Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise
Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - Printable Version

+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Rival Talk (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes (/thread-4245.html)

Pages: 1 2

Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - kevin - 01-04-2016

All you have to do is look at the Cleveland Browns...Always changing GM's....Always changing head coaches.....Always changing quarterbacks.....Always in Last Place......and why Bengals were smart to stick with Coach Lewis who has only changed his main quarterbacks twice, and that was due to being forced to replace Carson Palmer. .....The Bengals in the play-offs 7 time in 13 years is over 50 % and much better than Browns. Plus Lewis had to rebuild a horrible Bengals but once rebuilt has made it 6 play-off seasons in 7 years. .....This is why you don't follow the Cleveland Browns blueprint of constant change.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - StLucieBengal - 01-04-2016

If posters here had their way we would change as much as the Browns did because they are being realists lol

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - Nately120 - 01-04-2016

The Browns can be used as "evidence" that nothing works, because they do everything wrong.

The Jets, Broncos, Texans, Redskins, Cardinals, and Vikings are all winning or playoff teams that have recently changed HC/QB/GMs and have become visibly better. Hell, 6 of the 12 teams in the playoffs right now have undergone some form of change at one or more of the most important spots in the past 3 years.

Do you really think a lack of stability is the problem with the Browns? Do you think they would be in the playoffs now had they kept the Chudzinski/Brandon Weeden pair for 4 or 5 years? Would you assume they'd get much better if they rolled with Manziel and Pettine for the next decade? I'd be skeptical.

Anyways, stability is good but stability with the wrong personnel? That would just be another thing the Browns could "prove" didn't work. It's not like the Bengals got better because we gave Dick LeBeau and Akili Smith a decade to work together...we hired a top-tier DC from a Super Bowl-winning rival to be the HC and spent a 1st overall pick on a "can't miss" QB. We didn't keep Chad, TO, and Brat for another year after 2010 so they could work on their chemistry, did we? I'm not saying Marvin needs to go NOW, but CHANGE can be attributed to helping this franchise turn corners after 2002 and 2010...right?

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - Aquapod770 - 01-04-2016

So firing Marvin (the 2nd longest tenured coach in the league) suddenly would turn us into the browns? New coach and GM every other year? Lol no. At some point someone has to be held accountable for ZERO playoff success.



With that said, hopefully that changes this year and we stomp the Steelers on Saturday.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - Essex Johnson - 01-04-2016

(01-04-2016, 08:20 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: So firing Marvin (the 2nd longest tenured coach in the league) suddenly would turn us into the browns? New coach and GM every other year? Lol no. At some point someone has to be held accountable for ZERO playoff success.



With that said, hopefully that changes this year and we stomp the Steelers on Saturday.

Ok, so what is accountable to you ? Marvin can be held accountable and not be fired either.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - BengalChris - 01-05-2016

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000615705/article/haslam-confirms-manziel-was-a-noshow-on-sunday

If you read the above link you will see that it's not just the changing of the GM, coach and QB that's the problem, it's that the owner is an idiot. The guy's wife has a say in who the next coach will be. I guess it will be like picking out a pair of matching shoes she might wear once or twice before sending them packing to the Salvation Army.

A guy named Sashi now decides who is on the 53-man roster [not the next coach or GM] and this Sashi dude has a whopping 3 years of football knowledge, all with the Browns [as if one could count that as knowledge], and has never scouted or even attended a combine interview.

http://fansided.com/2016/01/03/who-the-hell-is-sashi-brown/

I also heard on NFL network that the selection of Manziel was the owners choice, not the coach's or GMs. My God, I know more these buffoons.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - StLucieBengal - 01-05-2016

The sushi guy is an analytics guy. So basically they will be choosing players based on nonsense like PFF grades.

The GM will answer to sushi and the coach will answer to Haslam.

This will be a joke. Plus now his wife is involved lol

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - StLucieBengal - 01-05-2016

All in on analytics I guess haha

[Image: ZdbdqVi.jpg]

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - jason - 01-05-2016

(01-04-2016, 08:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The Browns can be used as "evidence" that nothing works, because they do everything wrong.  

The Jets, Broncos, Texans, Redskins, Cardinals, and Vikings are all winning or playoff teams that have recently changed HC/QB/GMs and have become visibly better.  Hell, 6 of the 12 teams in the playoffs right now have undergone some form of change at one or more of the most important spots in the past 3 years.

Do you really think a lack of stability is the problem with the Browns?  Do you think they would be in the playoffs now had they kept the Chudzinski/Brandon Weeden pair for 4 or 5 years?  Would you assume they'd get much better if they rolled with Manziel and Pettine for the next decade?  I'd be skeptical.

Anyways, stability is good but stability with the wrong personnel?  That would just be another thing the Browns could "prove" didn't work.  It's not like the Bengals got better because we gave Dick LeBeau and Akili Smith a decade to work together...we hired a top-tier DC from a Super Bowl-winning rival to be the HC and spent a 1st overall pick on a "can't miss" QB.  We didn't keep Chad, TO, and Brat for another year after 2010 so they could work on their chemistry, did we?  I'm not saying Marvin needs to go NOW, but CHANGE can be attributed to helping this franchise turn corners after 2002 and 2010...right?
The Browns literally make CHANGES every  year.  It would certainly help their cause if they could use a first round pick on somebody who will be around for 3 -4 years as well.  I think bad ownership, and horrid early round drafting are what keep them in the cellar.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - 6andcounting - 01-05-2016

(01-05-2016, 02:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: All in on analytics I guess haha

[Image: ZdbdqVi.jpg]

I'm just waiting for them to hire one of John Calipari's assistants as the new head coach.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - McC - 01-05-2016

My advise to the Browns' brain trust (How's that for an oxymoron?) is this--

What you're doing isn't working right now. No denying that. But be patient, stay the course, stick with it. Give it twenty or thirty years, then reevaluate. Wait for the Law of Averages to kick in for you.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - Bmoreblitz - 01-05-2016

I'm frankly shocked they didn't try and get Kevin Costner

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - rfaulk34 - 01-05-2016

(01-04-2016, 12:56 PM)kevin Wrote: All you have to do is look at the Cleveland Browns...Always changing GM's....Always changing head coaches.....Always changing quarterbacks.....Always in Last Place......and why Bengals were smart to stick with Coach Lewis who has only changed his main quarterbacks twice, and that was due to being forced to replace Carson Palmer. .....The Bengals in the play-offs 7 time in 13 years is over 50 % and much better than Browns.  Plus Lewis had to rebuild a horrible Bengals but once rebuilt has made it 6 play-off seasons in 7 years. .....This is why you don't follow the Cleveland Browns blueprint of constant change.

Aaaaaaaaand...

who in the world would even consider following the browns blueprint? 

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - McC - 01-06-2016

(01-05-2016, 11:57 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Aaaaaaaaand...

who in the world would even consider following the browns blueprint? 

They have a blueprint?  Seems more like a bunch of hieroglyphs scribbled on the back of a napkin.

Whatever they're doing, here's hoping they don't change a thing.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - BengalChris - 01-07-2016

(01-06-2016, 03:16 PM)McC Wrote: They have a blueprint?  Seems more like a bunch of hieroglyphs scribbled on the back of a napkin.

Whatever they're doing, here's hoping they don't change a thing.

Sure they have blueprint, it's called change for the sake of change. Eventually, over the millennia their bound to stumble on something works a little. Of course, they're likely to change again before recognizing what was right.

There are, in fact, an infinite number of ways to do something wrong.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - Bengalsrob - 01-07-2016

They'll probably hire Chip Kelly next! Now as far as our team, Marvin made us a better team,sure; but has he reached his ceiling? We almost hired Tom Coughlin, whose demise just came in New York, but there are two Super Bowls on his resume for his time spent there while Marvin has been here. To me, Marvin and Lovie Smith are pretty much identical, nice guys but can they take it to the next level? Does anyone here think Marvin would have reached the level of success with the Giants Coughlin did? Does anyone think he would have survived this long in the Big Apple....I don't! He certainly has gotten better with his use of the challenge flag after several tries, and the clock management has also improved marginally. But....overall game planning and halftime adjustments not so much....making moves during the game to turn things around (like the Denver game) I'm not seeing it. Back to the Browns, I agree Faulk, keep on doing what you're doing, it's great for us! But, I imagine Hugh will be going someplace, and our two past coordinators are already making great strides on their own, I actually expect Jay flipping Gruden to win a playoff game this weekend,WTF?? Does anybody think either the Skins or the Vikings have better personnel than us? Does the argument we can't make changes because it doesn't work for the Browns hold water?? I don't think so!!

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - Nately120 - 01-07-2016

Er...the last time the Bengals were close to being as bad as the Browns were in 2015 they changed the HC and QB and got a lot better.

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - TheLeonardLeap - 01-09-2016

Considering getting rid of a coach after 12 years of 0 postseason success? Slow down there with all the constant changes, Speedy Gonzalez!

[Image: steam-roller-o.gif]

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - Nately120 - 01-09-2016

I slapped this together to see just how new the HC's and QB's are of teams that are in the playoffs.  I use "making the playoffs" as a metric of success, because that's what makes Marvin Lewis a star, right?

[Image: NEW_QB.jpg]

I'm biased, but it looks to me like HC's that have been around for a long time and aren't named Marvin all have SB wins, while a lot of new-ish HC and QB combos are making the playoffs. The sad truth of it is that IF the Bengals don't win in the playoffs THEN they may become the case that "stability doesn't always work" to the Browns' case that "change doesn't always work."

RE: Cleveland Browns Are Why Bengals Should NOT Make Constant Changes - StLucieBengal - 01-09-2016

Why is Carolina a success?  They beat Ryan Lindly.

Cardinals beat no one.  

Chiefs are in almost the exact same boat as Cincy.  

Steelers haven't won since 2010 with a HoF Calibur QB.  

Broncos have been a playoff mess after the super bowl.  

Texans won a bad division and almost lost it to hassle all colts.  

Packers have a HoF QB and struggle in the playoffs.  

I only put the Seahawks and Pats in better shape than Cincy . If Marvin has the luxury of a HoF Calibur QB then it would most likely be a different story.