(12-10-2020, 10:28 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: De Rio was not the only DC to turn us down. Lou was about ZT’s 5th or 6th choice.

VERY telling. Some of them were dumb selections. Like they didn't realize they are the Bengals. Like University of Florida's DC Grantham. NO WAY was he coming here. He's highly paid in college and Florida has a great program. He'll probably be a HC some day.

So they just wasted their own time.

For coaching candidates, they wanted to interview McDaniels who turned them down. After his fiasco with the Colts the year before, why bother?

And speaking of that, the Colts thought McDaniels was going to be their HC and he backed out...and they still got a high quality HC! So the time thing is way overblown.

Could you imagine if Zac backed out on us what candidate we would have hired? 

(12-10-2020, 10:33 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: I know, but I am just saying that the team didn't have Burrow yet, and the defensive talent on the roster was not what Washington had.  Those last few drafts are really paying dividends for them.  It isn't just Chase Young, as they spent three first round picks on their defensive line BEFORE Chase Young:

Jonathon Allen
Daron Payne
Montaze Sweat

With Alex Smith playing well and that defense, there are a lot of NFC teams hoping they don't draw them in the playoffs...if they should win their division.  

On paper, Dunlap, Atkins, Reader, Hubbard, and Lawson SHOULD have been able to generate more sacks than 13. The league leaders have 44. 44 sacks!

And I realize Reader was hurt, but we couldn't pass rush when he was here.

(12-10-2020, 10:39 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: VERY telling. Some of them were dumb selections. Like they didn't realize they are the Bengals. Like University of Florida's DC Grantham. NO WAY was he coming here. He's highly paid in college and Florida has a great program. He'll probably be a HC some day.

So they just wasted their own time.

For coaching candidates, they wanted to interview McDaniels who turned them down. After his fiasco with the Colts the year before, why bother?

And speaking of that, the Colts thought McDaniels was going to be their HC and he backed out...and they still got a high quality HC! So the time thing is way overblown.

Could you imagine if Zac backed out on us what candidate we would have hired?

(12-10-2020, 10:43 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: On paper, Dunlap, Atkins, Reader, Hubbard, and Lawson SHOULD have been able to generate more sacks than 13. The league leaders have 44. 44 sacks!

And I realize Reader was hurt, but we couldn't pass rush when he was here.

When he was hired, we didn't have Reader and guys on the tail end of their career vs. rookie contracts are not nearly as valuable.  

And doesn't it seem like every year we say how great the pass rush should be only to be incredibly disappointed when it isn't?  I think poor LB play in the past had a lot to do with that (easy checkdowns) and that is improving but still not there yet.  

(12-10-2020, 11:13 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: When he was hired, we didn't have Reader and guys on the tail end of their career vs. rookie contracts are not nearly as valuable.  

And doesn't it seem like every year we say how great the pass rush should be only to be incredibly disappointed when it isn't?  I think poor LB play in the past had a lot to do with that (easy checkdowns) and that is improving but still not there yet.  

I'm not sure Dunlap is on the back end of his career. I think scheme and coaching decisions took his productivity. For some reason, they seem to have wanted him gone at the end of last year...management kept him, and the coaches decided to just play him situationally.

But, YES on the pass rush. The Pass Rush and the Receivers. Seems EVERY YEAR there are threads about how talented those groups are and then they disappoint. (Although Boyd and Higgins have looked good this year.) We aren't 5 deep at WR.

I'm fairly interested in seeing the PFF Year End Group Rankings. I think those will be telling. Like last year, I recall our LB's allowing a huge amount of yardage. Like 1700 yards or so receiving if I recall correctly.

I kind of think Covington played decent and should be kept as depth. Shouldn't be starting, but as like a 3rd-4th DT.

The hiring of Taylor I think would have been better if he brought in proven coordinators with him.

Unfortunately, he really took the gamble by bringing in guys he was familiar with but didn't necessarily have a great resume for success for the roles they were taking. Anarumo was a fine DB coach but he had basically no success as a DC before coming in. We all know Turner's reputation coming in. And Taylor gambled on himself calling plays rather than having an experienced, proven offensive playcaller.

I blame the front office for taking a gamble on an inexperienced person, but I put just as much, if not more blame on Taylor for the staff he chose and continues to keep.

(12-10-2020, 11:51 AM)ochocincos Wrote: The hiring of Taylor I think would have been better if he brought in proven coordinators with him.

Unfortunately, he really took the gamble by bringing in guys he was familiar with but didn't necessarily have a great resume for success for the roles they were taking. Anarumo was a fine DB coach but he had basically no success as a DC before coming in. We all know Turner's reputation coming in. And Taylor gambled on himself calling plays rather than having an experienced, proven offensive playcaller.

I blame the front office for taking a gamble on an inexperienced person, but I put just as much, if not more blame on Taylor for the staff he chose and continues to keep.

I think a lot of people in the NFL sniffed out that this was going to fail and didn't want to associate with it.

There were a bunch of articles written about how this was a bad hire at the time. A lot of the board just didn't want to hear it.

I guess the Bengals sterling reputation in decisions was beyond reproach!

Even in Mike Brown's world I can't imagine how he can sell bringing this cluster _____ back ? Even if Taylor stumbles into another win it will just be nuts to sign up for another year of this.

(12-10-2020, 12:49 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Even in Mike Brown's world I can't imagine how he can sell bringing this cluster _____ back ? Even if Taylor stumbles into another win it will just be nuts to sign up for another year of this.

People may recall a decade ago when the Bengals went 4-12 with Palmer, Chad, and TO. They were set to pick 4th in the 2011 draft as a result.
Fans demanded that Marvin Lewis and the entire staff be replaced.
Mike Brown chose to keep all of Marvin Lewis, Bob Bratkowski, and Mike Zimmer despite fan pushback.
Palmer chose to retire instead of playing for those organization another year.

As we know, AJ Green and Andy Dalton were drafted, Chad traded.
Fans and experts alike predicted the Bengals wouldn't win a single game.

The Bengals went on to make the playoffs 5 years in a row, as we know.

I'm not saying this justifies Mike Brown being stubborn and sticking with the coaches despite opposition, but the team could have ended up (way) worse if he went with a new staff. Mike Brown may take that same approach with Taylor because he saw it pay off with Marvin Lewis (to an extent).

(12-10-2020, 01:03 PM)ochocincos Wrote: People may recall a decade ago when the Bengals went 4-12 with Palmer, Chad, and TO. They were set to pick 4th in the 2011 draft as a result.
Fans demanded that Marvin Lewis and the entire staff be replaced.
Mike Brown chose to keep all of Marvin Lewis, Bob Bratkowski, and Mike Zimmer despite fan pushback.
Palmer chose to retire instead of playing for those organization another year.

As we know, AJ Green and Andy Dalton were drafted, Chad traded.
Fans and experts alike predicted the Bengals wouldn't win a single game.

The Bengals went on to make the playoffs 5 years in a row, as we know.

I'm not saying this justifies Mike Brown being stubborn and sticking with the coaches despite opposition, but the team could have ended up (way) worse if he went with a new staff. Mike Brown may take that same approach with Taylor because he saw it pay off with Marvin Lewis (to an extent).

I'd say reasons he could keep Taylor are:

1 ) They knew they were hiring him really early in his career and it would take time to develop him.
2 ) Close losses are wins. (Really not, but some people think that.)
3 ) Burrow's injury. They won't want to change schemes when Burrow can't practice over the offseason.
4 ) Not wanting to pay 2 Coaching Staffs
5 ) Zac goes with the flow and doesn't push back on things they want him to do.
6 ) Burrow did look good as a passer. They may choose to ignore a bunch of flaws and just look at the passing.
7 ) They hired Zac. Firing him would be admitting they made a mistake.
8 ) I think they might view players playing hard as a endorsement for Zac
9 ) They might not want to cave in to fan pressure. They might want to show us they are right and we are wrong.

Generally they view late season wins as a coach turning the corner. Katie Blackburn sent out a bulk email around halfway through the season that talked about how every year, a team catches fire the 2nd half of the year. Obviously with the weak schedule we played, they thought we might win a bunch of games and used that as marketing fodder. Obviously that hasn't happened.

(12-10-2020, 01:03 PM)ochocincos Wrote: People may recall a decade ago when the Bengals went 4-12 with Palmer, Chad, and TO. They were set to pick 4th in the 2011 draft as a result.
Fans demanded that Marvin Lewis and the entire staff be replaced.
Mike Brown chose to keep all of Marvin Lewis, Bob Bratkowski, and Mike Zimmer despite fan pushback.
Palmer chose to retire instead of playing for those organization another year.

As we know, AJ Green and Andy Dalton were drafted, Chad traded.
Fans and experts alike predicted the Bengals wouldn't win a single game.

The Bengals went on to make the playoffs 5 years in a row, as we know.

I'm not saying this justifies Mike Brown being stubborn and sticking with the coaches despite opposition, but the team could have ended up (way) worse if he went with a new staff. Mike Brown may take that same approach with Taylor because he saw it pay off with Marvin Lewis (to an extent).

Unlike Taylor, Lewis had some success prior to that. ZT's peak was his very first game as HC. It's been all downhill from there and that game was a loss as well. 

Like Fred said and I agree (unusual) If they bring Taylor back you'll have no trouble getting tickets next season. 

(12-10-2020, 01:16 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I'd say reasons he could keep Taylor are:

1 ) They knew they were hiring him really early in his career and it would take time to develop him.
2 ) Close losses are wins. (Really not, but some people think that.)
3 ) Burrow's injury. They won't want to change schemes when Burrow can't practice over the offseason.
4 ) Not wanting to pay 2 Coaching Staffs
5 ) Zac goes with the flow and doesn't push back on things they want him to do.
6 ) Burrow did look good as a passer. They may choose to ignore a bunch of flaws and just look at the passing.
7 ) They hired Zac. Firing him would be admitting they made a mistake.
8 ) I think they might view players playing hard as a endorsement for Zac
9 ) They might not want to cave in to fan pressure. They might want to show us they are right and we are wrong.

Generally they view late season wins as a coach turning the corner. Katie Blackburn sent out a bulk email around halfway through the season that talked about how every year, a team catches fire the 2nd half of the year. Obviously with the weak schedule we played, they thought we might win a bunch of games and used that as marketing fodder. Obviously that hasn't happened.

I believe that's the biggest thing, ego.

(12-10-2020, 01:16 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I'd say reasons he could keep Taylor are:

1 ) They knew they were hiring him really early in his career and it would take time to develop him.
2 ) Close losses are wins. (Really not, but some people think that.)
3 ) Burrow's injury. They won't want to change schemes when Burrow can't practice over the offseason.
4 ) Not wanting to pay 2 Coaching Staffs
5 ) Zac goes with the flow and doesn't push back on things they want him to do.
6 ) Burrow did look good as a passer. They may choose to ignore a bunch of flaws and just look at the passing.
7 ) They hired Zac. Firing him would be admitting they made a mistake.
8 ) I think they might view players playing hard as a endorsement for Zac
9 ) They might not want to cave in to fan pressure. They might want to show us they are right and we are wrong.

Generally they view late season wins as a coach turning the corner. Katie Blackburn sent out a bulk email around halfway through the season that talked about how every year, a team catches fire the 2nd half of the year. Obviously with the weak schedule we played, they thought we might win a bunch of games and used that as marketing fodder. Obviously that hasn't happened.

1) If they basically were willing to go through the hardships of terrible seasons, they should have been open and honest to fans about that. But they probably would have sold (way) fewer tickets, so maybe not lol.
2) You and I agree on this one. A close loss is better than a blowout, but we can't keep using this as an excuse.
3) If the Bengals had a winning record with Burrow before he went down, I would agree. But they won 2.5 games with him. It's not just him being out.
4) Suck it up on paying coaching staffs. The team has (or should have) plenty of money to do that.
5) We don't know that for sure, but it was said by Marvin that basically the FO vote trumps the coaches if there's a disagreement.
6) One would hope they acknowledge that the OL and front 7 were terrible this year and put in a better effort to improve it. Simply adding a NT (Reader), a C-tier journeyman LB (Bynes), and a C-tier OG (XSF) was not enough to turn terrible into quality.
7) They need to admit mistakes. It's part of accountability. If they keep down this path, they will (continue to) lose the fanbase in what's already a small market.
8) Are the players really playing hard for Taylor? I've seen multiple instances where what seems hardly any effort is made. AJ Green jogging on a route until he saw Burrow throw it to him (he didn't catch it cuz he wasn't where he was supposed to be). Multiple OL not even try to get their hands up and onto a defender. Maybe this was because the defender shifted into a different zone, but I really hate when I see an OL not block someone. Go after someone.
9) They took that approach with Marvin. We ultimately saw a better stretch of winning in 2011-2015 than we saw in 2005-2010. But Marvin had established winning seasons before 2011. Taylor has the worst record of any team since the start of 2019. He has no previous success to lean on.

(12-10-2020, 01:28 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I believe that's the biggest thing, ego.

I feel like that's an assumption, though.  We've seen stubbornness from the Brown family over the years without a doubt.  But that doesn't 100% equal ego not allowing for any change.  The Bengals have fired plenty of coaches in the past that they've hired.  So they've admitted a guy's time is over before.  Why should this be any different?  

The only reason I see them sticking with Zac is if they think he could turn the corner with one more offseason or draft or needs to have 3-4 years like they probably discussed when they hired him.  If they don't fire Zac this year (and I hope they do), I don't think the first conclusion I'll jump to is that it was because the family refuses to admit they hired the wrong guy.  I could see them just trying to give him the time they initially expected.  Now they probably expected/hoped that they'd get 7 wins this year and next year make the playoffs, so it's certainly not the start they wanted.  But that doesn't mean they'll jump out now if they said 3 or 4 years from the start.  

I think fan outcry does make a difference with this team.  I think it came to a head with Lewis and put his neck on the block.  And I think it could sway the org to release Taylor after this season.  Time will tell.  But I'm not ready to say that the decision on Taylor either way is going to just be ego.

(12-10-2020, 01:28 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I believe that's the biggest thing, ego.

I just posted another article that talks about how they're phasing veterans out and have close losses. Belief is he will brought back.

It totally discounts that the Dolphins gutted their entire roster and have rebuilt and are 8-4 now in 1 season and all the money the Bengals spent this offseason.

I mean how can you say 'We want a culture of winning, and have a coach that won 4.5 games in 2 years?'

I feel like people will go to games to see Burrow.

(12-10-2020, 01:36 PM)ochocincos Wrote: 1) If they basically were willing to go through the hardships of terrible seasons, they should have been open and honest to fans about that. But they probably would have sold (way) fewer tickets, so maybe not lol.
2) You and I agree on this one. A close loss is better than a blowout, but we can't keep using this as an excuse.
3) If the Bengals had a winning record with Burrow before he went down, I would agree. But they won 2.5 games with him. It's not just him being out.
4) Suck it up on paying coaching staffs. The team has (or should have) plenty of money to do that.
5) We don't know that for sure, but it was said by Marvin that basically the FO vote trumps the coaches if there's a disagreement.
6) One would hope they acknowledge that the OL and front 7 were terrible this year and put in a better effort to improve it. Simply adding a NT (Reader), a C-tier journeyman LB (Bynes), and a C-tier OG (XSF) was not enough to turn terrible into quality.
7) They need to admit mistakes. It's part of accountability. If they keep down this path, they will (continue to) lose the fanbase in what's already a small market.
8) Are the players really playing hard for Taylor? I've seen multiple instances where what seems hardly any effort is made. AJ Green jogging on a route until he saw Burrow throw it to him (he didn't catch it cuz he wasn't where he was supposed to be). Multiple OL not even try to get their hands up and onto a defender. Maybe this was because the defender shifted into a different zone, but I really hate when I see an OL not block someone. Go after someone.
9) They took that approach with Marvin. We ultimately saw a better stretch of winning in 2011-2015 than we saw in 2005-2010. But Marvin had established winning seasons before 2011. Taylor has the worst record of any team since the start of 2019. He has no previous success to lean on.

Yeah, they're all non-sense. I was one of the biggest Taylor critics before it became cool to be one. I thought he was a TERRIBLE hire from the start.

I never could have imagined he was 4.5 wins in 2 years bad.

(12-10-2020, 01:50 PM)MileHighGrowler Wrote: I feel like that's an assumption, though.  We've seen stubbornness from the Brown family over the years without a doubt.  But that doesn't 100% equal ego not allowing for any change.  The Bengals have fired plenty of coaches in the past that they've hired.  So they've admitted a guy's time is over before.  Why should this be any different?  

The only reason I see them sticking with Zac is if they think he could turn the corner with one more offseason or draft or needs to have 3-4 years like they probably discussed when they hired him.  If they don't fire Zac this year (and I hope they do), I don't think the first conclusion I'll jump to is that it was because the family refuses to admit they hired the wrong guy.  I could see them just trying to give him the time they initially expected.  Now they probably expected/hoped that they'd get 7 wins this year and next year make the playoffs, so it's certainly not the start they wanted.  But that doesn't mean they'll jump out now if they said 3 or 4 years from the start.  

I think fan outcry does make a difference with this team.  I think it came to a head with Lewis and put his neck on the block.  And I think it could sway the org to release Taylor after this season.  Time will tell.  But I'm not ready to say that the decision on Taylor either way is going to just be ego.

My prediction is they keep Zac and Lou. On Twitter, the defense actually gets some praise from some for allowing under 20 points 4 weeks in a row.

They'll probably fire someone like Callahan and make him the fall guy for the offensive struggles. Not sure if they'll fire Turner or not. He's REALLY close with Taylor. They'll probably draft Sewell and throw some money at a Guard...but probably not Thuney. He'll cost too much.

That's my guess of how the offseason will go.

So yeah...none of the coaches the fans want fired will be fired, and they'll sacrifice Callahan and probably like Eason the DL coach.

(12-10-2020, 10:35 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yeah and in Kingsbury's 1st year, you could see strides made with their offense.

Here, our passing and scoring ratings are similar to last years rankings. And our running game is arguably much worse, despite adding Jonah, XSF, getting rid of Miller, etc. ie They made moves and it got WORSE.

 To be fair...XSF hasn't even played one full game yet. They shoulda canned Jordan and kept Miller....lol.

....and Mixon has been out a hot minute too.

(12-10-2020, 01:58 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: My prediction is they keep Zac and Lou. On Twitter, the defense actually gets some praise from some for allowing under 20 points 4 weeks in a row.

They'll probably fire someone like Callahan and make him the fall guy for the offensive struggles. Not sure if they'll fire Turner or not. He's REALLY close with Taylor. They'll probably draft Sewell and throw some money at a Guard...but probably not Thuney. He'll cost too much.

That's my guess of how the offseason will go.

So yeah...none of the coaches the fans want fired will be fired, and they'll sacrifice Callahan and probably like Eason the DL coach.

What exactly are Callahan's responsibilities if Zac is the one calling the plays?
Is it that Zac writes up the plays and Callahan coaches the players to learn them?
Or does Zac also teach the players how to run the plays?