(12-08-2020, 03:04 PM)Wyche Wrote: They somewhat had it together until 1991. They were in the playoff hunt several times in the 70s, but there weren't very many spots to be had in those days. They obviously went to a couple of SBs in the 80s....where they took the Patriots of the day to the wire both times. The 9ers beat the absolute shit out of everyone else they faced back then. 

This is SOLELY on Mike Brown.

Yeah. So Mike Brown took over in 1991. But, modern free agency also started in 1992. I think at some level those are related.

Free agency and a salary cap also implies you can lose players. We need a better scouting department! Having coaches scout at a high level just isn't practical.

We know that MB doesn't really like free agency. Props to the team for spending this past offseason. It's rare when they shell out that amount of cash for free agents. I liked the Reader and Bell signings especially. Alexander was a nice 1 year deal. I thought the Waynes signing was meh, but they changed up from Kirkpatrick who they deemed as not working.

(12-08-2020, 03:11 PM)Gdale_Bengal Wrote: I don’t dislike anyone here, but I find it difficult to believe someone who says Hart is a fine OT or he has had a good year. Probably the most career defining play of Hart was on Sunday where he didn’t even lay a finger on a defender lined up over him on a pass play. That one play defines Harts career. Just awful.

But you can't define an entire career by just one bad play.

Offensive linemen are not like QBs.  No one even notices O-linemen until they mess up.  Hart has allowed less sacks than many other OTs in the league.  That would not be the case if that one horrible play defined his season or career.

What if the only Joe Burrow play you were shown was the stupid shovel pass interception against the Chargers?  I am not saying Hart has as many great plays as Burrow, but I am just pointing out that one really ugly play does not define a player.

(12-08-2020, 03:16 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yeah. So Mike Brown took over in 1991. But, modern free agency also started in 1992. I think at some level those are related.

Free agency and a salary cap also implies you can lose players. We need a better scouting department! Having coaches scout at a high level just isn't practical.

We know that MB doesn't really like free agency. Props to the team for spending this past offseason. It's rare when they shell out that amount of cash for free agents. I liked the Reader and Bell signings especially. Alexander was a nice 1 year deal. I thought the Waynes signing was meh, but they changed up from Kirkpatrick who they deemed as not working.

Right, he didn't adapt. So, who's to say Paul wouldn't have though? Right? We have no way of knowing that, but the old man made trades when he needed to. Now, he wasn't infallible, of course. He made the Walsh mistake. That's all up to speculation on the FA and Paul Brown. What we do know was that he was always onto some very innovative things in football.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see the FA haul this off-season. 

Looking at the numbers, they definitely tell the story of who knew football and who doesn't.

Paul Brown (68-90) 171-168-1
Mike Brown (91-Present) 190-282-4

You can say what you want about free agency and such changing the game. Paul's approach may not have worked moving forward, but Mike is just a giant piece of shit. Him and his 39.9 winning percentage can take a flying leap. Everything that is wrong with this organization is the man who sits at the top.

(12-08-2020, 03:24 PM)Wyche Wrote: Right, he didn't adapt. So, who's to say Paul wouldn't have though? Right? We have no way of knowing that, but the old man made trades when he needed to. Now, he wasn't infallible, of course. He made the Walsh mistake. That's all up to speculation on the FA and Paul Brown. What we do know was that he was always onto some very innovative things in football.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see the FA haul this off-season. 

 Question is will they do it again ? 

 It was out of character. But after seeing Burrow suffer the injury will they keep trying to seriously upgrade by big spending?

(12-08-2020, 10:34 AM)fredtoast Wrote: If you look at our entire history there are actually 6 teams with lower winning percentages than the Bengals since 1968.

Jets
Jags
Cards
Browns
Lions
Bucs


I am in no way saying this is anything to celebrate.  I just don't believe in cherry picking a date in order to inflate my claim of victimhood.

How is claiming this date any different than claiming any date on any complarison someone wants to make and what does victimhood have to do with anything?

It's relevant since it's the last time the Bengals made the playoffs and it's around the time Mike Brown took over. 

Victimhoodo doesn't have jack shit to do with it. 

(12-08-2020, 03:34 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote:  Question is will they do it again ? 

 It was out of character. But after seeing Burrow suffer the injury will they keep trying to seriously upgrade by big spending?

I expect the brain trust to take the same approach as Castellini is with the Reds. I expect them to cut payroll, use the pandemic as an excuse, and go about business as usual. In the past when Mike has been snake bit by free agency, he normally withdraws for awhile. I understand that we all want to believe that Katie, Troy, and Tobin run the show, but didn't Lewis say that Mike Brown still had the final word when he left? Didn't Mike say that he has daily meeting with Taylor or vice versa? Mike spent a lot of time and money to acquire 100% ownership of the team. I don't completely believe that he just sits back and lets the other 3 idiots run it by themselves.

(12-08-2020, 03:41 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: How is claiming this date any different than claiming any date on any complarison someone wants to make and what does victimhood have to do with anything?

It's relevant since it's the last time the Bengals made the playoffs and it's around the time Mike Brown took over. 

Victimhoodo doesn't have jack shit to do with it. 

Is it really "victimhood" when the owner is 92 games under .500? That's not directed at you, just agreeing with some different words.

The date is obviously relevant because this team was actually a winning (just barely) franchise before Mike Brown took over. Since he assumed control of the team, it's a much different story.

What if you look at the last 15 years?

(12-08-2020, 03:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But you can't define an entire career by just one bad play.

Offensive linemen are not like QBs.  No one even notices O-linemen until they mess up.  Hart has allowed less sacks than many other OTs in the league.  That would not be the case if that one horrible play defined his season or career.

What if the only Joe Burrow play you were shown was the stupid shovel pass interception against the Chargers?  I am not saying Hart has as many great plays as Burrow, but I am just pointing out that one really ugly play does not define a player.

Mike Brown has been owner of the Bengals since 1991. Is 30 years a valid and relevant window to judge how that has went?

(12-08-2020, 03:24 PM)Wyche Wrote: Right, he didn't adapt. So, who's to say Paul wouldn't have though? Right? We have no way of knowing that, but the old man made trades when he needed to. Now, he wasn't infallible, of course. He made the Walsh mistake. That's all up to speculation on the FA and Paul Brown. What we do know was that he was always onto some very innovative things in football.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see the FA haul this off-season. 

I feel like Paul Brown would have adapted eventually. He certainly wouldn't have tried the same thing over and over and over. (No GM/small scouting staff)

When the team hired Marvin, they interviewed Coughlin and he supposedly confided in friends that he didn't know if he could win here the way things were structured. He supposedly wanted some front office changes. Presumably a GM and league minimum scouting department. Seems realistic changes. Well here we are like 17 years or so later without either of those.

(12-08-2020, 03:32 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: Looking at the numbers, they definitely tell the story of who knew football and who doesn't.

Paul Brown (68-90) 171-168-1
Mike Brown (91-Present) 190-282-4

You can say what you want about free agency and such changing the game. Paul's approach may not have worked moving forward, but Mike is just a giant piece of shit. Him and his 39.9 winning percentage can take a flying leap. Everything that is wrong with this organization is the man who sits at the top.

Mike Browns record with Marvin Lewis................. .518 win%, 7 playoffs, only 6 losing seasons in 16 years
Mike Browns record with all other head coaches.. .273 win%,  zero winning seasons in 14 years


Marvin could not win the big games.  He had to go.  But he deserves more credit than he gets from a lot of people here.  He was coaching under a major handicap.

(12-08-2020, 03:01 PM)Wyche Wrote: Is this the part where we're supposed to be surprised? LoL. We had the "distinction" of having the worst decade of any sports franchise until the Matt Millen era and 0-16 in Detroit. Thanks Lions!

I distinctly remember sitting at a BP on a Sunday morning that the Bengals were playing the Rams in '99, reading the sports page (something people did before the triple dub was a thing). It was an article about the parallels of the teams in the past decade, etc etc. 

If you don't remember, that's the year Kurt Warner came in and led them to a SB win and rest is history. 

The Bengals just branched off that and found another team to contend with for basement-dweller supremacy. 

(12-08-2020, 03:41 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: How is claiming this date any different than claiming any date on any complarison someone wants to make and what does victimhood have to do with anything?

It's relevant since it's the last time the Bengals made the playoffs and it's around the time Mike Brown took over. 

Victimhoodo doesn't have jack shit to do with it. 

Yes - 30 years coincides to when the current ownership too over. The ownership still in charge.

Seems VERY relevant to me.

Seems that putting what Paul Brown did as owner in the mix would be less relevant...as he doesn't run the team now.

(12-08-2020, 03:32 PM)muskiesfan Wrote: Looking at the numbers, they definitely tell the story of who knew football and who doesn't.

Paul Brown (68-90) 171-168-1
Mike Brown (91-Present) 190-282-4

You can say what you want about free agency and such changing the game. Paul's approach may not have worked moving forward, but Mike is just a giant piece of shit. Him and his 39.9 winning percentage can take a flying leap. Everything that is wrong with this organization is the man who sits at the top.

Marvin Lewis was the beacon of light during that whole 91-Present era. Literally no one else could win. Did any other coach even win 9 games?

And 2 have failed spectacularly.

(12-08-2020, 03:46 PM)Pat5775 Wrote: What if you look at the last 15 years?

It's now pretty clear that Marv was an outlier and may have been a HoF coach had he gone to another franchise. 

Looking at MBs hires outside Merv, looks pretty pathetic.

(12-08-2020, 03:34 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote:  Question is will they do it again ? 

 It was out of character. But after seeing Burrow suffer the injury will they keep trying to seriously upgrade by big spending?

Million dollar question my man....we obviously hope they do. They eventually fixed the line after Palmer got bludgeoned, surely they will again. Those drafts of Og, Fish, and Price REALLY screwed us. For all the crap Dalton got, he deserves the football purple heart for the last 3 seasons he was here.

(12-08-2020, 03:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Mike Browns record with Marvin Lewis................. .518 win%, 7 playoffs, only 6 losing seasons in 16 years
Mike Browns record with all other head coaches.. .273 win%,  zero winning seasons in 14 years


Marvin could not win the big games.  He had to go.  But he deserves more credit than he gets from a lot of people here.  He was coaching under a major handicap.

I'll be first to admit, I have gained a whole new respect for Marvin. I always respected him for turning around this moribund franchise...but I was really ready to move on. I thought he was holding the team back, and some aspects, maybe he was....but he sure did make chicken salad outta chicken shit.

(12-08-2020, 04:01 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It's now pretty clear that Marv was an outlier and may have been a HoF coach had he gone to another franchise. 

Looking at MBs hires outside Merv, looks pretty pathetic.

Eh... Marvin’s coordinators made him look good. I’m not sure how much Mike Brown was involved behind the scenes during Marvs tenure, but Marvin’s overall coaching abilities on Sunday’s left a lot to be desired

(12-08-2020, 04:44 PM)Pat5775 Wrote: Eh... Marvin’s coordinators made him look good.

I don't know, he was saddled with Bob Bratowski when he came in and that dude stuck around for another 7 years.  He also had Chuck Breshnahan, and his patented "bend don't break" defense for a few years too.

IMHO, didn't have decent coodinators until we had Zimmer and Gruden, which was halfway through his tenure.