How many years do we talk about what the Bengals need to do to fix...

[Whatever]

(12-28-2018, 11:26 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: You can't argue that what they did this past year didn't work.  I am with you 100% there, but it was not for a lack of trying (am I really going to defend them?  Not entirely).

I think we all were thrilled that they slid back and got Cordy Glenn, and drafted Price.  Two huge issues on the line were immediately addressed with one selection.  They got rid of Paul Alexander and brought in Pollack.  Another huge issue in the eyes of many.  They made moves, but it wasn't enough.  They needed to draft an OT and they passed on the huge RT from Oklahoma multiple times.  Where did he go?  Baltimore, a pick or two after we selected the incredibly average Malik Jefferson.  It was as though they couldn't go all the way to make a big difference on the offensive line.  They did some things, but not enough, and the team suffered for it.

And although the Bengals told me they thought Shaquem Griffin was too small for an NFL LB (he is the same size as Odell Thurman), his only start he had six solo tackles and one for loss.  And that was the first game of the season because KJ Wright was out injured.  

I think the biggest problem isn't the talent.  Some of the things I see Ross do....I think he is completely wasted on this team.  Ditto Gio, Mixon early on, Uzomah until Kroft and Eifert went down...and on defense.  I feel so bad for the players that are told to play off, then rally up and make tackles in space.  It is the most conservative, stupid scheme I have ever watched in the history of the NFL.  I mean, there were several games where for a stretch over several quarters, the defense did NOT EVEN HAVE TO TAKE THE FIELD, and the same thing would have happen.  TD, TD, TD, TD....it was pathetic.  They simply do not get anything out of the talent they have.  WJIII should be following the opponents #1 WR, and Dre should also be playing press man.  We knew they needed LBs and we hoped for a veteran FA to provide some stability.  They signed Brown from Buffalo, and we all thought that was a great move.  Didn't overpay.  He made a huge INT early  in the year against the Colts and then went down to an injury and was never the same after that.  Add in injuries to Vigil and the issues that always surround Burfict, and there you have the LB crew that was addressed, but ended up worse than when they started.  

The coaches have been a huge issue.  Austin was a wet firecracker.  Lazor hasn't been anything but average.  Marvin still doesn't know how to motivate a team, let alone manage a clock.  The real issue here is leadership, and it isn't from the owner.  They need all new coaches to get the most out of this roster.  

The roster clearly still has huge needs at OT, LB, TE, and LB (yes, I said it twice) but I believe Brown was on a two year deal and they will certainly be drafting one or two early next year.  When I see the contribution of a Leighton Vander Esche at Dallas, I think a first round LB would make a bigger impact than an OT (especially since it will be a RT, unless they decide to move Glenn to the right side, which actually makes some sense).  

It will just be groundhog day, again, though unless they clean house with the coaches and I don't see it happening.  

I keep seeing Orlando Brown's name thrown around lately.  People realize he is credited with the worst combine performance in history, right?  He was considered undraftable by some GM's.  

Another big issue is while the slow footed 350 pound RT worked for PA's scheme, he wasn't necessarily a fit for Pollack's scheme.  

Brown has been better than Hart has this year, but he's by no means an upper echelon player and playing next to Marshall Yanda is miles away from playing next to Alex Redmond.  The Ravens can definitely scheme to help Brown more than we could here.

[*ochocincos*]

(12-23-2018, 10:11 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: ...the team in the offseason. Yeah draft 2-3 quality starters at these positions. Sign 2-3 quality free agents.

Yeah...it usually doesn't go down like that. We have a bunch of starters that rate in the 40's and 50's on PFF. It's hard to fix that without major changes. The Bengals don't ever seem to be willing to make that many.

For instance, this past offseason...to address Tackle - They signed Hart who was a bad player with the Giants and let him compete with Ced and Fisher - our 2 busts. Yeah...that worked out really well!!!

26+ years of no playoff wins!

There are really only three options...
1) Continue to complain/point out flaws in the team until changes are made
2) Accept the team for what it is and just be optimistic
3) Decide to stop following the Bengals and choose to root for another team instead

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(12-24-2018, 10:13 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I missed what Lapham had to say...where can I find this punch in the gut of statement?  Why do I do this to myself?  Ok, what did he say?  I can assume....

Sorry.....just came back to this thread....he essentially said what I posted in my thread about Schefter.  It was during the 4th quarter of the Browns game broadcast.  Even Lap sounded dismayed.

[THE PISTONS]

Which is the bad part. The NFL is meant for parity and bringing teams from worst to 1st.

With the cap space we're going to have and a high pick...IF we made the right management changes like bringing in a successful GM...we could be good again in a year or 2. But, we don't seem to make those changes.

Look at the Browns turnaround...and they didn't have an AJ Green or Atkins already on that roster. Or a Mixon. Or a Tyler Boyd. We have some talent to build around.

There is just a stubbornness here to make major changes.

Lets look at GM. IF we did bring in a GM, what's the worst that could happen? Ownership would set spending parameters so it's not like he could bankrupt the team. Then, if the GM doesn't work out...you just fire him.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-24-2018, 09:51 AM)McC Wrote: Oh good. Pistons finding yet another way to tell us all how bad we suck.  The first thousand were not enough.  I predict another half dozen ways to say the same exact thing just today  alone.

I do actually talk about positives. Atkins is a HoF DT. Green is a great WR. Mixon is doing amazing for having a bad offensive line in front of him. IF we had a good offensive line, he might be able to rush for 1600 yards.

Tyler Boyd took an awesome step forward and I've liked him ever since he was at Pitt and wanted the Bengals to draft him.

Guys like Jackson, Lawson, Hubbard, and Bates could all be solid building blocks if they get good coaching and continue to develop.

It's just we haven't won a playoff game in 26+ years. There are obviously problems and I'm not going to start threads about how awesome John Ross is because like half of his catches are 3 yard TD's.

[Shake n Blake]

I think some people have to fool themselves into having reasons for hope every year.

Then again, I do think a few really believe coaching isn't important and that a few draftees will get us back on top middle of the pack.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-28-2018, 02:08 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I think some people have to fool themselves into having reasons for hope every year.

Then again, I do think a few really believe coaching isn't important and that a few draftees will get us back on top middle of the pack.

No doubt. I've seen some people on here actually say how Good of a WR John Ross is because he catches TD's.

Laughable stuff.

There seems to be a big divide over what people thing we get from a draft too. Some people seem to think we get a lot of immediate help. The reality is that we might get 1-2 guys that help. Some others might play, but they're not good players in Year 1.

[Shake n Blake]

(12-28-2018, 02:13 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: No doubt. I've seen some people on here actually say how Good of a WR John Ross is because he catches TD's.

Laughable stuff.

There seems to be a big divide over what people thing we get from a draft too. Some people seem to think we get a lot of immediate help. The reality is that we might get 1-2 guys that help. Some others might play, but they're not good players in Year 1.

We'd need an absolute home-run draft to even sniff the playoffs, IMO. 

Changing these bland and very tired schemes associated with Marvin would have a much more profound impact, IMO...and it'd probably be easier to pull off than hitting on 3 pro-bowlers in a single draft.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-28-2018, 02:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: We'd need an absolute home-run draft to even sniff the playoffs, IMO. 

Changing these bland and very tired schemes associated with Marvin would have a much more profound impact, IMO...and it'd probably be easier to pull off than hitting on 3 pro-bowlers in a single draft.

I wouldn't be shocked if the Bengals took Haskins from OSU as they love Buckeyes. Or a CB to replace Dennard too in the 1st Round. There is a big chance the draft doesn't address a need in the 1st Round.

IF we could get a rookie T that grades out somewhere in the 70's next season on PFF and sign a Guard in free agency that's decent...and a LB like Kwon Alexander...and cut loose some dead weight in Burfict, MJ, Redmond, etc. AND update schemes...

But, that's a lot to expect.

[t3r3e3]

(12-23-2018, 10:11 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: ...the team in the offseason. Yeah draft 2-3 quality starters at these positions. Sign 2-3 quality free agents.

Yeah...it usually doesn't go down like that. We have a bunch of starters that rate in the 40's and 50's on PFF. It's hard to fix that without major changes. The Bengals don't ever seem to be willing to make that many.

For instance, this past offseason...to address Tackle - They signed Hart who was a bad player with the Giants and let him compete with Ced and Fisher - our 2 busts. Yeah...that worked out really well!!!

26+ years of no playoff wins!

Nothing changes until Mike dies, sells the team, the league forces him to sell, or he passes control to Katie. Until one of these events happens, the impetus for significant change is virtually nonexistent. Katie taking over May result in more of the same. Mike has a golden goose that produces no matter how ineptly he manages it. Trying to actively win titles each year takes money away from the bottom line. Free agency is expensive. Scouts are expensive. Draft picks are cheap.

[*SHRacerX*]

(12-28-2018, 01:27 PM)Whatever Wrote: I keep seeing Orlando Brown's name thrown around lately.  People realize he is credited with the worst combine performance in history, right?  He was considered undraftable by some GM's.  

Another big issue is while the slow footed 350 pound RT worked for PA's scheme, he wasn't necessarily a fit for Pollack's scheme.  

Brown has been better than Hart has this year, but he's by no means an upper echelon player and playing next to Marshall Yanda is miles away from playing next to Alex Redmond.  The Ravens can definitely scheme to help Brown more than we could here.

This was heavily debated around the NFL and even on here (draft talk).  Brown basically took the time from his bowl game to the combine off to rest and heal.  He did not go to any of the combine training camps and was heavily panned for what was viewed as a lack of passion for the game.  His actual game film told a different story.  He was a dominant player at Oklahoma.  He is a massive man with ridiculous wingspan, and he played a lot of LT at Oklahoma.  Due to his size and supposed lack of mobility against speed rushers, he was projected as a RT in the NFL. 

He was a much better option than Bobby Hart.  

[I_C_DeadPeople]

(12-28-2018, 12:05 PM)samhain Wrote: To be fair, they did trade for Glenn.  He's not the player he once was, but he's worlds better than the other tackles we have.

As far as needs and turning a team around, it can happen in the NFL.  The Bengals handed the Eagles a beatdown back in 16, and we were not good that year.  Next thing you know, they're SB champs.  The Bears have turned things around very quickly as well.  The Chiefs went from a perennial upper-mid tier team to a powerhouse with one player (albeit, an MVP type).  The Rams were a laughingstock under Jeff Fisher, and became great with most of the same players that Fisher had at his disposal.

Seattle is probably the most encouraging.  They kept the same coaches and turned over one of the most feared defensive units in the league in a fairly short time to become relevant very quickly.  They suffered through some abysmal o-line play along the way, mixing and matching turds much as we are right now.

The unfortunate part is, almost every team mentioned had to accept some form of major change before they could make the quick turn around.  New quarterback, new coach/system, letting go of players that were at one time franchise superstars, etc.  None of these things are in the Bengals DNA without hitting rock-bottom in some way.  I don't think we've hit what Mike sees as rock bottom.

Seattle of course has a fully functioning front office and we do not. They draft and coach very well.

And the Glenn trade - so we did not re-sign Whit, then we traded down in the draft to get a lesser player at essentially the same cost. Well done.

[Socal Bengals fan]

(12-28-2018, 12:05 PM)samhain Wrote: To be fair, they did trade for Glenn.  He's not the player he once was, but he's worlds better than the other tackles we have.

As far as needs and turning a team around, it can happen in the NFL.  The Bengals handed the Eagles a beatdown back in 16, and we were not good that year.  Next thing you know, they're SB champs.  The Bears have turned things around very quickly as well.  The Chiefs went from a perennial upper-mid tier team to a powerhouse with one player (albeit, an MVP type).  The Rams were a laughingstock under Jeff Fisher, and became great with most of the same players that Fisher had at his disposal.

Seattle is probably the most encouraging.  They kept the same coaches and turned over one of the most feared defensive units in the league in a fairly short time to become relevant very quickly.  They suffered through some abysmal o-line play along the way, mixing and matching turds much as we are right now.

The unfortunate part is, almost every team mentioned had to accept some form of major change before they could make the quick turn around.  New quarterback, new coach/system, letting go of players that were at one time franchise superstars, etc.  None of these things are in the Bengals DNA without hitting rock-bottom in some way.  I don't think we've hit what Mike sees as rock bottom.

The difference is those teams have Wilson, Wentz n Marones at quarterback. We have Andy Dalton enough said.

[THE PISTONS]

If we drafted Mahomes...chances are he isn't playing now. Or if he is, he's getting sacked so much behind our offensive line that he's gun shy.

It all goes to organizational culture and what teams prioritize while building.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

(12-29-2018, 02:09 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: If we drafted Mahommes...chances are he isn't playing now. Or if he is, he's getting sacked so much behind our offensive line that he's gun shy.

It all goes to organizational culture and what teams prioritize while building.

It has to be repeated - successful businesses are driven top down not the other way. The Bengals are perfectly designed to make a lot of money every year from a guaranteed revenue source and a sub-par product due to lack of investment. In that regard, this team is successful. But it is a failure if the goal is to win a championship.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-29-2018, 02:14 PM)I_C_DeadPeople Wrote: It has to be repeated - successful businesses are driven top down not the other way. The Bengals are perfectly designed to make a lot of money every year from a guaranteed revenue source and a sub-par product due to lack of investment. In that regard, this team is successful. But it is a failure if the goal is to win a championship.

Correct. Look how many owners try to find loopholes to spend over the salary cap to try to win.

Profit = Revenue - Expenses.

The Revenue is a constant due to revenue sharing...then there are other things like Luxury Box sales, etc. But, the Bengals focus on the expense side and keep scouting and other costs low.

Here, we don't do that.

We actually value compensatory picks as a strategy.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

(12-29-2018, 02:17 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: We actually value compensatory picks as a strategy.

These are the least inexpensive players to put on the roster. Mikey is always proud of how many of the teams draftees make the roster but the number has no meaning if the player sucks.

[SladeX]

I rarely talk about off-season moves anymore. It's damn pointless, until the team has an actual GM.

[THE PISTONS]

(12-29-2018, 02:44 PM)SladeX Wrote: I rarely talk about off-season moves anymore. It's damn pointless, until the team has an actual GM.

In the absence of using free agency to sign upgrades...we'll need another couple drafts like the one that got Green, Dalton, Boling or Atkins/Dunlap to turn things around.

It could happen...the odds are just low of it happening.

[GodFather]

"How many years do we talk about what the Bengals need to do to fix?"


To answer your question, I will refer you to Buzz Lightyear for the most perfect answer: