Compensatory Picks

[THE PISTONS]

(09-04-2017, 12:11 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: Baseball is a very different situation, with no cap and guaranteed salaries.  

I understand the perception about "not doing anything" but your example about AJ happened in an already pretty bleak season and they had already signed a FA to replace Marvin Jones and Mo Sanu, both (again) players that I feel got way more money than they deserved.  The one thing you can't blame the Bengals for is being reactionary.  They planned for the departure of Zeitler and Whit by drafting and developing players.  Sure, Ced has struggled, but I feel this year he will prove them right and will be at the very least a solid LT.  Whit was one of my all-time favorite players, but you simply can't offer a guy his age that long a contract.  You can, and the Bengals tried for a reported two-year deal, but the Rams had a bigger need and paid him more.

I'm not trying to change your perception, but just to defense the Bengals a bit because I think they have done everything they can to put a winning team on the field.  My biggest complaint with them is/was letting Hue go instead of replacing Marvin with him.  Even if there was a succession plan, it should have been on paper and locked up.  From a player standpoint, I think the team is ready to roll and will surprise a lot of people this year, and is well-designed for success for the long term. 

I think it's fair to say that the Bengals have lost more talent than they brought in over the past couple years...atleast in Year 1.

Ross may turn into a dominant WR...but I doubt he helps us much this year. Mixon has the potential to be a great back. That would go a long way towards replacing talent.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-04-2017, 12:09 PM)Beaker Wrote: Then why are many other teams now beginning to follow the Bengals model to be better positioned against the salary cap? The losses in the playoffs are an indicator of coaching flaws, not the talent level of the team (which FA and the draft address). The rosters have been talented enough to make the playoffs as many times as most of the top teams in the NFL. Where the fans are duped is by thinking FA is the answer when it has been repeatedly proven that although it occasionally works out, it more often does not, and is a much more expensive mistake than a draft pick that doesn't pan out.

Dude...no teams re following the Bengals model.

We haven't won a playoff game in 26+ years.

We talk about building through the draft and have an extremely small scouting department compared to the other teams in our division. (2 of which teams have won multiple Super Bowls.)

As has been posted, we get virtually nothing in the way of impact from our Compensatory picks other than special teamers. Which is what other teams do...they use the comp picks to staff the special teams cheaply.

Most of our recent 1st Round picks aren't starters in Year 1.

[Shake n Blake]

(09-04-2017, 12:09 PM)Beaker Wrote: Then why are many other teams now beginning to follow the Bengals model to be better positioned against the salary cap? The losses in the playoffs are an indicator of coaching flaws, not the talent level of the team (which FA and the draft address). The rosters have been talented enough to make the playoffs as many times as most of the top teams in the NFL. Where the fans are duped is by thinking FA is the answer when it has been repeatedly proven that although it occasionally works out, it more often does not, and is a much more expensive mistake than a draft pick that doesn't pan out.

Which championship team has followed the Bengals model? 

[THE PISTONS]

(09-04-2017, 01:52 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Which championship team has followed the Bengals model? 

Yes. Championship teams follow the model of a team that hasn't won a playoff game in 26+ years.

[Beaker]

(09-04-2017, 01:52 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Which championship team has followed the Bengals model? 

(09-04-2017, 02:04 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yes. Championship teams follow the model of a team that hasn't won a playoff game in 26+ years.

Once again...our rosters have been talented enough to make the playoffs. Bad coaching, bad luck and injuries have kept us from advancing. Not many other teams made the playoffs 5 consecutive years. That fact alone means the model isn't as bad as you claim.

[*bfine32*]

(09-03-2017, 06:28 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Trades and signing guys that were released. Neither affects compensatory picks. The Pats have made a lot of trades for quality proven players through the years. 

Still doesn't explain how they have more compensatory picks that us during the Marvin era.

Perhaps it's a good model and some around here just want to hate everything about the F.O. 

[*bengalfan74*]

(09-04-2017, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Still doesn't explain how they have more compensatory picks that us during the Marvin era.

Perhaps it's a good model and some around here just want to hate everything about the F.O. 

Perhaps if the F.O. had produced any results in 26 years of doing it Mike's way people wouldn't "hate" on them ?

Just a guess

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-04-2017, 09:18 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Perhaps if the F.O. had produced any results in 26 years of doing it Mike's way people wouldn't "hate" on them ?

Just a guess

Yep.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-04-2017, 06:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: Once again...our rosters have been talented enough to make the playoffs. Bad coaching, bad luck and injuries have kept us from advancing. Not many other teams made the playoffs 5 consecutive years. That fact alone means the model isn't as bad as you claim.

We had 2 great drafts and have been living off of that.

In the playoffs we've collapsed on both offense and defense. One has to wonder if we signed a Center in free agency or a LB who could cover TE's if the results would have been different.

And IF our issues are indeed bad coaching...WHO RETAINS THE COACHES? Yeah...the same people who created the so-called model.

The bottom line is that some 23 different teams have been to the SUPER BOWL since the Bengals last won a playoff game. No teams are out there trying to duplicate our model. If teams do have a similar strategy...it's because there are only 3-4 potential strategies. You can build through the draft, you can rely on free agency, you can let high priced guys leave and replace them with cheaper guys, etc. It's not like there are thousands of blue prints.

[Beaker]

(09-04-2017, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps it's a good model and some around here just want to hate everything about the F.O. 

This would be a whole lotta truth. I have even heard the talking heads during the draft remarking on how more and more teams are seeing it the Bengals way and valuing draft and develop much more than the old FA quick fix.

[BenZoo2]

(09-04-2017, 10:16 PM)Beaker Wrote: This would be a whole lotta truth. I have even heard the talking heads during the draft remarking on how more and more teams are seeing it the Bengals way and valuing draft and develop much more than the old FA quick fix.

Except a lot of us don't expect the bengals to go large in free agency and sign one the top guys on the market. But something more than a third tier linebacker every once in awhile isn't too much to ask.

When we are continually among the teams that dabble among the least in free agency, let some of our own guys go while we have more cap space than Christ almighty, and haven't won a playoff game since Methuselah was in diapers it puts of the perception that winning a super bowl isn't the highest priority.

That is my biggest gripe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hammerstripes]

(09-02-2017, 07:14 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: 4 draft picks not making the team is wretched. Actually more like 5 considering we traded up for Wilson.

If you have 11 picks, it's not.

Did you really expect 8 guys drafted in rounds 4-7 to make this team?

[*bfine32*]

(09-04-2017, 09:18 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Perhaps if the F.O. had produced any results in 26 years of doing it Mike's way people wouldn't "hate" on them ?

Just a guess

They've produced plenty good results; especially in the last 5-6 years. I think it has more to do with the fact that some fans feel they deserve more. Me; I'm happy with what I get. 

[*Nately120*]

(09-04-2017, 12:11 PM)SHRacerX Wrote: I'm not trying to change your perception, but just to defense the Bengals a bit because I think they have done everything they can to put a winning team on the field.

To each his own, but I can't get behind this.  If Mike Brown is really trying his best then it is clear he doesn't have the knack for football because 26 years sans playoff win proves it, and if his best isn't working then doing all he can do would involve stepping down as the guy who calls the shots.

(09-04-2017, 10:16 PM)Beaker Wrote: This would be a whole lotta truth. I have even heard the talking heads during the draft remarking on how more and more teams are seeing it the Bengals way and valuing draft and develop much more than the old FA quick fix.

There are good sides and bad sides to our model.  Unlike most NFL teams we have a GM and HC who are immune and nearly immune from liability and have nearly guaranteed jobs.  When GMs and HCs have job security tied to wins they can often make panic moves that can fail and cripple a franchise long-term.  Think of FA busts, over-reaching for QBs, etc.  GM or HC needs to win and win now so he doesn't care if the team stinks for years after he's gone...he needs to win.

Mike Brown and Marvin Lewis don't need to take risks to save their jobs, which keeps us from making stupid moves.  But we also see this consistency have negative effects because there is a clear ceiling on this team's performance.  We fail in the same ways in at the same times year in and year out.  Consistency helps us, consistency hurts us.  The Bengals operate in a manner unlike any other NFL team.

[Hammerstripes]

(09-04-2017, 01:52 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Which championship team has followed the Bengals model? 

In all fairness, it's not the Bengals' model.  The Bengals are using the same model that a lot of teams use:  draft well, sign your own, don't shell out big money in FA.

The big difference is that the Bengals have always refused to bring in a big name/impact type guy to put them over the hump.  They avoid the big ticket in FA.

That being said, the Packers and Steelers have been successful using with this approach, but an argument can be made that Green Bay should have been to more Super Bowls then they have with Rodgers.

[*SHRacerX*]

(09-04-2017, 01:16 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think it's fair to say that the Bengals have lost more talent than they brought in over the past couple years...atleast in Year 1.

Ross may turn into a dominant WR...but I doubt he helps us much this year. Mixon has the potential to be a great back. That would go a long way towards replacing talent.

Wait...they have lost more talent over the past couple years?  Who?

[*SHRacerX*]

(09-04-2017, 11:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: To each his own, but I can't get behind this.  If Mike Brown is really trying his best then it is clear he doesn't have the knack for football because 26 years sans playoff win proves it, and if his best isn't working then doing all he can do would involve stepping down as the guy who calls the shots.

Well, over the past 6 years, they have been one of the winningest teams in the NFL...I'm sure you will point out that they haven't won any playoff games during that time, but they are still one of the best winning % teams overall during that span.  
And, FWIW, he doesn't really call the shots any longer...It is Marvin, Katie, and Troy's show.  

[Shake n Blake]

(09-04-2017, 06:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: Once again...our rosters have been talented enough to make the playoffs. Bad coaching, bad luck and injuries have kept us from advancing. Not many other teams made the playoffs 5 consecutive years. That fact alone means the model isn't as bad as you claim.

First off, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that the Bengals model was really bad. There are ups and downs to it. Nately described it perfectly. I just believe their ultra-conservative (i.e. cheap) approach to free agency and constant 10-15 spare million under the cap is a hindrance. Once again, name the championship teams that follow the Bengals model. I guess the Packers do to an extent, although many think they've underachieved with a generational talent at QB. How about the Patriots? Seahawks? Broncos? How do they compare?

(09-04-2017, 08:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Still doesn't explain how they have more compensatory picks that us during the Marvin era.

Perhaps it's a good model and some around here just want to hate everything about the F.O. 

It's common sense, really. The Patriots are a very successful team that everyone in the league wants to emulate. Their scraps often become prized free agents...leading to more compensatory picks. You would see it if you wanted to. Your propensity to defend the team prevents that.

(09-04-2017, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They've produced plenty good results; especially in the last 5-6 years. I think it has more to do with the fact that some fans feel they deserve more. Me; I'm happy with what I get. 

In short: I'm happy with less, and think everyone else should be as well.

(09-05-2017, 12:16 AM)Hammerstripes Wrote: In all fairness, it's not the Bengals' model.  The Bengals are using the same model that a lot of teams use:  draft well, sign your own, don't shell out big money in FA.

The big difference is that the Bengals have always refused to bring in a big name/impact type guy to put them over the hump.  They avoid the big ticket in FA.

That being said, the Packers and Steelers have been successful using with this approach, but an argument can be made that Green Bay should have been to more Super Bowls then they have with Rodgers.

Yeah calling it the Bengals model is a bit much. They didn't invent being conservative. The Steelers and Packers are good examples. Really, they're the only examples. The problem is that the Packers had a HOF QB when they overcame this approach. The Steelers had a HOF QB, a historically great defense and some HOF coaches (Cowher and Lebeau). We don't have any of that.

The Bengals don't just avoid the big-ticket FA...they also avoid the medium-ticket FA. Can you imagine the Bengals signing a Joe Haden for 3 years/$27 million? That would be a massive signing by their standards. Mike Mitchell was signed to a 5 year, $25 million contract in 2014. Even the Steelers make a ripple occasionally...and they somehow pull it off with less cap space than we have. 

[THE PISTONS]

Yep. The Patriots just signed Gilmore to $14 million a year.

The also traded for Brandin Cooks.

AFTER winning a Super Bowl. They're still trying to improve the roster.

[*bengalfan74*]

(09-05-2017, 12:16 AM)Hammerstripes Wrote: In all fairness, it's not the Bengals' model.  The Bengals are using the same model that a lot of teams use:  draft well, sign your own, don't shell out big money in FA.

The big difference is that the Bengals have always refused to bring in a big name/impact type guy to put them over the hump.  They avoid the big ticket in FA.

That being said, the Packers and Steelers have been successful using with this approach, but an argument can be made that Green Bay should have been to more Super Bowls then they have with Rodgers.

Us drafting well has been stretched quite a bit IMHO, as has resigning our own ! It sounds good to throw out there as more or less an excuse. But is it really happening ?

And the window for success is small by any measure. Many things factor in but by and large it's not very long. Knowing when and on whom to spend in FA is quite often one of the final keys to success.

The whole building for the future narrative that's been thrown around here in the past is more fantasy than not.