Three years ago.

[TecmoBengals]

Bringing up how Marvin didn't have the benefit of free agency since Zac is the first Bengals coach to benefit from the Brown family embracing free agency isn't really a necessary talking point when comparing the two coaches. This take is rooted in my opinion that Marvin was a far better coach than Zac Taylor currently is and likely turns out to be based on W/L %.

Marvin Lewis:
Games - 256
Wins - 131
Losses - 122
Ties - 3
W/L % - .518

Zac Taylor:
Games - 41
Wins - 11
Losses - 29
Ties - 1
W/L % - .280

This info is from: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cin/coaches.htm

Zac has a ways to go to join the Bengals coaches who hovered around the .500 mark: Marvin Lewis, Sam Wyche, Forrest Gregg, Bill Johnson, and Paul Brown. Zac is among the ranks of Dick LeBeau, Bruce Coslet, David Shula, and Homer Rice as coaches with really bad W/L records (1992 to 2002 was a horrible time to be a Bengals fan).

Note, I do think it was time to move on from Marvin Lewis, so my claim that he is better than Zac is not an endorsement for Marvin's continued tenure. Time will tell if the Bengals landed a gem with Zac, but it isn't looking good. As fredtoast implies, or maybe stated if I overlooked his post, Marvin might have had even a better chance at winning if the Brown family embraced spending big dollars in free agency during his coaching tenure.

Edit: Botched the end of my post saying Marvin won 250+ games, he didn't.

[WeezyBengal]

(11-09-2021, 05:02 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: That will be great news....    thought it was a 5 year deal though

You can't be serious? Who's idea was it to give the guy a 5 year contract? WTF? 

[XenoMorph]

(11-12-2021, 10:45 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: You can't be serious? Who's idea was it to give the guy a 5 year contract? WTF? 

i do not have any details...  I thought when he was hired everyone was saying it was a 5 year deal...   If it was only 3 years i am Sure we would have heard about him being a lame duck coach this year...   We havent heard anything about his contract and extenstion or otherwise which is why i assume its 5 years.  But he can be fired at any time lol

[grampahol]

Oh c'mon folks.. As soon as we all realize Zac is actually a football savant and all around genius he'll turn everything around and well win 20 superbowls in a row. Who's with me on this?

[Big_Ern]

(11-12-2021, 12:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: If the salaries are adjusted to make them equal based on the increase in the salary cap then the % of salary cap is also adjusted.

I never saw where you stated the % of cap marvin teams vs. current team spent. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

It will tell a lot on how we respond after this bye. The last 2 losses have been ugly in a lot of ways.

Still really like the team but this will tell if Zac Taylor is the answer or not on how we respond.

Felt like after the bye under Marv we always came out flat.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2021, 02:51 PM)Big_Ern Wrote: I never saw where you stated the % of cap marvin teams vs. current team spent. 

Sorry, but I assumed everyone read Shake's post that I quoted in mine.  I don't know how you could have followed the discussion without doing that.

But now you know.

[TecmoBengals]

(11-12-2021, 03:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I assumed everyone read Shake's post that I quoted in mine.  I don't know how you could have followed the discussion without doing that.

But now you know.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

(11-12-2021, 10:22 AM)TecmoBengals Wrote: As of now, Zac needs about 13 to 15 seasons of 15 wins a year to equal Marvin's franchise coaching records of 256 wins. Some of us on this forum will be dead from old age by the time Zac can accomplish such a goal.

256 is Marvin's number of games coached, not games won.

[TecmoBengals]

(11-12-2021, 03:25 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: 256 is Marvin's number of games coached, not games won.

Oops, thank you for catching my mistake. He won 131 games.

[Shake n Blake]

(11-12-2021, 10:22 AM)TecmoBengals Wrote: Bringing up how Marvin didn't have the benefit of free agency since Zac is the first Bengals coach to benefit from the Brown family embracing free agency isn't really a necessary talking point when comparing the two coaches. This take is rooted in my opinion that Marvin was a far better coach than Zac Taylor currently is and likely turns out to be based on W/L %.

Marvin Lewis:
Games - 256
Wins - 131
Losses - 122
Ties - 3
W/L % - .518

Zac Taylor:
Games - 41
Wins - 11
Losses - 29
Ties - 1
W/L % - .280

This info is from: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cin/coaches.htm

Zac has a ways to go to join the Bengals coaches who hovered around the .500 mark: Marvin Lewis, Sam Wyche, Forrest Gregg, Bill Johnson, and Paul Brown. Zac is among the ranks of Dick LeBeau, Bruce Coslet, David Shula, and Homer Rice as coaches with really bad W/L records (1992 to 2002 was a horrible time to be a Bengals fan).

Note, I do think it was time to move on from Marvin Lewis, so my claim that he is better than Zac is not an endorsement for Marvin's continued tenure. Time will tell if the Bengals landed a gem with Zac, but it isn't looking good. As fredtoast implies, or maybe stated if I overlooked his post, Marvin might have had even a better chance at winning if the Brown family embraced spending big dollars in free agency during his coaching tenure.

As of now, Zac needs about 13 to 15 seasons of 15 wins a year to equal Marvin's franchise coaching records of 256 wins. Some of us on this forum will be dead from old age by the time Zac can accomplish such a goal.

This would be fair if both came into similar situations. They did not.

Marvin came in to a situation with young ascending talent like Chad, P-Dub, Housh, Rudi, a good offensive line, etc. He even kept the OC. He just needed to rebuild the defense via FA and make the obvious choice with Palmer at #1.

Zac came into a situation where most of the "talent" was washed up or a poor fit. AJ Green, Geno, Dunlap, Burfict, Dalton, etc. A horrible o-line. It all needed to go.

Marvin needed to reshape the defense, but Zac had to reshape the entire team.

------------

So... Zac really didn't get to see the fruits of his labor until year 3. Again, I hold Marv in higher regard than Zac right now, but I also think it's a little unfair to try and compare the 2019-2020 teams to the 2003-2004 teams as if it was an apples to apples comparison. It's really not.

[TecmoBengals]

(11-12-2021, 03:34 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This would be fair if both came into similar situations. They did not.

Marvin came in to a situation with young ascending talent like Chad, P-Dub, Housh, Rudi, a good offensive line, etc. He just needed to rebuild the defense via FA and make the obvious choice with Palmer at #1.

Zac came into a situation where most of the "talent" was washed up or a poor fit. AJ Green, Geno, Dunlap, Burfict, Dalton, etc. A horrible o-line. It all needed to go.

Marvin needed to reshape the defense, but Zac had to reshape the entire team.

------------

So... Zac really didn't get to see the fruits of his labor until year 3. Again, I hold Marv in higher regard than Zac right now, but I also think it's a little unfair to try and compare the 2019-2020 teams to the 2003-2004 teams as if it was an apples to apples comparison. It's really not.

It's not fair to compare W/L records? I suppose I could support this view when comparing them based on their first three seasons of coaching, but even then it comes down to does the coach win or lose? Understanding the "why?" behind the Ws or Ls doesn't change the outcome. Zac is more aligned with Shula and Coslet than Marvin. Zac has an opportunity to change his W/L this since the Brown family has kept him around. Perhaps we'll see in a couple seasons if his records inches closer to .500.

You said Marvin needed to reshape the defense, but Zac had to reshape the entire team. I think Marvin had to reshape the entire franchise. He inherited a poorly run franchise that hadn't made the playoffs in over a decade. Talent alone didn't end the drought, Marvin's coaching contributed to the success. I'll hold my view that Marvin is better than Zac based on W/L %.

[Shake n Blake]

(11-12-2021, 03:40 PM)TecmoBengals Wrote: It's not fair to compare W/L records? I suppose I could support this view when comparing them based on their first three seasons of coaching, but even then it comes down to does the coach win or lose? Understanding the "why?" behind the Ws or Ls doesn't change the outcome. Zac is more aligned with Shula and Coslet than Marvin. Zac has an opportunity to change his W/L this since the Brown family has kept him around. Perhaps we'll see in a couple seasons if his records inches closer to .500.

You said Marvin needed to reshape the defense, but Zac had to reshape the entire team. I think Marvin had to reshape the entire franchise. He inherited a poorly run franchise that hadn't made the playoffs in over a decade. Talent alone didn't end the drought, Marvin's coaching contributed to the success. I'll hold my view that Marvin is better than Zac based on W/L %.

Sometimes I think Marv gets a biiiiiiit too much credit for reshaping the franchise. I think that change was already underway. The evidence is:

1. They'd already hired Duke Tobin, who was doing a bang up job in the draft. The 2001 draft (Justin Smith, Chad Johnson, Rudi Johnson, Housh) is probably the best draft in team history.

2. Katie made the choice to hire Marvin Lewis. This shows that Mike was already starting to slowly release his death grip.

3. Just look at the coaches we were looking at. Denny Green. Tom Coughlin. Marvin Lewis. They were all quality. Unlike the 90s when we hired guys with poor resumes. Dave Shula was terrible. Coslet was a terrible HC with the Jets. Lebeau was a great DC, but he clearly was never HC material. We went from that, to looking at the 3 most premier names on the market?

4. The fact that the Bengals were WILLING to give Marv so much control from day 1.

-----------------

I know people loathe excuses, but I think it's clear Marv took over a team that was more ready to win than the one Zac inherited. They were both rebuilds, but I think Marv's was a short rebuild, while Zac's was more like a 76ers/Browns style rebuild.

Just to clarify: This isn't me saying I approve of the job Zac has done. I still think we're slightly underachieving this year, and I place blame on Zac for not pressing harder to fix this o-line.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2021, 03:34 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This would be fair if both came into similar situations. They did not.

Marvin came in to a situation with young ascending talent like Chad, P-Dub, Housh, Rudi, a good offensive line, etc. He even kept the OC. He just needed to rebuild the defense via FA and make the obvious choice with Palmer at #1.

Zac came into a situation where most of the "talent" was washed up or a poor fit. AJ Green, Geno, Dunlap, Burfict, Dalton, etc. A horrible o-line. It all needed to go.

Taylor inherited just as much good talent on his team as Marvin did.  Jesse Bates, Tyler Boyd, Sam Hubbard, Carlos Dunlap, Joe Mixon, William Jackson, Carl Lawson, Gio Bernard, and CJ Uzomah.

The facts are that Marvin took over a TWO win team, lost the best player on his defense (Spikes) and the best player on his offense (Dillon) and still won 8 games.

Zac took over a 6 win team and it took him two years to win 6 games. 

[TecmoBengals]

(11-12-2021, 03:52 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Sometimes I think Marv gets a biiiiiiit too much credit for reshaping the franchise. I think that change was already underway. The evidence is:

1. They'd already hired Duke Tobin, who was doing a bang up job in the draft. The 2001 draft (Justin Smith, Chad Johnson, Rudi Johnson, Housh) is probably the best draft in team history.

2. Katie made the choice to hire Marvin Lewis. This shows that Mike was already starting to slowly release his death grip.

3. Just look at the coaches we were looking at. Denny Green. Tom Coughlin. Marvin Lewis. They were all quality. Unlike the 90s when we hired guys with poor resumes. Dave Shula was terrible. Coslet was a terrible HC with the Jets. Lebeau was a great DC, but he clearly was never HC material. We went from that, to looking at the 3 most premier names on the market?

4. The fact that the Bengals were WILLING to give Marv so much control from day 1.

-----------------

I know people loathe excuses, but I think it's clear Marv took over a team that was more ready to win than the one Zac inherited. They were both rebuilds, but I think Marv's was a short rebuild, while Zac's was more like a 76ers/Browns style rebuild.

Just to clarify: This isn't me saying I approve of the job Zac has done. I still think we're slightly underachieving this year, and I place blame on Zac for not pressing harder to fix this o-line.

I guess I'm not looking to what extent or degree of ease or difficulty Lewis or Taylor had to experience. I'm simplifying to Wins and Losses. It's the outcome that matters and when comparing the two overall records, Marvin is better. Zac still has time though to improve his record and accomplish what Marvin could not, a playoff win and perhaps more.

Both Lewis and Taylor inherited teams with NFL talent. Lewis was a premiere candidate and won more. Zac was an unknown and it's reflecting in his coaching bottom-line of Ws and Ls.

[Shake n Blake]

(11-12-2021, 03:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Taylor inherited just as much good talent on his team as Marvin did.  Jesse Bates, Tyler Boyd, Sam Hubbard, Carlos Dunlap, Joe Mixon, William Jackson, Carl Lawson, Gio Bernard, and CJ Uzomah.

The facts are that Marvin took over a TWO win team, lost the best player on his defense (Spikes) and the best player on his offense (Dillon) and still won 8 games.

Zac took over a 6 win team and it took him two years to win 6 games. 

Bull.

Carson Palmer, Chad Johnson, TJ Houshmandzadeh, Peter Warrick, Rudi Johnson, Levi Jones, Willie Anderson, Rich Braham, Justin Smith, Brian Simmons, and Jeremi Johnson.

That list trumps yours by a long shot.

Again, Marv was able to win games because the talent he inherited was young and ascending (or in their primes), whereas most of the core of the team Zac inherited was already washed up or checked out mentally. The young guys Zac inherited in no way compare to the guys Marv got.

The best would probably be Joe Mixon, and he's no better than Rudi, who was arguably the 5th best player Marv inherited.

[Big_Ern]

(11-12-2021, 03:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I assumed everyone read Shake's post that I quoted in mine.  I don't know how you could have followed the discussion without doing that.

But now you know.

Still nope 
Don't assume things 

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2021, 04:05 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Bull.

Carson Palmer, Chad Johnson, TJ Houshmandzadeh, Peter Warrick, Rudi Johnson, Levi Jones, Willie Anderson, Rich Braham, Justin Smith, Brian Simmons, and Jeremi Johnson.

That list trumps yours by a long shot.

I'll match my 11 against your 11.

Jonah Williams, Geno Atkins, Tyler Boyd, Joe Mixon, Carl Lawson, William Jackson, Carlos Dunlap, Jesse Bates, Sam Hubbard, Gio Bernard, CJ Uzomah

We can debate which group is better, but it is obvious that there was no "long shot" type difference.  If the 2003 Bengals had a deep talented roster then why did they only win 2 games the year before?  Hmmm, maybe COACHING?

[Shake n Blake]

(11-12-2021, 04:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'll match my 11 against your 11.

Jonah Williams, Geno Atkins, Tyler Boyd, Joe Mixon, Carl Lawson, William Jackson, Carlos Dunlap, Jesse Bates, Sam Hubbard, Gio Bernard, CJ Uzomah

We can debate which group is better, but it is obvious that there was no "long shot" type difference.  If the 2003 Bengals had a deep talented roster then why did they only win 2 games the year before?  Hmmm, maybe COACHING?

Why did they win more?

1. Marv was a better coach than DlCK LeBeau...who was awful.
2. The talent wasn't as ready in 2002.

Now to compare the talent.

Carson Palmer >> Anyone on Zac's list
Chad Johnson >> Anyone on Zac's list
Willie Anderson >> Anyone on Zac's list
TJ Houshmandzadeh > Anyone on Zac's list
Rudi Johnson > anyone on the list other than maybe Mixon. Maybe.

The guys you use to beef up your list (like Geno and Dunlap) were either washed or mentally checked out. Bates isn't looking like the star we thought he was, either.

You seem to think this is about me saying Zac is better than Marv. I'm not. I'm saying Marv's situation was better, and Zac's terrible situation is at least partly to blame for why we were so terrible the last 2 years. I'm not offering my approval of Zac so much as saying it was more than just a bad coaching job that led to 6-25-1.

[Tony]

(11-09-2021, 04:47 PM)jj22 Wrote: Is this the all out blitz against Pittsburg season that cause us to not be 6-3?

It was an illegal pick play too... I will never forget AB Taking that one to the house...