Marvin Lewis and Bengals agree on contract extension

[Wes Mantooth]

(04-10-2016, 10:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: These are the same people who insist that the Bengals '03 roster was loaded with All-Pro talent when they went 4-12.

1.) The 03 team went 8-8.

2.) I've never once heard anyone say that team was "loaded with talent".  Not then, not now, not ever.  In fact, everybody I personally know (with myself included) was just about doing cartwheels over the performance that year.  And I would say that it was one of the most fun seasons I've personally experienced.  The KC is definitely on my short list of most memorable games.

[fredtoast]

(04-11-2016, 03:21 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 1.) The 03 team went 8-8.

2.) I've never once heard anyone say that team was "loaded with talent".  Not then, not now, not ever.  In fact, everybody I personally know (with myself included) was just about doing cartwheels over the performance that year.  And I would say that it was one of the most fun seasons I've personally experienced.  The KC is definitely on my short list of most memorable games.

1.  I meant '02.  I'll correct that.

2.  Plenty of people claim Marvin should get no credit for turning the team around because he inherited so much talent.

[Bengal Dude]

I'm not even mad. I knew this was going to happen. Probably feared a repeat of 2010 when Marvin was a lame duck.

[Hoofhearted]

(04-11-2016, 04:25 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: I'm not even mad. I knew this was going to happen. Probably feared a repeat of 2010 when Marvin was a lame duck.

Yeah I'm not mad, I'm trying to understand it. You give him his fourth one year extension. One year. Why not 3 or 5? Why do you need to give him so many "prove it" deals with him, well, not proving it. And not saying he's a bad coach. Just saying make up your m'f'in mind.

[fredtoast]

(04-11-2016, 05:01 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: Yeah I'm not mad, I'm trying to understand it. You give him his fourth one year extension. One year. Why not 3 or 5? Why do you need to give him so many "prove it" deals with him, well, not proving it. And not saying he's a bad coach. Just saying make up your m'f'in mind.

The front office feels just like I do.  Marvin has been good enough to keep his job, but not good enough to deserve a long term deal.

[Shake n Blake]

(04-11-2016, 03:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  I meant '02.  I'll correct that.

2.  Plenty of people claim Marvin should get no credit for turning the team around because he inherited so much talent.

I'm probably one of the people you're referring to, and I never said Marvin deserves no credit. I also never said it was "so much all-pro talent".

I simply said that Marv probably gets too much credit, Tobin doesn't get enough, and the core of the '05 team was inherited by Marv.

Palmer, Rudi, Chad, TJ, Willie, Levi, Braham, Justin Smith, Simmons, etc were all going to be Bengals whether we hired Marv or not.

[BURROWorBUST]

Meh, I wonder who Duke Tobin would choose to hire, if he had his choice. I'd roll with that. Think he can't scout coaches, too?

[Millhouse]

Well I a super stokely excited about this! Anyone that isnt needs your noggin examined because this is the best news of the off-season by a kilometer. WhoDey!

[fredtoast]

(04-11-2016, 06:56 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Palmer, Rudi, Chad, TJ, Willie, Levi, Braham, Justin Smith, Simmons, etc were all going to be Bengals whether we hired Marv or not.

If Palmer had been a flop you would have placed all the blame on Marvin, but since he played well as a Bengal Marvin gets zero credit.

And Rudi did nothing until Marvin arrived , but that was just "coincidence" because that is what fits your opinion.

BTW Mike Zimmer inherited 12 starters and 7 Pro Bowl players including the best RB in the entire league.  But you still claim Marvin was handed more talent than Mike was.  You just see what you want to see in order to discredit what Marvin accomplished.

[OrlandoBengal]

(04-11-2016, 09:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Palmer had been a flop you would have placed all the blame on Marvin, but since he played well as a Bengal Marvin gets zero credit.

And Rudi did nothing until Marvin arrived , but that was just "coincidence" because that is what fits your opinion.

BTW Mike Zimmer inherited 12 starters and 7 Pro Bowl players including the best RB in the entire league.  But you still claim Marvin was handed more talent than Mike was.  You just see what you want to see in order to discredit what Marvin accomplished.

Palmer was an absolute no brainer of a pick.  The team needed a quarterback, had the first overall pick, and a prototypical Heisman Trophy winner was coming out of college.  If Palmer would have been a bust, that would have been on him.  If the Bengals would not have needed a quarterback, then first team that did is who would have picked him.

[*Nately120*]

(04-11-2016, 09:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Palmer had been a flop you would have placed all the blame on Marvin, but since he played well as a Bengal Marvin gets zero credit.

As much of a Palmer fan-boy as I am, I thought the Bengals should have traded down and grabbed Sexy Rexy Grossman and/or waited another year on a QB.  Whoops?

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 01:47 AM)Nately120 Wrote: As much of a Palmer fan-boy as I am, I thought the Bengals should have traded down and grabbed Sexy Rexy Grossman and/or waited another year on a QB.  Whoops?

Not possible.

According to Shake n Blake there was some sort of NFL rule that prohibited the Bengals from doing anything other than drafting Carson Palmer that year.

[*Nately120*]

(04-12-2016, 10:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not possible.

According to Shake n Blake there was some sort of NFL rule that prohibited the Bengals from doing anything other than drafting Carson Palmer that year.

Probably the same rule that forced our genius GM to refuse the world in a silver platter for Akili Smith.

[Shake n Blake]

(04-12-2016, 10:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not possible.

According to Shake n Blake there was some sort of NFL rule that prohibited the Bengals from doing anything other than drafting Carson Palmer that year.

Not an NFL rule. Just a QB obsessed owner, a glaring need at QB, and the fact that Palmer was clearly the top QB prospect that year.

Be honest with yourself. Had we hired Denny Green or Coughlin, do you really think we would've taken Terrence Newman or traded the pick?

[Bengalholic]

(04-12-2016, 11:46 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Not an NFL rule. Just a QB obsessed owner, a glaring need at QB, and the fact that Palmer was clearly the top QB prospect that year.

Be honest with yourself. Had we hired Denny Green or Coughlin, do you really think we would've taken Terrence Newman or traded the pick?

This.

There's now way that a new HC, no matter who it was, passes on a potential franchise QB...especially given the instability at QB during the previous decade. 

It was one of those situations where the circumstances pretty much dictated what was going to happen. You might call it a 'no-brainer'. 

I did think that Marvin did a great job with his 1st free agent class...getting guys like Kelly, Hardy, James, Thornton and Clemons to come here. 

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 11:46 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Be honest with yourself. Had we hired Denny Green or Coughlin, do you really think we would've taken Terrence Newman or traded the pick?

When I am honest with myself I admit that I do not know what would happens.

Unlike you I don't assume I am omniscient.  I don't have the power to know that everything good that happened after Marvin took over was "just coincidence" and everything bad that happened was "Marvin's fault".

[Bengalholic]

(04-11-2016, 05:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The front office feels just like I do.  Marvin has been good enough to keep his job, but not good enough to deserve a long term deal.

In other words, he's not good enough to earn a 3 year extension, but is good enough to be given 3 one year extensions? 

I guess it all boils down to what criteria the front office is using. If having good regular seasons and making the playoffs is 'good enough'...then I understand allowing your HC to continually fail in the playoffs and rewarding him with extension after extension. 

However, if actually winning playoff games and making a legit SB run is the criteria...then the continued extensions after playoff failures makes little sense, at least in my opinion.

I don't have any doubts that Mike, Katie and the gang would like to have postseason success and play in a SB. But, given how they've handled Marvin...I also have to believe that they're perfectly content (at least to some degree) with just being 'good enough'. Otherwise, you wouldn't let your HC become the standard bearer in playoff futility and not only keep him around, but reward him with more time.

Or...maybe they're just firm believers in the philosophy that "good things come to those who wait...and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait".  

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 12:57 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: In other words, he's not good enough to earn a 3 year extension, but is good enough to be given 3 one year extensions? 

I guess it all boils down to what criteria the front office is using. If having good regular seasons and making the playoffs is 'good enough'...then I understand allowing your HC to continually fail in the playoffs and rewarding him with extension after extension. 

However, if actually winning playoff games and making a legit SB run is the criteria...then the continued extensions after playoff failures makes little sense, at least in my opinion.

I don't have any doubts that Mike, Katie and the gang would like to have postseason success and play in a SB. But, given how they've handled Marvin...I also have to believe that they're perfectly content (at least to some degree) with just being 'good enough'. Otherwise, you wouldn't let your HC become the standard bearer in playoff futility and not only keep him around, but reward him with more time.

Or...maybe they're just firm believers in the philosophy that "good things come to those who wait...and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait".  

Or maybe they know exactly how hard it is to have the success that Marvin has enjoyed over the last 5 seasons and don't see a better option to sign instead of him.

It is to roll the dice on an unknown HC when your team sucks, but when you are as close to success as the Bengal are it is much harder to throw that away on a random chance of getting better.

Some people around here act like they would be "happier" if we tried and failed, but they are liars.  If we fire Marvin and then miss the playoffs they will be bitching and moaning just like always.  Not a single one will be saying "I am so happy we missed the playoffs because at least we tried to get better."

[Bengalholic]

(04-12-2016, 01:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Or maybe they know exactly how hard it is to have the success that Marvin has enjoyed over the last 5 seasons and don't see a better option to sign instead of him.

It is to roll the dice on an unknown HC when your team sucks, but when you are as close to success as the Bengal are it is much harder to throw that away on a random chance of getting better.

Some people around here act like they would be "happier" if we tried and failed, but they are liars.  If we fire Marvin and then miss the playoffs they will be bitching and moaning just like always.  Not a single one will be saying "I am so happy we missed the playoffs because at least we tried to get better."

Again, in the case of Marvin, 'success' depends on how it's perceived. On one hand, Marvin has had a tremendous amount of regular season success and deserves a ton of credit for that. On the other hand, he is the NFL record holder in playoff ineptness, and deserves to be held accountable for that. 

So, how do you square those polar opposites in terms of success? It has to come down to, IMO, the Bengals valuing regular season success more that postseason outcomes...which explains why Marvin is still here and continually being given extensions.

I know some people on here like to compare the Bengals 'success' against teams that haven't accomplished anything..."at least we're not the Browns", "20 teams a year don't make the playoffs", "what has this team or that team done recently", etc. What I don't see a lot of from those same people is comparing the Bengals to the best in the league...which is really all we should be doing at this point, if we're looking for a true evaluation of where we are.

Over the last 5 years in which Marvin has had a lot of regular season success, how do his end results match against the best teams during that same 5 year period (regular and postseason)? The Broncos have appeared in 2 SB's, winning one. The Seahawks have appeared in 2 SB's, winning one. The Patriots have appeared in 2 SB's, winning one. 

How does Marvin's 'success' stack up to the very best? An NFL record 5 consecutive one and done's with only the last one being truly competitive. While those other 3 teams were winning playoff games and making it to a couple SB's...Marvin and the Bengals are wasting precious opportunities.

[OrlandoBengal]

(04-12-2016, 02:03 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Again, in the case of Marvin, 'success' depends on how it's perceived. On one hand, Marvin has had a tremendous amount of regular season success and deserves a ton of credit for that. On the other hand, he is the NFL record holder in playoff ineptness, and deserves to be held accountable for that. 

So, how do you square those polar opposites in terms of success. It has to come down to, IMO, the Bengals valuing regular season success more that postseason outcomes...which explains why Marvin is still here and continually being given extensions.

I know some people on here like to compare the Bengals 'success' against teams that haven't accomplished anything..."at least we're not the Browns", "20 teams a year don't make the playoffs", "what has this team or that team done recently", etc. What I don't see a lot of from those same people is comparing the Bengals to the best in the league...which is really all we should be doing at this point, if we're looking for a true evaluation of where we are.

Over the last 5 years in which Marvin has had a lot of regular season success, how do his end results match against the best teams during that same 5 year period (regular and postseason)? The Broncos have appeared in 2 SB's, winning one. The Seahawks have appeared in 2 SB's, winning one. The Patriots have appeared in 2 SB's, winning one. 

How does Marvin's 'success' stack up to the very best? An NFL record 5 consecutive one and done's with only the last one being truly competitive. While those other 3 teams were winning playoff games and making it to a couple SB's...Marvin and the Bengals are wasting precious opportunities.

This, times 1000.