Injuries vs Coaching

[THE PISTONS]

I see some interesting contradictions on here.

1 ) I see people who say we will be better by default just by switching coaches. As if our staff for the past 15 years has been absolutely terrible.

The reality is that Marvin came in here and won where some decent coaches like Lebeau haven't been able to.

2 ) Now that we're largely going to have the same starters, I see people who harp on the injuries and cite how we started 4-1 before the injuries and say that just with health we'll be better.

IF it was injuries, then maybe the coaching wasn't terrible? It seems like logically both can't be blamed to large extents. IF Marvin started 4-1 then was devastated with injuries, then wouldn't we have went like 11-5 if healthy? Or better?

I do want to point out also that the defense was pretty bad all year, even when healthy as was the offensive line. And, the games we did win, we were eeked out.

So which do you think it is? Was the coaching really bad? Or was it injuries and will keeping the starters largely the same result in a successful year?

[*Nately120*]

I realize the optimistic views can often cause contradictions, as you've pointed out. We are going to be better because Marvin is gone...but last year we were super injured...and Lazor sucked....and Austin sucked....and Zampese sucked so bad that he wrecked 2016 and 2017...and so on and so forth.

I mean, I'm more than fine with moving on from Marvin, but we are also blaming a slew of injuries and the notion that we've had maybe 1 coordinator in the past 2 or 3 years who isn't season-destroyingly bad. It's just easier to say that we were bad because of everyone who is gone, and now that everyone who is gone is gone, everyone who is still here can FINALLY stop being held back by everyone who is gone (because they were the problem).

[THE PISTONS]

Well the risk with that is we seem to be largely bringing back the same roster. The offensive line and LB's are still subpar in my opinion. The defense was bad even when healthy last year.

And you know, this coming year...some guys will be injured.

Relying on health and new coaches to fix things may lull us into a false sense of security...like bringing back Bobby Hart instead of investing that money elsewhere.

[NKURyan]

(03-16-2019, 11:57 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I see some interesting contradictions on here.

1 ) I see people who say we will be better by default just by switching coaches. As if our staff for the past 15 years has been absolutely terrible.

The reality is that Marvin came in here and won where some decent coaches like Lebeau haven't been able to.

2 ) Now that we're largely going to have the same starters, I see people who harp on the injuries and cite how we started 4-1 before the injuries and say that just with health we'll be better.

IF it was injuries, then maybe the coaching wasn't terrible? It seems like logically both can't be blamed to large extents. IF Marvin started 4-1 then was devastated with injuries, then wouldn't we have went like 11-5 if healthy? Or better?

I do want to point out also that the defense was pretty bad all year, even when healthy as was the offensive line. And, the games we did win, we were eeked out.

So which do you think it is? Was the coaching really bad? Or was it injuries and will keeping the starters largely the same result in a successful year?

I don't think Marvin is a terrible coach. I think any coach is going to slip after 15 years in the same place. My belief is the players grew complacent and a change in voice might help. I think Marvin can find similar success to what he had here if he goes somewhere else, and I'll be rooting for him if he does.

As far as injuries are concerned, if anything it only exposed how poor the coaching was. Lose Eifert and the offense screeches to a halt? A lot of that's on the coaches. Stuck with a backup QB who is an unproven passer but can run, and decide to keep having him drop back to throw? That's on the coaches. Where were the adjustments?

If we're going to point out contradictions, how come you'll give Marvin all the credit over the front office for every good player that was brought in without pinning any of the misses on him? If he's the one who is responsible for drafting guys like Atkins, Dunlap, and Mixon, then he deserves the blame for drafting the two awful tackles, and missing on LB after LB in the middle rounds of the draft. Which one is?

[SunsetBengal]

You say the defense was bad all year, but did you not see the D-Line pretty much take over and single handedly dismantle the Dolphins?

Yes, I realize that the Dolphins were working with a makeshift OL, but no one makes those excuses in favor of the Bengal offense not being able to overcome adversity..

[Joelist]

The OL blocking issues were definitely part of the problem, but even with them they did manage a 4-1 start with some nice come from behind wins. The weirdest part was the offense tanking after losing Eifert and it really looked like they did not adapt to losing him. Losing AJ hurt too (remember her missed a lot of time before he was shut down for the season) and also Mixon missed time. Finally Andy was injured.

Schematically the TE position was basically wiped out by injuries and AJ Green was basically nonexistent after week 8. Ross was a total bust which meant our WR group was running Boyd out there with people like Cody Core or Malone.

[NKURyan]

(03-17-2019, 12:41 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You say the defense was bad all year, but did you not see the D-Line pretty much take over and single handedly dismantle the Dolphins?

Yes, I realize that the Dolphins were working with a makeshift OL, but no one makes those excuses in favor of the Bengal offense not being able to overcome adversity..

2018: 30th in points allowed, 32nd in yards allowed
2017: 16th and 18th
2016: 8th and 17th
2015: 2nd and 11th
2014: 12th and 22nd
2013: 5th and 3rd
2012: 8th and 6th
2011: 9th and 7th

Last year sure looks like the exception and not the rule.

[BengalChris]

(03-16-2019, 11:57 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I see some interesting contradictions on here.

1 ) I see people who say we will be better by default just by switching coaches. As if our staff for the past 15 years has been absolutely terrible.

The reality is that Marvin came in here and won where some decent coaches like Lebeau haven't been able to.

2 ) Now that we're largely going to have the same starters, I see people who harp on the injuries and cite how we started 4-1 before the injuries and say that just with health we'll be better.

IF it was injuries, then maybe the coaching wasn't terrible? It seems like logically both can't be blamed to large extents. IF Marvin started 4-1 then was devastated with injuries, then wouldn't we have went like 11-5 if healthy? Or better?

I do want to point out also that the defense was pretty bad all year, even when healthy as was the offensive line. And, the games we did win, we were eeked out.

So which do you think it is? Was the coaching really bad? Or was it injuries and will keeping the starters largely the same result in a successful year?

All good points.

Marvin became stale, that's all really.

Should this team have a better record in 2019? Yes, it should and if the team stays healthy I believe Marvin would have had a better record also so a better record in 2019 (if the team actually accomplishes that) really doesn't tell me anything.

What I'm looking for is not a better record, but contention for a SB. Marvin couldn't take us past the first round, but he was able to do more than any coach before him under the Mike Brown front office. That was his ceiling. If he had been the head coach for a team with a better front office then he likely would have gone further.

What will the new coaching staff's ceiling be working with this front office? What will their floor be? We don't know yet.

But anything short of contending for a SB will be unsatisfactory. If this new coaching staff cannot getting us past the 1st round quickly their tenure should be brief.

 

[Bengalitis]

(03-16-2019, 11:57 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I see some interesting contradictions on here.

1 ) I see people who say we will be better by default just by switching coaches. As if our staff for the past 15 years has been absolutely terrible.

The reality is that Marvin came in here and won where some decent coaches like Lebeau haven't been able to.

2 ) Now that we're largely going to have the same starters, I see people who harp on the injuries and cite how we started 4-1 before the injuries and say that just with health we'll be better.

IF it was injuries, then maybe the coaching wasn't terrible? It seems like logically both can't be blamed to large extents. IF Marvin started 4-1 then was devastated with injuries, then wouldn't we have went like 11-5 if healthy? Or better?

I do want to point out also that the defense was pretty bad all year, even when healthy as was the offensive line. And, the games we did win, we were eeked out.

So which do you think it is? Was the coaching really bad? Or was it injuries and will keeping the starters largely the same result in a successful year?

The defense was "bad" but competent in winning us games and keeping us IN the game. out of those 5 games they easily won 2 for us and were clicking.  The offense was playing well in spite of the mediocre line (credit goes to FO for upgrading last summer), where penalties kept us out scoring opportunities or would wipe out huge runs by Mixon, special teams or catches by out receivers. Last year's team had the personnel to go .500 or better. What I think happened was that the coaches lost confidence and then the players did too, more so as the injuries kept increasing. The coaches are mostly to blame for letting it get out of control. Eventually Austin got fired but it was too late too little.   The return of Burfict probably changed things for the worst. I think its been documented that every time he is absent, we go on winning streaks, when he returns from his suspensions, we go the other way.  The coaches get the majority of the blame (yes, Marvin tried), then players and lastly injuries,  because injuries are gonna happen no matter what. We need more quality back-ups. That's one thing this time always lacks. Quality back-ups.

[fredtoast]

I must admit that many of the same people who have always claimed Marvin was the problem are now saying we won't win in 2019 because we don't have enough talented players.

[THE PISTONS]

I tend to think that they overachieved under Marvin during the regular season may times. In the playoffs, it was a combination of Coaching Strategy, but our roster always had 1 or 2 glaring weaknesses that other teams could exploit...and they sure did.

Also, in the playoffs even under Zimmer our defense would kind of fold. Teams could generally run on us. In the Steelers meltdown, people forget that Bell was out and the Steelers STILL ran on us for instance.

Last year, totally healthy...we probably win 10 games.

The thing that Marvin had going against him was 15 years without a playoff win. You lose the players at some point.

But, also...Management undermined him. I remember Marvin saying that Chris Henry wouldn't be bad, then MB signed him. That undermines a coach.

Then, the meltdown against the Steelers. You either have to fire the coach in that situation, or get rid of the players (Burfict and Jones). Jones was a free agent and they retained him. Burfict eventually signed an extension. Speaking of Burfict...he misses A LOT of time with injuries or suspensions. It's hard to win when you build your defense around that guy.

I don't think the Bengals job is an easy job. Coughlin questioned if he could win here and he went on to win 2 SB's in NY. Marvin was able to come in here and thrive. It will be interesting to see if inexperienced coaches like Taylor and company can. So far, there have been some red flags...but IF they can come up with an innovative scheme...the might be able to overcome the lack of offensive line.

The poor LB thing, I don't think you can scheme around as much unless you use more DB's. But, that has it's flaws too.

[Whodey614]

I don't think ZT will immediately be a better coach than Marvin. At the end of the day, Marvin is the one that turned this franchise around. He might have been a flawed coach but he made it possible for Cincinnati to be a winning team. That's big shoes to fill. ZT is now expected to take the step that Marvin couldn't. I think ZT and Callahan will be a big improvement schematically. For example, the offense won't die if Eifert or AJ goes down god forbid. Anarumo seems interested in throwing new looks and going multiple. Austin forced his players to play his scheme and didn't adjust. The assistant coaches are young and could get more out of the struggling young players (Willis, Evans, Ross, etc).

I can get with the idea that they believe the injuries last year derailed us and a new voice, a couple of pieces and better luck can get us back in the playoffs. What I don't understand is them thinking Bobby Hart can possibly improve and doing nothing to improve the worst LB group last year. Now maybe Burfict returns to 2016 form, Devin White/Bush is Mike Singletary 2.0, Brown is a tackling machine again, Vigil plays a limited role where he's your 4th best LB and that's instantly a good LB group. Counting on it to happen though? I just can't get with it.

[Whatever]

(03-17-2019, 12:12 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I tend to think that they overachieved under Marvin during the regular season may times. In the playoffs, it was a combination of Coaching Strategy, but our roster always had 1 or 2 glaring weaknesses that other teams could exploit...and they sure did.

Also, in the playoffs even under Zimmer our defense would kind of fold. Teams could generally run on us. In the Steelers meltdown, people forget that Bell was out and the Steelers STILL ran on us for instance.

Last year, totally healthy...we probably win 10 games.

The thing that Marvin had going against him was 15 years without a playoff win. You lose the players at some point.

But, also...Management undermined him. I remember Marvin saying that Chris Henry wouldn't be bad, then MB signed him. That undermines a coach.

Then, the meltdown against the Steelers. You either have to fire the coach in that situation, or get rid of the players (Burfict and Jones). Jones was a free agent and they retained him. Burfict eventually signed an extension. Speaking of Burfict...he misses A LOT of time with injuries or suspensions. It's hard to win when you build your defense around that guy.

I don't think the Bengals job is an easy job. Coughlin questioned if he could win here and he went on to win 2 SB's in NY. Marvin was able to come in here and thrive. It will be interesting to see if inexperienced coaches like Taylor and company can. So far, there have been some red flags...but IF they can come up with an innovative scheme...the might be able to overcome the lack of offensive line.

The poor LB thing, I don't think you can scheme around as much unless you use more DB's. But, that has it's flaws too.

I don't think the team ever really overachieved under Marvin.  Marvin was the NFL equivalent of John Cooper.  He would beat the team's that he should be able to to beat, but in big spots against top competition, he always came up short.

[NKURyan]

(03-17-2019, 06:30 PM)Whatever Wrote: I don't think the team ever really overachieved under Marvin.  Marvin was the NFL equivalent of John Cooper.  He would beat the team's that he should be able to to beat, but in big spots against top competition, he always came up short.

I would say that they probably overachieved in 2009, and they definitely overachieved in 2011.

[Whatever]

(03-17-2019, 06:53 PM)NKURyan Wrote: I would say that they probably overachieved in 2009, and they definitely overachieved in 2011.

The 2011 squad squeaked into the playoffs with a 9-7 record and were 3rd in the AFCN.  Plus, there were a lot of good young players on that squad.  I don't know that they so much overachieved as they hit 2 home runs with their first two draft picks and had several young guys like Geno, Gresham, Whit, etc come of age.

[NKURyan]

(03-17-2019, 07:56 PM)Whatever Wrote: The 2011 squad squeaked into the playoffs with a 9-7 record and were 3rd in the AFCN.  Plus, there were a lot of good young players on that squad.  I don't know that they so much overachieved as they hit 2 home runs with their first two draft picks and had several young guys like Geno, Gresham, Whit, etc come of age.

The talk at the start of that season was that they'd be lucky to win a game. Not only were they going into the season with a new QB and WR for the first time in forever, but the offseason was severely compromised due to the NFL lockout. That was one of, if not THE, best coaching job of Marvin's career in getting them to the playoffs. If that's not overachieving, what is?

[Whatever]

(03-17-2019, 09:44 PM)NKURyan Wrote: The talk at the start of that season was that they'd be lucky to win a game. Not only were they going into the season with a new QB and WR for the first time in forever, but the offseason was severely compromised due to the NFL lockout. That was one of, if not THE, best coaching job of Marvin's career in getting them to the playoffs. If that's not overachieving, what is?

If we're going by the pundits, then Marvin overachieved most of the years he was here because we have always been the go to pick for worst team in the league.

[SladeX]

(03-17-2019, 01:04 AM)NKURyan Wrote: 2018: 30th in points allowed, 32nd in yards allowed
2017: 16th and 18th
2016: 8th and 17th
2015: 2nd and 11th
2014: 12th and 22nd
2013: 5th and 3rd
2012: 8th and 6th
2011: 9th and 7th

Last year sure looks like the exception and not the rule.

Single digit numbers when Zimmer was the DC.

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2019, 06:30 PM)Whatever Wrote: I don't think the team ever really overachieved under Marvin.  Marvin was the NFL equivalent of John Cooper.  He would beat the team's that he should be able to to beat, but in big spots against top competition, he always came up short.

Actually other than the mind boggling record against the Steelers Marvin was pretty decent against good teams.

From '03 to '18 only 11 teams had more wins against playoff teams than the Bengals 31.  Under Marvin the Bengals won 37% of their games (29-50-2) against playoff teams other than the Steelers.  That does not sound very impressive until you realize that only 7 teams in the league won more than 37% of their games against playoff teams during that same span.  But we were only 2-18 against the Steelers when they were a playoff team.  Still the Bengals overall record against playoff teams was in the top half of the league under Marvin.

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2019, 06:53 PM)NKURyan Wrote: I would say that they probably overachieved in 2009, 

2009 was literally smoke and mirrors.  After Chris Henry went down with injury in week 8 our offense disappeared and we were one of the worse teams in the league over the second half of the season.  We beat the Steelers in week 9 without scoring an offensive td.  After that we went 3-5 without a single victory over a team better than 5-11.  We had to score a td with just 2 minutes left to pull out a victory over the 3-12 Chiefs in week 15 to win the division.