Doc: Hire a GM, Mike

[Spor_tees]

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.

Clarrett was an Academic All-American his Freshman year at Ohio State...it's true...so very true.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Coaches should coach, scouts should scout.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

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.

I missed the part where Jerry Jones has less than only one wildcard home playoff loss, as his shining accomplishment the last 17 years.

The Bengals' must be good at drafting.

[HairOnFire]

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 ...

Nice job. I'm sure it wasn't your intent but you've just provided another example of a head coach being given far more power and freedom than normal, and in the process building a dynasty. Jimmie Johnson not only built the Cowboys from top to bottom, but as a head coach was granted the ability to make any trade he wanted....and he made a buttload of them.

In addition, it was Jones interference that chased off Johnson....just as it chased of Parcells years later. So Wade Phillips may win a championship, ala Barry "Caretaker" Switzer, but he'll only do so with the dominant roster that Bill Parcells put together. And as history teaches us, from Blanton Collier to Jon Gruden, the dominant team begins to crumble with each passing season under the direction of a caretaker head coach.

[cincyhokie]

Why is this even a debate?

Current GM: Mike Brown

Current GM's winning seasons since taking over: 1 out of 17

Paul Daugherty's proposal: Get a new GM

I think I agree with Paul Daugherty. Mike Brown is not a good GM. Mike needs to get another GM.

How could you think Mike Brown has actually done a good job? Stop comparing the Bengals to other teams to make them look better. The Bengals should worry about the Bengals and how to get back into the playoffs, not sit at the end of another disappointing season and say "Hey look! there were teams worse than us. We're not that bad!"

It's a losing attitude and after 17 years going on 18, I pretty damn tired of it.

[HairOnFire]

How could you think Mike Brown has actually done a good job?

I don't. I'm just convinced that he isn't going to fire himself, and that forces me to settle for lesser solutions or spend my time howling at the moon like the rest of you.

Stop comparing the Bengals to other teams to make them look better.

Why? If the Bengals look better when fairly compared to other teams then at the very least it calls into question the unfair and often unrealistic comparisons currently being made by others.

The Bengals should worry about the Bengals and how to get back into the playoffs, not sit at the end of another disappointing season and say "Hey look! there were teams worse than us. We're not that bad!"

The last time I checked the Bengals were firing coaches for your enjoyment and pleasure.

[HoosierCat]

How could you think Mike Brown has actually done a good job?

I don't.

Well, Hair is making admirable progress this thread.

I'm just convinced that he isn't going to fire himself, and that forces me to settle for lesser solutions or spend my time howling at the moon like the rest of you.

Better to howl at the moon than to stick you fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and shout lalalala there is no moon lalala.

[HairOnFire]

Well, Hair is making admirable progress this thread.

I admit freely I'm a work in progress, and I hope to keep learning and progressing until my last breath or final erection, whichever comes first. (No pun intended.)

Better to howl at the moon than to stick you fingers in your ears, close your eyes...

By all means, keep howling...as you're in good company. That said, Daugherty has been writing the same pointless article for something like 14 or 15 years in a row, and for all of the good he's done he may as well start every single day by slamming each his fingers with a hammer and call it brain surgery. And most telling, while criticism of Mike Brown may be entirely appropriate and justified I can't help forgetting how the results were laughable the one time Daugherty actually went on record offering his own plan.

Just saying...

[Oldcat]

I get the feeling that the main reason people want a GM is to give them someone to scream at in addition to Marvin, Mike Brown, Mike Brown's dog, and the coaches.

[cincyhokie]

I get the feeling that the main reason people want a GM is to give them someone to scream at in addition to Marvin, Mike Brown, Mike Brown's dog, and the coaches.

Or maybe it could be that the CURRENT formula of Mike Brown as the GM hasn't worked for squat in the last 16 of 17 years.

That's a pretty good recipe for some change in my opinion. I think the fans have a good right to "scream" at people running this franchise. And when the Bengals do bring in positive change like they did with Marvin 5 years ago, the fans were VERY patient with him. I don't know of another fanbase in football that would be as patient.

If we stay satisfied with what the Bengals give us. Mike Brown will keep giving it.

[HoosierCat]

Better to howl at the moon than to stick you fingers in your ears, close your eyes...

By all means, keep howling...as you're in good company.

But of course. After all, how could any company that includes yours be bad? And make no mistake, you're a howler. Mike Brown won't fire himself? You've spent three pages on this thread arguing that, in fact, Mike Brown did fire himself in 2003 when he gave unprecedented control and freedom to Marvin Lewis. This isn't about Mikey firing himself, its about whether he's given his -- again to use your analogy -- Parcellian coach/GM the tools to succeed. Whether that includes hiring a real GM is, as I said a while back, debatable. That it means a makeover of scouting and the personnel department that has yet to happen is inarguable.

[HairOnFire]

But of course. After all, how could any company that includes yours be bad?

Truer words were never spoken.

And make no mistake, you're a howler.

No, I'm not. On this message board the phrase "Howling at the Moon" has been used only by myself, much like "and there's the rub", and as a result is considered my intellectual property, and is to be used only when mocking Bengal fans, or hack sportswriters, who spend year after year impotently demanding Mike Brown hire a GM.

[BengalszoneBilly]

On this message board the phrase "Howling at the Moon" has been used only by myself, much like "and there's the rub", and as a result is considered my intellectual property, and is to be used only when mocking Bengal fans, or hack sportswriters, who spend year after year impotently demanding Mike Brown hire a GM.

C'mon Hair...of course we impotently demand year after year that Mike hires a GM, but it's only because his undeniably poor record as functioning as such begs for the organization to at least try it out for a few years. If it fails after that, then by all means Mike can retake the position.

[HoosierCat]

No, I'm not. On this message board the phrase "Howling at the Moon" has been used only by myself, much like "and there's the rub", and as a result is considered my intellectual property, and is to be used only when mocking Bengal fans, or hack sportswriters, who spend year after year impotently demanding Mike Brown hire a GM.

Impotently? But Mike Brown did fire himself back in 2003, right? He handed power, but not the resources to use it effectively, to Marvin Lewis. I hardly think calling for him to provide those resources, by (definitely) bringing the personnel department up to NFL snuff and (optionally) hiring a GM, is out of line.

As it is, Marvin Lewis has been set up to fail. I find it odd you should approve of that.

[HairOnFire]

Impotently? But Mike Brown did fire himself back in 2003, right?

You wish. And maybe I do as well, but it's clear he didn't fire himself in the context that Paul Daugherty and fans like yourself harp about on an annual basis. At best he hired a head coach and got the hell out of his way, giving him even more control than he'd given past Bengal coaches. But Brown never fired himself, nor did he hire a GM to handle the contract and administrative duties that the other heads of your mythical hydra currently handle.

He handed power, but not the resources to use it effectively, to Marvin Lewis.

Well, Lewis turned the team around immediately, didn't he? And Lewis had enough resources last season to have a very good draft, didn't he? Good picks at the top, middle, and very end of the draft, right? But if you're at least partially right, and I agree that more resources are needed, why would I expect the Bengals to suddenly do something they've proven very reluctant to even consider? Isn't it more likely that they put even greater emphasis on the steps they took immediately after Lewis was hired?

As it is, Marvin Lewis has been set up to fail. I find it odd you should approve of that.

Well, there's the rub because I don't agree that he's been set up to fail, and would point to his first three seasons as proof. That said, I will agree without hesitation that things need tweaking, refreshed, blown up a bit, and more than anything else....rebalanced.

[HoosierCat]

Impotently? But Mike Brown did fire himself back in 2003, right?

You wish. And maybe I do as well,

Be careful now! That sounded suspiciously like a yip in the general direction of Luna.

but it's clear he didn't fire himself in the context that Paul Daugherty and fans like yourself harp about on an annual basis. At best he hired a head coach and got the hell out of his way, giving him even more control than he'd given past Bengal coaches. But Brown never fired himself, nor did he hire a GM to handle the contract and administrative duties that the other heads of your mythical hydra currently handle.

I don't think that's clear at all. Look at what you're saying right here: Brown gave unprecedented control to Marvin, and sloughed off most of his front office duties on Katie and Troy. His role is quite different today versus in 2002, and even more so versus, for example, 1992. From what can be gleaned, Mikey's influence today can be felt most in the draft room, where he maintains a strong voice, and in free agency spending. But most other owners are involved in the draft and free agency, some much more so than Mike Brown today -- Snyderbrenner, Jerry Jones, Al Davis, maybe even Arthur Blank. Brown can, of course, reassert control any time he chooses, but that's true of the other 31 owners as well.

In short, Mike did do what guys like me had been calling for when he stepped back in 2003. In fact, I recall posting props to Mikey for doing so back on the old huddles boards, noting that it must have tough for him to pull the trigger on himself and turn the reins over to Marvin and Katie, and that I thought it showed real character. (At which point I was set upon by the uber-fed-ups who insisted it was all a plot and Mikey would still be pulling the strings from the shadows...sometimes you just can't win.)

The issue now isn't one of wanting Mike Brown to go away. Oddly enough, it's more of an issue of wanting him to come back and do something about personnel and scouting. Does that include hiring a GM? It might, but like I said earlier that's debatable.

But if you're at least partially right, and I agree that more resources are needed, why would I expect the Bengals to suddenly do something they've proven very reluctant to even consider? Isn't it more likely that they put even greater emphasis on the steps they took immediately after Lewis was hired?

Well, that's just what I'm asking. Remember, back on '03 the Bengals temporarily bumped up the scouting staff (likely because with all the coaches leaving they had to, or they would have had no scouts!) and even hired a pro scout. But that guy later got an assistant coaching job, and the scouting staff shrank to one full time guy and three retirees looking to do something in between cashing their Social Security checks. So yes, let's look back on 2003 and do it more and better now: build a real personnel department. And up top, take a hard look at the Mike-Katie-Troy structure and ask if it's working. And Marvin? Well, maybe he needs more power. Maybe the lack of locker room discipline is due in part because he lacks the power to fully discipline guys -- or can only discipline certain non-star types. But yes, by all means, let's look back to 2003 and take those steps further.

[HairOnFire]

So yes, let's look back on 2003 and do it more and better now: build a real personnel department.

I'd be thrilled if they added more scouts, but quite honestly I don't think the biggest issue is a failure to identify and add talent. So I'd much rather see them add coaching positions to the staff....as they did when Marvin was hired.

And up top, take a hard look at the Mike-Katie-Troy structure and ask if it's working.

Two heads of your hydra are mostly involved with contract negotiations and administrative duties. Both have their critics, but it's fair to say that they've managed to bring the Bengals into the modern contract age, and have even acted proactively on numerous occasions that wouldn't have been considered in the past. As for the third and oldest head of the hydra, it still dictates long-term strategy and as a result would only hire a general manager who agreed to work under the restrictions he imposes. So why bother? After all, Mike could revamp his personnel department in a heartbeat if convinced that the one he has in place was inadequate, but he doesn't. And there's the rub because he can point to as many pro bowlers on his roster, and late round and free agent finds, as most GM's.

And Marvin? Well, maybe he needs more power. Maybe the lack of locker room discipline is due in part because he lacks the power to fully discipline guys -- or can only discipline certain non-star types.

Isn't that true everywhere? In fact, aren't you currently arguing loudly that the Bengals biggest lockerroom distraction can't be disciplined properly precisely because of the size of his contract?

[HoosierCat]

I'd be thrilled if they added more scouts, but quite honestly I don't think the biggest issue is a failure to identify and add talent. So I'd much rather see them add coaching positions to the staff....as they did when Marvin was hired.

Well, the two issues are inseperable. I'd argue that you wouldn't need more coaches if they didn't have to spend half their time scouting. Under the current structure. If you want better coaching, hire some scouts so the coaches can concentrate on doing the job they are supposed to be doing.

Two heads of your hydra are mostly involved with contract negotiations and administrative duties. Both have their critics, but it's fair to say that they've managed to bring the Bengals into the modern contract age, and have even acted proactively on numerous occasions that wouldn't have been considered in the past. As for the third and oldest head of the hydra, it still dictates long-term strategy and as a result would only hire a general manager who agreed to work under the restrictions he imposes.

Like, for example, Katie? Works for me.

Isn't that true everywhere? In fact, aren't you currently arguing loudly that the Bengals biggest lockerroom distraction can't be disciplined properly precisely because of the size of his contract?

No, I've argued he should be traded or released because of his talent. The cap hit can dealt with.

[HairOnFire]

Two heads of your hydra are mostly involved with contract negotiations and administrative duties. Both have their critics, but it's fair to say that they've managed to bring the Bengals into the modern contract age, and have even acted proactively on numerous occasions that wouldn't have been considered in the past. As for the third and oldest head of the hydra, it still dictates long-term strategy and as a result would only hire a general manager who agreed to work under the restrictions he imposes.

Like, for example, Katie? Works for me.

Well I have to wonder what the fuss is about if you'd be satisfied with someone who is already a major player in the front office? Is the title of GM that important to you? Regardless, I doubt the choice of Katie as GM would satisfy the Paul Daughertys and ShulaSteahouses of the world, and the news would be greeted with insults, derision, and nervous laughter.

[HoosierCat]

Well I have to wonder what the fuss is about if you'd be satisfied with someone who is already a major player in the front office? Is the title of GM that important to you?

It has nothing to do with the title, it has to do with track record. If the Bengals have improved after giving Marvin and Katie (and possibly Troy) more rope, by all means, let's continue the process.

Regardless, I doubt the choice of Katie as GM would satisfy the Paul Daughertys and ShulaSteahouses of the world, and the news would be greeted with insults, derision, and nervous laughter.

Fortunately, that would fall into the category of, their problem, not mine.