2020 should be a great year

[Nicomo Cosca]

(01-05-2020, 01:54 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Atkins/Dunlap/Hubbard/Billings/Tupou missed a combined total of 3 games. That is pretty healthy.

I think the biggest difference was Lawson finally getting healthy. He was a force the last month or so of the season. He had 3 sacks and 15 QB hits in his last 5 games. He looked like he did his rookie year before the injury.

[Joelist]

Lawson helped, so did their schedule.

They definitely need reinforcements at LB at minimum.

[*Synric*]

(01-05-2020, 01:54 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Atkins/Dunlap/Hubbard/Billings/Tupou missed a combined total of 3 games. That is pretty healthy. Not something you need to "get healthier" from.

They played only 2 winning teams in the 2nd half of the year, and those 2 teams scored 83 points.

What about Glasgow Wynn Lawson these guys were counted on to be a large part of a rotation because you cannot play your defensive linemen 100% of the snaps each game. For like 3 games they had 1 real defensive end (Hubbard) and had Dunlap back on limited snaps for another 2.

When Dunlap and Lawson got healthy you seen them start running alot more odd alignments (34 defense) the scheme started to shake up. I wasnt particularly fond of Lou's love of the fire blitz but I suppose we didnt know they didnt have a off the ball Linebacker that could or couldnt rush until they used them.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-05-2020, 01:59 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I think the biggest difference was Lawson finally getting healthy. He was a force the last month or so of the season. He had 3 sacks and 15 QB hits in his last 5 games. He looked like he did his rookie year before the injury.

Lawson also only missed 4 games, which is probably about as little as you can realistically ever expect from him. There's a reason why he dropped in the draft, it was durability concerns.

Point being, Lawson was around. They were still terrible. It wasn't until they started facing bad teams/bad offenses that they looked decent.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(01-05-2020, 03:44 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Lawson also only missed 4 games, which is probably about as little as you can realistically ever expect from him. There's a reason why he dropped in the draft, it was durability concerns.

Point being, Lawson was around. They were still terrible. It wasn't until they started facing bad teams/bad offenses that they looked decent.

Just because he was around doesn’t mean he was 100%. We know Dunlap wasn’t most of the year. You can keep going on about bad teams all you want, but everyone gets to play bad teams. We’re a bad team. I’m fine with being somewhat encouraged about what we saw down the stretch.

Do I think they’ll have a “great year” next season? Doubtful. A great year to me would be winning the division and maybe even winning a playoff game or two. I’ll settle for seeing some significant improvements. Winning more than 2 games would be a good start.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-05-2020, 03:57 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Just because he was around doesn’t mean he was 100%. We know Dunlap wasn’t most of the year. You can keep going on about bad teams all you want, but everyone gets to play bad teams. We’re a bad team. I’m fine with being somewhat encouraged about what we saw down the stretch.

Do I think they’ll have a “great year” next season? Doubtful. A great year to me would be winning the division and maybe even winning a playoff game or two. I’ll settle for seeing some significant improvements. Winning more than 2 games would be a good start.

And the best start towards that is by not building a narrative that the status quo is good because everything was improving towards the end of the season.

Bad coaches are bad. The team needs more talent, but even if they got that, I don't trust Zac Taylor and his offensive offensive scheme with Joe Burrow's development.

It also seems absurd to trust Lou with the defense when there were people like Ron Rivera and Jack Del Rio looking for jobs until Washington snapped them both up while the Bengals were patting themselves on the back at being 2-6 over the final 8 games with "improvement" over a historically bad first half of the season into merely mundanely bad.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(01-05-2020, 04:07 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And the best start towards that is by not building a narrative that the status quo is good because everything was improving towards the end of the season.

Bad coaches are bad. The team needs more talent, but even if they got that, I don't trust Zac Taylor and his offensive offensive scheme with Joe Burrow's development.

It also seems absurd to trust Lou with the defense when there were people like Ron Rivera and Jack Del Rio looking for jobs until Washington snapped them both up while the Bengals were patting themselves on the back at being 2-6 over the final 8 games with "improvement" over a historically bad first half of the season into merely mundanely bad.

I don’t disagree that the coaching was bad, but unfortunately I think we’re stuck with them for now. If Taylor gets his own QB and still doesn’t get things turned around he’ll have to go. Period. I hope we at least add some experience like Sherman or Bill Callahan. Can’t hurt.

[Benton]

(01-04-2020, 08:19 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That's exactly how things were presented going into 2019, though.  We had a win-now roster that Marvin wasn't getting the most out of with his lack of adjustments, interest in beating the Steelers, and ability to win in prime time or the playoffs.  The idea going into 2019 was that we had a playoff roster and going from Marvin to ZT was going to be an instant upgrade.

We win 2 games and the roster needs to be blown up.  Oh well.  I don't disagree with the overall ability of this team being an issue, but you have to admit we were optimistically buying into the notion that HC was the one thing we needed to fix to be better almost instantly.

To the first graf: that's the point of why I'm excited for next year and wasn't for this year; I didn't think we had a playoff roster. I haven't felt that way in five or six seasons. But I think it's getting better.

To the second, I figured (and still do) it would be 2-3 years before we saw any real improvement.

[Benton]

(01-05-2020, 04:07 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And the best start towards that is by not building a narrative that the status quo is good because everything was improving towards the end of the season.

Bad coaches are bad. The team needs more talent, but even if they got that, I don't trust Zac Taylor and his offensive offensive scheme with Joe Burrow's development.

It also seems absurd to trust Lou with the defense when there were people like Ron Rivera and Jack Del Rio looking for jobs until Washington snapped them both up while the Bengals were patting themselves on the back at being 2-6 over the final 8 games with "improvement" over a historically bad first half of the season into merely mundanely bad.

Soooo... Would you prefer the browns method? 

"Stuffs improving, but not fast enough! Fire everybody! Blow it up! Blow it uuuuuuuup!"

Or the skins. Same method under Snyder. Near browns level results.

[bengaloo]

(01-04-2020, 02:23 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Hopefully 2020 is a better year. I think that's something we can all agree on.

Great year, though?  I guess that depends on your definition of "great".  I think this team wins a few more games but I think 7 wins is their absolute ceiling, barring some HUGE spending in FA.

Throwing a rookie QB on to a last place team and then wanting or hoping for greatness is akin to wanting or hoping for Kate Upton to knock on your door at midnight, after her car just broke down, and she just happens to be both decently drunk and stupidly horny.

My idea of "great" would be to have a really good draft first of all. We havent in quite a few years. A few real FA additions that are actual upgrades would be huge, and basically getting this team stable and trending upward. Being a team on the rise with a bright future. Thats great to me coming off this disaster season. Getting a franchise QB to build on, rookie year/mistakes or not, is pretty great in its own right. He doesnt have to be a pro bowler or win 10 games as a rookie for him to be the future of the team. Going from 2-14 to the playoffs isnt even on my radar really, but getting us trending in that direction with some young talent to build upon definitely is.

[grampahol]

Maybe we'll get lucky and the entire Brown family will decide to join a volunteer fire brigade in Australia this week. Short of that being the case I have a hunch we're going to see a lot of teeth gnashing between now and this time next year. 

[Benton]

(01-05-2020, 10:42 AM)bengaloo Wrote: My idea of "great" would be to have a really good draft first of all. We havent in quite a few years. A few real FA additions that are actual upgrades would be huge, and basically getting this team stable and trending upward. Being a team on the rise with a bright future. Thats great to me coming off this disaster season. Getting a franchise QB to build on, rookie year/mistakes or not, is pretty great in its own right. He doesnt have to be a pro bowler or win 10 games as a rookie for him to be the future of the team. Going from 2-14 to the playoffs isnt even on my radar really, but getting us trending in that direction with some young talent to build upon definitely is.

That's pretty much my thinking, especially in regards to the draft. Like I said, I've been pretty down on our last 5-6. My hope is, with high picks in each round, we draft well for the first time in a long time. No reaching for injured guys.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-05-2020, 10:24 AM)Benton Wrote: Soooo... Would you prefer the browns method? 

"Stuffs improving, but not fast enough! Fire everybody! Blow it up! Blow it uuuuuuuup!"

Or the skins. Same method under Snyder. Near browns level results.

Both have won a postseason game more recently than the Bengals.

- - - - - -

I'll also remind you that...
The Seahawks hired Jim Mora in 2009, and fired him after one season. After that, they hired Pete Carroll. 
The Raiders hired Hue Jackson in 2011, and fired him after one season. After that, Hue Jackson went 3-36-1 with the Browns.
The Dolphins hired Cam Cameron in 2007, and fired him after one 1-15 season. The next year Tony Sparano took them to the playoffs.
The Falcons hired Booby Petrino in 2007, and fired him before the season ended at 3-10. The next year Mike Smith took them to the playoffs.

And more.

People like to go "oh, look at the Browns, look at the Redskins. That's why you shouldn't fire your head coach." and "oh, look at the Browns, look at the Redkins. That's why you shouldn't sign top free agents."  While ignoring the times that it works. 

Meanwhile the time the Browns DIDN'T fire their head coach, it was Hue Jackson and they gave him 2.5 years...
Went 1-15. They kept him.
Went 0-16. They kept him.

Yes, that seems like a way better way to operate. Keep clearly overmatched HC because they haven't sucked long enough yet. 

[*Nately120*]

(01-05-2020, 10:24 AM)Benton Wrote: Soooo... Would you prefer the browns method? 

"Stuffs improving, but not fast enough! Fire everybody! Blow it up! Blow it uuuuuuuup!"

I'm not defending the "fire everyone in 1/2 seasons" approach, but the issue with the expansion Browns is that they keep hiring bad coaches.  The fact that they fire them isn't the problem, since none of them to my recollection did anything to make the Browns regret letting them go.

If the Browns have any shot at being good in 2019 firing Freddie Kitchens is likely to play a key role in said improvement.  Also, how does keeping ZT make us "not the Browns" since they kept Hue after he coached them into last place in his first year on the job?

[Benton]

(01-05-2020, 08:54 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Both have won a postseason game more recently than the Bengals.

- - - - - -

I'll also remind you that...
The Seahawks hired Jim Mora in 2009, and fired him after one season. After that, they hired Pete Carroll. 
The Raiders hired Hue Jackson in 2011, and fired him after one season. After that, Hue Jackson went 3-36-1 with the Browns.
The Dolphins hired Cam Cameron in 2007, and fired him after one 1-15 season. The next year Tony Sparano took them to the playoffs.
The Falcons hired Booby Petrino in 2007, and fired him before the season ended at 3-10. The next year Mike Smith took them to the playoffs.

And more.

People like to go "oh, look at the Browns, look at the Redskins. That's why you shouldn't fire your head coach." and "oh, look at the Browns, look at the Redkins. That's why you shouldn't sign top free agents."  While ignoring the times that it works. 

Meanwhile the time the Browns DIDN'T fire their head coach, it was Hue Jackson and they gave him 2.5 years...
Went 1-15. They kept him.
Went 0-16. They kept him.

Yes, that seems like a way better way to operate. Keep clearly overmatched HC because they haven't sucked long enough yet. 

Fair points, although I think a difference is those teams had better teams. They, mostly, just needed a coach. For several years during Marvin's tenure, we were in that boat. We had good rosters, but didn't have a coach who made the best of them. We haven't had that kind of team in a while.

I have no idea if the current staff can build that roster, but I think we're heading in that direction. I didn't feel that way a year ago, which is where my optimism is coming from. And my willingness to give Zac another season. Or at least most of a season . 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(01-05-2020, 08:54 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The Falcons hired Booby Petrino in 2007, and fired him before the season ended at 3-10. The next year Mike Smith took them to the playoffs.

Petrino mailed it in after the 8th game and HE bolted back to college, he wasn't fired.

[WiregrassBenGal]

Well, there is literally no place to go but up. The best I can hope for is some kind of repeat of the 2011 season where they sneak into the playoffs, but something like five or six wins seems more likely. Andy should play here one more year no matter what happens and particularly if A.J. wants to come back.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-06-2020, 03:33 AM)Benton Wrote: Fair points, although I think a difference is those teams had better teams. They, mostly, just needed a coach. For several years during Marvin's tenure, we were in that boat. We had good rosters, but didn't have a coach who made the best of them. We haven't had that kind of team in a while.

I have no idea if the current staff can build that roster, but I think we're heading in that direction. I didn't feel that way a year ago, which is where my optimism is coming from. And my willingness to give Zac another season. Or at least most of a season . 

I just think to myself: Who would you be more comfortable trusting the Bengals & Joe Burrow with?

Zac Taylor who has never been a successful OC at any level of football + DC Lou who ran a terrible defense last year.
OR
Eric Bieniemy who has run an extremely successful offense as an OC the last two years with a young QB (that he got an MVP season out of) + DC Wade Phillips who put together a SB winning defense in Denver and had the Rams as the 13th ranked defense this year.

Because that latter option is still on the table. 

Honestly, seeing what Ryan Tannehill can do with a good OC this year makes me think even less of Zac Taylor as a QB coach, too. People might point to Jared Goff putting up a 101.1 QB Rating in the 1 year that Taylor was his QB Coach, but Goff put up a 100.5 the year before that without Taylor when Taylor was merely an assistant WR coach. Not even a full WR coach.

[Benton]

(01-06-2020, 04:35 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I just think to myself: Who would you be more comfortable trusting the Bengals & Joe Burrow with?

Zac Taylor who has never been a successful OC at any level of football + DC Lou who ran a terrible defense last year.
OR
Eric Bieniemy who has run an extremely successful offense as an OC the last two years with a young QB (that he got an MVP season out of) + DC Wade Phillips who put together a SB winning defense in Denver and had the Rams as the 13th ranked defense this year.

Because that latter option is still on the table. 

Honestly, seeing what Ryan Tannehill can do with a good OC this year makes me think even less of Zac Taylor as a QB coach, too. People might point to Jared Goff putting up a 101.1 QB Rating in the 1 year that Taylor was his QB Coach, but Goff put up a 100.5 the year before that without Taylor when Taylor was merely an assistant WR coach. Not even a full WR coach.

That's supposing you could get bienemy or phillips.

[*ochocincos*]

(01-03-2020, 09:25 PM)Benton Wrote: It was a rough, rough season, but things look better than they have in years.

We're most likely drafting the best quarterback prospect we've had since we drafted Carson. We've also got high picks in the rest of the draft and should have some flexibility.

We had some players come on late that could be solid starters. Pratt may be one of my new favorite guys. He's not blowing anything up, but he looks like he's going to be a reliable guy, judging by the last several games. Jordan may give us some rotational line help. Those were two bigger concerns at the start of the season, but don't seem as pressing heading into the draft.

We've also been using the waiver wire, which is a good sign that we're going to be active bringing in new guys.

Our coaching improved as the season went on, too.

Toss in a most likely weaker schedule (we ended the season with one in the top 10ish).

2020 is going to be a good year for the team.

I cannot think the team will have a good year in 2020 until I at least see who they get via the draft and FA.
If they go into 2020 with basically the same team and coaches with just Joe Burrow and some backup OL and LBs via the draft, I still see that team having a losing record.

This team has to upgrade QB, LB, and OG, and OT (all quality starter level) to give me any hope for 2020.