Mike Brown on scouting

[HoosierCat]

Again, absolutely tons of stuff on scouting and drafting and in response all you clowns can do is duck.

Like Mike Brown, we're smart enough to know a waste of time when we see it.

Brown admits you can make numbers do whatever you want.

[cincyhokie]

How many seasons in a row without a playoff win? That's the only numbers the fans should really care about.

You should care about the truth enough to test your conspiracy theories. Instead, you can't be bothered to write more than a line or two when confronted with facts, rankings, and more than a dozen quotes that convincingly trash your ravings.

But no worries, right?

Because it's never difficult to find another Bengal fan who is just as lazy and bitter, ehhh?

Yes. I am convinced you are connected personally to the Brown's in some way.

Hey, Mike has dug his hole. We're not making up his failures because we don't like him. I want him and the Bengals to do well. The criticism pointed at him is deserved and a part of being an owner of a pro franchise.

Don't sling sh*t at us for having an opinion that reflects the majority of Bengals fans.

[HairOnFire]

At least one of you doesn't quack like a duck.

The argument that the Bengals draft well based on the percentage of players either, a). still with the team, or, . still in the NFL, falls flat since it is just as likely that they keep players because they are not as demanding (comment on committment to winning?), or that they don't know talent when they find it, thus cutting a talented guy who then does well on another team.

Sheesh, that's a horrible example of arguing both sides of the same point....and as a result not getting anything right. For example, you begin by claiming that the rankings of draft picks still on the roster is remarkably high because the Bengals are guilty of keeping players other teams wouldn't, and then conveniently claim that the companion ranking of players not on the roster but still in the NFL is proof that the Bengals lose a higher percentage of players whose level of talent they somehow missed.

Now factor in the high number of Bengalplayers who have played in a Pro Bowl, and an offensive unit built almost entirely with draft picks that ranks amongst the best in the NFL.

The mitigating factors surrounding the nature of the game itself, like coaching, injuries, luck, etc., do take some of the heat off the front ofice.

You seem to be saying that there are other factors to be considered other than mindlessly blathering something about "17 years is all I need to know". Well, props to you for refusing to take the easy way out. After all, the thread is about scouting and drafting, one of the most cherished of all the conspiracy theories popular in Bengala. However, for it to remain a cherished rant the raver must first promise to never debate the issue seriously or risk watching his pet theories crumble like an old totilla chip.

However, the "character" risk/issue, to me, is a very big one, given little play when a Red Herring like retention rates is dangled about. The issue of character is not one that has bitten the team since ML arrived, it began earlier, Dillon, Pickens, etc. with the real constant being SoP.

The character issue has bitten the team harder than most, but I have no problem accepting the teams explanation in regards to scouting. In short, they weren't caught off guard due to having a smaller scouting staff, but were eventually burned by their greater tolerance for risk. That's a totally different issue than scouting, and has been much debated. And as you note above the team had prospered on numerous occasions from their habit of drafting elite level players who had slipped in the draft, like Pickens and Dillon. So we're not talking about a draft strategy that hasn't paid big dividends in the past, just one that can't be continued under the current circumstances.

Noone will dispute that injuries decimated a large chunk of potential from this season. BUT it must be noted that the front office was ill prepared, as in delayed action to address the decimated LB group as evidenced by starting Chinny and Geathers at LB, for these injuries. I feel a larger, better prepared group in the front office could more quickly address an injury plague since they could have a greater volume of reviews and advance work on available players to call.

With all due respect, I disagree. There's only so many moves a team can make at one position during a given year and the Bengals were forced to repeatedly fill starting and backup positions at multiple linebacker spots. To think they could have done better than the moves they actually made is probably just wishful thinking. In addition, more moves would have resulted in less stability...the very thing that resulted in their late season improvement. To be fair, they almost certainly would and should have found a replacement for Brooks had they known he wasn't capable of returning, but all things considered its hardly suprising they took a chance he could come back. More to the point though, it has nothing to do with scouting or drafting.

Look, other teams in the NFL overcome injuries, why can't the Bengals?

I see almost no evidence that other teams are better prepared to overcome the type of injuries that have scuttled the Bengals chances. In fact, show me a single team that has overcome the overwhelming number of injuries to a unit like the Bengals devasted linebacking corp? At best you can document teams that have overcome a high number of injuries spread throughout the roster or to a single non-critical position.

Either way, it is something that has burned this team, starting at the top. Mr. Brown's choices to utilize an "average" scouting department, who knowingly drafted high-risk players have cost this team lost opportunity with other draftable players and in game results. More/better scouts could overcome this issue with more player options and better info on the rotten apples.

But the results aren't average in most cases. They're actually above average...which forces you into a position where you have to mock the rankings themselves. As for the character rant that you keep going back to, I think there are two ways to "skin that cat". The first is to hire more scouts. But that idea doesn't guarantee the problem would be fixed. Instead, the other option rests on refusing to draft high risk/high reward players, which the Bengals claim they will do.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Go on...give it ANOTHER try.

I'm not going line-by-line because I don't HAVE to. Ever since dear Mikey took over, the team's sucked. End of story. That's the point. The only constant has been Mikey. Coaches come and go. Personnel guys come and go. Players come and go. Yet Mikey's still here with his jittery hand on the wheel.

Is it scouting? Could be. Is it management? Could be. Bottom line is, it's *something*, because we're well outside the luck window at this point.

No matter how belligerent you get, you can't hide that fact. This team hasn't won with any consistency since Paul let go.

As for scouting numbers, you have to delve deeper into the stats. Of course our draft picks are still around, and mostly with the team - it's not like Mikey's going to, you know, sign a FA to replace them. I expect most of the starters are starting for us - I can't think of one other than Steinbach who's starting for anyone else. And the fact that we're 5th in players but 12th in games played tends to highlight that most of our exports are backups.

Then there's this gem:

"They are higher than that in percentage of players still with the team (fifth with 67.4), percentage of players still in the NFL (fifth at 81.4 percent) and percentage of players no longer in the NFL (fifth at 18.6)."

The fact that the morons who came up with these stats didn't realized that the second and third are, in fact, the same stat kind of indicts everything else they said. My guess is there's not anyone in that PR department who passed math class.

[HairOnFire]

Again, absolutely tons of stuff on scouting and drafting and in response all you clowns can do is duck.

Like Mike Brown, we're smart enough to know a waste of time when we see it.

But that's just the point, you're not that smart. Most of you will happily waste great gobs of your time making empty claims about scouting and drafting, but when you're given the chance to respond directly to facts, rankings and direct quotes all you can do is pretend you don't care enough to waste a keystroke or two.

You want to know what I find most funny?

Most of you guys have completely ducked every opportunity to respond directly to the things Mike Brown says, but each of you fall all over yourselves debating the things Paul Daugherty pretends to know.

[HairOnFire]

I'm not going line-by-line because I don't HAVE to.

And I don't have to read anymore of your post when you've made it clear how determined you are to duck the topic at hand.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but the reason most of you aren't offering anything of relevance is because you've got nothing of relevance to add.

[HairOnFire]

Yes. I am convinced you are connected personally to the Brown's in some way.

Yeah, I get that alot. Then again, I've been known to converse with some remarkably stupid people who can't think of anything clever to say.

Want a peanut?

The criticism pointed at him is deserved and a part of being an owner of a pro franchise.

The criticism in this case is the size and quality of his scouting staff, and the only thing that has been proven is how most of you can't be bothered debating whether the criticism has merit.

Don't sling sh*t at us for having an opinion that reflects the majority of Bengals fans.

Hey, good luck with that. You see, I'm a Bengals fan who doesn't give a crap about the majority opinion.

[cincyhokie]

Yes. I am convinced you are connected personally to the Brown's in some way.

Yeah, I get that alot. Then again, I've been known to converse with some remarkably stupid people who can't think of anything clever to say.

Want a peanut?

The criticism pointed at him is deserved and a part of being an owner of a pro franchise.

The criticism in this case is the size and quality of his scouting staff, and the only thing that has been proven is how most of you can't be bothered debating whether the criticism has merit.

Don't sling sh*t at us for having an opinion that reflects the majority of Bengals fans.

Hey, good luck with that. You see, I'm a Bengals fan who doesn't give a crap about the majority opinion.

That's fair. You do seem a bit harsh in your opinions, no? Nobody is personally attacking you....or at least not that I have noticed.

Now I think it's admirable that you can throw words around like "stupid" or even more original cliches such as "want a peanut." The internet is a great place to talk tough. But then again, in my 8 years of serving in the Army I've met alot of ego driven asses who know how to shovel sh*t pretty well, so running into someone like you is nothing new.

Back to the post. Kudos for the Bengals finishing in the top 10 in some drafting catagories. My criticism of Mike Brown is not the results of what he has done, it's that he's content with where the Bengals are and not once does he come out and state he wants to be the best. He seems very content with being "ok".

[HoosierCat]

Again, absolutely tons of stuff on scouting and drafting and in response all you clowns can do is duck.

Like Mike Brown, we're smart enough to know a waste of time when we see it.

You want to know what I find most funny?

Since you asked...no.

[GregCook]

Yes. I am convinced you are connected personally to the Brown's in some way.

Yeah, I get that alot. Then again, I've been known to converse with some remarkably stupid people who can't think of anything clever to say.

Want a peanut?

The criticism pointed at him is deserved and a part of being an owner of a pro franchise.

The criticism in this case is the size and quality of his scouting staff, and the only thing that has been proven is how most of you can't be bothered debating whether the criticism has merit.

Don't sling sh*t at us for having an opinion that reflects the majority of Bengals fans.

Hey, good luck with that. You see, I'm a Bengals fan who doesn't give a crap about the majority opinion.

Lets get some perspective here. Personally I have zero insight to the Bengals organization and I don't know if their scouts are good, great or average. I don't know the Bengals structure at all.

What surprises me from this article is Mike Brown's self assurance that status quo is fine. He takes pride in reciting lots of stats showing good scouting yet can't address what he can do for changing the stat that matters, the Won/Loss stat. That stat isn't an opinion, its a fact.

If I were him, with only 1 winning season in almost 20 years, I'd be making changes every year to win. Management, coaches, scouts and players are the main tools he has to change the won/loss stats. He has changed coaches and players without changing the won/loss stats. So its obvious to me that he needs to work on the two that haven't seen much change, management and scouts. If I were the owner, I'd do what Kraft did, I'd look at the best practices of the teams that have success decade after decade and see what could be tried in Cincy. But status quo shouldn't be the option that Mike Brown seems to embrace.

[HairOnFire]

That's fair. You do seem a bit harsh in your opinions, no? Nobody is personally attacking you....or at least not that I have noticed.

No, attacking is too harsh a word. But then again I doubt you were throwing flowers at my feet when you wondered aloud if I might be related to Mike Brown. Not to make too big a deal out of it, but that line of crap has always seemed remarkably stupid and I don't mind if you mind when I say so. Nor do I gave a crap what your response is when I say something equally stupid....like wondering if you want a peanut.

But then again, in my 8 years of serving in the Army I've met alot of ego driven asses who know how to shovel sh*t pretty well, so running into someone like you is nothing new.

So the Army is full of ego driven asses who spend their days concerned with all manners of s**t, including how to shovel it? Well, it's good to know guys like you will always have a place to fit it. Besides, I hear the pay is outstanding, right?

Back to the post.

It's your choice.

Kudos for the Bengals finishing in the top 10 in some drafting catagories.

Top five in a couple. Top ten in a few. And in one or two other examples, middle of the pack at the very worst.

My criticism of Mike Brown is not the results of what he has done, it's that he's content with where the Bengals are and not once does he come out and state he wants to be the best.

I'd put it this way. He's content with the performance of his staff in regards to this particular issue, thinks the criticism directed his way on this front is unwarranted, and is willing to defend past performance on this narrow topic with facts and opinions. Not only can't I argue with that, but none of you seem to be able to as well. That said, I doubt he'd be so quick to defend his record in regards to coaching hires, the search for a franchise QB, or the overall won/loss record. And neither would I.

[HairOnFire]

Since you asked...no.

Sometimes I wonder why you even bother responding.

[HairOnFire]

What surprises me from this article is Mike Brown's self assurance that status quo is fine. He takes pride in reciting lots of stats showing good scouting yet can't address what he can do for changing the stat that matters, the Won/Loss stat.

But he's only addressing the issue of scouting, and he only bothers to do that much because, in his opinion, it's become the favorite rant of Bengal fans this year, no doubt in part because of the pot stirring of noted expert on all things NFL, Paul Daugherty. (Just check his resume)

He has changed coaches and players without changing the won/loss stats.

They have changed. The last two seasons have been frustrating, but it's only been three years since the Bengals won the division and qualified for the playoffs...with the same head coach and many of the same players. No kidding, it hasn't been 17 years...as many would have you believe.

[cincyhokie]

No, attacking is too harsh a word. But then again I doubt you were throwing flowers at my feet when you wondered aloud if I might be related to Mike Brown. Not to make too big a deal out of it, but that line of crap has always seemed remarkably stupid and I don't mind if you mind when I say so. Nor do I gave a crap what your response is when I say something equally stupid....like wondering if you want a peanut.

That was a serious question. I was asking if you were connected with the family. Sorry for the manner you interpreted it. I know someone who is close to the Brown family and they get very defensive about anything "anti-Mike". Since I know someone who does know the Brown family, the quesiton doesn't seem very stupid to me.

So the Army is full of ego driven asses who spend their days concerned with all manners of s**t, including how to shovel it? Well, it's good to know guys like you will always have a place to fit it. Besides, I hear the pay is outstanding, right?

Yep, they're everywhere. People who's number one motivation is to make sure you know how much they know. As for the sh*t? I haven't found a place for all of it as of yet.

The pay is ok, but not if you break the salary down by the hour.

Top five in a couple. Top ten in a few. And in one or two other examples, middle of the pack at the very worst.

Seems familiar.

I'd put it this way. He's content with the performance of his staff in regards to this particular issue, thinks the criticism directed his way on this front is unwarranted, and is willing to defend past performance on this narrow topic with facts and opinions. Not only can't I argue with that, but none of you seem to be able to as well. That said, I doubt he'd be so quick to defend his record in regards to coaching hires, the search for a franchise QB, or the overall won/loss record. And neither would I.

In my opinion, if Mike Brown really wanted to deflect criticism, he wouldn't defend "ok" to "pretty good" numbers. Those are only defendable if you can back them up with results....like a consistent winning record.

I think the Bengals are damn good at finding talent in the later rounds. Imagine what they could do if they continually improved that process....but they won't do that. I believe Mike Brown has a very hard time with change. Add that with an ingrained sense of loyalty and you've got the recipe for sucessful seasons followed by underacheiving ones. For teams to compete consistently they need to change and be forward thinking. I just don't think Mike Brown wants to run his business that way.

[HoosierCat]

Since you asked...no.

Sometimes I wonder why you even bother responding.

Because like you I'm a plinking fugtard, remember?

[DuffMan]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that proper etiquette states that you should never talk about politics, religion, or Mike Brown.

[BengalszoneBilly]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that proper etiquette states that you should never talk about politics, religion, or Mike Brown.

At least on this website Duffy! I just never ends.

[kingwilly]

At least one of you doesn't quack like a duck.

...and I don't walk like a duck.

Sheesh, that's a horrible example of arguing both sides of the same point....and as a result not getting anything right. For example, you begin by claiming that the rankings of draft picks still on the roster is remarkably high because the Bengals are guilty of keeping players other teams wouldn't, and then conveniently claim that the companion ranking of players not on the roster but still in the NFL is proof that the Bengals lose a higher percentage of players whose level of talent they somehow missed.

Now factor in the high number of Bengalplayers who have played in a Pro Bowl, and an offensive unit built almost entirely with draft picks that ranks amongst the best in the NFL.

No, it is not a horrible example. Mr. Brown is stating that they retain one of the highest %’s of drafted player and have them start plus states that even the ones they cut stay in the league.

I am simply looking at it from another angle. It may be crass but it is not implicitly wrong.

Mr. Brown is using these %’s as claim for success of his small scouting dept. and as distraction from the losing going on, as in, “its not the front office”. Ask any fan what they’d want, a Suberbowl or some big stats and Pro Bowl players.

To be clear, I am not arguing that other teams would let players go that we’d keep, just saying that other teams might be more demanding of those they keep. I do concede the second point, about cut players being mis-evaluated. It is weak.

You seem to be saying that there are other factors to be considered other than mindlessly blathering something about "17 years is all I need to know". Well, props to you for refusing to take the easy way out. After all, the thread is about scouting and drafting, one of the most cherished of all the conspiracy theories popular in Bengala. However, for it to remain a cherished rant the raver must first promise to never debate the issue seriously or risk watching his pet theories crumble like an old totilla chip.

I hardly think any of my theories have crumbled.

The character issue has bitten the team harder than most, but I have no problem accepting the teams explanation in regards to scouting. In short, they weren't caught off guard due to having a smaller scouting staff, but were eventually burned by their greater tolerance for risk. That's a totally different issue than scouting, and has been much debated. And as you note above the team had prospered on numerous occasions from their habit of drafting elite level players who had slipped in the draft, like Pickens and Dillon. So we're not talking about a draft strategy that hasn't paid big dividends in the past, just one that can't be continued under the current circumstances.

I think it has everything to do with scouting and front office staff. If Mikey has a few more serious voices of reason, not the obvious “yes” men, maybe he gives in and they don’t gamble on a Cheech, an Odell, a Nicholson, etc. etc. What is being missed is that it may be a good gamble in the future and my point is why not add 2 or 3 people to the staff so that they can do the extra work to assure the gamble is a good one?

Consider this, an r1 pick, mid-range, may cost upwards of $10-15M in year one. A few extra professional player scouts, expenses and benefits may be $600-750k TOTAL. I think that is a very small “cost of doing business” to get it more right than without, when that kind of cake is on the line for your team.

With all due respect, I disagree. There's only so many moves a team can make at one position during a given year and the Bengals were forced to repeatedly fill starting and backup positions at multiple linebacker spots. To think they could have done better than the moves they actually made is probably just wishful thinking. In addition, more moves would have resulted in less stability...the very thing that resulted in their late season improvement. To be fair, they almost certainly would and should have found a replacement for Brooks had they known he wasn't capable of returning, but all things considered its hardly suprising they took a chance he could come back. More to the point though, it has nothing to do with scouting or drafting.

This issue is a cumulative one. Bad roster decisions ultimately led to this scenario. Here I’ll point to the drafting of Odell and Nicholson. Next, not re-signing Wilkins or (gulp) Simmons, and then counting on guys like Miller and Schlegel, Manning, Maxey, Mays and Maxwell to shore up the slack. Part of this is due to total brain fart incurred as they burned up a roster spot on Kilmer instead of getting a competent LB in the fold while they were still available…not in week 11.

I see almost no evidence that other teams are better prepared to overcome the type of injuries that have scuttled the Bengals chances. In fact, show me a single team that has overcome the overwhelming number of injuries to a unit like the Bengals devasted linebacking corp? At best you can document teams that have overcome a high number of injuries spread throughout the roster or to a single non-critical position.

Ok, may I draw your attention to the following teams who overcame serious injuries:

Exhibit A – Buffalo Bills, the single most injured team in the NFL in 07

The Bills had the most players on the injured reserve list — 17. They also lost the most games to injury by starters. If you count players who started the season opener and how many games they lost to injury, the number for the Bills is 89 games lost by 12 different players.

And yet, they were 7-9 and were a bubble play-off team…

Exhibit B – Indianapolis Colts, the second most injurd team in the NFL in 07.

Indianapolis lost 81 games by the players who started the season opener. That’s a testament to the coaching job Tony Dungy did this year and the depth of talent General Manager Bill Polian has built on the squad.

And yet they were 13-3 and the 2 seed in the playoffs.

The Bengals were not even in the top 8 of most injured.

Yes, it was focused on LB’s but one could argue that should be an easier problem to solve, eh?

But the results aren't average in most cases. They're actually above average...which forces you into a position where you have to mock the rankings themselves. As for the character rant that you keep going back to, I think there are two ways to "skin that cat". The first is to hire more scouts. But that idea doesn't guarantee the problem would be fixed. Instead, the other option rests on refusing to draft high risk/high reward players, which the Bengals claim they will do.

No, it does not guarantee a solution but it really is one of two alternatives: Don’t draft character-issue guys or hire more scouts to dig deep and take better educated risks.

I would be OK with the Bengals taking risks if they added to the staff and had more/better information. I fail to see how adding staff is such a bad business move, given the alternative (status quo) and the possible upside therein.

What I hear from Mr. Mikey is a sort of passive-aggressive “we’re doing pretty good over here with what we’ve got, check out these worthless stats I’m about to throw at you…”, which sounds a lot like Mr. Bush on Iraq, “It’s hard work over there, and our people are working hard” while ignoring the greater issues. It is a failing gambit...look at the dancing monkey! Dance! Dance! Whoo, pretty monkey! All the while Mr. Brown turns the organ and his merry men fleece the mesmerized crowd.

[Jonboat]

While I'd like to see a few more scouts if for nothing else other than to lessen the workload of the coaches , I don't really disagree with MB. Pre Marvin MB frugals ways were very frustrating but he's made many changes with the facilities, coaches . I think the talent from drafting has improved since Marvin came to the team & if IRC losing the majority of the 05 class many here were saying that set us back 2 yrs & guess what they was right! MB manned up & has said they made some mistakes by taking character risks & it has bit them in the ass the easiest solution is to just not draft players with those type of risks.

I didn't take the article as he is not committed to win just that he's saying that just because they do things differently than most other teams that it can't work seeing as how two years ago we made the playoffs, last year despite the injuries we were one bad call (TB) & one missed FG away from making the playoffs so perhaps he right it can be done .

There are many factors that play into winning or losing the biggest factor the last two years has been injuries particularly @ LB personally I'd blow up the medical staff how many times have we heard they have misdiagnosed injuries hell wasn't it Willie that seen other DR just prior to camp to find out they misdiagnosed his foot injury & had they had it right @ the end of the season he would've healthy enough to start the season. I know I've heard many talking heads spout off about injuries being an excuse but that is BS . Yeah there maybe other teams with more injuries but we've had the majority of injuries @ LB Dhani & AS had to play the first week we signed them off the street. Lb also play a key role on ST which we all seen how bad they was the first 4 games or so you could even make the argument that they cost us a couple games. This team desperately needs stability @ the LB position . Nobody can tell me that if you lose not only your 1 rst stringers but 2&3 stringers @ one position it doesn't impact the team as to whether they win or lose & is just an excuse!

I don't think that MB is without blame but there's plenty of blame to go around from top to bottom & adding a couple of scouts will not cure all that .

As far as the local media they're just pissed & their poor little feelings was hurt when Lewis said he could explain it but they wouldn't understand seems like after Marvin's comments they have slammed him & the team everyday since. I'm quite sure that with all the online resources & articles that they know more than the coaches !!

[COB]

While I'd like to see a few more scouts if for nothing else other than to lessen the workload of the coaches , I don't really disagree with MB. Pre Marvin MB frugals ways were very frustrating but he's made many changes with the facilities, coaches . I think the talent from drafting has improved since Marvin came to the team & if IRC losing the majority of the 05 class many here were saying that set us back 2 yrs & guess what they was right! MB manned up & has said they made some mistakes by taking character risks & it has bit them in the ass the easiest solution is to just not draft players with those type of risks.

I didn't take the article as he is not committed to win just that he's saying that just because they do things differently than most other teams that it can't work seeing as how two years ago we made the playoffs, last year despite the injuries we were one bad call (TB) & one missed FG away from making the playoffs so perhaps he right it can be done .

There are many factors that play into winning or losing the biggest factor the last two years has been injuries particularly @ LB personally I'd blow up the medical staff how many times have we heard they have misdiagnosed injuries hell wasn't it Willie that seen other DR just prior to camp to find out they misdiagnosed his foot injury & had they had it right @ the end of the season he would've healthy enough to start the season. I know I've heard many talking heads spout off about injuries being an excuse but that is BS . Yeah there maybe other teams with more injuries but we've had the majority of injuries @ LB Dhani & AS had to play the first week we signed them off the street. Lb also play a key role on ST which we all seen how bad they was the first 4 games or so you could even make the argument that they cost us a couple games. This team desperately needs stability @ the LB position . Nobody can tell me that if you lose not only your 1 rst stringers but 2&3 stringers @ one position it doesn't impact the team as to whether they win or lose & is just an excuse!

I don't think that MB is without blame but there's plenty of blame to go around from top to bottom & adding a couple of scouts will not cure all that .

As far as the local media they're just pissed & their poor little feelings was hurt when Lewis said he could explain it but they wouldn't understand seems like after Marvin's comments they have slammed him & the team everyday since. I'm quite sure that with all the online resources & articles that they know more than the coaches !!

Insightful post. Well-reasoned, and I agreed with almost all of it. But Jon, you could make it easier on yourself if you'd just write, "Mike Brown is an inbred moron who is still squeezing his first nickel, and we'll continue to be the worst team in the NFL as long he's drawing breath. Go Reds." Then when some blind homer points out that we're actually a winning team (five year period caveat) with our current regime, thus one of the better teams in the NFL, you just have to write, "Lumina". There, wasn't that easier?

[Jonboat]

[/quote

This issue is a cumulative one. Bad roster decisions ultimately led to this scenario. Here I'll point to the drafting of Odell and Nicholson. Next, not re-signing Wilkins or (gulp) Simmons, and then counting on guys like Miller and Schlegel, Manning, Maxey, Mays and Maxwell to shore up the slack. Part of this is due to total brain fart incurred as they burned up a roster spot on Kilmer instead of getting a competent LB in the fold while they were still available…not in week 11.

Iagree there was some bad roster decisions but part of the blame has to go on Marvin. I liked Wilkins but Simmons how did he do this year? Miller was projected 2nd or 3rd string the others you mentioned we signed out of desperation but also to contribute to ST. you also forgot about a couple players we did sign like Dhani & Marshall looked good Schlegel I think will be a decent player when healthy. The D & ST did improve toward the end of the season I'm sure the others contributed to ST.

Ok, may I draw your attention to the following teams who overcame serious injuries:

Exhibit A – Buffalo Bills, the single most injured team in the NFL in 07

The Bills had the most players on the injured reserve list — 17. They also lost the most games to injury by starters. If you count players who started the season opener and how many games they lost to injury, the number for the Bills is 89 games lost by 12 different players.

And yet, they were 7-9 and were a bubble play-off team…

Exhibit B – Indianapolis Colts, the second most injurd team in the NFL in 07.

Indianapolis lost 81 games by the players who started the season opener. That's a testament to the coaching job Tony Dungy did this year and the depth of talent General Manager Bill Polian has built on the squad.

And yet they were 13-3 and the 2 seed in the playoffs.

The Bengals were not even in the top 8 of most injured.

Yes, it was focused on LB's but one could argue that should be an easier problem to solve, eh?

I would argue just the opposite that it is a harder problem to solve @ LB because LB are a key part of ST which cost us at least two games. Bills@ 7-9 wasn't much better than us & Indy is a good team but when comparing the injuries did they lose virtually all their LB & have to sign players off the street only to have them start that week , we lost all of the depth @ that position we even lost a couple LB like Marshall & Schlegel that got injured after replacing the injured. I don't care if it's the PATS if you take away their 1rst thru 3rd stringers @ LB your going to struggle.I don't think the injuries are the only reason for the losses but it was one major reason & I just don't get why people are so afraid to say it & gloss over it .

[Jonboat]

While I'd like to see a few more scouts if for nothing else other than to lessen the workload of the coaches , I don't really disagree with MB. Pre Marvin MB frugals ways were very frustrating but he's made many changes with the facilities, coaches . I think the talent from drafting has improved since Marvin came to the team & if IRC losing the majority of the 05 class many here were saying that set us back 2 yrs & guess what they was right! MB manned up & has said they made some mistakes by taking character risks & it has bit them in the ass the easiest solution is to just not draft players with those type of risks.

I didn't take the article as he is not committed to win just that he's saying that just because they do things differently than most other teams that it can't work seeing as how two years ago we made the playoffs, last year despite the injuries we were one bad call (TB) & one missed FG away from making the playoffs so perhaps he right it can be done .

There are many factors that play into winning or losing the biggest factor the last two years has been injuries particularly @ LB personally I'd blow up the medical staff how many times have we heard they have misdiagnosed injuries hell wasn't it Willie that seen other DR just prior to camp to find out they misdiagnosed his foot injury & had they had it right @ the end of the season he would've healthy enough to start the season. I know I've heard many talking heads spout off about injuries being an excuse but that is BS . Yeah there maybe other teams with more injuries but we've had the majority of injuries @ LB Dhani & AS had to play the first week we signed them off the street. Lb also play a key role on ST which we all seen how bad they was the first 4 games or so you could even make the argument that they cost us a couple games. This team desperately needs stability @ the LB position . Nobody can tell me that if you lose not only your 1 rst stringers but 2&3 stringers @ one position it doesn't impact the team as to whether they win or lose & is just an excuse!

I don't think that MB is without blame but there's plenty of blame to go around from top to bottom & adding a couple of scouts will not cure all that .

As far as the local media they're just pissed & their poor little feelings was hurt when Lewis said he could explain it but they wouldn't understand seems like after Marvin's comments they have slammed him & the team everyday since. I'm quite sure that with all the online resources & articles that they know more than the coaches !!

Insightful post. Well-reasoned, and I agreed with almost all of it. But Jon, you could make it easier on yourself if you'd just write, "Mike Brown is an inbred moron who is still squeezing his first nickel, and we'll continue to be the worst team in the NFL as long he's drawing breath. Go Reds." Then when some blind homer points out that we're actually a winning team (five year period caveat) with our current regime, thus one of the better teams in the NFL, you just have to write, "Lumina". There, wasn't that easier?

Man that would've been easier!

[HairOnFire]

I am simply looking at it from another angle. It may be crass but it is not implicitly wrong.

It's entirely wrong. The number of players still on the Bengals roster may be higher than most teams due to their strategy of building almost exclusively by way of the draft, but the high number of Bengal draft picks still in the NFL, but no longer with the team, is fairly hard proof of their level of talent. And since they were Bengal draft picks it's ridiculous to claim the Bengals weren't aware of what they had.

To be clear, I am not arguing that other teams would let players go that we’d keep, just saying that other teams might be more demanding of those they keep. I do concede the second point, about cut players being mis-evaluated. It is weak.

Holy crap. Who admits they're wrong about anything around here? And most importantly, how am I supposed to respond to this clever new tactic?

I hardly think any of my theories have crumbled.

You mean besides the one immediately above, right? That said, my remark in this case wasn't aimed at you, as you were actually willing to debate this topic instead of ducking it, as most others are quilty of doing when they bleat..."17 years is all I need to know."

Consider this, an r1 pick, mid-range, may cost upwards of $10-15M in year one. A few extra professional player scouts, expenses and benefits may be $600-750k TOTAL. I think that is a very small “cost of doing business” to get it more right than without, when that kind of cake is on the line for your team.

But the Bengals haven't used 1st round picks on character risks. Instead, they waited for them to fall into lower rounds where their cost is much reduced. To be fair, when too many of those risks fail to pay off the cost still becomes too high, as the Bengals just found out, but they claim they've learned their lesson. If true, the problem is already solved.

The Bengals were not even in the top 8 of most injured. Yes, it was focused on LB’s but one could argue that should be an easier problem to solve, eh?

Not at all. In fact, I think the opposite is true. Spread the number of injuries around the roster and the Bengals would very likely been able to compete far better.

What I hear from Mr. Mikey is a sort of passive-aggressive “we’re doing pretty good over here with what we’ve got, check out these worthless stats I’m about to throw at you…”....

They aren't worthless. What they are is a nagging problem for those who claim the Bengals recent history of drafting is the biggest problem being faced, and needs to be corrected with blah, blah, blah. The truth is far different.

Bottom Line: To learn what the Bengals real problems are Cincinnati would need a much smarter Paul Daugherty.

[Walrus]

Consider this, an r1 pick, mid-range, may cost upwards of $10-15M in year one. A few extra professional player scouts, expenses and benefits may be $600-750k TOTAL. I think that is a very small “cost of doing business” to get it more right than without, when that kind of cake is on the line for your team.

But the Bengals haven't used 1st round picks on character risks. Instead, they waited for them to fall into lower rounds where their cost is much reduced. To be fair, when too many of those risks fail to pay off the cost still becomes too high, as the Bengals just found out, but they claim they've learned their lesson. If true, the problem is already solved.

Unfortunately, the real cost of taking character risks is not just in dollars and cents -- it's the fact that your whole team becomes vulnerable to one false move from an unpredictable bonehead. What do we do about our WR's? -- Henry is an idiot who we can't count on and now Chad is looking like he might blow up. But you can't bring in a FA as a contingency plan and probably don't want to invest a high draft pick when you have Chad, TJ and Henry as your corp -- a couple of things go slightly wrong and we're seriously screwed (see: Bengals LB Corp, 2007)

What I hear from Mr. Mikey is a sort of passive-aggressive “we’re doing pretty good over here with what we’ve got, check out these worthless stats I’m about to throw at you…”....

They aren't worthless. What they are is a nagging problem for those who claim the Bengals recent history of drafting is the biggest problem being faced, and needs to be corrected with blah, blah, blah. The truth is far different.

Imagine if Carson Palmer called a press conference at the end of the season and answered critics who wanted to know why the season blew up by trotting out his personal stats and saying "I'm not the problem -- what I'm doing is working fine. I have stats that put me comfortably in the middle of the league in completion percentage. I stand by my success in bringing us 4 non-losing records and to one playoff game." Yes, the stats are true. But it's not the kind of talk we really want to hear from our team leaders, is it? Why is it acceptable from Mike Brown?

Bottom Line: To learn what the Bengals real problems are Cincinnati would need a much smarter Paul Daugherty.

So, as the resident fan Much Smarter Than Paul Daugherty, what will the offseason look like and when can I start expecting success for this franchise? Will Mike "right the ship" or "get the oxcart rolling" by 2008? 2009?

[HoosierCat]

Imagine if Carson Palmer called a press conference at the end of the season and answered critics who wanted to know why the season blew up by trotting out his personal stats and saying "I'm not the problem -- what I'm doing is working fine. I have stats that put me comfortably in the middle of the league in completion percentage. I stand by my success in bringing us 4 non-losing records and to one playoff game." Yes, the stats are true. But it's not the kind of talk we really want to hear from our team leaders, is it? Why is it acceptable from Mike Brown?

Even better: imagine the full-bore Hair freak-out if Chad said something like that...