Stripes Posted December 16, 2005 Report Posted December 16, 2005 It'd be a funny irony to see that old Buckeye back in stripes. Too bad for him and for us, that he kinda sucks. Quote
richmond_mat Posted December 16, 2005 Report Posted December 16, 2005 Fact is, noone was well coached, the organization was run like a minor league baseball team and there was little chance of any individual success during those dark times....no need to fixate on "not well coached" or "Mikey" or whatever. The whole thing was dysfunctional.I'm not fixated on Mikey, but I realize (and so should everyone else) that it is no coincidence that the Bengals dark years corresponded to someone named Mike Brown taking over the day to day operations of the franchise. Finally after a dozen years he sought help and now we get to enjoy the fruits of his taking his hands off the franchise. One problem with your analysis. Mike Brown has not taken his hands off the franchise, he has just stepped into the backround and let Marvin become the face of the Bengals. Why? First, because he was probably fed up with s**theads saying FIRE MIKE BROWN! Secondly, Cincinnati had a race problem, and by letting a black man become the face of the City, not just the team, a LOT of the friction was abated. Finally, because Marvin Lewis was qualified to be that face.Mike Brown taking over may have been a part of the downfall of the organization and the beginning of the losing years. However, he is still a part of the resurgence. A very quiet part A couple of questions.Do you not think Mikey's management of the franchise was the problem all those years?Do you believe Mike Brown took it on himself to fix the tension in the city?Do you believe coach Lewis was hired because of the color of his skin? (you did say he was qualified)If you answer yes to any of those then you are dillusional. Mike Brown ran a very profitable franchise for 12 years. The problem was that he sacrificed competetiveness to achieve it.I believe he has ceded a lot of control to Katie and Troy, is growing older and is happy to have others make the day to day decisions. BTW I doubt anyone on the board can really say how firm Mikey's grasp is on everything. I'm sure he wields veto power Quote
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted December 16, 2005 Report Posted December 16, 2005 A couple of questions.Do you not think Mikey's management of the franchise was the problem all those years?No. I think his loyalty to his fathers players and his players as family was the problem, not his entire management. He hired his dad's guys as coaches (they didn't get it done). He kept all the guys who were drafted into the program out of loyalty to them. (they didn't get the coaching to get it done or get it done). When it proved to fail, he canned the coaches and tried another Bengals guy.Do you believe Mike Brown took it on himself to fix the tension in the city?No, however, I know that when the most qualified candidate was a black man, and he hired him to become the face of the Bengals, Mike Brown did the smart thing and put the franchise face on Marvin Lewis without ever saying a word about him being black. He didn't need to. Do you think he had no clue that this move would make a difference in racial tension in the city?Do you believe coach Lewis was hired because of the color of his skin? (you did say he was qualified)In part, yes. When it came down to several "equally" qualified candidates, the fact that the Bengals could proactively hire a black head coach at a point where clubs were being hammered for not even interviewing minority coaches was used to improve the face of the franchise. I'm not saying the ONLY reason he was hired was that he had the right parents, but it was a factor. Pressure was on the entire NFL to hire more minority coaches. Pressure was on the Bengals to turn things around. If for some reason he failed, at least Mike Brown would have been lauded for hiring a black coach for a while and gotten some good press.If you answer yes to any of those then you are dillusional. Mike Brown ran a very profitable franchise for 12 years. The problem was that he sacrificed competetiveness to achieve it.He didn't sacrifice competitiveness to achieve things, the lack of competition came from his desire to remain loyal to his guys, which just didn't work in the era of free agency. Quote
walshfan Posted December 16, 2005 Report Posted December 16, 2005 Fat daddy was never the anwer anywhere he's been he wont be here either... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.