Zac must go 5-2 to match Dave Shula's 1st year record

[THE PISTONS]

Shula had 5 wins and another 5 games we lost by 7 or less. (I know you Taylor supporters count close losses as wins.)

Zac Taylor must go 5-2 the rest of the way to match David Shula's first season with #Bengals

— Lance McAlister (@LanceMcAlister) November 11, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Bengalholic]

(11-10-2019, 10:30 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Shula had 5 wins and another 5 games we lost by 7 or less. (I know you Taylor supporters count close losses as wins.)

Zac Taylor must go 5-2 the rest of the way to match David Shula's first season with #Bengals

— Lance McAlister (@LanceMcAlister) November 11, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Shula won 5 games in his first year. Tom Landry won zero. So what does either of those things prove? If Zac wins less than Shula, but more than Landry, does that mean Shula was better than Landry? I get confused by the math.

Seriously though, I have no idea what to make of Zac at this point and have been disappointed with a lot of what I've seen so far.

[THE PISTONS]

Well the fact that they hired him for his offensive mind and he's a terrible coordinator doesn't bode well. What good skills does he have?

[BengalChris]

(11-10-2019, 11:11 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Shula won 5 games in his first year. Tom Landry won zero. So what does either of those things prove? If Zac wins less than Shula, but more than Landry, does that mean Shula was better than Landry?

Seriously though, I have no idea what to make of Zac at this point and have been disappointed with a lot of what I've seen from him so far.

Tom Landry's team was an expansion team. Not exactly comparing oranges to oranges with that one. Back then there was no free agency, not extra picks. You had to build from nothing.

Taylor inherited a 6 win team and has turned it in to a circus. 

 

[Bengalholic]

(11-10-2019, 11:15 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Well the fact that they hired him for his offensive mind and he's a terrible coordinator doesn't bode well. What good skills does he have?

Don't really know at this point. I agree that he needs to let someone else call the plays. They actually reached out to guys like Kubiak and Bevell in the offseason, but that was prior to Zac's official hiring...so I don't know if he had any input in that, or if he was always planning on calling his own plays. Whatever the case, I think he would be much better served to turn those duties over and concentrate on just being the HC.

[*Nately120*]

(11-10-2019, 11:15 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Tom Landry's team was an expansion team. Not exactly comparing oranges to oranges with that one. Back then there was no free agency, not extra picks. You had to build from nothing.

Taylor inherited a 6 win team and has turned it in to a circus. 

 

No way!  Comparing today to decades ago is always accurate.  For instance, Dalton's TD to INT ratio is way better than Terry Bradshaw's, therefore he can win 4 SBs and we are crazy to bench him!

[Bengalholic]

(11-10-2019, 11:15 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Tom Landry's team was an expansion team. Not exactly comparing oranges to oranges with that one. Back then there was no free agency, not extra picks. You had to build from nothing.

Taylor inherited a 6 win team and has turned it in to a circus. 

 

Yeah, brother...I was just having a little fun with the math equations of rookie coach wins totals as it relates to studs and duds.

(11-10-2019, 11:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: No way!  Comparing today to decades ago is always accurate.  For instance, Dalton's TD to INT ratio is way better than Terry Bradshaw's, therefore he can win 4 SBs and we are crazy to bench him!

[*bengalfan74*]

(11-10-2019, 11:15 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Tom Landry's team was an expansion team. Not exactly comparing oranges to oranges with that one. Back then there was no free agency, not extra picks. You had to build from nothing.

Taylor inherited a 6 win team and has turned it in to a circus.

 

After the 4-1 start to 2018 they went 2-9 beating the 5-11 Bucs, the game where Winston was benched after his 4th int. or whatever and the Fitz  threw for like 3 TD's in 10 minutes and we barely hung on to win 37-34. Then we beat the awful 4-12 Raiders near the end. Let's not act like he inherited a team on the cusp of being good. The Chiefs hung what 45 on the 2018 team, the Saints 50 something. Hell the damn Browns put what 28 on the board in one qtr on us.

I'm not trying to defend Taylor, just saying

[*Nately120*]

(11-10-2019, 11:45 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: After the 4-1 start to 2018 they went 2-9 beating the 5-11 Bucs, the game where Winston was benched after his 4th int. or whatever and the Fitz  threw for like 3 TD's in 10 minutes and we barely hung on to win 37-34. Then we beat the awful 4-12 Raiders near the end. Let's not act like he inherited a team on the cusp of being good. The Chiefs hung what 45 on the 2018 team, the Saints 50 something. Hell the damn Browns put what 28 on the board in one qtr on us.

I'm not trying to defend Taylor, just saying

I hear ya, but a bad HC taking over a bad team is how you get to be 0-9.  Look at the Dolphins/'skins/Falcons/Jets winning 2 or so games...it's really hard to go 0-fer in this league unless you have a lot of things wrong.  Like a LOT.

[Nati#1]

I bet Taylor says, "we're gonna keep fighting for that win. We did some great things today, our defense played there hearts out, I didn't see one guy give up. If that 1 play would have went differently it would have been a different story. We would have won the game. Lou Anarumo is a genius, just some miscommunication. Next week they'll fight harder and come back stronger than ever, Lou will only allow the Raiders to get 1,000 yards only come next week. Dont worry.

[*bengalfan74*]

(11-11-2019, 12:04 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I hear ya, but a bad HC taking over a bad team is how you get to be 0-9.  Look at the Dolphins/'skins/Falcons/Jets winning 2 or so games...it's really hard to go 0-fer in this league unless you have a lot of things wrong.  Like a LOT.

Agree

I'm very disappointed in ZT to put it mildly. I had no illusions that we were Super Bowl bound this season. But it did feel we could field a competitive team, at least. Hell the product this bunch is putting on the field doesn't even qualify as a cl@#$ f@#$ !

They're not only bad, they're historically bad !! And a ton of the blame lies at the coaches feet, I don't care how you break it down.

[bengalguy71]

(11-10-2019, 10:30 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Shula had 5 wins and another 5 games we lost by 7 or less. (I know you Taylor supporters count close losses as wins.)

Zac Taylor must go 5-2 the rest of the way to match David Shula's first season with #Bengals

— Lance McAlister (@LanceMcAlister) November 11, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Why Dave Shula?

The record holder is Dick LeBeau, 2-14!

ZT has to go at least 2-5 just to tie!

[*Nately120*]

(11-11-2019, 12:33 AM)bengalguy71 Wrote: Why Dave Shula?

The record holder is Dick LeBeau, 2-14!

ZT has to go at least 2-5 just to tie!

I think the reason for Shula is that he was also a young, in over his head HC hire in lieu of experienced coaches who didn't want to follow MB's losing mantra.

[t3r3e3]

(11-10-2019, 11:15 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Well the fact that they hired him for his offensive mind and he's a terrible coordinator doesn't bode well. What good skills does he have?

He was on the Rams coaching staff, and was a reasonably accomplished college QB. Other than that, a bunch of meh. As most on here know, Taylor’s coaching stops have been underwhelming. Short on results for the most part.