Katie is the top executive in the league!

[*ochocincos*]

(08-26-2021, 11:50 PM)Emeritus Wrote: The win for this year is getting out of it with Burrow having a good year healthy. That means our depth on the offensive line will be on par for where the team is going. The defensive line I believe will be exceptional / Linebackers solid / Defensive backs will be good enough but not great. The defense has a chance to be top 12. That gets you where you want to be if the offense can score. Our offensive MVP will be Evan Lucky. He'll win two games with his leg.

No, it has to be an actual winning season. 9+ games.
We've gone through 5 straight losing seasons.
The Bengals are tied with the Broncos and Cardinals for 2nd longest drought of making the playoffs.
They've had just 6 wins in 32 games.
They need to get back to winning.
The fans have suffered long enough.

[TJ528]

(08-27-2021, 02:50 PM)ochocincos Wrote: No, it has to be an actual winning season. 9+ games.
We've gone through 5 straight losing seasons.
The Bengals are tied with the Broncos and Cardinals for 2nd longest drought of making the playoffs.
They've had just 6 wins in 32 games.
They need to get back to winning.
The fans have suffered long enough.

Very much agree with you Ocho.  

You can't just hope to keep the fans around and wait for something to happen.  I mean they've waited 5 years already and less wins than 5  years into the lost decade in the 90's....

I think they have to win 9+ games and go to the playoffs for Taylor to keep his job.  However, knowing the Bengals organization he'll win 8 games and get a 5 year contract extension. 

[fredtoast]

(08-27-2021, 04:36 PM)TJ528 Wrote:   However, knowing the Bengals organization he'll win 8 games and get a 5 year contract extension. 

The Bengals have made some major changes.

Now that they are shelling out big money on free agents I bet they will keep their coaches on a shorter leash.  If they are going to spend it they are going to demand returns.

Taylor has to win 9 games to keep his job.  I doubt that makes the playoffs in a 17 game season.  So it is still a pretty low bar.  But no way he survives another losing season after all the players he has been given.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-27-2021, 04:36 PM)TJ528 Wrote: Very much agree with you Ocho.  

You can't just hope to keep the fans around and wait for something to happen.  I mean they've waited 5 years already and less wins than 5  years into the lost decade in the 90's....

I think they have to win 9+ games and go to the playoffs for Taylor to keep his job.  However, knowing the Bengals organization he'll win 8 games and get a 5 year contract extension. 

Five losing seasons ain’t shit to Mike. It’s kinda like prison; not so bad, he’d be willing to do it again. He’s playing the long game.

[samhain]

(08-26-2021, 07:40 PM)Emeritus Wrote:
Yes, I stand by that statement. If I were starting an organization she would be my first hire. 

I mean, there's a lot that goes into managing a front office, but I have to imagine some modicum of actual on-field success has to exist before you can anoint an executive as the best in the league.  The last 4 seasons in Cincinnati indicate that there are many executives more adept at running NFL teams than Katie.  She automatically takes a backseat to any of the perennially good teams like Pittsburgh or Baltimore, New England, Seattle, maybe even Denver.  They may have down years, but not 3 or 4 straight, not ever.  When they fail at building on-field personnel, they're smart enough to delegate to football people rather than keep trucking on the Jerry Jones Owner/GM path.

She may be good at not going over the cap, but that's just one aspect.  The key is to stay under and balance it with winning consistently, and that's a major missing piece in this argument for her.  If you win consistently, you keep your stadium full(er), you sell merchandise, you max out ad revenue, and you in general keep your brand relevant locally, and ideally even nationally.  If you're a great executive, you don't find yourself in a position of selling season tickets for 400 bucks a pop when they used to go for 1K.  You're not begging people to come back to the fold, because they don't leave in mass exodus.  

[Dr.Z]

(08-27-2021, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Bengals have made some major changes.

Now that they are shelling out big money on free agents I bet they will keep their coaches on a shorter leash.  If they are going to spend it they are going to demand returns.

Taylor has to win 9 games to keep his job.  I doubt that makes the playoffs in a 17 game season.  So it is still a pretty low bar.  But no way he survives another losing season after all the players he has been given.

That’s pretty much my thoughts on this as well.

[GreenCornBengal]

(08-27-2021, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Bengals have made some major changes.

Now that they are shelling out big money on free agents I bet they will keep their coaches on a shorter leash.  If they are going to spend it they are going to demand returns.

Taylor has to win 9 games to keep his job.  I doubt that makes the playoffs in a 17 game season.  So it is still a pretty low bar.  But no way he survives another losing season after all the players he has been given.

And for all of our sakes, let’s hope he accomplishes that. Last thing we need is for this thing to blowup and the Brown family be hesitant to ever spend in free agency again… we haven’t done a great job of growing our own as of late… at least not in the trenches.

[samhain]

(08-27-2021, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Bengals have made some major changes.

Now that they are shelling out big money on free agents I bet they will keep their coaches on a shorter leash.  If they are going to spend it they are going to demand returns.

Taylor has to win 9 games to keep his job.  I doubt that makes the playoffs in a 17 game season.  So it is still a pretty low bar.  But no way he survives another losing season after all the players he has been given.

You really think has has to win 9?  I'd be surprised if he got fired after a 7 or 8 win season.  It would still be a major improvement, and while they have changed a lot of their old ways, I don't see them wanting to go through the firing/interviewing process again if they can avoid it.  They seemed to really hate it last time.  

I think anything over 5 wins keeps him here in a win-loss vacuum.  The only caveat would be if he goes pass-heavy behind an obviously bad line again and breaks the quarterback two seasons in a row.  I don't think the Family will sit through watching the golden goose getting run over again and settle for the scalp of some position coach or coordinator.

[*Nately120*]

(08-27-2021, 02:50 PM)ochocincos Wrote: No, it has to be an actual winning season. 9+ games.
We've gone through 5 straight losing seasons.
The Bengals are tied with the Broncos and Cardinals for 2nd longest drought of making the playoffs.
They've had just 6 wins in 32 games.
They need to get back to winning.
The fans have suffered long enough.

Pretty much...I mean, I get the sentiment of just wanting things to not be awful, but this also makes me realize why the Bengals are a bottom-feeding non-competitor to the national audience.  We are willing to accept a 6th losing season in a row as long as it doesn't look too bad.

[Southpaw Frerotte]

(08-27-2021, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Bengals have made some major changes.

Now that they are shelling out big money on free agents I bet they will keep their coaches on a shorter leash.  If they are going to spend it they are going to demand returns.

Taylor has to win 9 games to keep his job.  I doubt that makes the playoffs in a 17 game season.  So it is still a pretty low bar.  But no way he survives another losing season after all the players he has been given.

Lol at shelling out big money for free agents and there being major changes. There’s been no front office turnover and you do realize there’s a salary cap floor that has to be met? And given how poor their draft record has been of late with many of their drafted players not worth resigning, they have to spend the money somewhere.

[TJ528]

(08-27-2021, 08:27 PM)Southpaw Frerotte Wrote: Lol at shelling out big money for free agents and there being major changes.  There’s been no front office turnover and you do realize there’s a salary cap floor that has to be met?  And given how poor their draft record has been of late with many of their drafted players not worth resigning, they have to spend the money somewhere.

How much money does this team still have left over from this year's salary cap? Last I seen it was close to the $20M+ range.  I mean when you have that muxh left in your back pocket it really shows major changes. It's goes to shows how cheap they are if they can't get Bates signed to an extension.

[fredtoast]

(08-27-2021, 08:27 PM)Southpaw Frerotte Wrote: Lol at shelling out big money for free agents and there being major changes.

LOL at anyone who can look at free agency over the last two years and not see any changes in the way the Bengals are doing business.

[fredtoast]

(08-27-2021, 08:08 PM)samhain Wrote: You really think has has to win 9?  I'd be surprised if he got fired after a 7 or 8 win season.  It would still be a major improvement, and while they have changed a lot of their old ways, I don't see them wanting to go through the firing/interviewing process again if they can avoid it.  They seemed to really hate it last time.  

I think anything over 5 wins keeps him here in a win-loss vacuum.  The only caveat would be if he goes pass-heavy behind an obviously bad line again and breaks the quarterback two seasons in a row.  I don't think the Family will sit through watching the golden goose getting run over again and settle for the scalp of some position coach or coordinator.

I don't know why so many fans claim that "based on the past" they will keep Zac after a third losing season.  Just look at what they have done in the past.

They did not keep Marvin after three losing seasons.

They did not keep LeBeau after 2 losing seasons.

They did bring back Coslet after three losing seasons, but he only lasted three games.

So based on "history" Zac won't be back after three losing seasons.

[*bfine32*]

Folks can be mad all they want, but Katie Blackburn is excellent at structuring contracts.

She's not good at evaluating talent; however, that's the fault of the owner, who is the worst in the NFL.

As to cities that would take the Bengals and build them a stadium...

San Antonio

London

Oklahoma City

But that's not currently an issue.

[Wes Mantooth]

(08-28-2021, 10:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know why so many fans claim that "based on the past" they will keep Zac after a third losing season.  Just look at what they have done in the past.

They did not keep Marvin after three losing seasons.

They did not keep LeBeau after 2 losing seasons.

They did bring back Coslet after three losing seasons, but he only lasted three games.

So based on "history" Zac won't be back after three losing seasons.

Marvin was fired after 3 straight losing seasons, but also after coaching a total of 16 years too.  That's not really apples to apples (3 seasons vs 16 seasons, both with 3 straight losing seasons)

Lebeau was an interim coach and was never supposed to be the head coach to begin with.  He was also fired as the team was opening a brand new stadium.  Not to mention he was in his mid-60's.

Coslet wasn't fired, he resigned.

Who knows what they would or wouldn't do if he has another losing season?  I suppose we won't know unless that happens.  But the fact he's got a fully guaranteed 5 year contract, and with the history of David Shula that you conveniently left out (the closest comparison to Taylor by age and tenure), I don't blame people for thinking this team might elect to keep him again if he only wins 6 or 7 games.

[samhain]

(08-28-2021, 10:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know why so many fans claim that "based on the past" they will keep Zac after a third losing season.  Just look at what they have done in the past.

They did not keep Marvin after three losing seasons.

They did not keep LeBeau after 2 losing seasons.

They did bring back Coslet after three losing seasons, but he only lasted three games.

So based on "history" Zac won't be back after three losing seasons.

Nothing in my post says one word about anything "based on history".  Do you really get the feeling after hearing anything they've said about Taylor over the last 2 seasons that they're eager to cut bait before his deal is up?  If anything, it almost sounds like they want any of Taylor's short comings to be served up as punishment to fans who wanted Marvin gone.  Mikey has said that they are committed to Zac and that his development is seen as a long-term process by ownership.  

We have a coach with a long leash and a long contract.  Has nothing to do with history.  

[TJ528]

(08-28-2021, 12:17 PM)samhain Wrote: Nothing in my post says one word about anything "based on history".  Do you really get the feeling after hearing anything they've said about Taylor over the last 2 seasons that they're eager to cut bait before his deal is up?  If anything, it almost sounds like they want any of Taylor's short comings to be served up as punishment to fans who wanted Marvin gone.  Mikey has said that they are committed to Zac and that his development is seen as a long-term process by ownership.  

We have a coach with a long leash and a long contract.  Has nothing to do with history.  

Just goes to show the grass isn't always greener on the other side. Fans wanted a new coach because Marvin's time had past and they got Zac. It's what the fans wanted and got

[Bengalstripes9]

Sign Bates for 4 years and I'll second that notion. Let him walk and I'll bring up Whit again and again. Only to later bring up Bates again and again.
And paying Waynes instead of WJ3. Seemed like an okay move at the time, but not after his injuries and letting WJ3 walk.

Long story short, all will be forgotten if you sign Bates for 4 years. Otherwise I'll call it 'mismanagement' to let your most successful draft picks walk.

[*Go Cards*]

Hope Katie takes the Bengals to the promise land soon.

Just believe somebody needs to make an executive decision that generates playoff wins in the near future.

[*Awful Llama*]

(08-27-2021, 05:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Five losing seasons ain’t shit to Mike. It’s kinda like prison; not so bad, he’d be willing to do it again. He’s playing the long game.

Bad idea to talk shit about Prison Mike.