Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bengals want miracle man on sidelines- Optimism of candidates belies negativity surro
#1
I know people dislike Marvin, but this is where we came from. Now we're hearing rumblings trickle out from Willie Anderson that coaches may have a lot of Administrative Tasks to do. This article is from 2003.

By Mark Curnutte
The Cincinnati Enquirer
PITTSBURGH - The last three Bengals coaches could not produce one winning record in 12 seasons. That begs the questions: Can the next Bengals coach win? And does it matter who coaches the team as long as he answers to the same front office that is ultimately responsible for a 55-137 record since the start of the 1991 season?

Years of media analysis, both local and national, point to two major obstacles a Bengals coach faces - the league's smallest player personnel department, which forces assistant coaches to scout, and a negative attitude that has grown more oppressive with each passing season.

Several agents and players have said the Bengals do not have the best reputation in the league. Despite paying huge contracts to players such as Corey Dillon, Willie Anderson and Brian Simmons, the Bengals are still considered penny-pinchers by many agents and their clients. As a result, the Bengals have been unable to attract more than one or two A-list free agents (Lorenzo Neal, Tony Williams) the past few years.

What's clear in the week since Dick LeBeau was fired is there is no shortage of coaches who say they can both win and work productively with Mike Brown.
Former Jacksonville coach Tom Coughlin on Friday was the latest candidate to speak optimistically about the Bengals' immediate future.
The Bengals' head-coaching job is different than the other two that opened last week - Coughlin's former position with the Jaguars, and the Dallas Cowboys job that went to Bill Parcells.

Both of those organizations have made experienced NFL coaches their priority this time around. Parcells is a two-time Super Bowl winner, and he's going to work for Jerry Jones, an owner who will spend big to win. The name of former Vikings coach Dennis Green has re-emerged in Jacksonville, where the eight-year-old franchise spent way over the salary cap in a successful effort to win early.

But unless the Bengals hire Coughlin, the team's head-coaching job will go to a man with no previous NFL head-coaching experience for the fourth time in the last five hires. The exception was Bruce Coslet, the former Jets coach, who was promoted to replace the fired Dave Shula in 1996.

The Bengals' job has similarities to other NFL jobs. The trend in the league is away from the combination coach-general manager title. Seattle coach Mike Holmgren lost his general manager responsibilities last week. Jacksonville owner Wayne Weaver wants to hire a general manager and a coach to decentralize power. Coughlin had both titles with the Jaguars before his firing Monday. Even Parcells, a known control freak, did not get the GM title with the Cowboys.

Bengals president Mike Brown, who acts as the team's untitled general manager, said Monday after firing LeBeau that the team would not hire a general manager.
The thinking league-wide now is that coaching is demanding enough and can't be paired with time-consuming GM duties.

Coughlin was the third candidate to talk with the Bengals.

The first was Washington defensive coordinator Marvin Lewis, who interviewed Tuesday. He told people close to him that the Bengals situation is not as bad as advertised. Steelers offensive coordinator Mike Mularkey interviewed Saturday in Pittsburgh.

Lewis' reputation is that players want to work for him. He is considered one of the league's brightest defensive minds, and his hiring might help the Bengals retain free agent linebacker Takeo Spikes.

Mularkey has the same type of reputation as an offensive coach, and his creative use of former college quarterbacks Hines Ward and Antwaan Randle El conjures ideas of what he could do with bench-warming quarterback Akili Smith.

All three coaches are considered strong candidates, but doubt persists nationally that even they could win in Cincinnati.

If the Bengals hire one of the three outside candidates - Lewis, Coughlin or Mularkey - the new coach will have to adjust to a comparatively downsized scouting department.
"The odds are against any coach winning there unless a bigger effort is made in the scouting department," said John Clayton, of ESPN.com and ESPN Magazine. "The Bengals concede five months - August, September, October, November and December - to the rest of the league."

The Bengals do not scout college players as heavily as most other NFL teams. They have just four full-time "scouts" in their personnel department - and two of them are Brown family members who spend much of their time in the office. The fifth person in the department is part-time consultant John Cooper, the former Ohio State coach.

"Other teams hit every school," Clayton said. "The Bengals get the (scouting) reports, but I get the reports, too. It's knowing the background information, the players' personalities, that make the difference in drafting."

The Bengals do visit schools during the season, but their scouts do not see as many games as scouts from other NFL teams.
"You need to make evaluations during games," Clayton said. "You're not scouting guys to workout."

Once the NFL season ends, Bengals assistants do make visits to colleges for player workout days. They also attend the annual scouting combine in Indianapolis.
Washington has 13 people in their player personnel department. The Redskins have individual pro- and college-scouting directors, and their college scouts are assigned by region. Before joining the Redskins, Lewis was defensive coordinator in Baltimore, where the Ravens have 11 people in their personnel department.

Lewis was in Pittsburgh as linebackers coach before moving to Baltimore. The Steelers, for whom Mularkey is offensive coordinator, have 10 people in their personnel department - including seven scouts. Before Mularkey joined the Steelers, he was in Tampa Bay. The Buccaneers have 10 people in their player personnel department -- including one scout dedicated to coordinating the club's efforts at the annual scouting combine in Indianapolis.

Coughlin comes from Jacksonville, where he helped to build an 11-man personnel department. The Jaguars have six full-time scouts, four supervisors and a scouting assistant.

One of the widely acclaimed scouting and personnel departments belongs to the Tennessee Titans. They have 11 people in scouting and personnel - including Director of Arena League Football Operations Pat Sperduto. Titans owner Bud Adams is owner of an expansion arena team which will start play in Nashville in 2004. It will serve as a farm club of sorts for the Titans.

Brown defends his scouting department and the team's personnel structure.

"We get the information on players. I think the information that we get is as good as every team's got," Brown said. "The record indicates that's the case. We have more players through the draft, more starters than any but one or two teams.

"That is what I call a theme. You guys (in the media) develop themes. They have legs of their own and they run for a while. I don't apologize for our scouting efforts. I think we do well in that department."

True, the Bengals do have a large number of their original draft picks on their current roster - including every first-round pick since 1996. However, since the start of the '96 season, the Bengals have a 34-78 record.

The task, though, is not insurmountable.

"Beyond the tangible problems - like the scouting department - you've got the intangible problems," said Howard Balzer, national NFL columnist for Sports Weekly and the SportsXchange. "You've got pro players who want to avoid the place. You've got college kids talking about wanting to play elsewhere."

It once was believed that no coach could win in Tampa Bay. But coach Tony Dungy and general manager Rich McKay changed the Buccaneers' reputation.
"Dungy gave them a fresh look, a fresh slate," Balzer said. "Somebody could come into Cincinnati and turn it around briefly, even if things (in the front office) don't change."
E-mail mcurnutte@enquirer.com

http://bengals.enquirer.com/2003/01/05/wwwben1a5.html
Reply/Quote
#2
Brown had a point.

We may have and had a small scouting department, but not many teams build as well through the draft as the Bengals have. At the end of the day, talent has rarely been the problem, it falls on coaching. We had a few good years with good coordinators and position guys. We lost them and didn't replace with as high a caliber, and got back into losing.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#3
(11-21-2017, 03:03 PM)Benton Wrote: Brown had a point.

We may have and had a small scouting department, but not many teams build as well through the draft as the Bengals have. At the end of the day, talent has rarely been the problem, it falls on coaching. We had a few good years with good coordinators and position guys. We lost them and didn't replace with as high a caliber, and got back into losing.

We've had 2 great drafts: Green/Dalton/Boling and Atkins/Dunlap.

I'd argue that we've had a bunch of other bad drafts.

Plus, is what Willie Anderson said valid? Are coaches spending too much time doing paperwork and not enough time coaching?

The offensive line is so bad this year that I doubt we have a great offense even with Jackson as the OC.
Reply/Quote
#4
(11-21-2017, 03:05 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: We've had 2 great drafts: Green/Dalton/Boling and Atkins/Dunlap.

I'd argue that we've had a bunch of other bad drafts.


Plus, is what Willie Anderson said valid? Are coaches spending too much time doing paperwork and not enough time coaching?

The offensive line is so bad this year that I doubt we have a great offense even with Jackson as the OC.

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

Quote:
  • The Bengals and Packers seem to be the epitome of building through the draft. The Bengals led the NFL with 38 drafted players on their roster last season (17 starters). The Packers had 37 drafted players on the roster and a led the league with 18 drafted starters.
  • The Ravens and Steelers were both in the top 10 of the league in number of drafted players retained and drafted starters last season.

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
Quote: The Bengals and Vikings surprisingly appear at the top of most categories. The Bengals are tied for third in the league with 25 draft picks on the roster, are tied for third with 15 starters, T-3 with six first-rounders, T-3 with seven Pro Bowlers, and T-4 with two undrafted starters, including Pro Bowl linebacker Vontaze Burfict. The Vikings are T-3 with 25 draft picks, T-9 with five first-round picks, and second with four starters from the fifth-seventh rounds.

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.
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#5
I can't let Marv off the hook because we've had enough talent to make the playoffs 7 times. We've had a pair of good QB's. A pair of HOF caliber WRs. An excellent defense with some of the best players in team history. Even when he's had the talent: 0-7 in the playoffs, 8-30 in prime-time and 8-23 vs the Steelers.

@Benton: I gotta say though, I hate using "drafted players still on the roster" as a sign of draft success. Being on the roster doesn't = good players. Bodine, Ogbuehi and Fisher are all on the roster starting games. They're awful. That's such a Mike Brown way of defining success. Reminds me of when he used to use 1000 yard rushers to define rushing success. Such an archaic and flawed way of judging success.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Reply/Quote
#6
(11-21-2017, 03:03 PM)Benton Wrote: Brown had a point.

We may have and had a small scouting department, but not many teams build as well through the draft as the Bengals have. At the end of the day, talent has rarely been the problem, it falls on coaching. We had a few good years with good coordinators and position guys. We lost them and didn't replace with as high a caliber, and got back into losing.

Also scouting departments are shrinking around the league because of technology and outside scouting agencies.

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#7
(11-21-2017, 04:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I can't let Marv off the hook because we've had enough talent to make the playoffs 7 times. We've had a pair of good QB's. A pair of HOF caliber WRs. An excellent defense with some of the best players in team history. Even when he's had the talent: 0-7 in the playoffs, 8-30 in prime-time and 8-23 vs the Steelers.

@Benton: I gotta say though, I hate using "drafted players still on the roster" as a sign of draft success. Being on the roster doesn't = good players. Bodine, Ogbuehi and Fisher are all on the roster starting games. They're awful. That's such a Mike Brown way of defining success. Reminds me of when he used to use 1000 yard rushers to define rushing success. Such an archaic and flawed way of judging success.

True, but I look at it as the law of averages. We're going to have some crappy players on the roster. Sometimes, those are free agent crappy players; sometimes they're home grown. 

(11-21-2017, 04:20 PM)Synric Wrote: Also scouting departments are shrinking around the league because of technology and outside scouting agencies.

Good point. No idea if they are, or if other departments are just using tech to get better, but it does play a role in our ability. 
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#8
You know your headline is too long when ...

Ninja
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply/Quote
#9
To Marvin's credit, he has proven that a coach can come in here and win. Making the playoffs 5 years isn't an easy thing to do, especially when Mike is the owner and GM, so he deserves serious kudos for that. So yeah, it can be done.

However, when it comes to truly competing with the big boys, there are 3 reasons - in my opinion - why the best Marvin led teams have been good, but not 'good enough'...

1) Mike's refusal to roll in potential impact players once in awhile in free agency. The Bengals approach has been to focus on bargain bin to mid-tier guys. That's sometimes turned out good, but not 'good enough'.

2) Marvin himself. While he did a tremendous job of turning the franchise around and building some talented rosters, he just hasn't shown himself to be a big game coach (Steelers, prime time, playoffs, second halves, etc). Even at his best, he's been good, but not 'good enough'. 

3) Players. Time and time again, when the lights are brightest and expectations are highest, those talented rosters - including the stars - have disappeared, made huge mistakes or simply played poorly. Again, the better players / rosters have been good, but not 'good enough'.

It's a culmination of an owner who doesn't display the desire to do whatever it takes to win, a head coach who has obvious limitations as to how far he can take a team, and rosters that have not lived up to the hype when given the chance on the biggest stages.

Two of these 3 things can potentially be changed / improved. The other, not so much.
Reply/Quote
#10
(11-21-2017, 04:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You know your headline is too long when ...

Ninja

... when what? I have to know!
[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#11
(11-21-2017, 04:57 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: To Marvin's credit, he has proven that a coach can come in here and win. Making the playoffs 5 years isn't an easy thing to do, especially when Mike is the owner and GM, so he deserves serious kudos for that. So yeah, it can be done.

However, when it comes to truly competing with the big boys, there are 3 reasons - in my opinion - why the best Marvin led teams have been good, but not 'good enough'...

1) Mike's refusal to roll in potential impact players once in awhile in free agency. The Bengals approach has been to focus on bargain bin to mid-tier guys. That's sometimes turned out good, but not 'good enough'.

2) Marvin himself. While he did a tremendous job of turning the franchise around and building some talented rosters, he just hasn't shown himself to be a big game coach (Steelers, prime time, playoffs, second halves, etc). Even at his best, he's been good, but not 'good enough'. 

3) Players. Time and time again, when the lights are brightest and expectations are highest, those talented rosters - including the stars - have disappeared, made huge mistakes or simply played poorly. Again, the better players / rosters have been good, but not 'good enough'.

It's a culmination of an owner who doesn't display the desire to do whatever it takes to win, a head coach who has obvious limitations as to how far he can take a team, and rosters that have not lived up to the hype when given the chance on the biggest stages.

Two of these 3 things can potentially be changed / improved. The other, not so much.

Yes. 100% agree. Had we signed that 1 or 2 impact free agents it might have put us over the top.

When DeCastro signs for $10 million a year and we offer Zeitler $5.5 million a year...that has to impact a locker room. When Whitworth leaves it's demoralizing too.
Reply/Quote
#12
(11-21-2017, 03:03 PM)Benton Wrote: Brown had a point.

We may have and had a small scouting department, but not many teams build as well through the draft as the Bengals have. At the end of the day, talent has rarely been the problem, it falls on coaching. We had a few good years with good coordinators and position guys. We lost them and didn't replace with as high a caliber, and got back into losing.

and a little luck
Reply/Quote
#13
As far as the draft goes It's not so much the "Quantity of players" drafted,it's the "Quality of the players" drafted. You could have 50 scouts  and if they don't pick players of "Quality" it won't make any difference!
Reply/Quote
#14
(11-21-2017, 05:56 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yes. 100% agree. Had we signed that 1 or 2 impact free agents it might have put us over the top.

When DeCastro signs for $10 million a year and we offer Zeitler $5.5 million a year...that has to impact a locker room. When Whitworth leaves it's demoralizing too.

I keep hearing the the 5.5 million thing and I know Lapham said it, but didn't Lapham also say they were going to let Free Agency determine how much Zeitler was worth? That's completely different...

Also Lapham Hobson the Bengals hell even Whitworth was saying Andrew Whitworth was gonna resign with the Bengals...until he signed with the Rams lol. 

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#15
(11-21-2017, 04:29 PM)Benton Wrote: True, but I look at it as the law of averages. We're going to have some crappy players on the roster. Sometimes, those are free agent crappy players; sometimes they're home grown. 


Good point. No idea if they are, or if other departments are just using tech to get better, but it does play a role in our ability. 

Are they really "home grown" if all the growing happened in college and they haven't improved at all since becoming a Bengal?  Ninja
Zac Taylor 2019-2020: 6 total wins
Zac Taylor 2021-2022: Double-digit wins each season, plus 5 postseason wins
Zac Taylor 2023: 9 wins despite losing Burrow half the season
Zac Taylor 2024: Started 1-4. If he can turn this into a playoff appearance, it will be impressive.

Sorry for Party Rocking!

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#16
(11-21-2017, 04:20 PM)Synric Wrote: Also scouting departments are shrinking around the league because of technology and outside scouting agencies.
Yeah...the notion that scouting departments are shrinking is totally false:


Steelers:
The Steelers have 19 people in their 'Football Operations' Department.
http://www.steelers.com/team/front-office.html

Bengals:
The Bengals have 8 people in their 'Player Personnel' Department.
http://www.bengals.com/team/staff-directory.html

Ravens:
The Ravens have 25 people in their 'Player Personnel' Department.
http://www.baltimoreravens.com/team/front-office.html

Before you discount that numbers matter...both of these teams have won 2 Super Bowls each since we've won a playoff game and they've appeared in a combined 6!


Browns:
The Browns have 32 people in their 'Player Personnel' Department:
http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/team/front-office.html
Reply/Quote
#17
If you take out the roster spending I wonder where the Bengals would rank in spending?
https://twitter.com/JAKEAKAJ24
J24

Jessie Bates left the Bengals and that makes me sad!
Reply/Quote
#18
(11-21-2017, 11:15 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: If you take out the roster spending I wonder where the Bengals would rank in spending?

Somewhere between tightwad and squeezing quarters til the eagle shits.
The training, nutrition, medicine, fitness, playbooks and rules evolve. The athlete does not.
Reply/Quote
#19
Bengals
8 people in our Scouting Department. 26 people in our Ticket Sales Department.

Steelers
19 people in their Scouting Department. 6 people in their Ticket Sales Department.
Reply/Quote
#20
(11-21-2017, 11:15 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: If you take out the roster spending I wonder where the Bengals would rank in spending?

You realize there are some owners who would spend $250 million a year on their roster if there was no salary cap...and that's in a league with revenue sharing.

Well there are no salary caps on hiring coaches and hiring scouts. So teams like the Steelers and Ravens hire a lot of scouts to try getting the advantage.

Scouting is more than just watching games on TV or subscribing to Kipers report. There are quotes from Mike Brown and John Clayton about how the Bengals subscribe to scouting services like the rest of the NFL. Mike Brown viewed it as a positive. Clayton viewed it as a negative as he believes you have to see the players in person and get to learn their personality.
Reply/Quote





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)