The Bengals Switched Scouting Practices in 2015

[Shake n Blake]

(11-04-2019, 11:34 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Well...they have 2 to 3 times the scouts.

I guess ours are 3 times better than theirs though.

Cue the people who say "well the losing teams have 2 to 3 times the scouts as well".

[Bengal Dude]

(11-05-2019, 01:04 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Cue the people who say "well the losing teams have 2 to 3 times the scouts as well".

Same people who shout about the Browns and Washington whenever fans want to sign a decent free agent instead of the usual scrap heap players.

[TKUHL]

I don’t get the Browns. They have some really good even great players. Can it be the coach?

[Nicomo Cosca]

(11-05-2019, 02:55 AM)TKUHL Wrote: I don’t get the Browns. They have some really good even great players. Can it be the coach?

Yes. Look at the best teams around the league, they all have great coaches (Belichick, Shanahan, Carroll, Payton, Reid, Harbaugh, etc).

[Au165]

(11-04-2019, 07:21 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: 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.

Yea, that's not really true. Every team misses and many with much larger scouting departments then ours miss worse. As I said showing up in person tends to just get scouts the dog and pony show. They like to think they see through it but they really don't. The Patriots literally drafted a guy who murdered people and the red flags looking back while in college were EVERYWHERE. 

I know/am acquaintances with two scouts through a hobby of mine and one will tell you it's a big deal to show up and the other will tell you it means little to nothing. The one who thinks it's a big deal is an older guy who also isn't big into analytics and is "old school". The younger of the two is the one who insists it's all a show when they are there so he hates going out. He does say he shows up for QB's though because of QB's having to be able to command the respect of his teammates. Either way both will tell you it comes down to the tape in the end and the people who are watching the tape.

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(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.

If I was investing $20m in an asset I'd want to do both, particularly when Zac is preaching so much about character. It's probably not so much the game performance you miss out on but the networking and the additional insights that can give.

If I was setting up a scouting system I'd look to recruit three very different types of scouts. One type of scout would be tape grinders who watch video all day dissecting technique, another would be data analysts who crunch numbers and design statistical models and the third would be networkers who would always be out on the road talking to people. Three very different skill-sets, offering three different perspectives.

[Au165]

(11-05-2019, 09:52 AM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: If I was investing $20m in an asset I'd want to do both, particularly when Zac is preaching so much about character. It's probably not so much the game performance you miss out on but the networking and the additional insights that can give.

If I was setting up a scouting system I'd look to recruit three very different types of scouts. One type of scout would be tape grinders who watch video all day dissecting technique, another would be data analysts who crunch numbers and design statistical models and the third would be networkers who would always be out on the road talking to people. Three very different skill-sets, offering three different perspectives.

Like I said, for years scouts have gone to campuses and for years teams have completely misjudged their intangibles.  You can run through a laundry list of 1st round picks in the pre "only tape" era that had every team in the league on campus checking into them and they turned out to be complete busts from a character/work ethic/ etc. stand point. 

All teams go to the major pro days and you can do your onsite "investigating" then versus in season because you are going to get the same dog and pony show as you would mid season. This article was just referencing the scouts specifically during season.

[t3r3e3]

(11-05-2019, 09:14 AM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, that's not really true. Every team misses and many with much larger scouting departments then ours miss worse. As I said showing up in person tends to just get scouts the dog and pony show. They like to think they see through it but they really don't. The Patriots literally drafted a guy who murdered people and the red flags looking back while in college were EVERYWHERE. 

I know/am acquaintances with two scouts through a hobby of mine and one will tell you it's a big deal to show up and the other will tell you it means little to nothing. The one who thinks it's a big deal is an older guy who also isn't big into analytics and is "old school". The younger of the two is the one who insists it's all a show when they are there so he hates going out. He does say he shows up for QB's though because of QB's having to be able to command the respect of his teammates. Either way both will tell you it comes down to the tape in the end and the people who are watching the tape.

So be it. If tape is the key, wouldn’t you want more tape watchers to maximize the chances of landing more talent. For a team that relies almost solely on the draft, having a tiny scouting department seems moronic. Scouts are relatively cheap, but then again, it’s Mike Brown we speak of.

[Au165]

(11-05-2019, 09:58 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: So be it.  If tape is the key, wouldn’t you want more tape watchers to maximize the chances of landing more talent.  For a team that relies almost solely  on the draft, having a tiny scouting department seems moronic.  Scouts are relatively cheap, but then again, it’s Mike Brown we speak of.

100% it never hurts to have more scouts, it's just Goodberry's premise that there is something wrong with the way they are approaching scouting  I disagree with. 

[Fullrock]

Here's the thing. If you have a PROPERLY staffed scouting department, you have the personnel to do both live game scouting and film break down. There are intangibles on players you simply cannot pick up using video alone. Of course, it's a moot point because the Bengals don't have even close to the personnel to do it right.

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(11-05-2019, 09:55 AM)Au165 Wrote: Like I said, for years scouts have gone to campuses and for years teams have completely misjudged their intangibles.  You can run through a laundry list of 1st round picks in the pre "only tape" era that had every team in the league on campus checking into them and they turned out to be complete busts from a character/work ethic/ etc. stand point. 

All teams go to the major pro days and you can do your onsite "investigating" then versus in season because you are going to get the same dog and pony show as you would mid season. This article was just referencing the scouts specifically during season.

I don't think you would necessarily get the same answers at the pro day as you will mid-season.

Pro Days everyone's going to be pumping their guys. It's a sales exhibition. You're more likely to get the quality information mid-season when there aren't so many scouts/NFL execs hanging around, you can spend longer talking with people and build a better relationship, get them to speak more candidly.

I suppose the question is whether you want to leave any stone unturned.

[*Synric*]

(11-05-2019, 09:55 AM)Au165 Wrote: Like I said, for years scouts have gone to campuses and for years teams have completely misjudged their intangibles.  You can run through a laundry list of 1st round picks in the pre "only tape" era that had every team in the league on campus checking into them and they turned out to be complete busts from a character/work ethic/ etc. stand point. 

All teams go to the major pro days and you can do your onsite "investigating" then versus in season because you are going to get the same dog and pony show as you would mid season. This article was just referencing the scouts specifically during season.

Analytics are the future of scouting the Bengals were taking a page from the Patriots hand book. They even stole one of their analytics guys a couple years back to help that department.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(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

......and this is rumored to be the reason FSU has fallen on such hard times lately.... digital scouting vs actual scouting and getting a feel for the player's mentality. 

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 01:08 PM)TJHoushmandzadeh Wrote: I don't think you would necessarily get the same answers at the pro day as you will mid-season.

Pro Days everyone's going to be pumping their guys. It's a sales exhibition. You're more likely to get the quality information mid-season when there aren't so many scouts/NFL execs hanging around, you can spend longer talking with people and build a better relationship, get them to speak more candidly.

I suppose the question is whether you want to leave any stone unturned.

College coaches are pretty busy during the season.  I'd think they would have more time to talk in the off season.

And I don't think players are even allowed to talk to NFL scouts during the season.

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

(11-05-2019, 02:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: College coaches are pretty busy during the season.  I'd think they would have more time to talk in the off season.

And I don't think players are even allowed to talk to NFL scouts during the season.

Sure, Head Coaches and Co-ordinators will be pretty busy but I'm sure the good networking scouts will also cultivate connections with all sorts of other people from assistants, to people in the weight room or the class room, boosters in the know and so on. No doubt some of it breaches rules, some of it will be idle gossip but there will also be the occasional insight into the player other than what is parroted to every team on their pro-day.

[3wt]

(11-04-2019, 07:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 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.

This.   There are just different things that can be gleaned from being there.  Even if you would not be able to interview them you can watch their demeanor and interactions with teammates & coaches.

And yeah, with every way you evaluate there needs to be more evaluators - and probably better ones.

I'm sure Tobin is doing some analysis on what differentiated the bad drafts from the good ones.   I realize there is always the luck factor, but I would hope they could identify something.

More is not always better, but it sure seems like they are missing stuff on our prospects.   I think of Mack Wilson.   They obviously were not alone, but you would want to determine what everyone missed.  The more guys the more time to spend both with prospects in person and on film.

[I_C_DeadPeople]

(11-05-2019, 10:04 AM)Fullrock Wrote: Here's the thing. If you have a PROPERLY staffed scouting department, you have the personnel to do both live game scouting and film break down. There are intangibles on players you simply cannot pick up using video alone. Of course, it's a moot point because the Bengals don't have even close to the personnel to do it right.

And properly staffed also means they are damn good at their jobs. You want the right number of scouts and the right quality. I see no evidence we have either. 

[*ochocincos*]

(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.

That's a good point to an extent, but scouts probably aren't sitting down at the field level right by the players benches, wouldn't you think? I'd think they'd be up in a box so they get the best possible view of the field.

[Au165]

(11-05-2019, 04:11 PM)ochocincos Wrote: That's a good point to an extent, but scouts probably aren't sitting down at the field level right by the players benches, wouldn't you think? I'd think they'd be up in a box so they get the best possible view of the field.

You always go back to the tape to confirm what you saw in person anyways. It's easy to see a busted coverage live and think it was because of something one guy did but then when you see the play again you realize it was something else. In the box or on the field it doesn't matter because the game happens so quick you are going to rewatch a play that you flag as good or bad multiple times to make sure what you thought you saw is true. 

[*psychdoctor*]

Fox 5 year ratings for team's drafts.  

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/nfl-draft-teams-picks-draft-records-ranked-2012-present-030117

Bengals are about average.  


ESPN 10 year ratings of "boom or bust" players for NFL teams...
This is not surprising.  
https://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/273135/boom-or-bust-10-years-of-the-best-and-worst-draft-picks-for-every-nfl-team

USA Today's AV ratings for teams over the last 5 years.  AV = Approximate Value metric.  This formula compares where a player was picked versus where a player was ranked in each draft.  This is similar to baseball's WAR (wins above replacement) stat.

Bengals are rated 24th which is near the bottom over the last 5 years...

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/04/nfl-draft-performance-grades-best-drafting-teams-picks-classes-2012-2016

Don't laugh too hard but Bodine was considered MVP.  

Dennard and Kirkpatrick are least valuable picks.

Bengals were rated ABOVE LAR.  Browns were rated last in league.