Not a stat, but told everyone Sam Wyche resigned when the reality was, he fired him.  This was his first act as "GM".


7 winning seasons in 26 years


Roughly a .418 winning % (actually dramatically improved under Merv, or it's probably in the 30s, Merv has a .543 %)


In 2008, the Bengals set a record for the most games needed under one specific owner to attain 100 wins (288).


In 2010, the team set a record for the fewest games needed to lose 200 (both considering and not considering playoffs) under one specific owner (314).



 It is the only team with three nine-game-or-more losing streaks during his tenure.



Also holds six of the twenty-five 0-6 starts (24%)



Four of the thirteen 0-8 starts (31%) 



Bengals have gone winless in October nine different times in twenty-two years under five different head coaches



0-7 in playoffs


The second lowest winning % in a decade in all of professional sports history. (were #1 until Detroit went 0-16 in their abyss)


 

(12-01-2017, 10:34 AM)Wyche Wrote: When I see these numbers.....I really gain a little more respect for Merv, Tobin, etc.  I can't see how anyone can blame a player, or even totally blame Merv when they see these stats.  I agree, Merv has ill prepared teams, and they come out flat at times, and that's on him....but you gotta realize how handcuffed these guys are under a complete nincompoop at the top of the hierarchy.

(12-01-2017, 10:34 AM)Wyche Wrote: When I see these numbers.....I really gain a little more respect for Merv, Tobin, etc.  I can't see how anyone can blame a player, or even totally blame Merv when they see these stats.  I agree, Merv has ill prepared teams, and they come out flat at times, and that's on him....but you gotta realize how handcuffed these guys are under a complete nincompoop at the top of the hierarchy.

(12-01-2017, 10:31 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Not really a stat, but certainly a noteworthy fact.

Under Paul Brown, the very first player selected by the Bengals was a Center.  Under Mike Brown, "Center, we don't need no stinkin' Center!".

(12-01-2017, 10:40 AM)Wyche Wrote: Yeah....when people talk about the overall history of the Bengals and shed bad light on the 50 years of futility, they don't realize 26 of those 50 are complete trash under this boob.

Paul took an expansion team and made it a Super Bowl threat in 14 years....they joined the NFL in 1970, and made the playoffs three times in that decade.  They were 11-3 in 1975, but were only a wild card due to the 12-2 Stoolers.  I mean, this was an innovative, up and coming franchise under his guidance.  He made his mistakes as well, but overall, I'd call it a successful start-up.  When he passed away, it went down the shitter.  I think folks tend to forget how competitive the old Central Division was, how tough it was just to make the playoffs before expansion, and just how successful Paul was when they trash the overall history of the Bengals.

(12-01-2017, 10:34 AM)Wyche Wrote: When I see these numbers.....I really gain a little more respect for Merv, Tobin, etc.  I can't see how anyone can blame a player, or even totally blame Merv when they see these stats.  I agree, Merv has ill prepared teams, and they come out flat at times, and that's on him....but you gotta realize how handcuffed these guys are under a complete nincompoop at the top of the hierarchy.

(12-01-2017, 10:34 AM)Wyche Wrote: When I see these numbers.....I really gain a little more respect for Merv, Tobin, etc.  I can't see how anyone can blame a player, or even totally blame Merv when they see these stats.  I agree, Merv has ill prepared teams, and they come out flat at times, and that's on him....but you gotta realize how handcuffed these guys are under a complete nincompoop at the top of the hierarchy.

(12-01-2017, 10:40 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: That was going to be my reply too. Marvin has succeeded in an environment where many coaches failed.

Another way to look at it is modern free agency began in 1992 which is around the same time he took over. Those horrible stats all coincide with modern free agency.

It's really hard to win if you rely totally on the draft as in any draft you may get 2 starters. What if you need a C or a G and the guys you draft at those positions aren't hits? Odds are they won't be. Do you keep chasing those positions in the draft? Or do you just sign a proven starter?

(12-01-2017, 10:31 AM)Pat5775 Wrote: Honestly...

I thought it would be worse

(12-01-2017, 11:16 AM)Wyche Wrote: It HAS to be a combination of both.....even Paul made trades that complimented the team.  Think about the guys he traded for, Joiner, Brooks, Bacon, etc, etc.  

(12-01-2017, 11:29 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: I agree. Traditionally we have done very well in the draft, but seems a lot of the talent we have drafted goes to waste. I don't believe they have been busts for the most part, just mismanaged. We need to approach free agency differently. Although some of our free agency signings haven't been great, in most cases its an immediate improvement to a much needed position until you can get a rookie coached up to take the spot over. We just don't utilize it much to our benefit. Instead, as we try to continue to fill immediate needs through the draft, those players don't get playing time and by the time you get someone ready, two other areas of need have developed.

(12-01-2017, 11:24 AM)Wyche Wrote: Without Merv's decent tenure, how bad would it be?  It was HORRENDOUS before his arrival.  I think I just vurped in my mouth defending Merv....