IF Bengals are serious about rebuilding coaching and players, ready to rebuild from scratch if need be to reach Super Bowl, scouting will tell if this is just talk. The Bengals have the fewest scouts in NFL, almost no scouts at all really. I don't expect Bengals to go from last to first on scouts. 16th or 17th would amaze me. Are Bengals willing to have to be in the middle of the 32 teams on scouts on payroll at 16th or 17th in NFL. ...I tell you now that if Bengals are still unwilling to hire scouts then Bengals are not committed to Super Bowl. This has nothing to do with GM, which Bengals will never have. There is no reason for no scouts other than cheapness. Bengals are always last in scouting, asking coaches to make up the difference. It is a CHEAPNESS that plays greatly into the 27 years without a play-off win. It's impossible for Bengals to remain last in scouting and be first in a Super Bowl win. ...SO, will Bengals hire scouts NOW going into free agency and draft ? If they don't, the talk of rebuilding for Super Bowl is an illusion as much as sawing a woman in half. Will they hire scouts ?

No. They will not. But they will be miles ahead without PA scouting OLinemen.

no new scouts.

No quality free agent signed.

2 losses to Steelers next year.

No playoffs or one and out in wild card game.

How many times does anyone need to experience this to know the present is the future with Mike Brown.

The next re-make of the movie Ground Hog Day is going to be about the Bengals.

Only if that were part of the conditions of Marvin's demands, in order to come back. And, you better believe that they'll be the best damn utube watchers that $10/hr can find!

(01-05-2018, 02:24 PM)McC Wrote: No. They will not. But they will be miles ahead without PA scouting OLinemen.

If they would work for only receiving free tickets then Mike MAYBE would consider it, upper deck that is.

(01-05-2018, 02:24 PM)McC Wrote: No.  They will not.  But they will be miles ahead without PA scouting OLinemen.

I tire of the Bengals math of adding by subtraction, as was said when we got rid of Dillon or Spikes.  Getting rid of Alexander is not hiring scouts, nor does it improve our scouting one damn bit.  Coaches fired in no way puts us miles ahead in scouting.....SO, AGAIN,  WILL BENGALS HIRE SCOUTS....There is no adding by subtraction....There is only hire scouts or don't.  If they don't hire scouts, then there is no new commitment to Super Bowl, that is just talk, which is cheap. 

(01-05-2018, 02:21 PM)kevin Wrote: IF Bengals are serious about rebuilding coaching and players, ready to rebuild from scratch if need be to reach Super Bowl, scouting will tell if this is just talk.  The Bengals have the fewest scouts in NFL, almost no scouts at all really.  I don't expect Bengals to go from last to first on scouts.  16th or 17th would amaze me.  Are Bengals willing to have to be in the middle of the 32 teams on scouts on payroll at 16th or 17th in NFL. ...I tell you now that if Bengals are still unwilling to hire scouts then Bengals are not committed to Super Bowl. This has nothing to do with GM, which Bengals will never have. There is no reason for no scouts other than cheapness. Bengals are always last in scouting, asking coaches to make up the difference. It is a CHEAPNESS that plays greatly into the 27 years without a play-off win.  It's impossible for Bengals to remain last in scouting and be first in a Super Bowl win.  ...SO, will Bengals hire scouts NOW going into free agency and draft ?  If they don't, the talk of rebuilding for Super Bowl is an illusion as much as sawing a woman in half.  Will they hire scouts ?

Nope, they won't.
The Bengals are like a small software company.
Their coaches are like the developers. They also are expected to do all the QA and documentation since the company refuses to (or can't) pay for dedicated head count for those roles specifically.

(01-05-2018, 02:31 PM)kevin Wrote: I tire of the Bengals math of adding by subtraction, as was said when we got rid of Dillon or Spikes.  Getting rid of Alexander is not hiring scouts, nor does it improve our scouting one damn bit.  Coaches fired in no way puts us miles ahead in scouting.....SO, AGAIN,  WILL BENGALS HIRE SCOUTS....There is no adding by subtraction....There is only hire scouts or don't.  If they don't hire scouts, then there is no new commitment to Super Bowl, that is just talk, which is cheap. 

You were apparently born without a humor gland.

(01-05-2018, 02:31 PM)kevin Wrote: I tire of the Bengals math of adding by subtraction, as was said when we got rid of Dillon or Spikes.  Getting rid of Alexander is not hiring scouts, nor does it improve our scouting one damn bit.  Coaches fired in no way puts us miles ahead in scouting.....SO, AGAIN,  WILL BENGALS HIRE SCOUTS....There is no adding by subtraction....There is only hire scouts or don't.  If they don't hire scouts, then there is no new commitment to Super Bowl, that is just talk, which is cheap. 

I agree with your premise, but getting rid of Piano Man is most definitely addition by subtraction.  This was the man that scouted, lobbied for, and then couldn't coach up Bodine, Ogbuehi, and Fisher, after all.......

(01-05-2018, 02:37 PM)Wyche Wrote: I agree with your premise, but getting rid of Piano Man is most definitely addition by subtraction.  This was the man that scouted, lobbied for, and then couldn't coach up Bodine, Ogbuehi, and Fisher, after all.......

I hope this isn't another weak joke not very funny.....because I refuse this Bengals addition by subtraction nonsense....They either hire scouts or they don't, there is no addition by subtraction. 

(01-05-2018, 02:31 PM)kevin Wrote:
I tire of the Bengals math of adding by subtraction, as was said when we got rid of Dillon or Spikes.  Getting rid of Alexander is not hiring scouts, nor does it improve our scouting one damn bit.  Coaches fired in no way puts us miles ahead in scouting.....SO, AGAIN,  WILL BENGALS HIRE SCOUTS....There is no adding by subtraction....There is only hire scouts or don't.  If they don't hire scouts, then there is no new commitment to Super Bowl, that is just talk, which is cheap. 

To be fair in regards to Dillon, the Bengals still ran the ball really damn well with Rudi for the 3-4 years after Dillon was shipped off. And Rudi was a lot cheaper to keep around compared to Dillon. So it really wasn't a loss from a production standpoint.

This is me speculating, but I think Alexander has a LOT of input in which OL the Bengals signed/drafted or didn't. With him gone, that influence is now shifted to someone else.
The Bengals might not need more scouts when it comes to being able to scout quality OL, just needed to remove the stubborn chief who refused to change his ways.

However, I do agree in more scouts for the sake of not forcing the coaches to invest so much time into a scouting role and instead let them focus on coaching, plus the added benefit of having more people who can actually watch more games live rather than have to go back and watch tape months after.

(01-05-2018, 02:43 PM)kevin Wrote: I hope this isn't another weak joke not very funny.....because I refuse this Bengals addition by subtraction nonsense....They either hire scouts or they don't, there is no addition by subtraction. 

You are absolutely right... but do you think there is a chance in hell that they will establish a professional scouting organization comparable to what is done by every other team?  No way.

Everything is "Mike's Way" - like the sub shop. Except the subs are really good.

(01-05-2018, 02:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: To be fair in regards to Dillon, the Bengals still ran the ball really damn well with Rudi for the 3-4 years after Dillon was shipped off. And Rudi was a lot cheaper to keep around compared to Dillon. So it really wasn't a loss from a production standpoint.

This is me speculating, but I think Alexander has a LOT of input in which OL the Bengals signed/drafted or didn't. With him gone, that influence is now shifted to someone else.
The Bengals might not need more scouts when it comes to being able to scout quality OL, just needed to remove the stubborn chief who refused to change his ways.

However, I do agree in more scouts for the sake of not forcing the coaches to invest so much time into a scouting role and instead let them focus on coaching, plus the added benefit of having more people who can actually watch more games live rather than have to go back and watch tape months after.

So we agree on more scouts...and I repeat Bengals are dead last in scouts on staff.  They need to be at least somewhere in the middle of the 32 teams to be somewhat competitive in scouting and play-off wins.  As of today, Bengals remain dead last in scouts on staff. 

(01-05-2018, 02:43 PM)kevin Wrote: I hope this isn't another weak joke not very funny.....because I refuse this Bengals addition by subtraction nonsense....They either hire scouts or they don't, there is no addition by subtraction. 

It's not a joke......what has been the biggest problem on this team the last two seasons?  Who was their position coach?  Who scouted them and lobbied for them.....quoted as saying "stood up and pounded on the table" for Ced O?  That's right, Piano Man.

As I said with the opening line in my reply.....I agree with your premise.  I have lauded for more scouts FOR YEARS.  However, I also understand that our coaches (as you said in your own OP) have to do a lot of their own scouting.  Well, if Alexander was scouting olinemen, and then charged with coaching them.....and they fail miserably, which they did.....then canning that bum is most certainly addition by subtraction in this instance.  Easy on the caffeine bro.

at least 2... OL Coach and Defensive Coordinator

(01-05-2018, 02:46 PM)ochocincos Wrote: To be fair in regards to Dillon, the Bengals still ran the ball really damn well with Rudi for the 3-4 years after Dillon was shipped off. And Rudi was a lot cheaper to keep around compared to Dillon. So it really wasn't a loss from a production standpoint.

This is me speculating, but I think Alexander has a LOT of input in which OL the Bengals signed/drafted or didn't. With him gone, that influence is now shifted to someone else.
The Bengals might not need more scouts when it comes to being able to scout quality OL, just needed to remove the stubborn chief who refused to change his ways.

However, I do agree in more scouts for the sake of not forcing the coaches to invest so much time into a scouting role and instead let them focus on coaching, plus the added benefit of having more people who can actually watch more games live rather than have to go back and watch tape months after.

This. :andy:

(01-05-2018, 02:55 PM)Wyche Wrote: It's not a joke......what has been the biggest problem on this team the last two seasons?  Who was their position coach?  Who scouted them and lobbied for them.....quoted as saying "stood up and pounded on the table" for Ced O?  That's right, Piano Man.

As I said with the opening line in my reply.....I agree with your premise.  I have lauded for more scouts FOR YEARS.  However, I also understand that our coaches (as you said in your own OP) have to do a lot of their own scouting.  Well, if Alexander was scouting olinemen, and then charged with coaching them.....and they fail miserably, which they did.....then canning that bum is most certainly addition by subtraction in this instance.  Easy on the caffeine bro.

Then there wasn't a hidden joke as with McC, so hidden that there was no joke....I still disagree that firing Alexander equals hiring scouts. That is Bengals Math that has led to 27 years of no play-off wins....The Math is very simple, with or without Coach Alexander, if the Bengals remain the NFL team with the fewest scouts, then they remain the NFL team with the fewest scouts.  The team with the fewest scouts is the team with the fewest scouts, I hope people can agree on that.  Being the team with the fewest scouts and being the team with 27 years of no play-off wins, I hope people can agree on those 2 things....This is why I repeat that Bengals need to hire scouts.  It just kills this teams chances by having the smallest scouting staff in the NFL. 

Marvin said, "No" during his presser Tuesday. He likes the way it is now, coaches doing it.

(01-05-2018, 03:07 PM)kevin Wrote: Then there wasn't a hidden joke as with McC, so hidden that there was no joke....I still disagree that firing Alexander equals hiring scouts. That is Bengals Math that has led to 27 years of no play-off wins....The Math is very simple, with or without Coach Alexander, if the Bengals remain the NFL team with the fewest scouts, then they remain the NFL team with the fewest scouts.  The team with the fewest scouts is the team with the fewest scouts, I hope people can agree on that.  Being the team with the fewest scouts and being the team with 27 years of no play-off wins, I hope people can agree on those 2 things....This is why I repeat that Bengals need to hire scouts.  It just kills this teams chances by having the smallest scouting staff in the NFL. 

I never said firing that dullard meant we were hiring more scouts.....I'm just saying that IF they don't hire any more scouts, we'll be better at scouting and coaching olinemen with that outdated and stubborn boob off the staff.

As I said, I've been lobbying for a bigger scouting department for years....on here, and the old board.....but Paul Alexander was a boat anchor on this team....hence addition by subtraction in regards to him, and line play ONLY. :andy:

(01-05-2018, 03:13 PM)sandwedge Wrote: Marvin said, "No" during his presser Tuesday. He likes the way it is now, coaches doing it.

There you have it......*sigh*.