Something You'll Never See In Cincinnati...EVER!

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 02:49 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Absolute truth. Nothing is guaranteed, i don't care how "proven" a coach is. 

So the options are; stay the course which has proven ineffective so far, or, make a change in the hope things improve. 

Hope that Marv gets them over the hump: Hope that another coach gets them over the hump. 

It's the same thing. A word (hope) that has no tangible measurement. 

Then you agree that it is possible for some people to have more hope in Marvin than another coach who has not accomplished as much.

No more accusing people who don't want Marvin fired of "being happy with losing in the playoffs"?

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 02:18 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I think it's hypocritical when these ML nut swingers demand a PROVEN replacement and then back Marvin Lewis who came in as UNPROVEN.... Oh, wait. He's proven now, right? Because he has proven he CAN'T get it done.

(02-05-2016, 02:38 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yep. I was just thinking the same thing. Marvin had no HC experience when he came in. So why are we demanding a "proven" upgrade?

Because there is a huge difference between replacing a coach who had just gone 3-13 (nothing to lose) and replacing a coach who has made the playoffs 5 straight years.

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 02:36 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: How many more before they try something different?

We make changes every year.  

[Shake n Blake]

(02-05-2016, 03:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why don't you look at the results instead of the firings?

Because results are mixed. Some got better, some got worse, some stayed the same. The point is that none of those teams were content with status quo. They took risks to get better. Sometimes risks pay off, sometimes they don't.

Why don't you list some teams that continually stuck with a HC who was 0-for in the playoffs and it eventually paid off?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-05-2016, 01:27 PM)jowczarski Wrote: I can't read through all of this, but let me play devil's advocate off the topic and first page:

Sample size too small for Kubiak.

Schottenheimer took over a 5-11 Chargers team in 2001.
He was fired after three winning seasons with two playoff appearances, the dagger of course being the divisional loss after a 14-2 season.
Yes, Norv Turner went 11-5 the next year and the Chargers went to the AFC title game. But since that 2007 season, the Chargers have had four winning seasons and have made the playoffs just three times. They have not won a playoff game and have had two head coaches.

Dungy took over for Sam Wyche in Tampa after a 7-9 season in 1995. Dungy built the Bucs into a playoff contender – four winning seasons, four playoff appearances, just one playoff win (1999). He’s fired, Gruden leads team to the SB in 2002. That changed worked in the short term. I agree that every Bucs fan should cherish that championship.
Since then, the Bucs have four winning seasons and have made the playoffs two times. They have not won a playoff game and are now on their fourth head coach in that time.

Jimmy Johnson took over for Tom Landry in Dallas after a 3-13 season in 1998. Of course, we know Johnson built the Cowboys to a dynasty and he quit/was fired after a Super Bowl in 1993. And we know that Barry Switzer maintained that (in the pre-free agency era, mind you) for the next two years – another Super Bowl, and an NFC title game loss. Since that last Super Bowl in 1995, the Cowboys have posted nine winning seasons and have made the playoffs eight times. They have won three playoff games (all wildcard) and have had five head coaches.

Here’s what I’m saying: I get the issues with Marvin. But as a guy who has come from the outside, who knows how NFL teams work out of market, it’s not crazy that the Bengals have kept him around.

Look, even after the bad seasons it probably proved wise.

Schottenheimer fired in Kansas City after a 7-9 season in 1998 because he couldn’t win a playoff game, right? Well, since then the Chiefs have had six head coaches and have posted just eight winning seasons, made the playoffs just five times, and just won their first playoff game since 1993.

In Minnesota, Dennis Green fired during a 5-11 season in 2001 after losing the NFC title game in 2000. Since then the Vikings are on their fourth head coach and have six winning seasons and made the playoffs four times. They have won two playoff games.

You guys have mentioned John Fox. After firing Lovie Smith after a 10-6 non-playoff year in 2012, the Bears are now on their second head coach since and have not yet had a winning season.

All I’m saying is that yes, sometimes change is good. But oftentimes, it is not. It makes perfect football sense for Marvin Lewis to still be the head coach of the Bengals in 2016.

Maybe so, but Sammy laid the foundation when he drafted Brooks, Lynch, and Sapp.  They were on to big things, he just got axed before it came to fruition......and 7-9 was a step in the right direction, all things considered.

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 02:06 PM)PDub80 Wrote: The Bengals have had one of the most talented rosters in the NFL the past 2 or 3 seasons and were better or even to the Texans both games,

Is this a joke?

Texans 2011...10-6 (2 wins versus 10 win teams)#10 scoring offense, #4 scoring defense
Bengals 2011...9-7 (0 wins versus 10 win teams)#18 scoring offense, #9 scoring defense

Texans 2012...12-4 (4 wins versus 10 win teams)#8 scoring offense #9 scoring defense
Bengals 2012...10-6 (2 wins versus 10 win teams)#12 scoring offense, #8 scoring defense

And we were playing on the road in both of those games.

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 03:45 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Why don't you list some teams that continually stuck with a HC who was 0-for in the playoffs and it eventually paid off?

Tom Landry did not have a winning season until his 7th year and only won one playoff game in his first decade as a head coach for the Cowboys.

Based on your logic it was clearly impossible for him to ever win a Super Bowl.

[*Nately120*]

(02-05-2016, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Is this a joke?

Texans 2011...10-6 (2 wins versus 10 win teams)#10 scoring offense, #4 scoring defense
Bengals 2011...9-7 (0 wins versus 10 win teams)#18 scoring offense, #9 scoring defense

Texans 2012...12-4 (4 wins versus 10 win teams)#8 scoring offense #9 scoring defense
Bengals 2012...10-6 (2 wins versus 10 win teams)#12 scoring offense, #8 scoring defense

And we were playing on the road in both of those games.

Come on, the Texans marched out their 3rd string QB in 2011 and that's when Matt Schlub was still good.  That would be like us starting Wenning against the Steelers this year. You can probably throw out the season stats when you're starting a 3rd stringer in the post-season, right?

2012 our offense scored a grand total of 6 points, so yeah...I'd say that was a surprising low whether we were favored or not.

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 04:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Come on, the Texans marched out their 3rd string QB in 2011 and that's when Matt Schlub was still good.  That would be like us starting Wenning against the Steelers this year.  You can probably throw out the season stats when you're starting a 3rd stringer in the post-season, right?

2012 our offense scored a grand total of 6 points, so yeah...I'd say that was a surprising low whether we were favored or not.

QB does not make that much difference when you have the #2 rushing game and the #2 defense in the league.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-05-2016, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Tom Landry did not have a winning season until his 7th year and only won one playoff game in his first decade as a head coach for the Cowboys.

Based on your logic it was clearly impossible for him to ever win a Super Bowl.

They were an expansion team in a much different era, and a very bad one at that.

[PDub80]

(02-05-2016, 03:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because there is a huge difference between replacing a coach who had just gone 3-13 (nothing to lose) and replacing a coach who has made the playoffs 5 straight years.

That's a fair statement, Fred. I get the whole continuity thing.

Please let me point out that Zimmer and Gruden took their squads to the playoffs in their 2nd year (in weaker divisions, however) and had nowhere near the talent ML does on the Bengals. Same results in the end, though.

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 04:48 PM)PDub80 Wrote: That's a fair statement, Fred. I get the whole continuity thing.

Please let me point out that Zimmer and Gruden took their squads to the playoffs in their 2nd year (in weaker divisions, however) and had nowhere near the talent ML does on the Bengals. Same results in the end, though.

Both took over teams that were just one year removed from making the playoffs and both had losing records their first season.  

Marvin took over a team that had not made the playoffs in over a decade and had a .500 record his first season.

[PDub80]

(02-05-2016, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: QB does not make that much difference when you have the #2 rushing game and the #2 defense in the league.

I totally disagree. QB is weighted way way way more than any other position in terms of affect on a game. And, yes, even when it comes to the run. the Broncos are great examples of that.

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 04:28 PM)Wyche Wrote: They were an expansion team in a much different era, and a very bad one at that.

So what?  None of that matters.  All that matters is the coach, remember?

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 04:50 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I totally disagree. QB is weighted way way way more than any other position in terms of affect on a game. And, yes, even when it comes to the run. the Broncos are great examples of that.

And the 2011 Bengals were considered the least talented team in the league and projected to fininish dead last with a rookie starting QB and a new OC.

But, yeah, let's fire Marvin for taking that team to the playoffs.

[PDub80]

(02-05-2016, 04:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Both took over teams that were just one year removed from making the playoffs and both had losing records their first season.  

Marvin took over a team that had not made the playoffs in over a decade and had a .500 record his first season.

This would make me want to pause to compare roster carry over from year to year and see how many bums ML inherited from that losing decade vs. how many strong players he had already on the roster carrying over and in the begning of their careers. The Bengals team Marvin Lewis came into was actually fairly strong roster wise at a lot of Key positions so I don't think it's fair to be too pumped that he went 8-8 back to back before the playoffs in the Human Juggs Machine's (carson) 3rd season (2nd starting).

Strong players on the 2003 roster:

Chad
Carson
Housh
J Smith
W Anderson
Levi Jones
Corey Dillon
Rudi Johnson
Rich Braham
Brian Simmons
Goff
Steinbach
Peter Warrick

All of the above were very very very strong players coming in as rookies or already there.

[fredtoast]

(02-05-2016, 04:56 PM)PDub80 Wrote: This would make me want to pause to compare roster carry over from year to year and see how many bums ML inherited from that losing decade vs. how many strong players he had already on the roster carrying over and in the begning of their careers. The Bengals team Marvin Lewis came into was actually fairly strong roster wise at a lot of Key positions so I don't think it's fair to be too pumped that he went 8-8 back to back before the playoffs in the Human Juggs Machine's (carson) 3rd season (2nd starting).

Strong players on the 2003 roster:

Chad
Carson
Housh
J Smith
W Anderson
Levi Jones
Corey Dillon
Rudi Johnson
Rich Braham
Brian Simmons
Goff
Steinbach
Peter Warrick

All of the above were very very very strong players coming in as rookies or already there.

Carson and TJ did not play a single snap in '03.

Dillon quit on the team in order to get out of town (500 yards, 3.9 avg).

And since the same talent was there in '02 when they went 2-14 shouldn't Marvin get the credit for the massive improvement?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-05-2016, 04:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So what?  None of that matters.  All that matters is the coach, remember?

[jowczarski]

I'm not a fan of anything and could care less what the team does to be honest - what I'm offering in that example is how the Bengals think, and honestly how many around the league view what the Bengals do. And that there is inherent danger in change for the sake of change when it comes to winning teams. Everyone understands 0-7, five straight. No one is discounting that. But I'll tell you right now - every single owner in this league will take 52 wins and five trips to the playoffs the last five years. Every one. And they'll roll the dice with the playoff game. (I break down the last five years as a separate 'era' since it was the second rebuild, basically, under Lewis).

I saw a comment about an unproven Lewis being hired. No, he wasn't a head coach - but Lewis was basically running things for Spurrier and he was long overdue for a head job. Not like a a Chip Kelly or Adam Gase type.

The things you point to - all these other bad teams getting better with new coaches. Of course. That's why they were hired. But remember - way back when - the Bengals got better when they hired Lewis. Then when Palmer quit, and they got bad, they got better again. Under Lewis. Those are kind of apples to oranges. This isn't a 5 or 6 win team needing a shot in the arm, or a "change of culture."

Trust me - no one is content with first round exits at Paul Brown Stadium. No one. And I talk to every important person in that building. But they also know the reasons for getting there.

Now, for my opinion: I think once this core is aged out (not so much Dalton, because QBs can be effective into the late 30s) in 2/3 years and the team begins to slide back a bit, and it has to start all over again, you see a change in HC. Unless something drastic happens (like all the guys on the team quit on him and they finish 2-14, 3-13 type of thing). I'm not sure Lewis gets a third rebuild as he hits his 60s.

Honestly guys - the players have to win a game. The coach is the easy one to change when things go real bad, but at some point, these dudes have to win one.

[BengalChris]

(02-05-2016, 02:32 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Here's the thing about only being able to replace Marvin with a better/proven coach...there are no guarantees. You could hire a guy like Sean Payton or Tom Coughlin, and they may never get you back to the playoffs. You could hire a coordinator that's never been a HC, and he may take you to the SB. There's just no way of knowing. I do have faith that a committee of Mike, Katie, Troy and maybe Duke could land a solid replacement. After all, Mike and Katie did give us Marvin. But again, there are no guarantees, and if that's the determining factor for replacing Marvin...then Marvin is never leaving.

I'm not saying you are going to "know" they will be better, but you gotta have a certain idea that the new guy is going to better than the old guy before you let go of the old guy. It's tough to find someone that fits that bill when comparing them to Marvin Lewis, who really has changed the mentality of the Bengals' organization.

And you are right, you still don't know.