Best potential coaching vacancies/jobs: #4 - Bengals

[reuben.ahmed]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18280597/ranking-nfl-best-potential-coaching-jobs-2016

[CageTheBengal]

Andrew Luck is really overrated.

I'd say we are #2 or #3.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(12-15-2016, 12:28 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Andrew Luck is really overrated.

I'd say we are #2 or #3.

My sentiments exactly as I read that love fest about him.....

[*SHRacerX*]

Chargers is a better job than the Bengals? Based on what? The climate?

[tBengal]

I wouldn't have San Diego anywhere near the top. They'll most likely be relocating soon and that will bring a lot of instability to the organization. The HC will be the fall guy if/when they struggle.

[Nicomo Cosca]

If I'm a HC Packers is the only job I'd want over the Bengals tbh.

[grampahol]

Indy screwed the pooch with the Luck deal and from all appearances thought that no matter how bad the rest of the team might be Luck would be sooooo good he could single handedly win for them. How that team would be more attractive to a potential new hc is mind boggling. An overrated qb and a horrible rest of the team and just plain crazy owner ?  Coaching nirvana.. At least  Marvins potential replacement could lose  for another 5 years and be almost guaranteed a job. 

[BengalFanInNJ]

How can the Bengals job not be #1? Any coach they bring in will be given plenty of time to stay here regardless of how bad the record is? Who wouldn't love that??

Plus, this team has a solid core and should have said core another 3-4 years.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-15-2016, 12:31 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Chargers is a better job than the Bengals?  Based on what?  The climate?

"Cincinnati has a lower ceiling than other jobs on this list if the Bengals are hamstrung by the penurious ownership of Mike Brown, but it also has one of the highest floors."


Our roster is better than those teams...but we're a team that doesn't believe in using free agency heavily and are perceived as cheap.

[grampahol]

Quote:Our roster is better than those teams...but we're a team that doesn't believe in using free agency heavily and are perceived as cheap

Teams don't win or lose based on public opinion despite what the average Stooler fan believes.

[Shake n Blake]

If the Bengals are 4th due to "cheapness" (which I agree that Mike is cheap), then why is GB #1? They're the only team that is possibly cheaper than the Bengals. Personally, I'd list GB #1 and the Bengals #2. Dalton is a franchise QB with a good 6-7 good years left. There's prime talent on both sides of the ball. Excellent job security. A really good assortment of picks in the coming draft. No GM between coach and owner. The cheapness and the lack of a practice facility are the 2 biggest downfalls I can think of, but this team is ready made for a quick rebound and a safe job.

Of the teams ahead of the Bengals, I agree with everyone else that Luck is overrated and Irsay is an owner that could give Mike a run for his money. The Chargers are perennial underachievers and have uncertainty about where they'll be playing. GB, despite their cheapness, probably deserves the #1 slot, but Cincy should be right behind them with their roster and picks.

[fredtoast]

Bengals have actually spent over the NFL league salary cap each of the last two years. They were able to do this because they were really cheap a few years ago and rolled over a lot of cap space, but they have been spending well the last couple of years.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(12-15-2016, 02:34 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: If the Bengals are 4th due to "cheapness" (which I agree that Mike is cheap), then why is GB #1? They're the only team that is possibly cheaper than the Bengals. Personally, I'd list GB #1 and the Bengals #2. Dalton is a franchise QB with a good 6-7 good years left. There's prime talent on both sides of the ball. Excellent job security. A really good assortment of picks in the coming draft. No GM between coach and owner. The cheapness and the lack of a practice facility are the 2 biggest downfalls I can think of, but this team is ready made for a quick rebound and a safe job.

Of the teams ahead of the Bengals, I agree with everyone else that Luck is overrated and Irsay is an owner that could give Mike a run for his money. The Chargers are perennial underachievers and have uncertainty about where they'll be playing. GB, despite their cheapness, probably deserves the #1 slot, but Cincy should be right behind them with their roster and picks.

Spot on Shake.

Speaking of the Chargers, Rivers won't be around forever either.

[*SHRacerX*]

(12-15-2016, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bengals have actually spent over the NFL league salary cap each of the last two years.  They were able to do this because they were really cheap a few years ago and rolled over a lot of cap space, but they have been spending well the last couple of years.

And show me a team that honors more contracts to players that are not living up to the price (Maualuga, Hall last year, etc).

[*ochocincos*]

(12-15-2016, 03:35 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: And show me a team that honors more contracts to players that are not living up to the price (Maualuga, Hall last year, etc).

For the Bengals, it's the case of overpaying for what you know vs overpaying for what you don't know. Bengals will always offer a good contract to someone they've had in their system for awhile even if they aren't deemed "worthy" of that contract. The team likely feels more comfortable in trying to get more out of that individual than taking a gamble on someone they don't know.

We'd be complaining the same way if the Bengals brought in an outside FA that under-performed.

[Hammerstripes]

Honestly, if you're looking for job security, there's no better place than Cincinnati or Pittsburgh. Have a couple winning seasons out of the gate, and you can stay for 10+ years without any issue.

[Jpoore]

Good news is we have about 60 million in free agency.

[Shake n Blake]

(12-15-2016, 04:28 PM)ochocincos Wrote: For the Bengals, it's the case of overpaying for what you know vs overpaying for what you don't know. Bengals will always offer a good contract to someone they've had in their system for awhile even if they aren't deemed "worthy" of that contract. The team likely feels more comfortable in trying to get more out of that individual than taking a gamble on someone they don't know.

We'd be complaining the same way if the Bengals brought in an outside FA that under-performed.

After 26 years without a playoff win, it's hard to argue with their approach to FA.

Oh wait...

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-15-2016, 02:34 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: If the Bengals are 4th due to "cheapness" (which I agree that Mike is cheap), then why is GB #1? They're the only team that is possibly cheaper than the Bengals. Personally, I'd list GB #1 and the Bengals #2. Dalton is a franchise QB with a good 6-7 good years left. There's prime talent on both sides of the ball. Excellent job security. A really good assortment of picks in the coming draft. No GM between coach and owner. The cheapness and the lack of a practice facility are the 2 biggest downfalls I can think of, but this team is ready made for a quick rebound and a safe job.

Of the teams ahead of the Bengals, I agree with everyone else that Luck is overrated and Irsay is an owner that could give Mike a run for his money. The Chargers are perennial underachievers and have uncertainty about where they'll be playing. GB, despite their cheapness, probably deserves the #1 slot, but Cincy should be right behind them with their roster and picks.

Aaron Rodgers, who just turned 33.

Luck is overrated, and the Chargers love to let all their best players leave, though.

[Shake n Blake]

(12-15-2016, 08:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Aaron Rodgers, who just turned 33.

I get that, but the Bengals shouldn't be 4th due to cheapness. The roster is better than GB and tbh, Rodgers has taken a step back over the last 2 years. I'd still have them #1, but the Bengals should be right there with them. Closer to 1A and 1B than #1 and #4.