HavePityPlease

The guy was an outlier - he wasn't very bright and he didn't even seem to understand plays very well... but he sure as hell knew where the football was and could close fast and make a perfect tackle. I'll never forget the one game where the opponent made a really effective fake one direction and on TV it looked like EVERYONE on the Bengals fell for it, you see this guy running free on the other side, and it's like "oh gawd no..." then out of nowhere, there's Odell, fires right up on the guy and downs him for a loss with a perfect, hard tackle. Nobody else within 20 yards. IIRC Marvin was asked what the play was such that Odell was still in position and Marvin's answer was something along the lines of "he wasn't in position... he just saw the play and his instincts took over. It's hard as coaches to see it but until he fails to make the play we won't change him". Just a pure football player. We all know what happened to him but at least as far as I'm concerned, the guy needed help and the league wasn't interested. Sure there is a high probability he was beyond help, but if everyone recalls Odell was either the first or near the first player that Goodell ever punished, and it certainly seemed like he wanted to make an example of him. I remember the articles by Hobson which quoted the players saying what Odell needs is to be with his teammates, if for no other reason to keep him away from the bad influences in his life. Dude was banned from communicating with anyone - just basically kicked to the curb with "come back when you're better". That changed later but at least for me Odell had the misfortune of being a test subject for Goodell. From my perspective Odell was a serious alcoholic who needed intervention. Lots of guys don't deserve help in the league, gang bangers like Hernandez, evil psychos like Greg Hardy, toxic fools like AB, but Odell never struck me as anything but a guy who wasn't very bright, was addicted to alcohol, and came from a place where trust was hard to come by.

I like how every talking head outfit in the football world are only talking about one of a couple of things right now: either a) how Burrow should try to avoid getting picked by the Bengals or b) which teams could *really* use Burrow, and what kind of trade do they need to make with the Bengals to get there? The common denominator is, of course, the Bengals don't deserve him and shouldn't have him. I think it was ESPN who had Schefter on to talk about option b). Their base premise was that some teams out there are only missing a QB and should shoot for... the unproven rookie QB? So accepting that premise, the question becomes how do they get him? What do they need to trade? Of course it's only the Dolphins who have any kind of obvious package to offer, but they talk about teams like the Panthers (because Joe Brady) and the Chargers (because QB)... hello? Guys? The Bengals need a fuckin' QB! At least Schefter did preface it by saying "this isn't necessarily even likely to happen, but..." Option a) has mostly been coming from Stephen A., who says Mike Brown doesn't deserve a guy that good while in the same breath saying the Bengals have some of the best fans. Weird logic there Stephen, punish the owner to.. help the awesome fans? Oh wait, right, you don't actually *care* about the fans, just that there is some vain chance your shitty team might get Burrow. Dumb. It would be nice to hear some talking head outfit outside of the Cincinnati bubble talk about how Burrow could help turn *this* franchise around. How it'd be a great story for him to return to southern Ohio and bring some happiness and hope. But nope, it's gotta be all about how other teams might be able to get their grubby paws on this guy; how AMAZING the Panthers would be if they were able to get Burrow and reunite him with Brady; how he'd be an awesome understudy to Brees if he somehow got to stay in Louisiana and join the Saints. Imagine if, say, the Giants hadn't picked Jones last year and ended up with the first pick this year. Would we be hearing anything other than "well the Giants are saved, they got their QB... maybe better than Eli!" etc and so on? Of course not. I know, it comes with the territory and it's nothing new, but I have to admit, I'm as nervous as anyone that the Bengals will screw this up until I hear Goodell say "The Cincinnati Bengals select... Joe Burrow". I always wonder how long it will be until the NFL is as corrupt as the NBA with stuff like this; allowing teams to play fast and loose with the roster rules to not just allow, but help create "dynasty teams". I mean, as a Raptors fan we've been screwed by this countless times, literally from day one - Toronto and Vancouver were banned from getting #1 overall from 1995-1998, and thus even though the Raptors won the #1 overall pick in the lottery in 1996, they couldn't draft Iverson. Several free agent signings by the Raps have been cancelled by the league because of "operational mistakes", allowing that player to join one of the dynasty teams (and thus only using the Raptors as leverage for a higher payout - sound familiar?). I firmly believe that if Kawhi hadn't been coming off injury last season they never would have allowed the Raps to complete that trade. And of course, we may have been able to keep Kawhi (I actually doubt it) if not for the league once again helping teams collude to orchestrate the *precise* trade one star player wanted to allow a dynasty team to be formed. I believe it's coming to the NFL, it's just a matter of when.

While an upgrade on Ross is obviously the best choice, it's highly unlikely. I think we'll just have to hope that Joe and his incredible deep ball accuracy gives Ross more confidence than Andy and his knack for leaving them short so that receivers have to battle for it (granted Ross has dropped several wide-open passes over these two seasons).

How about giving Tate a one-on-one jump ball (something Burrow is an absolute master at)? Tate should be salivating right now.

Damn right

I've seen it in a mock or something, but if by some chance K'Lavon Chaisson from LSU declares, I'd love to see him at 33. In that semi-final he was amazing, making plays everywhere.

At least at a high level, the offensive system was *meant* to be pretty much exactly what the Rams run... lots of 3-receiver sets. As outlined in an article late in the season, it leaked out that they abandoned this scheme and made a mish-mash of various ideas from Van Pelt, Turner and others. This was much more effective (mainly because they actually used Mixon the right way). So from my perspective whatever scheme comes about for next season won't be what Taylor tried to implement at the start of this season, but probably a different scheme that takes parts of everything they learned from this season. For his part Taylor already said what they do next year won't be what they tried this year. The good part is they all apparently learned that they didn't have the personnel to implement the Rams system so hopefully whatever emerges fits the players. TL;DR: There is no scheme right now, Taylor and staff are creating a new one for next season. We just have to hope it looks more like the last 8 games than the first 8.

Heh heh ehhhh that asshole Peter King. I bet you dollars to donuts he actually did something really shitty here: I bet King actually did bring the Seattle writer somewhere he didn't belong. You think Wyche would follow through and call King's boss to get him fired, as part of an elaborate motivational scheme? For one football game? King has proven over the years he has the emotional intelligence of a Hefty bag full of hog fat (and an ego the size of ten such bags), so I'll side on precedent here.

Would he really make a lateral move? Dude was the star of this coaching staff, bar none. I guess if they pay him huge $$ then maybe? FWIW he seems to be the type of guy who greatly appreciates the... eh... "generosity" (read: total predictability) of Mike Brown.

Not disagreeing with the base premise, but Metcalf was selected with the last pick of the second round. This was the theme the announcers leaned on the entire game yesterday, i.e. every team's scouting whiffed on this guy.

Agree on this. The Bengals tend to spend a lot on their own re-ups (justified or not), bring in one or two scrub-to-no-name FA's, and then send out Hobknob to tell us how we're in a cap crisis. To be fair to BFITO, he was simply stating what *he* would do. I don't think any old-time fan like most of us here needs to outline what MB is *likely* to do. We can all fantasize a little bit, right? To add some perspective, it can get much worse with regard to fan-base fantasies. I am also a Maple Leafs fan and let me tell you, no fan base can hold a candle to the... ahem... "creative" ideas presented by the colourful folks in our group. Some variation of "here's what you do: make Don Cherry the GM... make Tie Domi the coach... trade <insert bum> for <insert perennial all-star> and then get <insert collection of goon players>. Cup, baby!". For every CrackpipeBob and OSU blood-oath homer around here you have at least 20-30 of the above around Leaf land.

He should have went with whoever fills these things:

I'm sorry to contribute to this silliness, but I think it's pretty clear when Brady was asked "will you retire next season?" and he said "pretty unlikely" or "hopefully not", he's saying "if the Pats bring me back, no, but otherwise yes". And as for his drop off in play this season, what I saw when they played us was that his o-line was quite poor compared to what he's used to - and if anybody needs a good o-line it's the lead-footed forty something. There are very few teams that need a vet (read: ancient) QB to start that also have an established o-line.

I have to say I disagree with this. Dre has size and physical skills, but he gets lost in coverage way too often (meaning even if he's with his man he's in no position to play the ball) and worse he avoids tackles constantly (and yet still gets injured). If the rest of your secondary is downright stellar, ok he might look "decent". Anything less and he's a straight up liability. Take his salary into it and it's just a terrible investment at best.

It's not excuses, it's just reality. Put an inexperienced coach into a situation where he's not starting the process until February with a worse OL and LB corps than the previous year, what'd you expect? Seriously, what did you think he was going to do? What record do you think Marvin would have had? Do you know what Marvin's record was the second half of last season? (hint: worse than Zac's second half). Is 6-10 that much better than 2-14 for you? For me anything worse than .500 is the same (except perhaps going 0-fer) and I just look for individual performances and some indication the team is improving. Under Marvin it quite obviously got worse and worse as the season went along. With Zac, thankfully, things got progressively better after week 8. Both the offense and defense are ranked higher than last year, despite the record (and despite the horrendous "middle part" of the season). And it's guaranteed not to be more of the same next year, regardless of personnel, as Zac himself has already said so (as of today, regarding the offense). Yes, change the culture. What analysis do you need? You want me to outline Zac's detailed plan of what culture he's implementing? Sorry, I can't read his mind, all I can do is observe how the players act on and off the field. Considering how bad the season went my analysis is: fantastic job. The players are excited to play, the best players want to come back and specifically say they love what Zac is doing, what else do you need? Ok, now I know you're not serious. You honestly think the HC is making the #1 pick, on the Bengals, *especially* a *new* head coach? Get real. Duke and 'Ol Farty Pants are making that pick all day long.

LOL sign that kid now!

Ok, most of this is irrational. - Not to beat a dead horse, but "many of the greatest head coaches in history blah blah" - it's oft repeated, but it's true: one bad season does not a career make. - Going to Finley was the right move because it was obvious the Bengals were going to have a top 5 if not THE top pick. They actually traded up for Finley and thus thought he had a chance to make it as a starter. Taylor had to know if Finley was what he thought he was, so it was exactly the right move for the future. It wasn't like Finley was some late-round flyer pick that they forced in there, he was a guy Taylor thought could be the future of the team. And don't forget the team had *no wins*. If there was ever a season to "try shit", it was this one. As for evaluating him... I think it was pretty obvious after 3 games that Finley wasn't what they thought he was. It doesn't mean he can't become a serviceable backup, but he ain't no starter. - Yeah the Drew Sample thing was bad and it shows they were "picking for the scheme" as opposed to picking the BPA. Lesson learned, don't do it again (which they already showed they can do by tossing the scheme entirely mid-season). - The play calling was predictable but again got better after they changed schemes. This is the biggest thing Taylor has to improve, and IMO is the biggest argument in favour of those who are pessimistic about him. The good part is it takes experience to improve stuff like that, and he got it. Now, he has to show he learned from it. - The team did not regress every week, let's get real. Joe Mixon went from nightmare season to 1100 yards based almost entirely on the last 8 games. The defense kept teams under 20 points a bunch of times (especially if you subtract points given up by the offense). Nope, the team got better, this is a false argument. - Players quit *all* *the* *time*. You are a Bengal fan, right? How many times have players quit on the Bengals? Yeah, exactly. Hell look at the Browns, their players continue to quit and even out each other in the media over it. It all comes down to the culture of the team, and that is 100% on Taylor. More of the same next year? Quite possible. But it won't be because they went to Finley this year, it won't be because Drew Sample is on the roster, and it certainly won't be because of any imaginary season-long regression. You mentioned "the plan" and frankly Taylor mentions it over and over - the plan is to build the right culture, everything else flows from that. Especially considering how poorly the season went record-wise, that's at least one thing I think he can say was successful: they've built a good culture base, the attitudes of the players proves that. Now it's time to win or go home.

Agreed, he definitely got better and in this last game he was a difference maker. As I watched him yesterday all I could think of was "if Marvin was still here, this dude would still be riding pine in favour of turds like Hardy Nickerson."

I agree with the sentiment that Taylor should get another year, and regardless of that I also agree Mikey is going to give him one or more anyway. I can however see a scenario where a coach should be canned after one terrible season, and I think that's where Lost is with all this... if in your mind the coach is just plain bad and has no hope of improving, then as a GM you don't have a choice but to move on. I, however, don't think he's that terrible that you give up on him already. Let's not forget that he was coming into a shitshow left by Marv and he is/was trying to rip it up and rebuild it from scratch. Some pros and cons of Zac Taylor: Pros: - Is aggressive offensively, e.g. he goes for points at the end of halves and in "four down territory". - Seems to understand how the clock works. I realize this is a terribly low bar set by Marvin and should be kindergarten stuff for NFL-caliber coaches, but it was nice not to have to groan over those kinds of mistakes again this season. - "Says the right things"... culture, accountability, winning one-on-ones... he at least knows what it takes. - Doesn't seem to let the "trouble" players control the culture, and if they try, he outs them (Glenn incident). - And with that said, he went to the "right" players (young ones) and requested they install a player culture. This was a very smart move. - He is flexible. We finally heard about how after game 8? or so? they basically abandoned the Rams offense entirely and installed stuff the assistants brought to the table. I realize many consider this clear evidence that Zac just isn't the guy, but I give him credit for being willing to try something different, taking the advice of his main people, and actually installing the thing mid-season. The offense was much better after these changes and he actually used the players to their strengths! (another huge Marvin weakness). - The defense also improved a great deal in the latter half of the season. I really don't know what changed there... the players finally "got it" (i.e. the scheme)? Anamario finally started to learn how to call an NFL defense? Maybe a little of both? Either way Zac gets credit for this happening under his watch. - The players have nothing but good things to say about him, and they say they will play for him - and they certainly did so regardless of their record, which I consider the best argument in his favour. Cons: - Was obviously not ready. Plain and simple he was not ready to be an NFL head coach. The question is, did he learn enough "on the job" to do it better next year? I for one think the improvement and continued effort by the players is a sign that he can. - Questionable assistant coaches. I know for most the theory is he took what he could get from a thin list of choices, with people he "knew", but either way there were some rough choices, especially Turner. If he doesn't change up anybody I will be nervous going into to next season to say the least. Sure it's Mike Brown and sure he's blindly loyal to coaches but after 2-14 something more than just players has to change, and it probably has to come from Zac himself. - Like Anamoomoo, his play calling wasn't up to par for the NFL. He got out coached many, many times. With that said it did improve as the year went on, for both coaches, so I'm not without hope. - He seems a little dazzled by QBs as well as his own play calls. I consider this a sort of "unrequited QB syndrome", wherein a former college QB who never made it seems to live vicariously through his QBs as a coach, resulting in odd-ball play calls and treating the QB like "the good son". I see this in many sports/positions but QB is a very particular one. Regardless of any of this and regardless of what the Bengals actually add/subtract this off-season, I think we'll know all we'll need to know at this time next year with regard to Zac Taylor.

lol anyone see this? Mixon downed the ref after the final whistle with his helmet:

Yep, you could hear the ref saying it over the loudspeakers, progress was stopped. I didn't see the play very well and indeed there were zero replays on TV. From the boos I could tell the crowd didn't like their view of the replay.

Yes there is an article out there (came up on my phone, too lazy to look it up), saying Marvin is a "front runner" for the job.

BW Webb getting burned, again? You don't say....

Once again BW Webb just watches a guy catch it right in front of him.

Hahaa you could see the Browns DC dismayed as he realized they were in the wrong scheme