This article seems to have gone missing, but it was about how the Bengals were shifting to a more digital age of scouting. How they weren't sending scouts to games much anymore and decided the time was better spent watching film instead. This was before the dreadful 2015 draft. https://t.co/1smSjD4Iiv

— JG (@JoeGoodberry) November 4, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Here's the link to the article that's missing on Bengals.com. The article was written Jan 9, 2015. BEFORE the ill-fated Ced/Fisher draft:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150113031527/https://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Tape-crusaders/63e02401-b155-495c-9785-d354aef1189e

I feel like everyone thinks Bengals fans are joking, but they really list two scouts on their website.
Even if you count everyone here, it's 6 personnel people.
Compare that to the Ravens? 10 scouts and 30 people listed under Personnel. pic.twitter.com/50Rld4BhlB

— JG (@JoeGoodberry) November 4, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It makes far more sense to scout from tape than in person. You get better angles and you can replay plays multiple times quickly to confirm what you think you see. To me scouting in person is a relic that serves little purpose in season with today's technology.

It is almost impossible to scout watching live games where you can't rewind and re-watch what happened.

It is also a huge waste of time and money. In the one day that a live game would require a scout could break down film of every snap a player would take in an entire college season.

As Billy B said, every team is "watching the same games" and "looking at the same film". 

The difference is how teams evaluate players based on those games and film, and who is doing the evaluating.

So basically youtube.

I actually have no problem with this

(11-04-2019, 05:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote:

I feel like everyone thinks Bengals fans are joking, but they really list two scouts on their website.
Even if you count everyone here, it's 6 personnel people.
Compare that to the Ravens? 10 scouts and 30 people listed under Personnel. pic.twitter.com/50Rld4BhlB

— JG (@JoeGoodberry) November 4, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

who are the scouting directors directing?  I mean do we really need 1 guy for each scout

Film's nice and all, but I think the reason "normal" teams send scouts to games is to speak with potential targets and pick their brains. Normal teams care as much about a players mental makeup as their athletic ability.

Either way, we have fewer guys to watch film or do anything scouting departments do.

I disagree with those who say there's no point anymore. Not that I agree or disagree with the expense of it all. In person you can see how they are interacting with coaches/players not on camera. See them warm up and practice before the game. Talk to coaches. Hear the ball get caught to get an idea of QB arm strength. Interact with other scouts before teams go silent in preparation for the draft.

I think there's some pros for scouting in person.

What about they guys they don't list like Jim McNally?

(11-04-2019, 07:06 PM)Pat5775 Wrote: I actually have no problem with this

If they had NOT done it people would be complaining that they are "trapped in the past".

(11-04-2019, 05:48 PM)Au165 Wrote: It makes far more sense to scout from tape than in person. You get better angles and you can replay plays multiple times quickly to confirm what you think you see. To me scouting in person is a relic that serves little purpose in season with today's technology.

Scouts who attend games also have the added benefit of interacting with people and gathering additional intel. More intel generally leads to better, more informed decisions. In other words, not drafting bums like Ogbuehi and Sample.

Doesn't matter what the method you are using to view players, tape or live, if the guys doing the evaluating keep missing pick after pick it's time for a change in personal.

The logic for why is sound.
I much prefer to watch a game on TV when I can get multiple angles, rewind, etc.
But as others said, different people focus on different things when viewing tape (or live).
That's the important part.

If you've ever been to a game you get to see things that aren't on film. You get to see what players as they come off the field, what do they look like? what is their attitude? what is their facial expression? how do they react to the coach giving them instructions? etc. None of that is on the game film. I can see a value in going to games of guys you consider 1st and/or 2nd round picks. It kills a team when you whiff on those.

With two scouting directors, whatever that title means, and two scouts, the number of people sifting through film for the Bengals is tiny. It makes you wonder why the Bengals love big school picks. How do they have time to watch anyone else? Big schools let you watch film on more than one guy at a time.

Each year there are 254 draft picks and that many again college free agents. How do two or maybe four people watch that much film? They can't and they don't.

We've seen first hand the results of the Bengals scouting.

How do teams that win more than us handle this sort of thing?

(11-04-2019, 08:17 PM)BengalChris Wrote: If you've ever been to a game you get to see things that aren't on film. You get to see what players as they come off the field, what do they look like? what is their attitude? what is their facial expression? how do they react to the coach giving them instructions? etc. None of that is on the game film. I can see a value in going to games of guys you consider 1st and/or 2nd round picks. It kills a team when you whiff on those.

With two scouting directors, whatever that title means, and two scouts, the number of people sifting through film for the Bengals is tiny. It makes you wonder why the Bengals love big school picks. How do they have time to watch anyone else? Big schools let you watch film on more than one guy at a time.

Each year there are 254 draft picks and that many again college free agents. How do two or maybe four people watch that much film? They can't and they don't.

We've seen first hand the results of the Bengals scouting.

Yup agreed. 

I also think as time goes on, we are going to see more and more that Marvin & his staff overachieved with such limited resources provided from the Clown family.

(11-04-2019, 05:43 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote:

This article seems to have gone missing, but it was about how the Bengals were shifting to a more digital age of scouting. How they weren't sending scouts to games much anymore and decided the time was better spent watching film instead. This was before the dreadful 2015 draft. https://t.co/1smSjD4Iiv

— JG (@JoeGoodberry) November 4, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Here's the link to the article that's missing on Bengals.com. The article was written Jan 9, 2015. BEFORE the ill-fated Ced/Fisher draft:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150113031527/https://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Tape-crusaders/63e02401-b155-495c-9785-d354aef1189e

So....they watch YouTube videos? I figured that was our standard scouting practice. Sample must have had 2 thumbs up and a couple nice comments.

(11-04-2019, 08:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: How do teams that win more than us handle this sort of thing?

Well...they have 2 to 3 times the scouts.

I guess ours are 3 times better than theirs though.