I think I know what might be really hindering this franchise. ( I might be wrong)

[GreenCornBengal]

(12-30-2018, 03:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not justifying anything. Just claiming that there is no causation in fan support/lack of and a team winning/losing. The negativity doesn't help or hurt the team's play on the field. That's delusional and entitled fan-thought.

Fans contributing to the "overall toxicity" is a DIRECT result of extended losing by said team and it's justified on its own merits. Singing kumbaya, hugging trees and thinking happy thoughts will not cause a team to magically play better and become more competitive. 

I'm not so sure. I've debated this back and forth with myself.

On one hand, a team should be completely disconnected from the fans, and the fans negative/positive outlook should have 0 effect on them.

On the other hand, these players are on average around age 24. They have fragile psyches and the negative social media aspect can effect them (see John Ross). Players are far more mentally weak than the players of a few decades ago. Boys are playing now, not men.

I think positivity from fans can drive a team the right direction. I think of Seattle and the 12s, or even Philly fans last year. Granted, the team has to be coached and playing well to create that positive vibe, but I think the positivity from the fans can be beneficial.

[Beaker]

(12-30-2018, 03:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not justifying anything. Just claiming that there is no causation in fan support/lack of and a team winning/losing. 

We weren't talking about the fans having a direct effect on wins or losses. We were referring to the overall negative culture surrounding the team. Can the fans control wins or losses? Nope. Can fans contribute to an atmosphere that surrounds a team? Yup. So how does being negative help that atmosphere in any capacity?

[Beaker]

(12-30-2018, 03:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Fans contributing to the "overall toxicity" is a DIRECT result of extended losing by said team and it's justified on its own merits. 

The fact that you think its justified is exactly part of the toxicity.

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-30-2018, 02:57 PM)Beaker Wrote: And my question stands, what good does being negative do? its rhetorical...negativity only hinders, it does not help in any way.

Do you really not understand that a fan base who does not show displeasure with the results of a team only encourages the ownership to stand pat, so there is no need to spend more money on coaching and better, possibly more expensive, players?

So, where does the incentive to be better come from, when support doesn't change?

[*bengalfan74*]

(12-30-2018, 03:03 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm not justifying anything. Just claiming that there is no causation in fan support/lack of and a team winning/losing. The negativity doesn't help or hurt the team's play on the field. That's delusional and entitled fan-thought.

Fans contributing to the "overall toxicity" is a DIRECT result of extended losing by said team and it's justified on its own merits. Singing kumbaya, hugging trees and thinking happy thoughts will not cause a team to magically play better and become more competitive. 

Exactly !

This toxicity has been created by nearly three decades of failure. Claiming that the "fans" are a part of that failure today, yesterday, tomorrow or however is grasping at straws on the very extreme end of reality.

And the refusal to change just throws gas on the fire.

[Beaker]

(12-30-2018, 03:05 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: Maybe a fan revolt is what will make the front office stand up and take notice, if not at least we have got to vent a little before next year. WHO DEY

It wont. And your venting didnt help make the experience any more enjoyable for you or anyone else.

[Beaker]

(12-30-2018, 03:10 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Exactly !

This toxicity has been created by nearly three decades of failure. Claiming that the "fans" are a part of that failure today, yesterday, tomorrow or however is grasping at straws on the very extreme end of reality.

And the refusal to change just throws gas on the fire.

I dont care how it was created. And I dont deny its there. I am saying the negativity contributes to the toxicity. You are the one who gets to choose how you respond to it. Do you continue with the negativity and contribute to the toxicity? Or do you not engage in it and help dispel it by controlling what you can...your actions? You want to blame the entire negative culture on the team. The team certainly has a large contribution to it, but is not 100% of the culture of a franchise. Accept responsibility for your percentage, no matter how small that may be. The team doesn't control how you act.

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-30-2018, 03:07 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: I'm not so sure. I've debated this back and forth with myself.

On one hand, a team should be completely disconnected from the fans, and the fans negative/positive outlook should have 0 effect on them.

On the other hand, these players are on average around age 24. They have fragile psyches and the negative social media aspect can effect them (see John Ross). Players are far more mentally weak than the players of a few decades ago. Boys are playing now, not men.

I think positivity from fans can drive a team the right direction. I think of Seattle and the 12s, or even Philly fans last year. Granted, the team has to be coached and playing well to create that positive vibe, but I think the positivity from the fans can be beneficial.

I'd say John Ross types are more the exception than the rule. 

That aside, Mike Brown's record and player results in 26+ seasons should have led any reasonable-thinking man to the conclusion that, the way it's being done is not the right way (if your goal is competing for SBs--which his isn't). But that's a different story for a different thread.

The stubbornness that he's shown has caused what he deserves; a sweeping, deep, negative reaction to his team's performance.

[Beaker]

(12-30-2018, 03:10 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Do you really not understand that a fan base who does not show displeasure with the results of a team only encourages the ownership to stand pat, so there is no need to spend more money on coaching and better, possibly more expensive, players?

So, where does the incentive to be better come from, when support doesn't change?

You can be displeased without contributing to the negativity. You have other actions besides incessant whining about every little thing a team does that displeases you. Stop going to games, don't purchase team merch, etc. Let your dollars show your displeasure. 

I am not saying you have to like or excuse the losing. I certainly dont like it. I am saying there are other ways to show it. There are other ways than just griping about it.

[Shake n Blake]

I have a bit of a theory on the choking. Back in the day, we had problems with talented yet toxic players. Guys who couldn't handle all the losing and spoke out against Mike publicly. He famously made up the "Pickens clause" to deter this, but eventually the NFL made rules against such clauses in contracts.

Over the past 10-15 years, it seems like the Bengals have mostly been taking quiet and very loyal players. Guys like Dalton, Green, Atkins, Dunlap, Whitworth, Leon, Peko, etc. Sure, Mikey also goes for some bargain players (with personality or off-field flaws), but the bulk of our teams have been comprised of guys who are quiet and very workman like (even Palmer fit this mold until he had enough).

Teams usually have a mental makeup they're looking for in the draft. That's often what their interviews are about. I've wondered if - instead of fiery winner types - the Bengals have prioritized personalities that will stay quiet and loyal, while not criticizing the FO. This same type of personality might tend to fold in pressure situations.

I first thought of this years ago when I saw an old pre-draft profile on Carson Palmer by a sports psychologist. He pretty accurately predicted how Palmer's career would go (something like he would generally succeed, but would shrink in big moments).

-------------

Ultimately, I think Marvin is the biggest problem as far as playoffs go. I think he has his input on offensive/defensive schemes, and we haven't set our best players up to succeed in big games. But I do wonder about the types of players we've been drafting.

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-30-2018, 03:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: We weren't talking about the fans having a direct effect on wins or losses. We were referring to the overall negative culture surrounding the team. Can the fans control wins or losses? Nope. Can fans contribute to an atmosphere that surrounds a team? Yup. So how does being negative help that atmosphere in any capacity?

By putting pressure on ownership to change, in a real, meaningful, results-based way.

Again, what owner takes it upon themselves to change when support is still positive, while a team's performance is sub-par?

[Beaker]

(12-30-2018, 03:21 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: By putting pressure on ownership to change, in a real, meaningful, results-based way.

Again, what owner takes it upon themselves to change when support is still positive, while a team's performance is sub-par?

Can you tell when your wife is upset with you even if she isnt yelling at you? Isnt her silence and disconnect sometimes a more powerful motivator for you to change than her b!tching at you? Can't her silent disappointment sometimes be a more powerful motivator for you to change your behavior, especially when she witholds her currency (sex)?

Its not always vocal negativity that effects change. And too much of it is toxic for any relationship.

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-30-2018, 03:09 PM)Beaker Wrote: The fact that you think its justified is exactly part of the toxicity.

I'm going to assume that you understand that sports entertainment is an emotional investment to a typical fan. I'm also going to assume that you understand that the emotional investment isn't typically apathy. It's positive or negative, depending on results. 

The justification is clearly and simply the resulting emotion drawn from the performance of the team, be it good or bad. It has nothing to do with my application due to opinion or belief.

[Shake n Blake]

(12-30-2018, 03:16 PM)Beaker Wrote: I dont care how it was created. And I dont deny its there. I am saying the negativity contributes to the toxicity. You are the one who gets to choose how you respond to it. Do you continue with the negativity and contribute to the toxicity? Or do you not engage in it and help dispel it by controlling what you can...your actions? You want to blame the entire negative culture on the team. The team certainly has a large contribution to it, but is not 100% of the culture of a franchise. Accept responsibility for your percentage, no matter how small that may be. The team doesn't control how you act.

You've been saying this for years and I genuinely mean no offense, but it's a load of crap.

Every fanbase on the planet is "toxic" when their team is losing. Some teams turn it around, some don't. 

It has everything to do with the moves each team makes and how they're run. It has zilch to do with fan energy or any other hippy BS. 

The Browns didn't turn it around this year because Browns fans suddenly became positive.

[Beaker]

(12-30-2018, 03:29 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I'm going to assume that you understand that sports entertainment is an emotional investment to a typical fan. I'm also going to assume that you understand that the emotional investment isn't typically apathy. It's positive or negative, depending on results. 

The justification is clearly and simply the resulting emotion drawn from the performance of the team, be it good or bad. It has nothing to do with my application due to opinion or belief.

I am going to assume that you realize you are the one who controls how you respond to any situation. Nowhere have I said that you should not be emotionally invested in your team. But even (most) toddlers eventually learn not to throw tantrums. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-30-2018, 03:19 PM)Beaker Wrote: You can be displeased without contributing to the negativity. You have other actions besides incessant whining about every little thing a team does that displeases you. Stop going to games, don't purchase team merch, etc. Let your dollars show your displeasure.

I am not saying you have to like or excuse the losing. I certainly dont like it. I am saying there are other ways to show it. There are other ways than just griping about it.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. 

This is a sports message board. What goes on here has little to no effect on a team or its ownership, since very few if any actually read what's being posted. It's a place for fans to share opinions or beliefs. It has nothing to do with showing displeasure with the team. That's done by what you stated, which has nothing to do with what happens, or what we're discussing, here.

You're trying to meld the two and that doesn't work.

[Whatever]

(12-30-2018, 02:06 PM)McC Wrote: Sorry but, with all due respect, HELL NO.

Do the fans create the culture?  No.  Do the fans run the crappy organization?  No.

Do the fans choose to keep a coach on such a downward spiral?  No.

If the fans are part of the culture, it's only as a reaction to the fools and morons running the circus. 

No fan base anywhere would keep coming back for more nut shots for this long.  None.  Nowhere.

Give the fans something to care about, something to give them hope, and just see how they react.  You just could not be more wrong.

Fans are a huge part of any team's culture.  I mean, the Black Hole up in Oakland, the Dawg Pound in Cleveland, the Cheeseheads and the Lambeau Leap in Green Bay, the wave and the 12th man in Seattle, the Hogs in Washington, that Fireman Ed guy for the Jets, the Terrible Towl in Pittsburgh, etc., etc.  Anybody who can't admit that has their head in the sand.

When this team is good enough to make the playoffs, the fans don't show up.  When we have something good and reasonable reason to hope for something better, we still don't turn out like we should.  Browns fans are turning out for a .500 team and they've been worse than us for forever.  

[Beaker]

(12-30-2018, 03:31 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: You've been saying this for years and I genuinely mean no offense, but it's a load of crap.

You are entitled to your beliefs. I have found otherwise in my life. You cannot deny fans reactions have an effect on the team. There's a reason why some places are hard for visiting teams to play. The fans have a positive belief that the team will make a 4th down play or comeback to win the game. In turn, the team feeds off that. The fans were not the only reason the team was successful, there were thousands of others. But the fans contributed to the success. Turn it around and fans with the "here we go again" mentality and responses during a game also contribute to doubt and belief creeping into the players psyche also.

Again, I dont think you need to accept the losing and bad decisions, but I think there are other ways to go about it than consistent whining.

[Beaker]

(12-30-2018, 03:38 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Those two things are not mutually exclusive. 

This is a sports message board. What goes on here has little to no effect on a team or its ownership, since very few if any actually read what's being posted. It's a place for fans to share opinions or beliefs. It has nothing to do with showing displeasure with the team. That's done by what you stated, which has nothing to do with what happens, or what we're discussing, here.

You're trying to meld the two and that doesn't work.

First you say they are not mutually exclusive...which they are. You can not support a team with your dollars without constant b!tching. Then you say I am trying to meld them. I am not. I am saying they are separate....but not the only...ways to handle your displeasure.

Re-read post 72.

[*rfaulk34*]

(12-30-2018, 03:25 PM)Beaker Wrote: Can you tell when your wife is upset with you even if she isnt yelling at you? Isnt her silence and disconnect sometimes a more powerful motivator for you to change than her b!tching at you? Can't her silent disappointment sometimes be a more powerful motivator for you to change your behavior, especially when she witholds her currency (sex)?

Its not always vocal negativity that effects change. And too much of it is toxic for any relationship.

They're both "effective" tools. One is not really demonstrably better than the other. 

Emotionally, silence isn't a typical response. It's more of a thought out response. It can also border on apathy in some situations. That being said, apathy could and should be more of a motivator than an emotional response. Good luck to you if you get someone/something back after apathy sets in.

P.S. If your (generally) wife is able to withhold her "currency", then you're (generally) not "selling" her a good enough product.