29 minutes ago, futurecoach said:

You can’t fully say they aren’t winning because of him. As a Head Coach he has done a very good job building this team back. The Bengals were in rut with their former star players, and he wasn’t afraid to make the needed changes, when with fans complaining about how he was treating and or moving on from former guys. It needed to be done, and he doesn’t get enough credit for that. He has done a great job putting together a very good lockerroom with a bunch of players who play hard and are bought in. That’s exactly what you want from a head coach. 
 

Now Zac Taylor the playcaller is possibly holding them back some. So he may need to eventually consider moving on from his play calling duties. However, let’s not act like he hasn’t done a good job of building this team as a HC and improving the culture. That plays a big part in winning football games too. 

No doubt from the videos we've seen after games that he has the locker room.

2 hours ago, futurecoach said:

You can’t fully say they aren’t winning because of him. As a Head Coach he has done a very good job building this team back. The Bengals were in rut with their former star players, and he wasn’t afraid to make the needed changes, when with fans complaining about how he was treating and or moving on from former guys. It needed to be done, and he doesn’t get enough credit for that. He has done a great job putting together a very good lockerroom with a bunch of players who play hard and are bought in. That’s exactly what you want from a head coach. 
 

Now Zac Taylor the playcaller is possibly holding them back some. So he may need to eventually consider moving on from his play calling duties. However, let’s not act like he hasn’t done a good job of building this team as a HC and improving the culture. That plays a big part in winning football games too. 

100% agree.  He has made some tough personnel decisions and seems to have total control of the locker room.

You also see more halftime adjustments from him than you ever saw with Marvin.  

As for the game strategy of 2 TE's... If the defense comes out in a base nickel or dime package, isn't running the ball using 2 TE's the way to force the D out of that?  Do you still try to force it to your WR's.  To me the biggest issue in the 1st half was play execution and not necessarily play calling.

1 hour ago, futurecoach said:

You can’t fully say they aren’t winning because of him. As a Head Coach he has done a very good job building this team back. The Bengals were in rut with their former star players, and he wasn’t afraid to make the needed changes, when with fans complaining about how he was treating and or moving on from former guys. It needed to be done, and he doesn’t get enough credit for that. He has done a great job putting together a very good lockerroom with a bunch of players who play hard and are bought in. That’s exactly what you want from a head coach. 
 

Now Zac Taylor the playcaller is possibly holding them back some. So he may need to eventually consider moving on from his play calling duties. However, let’s not act like he hasn’t done a good job of building this team as a HC and improving the culture. That plays a big part in winning football games too. 

Not debating whether or not we needed to move on or not on players from the past, and how much credit Taylor deserves for that.  Likewise, the same could be said for the players that have come in since then.  But yes, Taylor as the play caller, is the one that I'm disappointed in.

What's the old adage...the coach's responsibility is to put the players in the best position to excel?  Week one, we put the defense in a bad position by failing on fourth down on our end of the field, when we're up 14 and suddenly let the Vikings back into it.  Last week, we run the ball three straight times forcing our kicker to attempt an extra long kick to win the game.  And yesterday, we game plan to take at least one of our top 3 receivers out of the game, because we know the defense is going to be focused on that?  That's like being the coach of the Lions in the 90's, and sitting Barry Sanders because you know the other team is going to be preparing for him.

Aside from certain down/distance packages, I think everyone would agree the hardest combination to defend is going to be Chase, Higgins, Boyd, Uzomah and Mixon, wouldn't you?  I think @nkypetemight be right, in that Taylor could be overthinking some things.

5 hours ago, CincySportsFan said:

Not debating whether or not we needed to move on or not on players from the past, and how much credit Taylor deserves for that.  Likewise, the same could be said for the players that have come in since then.  But yes, Taylor as the play caller, is the one that I'm disappointed in.

What's the old adage...the coach's responsibility is to put the players in the best position to excel?  Week one, we put the defense in a bad position by failing on fourth down on our end of the field, when we're up 14 and suddenly let the Vikings back into it.  Last week, we run the ball three straight times forcing our kicker to attempt an extra long kick to win the game.  And yesterday, we game plan to take at least one of our top 3 receivers out of the game, because we know the defense is going to be focused on that?  That's like being the coach of the Lions in the 90's, and sitting Barry Sanders because you know the other team is going to be preparing for him.

Aside from certain down/distance packages, I think everyone would agree the hardest combination to defend is going to be Chase, Higgins, Boyd, Uzomah and Mixon, wouldn't you?  I think @nkypetemight be right, in that Taylor could be overthinking some things.

No disagreement with anything in regards to what you have to say about him as a playcaller. 
 

As a head coach I had no issue with that fourth down call the first game of the year. I much rather him be aggressive than conservative. The problem is the backlash he got for that decision, now has seemed to make him gun shine and being more conservative! Be aggressive, sometimes it won’t work out. However, I ten times out of ten would rather a coach be aggressive. 

23 hours ago, CincySportsFan said:

Not debating whether or not we needed to move on or not on players from the past, and how much credit Taylor deserves for that.  Likewise, the same could be said for the players that have come in since then.  But yes, Taylor as the play caller, is the one that I'm disappointed in.

What's the old adage...the coach's responsibility is to put the players in the best position to excel?  Week one, we put the defense in a bad position by failing on fourth down on our end of the field, when we're up 14 and suddenly let the Vikings back into it.  Last week, we run the ball three straight times forcing our kicker to attempt an extra long kick to win the game.  And yesterday, we game plan to take at least one of our top 3 receivers out of the game, because we know the defense is going to be focused on that?  That's like being the coach of the Lions in the 90's, and sitting Barry Sanders because you know the other team is going to be preparing for him.

Aside from certain down/distance packages, I think everyone would agree the hardest combination to defend is going to be Chase, Higgins, Boyd, Uzomah and Mixon, wouldn't you?  I think @nkypetemight be right, in that Taylor could be overthinking some things.

Sitting Barry Sanders versus sitting Tyler Boyd is an apples and oranges comparison.  I get the point you are making though.  An argument can certainly be made that Mixon, Chase, Higgins, CJ and Sample is the better group if the defense is going to play dime and dare you to run it.  

Sometimes to dictate to the opponent what you are going to do and other times the opponent will dictate to you.  Ultimately you adjust to what works.

25 minutes ago, REALSPORT said:

Sitting Barry Sanders versus sitting Tyler Boyd is an apples and oranges comparison.  I get the point you are making though.  An argument can certainly be made that Mixon, Chase, Higgins, CJ and Sample is the better group if the defense is going to play dime and dare you to run it.  

Sometimes to dictate to the opponent what you are going to do and other times the opponent will dictate to you.  Ultimately you adjust to what works.

Substitutions can be made by the defense pretty much at anytime.  So, (to take it to extreme) you can come out in your "heavy" package all you want...but, you're likely not going to be matched up against their dime package every time.  Maybe you catch them off guard the first play, in the first series, anticipating your personnel.  Maybe.  After that, they're going to be ready.

Look, I'm not going to say there's never a time or place for that personnel.  But, when you come out with it enough, that the color guy notices it, I'm going to assume it's out of your norm.  And when the head coach is asked about it, and he says they did it because they expected the defense to be ready for their regular personnel...you get what Daryl (and I) have the problem with...you're saying you're actually letting their defense dictate your offensive personnel.  That's not a good look.  This wasn't the '85 Bears we were going up against.

Love all you guys, but this is thread Cincinnati sports fan in a nutshell.   Dude coaches a team to a 23 point win, and we'll complain he used the wrong personnel.   

I've always said that eventually the Bengals will win the SuperBowl and this city will complain that the game ran too late and they were tired on Monday.