The Mike and Marvin Show an Epic Fail

[Whatever]

(11-21-2018, 11:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is absolutely the issue during free agency when everyone squeals about Mike Brown killing this teams chances with his over conservative approach to free agency.


But it is not an issue at all when people want to criticize Marvin.


So you have to decide which side of your mouth you will talk out of based on who you want to criticize.

As I said earlier, Mike Brown has opened the wallet up to get top FA's for Marvin.  He's added payroll via trade, as well.  How much of the FA approach is Mikey being tight and how much of it is Marvin not pushing for guys because he thinks he can win with what he has?  You have no evidence at all that Marvin is beating his fist on the table for FA's and Mikey is telling him no.

[*bengalfan74*]

(11-21-2018, 11:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is absolutely the issue during free agency when everyone squeals about Mike Brown killing this teams chances with his over conservative approach to free agency.


But it is not an issue at all when people want to criticize Marvin.


So you have to decide which side of your mouth you will talk out of based on who you want to criticize.

You just won't quit clinging onto this one little sliver of the problem will you ?

Free agency has nothing to do with game planning, scheming around your weakness, time outs, play calling, choosing when and how to use players on the field, choosing which players to play and when, knowing how to use them, using timeouts to your advantage, knowing when to slow down and burn clock, knowing which assistants to hire, knowing when to fire them, demanding accountability on the field, and disciplining guys who get out of line, pulling players out for rookie mistakes and stunting their growth, not having the team ready for the lights, not being able to beat your biggest rival - ever !, constantly choking anytime the heat is really on, choking every time and looking totally lost and overmatched in every single playoff game.

And this is a very quick in no way complete list.

But you're going to keep going on and on about this one little aspect that has nothing, NOTHING to do with on the field in game coaching.

[Whatever]

(11-21-2018, 11:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Emotions had nothing to do with Kitna being a turnover machine.

Emotions had nothing to do with us having the 28th ranked defense in the league and the Super Bowl champs abusing it.

Kitna has stated that that he broke down emotionally when he saw Carson at halftime . Emotions very much played a factor in his 2nd half performance.

Good leaders can channel the emotions created by tragedy and adversity to yield positive results.  Marvin has failed miserably at this throughout his tenure.  Too many times, we've watched this team fold up or spiral out of control when faced with adversity.  

[sandwedge]

(11-21-2018, 12:16 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: You just won't quit clinging onto this one little sliver of the problem will you ?

Free agency has nothing to do with game planning, scheming around your weakness, time outs, play calling, choosing when and how to use players on the field, choosing which players to play and when, knowing how to use them, using timeouts to your advantage, knowing when to slow down and burn clock, knowing which assistants to hire, knowing when to fire them, demanding accountability on the field, and disciplining guys who get out of line, pulling players out for rookie mistakes and stunting their growth, not having the team ready for the lights, not being able to beat your biggest rival - ever !, constantly choking anytime the heat is really on, choking every time and looking totally lost and overmatched in every single playoff game.

And this is a very quick in no way complete list.

But you're going to keep going on and on about this one little aspect that has nothing, NOTHING to do with on the field in game coaching.

Very well said, reps your way! 

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 12:16 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Free agency has nothing to do with game planning, scheming around your weakness, time outs, play calling, choosing when and how to use players on the field, choosing which players to play and when, knowing how to use them, using timeouts to your advantage, knowing when to slow down and burn clock, knowing which assistants to hire, knowing when to fire them, demanding accountability on the field, and disciplining guys who get out of line, pulling players out for rookie mistakes and stunting their growth, not having the team ready for the lights, not being able to beat your biggest rival - ever !, constantly choking anytime the heat is really on, choking every time and looking totally lost and overmatched in every single playoff game.

And this is a very quick in no way complete list.

And it is not a list of things that Marvin fails at.

Do you realize you just tried to criticize Marvin for both not "demanding accountability on the field" and "pulling players out for rookie mistakes".  So he gets ripped for both holding players accountable and NOT holding players accountable.

It is like criticizing him for both "being too conservative" and "giving up on the run too quickly".

You basically criticize everything Marvin does even when it is what you said he should do.  He got ripped constantly for being too conservative in the last minutes of the first half, but when he was aggressive in the last minutes of the half against the Ravens earlier this year he got ripped for that also.

Marvin has more wins against other NFL coaches than he does losses.  It is impossible for him to be bad at everything and still have a winning record.  Especially when he is handicapped by working for the worst owner in the league.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 12:22 PM)Whatever Wrote: Good leaders can channel the emotions created by tragedy and adversity to yield positive results.  Marvin has failed miserably at this throughout his tenure.  Too many times, we've watched this team fold up or spiral out of control when faced with adversity.  

Since Marvin became head coach Bengals are in the top half of the league in both "come from behind" victories and winning percentage in games in which the Bengals trailed at some point.

We won the week Vickie Zimmer died.

We played one of our best games of the year on the road against the 13-3 Chargers in 2009 the week Chris Henry died.  Despite the Bengals being a 7 point underdog the Chargers needed a last second FG to win.

[Whatever]

(11-21-2018, 12:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And it is not a list of things that Marvin fails at.

Do you realize you just tried to criticize Marvin for both not "demanding accountability on the field" and "pulling players out for rookie mistakes".  So he gets ripped for both holding players accountable and NOT holding players accountable.

It is like criticizing him for both "being too conservative" and "giving up on the run too quickly".

You basically criticize everything Marvin does even when it is what you said he should do.  He got ripped constantly for being too conservative in the last minutes of the first half, but when he was aggressive in the last minutes of the half against the Ravens earlier this year he got ripped for that also.

Marvin has more wins against other NFL coaches than he does losses.  It is impossible for him to be bad at everything and still have a winning record.  Especially when he is handicapped by working for the worst owner in the league.

A large part of a head coach's job is deciding when to be aggressive and when to be conservative.  Another part of that knowing when to roll with player mistakes and when to discipline them for it.  There is no hard and fast rule to either.  

Much of the criticism that falls his way comes from being conservative when we are behind on the scoreboard and being overly aggressive in situations where it's uncalled for.  Dumb decisions are dumb decisions.  Nobody is going to say it's ok to go for it on 4th & 10 from our own 35 with a 3 point lead and 45 seconds left because we want him to be more aggressive. 

Similarly, we've seen for years Young players who are still developing get pulled or not get playing time due to mistakes, but Marvin rolls with vets who make similar errors and are on the downside of their development curve.  

[*bengalfan74*]

(11-21-2018, 12:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And it is not a list of things that Marvin fails at.

Do you realize you just tried to criticize Marvin for both not "demanding accountability on the field" and "pulling players out for rookie mistakes".  So he gets ripped for both holding players accountable and NOT holding players accountable.

It is like criticizing him for both "being too conservative" and "giving up on the run too quickly".

You basically criticize everything Marvin does even when it is what you said he should do.  He got ripped constantly for being too conservative in the last minutes of the first half, but when he was aggressive in the last minutes of the half against the Ravens earlier this year he got ripped for that also.

Marvin has more wins against other NFL coaches than he does losses.  It is impossible for him to be bad at everything and still have a winning record.  Especially when he is handicapped by working for the worst owner in the league.

Fred demanding accountability is pulling a seasoned vet out of the game for walking out on the field in a playoff game with his overcoat on not pulling a rookie for being a half yard short on a 3rd down pass or for fumbling from a very unusual perfect hit. And then crushing then with public statements !

Bottom line - Marvin is not a good in game coach, he's outdated and refuses to change or is unable to.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 01:40 PM)Whatever Wrote: A large part of a head coach's job is deciding when to be aggressive and when to be conservative.  Another part of that knowing when to roll with player mistakes and when to discipline them for it.  There is no hard and fast rule to either.  

Exactly.  And that is what allows fans to rip Marvin no matter what he does.

If there are no "hard and fast" rules about being conservative with a lead then why do fans constantly rip Marvin about being conservative with a lead?  Funny thing is that when you ask these fans for a specific example of Marvin losing a game because he was too conservative with a lead they CAN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE.

That is also what allows fans to rip Marvin for being aggressive at the end of the half against the Ravens when they had been ripping him for years for NOT being more aggressive at the end of the half. 

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 02:06 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: he's outdated and refuses to change or is unable to.

What do you mean by this.

What exactly is "outdated" about his coaching.  Please give specific examples instead of just vague complaints that are impossible to prove.


BTW have you seen the threads where so many people claim Marvin needs to go to a 2=back offense or use a fullback more?  Seems there are a lot of people here in favor of that.

[Lucidus]

(11-21-2018, 12:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And it is not a list of things that Marvin fails at.

Do you realize you just tried to criticize Marvin for both not "demanding accountability on the field" and "pulling players out for rookie mistakes".  So he gets ripped for both holding players accountable and NOT holding players accountable.

It is like criticizing him for both "being too conservative" and "giving up on the run too quickly".

You basically criticize everything Marvin does even when it is what you said he should do.  He got ripped constantly for being too conservative in the last minutes of the first half, but when he was aggressive in the last minutes of the half against the Ravens earlier this year he got ripped for that also.

Marvin has more wins against other NFL coaches than he does losses.  It is impossible for him to be bad at everything and still have a winning record.  Especially when he is handicapped by working for the worst owner in the league.

In reading through various threads over the last few days, I've noticed a couple of very obvious flaws in arguments that I've seen you repeat numerous times. 

The first seems to be that coach Lewis was not given enough talent to succeed in a way that other coaches have. However, you go to great lengths to drive home the point that Lewis has made the playoffs seven times, which as you've implied, is an impressive feat. The problem that comes into play is when you then imply that coach Lewis was not given the proper talent to achieve said feat. Furthermore, you imply, rather vigorously, that it is a rather important aspect of his postseason inadequacies. Those assertions would logically seem to be in conflict with one another. If Lewis had rosters that were talented enough to reach the postseason seven times, it would follow that he should have had enough talent to win - at the least - a couple of those games. Moreover, given seven opportunities, one could logically assume - based on nothing more than probability - that he would've won at least one of those games in spite of any circumstance that may have suggested otherwise.

Another argument that I've noticed that has left me a bit perplexed is the one that suggests that the reason Lewis has failed is because of Brown. The problem with this argument is the rather similar to the previous. While it's true that Brown is not an ideal owner or general manager, Lewis has still managed to make the postseason seven times under him. You can laud that accomplishment as a great feat, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. However, you can't then excuse away the playoff losses as insurmountable plateaus. If Lewis could accomplish seven playoff berths under Brown, then once again, it would seem to follow that some playoff success should be probable as well. 

Lewis has been good enough, at times, to achieve a spot in multiple tournaments -- for which you give him tremendous praise. In doing so, you must also allocate a proper level of blame -- in context with said praise -- for the inexcusable postseason performances.

[Whatever]

(11-21-2018, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  And that is what allows fans to rip Marvin no matter what he does.

If there are no "hard and fast" rules about being conservative with a lead then why do fans constantly rip Marvin about being conservative with a lead?  Funny thing is that when you ask these fans for a specific example of Marvin losing a game because he was too conservative with a lead they CAN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE.

That is also what allows fans to rip Marvin for being aggressive at the end of the half against the Ravens when they had been ripping him for years for NOT being more aggressive at the end of the half. 

And it's also what allows Marvin's few defenders to justify whatever decision he makes.  You just pass the buck onto the players and say they didn't execute because Marvin doesn't have enough talent.

[BengalChris]

(11-21-2018, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  And that is what allows fans to rip Marvin no matter what he does.

If there are no "hard and fast" rules about being conservative with a lead then why do fans constantly rip Marvin about being conservative with a lead?  Funny thing is that when you ask these fans for a specific example of Marvin losing a game because he was too conservative with a lead they CAN'T GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE.

That is also what allows fans to rip Marvin for being aggressive at the end of the half against the Ravens when they had been ripping him for years for NOT being more aggressive at the end of the half. 

I don't rip Marvin for being too conservative or too aggressive. I rip him for his teams falling apart and losing important games. Can't get into the big game that way.

[Lucidus]

(11-21-2018, 05:50 PM)BengalChris Wrote: I don't rip Marvin for being too conservative or too aggressive. I rip him for his teams falling apart and losing important games. Can't get into the big game that way.

While I very much admire certain aspects of what coach Lewis has accomplished in Cincinnati, I've never felt that he was a "mentally tough" head coach. In turn, I think his teams have also lacked that quality, which often shows up in the most inopportune of times. We've all witnessed the occasions where discipline and emotional control have been severely lacking.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 04:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The first seems to be that coach Lewis was not given enough talent to succeed in a way that other coaches have. However, you go to great lengths to drive home the point that Lewis has made the playoffs seven times, which as you've implied, is an impressive feat. The problem that comes into play is when you then imply that coach Lewis was not given the proper talent to achieve said feat. Furthermore, you imply, rather vigorously, that it is a rather important aspect of his postseason inadequacies. Those assertions would logically seem to be in conflict with one another. If Lewis had rosters that were talented enough to reach the postseason seven times, it would follow that he should have had enough talent to win - at the least - a couple of those games. Moreover, given seven opportunities, one could logically assume - based on nothing more than probability - that he would've won at least one of those games in spite of any circumstance that may have suggested otherwise.

Another argument that I've noticed that has left me a bit perplexed is the one that suggests that the reason Lewis has failed is because of Brown. The problem with this argument is the rather similar to the previous. While it's true that Brown is not an ideal owner or general manager, Lewis has still managed to make the postseason seven times under him. You can laud that accomplishment as a great feat, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree. However, you can't then excuse away the playoff losses as insurmountable plateaus. If Lewis could accomplish seven playoff berths under Brown, then once again, it would seem to follow that some playoff success should be probable as well. 

First of all I am not the only one who claims the Bengals don't have enough talent.  If you come around here during free agency you will see that everyone here agrees with me that Mike Brown's free agent policies hurt the teams chances of winning.  The only time they try to deny this is when they want to blame everything on Marvin.  So they end up contradicting themselves depending on who they want to criticize.

Second, the argument that if Marvin has the talent to make the playoffs then he has the talent to win in the playoffs is no different than saying if Marvin is a good enough coach to make the playoffs then he is a good enough coach to win in the playoffs.  I just refuse to believe that some coaches don't try as hard to win in the regular season as they do in the playoffs. For example in '13 when we beat the Chargers on their own field in the regular season they were 5-6 and fighting as hard as they could to win every game to make the playoffs.  If Mike McCoy could "outcoach" Marvin then he would have done it during the regular season when they were desperate for a win.

When you look at the big picture 7 games in 15 seasons is actually a pretty small sample size.  Some of the losses were because we did not have enough talent, some of then were because players just had bad days (was Marvin the reason Dalton had 1 turnover against the Chargers in the regular season and 2 ints and 2 fumbles in the playoff game), and some of them might have been because Marvin made bad coaching decisions.  I don't really understand it.  Even Mike Zimmers defenses looked bad in the post season.  Maybe the Bengals are just cursed.

All I know is that anyone who claims Mike Brown's free agency policy has nothing to do with the Bengals chances of winning is either clueless or lying.  The teams with the most talent usual win in the postseason.

[fredtoast]

(11-21-2018, 05:44 PM)Whatever Wrote: And it's also what allows Marvin's few defenders to justify whatever decision he makes.  You just pass the buck onto the players and say they didn't execute because Marvin doesn't have enough talent.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying.

People who want to rip Marvin are all over the pace.  they scream about him being too conservative before the end of the half until he gets aggressive before the end of the half and it backfires.  Then they rip him for NOT being conservative at the end of the half.

I, on the other hand remain absolutely consistent.  I don't change my position or opinion to fit what just happened in the last game.  And I stick to actual facts.  For example, despite all the people who complain about Marvin being too conservative with a lead in the second half no one can give me an example of Marvin losing a game because he was too conservative with a lead in the second half.

People who want to rip Marvin claim we have all the talent we need to win Championships until it is free agency or the trading deadline then they squeal about how the bengasl don't even care about winning because they did not go get more talent.

I, on the other hand, consistently claim that Mike Brown does not do enough in free agency when all the other teams are active, but I don't freak out about the trading deadline because very few teams make deals then.

[*bengalfan74*]

(11-21-2018, 04:40 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Lewis has been good enough, at times, to achieve a spot in multiple tournaments -- for which you give him tremendous praise. In doing so, you must also allocate a proper level of blame -- in context with said praise -- for the inexcusable postseason performances.

Exactly !

Rep

[Lucidus]

(11-21-2018, 06:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all I am not the only one who claims the Bengals don't have enough talent.  If you come around here during free agency you will see that everyone here agrees with me that Mike Brown's free agent policies hurt the teams chances of winning.  The only time they try to deny this is when they want to blame everything on Marvin.  So they end up contradicting themselves depending on who they want to criticize.

Second, the argument that if Marvin has the talent to make the playoffs then he has the talent to win in the playoffs is no different than saying if Marvin is a good enough coach to make the playoffs then he is a good enough coach to win in the playoffs.  I just refuse to believe that some coaches don't try as hard to win in the regular season as they do in the playoffs. For example in '13 when we beat the Chargers on their own field in the regular season they were 5-6 and fighting as hard as they could to win every game to make the playoffs.  If Mike McCoy could "outcoach" Marvin then he would have done it during the regular season when they were desperate for a win.

When you look at the big picture 7 games in 15 seasons is actually a pretty small sample size.  Some of the losses were because we did not have as much talent, some of then were because players just had bad days (was Marvin the reason Dalton had 1 turnover against the Chargers in the regular season and 3 in the playoffs), and some of them might have been because Marvin made bad coaching decisions.  I don't really understand it.  Even Mike Zimmers defenses looked bad in the post season.  Maybe the Bengals are just cursed.

All I know is that anyone who claims Mike Brown's free agency policy has nothing to do with the Bengals chances of winning is either clueless or lying.  The teams with the most talent usual win in the postseason.

To the bold sentence, I most definitely agree that the losses have nothing to do with Lewis not wanting to win badly enough or not trying hard enough in the playoffs. I think he desperately wants a postseason victory to validate his career and I'm sure he does everything he feels necessary to prepare for those games. I just don't think -- as evidenced by the outcomes -- that he has done so adequately or competently, at least to this point. I do disagree that a coach can't be out coached by a coach that he had previously beaten. That's obviously possible and happens often. 

As it pertains to the second paragraph, I agree that there have been a number of things that have went wrong during those games. However, some of those teams have looked very ill-prepared to take the field and have failed mightily to adjust to the progression of events during the game. That, as a matter of accountability, has to fall directly at the feet of the head coach because he is ultimately responsible for the on-field action.

In addressing the last part, I will refer to my previous post. If those teams had enough talent to qualify as one of the final 12, they should have been talented enough to win at least one of those, if by sheer matter of chance if nothing else. 

I understand your point about Brown being a weight around the ankle in a certain sense, and I don't disagree with that. My point is that Lewis, by way of his own accomplishments in making the playoffs seven times, must be reasonably held accountable for the failings that followed -- especially in such inexplicable ways.