Duke Tobin

[Nicomo Cosca]

(03-29-2021, 02:09 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: I was one of them saying it.

And let's be honest, his first season he was supposed to be the best QB in 10 years and the obvious clear cut best of the class...

However, Herbert showed that gap wasn't actually very big at all, and it is possible Herbert might be better... time will tell.

So, is Chase going to be so much better then all the other WRs? 

Well, according to Next Gen Stats Burrow had to try and squeeze the ball in more.

Herbert’s aggressiveness % was 18

Burrow’s was 21.5

And it certainly wasn’t LA’s OL making the difference. They were as bad as ours. LA’s WR’s and TE’s were just better at getting open, and scoring TD’s.

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing#yards

[Murdock2420]

(03-29-2021, 02:33 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Well, according to Next Gen Stats Burrow had to try and squeeze the ball in more.

Herbert’s aggressiveness % was 18

Burrow’s was 21.5

And it certainly wasn’t LA’s OL making the difference. They were as bad as ours. LA’s WR’s and TE’s were just better at getting open, and scoring TD’s.

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing#yards

So... coaching?

Talent around him?

Maybe he was better at extending plays?

Maybe he had better downfield vision?

It's impossible to really sit here and say right now which guy was better. I remember being on the old board and debating with steeler fans that Palmer was going to be better then piggy.

Palmer had more arm talent, but... piggy found the right situation to land in and thus has the better career. 

Burrow may have more talent, we may never know. Tobin, Taylor, Brown, that is a trifecta of sadness.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-29-2021, 09:55 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: What about the coaching says they can make it even with a fully healthy squad?

It is a good question, this is what needs to improve the most, more than Tobin IMO.

I don't think Tobin is as bad as some make out. Now Taylor and Lou have been really bad.

[J24]

(03-29-2021, 04:38 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: It is a good question, this is what needs to improve the most, more than Tobin IMO.

I don't think Tobin is as bad as some make out. Now Taylor and Lou have been really bad.

Tobin picked Taylor he deserves his fair share of blame.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-29-2021, 04:42 PM)J24 Wrote: Tobin picked Taylor he deserves his fair share of blame.

That is true, to be fair I liked the hire at the time. I didn't think Taylor would of been this bad.

[HarleyDog]

(03-29-2021, 04:42 PM)J24 Wrote: Tobin picked Taylor he deserves his fair share of blame.

(03-29-2021, 04:59 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: That is true, to be fair I liked the hire at the time. I didn't think Taylor would of been this bad.

Don't think you guys are giving ZT a fair shake. Has he made mistakes? Oh, heck yeah. He's only been a HC for 2yrs and his 1st was not an ideal situation. Second year, a little better scenario but still a system he wants to run without players who fit those roles and a few leftover spoiled vets who were from the Marvin era of vets playing and rookies sitting. I think we will see a great improvement this year. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and will eat crow. Yet, he seems to be getting the Browns to move more than usual and actually take an interest in winning.

[XenoMorph]

(03-29-2021, 04:59 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: That is true, to be fair I liked the hire at the time. I didn't think Taylor would of been this bad.

I didnt understand the hire...  there are much more qualified dudes that have put the time in  working up the ranks that probly would have worked out better than the dude that happened the be near McVay when he had a great start.

[TJ528]

(03-29-2021, 04:59 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: That is true, to be fair I liked the hire at the time. I didn't think Taylor would of been this bad.

I don't think anyone expected Taylor to be quite this bad because he was walking into a team with Dalton, Green, Boyd, Mixon, then on Defense you still had the majority of Marvin mainstays who would be Bengal HOF if they  had a HOF.  

If Taylor falls flat on his face once again this year like I expect him to, there's no way you can keep a coach with 10 or 11 wins going into his 4 season.  He may be a great guy and his concepts may be good but his teams have flat out sucked.  

I can say that when Shula was fired that I said we'd never hire a coach again who could EVER be as bad as Shula, and I'm starting to think that was a very poor choice of words by me lol

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-29-2021, 05:25 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Don't think you guys are giving ZT a fair shake. Has he made mistakes? Oh, heck yeah. He's only been a HC for 2yrs and his 1st was not an ideal situation. Second year, a little better scenario but still a system he wants to run without players who fit those roles and a few leftover spoiled vets who were from the Marvin era of vets playing and rookies sitting. I think we will see a great improvement this year. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and will eat crow. Yet, he seems to be getting the Browns to move more than usual and actually take an interest in winning.

Hope you are right Harley. He is young so it is entirely possible that it starts to click for him in his 3rd year as HC.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-29-2021, 05:26 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: I didnt understand the hire...  there are much more qualified dudes that have put the time in  working up the ranks that probly would have worked out better than the dude that happened the be near McVay when he had a great start.

I wanted Del Rio at the time or even Beinemy or Lefleur. But I like Taylor's ability to communicate.

I just thought it was a mistake by him taking on the playcalling and taking on too much.

I think he put too much on his plate and has been stubborn in not handing over the reigns in this aspect.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-29-2021, 05:37 PM)TJ528 Wrote: I don't think anyone expected Taylor to be quite this bad because he was walking into a team with Dalton, Green, Boyd, Mixon, then on Defense you still had the majority of Marvin mainstays who would be Bengal HOF if they  had a HOF.  

If Taylor falls flat on his face once again this year like I expect him to, there's no way you can keep a coach with 10 or 11 wins going into his 4 season.  He may be a great guy and his concepts may be good but his teams have flat out sucked.  

I can say that when Shula was fired that I said we'd never hire a coach again who could EVER be as bad as Shula, and I'm starting to think that was a very poor choice of words by me lol

It is a make or break year for Taylor no question.

[TJ528]

(03-29-2021, 05:43 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I wanted Del Rio at the time or even Beinemy or Lefleur. But I like Taylor's ability to communicate.

I just thought it was a mistake by him taking on the playcalling and taking on too much.

I think he put too much on his plate and has been stubborn in not handing over the reigns in this aspect.

I think the bigger mistake when he was redoing the coaching staff this was to unload the OC label to Callahan.

I agree that unless you have strong people around you and a strong front office you can't run 2 positions at once in the NFL.

Taylor doesnt have a strong staff nor a strong front office. 

[CanadianBengal]

(03-29-2021, 09:55 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: What about the coaching says they can make it even with a fully healthy squad?

Agreed. Counting on significant improvement based on a coaching change is a reach. Particularly when you are bringing back a coach who didn’t turn chumps into champs in his first go round. I like Pollock. I think he’s a good hire but it’s an iffy plan to count on him turning XSF into a quality starter. It may happen but I would be more comfortable if the plan didn’t rely on hopeful thinking. Reif was a solid add. We have every reason to believe he will help. Spain was okay. If he was your fifth best lineman your line is pretty good. But right now he is the third best. Yikes!!!

[BengalChris]

(03-29-2021, 01:31 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: Not sure I get your point?

Clearly these teams are vastly different in success. They made their conference championships, we have the #5 pick in the draft. Obviously there are vast differences.  Just saying the attempts to build a contender here looks similar to those teams. We are trying to build a high powered offense just like those contending teams.

The difference? Coaching and trench talent.

Interesting that you can't see the it.

When I was younger and traveled a great deal people would come up to me on planes and say that I looked just like Bill Gates. Then they'd add that they knew I wasn't because I was flying a commercial plane and in coach no less. It didn't hurt that I was flying in and out of the airports around Silicon Valley almost weekly. Other similarities were that we both ran software companies.

But, of course, there are differences between him and I. Far more than we have in common.


While I like Boyd and Higgins neither could be confused with a cheetah.

While Bengals may have a defense, they've been near the bottom and have retained the mastermind behind that bottomness.

The Bengals defense has no clue what to do with an opponent's TE.

While Borrow is considered a franchise QB, many franchise QBs have never won anything.

Mixon is a very good RB when given room, but we rarely see that for reasons best known to God or the Bengals front office or possibly even the block scheme guru who has failed the last two years.

When you get a top 10 pick you just aren't a contender and do not resemble one, in my book.

 

[*ochocincos*]

(03-29-2021, 05:25 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Don't think you guys are giving ZT a fair shake. Has he made mistakes? Oh, heck yeah. He's only been a HC for 2yrs and his 1st was not an ideal situation. Second year, a little better scenario but still a system he wants to run without players who fit those roles and a few leftover spoiled vets who were from the Marvin era of vets playing and rookies sitting. I think we will see a great improvement this year. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and will eat crow. Yet, he seems to be getting the Browns to move more than usual and actually take an interest in winning.

Taylor gets 3 (possibly more) years to try to finally get the team back to a winning record, but the fans have had to be the ones to suffer through the growing pains.

I think people were cautiously optimistic with the Taylor hire because they thought 1) he learned under McVay, and 2) would bring in an established DC (and possibly OC).

Things started going south when he brought in a no-name guy to be DC and a controversial OL coach. Then, he showed through his first season that he isn't nearly the offensive playcaller that McVay is.

The reality is that even though this new regime has been bottom-third in the league in both offense and defense during Taylor's tenure. If both of those don't get into the Top 20 this year, it will be another seasons of falling below expectations.

[TJ528]

(03-30-2021, 12:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Taylor gets 3 (possibly more) years to try to finally get the team back to a winning record, but the fans have had to be the ones to suffer through the growing pains.

I think people were cautiously optimistic with the Taylor hire because they thought 1) he learned under McVay, and 2) would bring in an established DC (and possibly OC).

Things started going south when he brought in a no-name guy to be DC and a controversial OL coach. Then, he showed through his first season that he isn't nearly the offensive playcaller that McVay is.

The reality is that even though this new regime has been bottom-third in the league in both offense and defense during Taylor's tenure. If both of those don't get into the Top 20 this year, it will be another seasons of falling below expectations.

Ocho I think this is the best way of saying it period.  I truly don't think even the most optimistic fan can disagree with any of it.  

Great post!!!

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(03-30-2021, 12:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Taylor gets 3 (possibly more) years to try to finally get the team back to a winning record, but the fans have had to be the ones to suffer through the growing pains.

I think people were cautiously optimistic with the Taylor hire because they thought 1) he learned under McVay, and 2) would bring in an established DC (and possibly OC).

Things started going south when he brought in a no-name guy to be DC and a controversial OL coach. Then, he showed through his first season that he isn't nearly the offensive playcaller that McVay is.

The reality is that even though this new regime has been bottom-third in the league in both offense and defense during Taylor's tenure. If both of those don't get into the Top 20 this year, it will be another seasons of falling below expectations.

I was cautiously optimistic on Zac not because I thought he'd bring in experienced co-ordinators (although in his position I would have) but because he was a young up and coming guy who could help modernize the Bengals. Marv had done a good job making the Bengals relevant again but the game had moved on again and had left him and the Bengals behind. We've seen big improvements in that regards (the aggressiveness on 4th down would be one such example of analytics being better used) and there have been flashes of what could be when the offense has hummed before Burrow went down but not the overall consistency required to convert that into regular wins.

The thinking with Zac was always that they got him a year (or two years) early. I think the ownership even said that when they appointed him. There's a longer leash on a young guy learning in his first job than a retread who should know better. He's going to make rookie mistakes - it's more useful to judge him on how he learns from them.

He's been hamstrung by inheriting an ageing roster (at least when it came to players that mattered, after poor drafting for a number of years) with a conservative ownership unwilling to move on. The reason this is taking 3 years - if not longer - and not 2 years is because ownership was unwilling to move on from the likes of AJ, Carlos and Geno sooner. If the Bengals had traded them away plus Dalton, Eifert, WJIII, Lawson, Billings etc we'd have had the draft capital to plug all the holes not to mention more money to spend in free agency. 


I'm not expecting a top 20 D. The D has been neglected for far too long. The only first round pick spent on D since 2014 has just left; the Bengals made no attempt to re-sign him. The first round pick this year is going on O again. That's one first round pick in 7 years on D. There's only been one second round pick on D in the last 7 drafts as well. They may have focused on D in free agency but Hendrickson and Awuzie were cheaper than the guys they are replacing. Ogunjobi and Hilton were nice pick-ups but are more complementary pieces than headliners. They invested a little more last year on D when they overpaid Waynes and added Reader but whilst Reader's good he's not prime Geno (another departure). They haven't even attempted to replace Dunlap yet.

Where I am expecting improvement is O. This needs to be a top 15 unit minimum for Zac to have a future in Cincy. If Zac can show that he can put together an above average O (and there will likely be a slow start with Joe coming back from injury) then he can have time to fix the D.

[TJ528]

(04-06-2021, 01:31 PM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: I was cautiously optimistic on Zac not because I thought he'd bring in experienced co-ordinators (although in his position I would have) but because he was a young up and coming guy who could help modernize the Bengals. Marv had done a good job making the Bengals relevant again but the game had moved on again and had left him and the Bengals behind. We've seen big improvements in that regards (the aggressiveness on 4th down would be one such example of analytics being better used) and there have been flashes of what could be when the offense has hummed before Burrow went down but not the overall consistency required to convert that into regular wins.

The thinking with Zac was always that they got him a year (or two years) early. I think the ownership even said that when they appointed him. There's a longer leash on a young guy learning in his first job than a retread who should know better. He's going to make rookie mistakes - it's more useful to judge him on how he learns from them.

He's been hamstrung by inheriting an ageing roster (at least when it came to players that mattered, after poor drafting for a number of years) with a conservative ownership unwilling to move on. The reason this is taking 3 years - if not longer - and not 2 years is because ownership was unwilling to move on from the likes of AJ, Carlos and Geno sooner. If the Bengals had traded them away plus Dalton, Eifert, WJIII, Lawson, Billings etc we'd have had the draft capital to plug all the holes not to mention more money to spend in free agency. 


I'm not expecting a top 20 D. The D has been neglected for far too long. The only first round pick spent on D since 2014 has just left; the Bengals made no attempt to re-sign him. The first round pick this year is going on O again. That's one first round pick in 7 years on D. There's only been one second round pick on D in the last 7 drafts as well. They may have focused on D in free agency but Hendrickson and Awuzie were cheaper than the guys they are replacing. Ogunjobi and Hilton were nice pick-ups but are more complementary pieces than headliners. They invested a little more last year on D when they overpaid Waynes and added Reader but whilst Reader's good he's not prime Geno (another departure). They haven't even attempted to replace Dunlap yet.

Where I am expecting improvement is O. This needs to be a top 15 unit minimum for Zac to have a future in Cincy. If Zac can show that he can put together an above average O (and there will likely be a slow start with Joe coming back from injury) then he can have time to fix the D.

so in your opinion what record should Zac keep his job after this year? 

I mean all i see above is excuses.  Excuses are like **** everyone's got one.  

If Zac had as much control when he came as he did he could've forced ownerships hand.  

He could've improved this defense, but when you bring in a DC who doesnt coach man to man to coach a defense that's played mostly man to man defense you're gonna have problems.  Why wait 3 years to fit guys to your scheme.  Essentially you wasted 2 years and 1 year of Burrows development.  

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(04-07-2021, 04:20 PM)TJ528 Wrote: so in your opinion what record should Zac keep his job after this year? 

I mean all i see above is excuses.  Excuses are like **** everyone's got one.  

If Zac had as much control when he came as he did he could've forced ownerships hand.  

He could've improved this defense, but when you bring in a DC who doesnt coach man to man to coach a defense that's played mostly man to man defense you're gonna have problems.  Why wait 3 years to fit guys to your scheme.  Essentially you wasted 2 years and 1 year of Burrows development.  

You're Elise Jesse, aren't you?

[XenoMorph]

(04-07-2021, 04:20 PM)TJ528 Wrote: so in your opinion what record should Zac keep his job after this year? 

I mean all i see above is excuses.  Excuses are like **** everyone's got one.  

If Zac had as much control when he came as he did he could've forced ownerships hand.  

He could've improved this defense, but when you bring in a DC who doesnt coach man to man to coach a defense that's played mostly man to man defense you're gonna have problems.  Why wait 3 years to fit guys to your scheme.  Essentially you wasted 2 years and 1 year of Burrows development.  

Zach doesnt really have a plan and definately wasnt qualified for the job.

We can just hope he figures it out before we waste to much more time