(03-04-2019, 12:48 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Every year we lament the Bengals lack of a scouting staff, and every year the Bengals make a killing in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds of the draft.

I guess today is necro-posting day, though. It's been two years - just start a new thread!

Do we make a killing in the draft? Is a team that hasn't won a playoff game in 27+ years really great at drafting?

When you don't sign free agents, your guys have to play. From metrics I've seen we grade out towards the bottom third of the league in drafting.

We got next to nothing from our 2015 draft. And I know at the time people were raving about several of the picks. This draft is a huge killer for a team.

Ced
Fisher
Kroft
Dawson
Shaw
Hardison
Uzomah
Smith
Alford

From the 2014 draft, only 1 player is still on our roster in Dennard and he is a free agent.

From 2013 - Eifert, Bernard, and Williams is a decent draft.

2012 - Only Kirkpatrick is still on the roster.

These are the drafts that should form the foundation for your team.

(03-04-2019, 01:21 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: We got next to nothing from our 2015 draft. And I know at the time people were raving about several of the picks. This draft is a huge killer for a team.

Ced
Fisher
Kroft
Dawson
Shaw
Hardison
Uzomah
Smith
Alford

From the 2014 draft, only 1 player is still on our roster in Dennard and he is a free agent.

From 2013 - Eifert, Bernard, and Williams is a decent draft.

2012 - Only Kirkpatrick is still on the roster.

These are the drafts that should form the foundation for your team.

Kroft and Uzo are decent players.

(03-04-2019, 11:06 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So why do the other AFC North teams have so many people in their 'Player Personnel' Dept compared to us?

How did all those years of having more scouts work out for the Browns for all those years of sukking?  When did they finally turn it around?  They finally landed on the right guy running the show.  It's not about how many scouts, it's about having the right guy making the calls.

TB, Miami, Oakland, NYJ, Buffalo, all with more scouts, to name a few.  Is there really any legitimate proof that more scouts means more winning?  

(03-04-2019, 02:23 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Kroft and Uzo are decent players.

Backups. They are decent backups.

(03-04-2019, 02:34 PM)McC Wrote: How did all those years of having more scouts work out for the Browns for all those years of sukking?  When did they finally turn it around?  They finally landed on the right guy running the show.  It's not about how many scouts, it's about having the right guy making the calls.

TB, Miami, Oakland, NYJ, Buffalo, all with more scouts, to name a few.  Is there really any legitimate proof that more scouts means more winning?  

For the Steelers and Ravens? Yeah a bunch of Super Bowl wins.

How has not having many scouts worked for the Bengals? Oh yeah...27 years of no playoff wins.

Can you cite a team with under 10 player personnel employees who consistently wins?

(03-04-2019, 01:21 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: We got next to nothing from our 2015 draft. And I know at the time people were raving about several of the picks. This draft is a huge killer for a team.

Ced
Fisher
Kroft
Dawson
Shaw
Hardison
Uzomah
Smith
Alford

From the 2014 draft, only 1 player is still on our roster in Dennard and he is a free agent.

From 2013 - Eifert, Bernard, and Williams is a decent draft.

2012 - Only Kirkpatrick is still on the roster.

These are the drafts that should form the foundation for your team.

If you're gonna beat this drum so hard, you have to make the same list for all the other teams in the league to validate your endlessly repeated claim.  How come you never do that?  When will you ever back up this claim with proof that more front office people always makes for a better team?

(03-04-2019, 02:38 PM)McC Wrote: If you're gonna beat this drum so hard, you have to make the same list for all the other teams in the league to validate your endlessly repeated claim.  How come you never do that?  When will you ever back up this claim with proof that more front office people always makes for a better team?

EVERY SINGLE TEAM in the NFL has won a playoff game since we last did and many have won 5+ since then.

We have the smallest scouting dept in the NFL. These 2 statements seem correlated.

(03-04-2019, 01:07 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Do we make a killing in the draft? Is a team that hasn't won a playoff game in 27+ years really great at drafting?

When you don't sign free agents, your guys have to play. From metrics I've seen we grade out towards the bottom third of the league in drafting.

In the last few years, they've taken Bates, Hubbard, Mixon, Willis, Lawson, Elliot, Boyd, Vigil, and Billings in the mid round. These are all contributing players in the NFL (though Elliot is doing it elsewhere). That's not counting guys like Tate, Malone, Glasgow, and Westerman that people think at the least have potential to become contributors in the future.

Not only that, many of these guys were viewed as reaches (Hubbard and Lawson come to mind), but the Bengals saw something others didn't.

And that's in more recent years, not even mentioning grabbing Shawn Williams, Geno Atkins, Micheal Johnson, Rex Burkhead, Mo Sanu, Marvin Jones, Clint Bolling, Kevin Huber...

(03-04-2019, 03:36 PM)NKURyan Wrote: In the last few years, they've taken Bates, Hubbard, Mixon, Willis, Lawson, Elliot, Boyd, Vigil, and Billings in the mid round. These are all contributing players in the NFL (though Elliot is doing it elsewhere). That's not counting guys like Tate, Malone, Glasgow, and Westerman that people think at the least have potential to become contributors in the future.

Not only that, many of these guys were viewed as reaches (Hubbard and Lawson come to mind), but the Bengals saw something others didn't.

And that's in more recent years, not even mentioning grabbing Shawn Williams, Geno Atkins, Micheal Johnson, Rex Burkhead, Mo Sanu, Marvin Jones, Clint Bolling, Kevin Huber...

Contributors on a 6-10 team.

Bates, Mixon, and Boyd are all good players.

The other guys on the list show potential...but due to health or other issues are inconsistent. Maybe they improve.

We've missed on 3 of 4 1st Round picks lately.

(03-04-2019, 02:34 PM)McC Wrote: How did all those years of having more scouts work out for the Browns for all those years of sukking?  When did they finally turn it around?  They finally landed on the right guy running the show.  It's not about how many scouts, it's about having the right guy making the calls.

TB, Miami, Oakland, NYJ, Buffalo, all with more scouts, to name a few.  Is there really any legitimate proof that more scouts means more winning?  

Finally...Someone cited the worst of the worst - the Browns to back their argument! Atleast we're not the Browns! The Browns have scouts and we're better than them! (Except we weren't this last year.) Then you pull out other bad teams.

Why can't you compare us to good teams that win every year?

Next you'll be telling me that the Bengals scouts are 3 times better than the rest of the leagues scouts!

(03-04-2019, 12:51 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Steelers have 19 people in theirs. It just seems that EVERY team in the NFL does things one way. Yet, the Bengals are dead set on doing things their way.

Why not increase?

Supposedly Coughlin wanted the Bengals to hire more scouts for him to come here and questioned if he could win the way they ran things here. And they still largely run things the same way.

I hear you.

(03-04-2019, 04:29 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Finally...Someone cited the worst of the worst - the Browns to back their argument! Atleast we're not the Browns! The Browns have scouts and we're better than them! (Except we weren't this last year.) Then you pull out other bad teams.

Why can't you compare us to good teams that win every year?

Next you'll be telling me that the Bengals scouts are 3 times better than the rest of the leagues scouts!

Way to ignore my ***** point.

If there are both good and bad teams with a shitload of scouts, what exactly is the obvious conclusion?  If a huge front office is the no brainer path to greatness, how do you explain huge front offices on bad teams? 

You're just so locked into all your Bengals suck narratives that there are some obvious conclusions that fly right over your head.

Go back to your bitching about the same shit endlessly.  I didn't mean to interrupt.  I'll just do the wise thing and go back to ignoring your blather.  Who else but you would keep dusting off their own bullshit threads?  Doubt if I'll ever waste another word on you.

(03-04-2019, 02:57 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: EVERY SINGLE TEAM in the NFL has won a playoff game since we last did and many have won 5+ since then.

We have the smallest scouting dept in the NFL. These 2 statements seem correlated.

And how many of those teams actually went to the playoffs 5 years in a row???? It's not the smaller scouting dept. that was hampering us, it was crappy coaching..... 1000 scouts can't fix that.

(03-04-2019, 05:18 PM)McC Wrote: Way to ignore my ***** point.

If there are both good and bad teams with a shitload of scouts, what exactly is the obvious conclusion?  If a huge front office is the no brainer path to greatness, how do you explain huge front offices on bad teams? 

You're just so locked into all your Bengals suck narratives that there are some obvious conclusions that fly right over your head.

Go back to your bitching about the same shit endlessly.  I didn't mean to interrupt.  I'll just do the wise thing and go back to ignoring your blather.  Who else but you would keep dusting off their own bullshit threads?  Doubt if I'll ever waste another word on you.

Team A hasn't won a playoff game in 27+ years and have less than 10 people in the scouting department.

Teams B-Z ALL have won playoff games over that span with most of the league winning 5+ with bigger scouting departments.

Yes - EVERY TEAM in the NFL has been more successful than us winning playoff games.

(03-04-2019, 02:34 PM)McC Wrote: How did all those years of having more scouts work out for the Browns for all those years of sukking?  When did they finally turn it around?  They finally landed on the right guy running the show.  It's not about how many scouts, it's about having the right guy making the calls.

TB, Miami, Oakland, NYJ, Buffalo, all with more scouts, to name a few.  Is there really any legitimate proof that more scouts means more winning?  

When the team requires the coaching staff to scout/review prospect tape in-season, it’s a definite disadvantage. Time spent doing that means less time to prepare to win games. You can handpick underachieving franchises, but know that all the teams you mentioned have won Playoff games more recently than the Bengals. All the perennially successful orgs have scouting and FO personnel depts. that dwarf Mike and his kids/grandkids plus Tobin and a few others.

A skimpy front office and scouting department also allows for relatively less input, and the chances of relying on just a few people for most input. Those few people have to be absolutely on point with their decisions. It’s a cheap strategy that has yielded no tangible success in Cincinnati under Mike Brown’s tenure as owner and official GM.

I don't think it's that big of a deal for the most part but the bigger problem is our inability to resign our own good players in free agency. How do you lose Marvin Jones, Kevin Zietler, and Andrew Whitworth. Over paying backups and undervauling starters is a bad thing.
Now I will say 10 to 15 years from now that a bigger scouting department will be nessary because of an international scene will be booming.

(03-04-2019, 05:22 PM)Sled21 Wrote: And how many of those teams actually went to the playoffs 5 years in a row???? It's not the smaller scouting dept. that was hampering us, it was crappy coaching..... 1000 scouts can't fix that.

So your argument was that we were mis-managed by allowing Marvin to stay and not mis-managed in the scouting area?

Hint: The same people that are responsible for hiring/firing coaches are responsible for the small scouting dept.

How many organizations allow a coach to stay for what 15 years without a playoff win? Most cities you are gone in 2-3-4-5 years of that. Here it was tolerated for some 15 years!

(03-04-2019, 08:11 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: So your argument was that we were mis-managed by allowing Marvin to stay and not mis-managed in the scouting area?

Hint: The same people that are responsible for hiring/firing coaches are responsible for the small scouting dept.

How many organizations allow a coach to stay for what 15 years without a playoff win? Most cities you are gone in 2-3-4-5 years of that. Here it was tolerated for some 15 years!

Same people, but different issue. The point is, in this day and age of professional scouting organizations, having a huge in house scouting staff is not necessary. That's a totally different issue than keeping a coach too long....

(03-04-2019, 04:25 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Contributors on a 6-10 team.

Bates, Mixon, and Boyd are all good players.

The other guys on the list show potential...but due to health or other issues are inconsistent. Maybe they improve.

We've missed on 3 of 4 1st Round picks lately.

...and what would their record be without those players, smart guy? The Bengals have plenty of issues holding them back, but it's not the guys their "small scouting department" is drafting.

You say they've missed on 3 of 4 1st rounders - because apparently you're ready to call Price a bust after one year - but I'll say they've in the last 13 years they've hit on 10 first rounders. Jackson, Dennard, Eifert, Kirkpatrick, Zeitler, Green, Gresham, Smith, Hall, and Joseph have all been  *at worst* contributors in this league who stuck around for years, with several of those guys being all-pro level players at one point or another. There are a whopping two guys - TWO! - in the last 13 years that I'd outright call first round busts. Ross is trending that way, and Price is still way to early to tell.

Ridiculous.