Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

Because he was excellent with the 49ers

 

This goes right to the disgreements you and I have. When you have a healthy Christian McCaffery it makes you look good. The talent matters. (This is why I think Lou is a scapegoat and will be successful elsewhere when he gets players again)

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

This goes right to the disgreements you and I have. When you have a healthy Christian McCaffery it makes you look good. The talent matters. (This is why I think Lou is a scapegoat and will be successful elsewhere when he gets players again)

How can Anarumo be a scapegoat when he was a major player in assembling the talent to fit his scheme? It wasn't Anarumo's fault that the Bengals let Bates walk in free agency. But it was Anarumo's fault when he was given a fairly long list of affordable safeties to replace Bates and he chose Nick Scott. Anarumo had made the decision that he wanted the fastest secondary possible, then when the communication was bad, he decided he preferred experience over athleticism to limit the big plays. Of course the Bengals defense continued to give up plays, partly because of a lack of athleticism.

Posted
25 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

This goes right to the disgreements you and I have. When you have a healthy Christian McCaffery it makes you look good. The talent matters. (This is why I think Lou is a scapegoat and will be successful elsewhere when he gets players again)

Players dont make you last in the league 

Posted
15 minutes ago, dex said:

How can Anarumo be a scapegoat when he was a major player in assembling the talent to fit his scheme? It wasn't Anarumo's fault that the Bengals let Bates walk in free agency. But it was Anarumo's fault when he was given a fairly long list of affordable safeties to replace Bates and he chose Nick Scott. Anarumo had made the decision that he wanted the fastest secondary possible, then when the communication was bad, he decided he preferred experience over athleticism to limit the big plays. Of course the Bengals defense continued to give up plays, partly because of a lack of athleticism.

 

 

Im not in disagreement about the roster building part, Im in disagreement that his scheme was a problem. 

  • Upvote 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Jamie_B said:

Im in disagreement that his scheme was a problem. 

What parts of his scheme did you like and what did you not like? Do you feel that he was able to modify his scheme to suit the players we have? What changes did you see in the last 6 weeks that made them more effective?

  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

What parts of his scheme did you like and what did you not like? Do you feel that he was able to modify his scheme to suit the players we have? What changes did you see in the last 6 weeks that made them more effective?

His scheme was overly complicated and only worked with the best safety in the league. Thats not a good system. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Griever said:

 

Thanks, Griever.

 

Here are 2 particularly damning paragraphs from the article:

 

Many have pointed to Cincinnati letting high-end veterans such as Jessie Bates III and DJ Reader as pivotal reasons for the defense's downfall. Losing elite players is never ideal, but the Bengals' plan to replace them were just as bad. Anarumo was always heavily involved in both free agency and NFL Draft plans for the unit.

Anarumo had input on free agent whiffs such as Nick Scott, Geno Stone, and Sheldon Rankins. Eight top-100 draft picks were spent on defense from 2022-2024. Out of Dax Hill, Cam Taylor-Britt, Zach Carter, Myles Murphy, DJ Turner II, Jordan Battle, Kris Jenkins Jr., and McKinnley Jackson, how many of them can be considered building blocks for the future? Maybe a couple? That's not good enough.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

His scheme was overly complicated and only worked with the best safety in the league. Thats not a good system. 

If people are going to say the scheme was fine, I'd like them to tell me what they liked about it.

If you tell me Applebee's is gourmet cuisine, I'm going to ask you you why you think that.

Posted
33 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

What parts of his scheme did you like and what did you not like? Do you feel that he was able to modify his scheme to suit the players we have? What changes did you see in the last 6 weeks that made them more effective?

 

We've seen the scheme work when he had the talent to run it. Not sure how anyone can not see this.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

We've seen the scheme work when he had the talent to run it. Not sure how anyone can not see this.

Agree and no one in the nfl defends mahomes better but if he was in on decisions for players then I could see why

Posted
5 minutes ago, dex said:

Thanks, Griever.

 

Here are 2 particularly damning paragraphs from the article:

 

Many have pointed to Cincinnati letting high-end veterans such as Jessie Bates III and DJ Reader as pivotal reasons for the defense's downfall. Losing elite players is never ideal, but the Bengals' plan to replace them were just as bad. Anarumo was always heavily involved in both free agency and NFL Draft plans for the unit.

Anarumo had input on free agent whiffs such as Nick Scott, Geno Stone, and Sheldon Rankins. Eight top-100 draft picks were spent on defense from 2022-2024. Out of Dax Hill, Cam Taylor-Britt, Zach Carter, Myles Murphy, DJ Turner II, Jordan Battle, Kris Jenkins Jr., and McKinnley Jackson, how many of them can be considered building blocks for the future? Maybe a couple? That's not good enough.

 

 

 

 

This part I agree with, that part can not be ignored. 

 

The part I disagree with is that he isn't a good coach.

 

A bad talent evaluator? Ok I agree. 

 

A bad coach? Nope

Posted
3 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

We've seen the scheme work when he had the talent to run it. Not sure how anyone can not see this.

So... You don't feel that he was able to modify the scheme to fit the players we had? I mean, sure, Jesse Bates can make all of those Cover 1 calls look better... His scheme only works with pro-bowl level players?

  • Upvote 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

 

 

This part I agree with, that part can not be ignored. 

 

The part I disagree with is that he isn't a good coach.

 

A bad talent evaluator? Ok I agree. 

 

A bad coach? Nope

He's a good coach and a good guy from Staten Island 

Posted
13 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

If people are going to say the scheme was fine, I'd like them to tell me what they liked about it.

If you tell me Applebee's is gourmet cuisine, I'm going to ask you you why you think that.

There isn't a stat that says it was a good system. It was always overly complicated mess that worked for 1 full season and one playoff run out of 6 seasons. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...