Bengals want miracle man on sidelines- Optimism of candidates belies negativity surro

[3wt]

(11-21-2017, 04:08 PM)Benton Wrote: To the bold, I'm probably not going to sway your opinion. So I'll just share others'.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2016/04/how_each_nfl_team_has_-_or_has.html


It's got a fairly nice listing of last year's draftees/starters versus winning percentage. Bengals have a good number of draftees and were above .500.  I'd put the winning percentage more on bad coaching than the 38 draftees on the roster, but I'm thinking you and I would disagree there.

From 2014:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/05/01/which-nfl-teams-have-been-best-draft-lately/H5mBGyXErkXptvVPFzg9TM/story.html

There's other similar links, but the theme pretty much is that Cincinnati is one of the better drafting teams in terms of getting, and playing, draft picks. If you're looking at every draft coming up with 2 Pro Bowlers in the first couple years, you're going to find very, very few teams that measure up. 

I think it's like the Pats or Steelers with championships. We do pretty well at the draft, so when we have a down year (and the last couple have stunk, for sure), it's more noticeable. 


To the rest, no idea on what Willie says. I don't work in an NFL office, and I have no idea how to compare them. And I don't think it would've mattered either, but that's mainly because I've never been a fan of Hue. I think he's good with the players, but that's about it. Never was a fan of his play calling, or his use of talent.

A lot of good stuff here, but I object to the idea of evaluating the quality of a scouting department by the # of players still on the roster.

There are a lot of bad reasons players may still be on the roster, chiefly that there are other players on the roster even worse than them.