Draft illusion and reality

[*bengalfan74*]

https://www.bengals.com/news/draft-season-illusion-and-reality-at-the-top

"Usually you can find agents' fingerprints all over these things. Both agents who represent a particular player or agents who are trying to denigrate a particular player so they can boost their guy's stock. And of course the agents always have fellow travelers in the media."

Reading this made me feel a little better.

[Bengalpool]

This pretty much confirms that all of this stupid talk about Burrow not wanting to come here is completely made up. I'll keep saying it. Welcome to Cincinnati Joe!

[Au165]

I think the Burrow stories are more of a media necessity because of the lack of story lines around the 1st overall pick. Last year it was, "Will Kyler Murray play football" and "Will the Cardinals take him #1 after taking Rosen". The year before that there was uncertainty with who would go #1, it wasn't until a week or two out from the draft you started hearing it was most likely Mayfield.

The issue this year is that it is Burrow 1st overall with little debate so they need a story to carry the discussion for months. You could write the "should X refuse to play for Y" story almost any year because bad teams usually draft high. It tends to be the fall back when there are no other story lines to really go to. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Tua's agent is pushing the narrative a bit for the purpose of keeping people from hammering on his client's injury, but for the most part I think this is simply a creation by the media to kill time. It should all die out after the combine gives us new things to talk about.

[BengalsFan1986]

I think it is mainly media driven as well. Seems like the national media and places like PFT tend to lean into the negative whenever they can when it comes to the Bengals. It’s why despite one of our players having their hair pulled by an opposing assistant coach on the sideline, and despite our RB getting knocked unconscious by a helmet to helmet hit, and despite the player who made the hit dancing on the center logo while our RB was still laying on the field, and despite having an opposing assistant coach talking trash on our side of the field, the narrative around the 2015 playoff game is still about the undisciplined, classless Bengals blowing the game with a cheap shot and stupid personal foul. Same reason the still bring up the issues we had with player arrests as well. That was what, 15 years ago? At this point, I feel like we just need to circle the wagons and enjoy as much of this as we can. Who knows, maybe all this hate will put a chip on our shoulder and it’ll motivate us for a run.

[shanebo]

The only thing I really got from this article is that our No. 1 pick is effectively already in, and it will be Burrow. (I was never really that worried about Burrow refusing to come here -- I just don't see him risking sitting out a season when he just came off his best year ever and you have guys like Lawrence and Fields coming out next year.)

That said, this article is really some piece of work by Hobson. He really pulled out all the stops cherry-picking stats, pulling quotes from pals, etc. to distract us from the fact that our team went 2-14 last year, has no LBs, has the worst O-line in football, a bottom-5 defense, and aging stars. A few of my favorite quotes:

- "Since the new collective bargaining agreement that began in that 2011 season, the Bengals are one of 10 teams to make the playoffs at least five times. Over that span the Bengals have the 13th most wins in the league ... the Bengals have spent the recent past winning consistently in one of the game's toughest divisions." (See? We're really not that bad! We've actually been the 10th (or 13th) most successful franchise over the last 9 years when it comes to making the playoffs and regular season wins!)

- "Mike Brown oversaw the drafts that yielded Palmer and Dalton, making the Bengals the only team in the last 16 years to draft two quarterbacks that both started more than 60 games for the teams that chose them." (Don't worry, Mike Brown knows his QBs! Just never you mind about Akili, and Klingler, and Finley, and Woodside, McCarron, Rowe ... And ignore the fact that at least 12 other teams have drafted one QB who is still active and started 60 or more games (13 if you go back 3 more years and count Brady), at least 5-6 of whom have won superbowls ...)

- "In the last few years alone the Bengals have spent millions renovating player and coach spaces at PBS, upgrading technology and video that enhance analytics and personnel, and head coach Zac Taylor's two biggest coaching staffs in team history." (Who needs an indoor practice area when you have great lockers? And computers! More crappy coaches, too!)

- "According to various reports cited by the Bengals, under the new CBA the team has averaged in the upper half of the NFL in annual salary cap spending. In the first five years of the CBA, the NFL Players Association reported the Bengals were ninth in aggregated spending." (See, we do spend money. At least as much as half of the other teams, at least since 2011, on average ... And at one specific point in time we were ninth in aggregated spending, whatever that means ...)

Geoff has spoken, fellas, and it's not that bad!

[*ochocincos*]

This stuck out from the article by Hobson...

Quote:Over that span (2011-present) the Bengals have the 13th most wins in the league (per Elias Sports Bureau) with a .514 winning percentage, higher than such teams as the Rams' .462, the Titans' .438 and the Cardinals team Palmer embraced in the last five seasons of his career at .493.

Hobson is lauding the Bengals for having a higher regular season winning percentage than the Rams and Titans, both of whom have had multiple postseason wins the past few years.

So my question is this...
Would you rather have the Bengals' level of success the past decade or the Rams/Titans?
You'd have fewer winning seasons but more postseason success.

[jj22]

(02-11-2020, 11:26 AM)shanebo Wrote: - "Mike Brown oversaw the drafts that yielded Palmer and Dalton, making the Bengals the only team in the last 16 years to draft two quarterbacks that both started more than 60 games for the teams that chose them."  (Don't worry, Mike Brown knows his QBs!  Just never you mind about Akili, and Klingler, and Finley, and Woodside, McCarron, Rowe ... And ignore the fact that at least 12 other teams have drafted one QB who is still active and started 60 or more games (13 if you go back 3 more years and count Brady), at least 5-6 of whom have won superbowls ...)

-

Also if MB got his way we wouldn't have Dalton, we'd have Mallet.

Hobspin is in crisis management mode.

[Au165]

(02-11-2020, 11:35 AM)ochocincos Wrote: This stuck out from the article by Hobson...

Hobson is lauding the Bengals for having a higher regular season winning percentage than the Rams and Titans, both of whom have had multiple postseason wins the past few years.

So my question is this...
Would you rather have the Bengals' level of success the past decade or the Rams/Titans?
You'd have fewer winning seasons but more postseason success.

I think the argument is that we are a "horrible organization" and the point is while we aren't any sort of premier organization there are other organizations as bad or worse in recent history.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(02-11-2020, 11:35 AM)ochocincos Wrote: This stuck out from the article by Hobson...

Hobson is lauding the Bengals for having a higher regular season winning percentage than the Rams and Titans, both of whom have had multiple postseason wins the past few years.

So my question is this...
Would you rather have the Bengals' level of success the past decade or the Rams/Titans?
You'd have fewer winning seasons but more postseason success.

Hard to say...

The playoff monkey is only a big deal because we haven't won one in so long, but since the Rams or the Titans did NOT win the SB in that span, I'll take the more wins period.

Now, if one of them won the SB in that same time, then this is a complete no-brainer, but the playoff loss drought is just a matter of fan-pride; unless you win the SB, people don't care how great your record is and if you win in the playoffs (see Marty Schottenheimer {SP?}).

(02-11-2020, 11:41 AM)jj22 Wrote: Also if MB got his way we wouldn't have Dalton, we'd have Mallet.

Hobspin is in crisis management mode.

No he's not, why are you being so melodramatic and negative?

He's boosting with bengal-coloured glasses, but that's it; the caption under the first photo is (paraphrasing), "Roger Goodell will make the first selection and we can all expect him to say what we think he'll say," and the second photo is a picture of Burrow with, "Presumptive 1st overall pick."

Stop.

[*ochocincos*]

(02-11-2020, 11:58 AM)Au165 Wrote: I think the argument is that we are a "horrible organization" and the point is while we aren't any sort of premier organization there are other organizations as bad.

Yea I can understand that when looking at the past decade, but the past four years had a winning percentage of .336.
It all depends on the narrative someone wants to go with.
The Bengals had a great decade in regards to regular season success due to the first half of the decade.
They also have been bad the second half of the decade.
They also have fewer postseason wins in the past decade than some teams who have had worse regular season success over the same decade.
All are true.

My point is what's more important, regular season success or postseason success?

The way I see it, the Bengals are above the following teams when combining regular season and postseason success in recent memory:
Browns
Lions
Dolphins
Raiders
Cardinals
Jets
Bills
Redskins
Bucs
Jags
Giants (unless you go back to 2011 season when they won SB)

That puts them around 20th in the league in my eyes. While that's obviously not the worst, that's still bottom half of the league.

[Bengalpool]

(02-11-2020, 10:19 AM)Au165 Wrote: I think the Burrow stories are more of a media necessity because of the lack of story lines around the 1st overall pick. Last year it was, "Will Kyler Murray play football" and "Will the Cardinals take him #1 after taking Rosen". The year before that there was uncertainty with who would go #1, it wasn't until a week or two out from the draft you started hearing it was most likely Mayfield.

The issue this year is that it is Burrow 1st overall with little debate so they need a story to carry the discussion for months. You could write the "should X refuse to play for Y" story almost any year because bad teams usually draft high. It tends to be the fall back when there are no other story lines to really go to. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Tua's agent is pushing the narrative a bit for the purpose of keeping people from hammering on his client's injury, but for the most part I think this is simply a creation by the media to kill time. It should all die out after the combine gives us new things to talk about.

Exactly... Adam Schefter went ahead and said there is no debating and to stop the debate. Burrow to Cincinnati is a lock. Everything else we hear is pure, good ol' fashion media puke.

[*ochocincos*]

(02-11-2020, 12:02 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: Hard to say...

The playoff monkey is only a big deal because we haven't won one in so long, but since the Rams or the Titans did NOT win the SB in that span, I'll take the more wins period.

Now, if one of them won the SB in that same time, then this is a complete no-brainer, but the playoff loss drought is just a matter of fan-pride; unless you win the SB, people don't care how great your record is and if you win in the playoffs (see Marty Schottenheimer {SP?}).


No he's not, why are you being so melodramatic and negative?

He's boosting with bengal-coloured glasses, but that's it; the caption under the first photo is (paraphrasing), "Roger Goodell will make the first selection and we can all expect him to say what we think he'll say," and the second photo is a picture of Burrow with, "Presumptive 1st overall pick."

Stop.

I disagree.
Making the AFC Championship Game or Super Bowl is more prestigious than just making the playoffs or winning a wildcard round.

[Au165]

(02-11-2020, 12:13 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Yea I can understand that when looking at the past decade, but the past four years had a winning percentage of .336.
It all depends on the narrative someone wants to go with.
The Bengals had a great decade in regards to regular season success due to the first half of the decade.
They also have been bad the second half of the decade.
They also have fewer postseason wins in the past decade than some teams who have had worse regular season success over the same decade.
All are true.

My point is what's more important, regular season success or postseason success?

The way I see it, the Bengals are above the following teams when combining regular season and postseason success in recent memory:
Browns
Lions
Dolphins
Raiders
Cardinals
Jets
Bills
Redskins
Bucs
Jags
Giants (unless you go back to 2011 season when they won SB)

That puts them around 20th in the league in my eyes. While that's obviously not the worst, that's still bottom half of the league.

Right, and many of those teams have had top 5-10 picks and none were deemed to be so bad that their 1st round pick is being told by media that they should refuse to play for them. I think that is really where this whole discussion stems from, this idea that the Bengals are so bad a potential 1st overall picks should want to go somewhere else but in reality all of those teams at the top of the draft are as bad or worse in recent history. It's not a narrative based in facts but rather one that is easy to sell to the general public because of perception.

I think Hobson is trying to allude to this but just not doing it in a completely honest fashion.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(02-11-2020, 12:15 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I disagree.
Making the AFC Championship Game or Super Bowl is more prestigious than just making the playoffs or winning a wildcard round.

That's fine.

So tell me, can the layman name 5 guys from the Cardinals team of 2015 that made the NFC Championship game?

I'll wait

EDIT* Not at all insinuating that you're a layman/casual NFL fan, ocho.

[bengals1969]

(02-11-2020, 09:29 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: https://www.bengals.com/news/draft-season-illusion-and-reality-at-the-top

"Usually you can find agents' fingerprints all over these things. Both agents who represent a particular player or agents who are trying to denigrate a particular player so they can boost their guy's stock. And of course the agents always have fellow travelers in the media."

Reading this made me feel a little better.

Clicks=Money

The media has galvanized around clicky stuff and CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, ABC, NBC, etc all do it.  Come up with something, doesn't matter if it's true, but be compelling and make people click.
Draft speculation is the worst of it.  "Joe Burrow hates Cincinnati"  will get clicks.  "Joe Burrow isn't rocking the boat on draft day" won't get clicks.

Clicks=Money

[*ochocincos*]

(02-11-2020, 12:47 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: That's fine.

So tell me, can the layman name 5 guys from the Cardinals team of 2015 that made the NFC Championship game?

I'll wait

EDIT* Not at all insinuating that you're a layman/casual NFL fan, ocho.

No, I don't think so, but most casual fans can't name 5 players on any team outside of their own.
And I don't think that matters.
But I think if you ask most fans who played in the Super Bowl or conference championship game, they'll be able to more easily answer that compared to who won in the wildcard round.

[Sled21]

(02-11-2020, 11:41 AM)jj22 Wrote: Also if MB got his way we wouldn't have Dalton, we'd have Mallet.

Hobspin is in crisis management mode.

MB always gets his way. They may have talked him into Dalton, but you can bet he signed off on it and if he didn't want Dalton, he wouldn't  have.

[Catmandude123]

(02-11-2020, 11:35 AM)ochocincos Wrote: This stuck out from the article by Hobson...

Hobson is lauding the Bengals for having a higher regular season winning percentage than the Rams and Titans, both of whom have had multiple postseason wins the past few years.

So my question is this...
Would you rather have the Bengals' level of success the past decade or the Rams/Titans?
You'd have fewer winning seasons but more postseason success.

I would trade the last four years for sure.

[jj22]

(02-11-2020, 12:02 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: No he's not, why are you being so melodramatic and negative?

He's boosting with bengal-coloured glasses, but that's it; the caption under the first photo is (paraphrasing), "Roger Goodell will make the first selection and we can all expect him to say what we think he'll say," and the second photo is a picture of Burrow with, "Presumptive 1st overall pick."

Stop.

If Hobspin feels the need to "boost with Bengal-colored glasses" then he's in crisis management mode. Unless you think he'd be defending the organization against this perception without there have been any current negative press?

Exactly. He wouldn't. But he is, because there is. Nothing wrong with what I said.

Next.

[*ochocincos*]

(02-11-2020, 12:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: Right, and many of those teams have had top 5-10 picks and none were deemed to be so bad that their 1st round pick is being told by media that they should refuse to play for them. I think that is really where this whole discussion stems from, this idea that the Bengals are so bad a potential 1st overall picks should want to go somewhere else but in reality all of those teams at the top of the draft are as bad or worse in recent history. It's not a narrative based in facts but rather one that is easy to sell to the general public because of perception.

I think Hobson is trying to allude to this but just not doing it in a completely honest fashion.

Absolutely.

When it comes purely to organizations, I'd rather be with the Bengals over the teams I listed.
The Bengals are absolutely not the worst of the bunch.

I think people make other orgs like the Browns and Dolphins seem better due to how good they were 25+ years ago. They want them to get back to greatness even if they are nowhere close.