Reason Why the Bengals Might Not be Patient (Stadium Deal)

[Reinhardt23]

(10-22-2020, 10:59 AM)Sled21 Wrote: This is kind of my thoughts as well. I don't see them firing Taylor. What I CAN see them doing is making Taylor hire different assistants and giving up play calling duties until he has more experience.

I can get behind this.  As long as its not bottom of barrel coaches.  

[740Bengal]

(10-21-2020, 02:17 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: Columbus or Stlouis make the most sense based on division. Face the fact they are moving in 2026 regardless.

The Bengals are not going anywhere. The morbid reality is Brown probably won't be around in 2026. 

[fredtoast]

(10-22-2020, 09:22 AM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: The WhoDey UK podcast with Elise Jesse is well worth a listen. She says multiple insiders (and she's well connected) have told her there's a big disconnect in places with coaching staff. However, it's not necessarily with Zac who seems still liked but with the position coaches.

I reckon there could be a change of position coach coming at the bye-week. Apparently Turner has already moved up into the booth with Ben Martin coaching on the sideline. Al Golden has been calling plays on 3rd down/passing downs as well.

I would expect Nick Eason to be a casualty of the Dunlop and Atkins situation at the end of the season as well. I've also long maintained that Zac would give up play calling duties to save himself being fired - it's too easy a move to make - and appoint a new co-ordinator at the end of this season. Not sure which, but there will be a change for change's sake.

I could see possibly keeping Zac and replacing his staff if Zac had any experience or proven skills as a head coach (organizational, motivational, talent evaluation, etc).  But he has never even been a coordinator in the NFL before and the ONLY proven skill he was supposed to possess was running an offense.

Basically he has failed at what was supposed to be his only strength, and he has no history of having any skills required to be a good head coach.

[Sled21]

(10-22-2020, 11:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I could see possibly keeping Zac and replacing his staff if Zac had any experience or proven skills as a head coach (organizational, motivational, talent evaluation, etc).  But he has never even been a coordinator in the NFL before and the ONLY proven skill he was supposed to possess was running an offense.

Basically he has failed at what was supposed to be his only strength, and he has no history of having any skills required to be a good head coach.

But, by keeping him and just making him replace assistants, they don't have to say he was a bad choice.

[fredtoast]

(10-22-2020, 11:38 AM)Sled21 Wrote: But, by keeping him and just making him replace assistants, they don't have to say he was a bad choice.

They have learned that it does not matter to fans what they say.  What matters is winning on the field.  

Sticking longer with a bad choice just makes them look worse.

[*ochocincos*]

(10-22-2020, 11:38 AM)Sled21 Wrote: But, by keeping him and just making him replace assistants, they don't have to say he was a bad choice.

I will say that in defense of Taylor's decision to keep Turner and Anarumo after last year, the OL really did improve in the second half of last season (primarily in run game), and pass defense has improved this year.

With that said, the OL has regressed this year, so Turner needs to be the first to go.
As much as we (or I) would like Taylor to give the offensive playcalling to someone better suited for it, I doubt he does that.
I'm not as high on Anarumo as some others are, but his staff has been hit hard with injuries (DTs, Hubbard, Waynes), so I could see him sticking around. I'd personally go with Wade Phillips though. I think he has an aggressive, tone-setting scheme that gets after the QB, which is needed in the AFC North.

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(10-22-2020, 11:06 AM)Reinhardt23 Wrote: I can get behind this.  As long as its not bottom of barrel coaches.  

They are in a lot stronger position to recruit coaches this off-season.

First, they have a HC in place already. Last time they had to wait until after the SB and so were behind everyone else.

Second, they have more talent for coaches to work with. On D Bates is emerging as a star, there's Reader to return from injury (and Waynes), WJIII is establishing himself, they have the 4 young linebackers set to take step forwards. Last time they tried to appoint a D co-ordinator they'd finished last in most D rankings and their main defensive pieces were Atkins and Dunlop who were approaching the twilight of their career.

On O there's Burrow. The only place where there isn't really talent to work with is the O-line (Jonah aside) but any incoming O-line coach is going to get at least one high draft pick and probably a free agent too. That makes Cincy a decent spot for an ambitious coach. Who wouldn't want to hitch onto Burrow's coat-tails?

(10-22-2020, 11:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I could see possibly keeping Zac and replacing his staff if Zac had any experience or proven skills as a head coach (organizational, motivational, talent evaluation, etc).  But he has never even been a coordinator in the NFL before and the ONLY proven skill he was supposed to possess was running an offense.

Basically he has failed at what was supposed to be his only strength, and he has no history of having any skills required to be a good head coach.

Was he proven running an offense?

Where was that?

Whilst he came as some sort of supposed offensive guru, it was far more as a QB whisperer than running an offense (Tannahill and Goff's best seasons coming under him was frequently cited). Other than his first year at the Rams every role he's had since being a grad assistant has involved QB in the title and it was the position he played. So if there's any proven skill he had it would be QB development. But QB is the area that gives most cause for optimism in Bengaldom because of Burrow. Of course how much of that is Joe being a generational talent versus Zac doing a good job preparing him can't be determined but if Mike Brown is looking for reasons to still believe in Zac how good Burrow has looked will be top of that list and he'll congratulate himself/Tobin etc on appointing on QB guru as HC who has helped guide Burrow.

[Wes Mantooth]

Fwiw, I always thought the credit Taylor gets for Jared Goff is greatly overstated.

There's a few things that I think influence an increase in the QB's play, much more than his position coach:

1.) Experience
2.) Talent around them
3.) Play-calling

Jared Goff was already coming off a 100.5 QB rating before Zac Taylor took over as his postion coach. The year he had Taylor he increased to 101.5. That's not that big of a difference.

He threw 4 more TD's under Taylor than the year prior, but he also threw 5 more picks. He threw for more yards, but he threw the ball 84 more times. The entirety of this stat line can be easily explained by an increase sheer volume.

Jared Goff was a former #1 overall pick going into his 3rd year when Taylor took over as QB. Players going into their 2nd, 3rd, etc. tend to get improve on experience alone. That's why Jared Goff looked much better in year 2 than he did in year 1. And I think the same can be said for year 3.

What really happened is the kid got another year under his belt, his team was stacked with weapons, and he had a super agressive OC in Sean McVay, who took over playcalling in 2018 when Matt Lefleur left.

I really doubt Zac Taylor had that much to do with their success. The development was minimal in terms of his rating, and the success of the offense can be explained by much of the above.

Unless he was calling plays, I put little to no stock in his resume from his time there. He was working on mechanics and basics with an uber-talent QB, that had been coached on them his entire life. Outside of that, what did he really do? What are his accomplishents?

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

You might not, but you have been a long time term critic of the Bengals organization and the appointment of Taylor.

Mike Brown, Duke Tobin, the Blackburns - the ones who appointed him will see in Burrow's success validation of their choice of Head Coach.

You both only see what you want to see.

[bengals67]

(10-21-2020, 03:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The stadium was empty last year and the front office just spent $145 million in free agency.  Things have changed.  The Brown family loves their money, and when they spend that much they are not going to waste another year on a coach who can't do anything with it.  

I give Taylor the rest of the season, but unless he pulls a miraculous turn around (not just beating a few bad teams) he will be gone.

They need a new coach with credibility with a successful track record who brings his own staff of top coaches and a revamped personnel office with a GM and more resources put into evaluating players.

Unless this happens, Burrow will fail or be gone asap and/or Bengals will move.

St. Louis Cardinals were bad when the moved to Arizona but the powers in that state paid what they needed to pay to get them.

Some city will offer the Bengals a better deal than what they will get in Cincinnati IN 2026, particularly if the ineptness on the field and in the front office continues.

[fredtoast]

(10-22-2020, 02:19 PM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: Mike Brown, Duke Tobin, the Blackburns - the ones who appointed him will see in Burrow's success validation of their choice of Head Coach.

Burrow has not had any success yet.

He is ranked in the 20's among NFL QBs and only has one win.

[Wes Mantooth]

(10-22-2020, 04:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Burrow has not had any success yet.

He is ranked in the 20's among NFL QBs and only has one win.

What I find funny about anyone who wants to credit Taylor with Burrow's "success" is that they unevenly apply credit.

Jared Goff has a great year.  Zac Taylor gets all the credit.

Joe Burrow has a great rookie year.  Dan Pitcher gets no credit. (It goes to the head coach in this situation.)

If we're being fair, either Sean McVay gets all the credit for Jared Goff, and Zac Taylor gets little to none.  Or, Zac Taylor gets all the credit for Jared Goff, and Dan Pitcher gets all the credit for Joe Burrow.

Of course, all of this is really moot.  As Zac Taylor is a head coach, and therefore it is his responsbility to build team success.  Whether Joe Burrow looks good or not, his value as a coach should be determined by the play of the team.

[fredtoast]

(10-22-2020, 04:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Burrow has not had any success yet.

He is ranked in the 20's among NFL QBs and only has one win.

Just to be clear I am not just trashing Burrow.

I expect him to get much better.  He just has not looked that great yet.

[WhoDey]

(10-21-2020, 03:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The stadium was empty last year and the front office just spent $145 million in free agency.  Things have changed.  The Brown family loves their money, and when they spend that much they are not going to waste another year on a coach who can't do anything with it.  

I give Taylor the rest of the season, but unless he pulls a miraculous turn around (not just beating a few bad teams) he will be gone.

No way he is gone

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(10-22-2020, 04:59 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: What I find funny about anyone who wants to credit Taylor with Burrow's "success" is that they unevenly apply credit.

Jared Goff has a great year.  Zac Taylor gets all the credit.

Joe Burrow has a great rookie year.  Dan Pitcher gets no credit. (It goes to the head coach in this situation.)

If we're being fair, either Sean McVay gets all the credit for Jared Goff, and Zac Taylor gets little to none.  Or, Zac Taylor gets all the credit for Jared Goff, and Dan Pitcher gets all the credit for Joe Burrow.

Of course, all of this is really moot.  As Zac Taylor is a head coach, and therefore it is his responsbility to build team success.  Whether Joe Burrow looks good or not, his value as a coach should be determined by the play of the team.

What I find funny is that anyone who wants to discredit Taylor is that they unevenly apply credit.

Goff's success is all on McVay but Burrow's success is all on Burrow/Pitcher.

(10-22-2020, 05:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just to be clear I am not just trashing Burrow.

I expect him to get much better.  He just has not looked that great yet.

He looks great for a rookie though, right?

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2020, 08:08 AM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: He looks great for a rookie though, right?

Good, but not great.

Look at the rookie seasons of Dak Prescott, Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin, Cam Newton, Roethlisberger.  Even Baker Mayfield's rookie numbers were better than what Burrow has posted so far.  

But I expect Burrow to look better as the season progresses.  He could end up with a great rookie season.

[Nicomo Cosca]

(10-23-2020, 10:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Good, but not great.

Look at the rookie seasons of Dak Prescott, Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin, Cam Newton, Roethlisberger.  Even Baker Mayfield's rookie numbers were better than what Burrow has posted so far.  

But I expect Burrow to look better as the season progresses.  He could end up with a great rookie season.

Funny how when I was arguing Dak was a top QB you were one of the main people giving all the credit to the talent around him...

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2020, 10:27 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Funny how when I was arguing Dak was a top QB you were one of the main people giving all the credit to the talent around him...

I am not saying he did not benefit from the talent around him.  But as a rookie he had 23 tds and only 4 ints.  He has never had another season that kind of td/int ratio.  So his rookie season was a bit of a fluke.  And all I am comparing here is rookie seasons.

[Bengalholic]

(10-21-2020, 07:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because they thought hiring a new coach would be enough to excite the fans and sell more tickets.  When attendance got even worse they knew they had to try something else.

How the hell would Zac not have the ability to get Brown to spend when he first showed up but then GAIN credibility and authority after the worst season in team history?  That makes no sense at all.

'The topic of spending in free agency came up during his initial interview with the team before he even got the job.'

“On the topic of free agency, where the Bengals spent more than $130 million on eight players...aggressive approach was something he [Taylor] discussed with Bengals ownership back in January 2019 when he was interviewing for the job.” - Jay Morrison

“The club’s internal landscape on free agency is vastly different than a year ago at this time, when new head coach Zac Taylor was still completing his defensive staff as the combine got underway. This time around his coaches arrived here with lists of free agents they’ve been studying already for a few weeks from the research organized by director of pro scouting Steven Radicevic.”

'Makes sense — Zac Taylor was having problems filling out his staff last year, let alone juggling free-agency ideas while also tackling his first NFL combine. This year? Little has changed along the coaching staff and the team is way ahead in prepping for free agency.'

'Taylor has indeed spurred some change, though it took longer than some might’ve expected to see.

When thinking about the uncharacteristic big spending on the open market, be sure to accredit it to Taylor.'

[fredtoast]

(10-24-2020, 03:49 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: 'The topic of spending in free agency came up during his initial interview with the team before he even got the job.'

“On the topic of free agency, where the Bengals spent more than $130 million on eight players...aggressive approach was something he [Taylor] discussed with Bengals ownership back in January 2019 when he was interviewing for the job.” - Jay Morrison

“The club’s internal landscape on free agency is vastly different than a year ago at this time, when new head coach Zac Taylor was still completing his defensive staff as the combine got underway. This time around his coaches arrived here with lists of free agents they’ve been studying already for a few weeks from the research organized by director of pro scouting Steven Radicevic.”

'Makes sense — Zac Taylor was having problems filling out his staff last year, let alone juggling free-agency ideas while also tackling his first NFL combine. This year? Little has changed along the coaching staff and the team is way ahead in prepping for free agency.'

'Taylor has indeed spurred some change, though it took longer than some might’ve expected to see.

When thinking about the uncharacteristic big spending on the open market, be sure to accredit it to Taylor.'

This is total bullshit.

Every year new head coaches are hired from the staff of Super Bowl teams, and none of those coaches have any problem knowing what players are available in free agency.  It is not rocket science.  People who post here have full time jobs and they all had time to know which players were available in free agency.  And it was not like Zac was hired from some foreign country where he had never seen other NFL players before. He has been in the NFL for years.  He should already haver known about players who were becoming free agents in the NFL. If Zac couldn't figure out who was on the market then he is much dumber than I ever imagined.