Ttite changes for Bengals Personnel leaders

[*pally*]

Senior Personnel Director Trey Brown, College Scouting Director Mike Potts, and Pro Scouting Director Steven Radicevic are all officially Assistant General Managers.  .
2 thoughts come to mind...How can they have assistant GMs when they have no official GM?  and Do we have more assistant GMs than scouts?

Their responsibilities don't change and it is unlikely their salaries did so this is just a paper promotion.  They may have adjusted titles to help them, esp Brown, get promoted outside the bengals

Radicevic- he'll continue to oversee veteran free agency and pro scouting, as well as negotiate contracts after setting values and collaborating with coaches on scheme fits.

Potts-Potts manages personnel staff while overseeing the organization and implementation of the draft process and college scouting. He evaluates top prospects nationally, as well as develops the draft board and facilitates undrafted free agency.

He'll continue pro personnel evaluations and is involved in strategy decisions concerning weekly roster management, player acquisition, and unrestricted free agency. Potts also takes part in player contract valuation, salary cap allocation, player retention and negotiation efforts. He also collaborates with the Bengals analytics and football research/technology team to develop improvements and make the personnel operations more efficient and productive.

Trey Brown-Brown is involved in all roster decisions and trades, as well as serving as a contract negotiator. An experienced college and pro scouting evaluator who has been a part of three Super Bowl appearances, Brown provides player evaluations nationally and is a key decision maker during the draft and free agency, as well as in structuring player contracts.

https://www.bengals.com/news/bengals-player-personnel-staff-2025

[Luvnit2]

On a day we need news about siginng players, Bengals give us this news.

This is disappointing.

[SunsetBengal]

So is Trey Brown responsible for the wording that is causing all of the drama in the Shemar Stewart situation?

[Luvnit2]

(2 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: So is Trey Brown responsible for the wording that is causing all of the drama in the Shemar Stewart situation?

Honestly who cares.

Sign the guy already.

Sign Knight already.

Tell Trey to take your offer or quit the NFL. His choice.

[SunsetBengal]

(2 hours ago)Luvnit2 Wrote: Honestly who cares.

Sign the guy already.

Sign Knight already.

Tell Trey to take your offer or quit the NFL. His choice.

I care, we all as fans should care. The rookie contract slotting system was put in the CBA specifically to avoid all of this type of drama that the Bengals are experiencing with the their first two selections, yet here we are with rookies holding out. 

[3wt]

(2 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: I care, we all as fans should care. The rookie contract slotting system was put in the CBA specifically to avoid all of this type of drama that the Bengals are experiencing with the their first two selections, yet here we are with rookies holding out. 

I agree.  The league is running roughshod over the CBA and causing functional problems with teams signing their picks


I have no idea who the de facto GM is, but my personal hunch is that it is Troy Blackburn.  Whoever it is is making moronic decisions - one after the other.   They can't get out of their way.  Their thinking wreaks of panic and rigidity.

[WeezyBengal]

(2 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: So is Trey Brown responsible for the wording that is causing all of the drama in the Shemar Stewart situation?

The wording isn't the issue. It's the Bengals not wanting to budge on other things to compromise, like when gauranteed money hits. Our GM...Katie/Troy Blackburn is responsible for that. They are truly awful. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(2 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: I care, we all as fans should care. The rookie contract slotting system was put in the CBA specifically to avoid all of this type of drama that the Bengals are experiencing with the their first two selections, yet here we are with rookies holding out. 

Well said as usual Sunset, I care as well. This needs to change, I liked how they did the change to the CBA before so there weren't hold 
outs for a while, but this has brought the hold outs back and this is not good for anybody.

[SunsetBengal]

(1 hour ago)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Well said as usual Sunset, I care as well. This needs to change, I liked how they did the change to the CBA before so there weren't hold 
outs for a while, but this has brought the hold outs back and this is not good for anybody.

I understand that these players want to cash in on the guaranteed money, but it seems that some of them are forgetting that playing in the NFL is a job. Sure, being an athlete is not a typical job, it's more akin to being an entertainer. However, none of the big name entertainers were given huge bags for their performances in their early movies or songs. No, that came after they developed a reputation for their talent. 

Everyone knows that a significant portion of 1st round picks turn out to be busts and the rate only increases exponentially with each passing round. I don't like the idea of these agents pressing for fully guaranteed 2nd round contracts, as in a few years it will only lead to subsequent round picks expecting the same.

Now why would I feel this way? Because not every player that was a star in college turns into a star in the NFL. There should at least be some leverage on the part of teams to be able to cut bait if a player does not live up to the level that got them drafted, rather than having to carry them on a roster for 4 seasons due to "guaranteed money".

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(1 hour ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: I understand that these players want to cash in on the guaranteed money, but it seems that some of them are forgetting that playing in the NFL is a job. Sure, being an athlete is not a typical job, it's more akin to being an entertainer. However, none of the big name entertainers were given huge bags for their performances in their early movies or songs. No, that came after they developed a reputation for their talent. 

Everyone knows that a significant portion of 1st round picks turn out to be busts and the rate only increases exponentially with each passing round. I don't like the idea of these agents pressing for fully guaranteed 2nd round contracts, as in a few years it will only lead to subsequent round picks expecting the same.

Now why would I feel this way? Because not every player that was a star in college turns into a star in the NFL. There should at least be some leverage on the part of teams to be able to cut bait if a player does not live up to the level that got them drafted, rather than having to carry them on a roster for 4 seasons due to "guaranteed money".

Not a great comparison. A player's early movies and songs are them playing in HS and College. If you're a high end pick in the NFL Draft, you've already developed a reputation and talent or nobody would know who you are and nobody would want to draft you.

Also none of those entertainers had other people negotiate away their rights for them to choose their workplace or sign for what others are willing to pay them. Or have an artificial cap on how much they're allowed to make. All with the government bending laws and looking the other way with exceptions for business practices for this one specific field.

-2009 Matthew Stafford got a $72m deal as a rookie because that's what the market valued him at.
-2010 Sam Bradford got a $78m deal as a rookie because that's what the market valued him at.
-2011 other people negotiated away Cam Newton's ability to get paid what people were willing to pay him. He went from being in line for ~$84m to getting a fixed $22m because the market was fixed against his interests without him having any voice in the matter.

That would never happen to an entertainer. Or any other job for that matter.

- - - - - -

Plus there's the whole an entertainer can be old as shit and still rake in money. A good NFL player will have only 0-2 times to cash in in FA as most of their careers even for successful guys are over or faded at age 28-32, and they're always a play away from that 0-2 being just 0.

[SunsetBengal]

(1 hour ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not a great comparison. A player's early movies and songs are them playing in HS and College. If you're a high end pick in the NFL Draft, you've already developed a reputation and talent or nobody would know who you are and nobody would want to draft you.

Also none of those entertainers had other people negotiate away their rights for them to choose their workplace or sign for what others are willing to pay them. Or have an artificial cap on how much they're allowed to make. All with the government bending laws and looking the other way with exceptions for business practices for this one specific field.

-2009 Matthew Stafford got a $72m deal as a rookie because that's what the market valued him at.
-2010 Sam Bradford got a $78m deal as a rookie because that's what the market valued him at.
-2011 other people negotiated away Cam Newton's ability to get paid what people were willing to pay him. He went from being in line for ~$84m to getting a fixed $22m because the market was fixed against his interests without him having any voice in the matter.

That would never happen to an entertainer. Or any other job for that matter.

For every Cam Newton and Matthew Stafford, the world can also point to a Jamarcus Russell and Sam Bradford.

[Luvnit2]

(2 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: I care, we all as fans should care. The rookie contract slotting system was put in the CBA specifically to avoid all of this type of drama that the Bengals are experiencing with the their first two selections, yet here we are with rookies holding out. 

I was referencing who cares who is the hold up for signing the rookies. You asked if Pete Brown, I answered who cares. Then I said sign the 2 rookies already.

[Luvnit2]

(1 hour ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: I understand that these players want to cash in on the guaranteed money, but it seems that some of them are forgetting that playing in the NFL is a job. Sure, being an athlete is not a typical job, it's more akin to being an entertainer. However, none of the big name entertainers were given huge bags for their performances in their early movies or songs. No, that came after they developed a reputation for their talent. 

Everyone knows that a significant portion of 1st round picks turn out to be busts and the rate only increases exponentially with each passing round. I don't like the idea of these agents pressing for fully guaranteed 2nd round contracts, as in a few years it will only lead to subsequent round picks expecting the same.

Now why would I feel this way? Because not every player that was a star in college turns into a star in the NFL. There should at least be some leverage on the part of teams to be able to cut bait if a player does not live up to the level that got them drafted, rather than having to carry them on a roster for 4 seasons due to "guaranteed money".

I like the rookie wage scale as it gave teams money to pay to vets. The 1st and 2nd round picks still become millionaires,just not multi milionaires. The vets on the other hand earn their second and 3rd contracts. it was those mid tier vets losing money when rookies were given too much money.

I also agree, too many busts were paid. If they are great, they will be paid well contract number 2.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(1 hour ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: For every Cam Newton and Matthew Stafford, the world can also point to a Jamarcus Russell and Sam Bradford.

That's not my point.

My point is Jamarcus Russell, Sam Bradford, and Matthew Stafford all got to engage in a semi-free market (in at least they could negotiate for their contracts even if they got their rights drafted away).

Cam Newton got to neither choose where he was going, AND his ability to earn was artificially deflated. So you can't just compare it to a job or an entertainer. These are people who have rare traits, skills, and abilities that generate a >$20b market.

Imagine being the best plumber in the world to graduate from trade school that year (and that trade school made billions off you working there for 3 years too and you weren't allowed to get paid for your work for the longest time), and you're told "you're going to have to move to Y city and work at X company for just 5-20% of what you could have made on the open market for the next 5 years or you can retire from as a plumber". THAT is why it's silly to compare NFL players to normal jobs. Every step of the way has been artificially created to reduce their earning potential, so THEY don't need to be told it's a job.

[SunsetBengal]

(1 hour ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's not my point.

My point is Jamarcus Russell, Sam Bradford, and Matthew Stafford all got to engage in a semi-free market (in at least they could negotiate for their contracts even if they got their rights drafted away).

Cam Newton got to neither choose where he was going, AND his ability to earn was artificially deflated. So you can't just compare it to a job or an entertainer. These are people who have rare traits, skills, and abilities that generate a >$20b market.

Imagine being the best plumber in the world to graduate from trade school that year (and that trade school made billions off you working there for 3 years too and you weren't allowed to get paid for your work for the longest time), and you're told "you're going to have to move to Y city and work at X company for just 5-20% of what you could have made on the open market for the next 5 years or you can retire from as a plumber". THAT is why it's silly to compare NFL players to normal jobs. Every step of the way has been artificially created to reduce their earning potential, so THEY don't need to be told it's a job.

I understand your point, and you make it very well. What I'm saying is that rookie contract slotting came about for a reason, and that reason is that too many high picks were turning up busts and negatively impacting franchises ability to recover and move forward. 

Further, the league only exists because it is a popular form of entertainment and generates a massive amount of revenue from public interest in spectating. If it weren't for the league's popularity the pool of revenue for these contracts would be much less. The owners still have the most invested in the league, therefore they should be entitled to make a profit. Paying massive contracts to rookies that could very well turn out to be busts just does not align with profit from the ownership perspective. I think that the rookie contract slotting idea was a good one, as if funneled money back to proven veterans of the sport. No matter what trade/industry/profession one chooses, there is always a period of "proving" oneself that needs to happen in order for huge money to be warranted.

[*pally*]

(2 hours ago)SunsetBengal Wrote: So is Trey Brown responsible for the wording that is causing all of the drama in the Shemar Stewart situation?

Not one of these "assistant GMs" are adding new language to contracts on their own.  That comes straight from upstairs

[SunsetBengal]

(50 minutes ago)pally Wrote: Not one of these "assistant GMs" are adding new language to contracts on their own.  That comes straight from upstairs

I would have guessed as such, but I just threw that comment out there for fun. So basically title upgrades without the clout that the title would imply?

[Luvnit2]

(50 minutes ago)pally Wrote: Not one of these "assistant GMs" are adding new language to contracts on their own.  That comes straight from upstairs

I would agree with this opinion.