(03-05-2019, 10:39 AM)NKURyan Wrote: ...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.

And...0 Playoff wins in 27+ years in a league where most teams have won 5+ playoff games over that span.

Calling Dennard, Gresham, Kirkpatrick, and Eifert hits is stretching it. Eifert has played way under half of the games in his career.

Gresham while not a bust, underperformed. Kirkpatrick played limited snaps for 3-4 years and is now a mediocre starter. Dennard has what 2-3 interceptions in 5 years and is a mediocre 3rd corner.

(03-05-2019, 09:58 AM)Sled21 Wrote: 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....

It's all management who controls it all.

How many GM's and Owners would retain a coach who hasn't won a playoff game in 15+ years?

How many owners keep a GM who hasn't won a playoff game in 27+ years?

The Bengals tolerate mediocrity.

Kirkpatrick sucks. Just wanted to point that out. We chose him over whit. This franchise will make you an alcoholic

A bigger issue then our current scouting department is/has been the lack of supplementing our roster via trades or free agency. If you look at the Pats drafts over the past decade they had many years that were complete busts, every team does. But the Bengals always roll with the draft picks even when they are not going to pan out. Cutting Brian Hill last year and keeping Walton is a perfect example. Not to mention Og or even Margus Hunt. We keep theses players even though there are better options in the open market or available by trade. We damn well knew Og and Fisher were potential busts at the time we let Whit and Zietler go.

Mikey seems to take pride in the fact we are always tops in the league in number of draft picks that play for our team. Useless stat when you never win a playoff game.

To me, the scouting staff with Tobin running it has improved greatly over say the last 10 years but that is just one piece of the puzzle. The other pieces are free agents and coaching. With the coaching overall we will have to see if that has improved. Free Agency , we will have to see but it does not mean a huge splash, it just means filling spots where you have weaknesses.

(03-05-2019, 11:37 AM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: Kirkpatrick sucks.    Just wanted to point that out.   We chose him over whit.    This franchise will make you an alcoholic

What? You wouldn't cite him as evidence as to why we need to hire more scouts? (When EVERY TEAM in the division has atleast TWICE as many. Yes the Steelers have 19 player personnel department employees.)

Nope. Bengals fans think 9 is enough. I guess ours are just 2-3 times as smart as the Ravens, Steelers, and Browns employees!

If we hired more, it would be unfair for the league. 

(03-05-2019, 11:35 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: And...0 Playoff wins in 27+ years in a league where most teams have won 5+ playoff games over that span.

Calling Dennard, Gresham, Kirkpatrick, and Eifert hits is stretching it. Eifert has played way under half of the games in his career.

Gresham while not a bust, underperformed. Kirkpatrick played limited snaps for 3-4 years and is now a mediocre starter. Dennard has what 2-3 interceptions in 5 years and is a mediocre 3rd corner.

Because pinning the Bengals postseason failures solely on a bunch of good players they drafted makes a whole lot of sense. Three to four years ago the national media was calling the Bengals quite possibly the most talented team in the league, and we're going to fault their postseason failures solely on them not being good enough?  I mean... Marvin, is that you, trying to find some new excuse? That's just a ridiculous argument to make.

I didn't say they were stars, but they've been contributing members of NFL teams for years now, so the Bengals sure as heck didn't miss on these guys. Dennard's about to get paid. Gresham has been in the league for 9+ years now. Kirkpatrick's still a starting CB in the league AND he's a team leader (and I get that people hate that and don't want to give him credit, but it's true and if he wasn't starting here he'd be starting somewhere). Eifert's an elite level talent that the Bengals were 100% correct in taking, injuries or not. Sure some of have been somewhat disappointing, but they haven't missed on any of these guys... they're all NFL caliber talents.

And what exactly do you think a larger scouting department would've accomplished all these years, anyways? Do you think having more scouts meant that the Bengals would've looked at Eifert -  a man who had zero injury history in college - and come up away with the impression that no, he's totally not going to work out in the NFL? Do you think being a scout instantly allows you to see the future and know the freak occurrences that will happen? 

(03-05-2019, 11:37 AM)Socal Bengals fan Wrote: We chose him over whit. 

I sometimes wonder if the same people who condemn the Bengals for letting Whit walk are the same people who condemn the Bengals for re-signing an older Willie Anderson back in the day...

(03-05-2019, 01:11 PM)NKURyan Wrote: I sometimes wonder if the same people who condemn the Bengals for letting Whit walk are the same people who condemn the Bengals for re-signing an older Willie Anderson back in the day...

Of course they are.... and the same ones saying we should cut AJ, cut MJ, should have cut Jones sooner. Hindsight is great you know, it lets you look like you know everything...  

(03-05-2019, 02:01 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Of course they are.... and the same ones saying we should cut AJ, cut MJ, should have cut Jones sooner. Hindsight is great you know, it lets you look like you know everything...  

Hindsight doesn't seem to work for fans admitting that a team that hasn't won a playoff game in 27+ years is poorly managed though and needs to change some management practices.

Stay the course! Maybe next year! Model Model! 

(03-05-2019, 02:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Hindsight doesn't seem to work for fans admitting that a team that hasn't won a playoff game in 27+ years is poorly managed though and needs to change some management practices.

Stay the course! Maybe next year! Model Model! 

...and yet here you are anyways, for some reason.

(03-05-2019, 05:48 PM)NKURyan Wrote: ...and yet here you are anyways, for some reason.

I just keep trying to educate the homers. It's a public service I do really!

(03-05-2019, 06:02 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I just keep trying to educate the homers. It's a public service I do really!

Yes, just keep telling yourself that stating blatantly obvious facts ("durrr hey guys did u no Bengalz haven't won a playoff game in decades") is educating people. Truly we are all blessed to have such a great teacher among us.

But hey, at least all the necro-posting is a nice reminder that you've been doing this ridiculously lame schtick for years, so kudos to you.

(03-05-2019, 02:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Hindsight doesn't seem to work for fans admitting that a team that hasn't won a playoff game in 27+ years is poorly managed though and needs to change some management practices.

Stay the course! Maybe next year! Model Model! 

You seem to be unable to separate issues. I never said the team was well managed overall, and it sure as hell was not well coached. But on the particular singular issue of a large vs. smaller scouting dept., the need for large departments has gone by the wayside with the advent of professional scouting agencies. They have other areas they need to work on, and it appears many of them are being addressed now that Mike is apparently letting Katie run things. The title of this thread is not :Is the team well managed, it is "Can we win with our small Scouting Dept..". The fact we made the playoffs 5 years in a row proves that we can, if we did not have quality players, we would not have had that playoff run. The fact they were all one and dones is on the coaching. They were given players that got them to the playoffs.....

This is a few years outdated now, but since we have the smallest scouting staff in the league and EVERY TEAM has had more success than us...

- 23 teams have been to a Super Bowl. 72% of the league
- Every team besides the Browns, Texans and Lions has won at least 4 playoff games
- 11 teams have won at least 11 playoff games
- 26 teams have at least 5 playoff wins, which is how many the Bengals have in their 49 year history
- 13 teams have been to multiple Super Bowls
- 14 teams have won a Super Bowl

Here's the playoff records for all teams from 1991-2015

Patriots: 25-12
Packers: 19-16
Steelers: 18-14
Ravens: 15-8
Broncos: 15-11
Cowboys: 14-10
49ers: 14-11
Colts: 14-15
Seahawks: 12-10
Eagles: 12-13
Giants: 11-7
Panthers: 9-7
Bills: 8-7 (3rd longest streak, at 21 seasons)
Saints: 7-7
Jets: 7-8
Chargers: 7-9
Rams: 6-4
Cardinals: 6-5
Redskins: 6-6
Oilers/Titans: 6-9
Falcons: 6-9
Vikings: 6-13
Raiders: 5-5
Jaguars: 5-6
Buccaneers: 5-6
Dolphins: 5-9
Bears: 4-6
Chiefs: 4-11 (broke a 22 year streak last year)
Texans: 2-3 (both wins over Bengals)
Browns: 1-2 (streak is now at 19 seasons)
Lions: 1-8 (their streak is only 1 year shorter)
Bengals: 0-7 (the streak is now up to 26 seasons)

______________________

The only teams to not play in a Super Bowl during this span are:

Jets
Dolphins
Browns
Bengals
Texans
Jaguars
Chiefs
Lions
Vikings

The question was can we win and the obvious answer is yes because we have won. If the question was can we win it all, that's different.

And the idea that number of scouts is the major issues is a ridiculous oversimplification. The way bigger issue is who has the final say. If you have an assload of scouts with a dumbass making the calls, what do you really have? That is by far and away the most critical factor.

The Browns had a whole bunch of people getting it wrong. They turned it around when they got the right guy in charge of it all getting it right.

(03-06-2019, 12:09 PM)McC Wrote: The Browns had a whole bunch of people getting it wrong.  They turned it around when they got the right guy in charge of it all getting it right.

The Browns haven't turned around squat yet. One hot stretch isn't going to convince me otherwise. If I had to pick a team to fall way short of expectations next year, they'd be my choice.

(03-06-2019, 12:09 PM)McC Wrote: The question was can we win and the obvious answer is yes because we have won.  If the question was can we win it all, that's different.

And the idea that number of scouts is the major issues is a ridiculous oversimplification.  The way bigger issue is who has the final say.  If you have an assload of scouts with a dumbass making the calls, what do you really have?  That is by far and away the most critical factor.

The Browns had a whole bunch of people getting it wrong.  They turned it around when they got the right guy in charge of it all getting it right.

I think your 1st sentence is a good point.

Honestly, Marvin had a lot to do with that turnaround too. He brought in established coaches and practice habits. If I remember he upgraded our strength and conditioning program and a new strength coach.

That stuff seemed to bump us up to a competitive team.

I do think we need more scouts though. In another link I posted responsibilities of scouts and it is much more than just drafting. I think it's a big ask to have your coaches scout AND coach AND gameplan AND develop a playbook.

(03-06-2019, 02:11 PM)NKURyan Wrote: The Browns haven't turned around squat yet. One hot stretch isn't going to convince me otherwise. If I had to pick a team to fall way short of expectations next year, they'd be my choice.

Believe me, I'm the last guy in the world to pimp the Browns.  But it's all relative.  Relative to the previous three years, they turned it around.

(03-06-2019, 02:23 PM)McC Wrote: Believe me, I'm the last guy in the world to pimp the Browns.  But it's all relative.  Relative to the previous three years, they turned it around.

While I think they are overrated, I'd probably take their roster over ours.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if that ownership finds a way to mess things up. And maybe that's bringing in this troubled RB that they just signed. Maybe that will mess up their chemistry.

(03-06-2019, 02:19 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think your 1st sentence is a good point.

Honestly, Marvin had a lot to do with that turnaround too. He brought in established coaches and practice habits. If I remember he upgraded our strength and conditioning program and a new strength coach.

That stuff seemed to bump us up to a competitive team.

I do think we need more scouts though. In another link I posted responsibilities of scouts and it is much more than just drafting. I think it's a big ask to have your coaches scout AND coach AND gameplan AND develop a playbook.

I'm not disagreeing with any of what you said.  I'm just saying that, take '15, for instance, with better luck(Dalton not breaking his thumb) and better coaching(more focus and discipline at the end of a game that should have been won), we might have made a pretty good playoff run.

Our lack of post season success is multi-factored, with the number of scouts or FO people being just two of the factors.   It can be done the small operation way, but it would require the decision makers to be better at making decisions.  The margin of error is smaller if the operation is smaller.

There really is only one common denominator of the various methods of winning a title and that is brilliance at the top.