What is your assessment of Zac Taylor?

[SmittyBacall]

I am curious to know what the football community currents thinks about Zac. He's withstood some pretty damning opinions since his tenure started, but things have gone quiet this year since the offense has started to show consistency and the team is winning games.

The common belief, dating back to last season, was that the Bengals were/are winning in spite of Zac, which I guess is more of a testament to the talent the team has accrued (namely Joe Burrow) in recent years. Does that opinion still hold true? Is there any area or positive in which the credit should go to Zac?

Current Win/Loss Record: 30-37-1 (44.1% winning percentage - including playoffs)

Last two seasons (so far): 24-12 (66.6% winning percentage - including playoffs)

[Kiwibrown]

I think he is a B level head coach. Maybe a B- maybe a B+. Just kind of good enough

[notthatbluestuff]

Taylor is a testament to the idea that we, as fans, decide pretty quickly on which coaches we like and don't like. When a coach we don't like wins, we say it's in spite of him. When he loses, it's his fault. Conversely, when a coach we like wins, it's down to their greatness. When they lose, it's not their fault. It's very hard for a coach to become liked when it's already been decided that he's bad. So Taylor will pretty much always be disregarded on a McCarthy-esque level; when he wins, we'll credit Burrow and/or the receivers. When he loses, it's because Taylor sucks.

[Soko]

He’s a fireable playcaller, and a serviceable HC. Cincy wins in spite of him, IMO. 

[Soko]

23 minutes ago, notthatbluestuff said:

when he wins, we'll credit Burrow and/or the receivers. When he loses, it's because Taylor sucks.

I hear this a lot, especially with QBs. 

And it’s just…yeah, of course you’ll credit the [insert good parts] in wins, and of course you’ll blame the [insert bad parts] in losses. Why would you do anything else? 

Like, even Taylor aside, let’s say you have a mediocre team overall but an elite QB. Now the QB throws for 500 yards, 6 TDs, no picks, the defense kind of sucks and holds the other team to 38 points, and you win 42-38. QB max credit, defense minimal credit.

Now let’s say the same thing happens except the defense let’s up an additional score, you lose 42-45. Defense max blame, QB minimal blame. 

That’s extremely simplified because of course there’s always some of both (credit/blame) to go around in some respect. But when it comes to taking the lion’s share, yeah, I’m going to credit the good aspects of the team in wins and then, assuming they do their part, I’m going to blame the crappier parts in the losses. As it pertains to the Bengals, where I believe Taylor is along for the ride more so than the captain of the ship, yeah, I’m going to blame him in the losses where I don’t think he does his part, and credit the talent when it’s evident (to me) that they’re the ones carrying the team.

Let’s say I was in a two-man relay race with Usain Bolt as my team mate. Every other team consists of two olympians. If we win, no one’s going to say it was because of me. It’s because of Bolt. But if we lose, everyone’s obviously going to say it’s because he was paired with just some random guy and not a sprinter. 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Yin-Yang

[Soggust]

Two first names and four is too many kids.

I'm also not impressed with his 5.06s 40 time or his 30.5in vertical.

I give him a C-

[notthatbluestuff]

17 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I hear this a lot, especially with QBs. 

And it’s just…yeah, of course you’ll credit the [insert good parts] in wins, and of course you’ll blame the [insert bad parts] in losses. Why would you do anything else? 

Like, even Taylor aside, let’s say you have a mediocre team overall but an elite QB. Now the QB throws for 500 yards, 6 TDs, no picks, the defense kind of sucks and holds the other team to 38 points, and you win 42-38. QB max credit, defense minimal credit.

Now let’s say the same thing happens except the defense let’s up an additional score, you lose 42-45. Defense max blame, QB minimal blame. 

That’s extremely simplified because of course there’s always some of both (credit/blame) to go around in some respect. But when it comes to taking the lion’s share, yeah, I’m going to credit the good aspects of the team in wins and then, assuming they do their part, I’m going to blame the crappier parts in the losses. As it pertains to the Bengals, where I believe Taylor is along for the ride more so than the captain of the ship, yeah, I’m going to blame him in the losses where I don’t think he does his part, and credit the talent when it’s evident (to me) that they’re the ones carrying the team.

Let’s say I was in a two-man relay race with Usain Bolt as my team mate. Every other team consists of two olympians. If we win, no one’s going to say it was because of me. It’s because of Bolt. But if we lose, everyone’s obviously going to say it’s because he was paired with just some random guy and not a sprinter. 

I’m not saying I personally like Taylor or anything - I’ve been critical of him since his first season in Cincy and I’m just as guilty as anyone else of automatically blaming him whenever the Bengals lose and looking past him whenever they win.  That’s because I, like you apparently, decided early on that Taylor is “the bad part” of the Bengals and is just some “random guy” as opposed to Usain Bolt.

You said it yourself: “of course you’ll credit the good parts and blame the bad parts.” So Taylor is just always bad, right? Of course it’s easier for us to think this because we’re not Bengals fans and we’re not going to do a deep dive analyzing Taylor’s coaching performance in every single game.

[Soko]

6 minutes ago, notthatbluestuff said:

I’m not saying I personally like Taylor or anything - I’ve been critical of him since his first season in Cincy and I’m just as guilty as anyone else of automatically blaming him whenever the Bengals lose and looking past him whenever they win.  That’s because I, like you apparently, decided early on that Taylor is “the bad part” of the Bengals and is just some “random guy” as opposed to Usain Bolt.

You said it yourself: “of course you’ll credit the good parts and blame the bad parts.” So Taylor is just always bad, right? Of course it’s easier for us to think this because we’re not Bengals fans and we’re not going to do a deep dive analyzing Taylor’s coaching performance in every single game.

I get what you’re saying, largely from the perspective of the casual fan (which I’m not saying I’m not, lol). Joe Public might say “this team’s 4-12, HC just sucks”, you’re right. 

I won’t pretend to be a Bengals expert but I do firmly believe the offensive coaching is the weaker part of the team, though. Taylor (and Burrow) get some credit for finally deciding to work around the issue that Cover 2 was giving them, but the playcalling is routinely a weak point IMO. 

[ronjon1990]

He's alright as a HC. I don't think he's going to become one of those long tenured guys who has an "era" fondly remembered though. It'll probably just be more of an "Oh yeah, I remember some of those years". 

He'll probably eventually hit a rut, get fired, eventually land a second gig and maybe even a third. Maybe a slightly better version of Ken Whisenhunt or even Jim Fassell- one of those coaches that made a Superbowl and had some good years, but was never really seen as "the" guy.  Here for now, won't really be missed once he's gone sort of coach. 

[SmittyBacall]

Let me also pose this question to the class…

Why as fans do we allow a grace period for rookies to develop before casting concrete opinions, yet first time coaches get raked over the coals almost immediately?

I ask because, in a lot of ways, Zac has improved exponentially since his first year. Yes, we’ve obviously added a lot of talent since then, but his game-managing, play design, even play-calling has improved over the years. All this comes with experience. Perhaps we (and even organizations) cast stones too quickly sometimes?

[Calamity_Cometh]

2 hours ago, SmittyBacall said:

Let me also pose this question to the class…

Why as fans do we allow a grace period for rookies to develop before casting concrete opinions, yet first time coaches get raked over the coals almost immediately?

I ask because, in a lot of ways, Zac has improved exponentially since his first year. Yes, we’ve obviously added a lot of talent since then, but his game-managing, play design, even play-calling has improved over the years. All this comes with experience. Perhaps we (and even organizations) cast stones too quickly sometimes?

Most coaches have been making their bones in some shape or form for years prior to being the head man. Rookies tend to be 20 somethings with a still developing brain.

But yeah I agree some people just require more time.

[Jakuvious]

7 hours ago, SmittyBacall said:

Let me also pose this question to the class…

Why as fans do we allow a grace period for rookies to develop before casting concrete opinions, yet first time coaches get raked over the coals almost immediately?

I ask because, in a lot of ways, Zac has improved exponentially since his first year. Yes, we’ve obviously added a lot of talent since then, but his game-managing, play design, even play-calling has improved over the years. All this comes with experience. Perhaps we (and even organizations) cast stones too quickly sometimes?

There's just a lot of fundamental differences between the two roles. The learning curve for rookies is usually about the jump from college to pro. You're suddenly going up against faster, smarter, stronger, and larger players than you were in college. And many positions are in direct competition with the opposition. So a WR going from college where he was 90% of the time faster than the CB across from him is going to have to adjust when that's no longer the case. Head coach isn't a directly competitive position. You're more either doing the right things or you aren't. It isn't so much about being smarter than the guy on the other sideline, with the exception of some direct schematic stuff. Like, going for it on 4th down at the right times has nothing to do with the guy on the other sideline. So if you go from say, college to NFL, it isn't like you have to relearn that dynamic, the way a WR might have to learn to beat faster DBs or a QB needs to learn to read more complex defenses. It's the same decision. And it isn't something you should need to improve at, the work has all been done there, you can make the right call from day one. Like the stuff Hackett did late in games the first two weeks. An NFL head coach should know better before they even apply for the job. Additionally, there's more of a proper promotion path to being an NFL head coach. Being a player is more staggered leaps, from high school to college, then college to pro. Most coaches have a more steady upward path, from assistants or QC to positional coaches to coordinators to head coaches. With maybe some college coaching thrown in there. None of those leaps are quite comparable to a player going from college to pro, and head coaches will have have spent plenty of time in the NFL prior to running the show in the NFL as a result.

Many of the things head coaches are criticized for aren't really things you should need time to learn. It's more either you understand or you don't. It shouldn't take three seasons worth of 4th and 1s to learn when to go for it. You shouldn't need 30 end of game drives to know whether to take your timeouts before or after the two minute warning. It shouldn't take 15 thrown challenge flags before you figure out when to and to not challenge plays. If it's something your average Madden player has figured out, I'm not going to have patience with a head coach needing time and experience.

Additionally, the age is a factor. An NFL rookie is barely old enough to drink. Even the least experienced head coach hires have 10 - 15 years of coaching experience plus any time they spent as a player or in a different role like that. Even Sean McVay had a decade of experience coaching on NFL teams by the time he got promoted. A decade ago Brock Purdy was in middle school.

[biggie.]

Hard to tell.

He only was only president for a year.

[Soggust]

Team is trash?  Head Coach has no idea what he is doing.

Team is a playoff contender?  The team is loaded with talent.

Team wins SB? Head Coach is fine for a couple years.

[Xenos]

19 hours ago, SmittyBacall said:

Let me also pose this question to the class…

Why as fans do we allow a grace period for rookies to develop before casting concrete opinions, yet first time coaches get raked over the coals almost immediately?

I ask because, in a lot of ways, Zac has improved exponentially since his first year. Yes, we’ve obviously added a lot of talent since then, but his game-managing, play design, even play-calling has improved over the years. All this comes with experience. Perhaps we (and even organizations) cast stones too quickly sometimes?

I haven’t been paying attention as much to the Bengals this year. But is Taylor doing a better job of mitigating the pass pressure on Burrow this season with his play calling and design?