This was the perfect time to replace Marvin. In fact, it should have been done a long time ago as both you and I know.

Some of these candidates aren't household names but that doesn't mean they won't pan out. The Bengals weren't going to get any of the hot name candidates anyway so that is besides the point.

No year was a bad year to replace Marv.

(01-08-2019, 02:43 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Obviously we all (most?) wanted him gone, but from what I've read (and I kinda felt this way already) this is a pretty weak crop of candidates, with a ton of openings (8). In years past, there's always been 2-3 hot candidates with sparkling resumes, with fewer openings. Guys like Pederson, Nagy, Reich, McVay etc.

Now it seems each of the current candidates has serious questions.

Bieniemy - Pretty green. 1 year as OC and didn't call plays.
Monken - His offense produced a lot of yards, but also a lot of turnovers. Wasn't as impressive in previous years.
Taylor - No coordinator experience
Waldron - See Taylor
McDaniels - failed miserably as a HC already, yet he's very choosy (thankfully)
Joseph - Failed miserably in Denver
Arians - Good coach, but only interested in coaching 1 team

I guess we can hope that the Bengals are waiting on a guy that's still coaching. So who is your favorite candidate that is still coaching? Do you think we're in a tough year to fill the spot?

YES, because the BEST year would have been hiring Zimmer or Gruden before they left.  MOST Bengals Fans on old mothership site on Bengals.com were on this.  Fire or promote Lewis and make Zimmer or Gruden head coach.  Right now we could have Lewis in Tobin's job and Zimmer or Gruden as Head Coach.  

So YES it is the wrong year in that this should have been done a couple years ago to promote and keep either Zimmer or Gruden. My choice back then was Keep Zimmer. 

Dammit.. I just typed a long response then the windows reconfig thing wiped it out.. I don't enjoy Windows..never have, never will..

Anyway... Are we REALLY to believe that being a head coach in the NFL should be so painful that we should only consider one of only a small handful of humans for the job? Of only 32 possible jobs we're given a list of only a handful of guys who probably don't have advanced PhD degrees in much of anything much less professional football coaching. It's not even listed as a possible major at any university that I'm aware of so why are we continually being told that only a very small segment of the best and brightest are ever considered? (Actually we aren't)
Consider what most student athletes actually study in college.. 
From Bleacher report (although it's hardly the definitive list)

1. "Here are the most popular majors for each of the schools in the ACC:
   • Boston College: Arts and Sciences (enrolled in school)
   • Clemson: Parks, recreation and tourism management
   • Duke: Sociology
   • Florida State: Social science
   • Georgia Tech: Business administration
   • Louisville: Communication
   • Miami: Sport administration
   • North Carolina: Exercise and sport science
   • NC State: N/A*
   • Notre Dame: First Year of Studies
   • Pittsburgh: Arts and Sciences (enrolled in school)
   • Syracuse: Communication
   • Virginia: Arts and sciences
   • Virginia Tech: Human development
   • Wake Forest: N/A**"
     

Well, at least Clemson isn't playing around, eh? You really have to think that most coaches don't exactly have a long academic resume compared with say... CEO's of major corporations..? In other words, football is football and not NASA.. They aren't recruiting guys with a lot of academic backgrounds. I have to assume most coaches are just former football players and most of them are guys who didn't really become the stud players we read about every Sunday morning in the newspaper. Many of the guys we generally view as great coaches never made it to the NFL as players. A few have, but most never did.
Does this really make any sense? We're given a handful of names of guys who probably attended college as student athletes with those great academic qualifications that in any other occupation might have gotten them a job as the janitor...MAYBE the manager that every employee is obligated to hate the rest of their lives..
Why don't we ever hear of coaching candidates with PhD's in rocket science? Well, because it ain't rocket science. It's football. 
Are we to believe that NFL coaches have some super secret knowledge unobtainable by the rest of humanity? Is there some super secret field of study that the average human can't possibly learn without first getting that degree in Parks, recreation and tourism management?
This just blows my mind to think that of the millions upon millions of Americans ONLY 32 people in any given year with a few exceptions will ever become head coaches in the league and to my knowledge one of them have ever had to spend YEARS of the academic slog most people have to go through to get a job earning even a fraction of a football players salary. 
Are we REALLY supposed to believe that ONLY 32 guys are ever qualified? That's just a tad more than absurd isn't it?

(01-08-2019, 02:43 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Obviously we all (most?) wanted him gone, but from what I've read (and I kinda felt this way already) this is a pretty weak crop of candidates, with a ton of openings (8). In years past, there's always been 2-3 hot candidates with sparkling resumes, with fewer openings. Guys like Pederson, Nagy, Reich, McVay etc.

Now it seems each of the current candidates has serious questions.

Bieniemy - Pretty green. 1 year as OC and didn't call plays.
Monken - His offense produced a lot of yards, but also a lot of turnovers. Wasn't as impressive in previous years.
Taylor - No coordinator experience
Waldron - See Taylor
McDaniels - failed miserably as a HC already, yet he's very choosy (thankfully)
Joseph - Failed miserably in Denver
Arians - Good coach, but only interested in coaching 1 team

I guess we can hope that the Bengals are waiting on a guy that's still coaching. So who is your favorite candidate that is still coaching? Do you think we're in a tough year to fill the spot?

Now that Arians has his health under control, I would love that guy.  I think he would also like to stick it to the steelers.  

He doesn't have to be the coordinator, but the guy in charge that gets his guys ready to play and commands their best effort.  I understand him wanting to coach in Tampa because of the offensive weapons, but line their offense up next to ours.  And we don't have the QB issues, either. 

I would make a serious run at him.

I wanted Bienemy (maybe because he had one of the best Berman nicknames ever:  "Eric, sleeping with Bienemy", but his rap sheet isn't what I want as HC and his lack of experience makes me nervous as well.  

(01-09-2019, 09:40 AM)SHRacerX Wrote:  "Eric, sleeping with Bienemy", 

Pitching or catching with big Ben?

(01-09-2019, 04:51 AM)kevin Wrote: YES, because the BEST year would have been hiring Zimmer or Gruden before they left.  MOST Bengals Fans on old mothership site on Bengals.com were on this.  Fire or promote Lewis and make Zimmer or Gruden head coach.  Right now we could have Lewis in Tobin's job and Zimmer or Gruden as Head Coach.  

So YES it is the wrong year in that this should have been done a couple years ago to promote and keep either Zimmer or Gruden. My choice back then was Keep Zimmer. 

Agreed .we had a good head coach on staff and let him walk.  frustrating 

(01-09-2019, 04:51 AM)kevin Wrote: YES, because the BEST year would have been hiring Zimmer or Gruden before they left.  MOST Bengals Fans on old mothership site on Bengals.com were on this.  Fire or promote Lewis and make Zimmer or Gruden head coach.  Right now we could have Lewis in Tobin's job and Zimmer or Gruden as Head Coach.  

So YES it is the wrong year in that this should have been done a couple years ago to promote and keep either Zimmer or Gruden. My choice back then was Keep Zimmer. 

Yes. We should be trying to figure out if Zimmer is still the guy right about now not the Vikes. 

(01-09-2019, 02:09 AM)Bengal Dude Wrote: Kingsbury was Pac 12 for about 1 month. One of the craziest coaching paths ever.

Yeah, I know. I meant the PAC comment as a joke. But the joke is on me since I can't seem to remember that it is the PAC-12 nowadays! (LOL!)


Today the air personalities out here have hardly mentioned Kingsbury. Instead, they are trashing Bruce Arians for going to Tampa. BA was HC out here and then retired, but came back for the Tampa job. Apparently, they think that he has deceived them somehow.

I had the same thought about this being a weak year to hire a HC.

All of these guys are unproven and have a ton of risk.

I think Bienemy and Taylor have the most upside. I'd go Taylor.

Am I confident that Taylor will be better than Marvin? No.

(01-09-2019, 10:09 AM)Benton Wrote: Agreed .we had a good head coach on staff and let him walk.  frustrating 

MB would have NEVER co-existed with Zimmer. Never.

(01-09-2019, 10:50 AM)Atomic Orange Wrote: Yes. We should be trying to figure out if Zimmer is still the guy right about now not the Vikes. 

Can't use the old practice facility bubble argument here, can we?  They have one of the most amazing practice facilities in the entire NFL. 

(01-09-2019, 09:31 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Am I confident that Taylor will be better than Marvin? No.

You can be confident that he won’t be any worse.

There were plenty of good years we should have parted with Marvin, but never a bad one. Regardless who we get, the FO is going to feel pressure to turn this around quickly. I’m not so sold that the next guy has job security. The fans nor city can handle another 16yrs of crap.

(01-10-2019, 08:44 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: You can be confident that he won’t be any worse.

There were plenty of good years we should have parted with Marvin, but never a bad one. Regardless who we get, the FO is going to feel pressure to turn this around quickly. I’m not so sold that the next guy has job security. The fans nor city can handle another 16yrs of crap.

People on here act like Marvin was the worst coach ever and that any hire will be better by default. That's not really the case.

In the playoffs he was bad.

But, he came into a 2-14 team and had us what 8-8 the next year. Our rosters were greatly improved under him. We were way more competitive during the regular seasons.

It was time to part ways with Marvin, but there are worse coaches out there and if you look at 2016...Pederson was a hit that year. ALL of the other coaches hired have been fired already. ALL of them.

This rationale is the same here:

They staunchly denied it while Mike McCarthy served as head coach, but they’re admitting it now.

The Packers had grown satisfied, and it was time to rid the team of that feeling.

During Wednesday’s press conference introducing new coach Matt LaFleur, CEO Mark Murphy explained that he gathered information from nine players (one from each position group) regarding what the players hoped to achieve under a new coach.

“They wanted someone who would hold the players accountable,” Murphy explained. “They felt a complacency had set in among some players and coaches. . . . Is there something we could do to shake people up so they don’t have the complacency?”

That’s the key word: Complacency. As in getting rid of it. Which means, obviously, that McCarthy was ultimately responsible for creating it.

It’s no surprise, especially in light of the absence of a traditional owner. Indeed, PFT has pointed out the signs and symptoms of complacency, and the friction it created, over the past several years. During the 2016 season, quarterback Aaron Rodgers complained openly about a lack of energy on the sidelines. Not long after that, he bemoaned the absence of a healthy fear of getting fired if players weren’t doing their jobs.

Both gripes trace to the head coach, and Rodgers’ willingness to openly comment on those dynamics were interpreted by some (us) as a passive-aggressive tug-of-war between Rodgers and McCarthy.

Aaron didn’t appreciate that very much. He didn’t appreciate it perhaps because the arrow hit the bull’s-eye. And Murphy has now admitted it.

It’s a bit stunning that Murphy was so candid, and it’s not a good sign for McCarthy, if as he claims he intends to return to coaching in 2020. Beyond concerns about an overly simplistic (and obsessively rigid) offensive philosophy, McCarthy will (or at least should) have to answer tough questions about how and why complacency descended onto the Packers under his watch.

(01-09-2019, 05:50 AM)grampahol Wrote: Dammit.. I just typed a long response then the windows reconfig thing wiped it out.. I don't enjoy Windows..never have, never will..

Anyway... Are we REALLY to believe that being a head coach in the NFL should be so painful that we should only consider one of only a small handful of humans for the job? Of only 32 possible jobs we're given a list of only a handful of guys who probably don't have advanced PhD degrees in much of anything much less professional football coaching. It's not even listed as a possible major at any university that I'm aware of so why are we continually being told that only a very small segment of the best and brightest are ever considered? (Actually we aren't)
Consider what most student athletes actually study in college.. 
From Bleacher report (although it's hardly the definitive list)

1. "Here are the most popular majors for each of the schools in the ACC:
   • Boston College: Arts and Sciences (enrolled in school)
   • Clemson: Parks, recreation and tourism management
   • Duke: Sociology
   • Florida State: Social science
   • Georgia Tech: Business administration
   • Louisville: Communication
   • Miami: Sport administration
   • North Carolina: Exercise and sport science
   • NC State: N/A*
   • Notre Dame: First Year of Studies
   • Pittsburgh: Arts and Sciences (enrolled in school)
   • Syracuse: Communication
   • Virginia: Arts and sciences
   • Virginia Tech: Human development
   • Wake Forest: N/A**"
     

Well, at least Clemson isn't playing around, eh? You really have to think that most coaches don't exactly have a long academic resume compared with say... CEO's of major corporations..? In other words, football is football and not NASA.. They aren't recruiting guys with a lot of academic backgrounds. I have to assume most coaches are just former football players and most of them are guys who didn't really become the stud players we read about every Sunday morning in the newspaper. Many of the guys we generally view as great coaches never made it to the NFL as players. A few have, but most never did.
Does this really make any sense? We're given a handful of names of guys who probably attended college as student athletes with those great academic qualifications that in any other occupation might have gotten them a job as the janitor...MAYBE the manager that every employee is obligated to hate the rest of their lives..
Why don't we ever hear of coaching candidates with PhD's in rocket science? Well, because it ain't rocket science. It's football. 
Are we to believe that NFL coaches have some super secret knowledge unobtainable by the rest of humanity? Is there some super secret field of study that the average human can't possibly learn without first getting that degree in Parks, recreation and tourism management?
This just blows my mind to think that of the millions upon millions of Americans ONLY 32 people in any given year with a few exceptions will ever become head coaches in the league and to my knowledge one of them have ever had to spend YEARS of the academic slog most people have to go through to get a job earning even a fraction of a football players salary. 
Are we REALLY supposed to believe that ONLY 32 guys are ever qualified? That's just a tad more than absurd isn't it?

Education level isn't everything. You could take the most educated minds on the planet, and they're not going to make the best list of Drill Sergeant candidates. Some jobs take a certain type of man or mentality.

(01-10-2019, 08:08 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: Can't use the old practice facility bubble argument here, can we?  They have one of the most amazing practice facilities in the entire NFL. 

Well they did win a playoff game, and their franchise is generally more successful than ours.

Like father, like son. Paul denied Bill Walsh. Mike kept Marv to deny others.

(01-09-2019, 09:31 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I had the same thought about this being a weak year to hire a HC.

All of these guys are unproven and have a ton of risk.

I think Bienemy and Taylor have the most upside. I'd go Taylor.

Am I confident that Taylor will be better than Marvin? No.

At least his system was created in the current century, a thing which gives him a big leg up on Marvin.

It was a great year to replace Marvin.
With Marvin, you knew what you were getting...between 6 and 10 wins.
With a new coach, you’re either getting:
- winning record, maybe playoffs!
- middle of the road, so no different than Marvin
- bad record which means high pick in 2020

So there’s really no way this is worse than Marvin, as there are benefits from every outcome!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-10-2019, 03:11 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Well they did win a playoff game, and their franchise is generally more successful than ours.

I get it, but over the past 15 years, have they really been?  They only got the facility a year ago, though, and they did get one of the most coveted FAs (You like that!! Kirk Cousins).