In 1992, IF the Bengals hired 2004 Marvin Lewis instead of Dave Shula...

[BengalChris]

(06-11-2019, 10:51 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Most definitely would have been better than we were, but Marv still has a ceiling he could not breech. It would most likely been just another decade of either just missing the playoffs, or losing in the 1st round. Marvin did not seem able to get the team to produce in their biggest moments. That's on coaching...

I would say that Marvin pushed up Mike Brown's ceiling quite a bit. And that Mike Brown, considering that he brought down every other coaches ceiling, also brought down Marvin's ceiling.

[fredtoast]

(06-11-2019, 04:57 PM)XsandOs Wrote: But to your question of whether Shula would have succeeded in '04 as did Lewis, I think it would be unfair to assume that he wouldn't.

This is just ridiculous.

For 12 years (with 3 different head coaches) the Bengals don't have a single winning season and average less than 5 wins a year.  They are the worst team (by 13 losses) over that period.  Then they hire Marvin and over the next 13 years have only 3 losing seasons with the 8th best regular season winning percenrtage in the league. 

And some of you are trying to claim coaching had nothing to do with it?

C'mon, Marvin inherited a TWO WIN team and immediately lost his best player on offense (Dillon) and defense (Spikes).  He did not have a losing season for 5 years after the team had had a losing record 11 of the 12 seasons before he arrived.

Shula took over a team that had a lot more talented players than Marvin did...4 guys who were selcted All Pro during their career, Boomer Esiason, DT Tim Krumrie, Safety David Fulcher, and LB Alfred Williams.... 5 more guys who made Pro Bowl teams, TE Rodney Holman (3 X), RB Harold Green, WR Carl Pickens (2 X), Safety Darryl Williams, and CB Eric Thomas.....plus other talented players like WR Tim McGee (1211 yards and 18.6 avg in '89), and LB/DE Danny Stubbs (2 seasons with 9 sacks, 52 for his career).

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(06-11-2019, 03:49 PM)XsandOs Wrote: I don't believe it would have been significantly better.

The biggest issue was that the organization was in disarray, after PB Sr died. It literally took Jr about a decade to learn nuances of running a football organization. Not just financially, but talent evaluation and development. PB Sr. ran the entire organization as the owner, GM, as well as system creator.

PB Jr. had to also adjust to Plan B and then the current FA system in '93.

Additionally, the Team that went to '88 SB Team was decimated. OL was non-existent, the defense was gone, and obviously the QB...

So, I don't think any coach would have had much success.

PB Jr. has NEVER had a prominent role in this organization...

[depthchart]

(06-12-2019, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is just ridiculous.

For 12 years (with 3 different head coaches) the Bengals don't have a single winning season and average less than 5 wins a year.  They are the worst team (by 13 losses) over that period.  Then they hire Marvin and over the next 13 years have only 3 losing seasons with the 8th best regular season winning percenrtage in the league. 

And some of you are trying to claim coaching had nothing to do with it?

C'mon, Marvin inherited a TWO WIN team and immediately lost his best player on offense (Dillon) and defense (Spikes).  He did not have a losing season for 5 years after the team had had a losing record 11 of the 12 seasons before he arrived.

Shula took over a team that had a lot more talented players than Marvin did...4 guys who were selcted All Pro during their career, Boomer Esiason, DT Tim Krumrie, Safety David Fulcher, and LB Alfred Williams.... 5 more guys who made Pro Bowl teams, TE Rodney Holman (3 X), RB Harold Green, WR Carl Pickens (2 X), Safety Darryl Williams, and CB Eric Thomas.....plus other talented players like WR Tim McGee (1211 yards and 18.6 avg in '89), and LB/DE Danny Stubbs (2 seasons with 9 sacks, 52 for his career).

People be Marvin hatin,  Fred !

To the point of Marvin being no Dave Shula.  

Or at best Shula's equal according to some.



.

[XsandOs]

(06-12-2019, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is just ridiculous.

For 12 years (with 3 different head coaches) the Bengals don't have a single winning season and average less than 5 wins a year.  They are the worst team (by 13 losses) over that period.  Then they hire Marvin and over the next 13 years have only 3 losing seasons with the 8th best regular season winning percenrtage in the league. 

And some of you are trying to claim coaching had nothing to do with it?

C'mon, Marvin inherited a TWO WIN team and immediately lost his best player on offense (Dillon) and defense (Spikes).  He did not have a losing season for 5 years after the team had had a losing record 11 of the 12 seasons before he arrived.

Shula took over a team that had a lot more talented players than Marvin did...4 guys who were selcted All Pro during their career, Boomer Esiason, DT Tim Krumrie, Safety David Fulcher, and LB Alfred Williams.... 5 more guys who made Pro Bowl teams, TE Rodney Holman (3 X), RB Harold Green, WR Carl Pickens (2 X), Safety Darryl Williams, and CB Eric Thomas.....plus other talented players like WR Tim McGee (1211 yards and 18.6 avg in '89), and LB/DE Danny Stubbs (2 seasons with 9 sacks, 52 for his career).

Fred, I won't get into a discussion around this with you because you will delve into nonsensical.

Marvin came in at the right time with a better roster.

No hate for Marvin. None!

But it is unfair to Shula to assume that he would not have succeeded with Anderson, Jones and Steinbach blocking , Chad as X and an owner who finally figured the business.

If you don't remember, I'll refresh your memory. Esiason was shot. He was throwing the deep comebacks high and out, because he had no arm. The OL was gone. Krumrie never recovered from the leg, Thomas and Fulcher were done. Boomer and Thomas tried to create the Brngals East in NY, but it never happened.

Fred, I'm not your psychiatrist. And I won't be a party to your visceral thoughtless reactions.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

The question should be . . . what would the 90s have been like if Shula had the freedom that Marvin Lewis enjoyed as a HC? MB stepped back after Dick LeBeau was fired, hired more scouts and more front office personnel.

Shula never had a Duke Tobin in place, he had Jim Lippincott(sp?).

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2019, 03:07 AM)XsandOs Wrote: Fred, I won't get into a discussion around this with you because you will delve into nonsensical.

If you don't remember, I'll refresh your memory. Esiason was shot.

Fred, I'm not your psychiatrist. And I won't be a party to your visceral thoughtless reactions.

Th real reason you won't get into a discussion with me about this is because I will embarrass you with facts.

For example, Esiason was so "shot" that the next season he finished 8th in the league in passer rating and went to the Pro Bowl.

[*ochocincos*]

(06-13-2019, 01:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Th real reason you won't get into a discussion with me about this is because I will embarrass you with facts.

For example, Esiason was so "shot" that the next season he finished 8th in the league in passer rating and went to the Pro Bowl.

That 1992 season was rough though when it came to passing, holy moly.
The running yards nearly matched the passing yards (1976 ruYd vs 2284 pYd).
The top receiver only had 408 yards.

[XsandOs]

(06-13-2019, 01:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Th real reason you won't get into a discussion with me about this is because I will embarrass you with facts.

For example, Esiason was so "shot" that the next season he finished 8th in the league in passer rating and went to the Pro Bowl.

Fred, you can't embarrass me. You are the one who gets corrected on this board.

You are calling my opinion as ridiculous, where your are expressing an opinion just the same.

Maybe it's your personality to be crass.

I wouldn't interact with you in person, nor on this board. That's the reason.

[XsandOs]

(06-13-2019, 02:19 PM)ochocincos Wrote: That 1992 season was rough though when it came to passing, holy moly.
The running yards nearly matched the passing yards (1976 ruYd vs 2284 pYd).
The top receiver only had 408 yards.

Unfortunately Ocho, that is what happens when you lose 3 out of 5 starters on your OL.

Your HOF LT retires, you have a rookie at LT, your C is now your LG, and you have a C and RG with one year in the league.

Also, you lose Brooks and your new future XWR is a rookie.

The OL issues destroyed any hope that Klingler could succeed. Even with Anderson working with him, he was getting the life beat out of him.

[*ochocincos*]

(06-13-2019, 04:14 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Unfortunately Ocho, that is what happens when you lose 3 out of 5 starters on your OL.

Your HOF LT retires, you have a rookie at LT, your C is now your LG, and you have a C and RG with one year in the league.

Also, you lose Brooks and your new future XWR is a rookie.

The OL issues destroyed any hope that Klingler could succeed. Even with Anderson working with him, he was getting the life beat out of him.

Thanks for explanation. I was too young that I didn't really care that much about NFL back then. I watched games every now and then when my dad had it on but I definitely didn't pay attention to anyone outside of Boomer, Pickens, Dillon, Blake, or Scott.

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2019, 03:30 PM)XsandOs Wrote: You are calling my opinion as ridiculous, where your are expressing an opinion just the same.

Except I back my opinion up with facts.

If Esiason was "shot" like you claim then how did he finish 8th in passer rating and get selected to a Pro Bowl the next season?

(06-13-2019, 03:30 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Maybe it's your personality to be crass. 

You were the one who started with the personal shots, not me.

[XsandOs]

(06-13-2019, 05:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except I back my opinion up with facts.

If Esiason was "shot" like you claim then how did he finish 8th in passer rating and get selected to a Pro Bowl the next season?




You were the one who started with the personal shots, not me.

Fred, your demeanor on this board is confrontational.

You have picked on one part of multiple reasons I provided for why Shula was at a disadvantage in '92 than Marvin in '03.

Just so you know, Boomer was a fast ball passer both in baseball and football. What he learned in NFL was touch.

After 8 years in NFL, he lost his fastball. He could no longer throw the deep comebacks from the opposite hash. He made a comment on an interview that he was throwing them high and out, to not get intercepted.

But as you always do Fred, you chose one area of an argument and hope it somehow proves a point. It doesn't.

Three out of five OL positions were lost entering '92. Rookie LT, C moved to LG, RG and C with one year in the league.

Billups gone, Fulcher was washed up and on his way out, Krumrie was done, Williams was a rookie, Brooks was gone, Pickens was a rookie, etc.

So you want to talk about providing evidence to embarrass me? Really? You? Fred Toast???

BTW, Marvins' success was directly related to the offense - which was driven by having Levi, Willie, Steinbach and then Williams. That OL helped Kitna and Palmer succeed.

I assume you watched the Bengals last year and the year before. Given the state of our OL, how did that work out? The '92 OL was worse.

So Fred, I'll explain it to you again, it is unfair to say that Shula would not have succeeded in '03. That is an opinion Fred. Just as is yours.

The difference is that I don't call your opinion ridiculous and comically proclaim that you could somehow embarrass me with your evidence.

[XsandOs]

(06-13-2019, 05:08 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Thanks for explanation. I was too young that I didn't really care that much about NFL back then. I watched games every now and then when my dad had it on but I definitely didn't pay attention to anyone outside of Boomer, Pickens, Dillon, Blake, or Scott.

We had the best OL in the league for a good 3-4 year stretch in the '80s.

It was a beauty to watch. Then Remington gets injured, we lose Blados, Munoz retires, and we never recovered till we started drafting Levi, Willie and Steinbach.

To this day, I feel that Klingler would have been a fine QB, if we had a line.

His second year, Anderson worked with him on accuracy. Early in the season we played the Browns and the Kid was near perfect. I think he had two incompletions out of 20+ attempts and we were up by 14.

Second half, on one drive he got sacked three times in a row.

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2019, 09:42 PM)XsandOs Wrote: The difference is that I don't call your opinion ridiculous 

(06-13-2019, 03:07 AM)XsandOs Wrote: Fred, I won't get into a discussion around this with you because you will delve into nonsensical.

Fred, I'm not your psychiatrist. And I won't be a party to your visceral thoughtless reactions.

This is what always happens.  I get attacked and then the attacker tries to act like he is better than me.  Y'all need to grow up.


Gary Reasons openly mocked Shula on the sidelines.  Shula's .268 winning percentage ranks 176 out of the 180 men who have been NFL head coaches.  These are not "opinions".  These are "facts".  And based on those facts it is ridiculous to claim Shula would have had as much success as Marvin.


If ANY coach could have won with the talent Marvin inherited then why did the Bengals only win 2 games in '02? 

[THE PISTONS]

(06-13-2019, 04:14 PM)XsandOs Wrote: Unfortunately Ocho, that is what happens when you lose 3 out of 5 starters on your OL.

Your HOF LT retires, you have a rookie at LT, your C is now your LG, and you have a C and RG with one year in the league.

Also, you lose Brooks and your new future XWR is a rookie.

The OL issues destroyed any hope that Klingler could succeed. Even with Anderson working with him, he was getting the life beat out of him.

And...your drafts are bad. Looking back, we got something out of 1st Round picks sometimes, but missed badly on most 2nd Round picks on.

[XsandOs]

(06-14-2019, 01:13 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: And...your drafts are bad. Looking bad, we got something out of 1st Round picks sometimes, but missed badly on most 2nd Round picks on.

I agree Pistons.

[XsandOs]

(06-14-2019, 11:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is what always happens.  I get attacked and then the attacker tries to act like he is better than me.  Y'all need to grow up.


Gary Reasons openly mocked Shula on the sidelines.  Shula's .268 winning percentage ranks 176 out of the 180 men who have been NFL head coaches.  These are not "opinions".  These are "facts".  And based on those facts it is ridiculous to claim Shula would have had as much success as Marvin.


If ANY coach could have won with the talent Marvin inherited then why did the Bengals only win 2 games in '02? 

Cause and effect, Fred.

If "This is what always happens" as you said, then maybe it's you.