Does Marvin have a mental illness?

[icehole3]

He's saying some things that make me question his stability.

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=6897

His comments on character

"We keep spending all this time on the knuckleheads instead of on the good guys. That's a problem," Lewis said. "When you spend all your time coaching knuckleheads and not spending the right amount of time with the right players in the right direction because you're putting out fires over here, putting out fires over there..."

If you absolutely feel that way, why draft Jason Shirley?

His thoughts on the defense

Still, what Bengals camp has ever got underway where the defense wasn't a serious question mark? This year, the question is what makes the Zimmer hire different than the hires of Bresnahan and Leslie Frazier, his first two coordinators that he let go?

Why is the third time the charm?

"I don't think the third time is the charm. I think we were fine with the guys we had. They did good things, both Les and Chuck," Lewis said. "It's got nothing to do with third time the charm. It wasn't broke. I decided we needed to make a change. People have to be happy. They have to be happy in their job; they have to be happy in their position. They have to be able to get along. They have to put their people in place to do things the right way. It's not like anybody failed in doing anything. I like what Mike brings and that's an asset in itself. I'm very confident of where we are."

[bwillycuse]

He's saying some things that make me question his stability.

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=6897

His comments on character

"We keep spending all this time on the knuckleheads instead of on the good guys. That's a problem," Lewis said. "When you spend all your time coaching knuckleheads and not spending the right amount of time with the right players in the right direction because you're putting out fires over here, putting out fires over there..."

If you absolutely feel that way, why draft Jason Shirley?

His thoughts on the defense

Still, what Bengals camp has ever got underway where the defense wasn't a serious question mark? This year, the question is what makes the Zimmer hire different than the hires of Bresnahan and Leslie Frazier, his first two coordinators that he let go?

Why is the third time the charm?

"I don't think the third time is the charm. I think we were fine with the guys we had. They did good things, both Les and Chuck," Lewis said. "It's got nothing to do with third time the charm. It wasn't broke. I decided we needed to make a change. People have to be happy. They have to be happy in their job; they have to be happy in their position. They have to be able to get along. They have to put their people in place to do things the right way. It's not like anybody failed in doing anything. I like what Mike brings and that's an asset in itself. I'm very confident of where we are."

lol- I was more miffed when he said that the 7-9 record was viewed by some as 'overachieving'.

[Walrus]

lol- I was more miffed when he said that the 7-9 record was viewed by some as 'overachieving'.

In fairness, he does have Mike Brown in his ear.

[kingwilly]

He's saying some things that make me question his stability.

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=6897

His comments on character

"We keep spending all this time on the knuckleheads instead of on the good guys. That's a problem," Lewis said. "When you spend all your time coaching knuckleheads and not spending the right amount of time with the right players in the right direction because you're putting out fires over here, putting out fires over there..."

If you absolutely feel that way, why draft Jason Shirley?

His thoughts on the defense

Still, what Bengals camp has ever got underway where the defense wasn't a serious question mark? This year, the question is what makes the Zimmer hire different than the hires of Bresnahan and Leslie Frazier, his first two coordinators that he let go?

Why is the third time the charm?

"I don't think the third time is the charm. I think we were fine with the guys we had. They did good things, both Les and Chuck," Lewis said. "It's got nothing to do with third time the charm. It wasn't broke. I decided we needed to make a change. People have to be happy. They have to be happy in their job; they have to be happy in their position. They have to be able to get along. They have to put their people in place to do things the right way. It's not like anybody failed in doing anything. I like what Mike brings and that's an asset in itself. I'm very confident of where we are."

buh....whu?

Message to coach: It was broke. They did fail at their jobs.

I kind of understand what fatigue does to a person. I myself have done some things under massive fatigue and stress...bad things. stupid things...regretful things...but to say "It wasn't broke" and "It's not like anybody failed in doing anything" points to a massive misunderstanding of not only his job but that of everyone ele. that job is to win and make the playoffs. nothing else. last year was a failure, especially on defense. now, I understand sugar-coating the past so as not to hurt guys out there like Bres and the amount of injuries absorbed by this team must also be recognized..but come on. reality is reality. if this is ML's reality, this team is in Big F'in trouble.

I see it this way. ML is on the hot seat. His seat is about 130 degrees. not so hot as to burn him but definatley uncomfortable. it will only get hotter if this team does not display rapid improvement with Zimmer and his well drilled defense. Sadly, ML has a serious case of selective memory but the fans do not.

[gregstephens]

He's saying some things that make me question his stability.

http://www.bengals.com/news/news.asp?story_id=6897

His comments on character

"We keep spending all this time on the knuckleheads instead of on the good guys. That's a problem," Lewis said. "When you spend all your time coaching knuckleheads and not spending the right amount of time with the right players in the right direction because you're putting out fires over here, putting out fires over there..."

If you absolutely feel that way, why draft Jason Shirley?

His thoughts on the defense

Still, what Bengals camp has ever got underway where the defense wasn't a serious question mark? This year, the question is what makes the Zimmer hire different than the hires of Bresnahan and Leslie Frazier, his first two coordinators that he let go?

Why is the third time the charm?

"I don't think the third time is the charm. I think we were fine with the guys we had. They did good things, both Les and Chuck," Lewis said. "It's got nothing to do with third time the charm. It wasn't broke. I decided we needed to make a change. People have to be happy. They have to be happy in their job; they have to be happy in their position. They have to be able to get along. They have to put their people in place to do things the right way. It's not like anybody failed in doing anything. I like what Mike brings and that's an asset in itself. I'm very confident of where we are."

[GregCook]

I think I heard ML say this a few years ago "I see better than I hear".

I see the Bengals play on Sundays and tune out the interviews later. Our eyes could have seen last season as broken because the Bengals are bad tacklers; bad at the line of scrimmage; bad at scoring within the 20 on O; bad at run blocking. I also saw a crippled defense when all those LB's went down.

ML says alot of things during the year few that add up to much. One that did was when he said Henry won't be back. Another was when he said Chad can either play in Cincy or not at all. Mostly though ML spends the minimum amount of time in front of microphones saying nothing.

[Sandwedge]

I'm usually one to give Marvin alot of lee-way, but him saying our D wasn't broke is a head scratcher??

[BengalszoneBilly]

I'm usually one to give Marvin alot of lee-way, but him saying our D wasn't broke is a head scratcher??

He must be in denial. The LB corps was decimated by injuries. The DL couldn't pressure an opposing QB to save their lives. Last but not least Bresnahan could scheme he way out of a wet paper bag! Thank God he's gone, but the sad fact is he never should have been brought in as DC. What the front office was thinking there is beyond me.

[icehole3]

I hope Marvin starts taking his meds, right now he's talking like a crazy man.

[Ickey44]

Well, the alternative is for him to say he brought in somebody who sucked at their job. I seriously doubt his pride will let him do that. But, yeah, the defense was broke last year as it has been every year since like 2001.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

If you're looking for insight or anything other than company spin, you're looking in the wrong place with Marvin. The guy is dull as a rock and you can't really believe much of what he says regarding players and coaches. He doesn't like to hurt people's feelings.

[HairOnFire]

If you really can't figure out what he's saying then perhaps he's not the one who needs medication.

Football is a bottom line business and it's always a popular rant to simply point to a team's won/loss record and say..."They didn't get it done...end of story."

But real life is different. In real life it's not uncommon for bright people to put together competent plans that fail utterly and completely due to circumtances that are either unforseen or entirely out of their control. And along those lines, who amongst us is seriously going to argue that circumstances last season were so benign that the negative outcome was unavoidable?

In short, the plan failed utterly.....for exactly the reasons each of us is far too familiar with. Worse, if those circumstances are repeated the Bengals plans will fail again regardless of the people involved. For example, if attrition manages to gut Zimmer's LB corp in the same manner we witnessed last season then it's a safe bet Zimmer will attempt to reduce the damage by pulling in the claws. He'll ditch ALL of his plans to improve aggression, and turn quickly to the same familiar "mush-rush" and soft zones that we've grown familar with.

Feel free to agree or not but IMHO Lewis is saying there was nothing wrong with the original plan, or the people involved in making it work, that couldn't have been overcome in the face of normal player losses.

[Wraith]

God Bless You Hair.

[icehole3]

so the defense wasnt broken last year, hmmph

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

you really can't figure out what he's saying then perhaps he's not the one who needs medication.

Feel free to agree or not but IMHO Lewis is saying there was nothing wrong with the original plan, or the people involved in making it work, that couldn't have been overcome in the face of normal player losses.

I think you're right on the assessment of what Lewis is saying, and I personally find that a bit disconcerting. When what you're doing is routinely failing, and you think it's not a problem, that's a sign of hubris. Other teams find ways to mask personnel holes by playing smart and using schemes that hide flaws (Patriots, anyone?). That g*ddamn soft zone just wears your defense out as the opponent scores...slower. Keeping your D on the field forever.

If Marvin can't figure out that Chuck's schemes were f'ing retarded then God help us all. When Hines Ward is making fun of your defense because they can read it like a book, you've got problems. And didn't Marvin fire Chuck? How can he say Chuck's stuff worked fine after he fired him? And if the answer is just pointing at the results, isn't it hypocritical to blame Chuck for these results that Marvin just got done saying aren't his fault, in an interview in which he says that results need to be taken in context?

As for the "knuckleheads" vs. Shirley thing...I think that might be Marvin's subtle way of saying he ain't the one who sent that card to the Commissioner last April, but I could be wrong.

[HairOnFire]

I think you're right on the assessment of what Lewis is saying, and I personally find that a bit disconcerting.

Relax, I'm right about alot of things.

When what you're doing is routinely failing, and you think it's not a problem, that's a sign of hubris. Other teams find ways to mask personnel holes by playing smart and using schemes that hide flaws (Patriots, anyone?).

No team overcomes the types of player losses the Bengals sustained last season. The losses were too widespread across one of the most important units on the team, and the damage was compounded when the injury bug bit several of the replacements. No defensive design or plan can survive in the face of that.

If Marvin can't figure out that Chuck's schemes were f'ing retarded then God help us all. When Hines Ward is making fun of your defense because they can read it like a book, you've got problems.

Yeah, well there's the rub because Hines Ward has more experience facing the Bengals defense than most of Cinc's defenders have playing in it. And sadly, that's not a joke.

And didn't Marvin fire Chuck? How can he say Chuck's stuff worked fine after he fired him?

Chuck wasn't fired. He was simply replaced when his contract expired. And Lewis isn't saying things worked fine....only that last years failure was unavoidable in the face of the injuries the team dealt with.

Bottom Line Time: Lewis readily admits the team needed a change, and the result is Zimmer's hiring....an act that shatters any rant that attempts to portray Lewis as an unaware whistler skipping past the graveyard. Changes needed to be made and were made, right? However, nobody should be surprised if Lewis continues to defend the very same defensive design and plans he was forced to abandon last season. Nor should they be suprised to learn huge swaths of that same damned plan are still in place, with only names being changed.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Relax, I'm right about alot of things.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by granting the use of the plural.

No team overcomes the types of player losses the Bengals sustained last season. The losses were too widespread across one of the most important units on the team, and the damage was compounded when the injury bug bit several of the replacements. No defensive design or plan can survive in the face of that.

Troy Brown, DB, 'nuff said.

Yeah, well there's the rub because Hines Ward has more experience facing the Bengals defense than most of Cinc's defenders have playing in it. And sadly, that's not a joke.

Still, a little misdirection, please? Besides, he was primarily talking about the pass rush, which is one place the D was actually reasonably healthy and experienced last year. Crappy, but healthy.

Chuck wasn't fired. He was simply replaced when his contract expired. And Lewis isn't saying things worked fine....only that last years failure was unavoidable in the face of the injuries the team dealt with.

Semantics. His services were not retained in favor of somebody else. And if the failure was unavoidable, don't hold someone else responsible for it. That's poor management.

Bottom Line Time: Lewis readily admits the team needed a change, and the result is Zimmer's hiring....an act that shatters any rant that attempts to portray Lewis as an unaware whistler skipping past the graveyard. Changes needed to be made and were made, right? However, nobody should be surprised if Lewis continues to defend the very same defensive design and plans he was forced to abandon last season. Nor should they be suprised to learn huge swaths of that same damned plan are still in place, with only names being changed.

You're dancing there, twinkletoes. If the schemes weren't the problem, why replace Chuck? If the plan would have worked, there was no need for a change. Making a change just to make Breshehan the sacrificial lamb for problems you're blaming on injuries while not falling on that sword yourself is utterly hypocritical - particularly when you anticipate re-using the same plan that didn't work before.

There's only so long you can get away with the whole 'it was injuries!' crap. Every team has injuries. This is the NFL. If you have a well-built team and good schemes, you overcome the deficiencies.

[HairOnFire]

Troy Brown, DB, 'nuff said.

Congrats, you just offered an exception that proves the rule. But yeah, it's not a sole exception, is it? Other correct answers include Tom Matte, Jeff Hostetler, or even Joe Theisman returning punts. So we could debate the point for days. Or we could both acknowledge your rant is little more than an empty argument that attempts to ignore the overwhelming reality most teams face. Worse, you're guilty of ignoring the reality the Bengals faced last season when most of their LB corp fell down and went boom.

Besides, he [Hines Ward] was primarily talking about the pass rush, which is one place the D was actually reasonably healthy and experienced last year. Crappy, but healthy.

Primarily? Ward was seen flashing hand signals to Big Ben PRE SNAP....signaling his intent to change his route to an inside break. And as I recall he was wide open from the first step.

Semantics. His services were not retained in favor of somebody else.

It's not semantics, and I think we both know you wouldn't bother offering smack that weak if you hadn't previously embarrassed yourself claiming Bres had been fired. And it's an important point, right? Because you can't fire people who aren't under contract. And when you do fire people who are under contract you're making it clear to all observers their job performance isn't acceptable to you for even one more day. On the other hand, letting a multi-year contract expire without making an offer for future employment says something entirely different. In fact, it says exactly what Lewis claimed.

You're dancing there, twinkletoes.

Yeah, I'm doing a mazurka on your soft skull.

If the schemes weren't the problem, why replace Chuck?

Were you complaining about Chuck's schemes during the season opener against the Ravens? No, you weren't. Regardless, it seems to me there are plenty of valid reasons for making a change even if Lewis truly believes the plans he and Bres put together would have worked had the Bengals remained healthy. For one thing, Zimmer became available. And Lewis may indeed believe that Bres did as good a job under the circumstances as anyone could have.

[HoosierCat]

Sadly, I think Hair's right that Marvin believes his fundamental defensive approach is sound -- which it actually might be if we happen to have defensive talent on a par with the 2000 Ravens. While I think the D will be improved this season, that's asking a wee bit much IMO.

The growing question for me is, will friction build between Lewis and Zimmer, the same way it grew between Lewis and Frazier? Just as an example, Zimmer has spoken repeatedly about a more aggressive defense with more man-to-man, more blitzing, etc. Yet in his report from Bengals camp, Clark Judge quotes Marvin in his "five things to know" piece as saying he wants the front four get pressure without (sigh) blitzing.

Zimmer's and Marvin's comments aren't totally incompatible -- you could still look for pressure from your front four while ratcheting up the aggressiveness, too -- but I catch hints of a disconnect here. So far, it looks like it's Zimmer's show to run, but I have to wonder how long his proverbial leash is.

[HairOnFire]

Sadly, I think Hair's right that Marvin believes his fundamental defensive approach is sound --

Marvin Lewis knew enough about defense to put a championship ring on Brian Billick's fingers.....a feat that grows more impressive with the passage of time.

-- which it actually might be if we happen to have defensive talent on a par with the 2000 Ravens.

It's not just a question of talent. You also have to consider the matter of comittment. Nobody needs very much time to figure out the team identy of the 2000 Ravens, right? Defense, more defense, still more defense, with a power running game filling out the minutes when the otherwise inept Raven own offense has to take the field. And over the years since that team has confirmed it's comittment to defense over and over again. In fact, the identy of the team remains unchanged. As for the Bengals, they're the Bastard Sons of Paul Brown, a team that will draft three fresh scrubbed wideouts at the first sign of trouble in this teams passing game. So there's your comittment.

Zimmer's and Marvin's comments aren't totally incompatible -- you could still look for pressure from your front four while ratcheting up the aggressiveness, too -- but I catch hints of a disconnect here. So far, it looks like it's Zimmer's show to run, but I have to wonder how long his proverbial leash is.

I think I'll wait until some time after the first snap before describing the marriage as troubled.

[HoosierCat]

It's not just a question of talent. You also have to consider the matter of commitment.

I don't see any question about committment. Look at the Bengals' drafts the last five years: Four defensive first rounders, three defensive second rounders, and five defensive third rounders. That's 80% of their firsts, 50% of their seconds, and 71% of their thirds over the last five drafts -- two-thirds of their (old) day one picks. On top of that, in just the last two years you've seen them let a premiere o-lineman go to franchise a DE, and then give their biggest-ever FA deal to another DE this season.

[HairOnFire]

It's not just a question of talent. You also have to consider the matter of commitment.

I don't see any question about committment. Look at the Bengals' drafts the last five years: Four defensive first rounders, three defensive second rounders, and five defensive third rounders. That's 80% of their firsts, 50% of their seconds, and 71% of their thirds over the last five drafts -- two-thirds of their (old) day one picks.

During that same time period how many high round draft picks were knowingly and willingly used on BACKUP offensive skill players?

Kelly Washington, Chris Perry, Chris Henry, Kenny Irons, Jerome Simpson, and Andre Caldwell.

Not a single intended starter in the bunch, right?

IMHO that's alot of luxury picks for a team whose defense has never performed at a high level, has no star players, and lacks true starters at multiple positions.

[HoosierCat]

It's not just a question of talent. You also have to consider the matter of commitment.

I don't see any question about committment. Look at the Bengals' drafts the last five years: Four defensive first rounders, three defensive second rounders, and five defensive third rounders. That's 80% of their firsts, 50% of their seconds, and 71% of their thirds over the last five drafts -- two-thirds of their (old) day one picks.

During that same time period how many high round draft picks were knowingly and willingly used on BACKUP offensive skill players?

Kelly Washington, Chris Perry, Chris Henry, Kenny Irons, Jerome Simpson, and Andre Caldwell.

Not a single intended starter in the bunch, right?

IMHO that's alot of luxury picks for a team whose defense has never performed at a high level, has no star players, and lacks true starters at multiple positions.

How much of a luxury would Chris Henry have been during the first eight games of last season? How much of a luxury would a heathy Chris Perry have been? If anything, 2007 vindicated the Bengals' spending a few picks over those six years (since you're including K-wash) trying to fill out key situational spots in the offense -- and highlighted how miserably they have failed.

But in no way do those picks demonstrate some kind of lack of commitment to the defense. The D "has no star players, and lacks true starters at multiple positions"? Well, that's hardly from a lack of trying, right? Two-thirds of their top draft picks over the last five years have been spent squandered in an attempt to get those stars and starters. But Pollack busted his neck and Odell drank too much and Ratliff and Miller sucked and on and on. There are certainly reasons we've lacked defensive talent, but a lack of commitment to the D isn't one of them.

[HairOnFire]

If anything, 2007 vindicated the Bengals' spending a few picks over those six years (since you're including K-wash) trying to fill out key situational spots in the offense -- and highlighted how miserably they have failed.

It's vindication if you were attempting to point out how often the Bengals have used high draft picks on the same BACKUP offensive skill positions. Sheesh, what did that list have on it? A 1st and a 2nd round pick burned on RB's who were never intended to be starters. And if that weren't enough, and it should be, the team also burned a 2nd and three 3rd down picks on a non-starting WR role during the same time period.

The D "has no star players, and lacks true starters at multiple positions"? Well, that's hardly from a lack of trying, right?

The salary imbalance between offensive and defensive players is well documented and won't be repeated here. All I'll say now is how thankful I am the Bengals chose not to spend two or three high draft picks on backup FB's during this same time period.

Two-thirds of their top draft picks over the last five years have been spent squandered in an attempt to get those stars and starters. But Pollack busted his neck and Odell drank too much and Ratliff and Miller sucked and on and on.

During the same time period the Bengals have spent 4 high draft picks on backup wideouts even though both starting wideouts are established pro Bowl players. And during that same time period they also saw fit to burn TWO even more valuable draft picks on the backup RB role despite already having Rudi Johnson, who just happened to be busy breaking most of the franchises rushing records.

Now that's a comittment.

And you can't show me anything comparable on the defensive side of the ball. And that's true because there are no examples of an already strong defensive position being made even stronger by a long and steady flow of role playing high draft picks manning every important backup position....extending all of the way to the depths of 4th wideout. He'll play about 15% of the snaps, right?

Meanwhile, on defense they're still attempting to find 11 starters.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Congrats, you just offered an exception that proves the rule. But yeah, it's not a sole exception, is it? Other correct answers include Tom Matte, Jeff Hostetler, or even Joe Theisman returning punts. So we could debate the point for days. Or we could both acknowledge your rant is little more than an empty argument that attempts to ignore the overwhelming reality most teams face. Worse, you're guilty of ignoring the reality the Bengals faced last season when most of their LB corp fell down and went boom.

Difference is the Patriots do it every year - it's not the exception proving the rule, it IS the rule. This is the NFL, it's a violent game. You can't use the "injury" excuse year-in and year-out. You learn to use your players. Of course, that also requires having a solid depth chart top to bottom, which might require scouts...

It's not semantics, and I think we both know you wouldn't bother offering smack that weak if you hadn't previously embarrassed yourself claiming Bres had been fired. And it's an important point, right? Because you can't fire people who aren't under contract. And when you do fire people who are under contract you're making it clear to all observers their job performance isn't acceptable to you for even one more day. On the other hand, letting a multi-year contract expire without making an offer for future employment says something entirely different. In fact, it says exactly what Lewis claimed.

Oh, please. I don't care why he's gone, I'm just glad the Neanderthal's in somebody else's cave. Regardless of the semantics, when a team lets a coordinator go it's a reflection on his performance. You don't see "free agent" coordinators. Why? Because changing schemes sets back a defense significantly, which you'd know for a fact if you spent half as much time watching football as you do exercising your typing hand. If you let a coordinator go, you do it for a reason, unless you're just a coward trying to take the heat off your own ass. Something like an underperforming supposed defensive guru might do when he can't seem to hack it without having a handful of hall of famers like the 2000 Ravens.

Were you complaining about Chuck's schemes during the season opener against the Ravens? No, you weren't.

Of course not, I was asking where the hell that had been. I was complaining when the morons inexplicably packed away - for the rest of the season - the single best gameplan they'd had in two years. At best you've succeeded in proving that Marvin's the moron instead of Chuck.

Regardless, it seems to me there are plenty of valid reasons for making a change even if Lewis truly believes the plans he and Bres put together would have worked had the Bengals remained healthy. For one thing, Zimmer became available. And Lewis may indeed believe that Bres did as good a job under the circumstances as anyone could have.

That is some of the weakest straw-grasping I've ever seen. I commend you, you are truly committed to the art of argument by confusing self-contradiction. If the schemes work, Bres doesn't need to go. If Bres' schemes were as good as possible, Zimmer being available is irrelevant. Especially if Marvin's not even going to let Zimmer use aggressive game plans as you yourself have already predicted. And if you're right, and Marvin changed coordinators just to switch up the scenery, then that's even dumber than other available explanations. Pick an argument and stick to it. Bottom line is Marvin's made excuses for a little too long now, and it's wearing thin.

If you watched that defense last year and honestly thought that was the best possible even with the available players then you wouldn't be able to tell football from cornhole, and I can't help you.