Ok the AFC South was/is easily better. Indy was 14-0 before resting starters and just got done man handling the 2nd place team from the North in the playoffs. Houston had a 9-7 record and beat the Division winner from the North on their home field. Tennesse started off 0-6 and finished 8-8. Their last place team was 7-9 and lost to an improving Cleveland team in the cold in a game that saved Cleveland's head coaches job and didn't mean much to Jax. So their records are 14-2 (AFC title game). 9-7, 8-8, 7-9. The North's records are 10-6, 9-7, 9-7, 5-11. The South had 5 more wins out of the division, 2 games they didn't try to win out of the division or it would be 7 more wins, and they have a prohibitive favorite to play in the Super Bowl.

 

Also, the Division Champion Bengals went 6-0 inside the division but only 4-7 against teams that weren't in the AFC North. The North had 3 pretty even teams and Cincy got a few breaks and caught the other 2 teams at a good time. It was a competative division but with no teams making the conference finals I don't think it can be called the toughest in the league.

Ok the AFC South was/is easily better. Indy was 14-0 before resting starters and just got done man handling the 2nd place team from the North in the playoffs. Houston had a 9-7 record and beat the Division winner from the North on their home field. Tennesse started off 0-6 and finished 8-8. Their last place team was 7-9 and lost to an improving Cleveland team in the cold in a game that saved Cleveland's head coaches job and didn't mean much to Jax. So their records are 14-2 (AFC title game). 9-7, 8-8, 7-9. The North's records are 10-6, 9-7, 9-7, 5-11. The South had 5 more wins out of the division, 2 games they didn't try to win out of the division or it would be 7 more wins, and they have a prohibitive favorite to play in the Super Bowl.

 

I could live with that argument. The North would be two or mayybe three at worst.

I could live with that argument. The North would be two or mayybe three at worst.

 

I could live with that...

I could live with that argument. The North would be two or mayybe three at worst.

 

I guess it really depends on what you're looking for. Outside of GB the Bengals didn't beat a good team out of their division. The Bengals really only looked good against Chicago and the 4 wins against the Ravens and Steelers. They seemingly weren't as good as we thought. As evidenced by Chicago, Cleveland, Oakland, and KC all being able to beat Pittsburgh as well. It still doesn't mean Marvin is a good coach.

I guess it really depends on what you're looking for. Outside of GB the Bengals didn't beat a good team out of their division. The Bengals really only looked good against Chicago and the 4 wins against the Ravens and Steelers. They seemingly weren't as good as we thought. As evidenced by Chicago, Cleveland, Oakland, and KC all being able to beat Pittsburgh as well. It still doesn't mean Marvin is a good coach.

 

You are right it does depend on what you are looking for. Sure... the Steelers lost to those teams, but they also beat San Diego, Minnesota, Green Bay and Baltimore. If you can say they are bad because they lost to those teams, do I get to say they are good because they beat the four that I mentioned? How were the Ravens not as good as we thought? They dominated the playoff game against the Patriots then ran into a determined Colts squad. We could go around and around about teams losing games that they "shouldn't" have, it is the NFL. Fact remains, the Bengals dominated a tough division and that shouldn't get overlooked.

You are right it does depend on what you are looking for. Sure... the Steelers lost to those teams, but they also beat San Diego, Minnesota, Green Bay and Baltimore. If you can say they are bad because they lost to those teams, do I get to say they are good because they beat the four that I mentioned? How were the Ravens not as good as we thought? They dominated the playoff game against the Patriots then ran into a determined Colts squad. We could go around and around about teams losing games that they "shouldn't" have, it is the NFL. Fact remains, the Bengals dominated a tough division and that shouldn't get overlooked.

 

Ok, for the sake of this argument it's a very tough division and the Bengals dominated it. That alone still doesn't make Marvin a good coach right?

Ok, for the sake of this argument it's a very tough division and the Bengals dominated it. That alone still doesn't make Marvin a good coach right?

 

I would say he did a good job this year wouldn't you?

 

If they had another sub .500 season I think it was time for him to go. They had a turnaround that not many expected and he deserves some credit for that.

I would say he did a good job this year wouldn't you?

 

If they had another sub .500 season I think it was time for him to go. They had a turnaround that not many expected and he deserves some credit for that.

 

Yes the team played well this year and he deserves credit for that. Does that make him a good coach?

Yes the team played well this year and he deserves credit for that. Does that make him a good coach?

 

It eliminates him from this discussion IMO.

I'm a Cincinnati fan on both fronts, but I think the Marvin & Dusty combo would be in my top 3, at least.

 

Washington's Jim Zorn & Jim Riggleman would be up there too.

It eliminates him from this discussion IMO.

 

That's cool. I totally disagree, but oh well. There is too long of a list of ex coach of the year award winners in both leagues who are terrible to dismiss for me.

That's cool. I totally disagree, but oh well. There is too long of a list of ex coach of the year award winners in both leagues who are terrible to dismiss for me.

 

I probably should have said "for now" because that is what we are talking about anyways. All of the really bad coaches get fired.

I probably should have said "for now" because that is what we are talking about anyways. All of the really bad coaches get fired.

 

The problem with your argument is that you don't become the best, nor do you become the worst coach in one year.

The problem with your argument is that you don't become the best, nor do you become the worst coach in one year.

 

No there's more than one problem. That's just one of them.

The problem with your argument is that you don't become the best, nor do you become the worst coach in one year.

 

I'm in interested to see where I said he is the best. Certainly an NFL Coach of the Year helps pull you out of the worst category for a little bit.