Sure he can get an OC job. . .


. . . Anywhere Mike Sherman is head coach.

Not a chance. He’s going to have to go back to being a position coach and work his way back up.

Same with Gase.

Does his dad own a chain of steakhouses? He'll have the pedigree to manage one once he's done here.

Imagine if we hired an OC coach with such a horrible record when a head coach. A tiny history before that, with one season of participation of a team that won the NFC out of nowhere. Fans would hate it and owner likely would shy away from it.

Then again, we hired him. Are we the only ones stupid enough?

(01-07-2021, 09:16 PM)Destro Wrote: Imagine if we hired an OC coach with such a horrible record when a head coach. A tiny history before that, with one season of participation of a team that won the NFC out of nowhere. Fans would hate it and owner likely would shy away from it.

Then again, we hired him. Are we the only ones stupid enough?

No, other teams do it, too.  Credit the Bengals for stepping outside of their usual comfort zone.  They followed the trend of hiring what they believed to be a bright, young mind from a wickedly potent offensive system.  

That move alone shows that they really want to inject some excitement back into the organization.  They followed it up with an uncharacteristic free agency spending spree, bigger than any of us can recollect.  One old tradition that they seem to still be clinging to is that they don't like to pay people that no longer work for them.

Now, with this being Katie's first coaching hire, I consider it a bit of learning experience on her part.  With the subsequent deviations from the historical norm in the Mike Brown era, I think that when the next HC change comes about, she will be much wiser and efficient.

(01-07-2021, 09:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No, other teams do it, too.  Credit the Bengals for stepping outside of their usual comfort zone.  They followed the trend of hiring what they believed to be a bright, young mind from a wickedly potent offensive system.  

 
While the Rams were not a certified flash in the pan, the idea of hiring a position coach, ( without a history of glowing success ), after a firs explosive year, didn't sit right with me. Sure there has been times that has work out for people, but seems like too much of a gamble and it got us. All for fresh voice/direction/scheme, just think we would have been better served by a leader of men, not a room of a few players. 

I voted no, and it's not even an emotional response. The guy was a QB coach prior to this, he stunk both as an interim OC with the Dolphins and with UC. After his performance as a HC, I see zero reason why anyone would hire him for anything other than what he succeeded at, which was as a position coach.

(01-07-2021, 09:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: No, other teams do it, too.  Credit the Bengals for stepping outside of their usual comfort zone.  They followed the trend of hiring what they believed to be a bright, young mind from a wickedly potent offensive system.  

That move alone shows that they really want to inject some excitement back into the organization.  They followed it up with an uncharacteristic free agency spending spree, bigger than any of us can recollect.  One old tradition that they seem to still be clinging to is that they don't like to pay people that no longer work for them.

Now, with this being Katie's first coaching hire, I consider it a bit of learning experience on her part.  With the subsequent deviations from the historical norm in the Mike Brown era, I think that when the next HC change comes about, she will be much wiser and efficient.

Agreed. It was a good move to roll the dice. That said, you also need to know when to move on when something clearly didn't work. 

(01-07-2021, 10:00 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Agreed. It was a good move to roll the dice. That said, you also need to know when to move on when something clearly didn't work. 

Right, and that's why I'm feeling certain that this is the sink or swim year for Zac Taylor with the Bengals.

(01-07-2021, 10:22 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Right, and that's why I'm feeling certain that this is the sink or swim year for Zac Taylor with the Bengals.

It should've been sink or swim this year. 

- coming off an abysmal 2-14 season
- drafted a stud QB
- spent a heap of $ in FA

I'm not saying Taylor should've won 10 games, but to suck as bad as we did this year - even when Burrow was playing - was inexcusable IMO.

You have to show something. Zac has shown zilch in 2 seasons.

(01-07-2021, 10:31 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: It should've been sink or swim this year. 

- coming off an abysmal 2-14 season
- drafted a stud QB
- spent a heap of $ in FA

I'm not saying Taylor should've won 10 games, but to suck as bad as we did this year - even when Burrow was playing - was inexcusable IMO.

You have to show something. Zac has shown zilch in 2 seasons.

I agree, but I also think that I understand why they are keeping him for his 3rd season.  As many things that seem to be changing in the Bengals front office, the one old tradition that they still seem to cling to is a serious disdain of paying people that no longer work for them.

(01-07-2021, 10:31 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: It should've been sink or swim this year. 

- coming off an abysmal 2-14 season
- drafted a stud QB
- spent a heap of $ in FA

I'm not saying Taylor should've won 10 games, but to suck as bad as we did this year - even when Burrow was playing - was inexcusable IMO.

You have to show something. Zac has shown zilch in 2 seasons.

He really hasn’t. He beat 2 teams with winning records in 2 years.

Yet around here we hang our hats on beating absolute bottom feeders like the Jets and Jags.

(01-07-2021, 10:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree, but I also think that I understand why they are keeping him for his 3rd season.  As many things that seem to be changing in the Bengals front office, the one old tradition that they still seem to cling to is a serious disdain of paying people that no longer work for them.

Well as much as they've gone outside their usual comfort zone on some things (actually firing a coach after 16 years, making trades, being active in FA), there are as many or more things they've remained bullish on.

No practice facility. No GM. Small scouting and personnel department. And of course they remain reluctant to move on from a coach even if it's been a disaster. Taylor by default was issued 3-5 years, regardless of performance. 2 years isn't a lot by any stretch, but some good franchises (and bad ones) would can a rookie HC for going 2-14.

It's just something Bengals fans have to deal with. We have to be as patient as Mike Brown.

ZT is excellent "Head" Coach material. He has plenty of experience at sucking. That's why MB is so fond of him. He is going no where as long as he continues to put a smile on MB's face.

(01-07-2021, 05:02 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I probably should have clarified this.  NFL OC job only.

I was thinking maybe college, but if we're going with NFL only, then there's no way. He'd probably go back to being a QB coach or go the offensive consultant route.

(01-07-2021, 01:42 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Simple question, which I'll detail more here since I have more room to explain.

Had Zac Taylor been fired, or if he decided to resign, do you think he would get an Offensive Coodinator position in 2021?  Would he be on the hot list?  Would he even be interviewed?

Fwiw, I suppose I could have presented this same question with it being a Head Coaching position, but I think we all know the answer to that one.  So I went with just an OC.

Nada, he is a bad play caller most of the time. Would probably get a QB coaching position though.

Who are you all kidding? Mike Brown would hire him in a heart beat as OC if he wasn't already his HC.

I voted no. In college he may get an OC offer for a smaller school, but I dont think in the NFL he would.

ZT has some nice plays though. I'll give him credit for some pretty nifty play designs. I think where he struggles the most is when to call what. A lot of head scratching moments on what he called in certain situations.