Help Bitches.

(Update:  I'm leaving a list of players I need help on after the jump)

So I wanted to start comprehensively investigating the Bengals draft picks under Mike Brown.  I compiled a database of all our draft picks and then made some notes about the draft picks.  Some are objective things like the player's position and former college while other are subjective (like my 1 to 5 rating) and some have elements of both (did they come from a big name college program - what would you call TCU?).

But then I got lazy and didn't look at it for awhile.

Well, the draft approaches folks and it's time to look again.  I need some help, mostly for the "subjective 1 to 5 rating" and "productive starter" columns.  I need your input because I really don't have much to go on memory-wise from the mid 90s and earlier picks.  I was just too young to watch games with any sort of ability to critically evaluate what I was seeing at the time - though at least I was sober.

So, here's the spreadsheet:  Download Bengals Draft Pick Database

Feel free to check it out, make whatever updates you want (seriously, anything), and email it back to us at whodeyrevolution@gmail.com or just leave a note in the comments.  It's a sortable database, just click on the arrow buttons next to each column heading.  Right now, it's organized in order of most recent draft pick first.

It's raw right now and I'd like to finish the player grades first before I start going nuts trying to break it down.  Suggestions welcome.

After the jump, I am putting a list of players I need help with:

If you are so inclined, let me know the following:

1. Was this player a productive starter (answer with yes, no, or kind of)
2. Grade them on a scale of 1-5 as player in the NFL, with 1 being a consistent pro bowl threat and 5 being completely useless
3. Did they go to a pro bowl

Here's the list:

Sam Shade (1995)
David Dunn (1995)
Ryan Grigson (1995)
John Walsh (1995)
Jeff Cothran (1994)
Steve Shine (1994)
Corey Sawyer (1994)
Trent Pollard (1994)
Jerry Reynolds (1994)
Ramondo Stallings (1994)
Ty Parten (1993)
Marcello Simmons (1993)
Forey Duckett (1993)
Tom Scott (1993)
Lance Gunn (1993)
Leonard Wheeler (1992)
Ricardo McDonald (1992)
Craig Thompson (1992)
Chris Burns (1992)
Lance Olberding (1992)
Roosevelt Nix (1992)
Ostell Miles (1992)
Horace Smith (1992)
John Earle (1992)
Eric Shaw (1992)
Lamar Rogers (1991)
Bob Dahl (1991)
Donald Hollas (1991)
Rob Carpenter (1991)
Mike Arthur (1991)
Richard Fain (1991)
Fernandus Vinson (1991)
Mike Dingle (1991)
Shane Garrett (1991)
Jim Lavin (1991)
Chris Smith (1991)
Antoine Bennett (1991)

Comments

[Sleeping With Bieniemy]

My first thought is - those guys all probably sucked.

[Adam]

You should just try putting the spreadsheet on Google Docs and make it public (http://docs.google.com/). Then everyone can collaborate on it and you won't have to manually go through a bunch of e-mailed spreadsheets.

[Sleeping With Bieniemy]

It's a good idea, however, there are lots of formulas specific to Excel I will end up using so I would prefer to keep things within Excel. However, it might be for the best. Will look into once I have time.

[the truth]

In looking at the "Marvin era" drafts most are not great, but not terrible either. I'd have to look up exact figures but i know the retention rate for draft picks by NFL teams is not much higher then 50-60%. Most picks don't pan out. Anyway it looks the Bengals got some nice lower round picks that are still with the team or like Peko are main members of the team. What shocks me is if you look at the 2005 draft. What a terrible draft, while Pollack and Henry had potential, sadly both are no longer on the team.

[blester01]

Ever since Marvin came in the drafts have been good (even in comparison to the rest of the league); they did have their two bad years: 2005 & 2007, but since then they have done pretty well- except for a couple of picks.

The names on this list from the 90's just don't sound like great football players. For some reason, their names don't look like they would be spectacular at anything. Does that make sense? Takeo Spikes, that is football name, not Mike Dingle. Great scouting report or not, I would not have selected him just b/c his name sounds like a push over.

Also that list shows what happens when you let the man with the money make decisions- nothing good comes out of it.

[TurnerKasey32]

It is understandable that money can make people autonomous. But how to act when somebody doesn't have money? The only one way is to receive the business loans or just auto loan.

[Chazperin]

Ideas:

1. # of starts each player had
2. Years with Bengals
3. If player was re-signed by Bengals, cut, or other team for more $
4. Pro bowls - I'd expand this to a) how many, and b) how many with Bengals
5. Stay away from subjective ratings - puts too personal a stamp on what you're hoping to be a more objective database - you've got the comments section for snark (brilliant, brilliant, snark).
6. What about a cost factor? This would be more labor intensive (something you're hoping one of us picks up the slack for), but more in tune with validating the manifesto.
7. Other player available at this spot - granted this would benefit from hindsight, but if you narrowed it to players w/in the round (Oher instead of Smith, Perry instead of Jackson), it'd be better than, say, a Tom Brady in the 7th instead of an Akili Smith.

[Sleeping With Bieniemy]

Let me put it this way. I am planning on giving all these guys 5's unless you can tell me a good reason why not.

Yeah - that Mike Dingle name is just ridiculous.

[mike_brown_public_enemy_number_one]

The problem with rating drafts is that -- the Bengals always use this an excuse -- the drafted players ending up sticking with the team and even starting. E.g. the Bengals defense hadn't been top 10 in about 2 decades, but they drafted gobs of defensive players who started and even stuck around a while. But so what? If the team sucks, and the defense sucks, why does it signify a successful draft if a guy ends up a starter on the 31st ranked defense? It's difficult to measure draft success except by WINNING or LOSING. Period.

[mike_brown_public_enemy_number_one]

I don't think the Marvin drafts have been that great but they have been better than the 1990s, which is sort of like saying you're a pretty good chef by MacDonald's standards.

If we just rate the rounds 1 thru round 3 picks:

2003 was really good (should have kept Steinbach on the team and losing him means the draft had less long term impact). Only Carson Palmer remains.

2004 was pretty crappy: Chris Perry was a walking injury report, Keiwan Ratliff was a complete bust, Madieu Williams went downhill after his rookie year, and Caleb Miller and Landon Johnson were two more in the long line of Bengals who start and make tackles on defenses that mostly suck, and then go away. And now none of those guys is in Cincy.

2005 was a combination of bad luck (Pollack) and daring the fates to piss on the team crappiness (Thurman, Henry). Now none of those guys is in Cincy, which hurts considering they also have nothing from the first day of 2004.

2006 was a very good year but Frostee Rucker was a reach and has been a pretty big bust of Ratliff-like proportions.

2007 was a good year (Hall) and again tempting the fates by drafting injury prone Kenny Irons and his knee explodes on the first play from scrimmage and then you only get one guy from the first day.

2008 looks to me like not that good a year. Rivers is, I hate to say it, the latest in a long line of non Pro Bowl linebackers they've picked in round 1. He's simply not that remarkable. Simpson is the only bust bigger than Keiwan Ratliff this decade. Sims and Caldwell are guys whose replacement value is later than round 3, I think.

[guttersnake]

I really like what Chazperin was saying and agree completely. While it's a given that this site is largely subjective in nature, the comrades of the WDR can always have their views downgraded to editorializing or worse (just bitching) unless pure analytical fact can be compiled. Facts tend to speak for themselves, which could save us some intra-group subjective arguing.

Bigger question... who's going to head the data mining operation?

[blester01]

The drafts that you just outlined are a dramatic improvement of where they were in the 90's. Are they perfect? Not by any means, but there is not a team out there that has great drafts year and year out.

When you compare these same years with the Steelers (the team we all want Brown to model this organization after) Marvin's drafts look very comparable:

2003 - 1) Troy - S (future HOF); 2) Alonzo Jackson - DE (who??? - bust); 3) Ike Taylor (not that great of a starter what you expect from a 3rd rounder)
2004 - 1) Ben - QB (Great QB, but major off-field issues); 2) Ricardo Colclough - DB (who??? - bust); 3) Max Starks - T (productive OL)
2005 - 1) Heath Miller - TE (my favorite TE in the game); 2) Bryant McFadden - DB (bust); 3) Trai Essex - G (starter) - I think this is Tomlin's first draft.
2006 - 1) Santonio Holmes - WR (good starter); 3a) Anthony Smith - S (bust); 3b) Willie Reid - S (bust)
2007 - 1) Lawrence Timmons - LB (starter); 2) LaMarr Woodley - LB (great pick); 3) Matt Spaeth - TE (another good pick, I was hoping we would pick him up in FA)
2008 - 1) Rashard Mendenhall - RB (good starter, it will be interesting to see if he can hold up over time from the abuse); 2) Limas Sweed - WR (Simpsonesque bust); 3) Bruce Davis - OT (bust)
2009 - 1) Evander Hood - DE (I don't think he played last year so TBD); 2) Kraig Urbik - T (maybe to take over for Starks or fill Davis shoes so TBD); 3) Mike Wallace - WR (good rookie year)

In that period, I think we had 2 really strong drafts: 2006, & 2008 (minus the Simpson pick), and 2009 is TBD. I included 2008 b/c Rivers is a good LB and they gathered good depth after the Simpson pick. Just b/c Rivers was drafted in the 1st round doesn't mean he is supposed to be a pro bowler (Timmons isn't and I don't think he is that bad); you just need good consistent production.

In that same time period, I have to say that the Steelers had 3 strong drafts: 2003, 2005 & 2007, & 2009 is TBD. When they get a starter, they draft a good starter, but they have a lot of picks that just disappear and our no longer on the team. This is with a larger scouting department too, which is supposed to give them an large advantage over Cincy.

The differences could be from timing: team needs vs level of talent available vs what other team needs are. When Marvin took over in 2003, he did not have much to start with except two bookend tackles, and two young and talented WR's. Everything else he needed to build from scratch- so he needed to draft bodies. Although the 2003 & 2004 drafts don't look so great those two drafts helped build the 2005 team. In comparison, the Steelers were a well oiled machine.

For the coming draft the Bengals team needs line up really well with what is supposedly available: TE, DE, DT, S. But how many other teams have similar needs, which can reduce the pool of available players really fast.

I might be able to take a couple of years on the data mine project after my test on Monday.

[オテモヤン]

http://oppao.net/n-ona/
http://oppao.net/navi/
http://oppao.net/new-d2/
http://oppao.net/fd3/
http://oppao.net/soap2/
http://oppao.net/bg2/
http://oppao.net/host2/
http://oppao.net/lesson2/
http://oppao.net/op2/
http://oppao.net/fl3/
http://oppao.net/bb2/
http://oppao.net/s-este/
http://oppao.net/rd2/
http://oppao.net/kawa/
http://oppao.net/n-club2/
http://s-auc.net/

[Derrick Hoel]

Good Lord that looks more like the Roster of the first XFL team than a professional football draft pick sheet. Jesus, its no wonder we sank to the bottom of the NFL that quick.

By the way who do you think would win in an eating contest between Andre Smith and Jeremy Johnson?

[Danimal, Destroyer of Worlds, Eviscerator of Steeler Fans]

Out of all the guys on the list, Sam Shade is the only one I've heard of. He went on to be a decent player for someone else.

[loans]

People deserve good life time and home loans or short term loan can make it much better. Because people's freedom is based on money.