Coach versus Culture

[Knightmare on Elm Street]

Good afternoon Who Dey Nation! I am a longtime reader of this board but I do not post much. One thing that I wanted to gauge from our fanbase is where do some of the issues lie with our team. Mike Brown's reputation is well documented over course of his tenure, as is Marvin Lewis. But out of the myriad of issues, which is coach and which is the culture of the front office? The reason why I bring this up is because we have rightly divide these things in hope of getting a new coach. There are things that transpire and some are convinced that it is the coach and some are convinced that it is the front office. I will give some examples:
*the fact that the team refuses to let the young guys get necessary game reps.
*our lack of being aggressive at time during the game.
*lack of adjustment (scheme, subbing out players, etc)
*not looking prepared for big games
I will let the board discuss!

[GreenCornBengal]

(12-27-2017, 06:31 PM)Knightmare on Elm Street Wrote: Good afternoon Who Dey Nation! I am a longtime reader of this board but I do not post much. One thing that I wanted to gauge from our fanbase is where do some of the issues lie with our team. Mike Brown's reputation is well documented over course of his tenure, as is Marvin Lewis. But out of the myriad of issues, which is coach and which is the culture of the front office? The reason why I bring this up is because we have rightly divide these things in hope of getting a new coach. There are things that transpire and some are convinced that it is the coach and some are convinced that it is the front office. I will give some examples:
*the fact that the team refuses to let the young guys get necessary game reps.
*our lack of being aggressive at time during the game.
*lack of adjustment (scheme, subbing out players, etc)
*not looking prepared for big games
I will let the board discuss!

Coaching impacts the culture directly (or should in most cases, see Browns for outlier).

Refusing to let young guys get reps COULD be a culture thing based on salaries, this is possible.

Aggressiveness during the game is dependent on coaching
Lack of adjustments is a coaching issue
Not looking Prepared for big games is a coaching issue 


To me, the Coach has all the power in the world to dictate the culture. Typically, if a coach conflicts with a certain culture, that coach will be let go, regardless of success. But primarily, it's the coaches job to get guys ready for the game on Sunday.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-27-2017, 06:31 PM)Knightmare on Elm Street Wrote: Good afternoon Who Dey Nation! I am a longtime reader of this board but I do not post much. One thing that I wanted to gauge from our fanbase is where do some of the issues lie with our team. Mike Brown's reputation is well documented over course of his tenure, as is Marvin Lewis. But out of the myriad of issues, which is coach and which is the culture of the front office? The reason why I bring this up is because we have rightly divide these things in hope of getting a new coach. There are things that transpire and some are convinced that it is the coach and some are convinced that it is the front office. I will give some examples:
*the fact that the team refuses to let the young guys get necessary game reps.
*our lack of being aggressive at time during the game.
*lack of adjustment (scheme, subbing out players, etc)
*not looking prepared for big games
I will let the board discuss!

Most of your highlighted items point toward coaching, but let's not forget that the front office has kept that coach employed.  So, one might say that the coach in question fits right in with the culture of the front office.

In other words, what I'm trying to say here is that until things change at the top, everything will pretty much remain the same.

[McC]

(12-27-2017, 06:31 PM)Knightmare on Elm Street Wrote: Good afternoon Who Dey Nation! I am a longtime reader of this board but I do not post much. One thing that I wanted to gauge from our fanbase is where do some of the issues lie with our team. Mike Brown's reputation is well documented over course of his tenure, as is Marvin Lewis. But out of the myriad of issues, which is coach and which is the culture of the front office? The reason why I bring this up is because we have rightly divide these things in hope of getting a new coach. There are things that transpire and some are convinced that it is the coach and some are convinced that it is the front office. I will give some examples:
*the fact that the team refuses to let the young guys get necessary game reps.
*our lack of being aggressive at time during the game.
*lack of adjustment (scheme, subbing out players, etc)
*not looking prepared for big games
I will let the board discuss!

Those things you mention are on coaching, with the possible exception of playing young guys.  People will point fingers at Mike, thinking he insists that higher priced players play.  Don''t remember this ever being verified, but it is a school of thought.

Mike's issues include things like his FA approach, which is that, no matter what, he will only scrape the bottom of the barrel.  And then there's letting important players leave, the dreaded practice bubble, the scouting process, the approach to the draft, specifically the first round.

The other three, for sure, are coaching issues.

[CanadianBengal]

The areas you raised are coaching but I think some of the management leaks into coaching. I think the overall culture is conservative other than taking a chance on risky characters. The team preaches continuity, in management, in coaching, in players, in game plans, in adjustments, in play calling, in who plays. All are the same culture of a conservative approach.

I think the taking high risk character players is either desperation or arrogance of MB.

[Whatever]

(12-27-2017, 10:24 PM)McC Wrote: Those things you mention are on coaching, with the possible exception of playing young guys.  People will point fingers at Mike, thinking he insists that higher priced players play.  Don''t remember this ever being verified, but it is a school of thought.

Mike's issues include things like his FA approach, which is that, no matter what, he will only scrape the bottom of the barrel.  And then there's letting important players leave, the dreaded practice bubble, the scouting process, the approach to the draft, specifically the first round.

The other three, for sure, are coaching issues.

If I thought MB was giving Marvin marching orders on who to play, I would think he would push him to play his 1st round picks.  That's why I don't read a lot into that.

The Bengals FA model changed under Marvin.  The Bengals weren't massive FA spenders previously, but they brought in a fair number of "name" FA pre Marvin and in the early years of the Marvin era.  Neil O'Donnell, Barry Foster, Ashley Ambrose, Richmond Webb, Bobbie Williams, Kevin Hardy, Tory James, John Thornton, Antonio Bryant, Jon Kitna, Gus Frerrotte, and Laverneous Coles were all pretty big name signings.  Heck, Warren Sapp has a grudge because we had agreed to terms, then by Marvin's own admission, he nixed the deal because he didn't think he was worth it.  

[McC]

(12-27-2017, 10:48 PM)Whatever Wrote: If I thought MB was giving Marvin marching orders on who to play, I would think he would push him to play his 1st round picks.  That's why I don't read a lot into that.

The Bengals FA model changed under Marvin.  The Bengals weren't massive FA spenders previously, but they brought in a fair number of "name" FA pre Marvin and in the early years of the Marvin era.  Neil O'Donnell, Barry Foster, Ashley Ambrose, Richmond Webb, Bobbie Williams, Kevin Hardy, Tory James, John Thornton, Antonio Bryant, Jon Kitna, Gus Frerrotte, and Laverneous Coles were all pretty big name signings.  Heck, Warren Sapp has a grudge because we had agreed to terms, then by Marvin's own admission, he nixed the deal because he didn't think he was worth it.  

We need a Bobby Williams level FA Center signing big time.  That would be an enormous help.

[Knightmare on Elm Street]

Thanks for the feedback. The main reason I bring this up is because there is good chance Paulie G. is the next head coach. Some on this board think it will be much of the same. I am trying to understand why some COMPLETELY believe that? From what I have seen Paulie G. and Marvin have different personalities; PG being more of a Mike Zimmer type personality. So could the highlighted be different based of the personality of the coach?

[BengalChris]

(12-27-2017, 06:31 PM)Knightmare on Elm Street Wrote: Good afternoon Who Dey Nation! I am a longtime reader of this board but I do not post much. One thing that I wanted to gauge from our fanbase is where do some of the issues lie with our team. Mike Brown's reputation is well documented over course of his tenure, as is Marvin Lewis. But out of the myriad of issues, which is coach and which is the culture of the front office? The reason why I bring this up is because we have rightly divide these things in hope of getting a new coach. There are things that transpire and some are convinced that it is the coach and some are convinced that it is the front office. I will give some examples:
*the fact that the team refuses to let the young guys get necessary game reps.
*our lack of being aggressive at time during the game.
*lack of adjustment (scheme, subbing out players, etc)
*not looking prepared for big games
I will let the board discuss!

For me it all lies with the front office and ownership.

Mike Brown is a failure himself so it's really impossible for him to demand success from anyone. He'll accept any excuse from the coaches or players because he himself is full of excuses. Mike Brown inherited everything and earned nothing.

Paul Brown drove innovation in football and continued to drive it until he died. Mike Brown didn't inherit one ounce of innovativeness.

If Paul Brown were alive through free agency he would have turned it to his advantage, just like he did most things. But Mikey boy hasn't a clue what he is doing so he applies his father's decisions about the past to everything he sees as if nothing has changed, and the two just don't mesh.

But because we know the owner will not fire himself as the GM we all hope for a better coaching staff.

[BengalChris]

(12-27-2017, 10:48 PM)Whatever Wrote: If I thought MB was giving Marvin marching orders on who to play, I would think he would push him to play his 1st round picks.  That's why I don't read a lot into that.

The Bengals FA model changed under Marvin.  The Bengals weren't massive FA spenders previously, but they brought in a fair number of "name" FA pre Marvin and in the early years of the Marvin era.  Neil O'Donnell, Barry Foster, Ashley Ambrose, Richmond Webb, Bobbie Williams, Kevin Hardy, Tory James, John Thornton, Antonio Bryant, Jon Kitna, Gus Frerrotte, and Laverneous Coles were all pretty big name signings.  Heck, Warren Sapp has a grudge because we had agreed to terms, then by Marvin's own admission, he nixed the deal because he didn't think he was worth it.  

You gotta realize that those names you listed are over a 25 year period, and only a few had anything left in the tank. Ashley Ambrose is still one of my favorite FA signings by the Bengals, but that was 20 years ago. Bobbie Williams was another.

Gus Frerrotte, O'Donnell and Kitna were all bottom rung QBs when we signed them. Coles was nothing more than a stop gap and Antonio Bryant never played a down.

But look at all the top shelf free agents the Bengals have passed on. Tons and tons of them. People are talking up the Jags this year, but just this last off-season they signed CB A.J. Bouye and DT/DE Calais Campbell to go with their young defense. Wow!


Mike Brown sends Reggie Nelson packing in favor of Williams who isn't nearly as good and he paid Williams more than Nelson got going to the Raiders. That was the off-season after Nelson led the league in interceptions.


Mike Brown is a moron, he has failed the team, the city and fans, and himself.