12-01-2016, 06:02 PM
I came across an article from PFT today, written by Florio, that struck me as interesting because it makes a couple points in it that have been talked about and debated going back to the old board:
'And before Bengals fans begin to clamor for change just for the sake of change, consider how bad the team in the 12 years before Lewis arrived.'
'Brown has tolerated much worse for much longer, and there’s no guarantee that he’ll find someone else as good or better than Lewis.'
How many times have we seen some version of these since the end of the 2013 season? While I agree with the overall article that Marvin will most likely be back next year, I continue to have an issue with the logic in the two sentences I quoted.
The 'change for the sake of change' statement has lost it's shelf life at this point. After 14 years, going 0-7 in the postseason and struggling mightily this year...it's not as though making a change would be a knee jerk reaction or whimsical decision to appease the fans. It wouldn't be change for the sake of change, it would be change in hope of achieving a new end result.
Then he makes the points (often mentioned on the boards) about how the next HC might not be as good...and how bad the Bengals were before Marvin, which sometimes invokes the 'it could always be worse' or 'I don't wanna go back to the 90's' arguments in favor of keeping Marvin. My point on this has always been that there are no guarantees either way. Yeah, the next HC could end up being a disaster...or he might be the missing ingredient that takes the team to another level of success. At some point, a change has to be made, even if there's some risk associated with it.
I thought a statement made by Marvin to Paul Dehner was interesting...
'Everybody understands the object of the game is to win games. That’s our responsibility to pull it out of the players. It’s our responsibility to pull it out of the players as much as we can. When it’s not there then we have to get a new player.'
I would say to that...if the HC isn't getting the desired results, then maybe we have to get a new HC.
'And before Bengals fans begin to clamor for change just for the sake of change, consider how bad the team in the 12 years before Lewis arrived.'
'Brown has tolerated much worse for much longer, and there’s no guarantee that he’ll find someone else as good or better than Lewis.'
How many times have we seen some version of these since the end of the 2013 season? While I agree with the overall article that Marvin will most likely be back next year, I continue to have an issue with the logic in the two sentences I quoted.
The 'change for the sake of change' statement has lost it's shelf life at this point. After 14 years, going 0-7 in the postseason and struggling mightily this year...it's not as though making a change would be a knee jerk reaction or whimsical decision to appease the fans. It wouldn't be change for the sake of change, it would be change in hope of achieving a new end result.
Then he makes the points (often mentioned on the boards) about how the next HC might not be as good...and how bad the Bengals were before Marvin, which sometimes invokes the 'it could always be worse' or 'I don't wanna go back to the 90's' arguments in favor of keeping Marvin. My point on this has always been that there are no guarantees either way. Yeah, the next HC could end up being a disaster...or he might be the missing ingredient that takes the team to another level of success. At some point, a change has to be made, even if there's some risk associated with it.
I thought a statement made by Marvin to Paul Dehner was interesting...
'Everybody understands the object of the game is to win games. That’s our responsibility to pull it out of the players. It’s our responsibility to pull it out of the players as much as we can. When it’s not there then we have to get a new player.'
I would say to that...if the HC isn't getting the desired results, then maybe we have to get a new HC.
