Doc: Hire a GM, Mike

[HoosierCat]

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?

I agree. But...how much of Marvin's time is being taken up by scouting/player personnel duties? If we had a real personnel department, would he have more time for the D? I dunno, but I'd bet so. The bottom line, tho, is that the system in Cincy isn't working. I'm OK with Hair's change...hell, I'm OK with any change. I think its just time to stop doing the same thing over and over and hoping Tinkerbell appears and sprinkles her magic dust that sends us to the Super Never-Never-Land Bowl.

[HairOnFire]

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

So the biggest flaw in my argument is I'm ignoring the potential breakthrough success of somebody unknown? Well, I guess you've got me there because it's hard to debate the merits of the unknown.

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.

I get what you're saying. Pioli had to get his start somewhere.

[HoosierCat]

So the biggest flaw in my argument is I'm ignoring the potential breakthrough success of somebody unknown?

Yeah...the biggest argument is that you (NOTE: *you* is understood as *the owner of the Bengals* not HairOnFire) are a p***y who is scared to try.

So, Mike Brown is a p***y? Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

[HairOnFire]

I have nothing to duck. I'm not saying they have to hire Pioli.

But you and Daugherty and a host of others refuse to make comparisons to anyone but Pioli or Pollian, and that refusal to look at the issue realistically is full on ducking. Consider this. Since Marvin Lewis was hired Ozzie Newsome's Baltimore Ravens have won exactly one more regular season game than the Bengals, and the same number of division titles. And Ozzie is a well respected GM, right?

If your competitors have a good model, you try to emulate it. Like you said earlier, it's a slam dunk.

No, I said Daugherty and you always used the Pioli and Pollian examples because it made things appear to be a slam dunk. But when you go beyond those examples, which you repeatedly refuse to do, the advantage isn't nearly as pronounced. (See Ozzie Newsome example above)

[HairOnFire]

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.

I'm not suggesting Marvin assume the role of a GM. Far from it. It's simply not the type of power I'm suggesting he be given.

Instead, give him everything he wants as a head coach. For example, if he wants more assistant coaches then allow him to pick the men he wants and make it happen. I've always been in favor of expanding the assistant coaching staff, including adding additional position coaches, quality control gurus, et cetera. Plus, if Lewis really feels more scouts are needed then hire the best ones available. Allow him to stay as involved in personnel decisions as he wants to be or is capable of doing well. In other words, do everything possible to reduce his workload and demands on his time. But don't add another layer of upper management that he has to confront, cajole, compromise with, and on occasion....disagree with completely.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Instead, give him everything he wants as a head coach. For example, if he wants more assistant coaches then allow him to pick the men he wants and make it happen. I've always been in favor of expanding the assistant coaching staff, including dding additional position coaches, quality control gurus, et cetera. Plus, if Lewis really feels more scouts are needed then hire the best ones available. Allow him to stay as involved in personnel decisions as he wants to be or is capabale of doing well. In other words, do everything possible to reduce his workload and demands on his time. But don't add another layer of upper management that he has to confront, cajole, compromise with, and on occasion....disagree with completely.

That makes sense if the role of coach is to be a Bobby Bowden style overseer and administrator. However, if the head coach is to do any actual...you know...*coaching*, then I think all of that other crap is better left to somebody else in management. Heck, all the rest of us have to deal with a couple layers of management on a daily basis. If you're a professional, you make it work.

The problem is doing it now. As much as I think we need one, hiring a GM when you have a coach in hand is a bad idea. Because in this situation, you're right, there would be an 'alpha dog' issue. But whenever Marvin leaves, Mikey should hire himself a real GM who can then go hire his coach.

Oh, and nobody whose name has ever been Brown, or is married or related to someone of that description, should be involved in the football operations in any way.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Since Marvin Lewis was hired Ozzie Newsome's Baltimore Ravens have won exactly one more regular season game than the Bengals, and the same number of division titles. And Ozzie is a well respected GM, right?

Not in my book. Ozzie is a former Cleveland Browns 1.0 player that was given a shot from within the organization when they moved to Baltimore. I'm honestly shocked that Newsome has a job and Billick is on the unemployment line. Newsome saddled Billick with the offense that caused their problems.

I'm not suggesting Marvin assume the role of a GM. Far from it. It's simply not the type of power I'm suggesting he be given.

Instead, give him everything he wants as a head coach. For example, if he wants more assistant coaches then allow him to pick the men he wants and make it happen. I've always been in favor of expanding the assistant coaching staff, including adding additional position coaches, quality control gurus, et cetera. Plus, if Lewis really feels more scouts are needed then hire the best ones available. Allow him to stay as involved in personnel decisions as he wants to be or is capable of doing well. In other words, do everything possible to reduce his workload and demands on his time. But don't add another layer of upper management that he has to confront, cajole, compromise with, and on occasion....disagree with completely.

So you're saying Mike Brown is stifling Marvin Lewis by not giving him everything he wants!?! Am I mistaken, or is this common ground for us?

[HairOnFire]

That makes sense if the role of coach is to be a Bobby Bowden style overseer and administrator. However, if the head coach is to do any actual...you know...*coaching*, then I think all of that other crap is better left to somebody else in management.

I'm not talking about administration duties. The Bengals already have people who handle those tasks. I'm talking about adding more lower level support in the form of additional coaches and scouts if....and only if...Lewis asks for them.

The problem is doing it now. As much as I think we need one, hiring a GM when you have a coach in hand is a bad idea. Because in this situation, you're right, there would be an 'alpha dog' issue.

Damn right. Marvin and a new GM could agree 90% of the time and there would still be problems resulting...in part because the circumstances would be different than when he was hired. Plus, he'd have to adjust to another powerful opinion in the personnel department...something no head coach wants. And despite whatever rumor you might have heard Lewis isn't lobbying for a GM.

From the Columbus Dispatch....

Q: There's been much speculation about the Bengals having a general manager to oversee player acquisitions. How would you feel about that?

ML: Those decisions aren't my responsibility. None of the speculations you refer to have been spurred by anything I've ever said.

[HairOnFire]

you're saying Mike Brown is stifling Marvin Lewis by not giving him everything he wants!?!

I don't know the answer to that question, and neither do you. All I know is Lewis was recently quoted about blowing things up, things becoming stale, and the need for changes. I'm suggesting Mike Brown rubber stamp every change Lewis proposes. And there's the rub because he doesn't seem to be asking for a GM.

Am I mistaken, or is this common ground for us?

You sound so suprised, and I have to wonder why. Do we not both enjoy the sight of ample breasts with just a hint of wanton sag? Do we both not enjoy a frosty beverage from time to time? And don't we both agree that you're almost twice as insightful as ShulaSteakhouse?

[BengalszoneBilly]

I'm suggesting Mike Brown rubber stamp every change Lewis proposes.

I thought this was the new plan when Marvin was hired, but it sadly doesn't seem to be the case. IMHO Lewis still must run even the most low level of request past Mike. I may be wrong, but our head coaches recent demeanor supports this notion.

Am I mistaken, or is this common ground for us?

You sound so suprised, and I have to wonder why. Do we not both enjoy the sight of ample breasts with just a hint of wanton sag? Do we both not enjoy a frosty beverage from time to time?

Well what red blooded American male doesn't enjoy gazing upon Gods gifts such as those? My point is your staunch support of Mike Brown sometimes seems above questioning his sometimes heavy handed control of his property. I will say he has released some of the pressure he once held on it, but it undeniably still remains firm. I never fully understood why until I read the article that I stumbled upon here. That gave me a huge insight into the Brown family, and their focus on maintaining their grasp on controlling what happen with the Bengals. It all comes from their fathers loss of control and ownership of the Browns long ago. Paul Browns departure from Cleveland left a mark on the family that is deep in their roots. It was something I could feel from reading Pauls words, and since Mike was by his side through all of this, well I can't say I wouldn't have just as tight a grip on my family's legacy as he does.

Hell...I can't even bring myself to call him Mikey anymore, much less visit visit this place...

Mike Brown is off my barb list. I just wish he could find his fathers wisdom in making choices for our team.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

I'm not talking about administration duties. The Bengals already have people who handle those tasks. I'm talking about adding more lower level support in the form of additional coaches and scouts if....and only if...Lewis asks for them.

It takes a lot of time to run a real scouting department. Granted, Lewis can be in charge of that now because we have all of one scout. But thinking long term - and by that I mean beyond whatever Marvin's tenure will be - we need on the order of 5-10 full time people who do personnel evaluation, and that would be more than a head coach can handle while also coaching. That would require a seasoned football executive not named Brown.

Damn right. Marvin and a new GM could agree 90% of the time and there would still be problems resulting...in part because the circumstances would be different than when he was hired. Plus, he'd have to adjust to another powerful opinion in the personnel department...something no head coach wants. And despite whatever rumor you might have heard Lewis isn't lobbying for a GM.

I don't believe the rumors about Marvin wanting a GM either. Here's the dirty little secret about NFL head coaches: to get where they are, you have to have an ego that ranges somewhere between enormous and massive. I don't think any NFL head coach has ever wanted a GM, and most coaches probably think they can do both jobs just fine. But, history isn't kind to the combo coach/GM. They usually get their duties stripped eventually (like happened last week for Nolan). Holmgren didn't have time to be as involved as he needed to be in the offense when he was GM; the team turned around when he relinquished those duties.

Bottom line, everybody who's ever weighed in on the matter says that being an NFL personnel guy and NFL head coach are each 100 hr/week jobs. No single person can do both jobs capably, I don't care who it is. So eventually, we need one, though now might not be the time.

Scouts, on the other hand, we need right now. If Marvin thinks their current personnel evaluation methods are adequate I question his sanity.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Scouts, on the other hand, we need right now. If Marvin thinks their current personnel evaluation methods are adequate I question his sanity.

I don't know that it's an "evaluation" problem so much as a "coverage" problem. As it stands and has, the Bengals' operate like a bunch of kids drafting a fantasy team on draft day. Some of their picks have been so awful in the early middle rounds, you know it's due to a lack of quality scouting and knowledge of players around the country.

And relying so heavily on assistant coaches to make your draft pick recommendations is another big problem. That's how you end up with bums like Artrell Hawkins and Keiwan Ratliff's in the 2nd round, or Frostee Rucker's in the 3rd, et al.....picks just about every fan is left scratching their head over the moment they're made, and of course they never pan out as expected. There should be some minimum level of competence required to be an NFL team's employee, even for the Bengals.

[HoosierCat]

It takes a lot of time to run a real scouting department. Granted, Lewis can be in charge of that now because we have all of one scout. But thinking long term - and by that I mean beyond whatever Marvin's tenure will be - we need on the order of 5-10 full time people who do personnel evaluation, and that would be more than a head coach can handle while also coaching. That would require a seasoned football executive not named Brown.

Yup. And additionally, that kind of a "real" personnel department also frees up all the position coaches to actually coach and focus on their units, instead of acting as half a coach and half a scout.

Damn right. Marvin and a new GM could agree 90% of the time and there would still be problems resulting...in part because the circumstances would be different than when he was hired.

Even assuming that's true, who is to say that our Mr. X the personnel guy isn't right? Why do you have Marvin up on a pedestal? What personnel savvy has he demonstrated to become so unquestionable?

I have nothing to duck. I'm not saying they have to hire Pioli.

But you and Daugherty and a host of others refuse to make comparisons to anyone but Pioli or Pollian, and that refusal to look at the issue realistically is full on ducking. Consider this. Since Marvin Lewis was hired Ozzie Newsome's Baltimore Ravens have won exactly one more regular season game than the Bengals, and the same number of division titles. And Ozzie is a well respected GM, right?

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, nearly all teams in the NFL have GMs and/or player personnel execs not related to the owner. So of course you can find ones who have done better and ones who have done worse. That's not the point. The point is that the model has been adopted by almost everyone (but, of course, the Bengals) because it has been proven to work, sometimes spectacularly as in the case of Pioli. Meanwhile, the Bengals' setup has proven itself an abject failure. Yet you argue against change on the basis it might not work. Well...so what?

[Jet23]

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?

Wow, that's great. And here I thought it was a soft market. I know a guy in Birmingham that still can't grow grass due to the drought...

[HairOnFire]

My point is your staunch support of Mike Brown sometimes seems above questioning his sometimes heavy handed control of his property.

It may suprise you to learn that I don't consider it "staunch support". Many time I think the man is as fugtarded as all of you clearly do. But rather than endlessly attack the old fool and demand he suddenly adopt business practices that he's rejected for DECADES I'd much rather offer support for the types of changes that might actually be considered.

Simply put, we view things differently and as a result you claim I'm guilty of blind loyalty....while I think you're guilty of howling at the moon.

I will say he has released some of the pressure he once held on it, but it undeniably still remains firm.

Mike Brown and I share one thing in common. Despite the differences in size it's fair to say that we both run "Mom and Pop" businesses that are wildly successful in regards to money. And for me that's where the comparison ends, in part because nobody can come into my business and chop block my receptionist. Regardless, the one fundamental truth in any Mom and Pop shop is that Mom and Pop aren't going to fire themselves. At best, they may agree to expand their support base, adding personnel at the lower levels. And that's not only what I'd like to see happen...it's something I think might happen if Lewis demanded it. But again, here's the rub....because he hasn't.

It all comes from their fathers loss of control and ownership of the Browns long ago. Paul Browns departure from Cleveland left a mark on the family that is deep in their roots.

Yes and no. Paul Brown ran a much tighter/cheaper ship than Mike Brown ever has, and never missed an opportunity to increase his share of ownership, turning a 2% share in 1968 into an unquestioned majority. As a result of his fathers business practices his family is no longer threatened by an unforseen loss of control, only by a reluctance to deviate from the franchise model that a legendary figure, Paul Brown, put in place. So the issue of control isn't really a breaking point because Mike Brown could fire a GM as quickly as he could hire one.

[HairOnFire]

I don't believe the rumors about Marvin wanting a GM either.

There's absolutely no way Lewis would ever lobby for less control, and the rumors claiming he has come for sources that show little concern for their own credibility. Not that that matters to readers who ferverently hope the rumors are true. After all, if it's in print it must be true. And when the person in question say the exact opposite in print, well...he must be lying.

Scouts, on the other hand, we need right now. If Marvin thinks their current personnel evaluation methods are adequate I question his sanity.

I can support the idea of adding more scouts, but truth be told I have little problem with the idea of coaches serving as scouts. I like the idea of coaches meeting prospects face to face and watching tape, game action, and workouts with their own eyes. So add more eyes if Lewis thinks they're needed, but if I were him I'd be far more interested in fleshing out the assistant coaching staff.

[HairOnFire]

The point is that the model has been adopted by almost everyone (but, of course, the Bengals) because it has been proven to work, sometimes spectacularly as in the case of Pioli. Meanwhile, the Bengals' setup has proven itself an abject failure.

No, it isn't an abject failure. Find any source that ranks a teams ability to draft and you'll almost always find the Bengals ranked ahead of half of the teams in the NFL, almost all of whom are led by GM's. Sure, you can list every draft bust the Bengals ever selected as if it were proof of something, but you aren't bothering to consider the draft busts of other teams, because you don't care about them. In addition, if you bothered looking you can still find examples where elite NFL teams were built almost entirely under the direction of it's head coach. For example, Dallas. Or consider Chicago, built mostly under the direction of it's head coach, but then horribly undermined by the actions of it's GM.

Just saying....

[ShulaSteakhouse]

The point is that the model has been adopted by almost everyone (but, of course, the Bengals) because it has been proven to work, sometimes spectacularly as in the case of Pioli. Meanwhile, the Bengals' setup has proven itself an abject failure.

No, it isn't an abject failure. Find any source that ranks a teams ability to draft and you'll almost always find the Bengals ranked ahead of half of the teams in the NFL, almost all of whom are led by GM's. Sure, you can list every draft bust the Bengals ever selected as if it were proof of something, but you aren't bothering to consider the draft busts of other teams, because you don't care about them. In addition, if you bothered looking you can still find examples where elite NFL teams were built almost entirely under the direction of it's head coach. For example, Dallas. Or consider Chicago, built mostly under the direction of it's head coach, but then horribly undermined by the actions of it's GM.

Just saying....

What exactly constitutes "ability to draft?" Sounds like a pretty vague term! A Hair/Hobspin term!

[HoosierCat]

Find any source that ranks a teams ability to draft and you'll almost always find the Bengals ranked ahead of half of the teams in the NFL, almost all of whom are led by GM's.

So we should stick with our system because it produces consistently mediocre results?

In addition, if you bothered looking you can still find examples where elite NFL teams were built almost entirely under the direction of it's head coach. For example, Dallas.

And again, why do you place Marvin Lewis on a pedestal with Bill Parcells? What has Marvin built in five years here that convinces you that he's a personnel guru?

Or consider Chicago, built mostly under the direction of it's head coach, but then horribly undermined by the actions of it's GM.

Yeah, consider Chicago. And let's throw San Diego in the pot, too. Both have had their share of recent coach/GM conflict, right? Bears were in the Super Bowl last season. Chargers have been in the playoffs the last two years. I think you just pointed out another strength of the GM system, namely that even when there is conflict between the head coach and GM, teams can and do still draft well and play well. Meanwhile, under Cincy's system, there's no chance of conflict, but as you just pointed out our drafts are consistently middle-of-the-pack and the team has produced 1 winning season and 1 playoff appearance in the last 17 seasons.

[Spor_tees]

In addition, if you bothered looking you can still find examples where elite NFL teams were built almost entirely under the direction of it's head coach. For example, Dallas.

Did you proofread what you typed before you posted it? Or were you trying to tell a joke here? You actually compared the Dallas Cowboys, who is owned by Jerry Jones, one of the most savvy owners in the league and who will go out and get a player when he needs them, to the Bengals who are owned by Mike Brown, who will only go out and bring in CFL players to fill roster spots.

Come on Hair...I know we have had our disagreements but you can do a lot better than that

[HairOnFire]

So we should stick with our system because it produces consistently mediocre results?

Not at all. We, or in this case just you, should be more careful about throwing around terms like abject failure when the Bengals manner of doing things as as good as half of the NFL.

And again, why do you place Marvin Lewis on a pedestal with Bill Parcells? What has Marvin built in five years here that convinces you that he's a personnel guru?

Nothing, but Marvin Lewis's head coaching career is only five years old, and his first three seasons were IMHO outstanding. Besides, all I was doing was offering a handy and convincing example of a non-GM/Head coach driven system that you keep claiming doesn't work. Well, obviously it does if you have the right person in charge...which you admitted is exactly the qualification for a GM having success.

Yeah, consider Chicago. And let's throw San Diego in the pot, too. Both have had their share of recent coach/GM conflict, right? Bears were in the Super Bowl last season. Chargers have been in the playoffs the last two years.

And that's about as far back as you're willing to look, right? Well since you finally picked two examples not named Pioli or Pollian, try this little experiment. Compare the won/loss records of those two teams since 2003, when Marvin arrived, and the Bengals. Let's see if you end up with a slam dunk you're counting on.

[HairOnFire]

Come on Hair...I know we have had our disagreements but you can do a lot better than that

Sorry, but if you clowns can repeatedly try to limit the conversation to Scott Pioli and Bill Polian then I get Parcells. As for Jerry Jones, I think you're more impressed by his savvy than I am. Because there haven't been many owners willing to overdraft, and then make a starting QB, out of a cocaine addict. In fact, Jerry Jones made such a mess out of his franchise that he eventually hired Parcells as head coach and then granted him almosty unprecedented control. And if anything undermined Parcells in Dallas it was Jones decision to force TO upon a head coach who didn't want him.

[Spor_tees]

Come on Hair...I know we have had our disagreements but you can do a lot better than that

Sorry, but if you clowns can repeatedly try to limit the conversation to Scott Pioli and Bill Polian then I get Parcells. As for Jerry Jones, I think you're more impressed by his savvy than I am. Because there haven't been many owners willing to overdraft, and then make a starting QB, out of a cocaine addict. In fact, Jerry Jones made such a mess out of his franchise that he eventually hired Parcells as head coach and then granted him almosty unprecedented control. And if anything undermined Parcells in Dallas it was Jones decision to force TO upon a head coach who didn't want him.

Dallas has the best record in the NFC without Parcells and with TO? Here is something to think about too...if you want to give credit to the coaches in Dallas and not the owner how about giving the credit to the owner who found the coaches? Jimmie Johnson=Super Bowl, CHECK! Barry Switzer=Super Bowl, CHECK! Bill Parcells- who took them to the playoffs 2 out of 4 years , and now Wade Phillips who lead them to the best record in the NFC. Even Chan Gaily took Dallas to the playoffs in one of his two years in Dallas. The only bad coach Dallas has had in 15 years was Dave Campo. That is pretty darn good

[COB]

I have little problem with the idea of coaches serving as scouts. I like the idea of coaches meeting prospects face to face and watching tape, game action, and workouts with their own eyes.

This is totally necessary. Coaches pick players who can do what's needed within the context of the system the coach runs. This applies to offense and defense. The 4-3 versus 3-4 talk I've been reading on this board, and the appropriate players for the respective schemes, is an example. Coaches pick players to help them win now. If they don't, they lose their job. GMs sometimes select players in case the coach loses his job.

In my opinion that's part of what was wrong before Marvin got here. Mike Brown and company repeatedly selected what they thought was the best player available, the best athlete, etc. Forget that. I want the player that can play football the way our current system requires it to be played.

GMs and personnel honchos that go by various titles are the guys that get fooled by combine workout wonders like Mamula. Coaches like Parcells and Holmgren who have power look at tape and know better.

More scouts for the Bengals, ok by me. And a player personnel guy to run the whole thing, ok, as long as everyone is taking direction from Marvin.

[COB]

All the talk about Bill Polian in this thread reminded me of a funny story I read in Rich Eisen's book.

In the '98 draft, Polian who had just gotten his job at Indy, had the first pick. He'd just been hired a few months before the draft. Jim Mora had just been hired as coach, and he went to the combine to figure out which stud QB to pick to replace Harbaugh.

Mora interviewed both guys. He asked Peyton Manning what he would do if he were picked number one in the draft by the Colts. Manning said he'd ask for the playbook immediately and learn it as fast as he could so he could help the Colts win as soon as possible. Mora asked Ryan Leaf what he would do if selected number one. Leaf said Dude, I'd call up my buddies and we'd all head to Vegas!

This is off topic, but there was one other strange factoid from that book: Coaches put players "on the board" at the combine. That is, put them in front of a grease board and, with no chance for preparation, have them diagram plays, pass protection schemes, blitzes and their variations, etc. Basically getting a read on how good the guy is with the Xs and Os, measuring his football knowledge.

Steve Mariucci says there was one player through the years who with his work on the board stood out as having he best football smarts he ever encountered. He said the guy was like Rain Man with his ability to recall and diagram protections, routes, schemes, etc. The player? Maurice Clarett.