Zak Taylor's replacement

[Murdock2420]

(11-18-2020, 05:18 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Sometimes I think people take talking points from the college and apply it the NFL, somehow believing the logic holds true throughout both levels.  That's the only explanation I have for how a belief like this exists.

In college, yes, firing a coach, to then hire a new one, can be a 2 year+ process.  You may see players transfer out, you may see recruits decommit, and you now have to build an entitely new recruiting pipeline for the following years.  None of these things exist in the NFL.

In no way does hiring a new head coach set you back 2 to 3 years.  In fact, it doesn't set you back even for one year.

Did Marvin Lewis set us back from Dick Lebeau when he turned a 2-14 roster immediately 8-8 roster?

Did Kyle Shanahan set SF back when he turned a 2-14 roster into a 6-10 roster?  Would their Super Bowl appearance under him in year 3 occurred in sooner had they kept Jim Tomsula?

Did Brian Flores set back the great Adam Gase rebuild, or did he make it better?  How is Adam Gase looking in NY?  Does it look like the Dolphins cut bait too soon?

I could give endless examples, where teams not only didn't regress, they immediately improved.

To each their own, but I think the opposite of what you're saying is the actual truth.  If you hang on to a coach for a year or two too long, it can hinder your rebuild for the future.

It's real simple, you have to decide if you think a certain coach is the right guy for the job moving forward.  If your current coach is eliciting a lot of doubt, and showing himself to be incapable, the sooner you move on the sooner you can get things right.  And this process is only more urgent when you have a QB like Joe Burrow, who is playing on rookie contract.  We've only got 2 to 3 more years of him at a discount.  You can't afford to waste them.

If you like Zac Taylor, and you think he's the right guy, then that's fine.  You're entitled to your opinion, and a case can certinly be made as to why you believe in him.  But let's not pretend we have to keep him longer just because we'll set ourselves back if we move on.  That's simply not true.  And, no offense, but it seems like a desperate attempt by some to justify retaining him, because they have nothing else to lean on.

The set back occurs if you hire the wrong coach again. The track record under Mike Brown indicates that it is more likely he will hire the wrong guy then find the correct replacement.

You have some valid examples, but the non Bengal examples have something in common. A team with a plan and a front office that was committed to the plan. Everyone wants to sing the praises of Brian Flores in Miami, and sure he has done a nice job, but he also is coming into a situation that was put in motion last season. They gutted the roster last season, and ended up with 3 first rounders and 2 seconds, and etc, etc. Plus they were active in free agency. That is a total franchise commitment to doing it right.

For the Bengals to do it right, the fire sale should have happend. Green, Ross, Geno, Lawson (he's a FA), WJIII, etc all should have been shopped and out of here at the deadline. Only people you keep are guys who are part of it long term. Then you use all the draft capital correctly with a good scouting department and GM to turn it into the right players. Finally, you sign a few key guys to round out the roster and then pair it with a decent coach and you get... the Dolphins season.

The Bengals however, will simply fire Zac, extend A.J., ignore the GM and continue with the same old same old, and bring in a new coach and be like... "why is this still broken??" And we all will bang on the coach as being a failure. At some point, you have to ask, are the coaches we hire all failures or is the team just failing them?

I tend to think the franchise is failing them, not the other way around.