gregcook68 Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15q9HfXq1w/? https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1MhvmP8WpB/? Quote
ArmyBengal Posted February 2 Author Report Posted February 2 I am more than willing to give the front office credit for getting some deals done, but those are not in and of themselves an indication of a modern way of doing business in the NFL. I periodically change the oil in my car. That in and of itself does not make me a mechanic. 2 Quote
AMPHAR Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 19 hours ago, ArmyBengal said: I am more than willing to give the front office credit for getting some deals done, but those are not in and of themselves an indication of a modern way of doing business in the NFL. I periodically change the oil in my car. That in and of itself does not make me a mechanic. Why not just use the scoreboard to determine what is effective in NFL business? Bengals are top half in winning percentage and playoff appearances since 2003. When you factor their on the field turn around since 2003 it seems like a group of Bengal fans might misrepresenting the reality. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted February 3 Author Report Posted February 3 Because the score board is only one piece. If they are an effective NFL business because they win, then the question must be asked, how did that happen? Is it the way they conduct their business that produces the wins and in turn they are effective? Or is it because they have a generational talent at the QB position with other pieces? It's like using stats alone to determine how good a player is. Again, I can and do give credit to the front office for getting deals done, but that alone does not make it the most efficient and effect way to run your business. I defer to COB's comments from earlier as opposed to simply rewriting them. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted February 3 Author Report Posted February 3 Not that I have any reason to believe he would end up here... Myles Garrett just requested a trade from the Browns. Quote
Stripes Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 Since 2003, the Bengals have had three eras of success: Palmer in ‘05 and ‘09 (not in between) Dalton from ‘11 to ‘15 Burrow in ‘21 and ‘22 (arguably also the last two 9-8s; very arguably) The Palmer Bengals did not sustain success. The Dalton Bengals lost five consecutive playoff games. The Burrow Bengals climbed high and have since not sustained success. We can lazily say “they’ve won more than some other teams” and assume that means they’re doing everything right. Or we can recognize a problem and be critical. ”Winning more than some other teams” with two different elite quarterbacks in this time frame is falling below the standard. 2 Quote
COB Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 1 hour ago, ArmyBengal said: Not that I have any reason to believe he would end up here... Myles Garrett just requested a trade from the Browns. If Myles actually gets traded it would be great for both him, and for the Browns. Therefore it will never happen. Having Myles obviously is not enough for them to win. They need a qb. But since Truckstop Elon owns the Browns they will continue to be a football version of the Cybertruck - unwanted, stuck in the mud somewhere, and falling apart. Quote
AMPHAR Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 1 hour ago, Stripes said: Since 2003, the Bengals have had three eras of success: Palmer in ‘05 and ‘09 (not in between) Dalton from ‘11 to ‘15 Burrow in ‘21 and ‘22 (arguably also the last two 9-8s; very arguably) The Palmer Bengals did not sustain success. The Dalton Bengals lost five consecutive playoff games. The Burrow Bengals climbed high and have since not sustained success. We can lazily say “they’ve won more than some other teams” and assume that means they’re doing everything right. Or we can recognize a problem and be critical. ”Winning more than some other teams” with two different elite quarterbacks in this time frame is falling below the standard. Yes, the Bengals have had success. They can draft QBs better than some franchises. They can also win with QBs better than some franchises. The term used was Archaic. How is finding QB talent and surrounding that QB talent with enough to win an example of Archaic? Quote
AMPHAR Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 I don't think the Browns can trade Garrett without additional roster moves. They are projected ($27m) over already. Pre June 1st trade would add to that overage about ($16m). If they trade him post June 1st they kick the can down the road and save $5m this year and have about $21m dead cap against 2026. I guess the question is can the back date the trade post June 1st in order to get picks for 2025 draft? Either way trade or no trade Browns will have to cut/restructure some players. Quote
COB Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 1 hour ago, AMPHAR said: Yes, the Bengals have had success. They can draft QBs better than some franchises. They can also win with QBs better than some franchises. The term used was Archaic. How is finding QB talent and surrounding that QB talent with enough to win an example of Archaic? Drafting Burrow, Chase, and Higgins isn’t archaic. It’s the way they manage the cap, employ the smallest scouting dept in the league, make their coaches do the jobs of the aforementioned never hired scout/personnel guys, refuse to hire a non-family member GM, etc. I could go on, but I think we all recognize the self-defeating methods the Bengals have used for the past 35 years. Quote
AMPHAR Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 1 hour ago, COB said: Drafting Burrow, Chase, and Higgins isn’t archaic. It’s the way they manage the cap, employ the smallest scouting dept in the league, make their coaches do the jobs of the aforementioned never hired scout/personnel guys, refuse to hire a non-family member GM, etc. I could go on, but I think we all recognize the self-defeating methods the Bengals have used for the past 35 years. Whatever way they've done it since 2003 has them top half of the league in winning percentage. So how is that Archaic? 35 years? What they did in the 90s has no bearing on today. Tee Higgins deal whatever may become of his free agency is not an issue related to 1991. They'll take that cap room and offer it up somewhere else if Tee don't want it. Its a zero sum game, period. Its has proven to have better success. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted February 3 Author Report Posted February 3 You are equating their record on the field with being an efficient business. Neither of those things necessarily prove the other. If you are super efficient, you may not win shit. If you do win, it might not be because you were efficient. How many times has it been said the Bengals success is like catching lightning in a bottle? I've always been of the mindset that I'm waiting for that to happen again, rather than thinking the efficiency of this front office is what is going to carry us to a Super Bowl victory. The thought of that being true seems quite laughable to me based on our history. Quote
Stripes Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 Having had the league’s smallest scouting department for ages is indeed “archaic”. It can be more easily overlooked when they make quality draft picks. *gestures to the last three seasons* 1 Quote
COB Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 3 hours ago, TJJackson said: Get Myles Garrett B O O M We don’t need Myles, we already have Myles at home. 2 Quote
Stripes Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 Whatever criticisms we want to hurl upon the Bengals' front office, at least they didn't do this: https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-saints-catholic-church-sex-abuse-77f92deb50e6333fa04a9db1897f8171 1 Quote
HoosierCat Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 12 minutes ago, Stripes said: Whatever criticisms we want to hurl upon the Bengals' front office, at least they didn't do this: https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-saints-catholic-church-sex-abuse-77f92deb50e6333fa04a9db1897f8171 Yeah I saw that this morning. Fucking gross. Quote
COB Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 1 hour ago, Stripes said: Whatever criticisms we want to hurl upon the Bengals' front office, at least they didn't do this: https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-saints-catholic-church-sex-abuse-77f92deb50e6333fa04a9db1897f8171 Saints are going to get sued over this. It’s possible they’ll try to pull the league in. Quote
COB Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 Cooper Kupp getting shopped around as the Rams look to unload his 30 million cap hit next season. He’s not the player he was when they beat us in the Super Bowl. Quote
TJJackson Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 5 hours ago, COB said: We don’t need Myles, we already have Myles at home. ever so slightly different in terms of production :-) Quote
AMPHAR Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 15 hours ago, ArmyBengal said: You are equating their record on the field with being an efficient business. Neither of those things necessarily prove the other. If you are super efficient, you may not win shit. If you do win, it might not be because you were efficient. How many times has it been said the Bengals success is like catching lightning in a bottle? I've always been of the mindset that I'm waiting for that to happen again, rather than thinking the efficiency of this front office is what is going to carry us to a Super Bowl victory. The thought of that being true seems quite laughable to me based on our history. I think that mindset has been proven wrong. They experience the playoffs at rate that puts them in the top half of the league since 2003. Quote
AMPHAR Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 A lot of those eye popping WR deals have turned into 2/3 year deals. Kupp trade will be interesting because he has a roster bonus at the start of the FA year. So the Rams are up against it. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted February 4 Author Report Posted February 4 3 hours ago, AMPHAR said: I think that mindset has been proven wrong. They experience the playoffs at rate that puts them in the top half of the league since 2003. So for you, success on the field = an efficient, not archaic, front office. I get that. I simply disagree. No issue. In 57 seasons, the Bengals have gone to the playoffs 16 times and hold a 10-16 post season record. They are 3-8 in the wild card round, 4-4 in the divisional round and 3-1 in the conference championship. As we all know well and good, they are 0-3 in Super Bowl appearances. I just don't view getting to the playoffs as a success when winning the Super Bowl is the goal and certainly don't look at that equating to front office efficiency. Quote
AMPHAR Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 21 teams have failed to win a Superbowl since 2003. 66% of the league. Are the other front offices Archaic in your view point? That wouldn't make sense either because the real expectation of seeing your team win a Superbowl still ranks as a rarity. Quote
Stripes Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 “The Bengals win sometimes, therefore they do not engage in archaic practices.” This logic is nonsense. It could only work if the word “archaic” was defined as “doesn’t win”. Every front office has warts. Some of them hire morons (Jaguars). Some of them throw away their only good QB in ages and mortgage their future for a sexual predator (Browns). Some of them fail to manage personality in their locker room (Steelers). Some of them help the church cover up pedophiles (Saints). I could go on. At least one of them is old fashioned and historically slow to update their methods, sometimes to their own detriment (Bengals). If you want to protest the word “archaic”, your argument must be relevant to the word “archaic”. Demonstrate that they are not exceedingly old fashioned or slow to change. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.