(10-23-2017, 04:54 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: We seem to have a fascination with drafting 3-4 defenders and putting them in our 4-3 looks. Moch and Clarke are two more names that were basically square pegs that we tried to fit into round holes. Moch was constantly mentioned as an OLB in a 3-4. Clarke was mocked to be a 3-4 DE prior to his draft.

How many guys do we draft based on workouts?

Strength - Billings/Westerman/Hunt/Bodine
Speed - Ross/Moch

The Bengals put such a priority on these individual workouts sometimes seemingly ahead of game tape.

(10-23-2017, 04:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Depends on who the selections fall under I guess. From what we've heard, Paul Alexander is given a lot of power to hand-pick the OL selections. I wonder who was the driver behind some of the bad defensive selections.

I do agree with you though that Hunt was a better fit as a 3-4 DE and Hardison was a 3-4 DE in college. However, I did think he would fit as a 4-3 UT, but I guess I was wrong.

It's why Watt became so much more effective in the NFL. Played 4-3 DE at Wisconsin almost exclusively. But then in the NFL they moved him around and he flourished. Maximizing talent. Bengals put Hunt and Hardison in positions to fail because it's what THEY wanted a player to do, not what was best for the player. 
Justin Smith looked like a HOFer in San Fran but was always just "good" here. Why? They kept him on the edge almost exclusively and didn't move him around. They didn't start that until Zimmer was here. It's silly when you think about it. 

Coaches should have some say, but the amount of say they have here is absurd. Scouts are scouts and coaches are coaches for a reason. Two completely different skill sets. Paul Alexander is a shitty scout. He shouldn't be asked to scout. Hire scouts. But Mike is cheap. 

(10-23-2017, 04:49 PM)Wyche Wrote: I agree.  I'd like to see this entire team and staff under different ownership before I pass too much judgment.  You have a situation scouting college players that is absolutely a hindrance, and I also often wonder how much scouting of the opponents they can do ahead.  Like, if you had a bigger scout count, they could be scouting teams a couple weeks out on the schedule while the staff works on THIS week.  The way things are, you don't really have time for, correcting mistakes from the prior week, working on this week, and looking forward down the schedule.

You know, I've always blamed the coaching, but this discussion has raised a few possibilities to me as to why the coaching may "appear" substandard compared to our opponents.  Good points Royle.  I mean, it could absolutely boil down to coaching, but this could very well be a factor that contributes to it as well.

We draft a lot of "favorites" if you've noticed. We "win" a lot of drafts on paper but never on the field. 
Because we seemingly rely a lot on narratives and things like that instead of intensive scouting. 

Results based scouting vs evaluation scouting. 

Do you look at the results and say "good enough" or do you dive into the how and the why. 

(10-23-2017, 04:56 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: How many guys do we draft based on workouts?

Strength - Billings/Westerman/Hunt/Bodine
Speed - Ross/Moch

The Bengals put such a priority on these individual workouts sometimes seemingly ahead of game tape.

The Westerman selection PC with Alexander was a tough watch. He seemed to cream his pants talking about his handshake. If I was an OL in college, I would just work out my hand and make my handshake unbelievably strong. You'll impress PA and somehow wind up on the Bengals.

(10-23-2017, 04:54 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I feel like the NFL salary cap rises by $10 million each year. Yet the value the Bengals will pay for a position is set at levels from 7-10 years ago. Like offering Zeitler $5.5 million a year.

Yeah Boling plays for that much...but Boling signed several years ago and struggled early in his career.

Boling signed cheap to stay where he knew he worked as a player. He fit the offense incredibly well at the time of his signing. With Whitworth at LT, he never had to worry about that and he was free to be a pulling guard which is where he's best in the run game. You take that away and now he has to do more that doesn't fit inside his skill set...and you see the results. 

(10-23-2017, 04:54 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: We seem to have a fascination with drafting 3-4 defenders and putting them in our 4-3 looks. Moch and Clarke are two more names that were basically square pegs that we tried to fit into round holes. Moch was constantly mentioned as an OLB in a 3-4. Clarke was mocked to be a 3-4 DE prior to his draft.

David Pollack too. Marv ran that hybrid D in Baltimore and kept trying to draft 3-4 OLBs and play them like Peter Boulware. 

(10-23-2017, 04:59 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: The Westerman selection PC with Alexander was a tough watch. He seemed to cream his pants talking about his handshake. If I was an OL in college, I would just work out my hand and make my handshake unbelievably strong. You'll impress PA and somehow wind up on the Bengals.

Which is hilarious because Westerman actually was good in college. And looked sharp in preseason. No idea why they gave Sloppy Jr looks over him in the Browns game. Another Mathis situation brewing where it's practice/effort related. 

(10-23-2017, 04:57 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: It's why Watt became so much more effective in the NFL. Played 4-3 DE at Wisconsin almost exclusively. But then in the NFL they moved him around and he flourished. Maximizing talent. Bengals put Hunt and Hardison in positions to fail because it's what THEY wanted a player to do, not what was best for the player. 
Justin Smith looked like a HOFer in San Fran but was always just "good" here. Why? They kept him on the edge almost exclusively and didn't move him around. They didn't start that until Zimmer was here. It's silly when you think about it. 

Coaches should have some say, but the amount of say they have here is absurd. Scouts are scouts and coaches are coaches for a reason. Two completely different skill sets. Paul Alexander is a shitty scout. He shouldn't be asked to scout. Hire scouts. But Mike is cheap. 


We draft a lot of "favorites" if you've noticed. We "win" a lot of drafts on paper but never on the field. 
Because we seemingly rely a lot on narratives and things like that instead of intensive scouting. 

Results based scouting vs evaluation scouting. 

Do you look at the results and say "good enough" or do you dive into the how and the why. 

I completely agree. These coaches are given additional responsibilities because of how the organization is structured. That's very taxing, and they lose out on a large chunk of time to evaluate talent (right now) because they have to prepare for NFL games. They simply don't have the time to dedicate to scouting until after the NFL season is over. By that point, actual games are over and there are only workouts and hopefully finding good enough tape to get a good assessment.

The philosophy of "Best Player Available" only goes so far. The Patriots understand that and it's why they get so much contribution from late draft picks and castoffs from other teams. They draft/acquire players that they know fit their system, not trying to put a square peg in a round hole. You think the Bengals would be able to get good production out of a James White, Dion Lewis, or Chris Hogan? I sure don't.

(10-23-2017, 05:02 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Which is hilarious because Westerman actually was good in college. And looked sharp in preseason. No idea why they gave Sloppy Jr looks over him in the Browns game. Another Mathis situation brewing where it's practice/effort related. 

Well when the coaches scout/draft and determine playing time...it is a major conflict of interest. There is a tendency to try to make the guys you brought in look like the right call.

(10-23-2017, 05:03 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I completely agree. These coaches are given additional responsibilities because of how the organization is structured. That's very taxing, and they lose out on a large chunk of time to evaluate talent (right now) because they have to prepare for NFL games. They simply don't have the time to dedicate to scouting until after the NFL season is over. By that point, actual games are over and there are only workouts and hopefully finding good enough tape to get a good assessment.

The philosophy of "Best Player Available" only goes so far. The Patriots understand that and it's why they get so much contribution from late draft picks and castoffs from other teams. They draft/acquire players that they know fit their system, not trying to put a square peg in a round hole. You think the Bengals would be able to get good production out of a James White, Dion Lewis, or Chris Hogan? I sure don't.

The Patriots luck seems to be drying up on that end but they have Brady/Bellicheck so it masks a lot. 
Same with Green Bay. 

You can be stingy or cheap if you have 2 of the best QBs to ever suit up lol

(10-23-2017, 05:04 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Well when the coaches scout/draft and determine playing time...it is a major conflict of interest. There is a tendency to try to make the guys you brought in look like the right call.

Yep. Ego is a big issue with that. 
Could you swallow your pride that publicly? 
Difficult situation to be put in

(10-23-2017, 05:05 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: The Patriots luck seems to be drying up on that end but they have Brady/Bellicheck so it masks a lot. 
Same with Green Bay. 

You can be stingy or cheap if you have 2 of the best QBs to ever suit up lol

The Patriots have drafted nearly a half round + later than us for going on 15 years. That's crazy to think about.

They also sign guys. They traded for Cooks and signed Gilmore. They definitely improve their roster.

(10-23-2017, 05:05 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: The Patriots luck seems to be drying up on that end but they have Brady/Bellicheck so it masks a lot. 
Same with Green Bay. 

You can be stingy or cheap if you have 2 of the best QBs to ever suit up lol

Good point. Dalton is nowhere close to those two.

(10-23-2017, 05:07 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Yep. Ego is a big issue with that. 
Could you swallow your pride that publicly? 
Difficult situation to be put in

Which Coughlin saw in 2003 and didn't think he could be successful here.

(10-23-2017, 05:07 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Patriots have drafted nearly a half round + later than us for going on 15 years. That's crazy to think about.

They also sign guys. They traded for Cooks and signed Gilmore. They definitely improve their roster.

For sure. But they also did some shrewd ill advised moves on defense. 
And it showed. If not for a horrible call by the refs, it would look even worse. 

Patriots are always at least *trying* to get better. 

Doesn't always work. But they adjust. We just keep running head first into the wall and wonder why we have a headache

The Bengals have a rigid philosophy to which they adhere--First round is for WR's, OT's and CB's and they stick to it. This philosophy might be the problem. Who is responsible for it? There's your culprit. Well, one of your culprits anyway.

What needs to be blown up first is the entire M.O. Changing personnel won't fix it. Since they refuse to blow up the method and philosophy, any other changes are just fixing a bad engine with duct tape and the end result is no SB ever. None in the first 50, none in the next 50.

If the blueprint is a failure, the building will ultimately fail.

(10-23-2017, 05:05 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: The Patriots luck seems to be drying up on that end but they have Brady/Bellicheck so it masks a lot. 
Same with Green Bay. 

You can be stingy or cheap if you have 2 of the best QBs to ever suit up lol

I just want to point out that EVERY YEAR fans see the Patriots and Steelers lose a game or two and declare that this is the year we overtake them. They're weak. Their system is failing!

Steelers: 5-2
Patriots: 5-2
Bengals: 2-4

The Bengals need basically everything to go right to be a Top 2 seed and in many cases that isn't enough. The Steelers and Patriots can have a major weakness and be a #1 and 2 seed.

The Patriots defense gave up 300+ yards passing a bunch of times this year...and they're 5-2.

(10-23-2017, 06:52 PM)McC Wrote: The Bengals have a rigid philosophy to which they adhere--First round is for WR's, OT's and CB's and they stick to it.  This philosophy might be the problem.  Who is responsible for it?  There's your culprit.  Well, one of your culprits anyway.

What needs to be blown up first is the entire M.O.  Changing personnel won't fix it.  Since they refuse to blow up the method and philosophy, any other changes are just fixing a bad engine with duct tape and the end result is no SB ever.  None in the first 50, none in the next 50.

If the blueprint is a failure, the building will ultimately fail.

Yeah...they don't necessarily draft what will be best for the football team...they draft positions that they can't afford to pay in free agency.

I get doing that once in a while...but with revenue sharing and the salary cap...we actually can afford those positions.

I KNEW when we drafted 2 Tackles that it was just going to cost the team at some point. If anything, draft 1...then retain Smith who was like 29 when they let him walk. Replacing 2 Tackles at once is a shock to the system, plus it robs you from improving another position.

(10-23-2017, 07:03 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yeah...they don't necessarily draft what will be best for the football team...they draft positions that they can't afford to pay in free agency.

I get doing that once in a while...but with revenue sharing and the salary cap...we actually can afford those positions.

I KNEW when we drafted 2 Tackles that it was just going to cost the team at some point. If anything, draft 1...then retain Smith who was like 29 when they let him walk. Replacing 2 Tackles at once is a shock to the system, plus it robs you from improving another position.

Never touch a C before the 4th round.   Don't consider interior linemen a priority.   That's really working, ain't it? It comes down to having a maddening ability to ignore a mountain of evidence that your way ain't the right way.

(10-23-2017, 07:06 PM)McC Wrote: Never touch a C before the 4th round.   Don't consider interior linemen a priority.   That's really working, ain't it?  It comes down to having a maddening ability to ignore a mountain of evidence that your way ain't the right way.

Yes! Really they do that for a lot of things.

An 0-7 coach in the playoffs will get us over the hump!

Honestly, Marvin is still here because they're comfortable working with him. He works under the structure they put in place. He doesn't raise a fuss about things.

Put a guy like Zimmer in there and he would raise a fuss.

(10-23-2017, 04:43 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: This is the crux of all the problems tbh. 
We are just messing around blaming anyone but Mike at this point. 

We have a horrendously small scouting department.
We ask way too much of coaches in terms of scouting.

All because Mike is cheap. 

Scrooge McBrown

(10-23-2017, 04:54 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: We seem to have a fascination with drafting 3-4 defenders and putting them in our 4-3 looks. Moch and Clarke are two more names that were basically square pegs that we tried to fit into round holes. Moch was constantly mentioned as an OLB in a 3-4. Clarke was mocked to be a 3-4 DE prior to his draft.

Yes but wasn't Joey Boss a 4-3 DE? He did just fine in a 3-4 scheme last year.