Doc: Hire a GM, Mike

[HoosierCat]

From Daugherty's blog. As usual, I can't argue...

Thursday, January 03, 2008

All That Matters

Hire a GM, Mike.

Let go of the fear that your power will somehow be lessened. Give up the notion you know how to run a winning football operation. Stop holding the incredibly loyal fans hostage to your fears and ego. Join the 21st century. Hire a GM.

Bresnahan and Hunley were fired. It won't matter much. Players win games. You don't have enough good ones, especially on defense. M. Lewis was great in Baltimore because he had half the Pro Bowl on his side. Bresnahan coached a defense in Oakland that was good enough to make the Super Bowl. Did he get dumb all the sudden?

Hire a GM, Mike. Spend some money on the personnel dept. Stop trotting out the same old line about having as much information as everyone else. Don't ask your head coach to double as a pro personnel guy. Don't expect your assistant coaches to run themselves ragged looking at college players. M. Lewis said he wants to change completely the way things are done. That would involve lots of face time with his assistants. Time he won't get if they're all over the country working players out.

There isnt enough space here to document the mediocre drafts and the unfortunate, half-assed forays into the free-agent market. Everyone has seen Sam Adams and Ed Hartwell and Keiwan Ratliff and on and on. Wouldnt several more sets of bright eyes be a remedy? Could we at least consider the possibility?

In places like New England and Baltimore, they hire young 20-somethings, for next to nothing but an opportunity to learn the game. They start them out breaking down film. They train them in the team's Way. If they're smart and tireless, they become scouts. They know what works for their club and what doesn't, and can be called upon on a moment's notice to provide an informed opinion on a player. Belichick started that way. So did Scott Pioli, Belichick's right hand. It seems to be working fairly well for them.

The Steelers dont have the biggest personnel dept in the NFL. But they have smart people trained in the Way. And they have an owner who lets them work, who knows what he doesnt know. Why is this so hard to grasp here?

It's so tiring, week after month after year after decade, making the same request. It's so obvious what needs to be done. How-To manuals are so readily available. Pick up your copy in Foxboro or Indy or Pittsburgh.

Hire a GM, Mike. One reason you hired M. Lewis and made him the organizational face was, you had wearied of the daily pounding you were taking. Doesnt it make sense to hire a GM, if only for that same reason?

You might know football. You don't know winning. I could sit in the operating room every day for 40 years, watching surgery. That doesnt make me a surgeon.

We're approaching that time w/M. Lewis we've reached with all your coaches, starting with when Sam was fired/quit. The good ones get frustrated with their lack of control. Happened with Sam and Coslet and now, Marvin. Hire a GM and see what Marvin can do with him.

The rest is smoke and mirrors, deck chairs, Groundhog Decades. No one wants to be having this discussion 10 years from now. We've had it already for going on 20. Changes are needed, obviously. Only one matters.

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/daugh...rs.asp#comments

[jjakq27]

Wow. Well said Doc.

BTW, does MB have a PC? If not he won't be able to read Doc's request.

[TippCityRick]

A

M

E

&

N

[GregCook]

Hiring a GM isn't a panacea because lots of clubs have them and one just finished 1-15 and were beaten by the GM-less Bengals.

I take exception to Daugherty's claim of poor drafts. Lets see, Bengals under Marvin regularly have attendance in the Pro Bowl. They have a QB that can take them to the SB unlike 80% of the NFL. They always find good players in the draft many in the late rounds(TJ, Peko, Ninduke, White, Kilmer, Andrews come to mind). The fact they can find these fine players screams out loud they do a good job scouting the college ranks.

But its obvious that Mike Brown has a bad football team and whatever he's doing isn't working. Its also obvious that there are many model franchises in the NFL that regularly succeed where Brown fails. When Marvin said things need to be blown up, he might have been hinting to Brown that it applies to the business side as well.

[HoosierCat]

Hiring a GM isn't a panacea because lots of clubs have them and one just finished 1-15 and were beaten by the GM-less Bengals.

I take exception to Daugherty's claim of poor drafts. Lets see, Bengals under Marvin regularly have attendance in the Pro Bowl. They have a QB that can take them to the SB unlike 80% of the NFL. They always find good players in the draft many in the late rounds(TJ, Peko, Ninduke, White, Kilmer, Andrews come to mind). The fact they can find these fine players screams out loud they do a good job scouting the college ranks.

But its obvious that Mike Brown has a bad football team and whatever he's doing isn't working. Its also obvious that there are many model franchises in the NFL that regularly succeed where Brown fails. When Marvin said things need to be blown up, he might have been hinting to Brown that it applies to the business side as well.

Well, Doc didn't say poor drafts, he said mediocre drafts, which strikes me as accurate. Yes, they do find a TJ or Peko or Nduke -- but for every one of those there's a Rucker or Nicholson or Chris Perry or Kwash or Ratliff or Caleb. Most Bengals drafts end up being one step forward, one step back.

Daugherty ties together the GM and personnel/scouting issues here, which I generally consider two separate proposals. The idea that the team needs increased scouting resources and a top-flight personnel guy to me seems beyond debate. When it comes to a full-fledged GM, the question is more debatable. I think the biggest argument for it is that a real GMs job is on the line when the team doesn't perform; they have a powerful incentive to win. Compare that with the current Bengals GM triumverate of Mike, Katie and Troy. If the team loses, will they lose their jobs? Not in a million years. IMHO the lack of urgency and accountability that always seems to dog this team has its root right there.

[HairOnFire]

Hiring a GM isn't a panacea because lots of clubs have them and one just finished 1-15 and were beaten by the GM-less Bengals.

The Falcons have a GM. Didn't help them a bit, did it? And the Ravens have one of the most highly respected GM's in the NFL, right? Yet Hoosier spends thousands of keystrokes claiming their current plight reminds him exactly of the current condition of our beloved Bengals.

I take exception to Daugherty's claim of poor drafts. Lets see, Bengals under Marvin regularly have attendance in the Pro Bowl.

I take exception to his claim that Bengal head coaches get frustrated by their lack of control, and are worn down by their roles as college personnel evaluators, but would somehow benefit from the presence of a general manager. Add a GM and Lewis immediately has less control, right? And name me one NFL head coach who doesn't want more input in regards to the players he's asked to coach. Didn't Bill Parcells say something famous about his desire to shop for his choice of groceries if he's expected to cook the meal?

Frankly, I'm all in favor of increasing the size of the scouting staff, but past Bengal head coaches from Wyche to LeBeau have all expressed appreciation for the unusual amount of control given to them on draft day, and I'd be amazed if the same wasn't true for Lewis.

But its obvious that Mike Brown has a bad football team and whatever he's doing isn't working. Its also obvious that there are many model franchises in the NFL that regularly succeed where Brown fails.

I'd have more love for the idea of hiring a GM if I felt the odds were good that the Bengals could attract one of the best in the business. Far more likely is they hire one of the retreads that shuffle from team to team to team OR the team surrenders to public pressure and hires from the hilarious sounding breed now known as the powerless GM.

[duus]

Hiring a GM isn't a panacea because lots of clubs have them and one just finished 1-15 and were beaten by the GM-less Bengals.

The Falcons have a GM. Didn't help them a bit, did it? And the Ravens have one of the most highly respected GM's in the NFL, right? Yet Hoosier spends thousands of keystrokes claiming their current plight reminds him exactly of the current condition of our beloved Bengals.

For what it is worth, we probably should be a bit careful with the logic here. Although there is no doubt that hiring a GM does not necessarily lead to a good team ... a great team ... a championship team ... the better way to look at this (IMO) is how many good, great, and championship teams have existed WITHOUT a GM? I don't know the answer, but would be interested in knowing of such teams in, say, the last 20 years. I'm personally convinced you need this role in today's NFL. I may be wrong.

[duus]

BTW ... having a QB or HeadCoach doesn't always lead to a championship, but I don't see teams trying it without them either.

[HairOnFire]

For what it is worth, we probably should be a bit careful with the logic here. Although there is no doubt that hiring a GM does not necessarily lead to a good team ... a great team ... a championship team ... the better way to look at this (IMO) is how many good, great, and championship teams have existed WITHOUT a GM?

Right back at ya'.

Take a quick scan of the worst teams in the NFL and tell me how many of them have GM's. Almost all of them, right? So success is determined by the person holding the job, not the title itself or how many levels of management a team places between head coach and owner.

Now ask yourself how confident you are about the Bengals ability to, not just identify, but attract that type of person.

If you're not confident then the next best choice is the so-called powerless GM, and the many teams have one. Chris Berman even made one of them famous. (Vinnie "White Shirt" Cerrato) But their role seems to limited to caretaker duties...and that doesn't strike me as the answer to this teams greatest problems. Yet somehow it's always mentioned as the thing that is needed most.

Like the man said, it's not a panacea. In fact, if the Bengals were to hire a GM today it's a sure bet that this board would immediately fill up with posts mocking the person who was hired.

[duus]

Like the man said, it's not a panacea. In fact, if the Bengals were to hire a GM today it's a sure bet that this board would immediately fill up with posts mocking the person who was hired.

No doubt. No doubt.

[HoosierCat]

BTW ... having a QB or HeadCoach doesn't always lead to a championship, but I don't see teams trying it without them either.

Yup. Like I said before, whether the Bengals need a full-fledged GM is a debatable point. If the current triple-headed hydra were to professionalize the personnel department, staff up scouting to an NFL-caliber, and then hold coaches accountable for good/bad coaching and scouts accountable for good/bad scouting -- then there would probably wouldn't be a need for a GM. And the Bengals would likely be a much better team. The way it's set up now, though, it's self-defeating to hold coaches accountable (who else fires their scouts in January? We just let two go yesterday.) and virtually impossible to hold anyone accountable for poor drafting.

[AMC]

Hiring a GM isn't a panacea because lots of clubs have them and one just finished 1-15 and were beaten by the GM-less Bengals.

I take exception to Daugherty's claim of poor drafts. Lets see, Bengals under Marvin regularly have attendance in the Pro Bowl. They have a QB that can take them to the SB unlike 80% of the NFL. They always find good players in the draft many in the late rounds(TJ, Peko, Ninduke, White, Kilmer, Andrews come to mind). The fact they can find these fine players screams out loud they do a good job scouting the college ranks.

But its obvious that Mike Brown has a bad football team and whatever he's doing isn't working. Its also obvious that there are many model franchises in the NFL that regularly succeed where Brown fails. When Marvin said things need to be blown up, he might have been hinting to Brown that it applies to the business side as well.

Well, Doc didn't say poor drafts, he said mediocre drafts, which strikes me as accurate. Yes, they do find a TJ or Peko or Nduke -- but for every one of those there's a Rucker or Nicholson or Chris Perry or Kwash or Ratliff or Caleb. Most Bengals drafts end up being one step forward, one step back.

Daugherty ties together the GM and personnel/scouting issues here, which I generally consider two separate proposals. The idea that the team needs increased scouting resources and a top-flight personnel guy to me seems beyond debate. When it comes to a full-fledged GM, the question is more debatable. I think the biggest argument for it is that a real GMs job is on the line when the team doesn't perform; they have a powerful incentive to win. Compare that with the current Bengals GM triumverate of Mike, Katie and Troy. If the team loses, will they lose their jobs? Not in a million years. IMHO the lack of urgency and accountability that always seems to dog this team has its root right there.

Nail on the head!

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Take a quick scan of the worst teams in the NFL and tell me how many of them have GM's. Almost all of them, right?

For God's sake, that's because the majority of teams have GMs. The statistic you need to evaluate is, what are the chances of success given that a team has a GM. You're evaluating the wrong stat. And the answer is that you don't see teams succeeed without a well-developed personnel department.

To my knowledge, all of the other teams that have no GM have a Coach/GM combo, which is kind of what we have. Where has that worked? And on top of it, where has a team had success with no GM and only one full-time scout?

The answer is nowhere. In fact, the Bengals are the only team to try and the result is no playoff wins since 1990.

Everybody's evaluated on their performance. And the sad fact is that the Bengals' fall to putridity coincided strongly with Mike Brown taking primary control of the team. Put it this way: if you were the owner and Mike Brown were the GM, what year would you have fired him? There's no way any executive with his record would be in the league in any capacity if he weren't his own employee. And he should have the same standards for himself that he would for his actual employees.

[Spor_tees]

Take a quick scan of the worst teams in the NFL and tell me how many of them have GM's. Almost all of them, right? So success is determined by the person holding the job, not the title itself or how many levels of management a team places between head coach and owner.

How many teams in the playoffs this year don't have a GM?

Dallas- No (They have Jerry Jones)

Giants- Jerry Reese

Washington- No (And they are always in cap hell year after year)

Packers- Ted Thompson

Tampa- Bruce Allen

Seahawks- Tim Ruskell

Patriots- Scott Pioli

Pittsburgh- They have a director of Football operations Kevin Colbert

Colts- Bill Polian

Jacksonville- James Harris

Titans- Mike Reinfeldt

Chargers- A. J. Smith

That's pretty lopsided on the side of teams that have a GM.

The logic you are using saying that even some losing teams have a GM, is like saying that even some losing teams have a Head coach...Only so many teams every year can have a winning record...it's statistically impossible for every team to be above .500. This year there were 15 teams with a losing record that had Head coaches...does that mean a team doesn't need a head coach to be a winner? That's kind of an ass backward argument and I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that, in fact I think you are using the argument already knowing it's fallacies.

[HoosierCat]

Patriots- Scott Pioli

Actually, Pioli has the title of vp, player personnel. Of course, somehow the Bengals manage to have two of those (pete brown as svp player personnel and paul brown jr as vp player personnel and still suck...go figure )

But Hair's right it's all about the person. Scott Pioli is a kick-ass personnel guy. Pete & Paul...not so much.

The Pats provide an example of the management structure I'd like most to see in Cincy. Hair obsesses over someone who would somehow cut in line ahead of marvin, but that isn't how a Pioli-type (at least, one who is NOT related to Mike Brown) would work. Instead, you have Mike as the chief executive with two direct reports: Marvin on the coaching side, and Mr. X on the personnel side. Those latter two are (in business organization-speak) connected by a dotted line, as it will be crucial for the coach and personnel guy to mesh team needs and strategy with scouting direction.

[HairOnFire]

But Hair's right it's all about the person.

Thank you. While everyone else is wasting their time, and mine, by yammering about how all teams have a GM...and a head coach....and a QB....the point I was making had to do with this franchise attracting the type of GM who would make a difference. So who thinks that's likely? (My hand is NOT raised.) And failing that, the alternative is the so-called powerless GM that is increasingly common in the NFL, but fails as often as not.

Scott Pioli is a kick-ass personnel guy. Pete & Paul...not so much.

Scott Pioli is considered the best in the business, followed closely by AJ Smith, Bill Polian, and Ozzie Newsome. So tell me, when was the last time the Chargers won a championship? Or how about a playoff game? And as good as Ozzie has been you've compared the state of the Ravens to the Bengals, right? In fact, the Ravens have won just one playoff game since naming Newsome their GM, he drafted his own Akili Smith in the form of Kyle Boller, and he kept a mediocre head coach longer than Mike Brown would have. And that laves the two best teams headed by the two best head coaches and led by the two best QB's in the NFL. Yeah, small wonder they've won.

Hair obsesses over someone who would somehow cut in line ahead of marvin, but that isn't how a Pioli-type would work. Instead, you have Mike as the chief executive with two direct reports: Marvin on the coaching side, and Mr. X on the personnel side.

Unless you allow Marvin Lewis to pick his own GM it's a given that he's going to lose power, and as a result will eventually have to coach players and accept a team building strategy he hasn't chosen. A far better strategy, and one that I think the Bengals would be closer to adopting, is granting the head coach even more power than he currently has. If Marvin wants more scouts you let him hire them. If Marvin wants more assistants you let him have them.

But ignoring the above for a moment, what point is served by constantly weighing the record of the Bengals front office against the Scott Pioli's of the world? Wouldn't a far more realistic comparison compare their record to the John Shaws & Carl Petersons of the world? Or how about the GM that Doc once pimped as a perfect choice for the Bengals to hire. Tom Donahoe.

How'd he do in Buffalo?

[HoosierCat]

Thank you. While everyone else is wasting their time, and mine, by yammering about how all teams have a GM...and a head coach....and a QB....the point I was making had to do with this franchise attracting the type of GM who would make a difference. So who thinks that's likely?

It comes down to money and organization. If the FO is willing to pony up for a top-notch personnel guy and give them an NFL-caliber staff, they'll get takers.

And that laves the two best teams headed by the two best head coaches and led by the two best QB's in the NFL. Yeah, small wonder they've won.

So, just because we can't guarantee the best in the business...we shouldn't even bother trying?

Hell, why should the Bengals even bother playing games then? Can't guarantee a win? Fuggit.

A far better strategy, and one that I think the Bengals would be closer to adopting, is granting the head coach even more power than he currently has. If Marvin wants more scouts you let him hire them. If Marvin wants more assistants you let him have them.

Fine. Do it. Let's see if it works. I await your posting here of your e-mail to Mike Brown proposing such a solution.

But ignoring the above for a moment, what point is served by constantly weighing the record of the Bengals front office against the Scott Pioli's of the world?

Uhhh...because they are the gold standard? Because they represent -- again to use a popular term from the business world -- the league's "best practices"? Because no company seriously interested in improving its business model measures itself against anything but the industry's best? Because measuring yourself against average schmoes doesn't tell you anything? I'm seriously beginning to doubt your claim that you actually run a business...

[HairOnFire]

But ignoring the above for a moment, what point is served by constantly weighing the record of the Bengals front office against the Scott Pioli's of the world?

Uhhh...because they are the gold standard? Because they represent -- again to use a popular term from the business world -- the league's "best practices"?

Bull. You do it because it seems to make your point a slam dunk, as if there were 33 Scott Piolis running around and the Bengals were simply ignoring their opportunity to get one. But that's not true and you know it, and that's why you didn't bother comparing the Bengals record against a John Shaw or a Carl Peterson. I mean c'mon, both of those men have had some success, right? They're not chumps. Or how about the GM the Dolphins just fired. He's got experience and he's available, right? Or how about Vinnie "White Shirt" Cerrato?

No, the comparison is always made to Pioli or Pollian, as if those guys don't already have jobs.

[HairOnFire]

I'm seriously beginning to doubt your claim that you actually run a business...

Not only that, but for ten years straight it's gross revenues have ranked it amongst the top 2% of all comparable practices across the nation.

Go figure, huh?

[HoosierCat]

But ignoring the above for a moment, what point is served by constantly weighing the record of the Bengals front office against the Scott Pioli's of the world?

Uhhh...because they are the gold standard? Because they represent -- again to use a popular term from the business world -- the league's "best practices"?

Bull. You do it because it seems to make your point a slam dunk, as if there were 33 Scott Piolis running around and the Bengals were simply ignoring their opportunity to get one.

Uhhh...no. Once again, if you run a business, the common comparison is to the top competitor. If you happen to be it, congrats, but just because you aren't, doesn't mean you give up trying.

In case you don't have google in your part of the world:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8

[HairOnFire]

Uhhh...no. Once again, if you run a business, the common comparison is to the top competitor. If you happen to be it, congrats, but just because you aren't, doesn't mean you give up trying.

Still ducking? Scott Pioli has turned down job offer after job offer....so he's not coming. And neither is Bill Polian. So what do YOU do now? I mean, granted....you know what you'd like to have but it's currently unavailable.

So what do you do now?

The answer you can't bring yourself to type is you have to settle for less. And because you know from the start that you'll have to settle for less the comparison to Pioli and Pollian is invalidated. It becomes little more than a waste of time. Instead, you compare yourself to the things you can have if you agree to make changes. And there's the rub because the things you can have are the very things you'd make fun of later.

The reason I keep bringing this up is because Paul Daugherty, the guy who wrote the article, once wrote an article very much like the one at the top of this thread, and in that article he made the same arguments before pimping Tom Donahoe...who later went to Buffalo and failed miserably. And in NFL comparisons Buffalo is sorta like Cincinnati, right?

[Spor_tees]

Uhhh...no. Once again, if you run a business, the common comparison is to the top competitor. If you happen to be it, congrats, but just because you aren't, doesn't mean you give up trying.

Still ducking? Scott Pioli has turned down job offer after job offer....so he's not coming. And neither is Bill Polian. So what do YOU do now? I mean, granted....you know what you'd like to have but it's currently unavailable.

So what do you do now?

The answer you can't bring yourself to type is you have to settle for less. And because you know from the start that you'll have to settle for less the comparison to Pioli and Pollian is invalidated. It becomes little more than a waste of time. Instead, you compare yourself to the things you can have if you agree to make changes. And there's the rub because the things you can have are the very things you'd make fun of later.

The reason I keep bringing this up is because Paul Daugherty, the guy who wrote the article, once wrote an article very much like the one at the top of this thread, and in that article he made the same arguments before pimping Tom Donahoe...who later went to Buffalo and failed miserably. And in NFL comparisons Buffalo is sorta like Cincinnati, right?

I think the biggest flaw in your argument is that you ignore the fact of someone new "stepping up" so to speak. It's like saying that Tony Romo could never be a Troy Aikman before he actually played a game. How about Tom Brady never being as good as Drew Bledsoe until he played a game? Piloi and Pollian are great at what they do, but that doesn't mean someone new will NEVER come along and be great to.

I made this argument before in a thread about coaches and I believe the same thing about a GM...the Bengal's don't need a re-tread type of guy. What the Bengals need is a young up and comer with something to prove. They need a guy with new ideas and new ways of doing things that helps him to relate to "today's" players. Bill Parcells was a great coach...but even he admitted he started to lose it at the end not because he couldn't evaluate talent, but because he couldn't communicate effectively with the NFL's players new type of attitude.

Do I know someone in particular for this? No...because I don't work everyday with these guys nor do I have every day dealings with other teams personnel guys at off season meetings and such. Does that mean these guys aren't out there? No, of coarse not...the real question is who will be the first team to find these guys and have their own new Pioli as their GM.

[HoosierCat]

Still ducking? Scott Pioli has turned down job offer after job offer....so he's not coming.

I have nothing to duck. I'm not saying they have to hire Pioli. Only that they if they can't, it doesn't mean they should stop trying to find someone as good or better. This is a pretty basic business concept. If your competitors have a good model, you try to emulate it. Like you said earlier, it's a slam dunk. But the Bengals aren't even close to doing that. Instead they have no dedicated scouting staff, and use their "Pioli slot" as a place to stash family members with an abysmal personnel track record.

[HoosierCat]

I think the biggest flaw in your argument is that you ignore the fact of someone new "stepping up" so to speak.

Exactly. Just because you aren't guaranteed to become the best overnight, doesn't mean you should just give up. And if you want to be the best, it makes no sense to compare yourself against the 10th or 5th best competitor...you look at what the No. 1 does and ask how you can do that.

Now...maybe there's a third way...maybe, as Hair suggests, you give Marvin control of a bulked-up scouting department and let him go. But has been noted earlier, the coach/GM concept has met with mixed results. I think it would be an improvement in Cincy, but is it a proven winner? Not so far.

[Spor_tees]

I think the biggest flaw in your argument is that you ignore the fact of someone new "stepping up" so to speak.

Exactly. Just because you aren't guaranteed to become the best overnight, doesn't mean you should just give up. And if you want to be the best, it makes no sense to compare yourself against the 10th or 5th best competitor...you look at what the No. 1 does and ask how you can do that.

Now...maybe there's a third way...maybe, as Hair suggests, you give Marvin control of a bulked-up scouting department and let him go. But has been noted earlier, the coach/GM concept has met with mixed results. I think it would be an improvement in Cincy, but is it a proven winner? Not so far.

Well here is the problem I have with giving Marvin more power...Marvin said this past year that he wasn't going to take over more control over the defense because he needed to spend more time being the head coach...well if he couldn't handle being the head coach and taking care of the defense (him being tauted as a defensive guru), then how can you expect him to do a good job as a head coach and a GM?