little comments about how others see the whole mess, you might prove how they're wrong.

(11-22-2018, 12:42 PM)McC Wrote: Marvin has never been ripped for being too aggressive, mainly because it's something he has literally never been.  And the winning play in the Steelers game was on Austin and it was not aggressive, it was just plain stupid.  Burfict even said so.

 Your analysis is Marvin gets blame (not Lazor) if offense is not aggressive enough for you, but if to aggressive on defense, it was no ML?????
I say ML gets credit or blame way too much. Players and other coaches way to little.

The OC and DC call the plays (or did prior to DC being fired) so blame them, and while you are at it blame the players for not doing their job, Bullock misses a kick that changes momentum and gives Ravens ball back at the 42 setting up Tucker game winning 56 yard field goal. Great players make great plays to win games so they excuse it was a long kick it is BS, great players make tough catches, great QB's make great throws and great RB's break tackles to win games. The Core catch was not even tough, Core blew it. If players would perform, we would win a lot more games. They aree paid to perform, do your damn job!

(11-22-2018, 10:40 AM)Trademark Wrote: Then again Marvin will probably bench Joe for the rest of the year

 ^ I would bet this!

I'm quickly becoming a HUGE fan of this young man.....you go Joe. I love it. Anyone that remembered when we drafted him, this is a 180 for me.

(11-22-2018, 12:36 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I also saw one of the replies of  that tweet in the op of someone saying that Mixon wasn't even out out there when it was 3rd and 3 and 4th and 3. Im sure that was frustrating for him as well

But yeah on that article, to have Boyd, Ross, Gio, and Uzomah out there, Lazor drew up a play & personnel that somehow ended with a pass to Core on that 4th down. This while Mixon was on the bench.

When we played the Steelers, they drew up a play for AB on that critical play that ended in a TD. Pick or not, it worked and they knew exactly what they wanted to do. Bengals on a critical 4th down, can't draw a circle in the sand and Andy ends up throwing to Core, the last one that should have had a pass thrown to him.

If you saw the all 22, he was the only one open. I blame the coaches for subbing that bum in. With a TO no less.....

(11-22-2018, 12:51 PM)Goalpost Wrote: A lot of guys come from winning college programs.  Probably in high school also.  Losing is hard to take.  It's not a bad thing he is saying.

Good point. It is probably why the players from winning programs take a few years to become Bungalized. The team should really focus their draft on players from losing programs so they assimilate quicker. 

(11-22-2018, 01:20 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote:  Your analysis is Marvin gets blame (not Lazor) if offense is not aggressive enough for you, but if to aggressive on defense, it was no ML?????
I say ML gets credit or blame way too much. Players and other coaches way to little.

The OC and DC call the plays (or did prior to DC being fired) so blame them, and while you are at it blame the players for not doing their job, Bullock misses a kick that changes momentum and gives Ravens ball back at the 42 setting up Tucker game winning 56 yard field goal. Great players make great plays to win games so they excuse it was a long kick it is BS, great players make tough catches, great QB's make great throws and great RB's break tackles to win games. The Core catch was not even tough, Core blew it. If players would perform, we would win a lot more games. They aree paid to perform, do your damn job!

This is true.  As much as we blast the coaches for calling bonehead plays.

Players have been put in position in many games and not executed.

Plenty of blame to go around.

(11-22-2018, 12:39 PM)McC Wrote: Ask any child with even half a lick of sense and they will explain it to you.  Ask any imbecile who can't even write his own name and he will explain it to you.

I am asking you.  Why won't you explain it to me?

(11-22-2018, 12:42 PM)McC Wrote: Marvin has never been ripped for being too aggressive, mainly because it's something he has literally never been. 

Sig bet that I can find 5 posts criticizing Marvin for being too aggressive at the end of the first half of first Ravens game.

You want to take it?


Also at the end of the Pittsburg game we need a TD to win.  So isn't going for the td "playing to win".  Isn't anyone who worried about the Steelers scoring a td which would cause us to lose "playing not to lose"?


I don't thinkanyone will try to define the difference for me because they want to be able to say anything Marvin does wrong is "playing not to lose".

(11-22-2018, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is the difference between "playing to win" and "playing not to lose"?

Playing not to lose would mean you're content with a tie.

FWIW, I don't Marvin does this any more than any other coach in the NFL

(11-22-2018, 05:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Playing not to lose would mean you're content with a tie.

Thanks.  That makes perfect sense.

Except I don't recal a game this year where Marvin has settled for a tie instead of going for the win.

Can anybody help me wout with this?

(11-22-2018, 12:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is the difference between "playing to win" and "playing not to lose"?

Playing to win is staying aggressive and not playing scared.

Playing to lose is prevent defense and only run plays on offense.

Simple. 

(11-22-2018, 06:15 PM)CornerBlitz Wrote: Playing to win is staying aggressive and not playing scared.

Playing to lose is prevent defense and only run plays on offense.

Simple. 

Welll that is pretty stupid because Marvin has never lost a game by being too conservative with run plays on offense.

But he lost to the Steelers this year when he went for a td instead of running the ball because he was svcared of the Steelers coming back, and then on defense he lost on an all out blitz on defense.

And he lost to the Bucs in 2010 because he was throwing the ball at the end of the game instead of running out the clock.

It would be nice to see Mixon and others cause a big enough stink to finally get Merv outta here.

(11-22-2018, 06:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Welll that is pretty stupid because Marvin has never lost a game by being too conservative with run plays on offense.

But he lost to the Steelers this year when he went for a td instead of running the ball because he was svcared of the Steelers coming back, and then on defense he lost on an all out blitz on defense.

And he lost to the Bucs in 2010 because he was throwing the ball at the end of the game instead of running out the clock.

I have a question for you.  Are you choosing to defend Marvin Lewis because you seriously believe that he's the right man to coach the Bengals, or because it's really easy for you to pick up the unpopular side of an argument, due to the nature of your profession?  Understand, I'm not judging you, either way.  It's just that many of us were completely devastated when Marvin was brought back on yet another two year extension.  Most of those same folks that were devastated, got a rush of enthusiasm when Coach Pollack was hired to replace Paul Alexander, and the team appeared to be making rather uncharacteristic moves to make the team stronger.

Fast forward to now, after injuries have riddled a team that was off to a promising start, a defensive coordinator was fired for taking a once proud unit to historically bad, and now we have our young featured RB tweeting discontent with the game plan.  For all intents and purposes, the team appears to have mentally "checked out" at this point.  Do you still feel that Marvin Lewis is the right man for the job, as HC of the Cincinnati Bengals?

Why does everyone assume he's talking about Marvin? Seems to me he's talking about the players on the field.

(11-22-2018, 07:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I have a question for you.  Are you choosing to defend Marvin Lewis because you seriously believe that he's the right man to coach the Bengals, or because it's really easy for you to pick up the unpopular side of an argument, due to the nature of your profession?  Understand, I'm not judging you, either way.  It's just that many of us were completely devastated when Marvin was brought back on yet another two year extension.  Most of those same folks that were devastated, got a rush of enthusiasm when Coach Pollack was hired to replace Paul Alexander, and the team appeared to be making rather uncharacteristic moves to make the team stronger.

Fast forward to now, after injuries have riddled a team that was off to a promising start, a defensive coordinator was fired for taking a once proud unit to historically bad, and now we have our young featured RB tweeting discontent with the game plan.  For all intents and purposes, the team appears to have mentally "checked out" at this point.  Do you still feel that Marvin Lewis is the right man for the job, as HC of the Cincinnati Bengals?

That’s what they said last year too.

(11-22-2018, 07:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why does everyone assume he's talking about Marvin? Seems to me he's talking about the players on the field.

Yes...  specifically Gio.

So we are siding with the players this time?

(11-22-2018, 05:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sig bet that I can find 5 posts criticizing Marvin for being too aggressive at the end of the first half of first Ravens game.

You want to take it?


Also at the end of the Pittsburg game we need a TD to win.  So isn't going for the td "playing to win".  Isn't anyone who worried about the Steelers scoring a td which would cause us to lose "playing not to lose"?


I don't thinkanyone will try to define the difference for me because they want to be able to say anything Marvin does wrong is "playing not to lose".

Others will undoubtedly keep playing your goofy little game but I'm taking myself out.  You win, or whatever the hell it is you're trying to do.  Troll on.