Paul Daugherty Admits Bengals Are Competent

[HairOnFire]

Bengals in good shape for NFL draft

It might be an accident, but team is sitting pretty

By Paul Daugherty

Draft Day is almost upon us. Like taxes, chicken pox and Twitter, it can’t be helped.

It’s the culmination of a ridiculous season of stopwatches, sleeve lengths and shuttle runs. Jon Gruden thinks Tim Tebow will be a fine NFL quarterback, because Tebow sits up straight in his chair.

The only thing we know about the local contribution to the insanity is this:

The Bengals are in good shape.

The same club we take to task every other day, for having a scouting department you could fit in the back of a Toyota, has a solid, deep roster. On Thursday (and Friday and Saturday, Draft without end, amen) the Bengals will not have to reach for a player they need.

Let other teams wheel and deal and seek desperately their “difference maker.’’ Let the other guys make Mel Kiper’s HAIR stand straight up. The Bengals can let the board unfold as it suits them. They can take a player they want. This is what the good teams do.

Through shrewd drafting, persuasive coaches wooing decent free agents and a heap of sheer, dumb luck, the Bengals are in a position to draft for roster depth. I’ve been here 22 years. I’m not sure I’ve ever written that.

They’ve done it with one scout. At least that’s what the team lists list in its media guide. That’s like winning a battle with one soldier, who has a red cross on his helmet.

Greg Seamon, the scout, knows how Custer felt. Duke Tobin, Jim Lippincott and Bill Tobin have other titles. They scout, too. Still, compared to most NFL teams, it’s like fighting a ninja with a Ginsu knife.

The Bengals would like a tight end who can catch a short- or medium-range pass over the middle on third down. That’s like a baseball team whose biggest need is a solid middle reliever.

How did it get this way? How did the Bengals, proud employers of Dave Klingler, Akili Smith, Freddie Childress and Reinard Wilson, get so, you know, loaded? Can they stay that way, or have recent seasons been an aberration and soon enough, they’ll be back to bringing in Lamar Rogers and Peter Warrick?

Marvin Lewis is a great schmoozer. His credibility with players league-wide is high. Start with that. Lewis can convince veteran free agents to come to Cincinnati, when they might have other options. Lewis is well connected around the league, so when a Dhani Jones is surfing on a beach in SoCal and the Bengals need a linebacker five minutes ago, Lewis can dial up any number of coaches who can give him the straight skinny on Jones.

Mike Zimmer is loved by players he has coached. That got the Bengals Chris Crocker and, to a lesser extent, Tank Johnson and Roy Williams. Ced Benson was a shot in the dark that found the bullseye. That was luck.

The miniature scouting staff has been together awhile. Seamon, Lippincott and the Tobins have a seven-year partnership. They’ve worked the same areas of the country, developing contacts and relationships.

Seamon and Lippincott fly so much, they’re starting to look like little bags of peanuts. As Mike Brown has said, the Bengals get as much information on players as any team. It’s the decisions made on that info that are critical. Until recently, the Bengals have come up short in that department.

Lately, they’re on it. Look at the roster, tell me what they need. Defensive backs? A safety, given the ages of Crocker and Williams. Linebackers? Nope. Defensive linemen? A pass rusher up the middle would be a luxury.

Offensive line? A guard for Bobbie Williams to teach. And the tight end. That’s it.

Last year, the top eight Bengals’ picks made the club. That’s remarkable on a team that won a division.

In the last three years, of the 29 players the Bengals drafted, four are starters and 11 are backups. Compare that to the New England Patriots, considered the gold standard when it comes to astute acquisition of players: 28 picks, four starters, eight backups.

It might be a trend. It might be an accident. Regardless, in the win-now NFL, the Bengals are in good shape. You never know what you might see, if you live long enough.

[TJJackson]

Isn't this the guy you hold up as the poster boy for bad journalism?

[HairOnFire]

Isn't this the guy you hold up as the poster boy for bad journalism?

Absolutely.

Thus the sarcastic thread title.

Because in our latest dick-shaped example of local sportswriting Paul Daugherty offers poorly written praise, both sincere and insincere, to the very front office and scouting staff that he has spent his entire writing career mocking. In fact, in past musings Daugherty has claimed the Bengals draft methods simply CAN'T work.

Ever.

But there's the rub, because not even Daugherty can deny the quality and depth he sees when he judges the Bengals roster, and he has no choice but reach the same conclusions so many others have. That being, they're practically loaded, and perfectly positioned to select BPA from the first round to the last.

They are what he said they'd never be.

[TJJackson]

Ok, I now get the point you're making

[kingwilly]

But it can work, in a "watch-is-right-twice-a-day" type of way.

[HairOnFire]

But it can work, in a "watch-is-right-twice-a-day" type of way.

Cute, but twice a day under any circumstances isn't the same thing as never, is it?

Again, they are what he once claimed they'd never be, and that should be enough to make Daugherty, and his minions, reconsider some of his past claims. And to a point Daugherty manages to do just that as he begrudingly gives the team credit for actually doing many things he claimed they couldn't and wouldn't do.

But Daugherty, and you for that matter, still manage to choke yourselves on dick-shaped crackers by asking if it's all an accident or the result of dumb luck.

[BengalPimp]

Paul Douchebaggery....Who Cares?

[HairOnFire]

Paul Douchebaggery....Who Cares?

How about the small army of local dips**ts who for more than a decade have trolled Bengal messageboards repeating Daugherty's rants word for word and line for line, almost as if they had thought 'em up on their own?

For just one example, MomsLikeBearCat.

And for a few hundred more, all of the rebels at WhoDeyRevolution.

[kingwilly]

But it can work, in a "watch-is-right-twice-a-day" type of way.

Cute, but twice a day under any circumstances isn't the same thing as never, is it?

Again, they are what he once claimed they'd never be, and that should be enough to make Daugherty, and his minions, reconsider some of his past claims. And to a point Daugherty manages to do just that as he begrudingly gives the team credit for actually doing many things he claimed they couldn't and wouldn't do.

But Daugherty, and you for that matter, still manage to choke yourselves on dick-shaped crackers by asking if it's all an accident or the result of dumb luck.

Maybe there would be more belief that SoP's method "works" if they could string together more than 2 playoff games (losses at that) in more than two decades?

I do not begrudginly give them accolades, or even credit, for the success of last year because, from a draft perspective, it was not anything special, nor was the year before.

The blind squirrel with the broken watch. This management style has more to prove than to hang its hat on.

[COB]

"Through shrewd drafting,"

I'm trying to picture Paul Douchebaggery typing the above three words.

I can't see it. It is possible he's subcontracted his writing out to an intern at the Enquirer. Or his brain could have been re-programmed after he was abducted by aliens.

I just can't see him writing this after years of claiming the Bengals' business model was broken, unfixable, and they'd never make the playoffs as long as Mike Brown was at the helm.

Admittedly he did cover himself by claiming luck had a lot to do with it, that way if they have a bad season this year he can just go with the blind squirrel with the broken watch theorom Kingwilly mentioned above.

But reading him give the Bengals credit is like watching Al Gore give a speech saying the earth isn't really warming up. Come to think of it, crusty, bloated, late-middle-age white guy who thinks he knows everything and is doing you a big favor by enlightening you? I think Daughtery and Gore might be the same person.

[HairOnFire]

I do not begrudginly give them accolades, or even credit, for the success of last year......

That's exactly my point. Critics like Daugherty and you give them no credit for success....which makes it easier to dismiss familiar complaints as unfairly biased, needlessly bitter, hopelessly outdated, and firmly rooted in ignorance.

.... because, from a draft perspective, it was not anything special, nor was the year before.

Really? Well, let's see if your fellow dick-shaped cracker eater Paul Daugherty still agrees. (No, he doesn't.)

"Last year, the top eight Bengals’ picks made the club. That’s remarkable on a team that won a division. In the last three years, of the 29 players the Bengals drafted, four are starters and 11 are backups. Compare that to the New England Patriots, considered the gold standard when it comes to astute acquisition of players: 28 picks, four starters, eight backups."

[TJJackson]

unfairly biased, needlessly bitter

I was think that'd be the words on your own eventual tombstone, ashes urn, what have you, Hair.......

the "firmly rooted in ignorance" line is one I was thinking would be better suited for JoeWrong's final resting place

mine? "Hated Perry Pick, should have taken Dansby"

[HairOnFire]

"Through shrewd drafting,"

I'm trying to picture Paul Douchebaggery typing the above three words.

It's still Daugherty being Daugherty as he offers a curious mix of the shrewd and the astute with the accidental and the lucky. It makes no sense, obviously, but only because Daugherty can't resist offering much deserved praise while casting completely undefined doubts...which he does despite acknowledging how the Bengals 3-year draft record is equal to or better than the gold standard set by the Patriots.

So why does Daugherty muddy the water by writing about accidental draft success, as if such a thing were even possible? Because the Bengals success has been achieved while employing only ONE full-time scout, and that's a stubborn nail Daugherty has hammered away at for most of his 22 years. So who really expects Daugherty to give Mike "friggin" Brown full credit for proven success when you've made your career by blasting away endlessly at the Bengals small scouting staff, and their core belief that the coaching staff serve dual roles by acting as the teams primary scouts.

The inconvenient truth?

It's working.

[kingwilly]

"Through shrewd drafting,"

I'm trying to picture Paul Douchebaggery typing the above three words.

It's still Daugherty being Daugherty as he offers a curious mix of the shrewd and the astute with the accidental and the lucky. It makes no sense, obviously, but only because Daugherty can't resist offering much deserved praise while casting completely undefined doubts...which he does despite acknowledging how the Bengals 3-year draft record is equal to or better than the gold standard set by the Patriots.

So why does Daugherty muddy the water by writing about accidental draft success, as if such a thing were even possible? Because the Bengals success has been achieved while employing only ONE full-time scout, and that's a stubborn nail Daugherty has hammered away at for most of his 22 years. So who really expects Daugherty to give Mike "friggin" Brown full credit for proven success when you've made your career by blasting away endlessly at the Bengals small scouting staff, and their core belief that the coaching staff serve dual roles by acting as the teams primary scouts.

The inconvenient truth?

It's working.

Daugherty is a putz. Now that we're past that, the issues based on your statement "It's working" is what is "It" and "Working"

To me, "It" is not a consistent approach to the draft, FA's, and coaches... All of those approaches have changed in the last 10 years. It is not as if they have just plugged along, doing exactly the same things. The draft STILL is problematic for the Bengals. It is still very hit/miss. They still reach, take players who have serious character concerns, and ignore problematic areas based on philosophical stances. "It" has changed.

They have been far more active in FA, and in signing their own developed talent. They have invested in a D-coordinator and paid him far more than they would ever have in the past. They've seemingly given ML more rope than they ever gave Lebeau, Coslet, Shula. So it is disingenuous to posit they've stayed the course. In some way, yes, though in many ways, not.

To me, "Working" means winning. Apart from 05 and 09, this team has been a D+ team. Sure, .500 means there are some good things happening but so often the things holding the team back are "It". If the Patriots are the gold standard, saying so is rooted in their winning. I guess for me that is the big difference between saying "It's working" for the Bengals and the Patriots.

When "It" takes a step forward with a positive season, claims that "It's working" are what is convenient. Two playoff games (losses) do deliver "It" from the blind squirrels nest. From a higher altitude, "It" is not much different, and the answer to why "It" worked last year most likely evades much of the people who share the Brown DNA in the building by the river: I put my money on them being as blinded by success as they are in failure.

Credit will come when the progress exceeds the regress. Acknowledgement will come when it is statistically supportable.

[HairOnFire]

Daugherty is a putz.

Painfully true. But with that said, his mostly mocking coverage of the Bengals over the span of his 22 year career has had a substantial influence on the Bengals fanbase, especially in regards to forming negative opinions about the draft and the way the front office operates.

The draft STILL is problematic for the Bengals. It is still very hit/miss. They still reach, take players who have serious character concerns, and ignore problematic areas based on philosophical stances.

But the above is true for all teams to a degree. Simply put, the draft is a very hit or miss affair for everyone, and if the Bengals draft record isn't perfect, and I admit it's far from that, it's been as good or better than most. And that should be enough to put the matter to bed.

But of course it won't.

They've seemingly given ML more rope than they ever gave Lebeau, Coslet, Shula. So it is disingenuous to posit they've stayed the course. In some way, yes, though in many ways, not.

It isn't disingenuous unless you can show me proof of the Bengals significantly changing the way they apprach the draft. And because you can't actually do that your rant about change boils down to the Bengals now having better coaches performing the role of scouts in a system that hasn't been changed in any significant way.