Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: CBS Sportsline Analysis of the Bucs Free Agency « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5

Boid Fink

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 54621
Offline
#60 : March 14, 2007, 04:16:37 PM

There are reasons we have a Red Board and a Insider Board. I will give two reasons.

1) Lloyd Grant
2) BucLord

It is a big shame when some are insiders, and still make ignorant comments based on emotional bias. See definition link early..... (ie. rhymes with Barren)

I don't appreciate being on your ignorant list. What legitimate points have you made? I have yet to see a single point that you have made that is based on fact. You, like the other koolaid drinkers, are in your own little magical world where Jon Gruden fairies wave their magical wands and produce good football teams. Here in the real world, Gruden makes a stupid squint on the sidelines and loses 12 games in a season.
Now even his squint is stupid?

Inside Board indeed.


PeterDias

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 22
Offline
#61 : March 14, 2007, 04:17:22 PM

There are reasons we have a Red Board and a Insider Board. I will give two reasons.

1) Lloyd Grant
2) BucLord

It is a big shame when some are insiders, and still make ignorant comments based on emotional bias. See definition link early..... (ie. rhymes with Barren)

I don't appreciate being on your ignorant list. What legitimate points have you made? I have yet to see a single point that you have made that is based on fact. You, like the other koolaid drinkers, are in your own little magical world where Jon Gruden fairies wave their magical wands and produce good football teams. Here in the real world, Gruden makes a stupid squint on the sidelines and loses 12 games in a season.

Lloyd, this has to be the most ignorant comment that I have seen. Gruden is a genius. We are not kool-aid drinkers; we are open thinkers. I assume you think that Tony Dungy was a god; however, he was never able to win the big one until he had Manning. Gruden took a ragtag group of men and won ball games. Some of the players have aged, and some feel that Gruden's system is not the best. When this activity happens, we lose games. The players and stupid fans like you need to be quiet and let Gruden win another Super Bowl.

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37366
Offline
#62 : March 14, 2007, 04:33:39 PM

Quote
What legitimate points have you made?

Considering you have not made a single legitimate point either you have zero room to speak about others.




Ladyfan

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6772
Offline
#63 : March 14, 2007, 04:44:41 PM

You know, I actually understand why some could think this is a lousy draft.  However, what is not taken into consideration is that we didn't want to spend a lot of money and we upgraded the positions we are concerned about or added needed depth.  I mentioned before in another thread that this draft with the exception of Garcia who is a genuine star in his own right...that the players have that blue collar lunch bucket persona of getting the job done without any fancy stuff.  I really admire this approach.  It shows restraint, thoughtfulness etc.  And who knew that some teams were going to outprice the FA market with some really pricey signings that have many pundits scratching their heads.


gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#64 : March 14, 2007, 04:48:51 PM

I don't get Loyd and Bradentonian. What is happening in FA is not "instead of building the future". Signing the bigg $$ FA's would be "not building for the future". These are low-cap high reward signings. Hanging onto D. White wqould be "not building for the future" -- you know he's not the future, so why sell the farm to keep him? Oh, that's right, he drops the average age down.
The current moves allow us to be competetive now, and do NOT interfere with building for the future. It's hard to tak the "not building for the future" argument seriously when made by people who either wanted us to drop half our cap into one player, or can't come up with a single way to have done a better job. Or they just say "we'll let's just take our lumps for a few years instead of signing vets". It's really borderline retarded.

The absolute idiotic blaming of "age" for the defensive problems also amazes me. Yep, Will Allen had a bad year due to age. Rice too. And Barber. And cox. And Ruud. And Nece. ANd then there were those older guys who were just awful, like Barber, and Quarles. And oh, sure, Brooks looks like he is ready for the nursing home, just because he looked merely mortal instead of superman.
The biggest issues on D this year were with the younger guys, those most vulnerable to poor coaching. And it was the Two units with new coaches that struggled the most. But no, you blame age?!? As if one year would make the entire defense collapse? No, the reality is you are utterly incapable of objective analysis. Sorry Loyd, it's hard to take you seriously.

I don't think that having KC on the team for a year makes us any better in 2009.  I agree with not reisigning White if the staff KNOWS he's not the future.  But I can tell you that KC is not the future also.  I agree with not signing high-$$$ guys just to spend money.  I'd just rather we sign guys with SOME potential upside. If the FO can't find anyone on the market that fits that description in our price range, I'd rather play a rook than a 1-year stop-gap.

And the questions that begs are:
1) What rookie?  Do we have one with the upside for it?  You don't just "play a rook", you may develop one that you think has a future, but you don't blow games now when you don't have a future starter penciled in already.  KC is here to replace Wyms, who isn't exactly a spring chicken himself. (28)
2) Do you relly think you can get young overnight?  Fielding a line of younger, QUALITY guys takes time.  We've missed quite a few primo draft picks in the past 10 years, thanks to trader Rich...
3) Just how many young guys do you think were available?  How many Clements-style could we really have fit under our cap?
4) What is so much better about Davis?  His age?  He's another reach, low cost high reward type, but he may not even grade out.  The problem is you can't just sign young potential guys, you ahve to mix in proven starters. 

This team already takes more than enough chances on potential, more on that side than the aging vet side.  The reason it doesn''t look like that is because "potential" guys have a nasty habit of not working out.

And BTW, signing one or two high-profile guys is less important than getting solid across the board.

PeterDias

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 22
Offline
#65 : March 14, 2007, 04:59:01 PM

You know, I actually understand why some could think this is a lousy draft. However, what is not taken into consideration is that we didn't want to spend a lot of money and we upgraded the positions we are concerned about or added needed depth. I mentioned before in another thread that this draft with the exception of Garcia who is a genuine star in his own right...that the players have that blue collar lunch bucket persona of getting the job done without any fancy stuff. I really admire this approach. It shows restraint, thoughtfulness etc. And who knew that some teams were going to outprice the FA market with some really pricey signings that have many pundits scratching their heads.

I could not agree anymore. Great post. I'd like to see Lloyd try to wrap his head around that.

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27888
Online
#66 : March 14, 2007, 05:08:42 PM

And the questions that begs are:
1) What rookie? Do we have one with the upside for it? You don't just "play a rook", you may develop one that you think has a future, but you don't blow games now when you don't have a future starter penciled in already. KC is here to replace Wyms, who isn't exactly a spring chicken himself. (28)

A rookie we draft, obviously.  It would be a shame if we didn't address DT in the draft again.  Instead of KC, I would have rather seen us sign a young guy with some upside (Anthony Adams, maybe).  Maybe give Hovan a chance to slide to UT.  If it doesn't work out, we are no worse off than we are now.  If it does work out, we have an answer for the future.  The problem with a guy like KC is that whether or not he does well (and I think he will do well), we are no closer to an answer this time next year.

2) Do you relly think you can get young overnight?  Fielding a line of younger, QUALITY guys takes time.  We've missed quite a few primo draft picks in the past 10 years, thanks to trader Rich...

I agree, due to poor drafting from both the current and previous regime

3) Just how many young guys do you think were available?  How many Clements-style could we really have fit under our cap?

Where did I ask for a Clements-style guy?  I just want a guy with some potential upside, like Davis for example

4) What is so much better about Davis?  His age?  He's another reach, low cost high reward type, but he may not even grade out.  The problem is you can't just sign young potential guys, you ahve to mix in proven starters.  

Davis has upside.  That's the difference.  If he doesn't pan out, we need to look elsewhere next year.  If he does, we have a solution.  A guy with only 1 or 2 years left is a stop-gap with no upside.

This team already takes more than enough chances on potential, more on that side than the aging vet side.  The reason it doesn''t look like that is because "potential" guys have a nasty habit of not working out.

I agree the "potential" guys often don't work out.  The difference is that sometimes they do.  With a one-or two-year stop-gap, you have to replace them whether or not they do well.  No upside.  A great plan for a team that has Superbowl potential, but I don't think the Bucs are that team this year.  Maybe the FO disagrees.

And BTW, signing one or two high-profile guys is less important than getting solid across the board.

I agree 100%.  I never advocated making a lot of "splash" signings.  I just don't view stop-gap players as a solution to getting solid across the board.


#2Linebacker32

****
Starter

Posts : 398
Offline
#67 : March 14, 2007, 06:59:29 PM

Not sure if this has been posted. I don't live on this message board like some of you clowns.

From CBS.Sportsline.com

Tampa Bay: I just don't know what the plan is ... if there is a plan. The Buccaneers re-sign Chris Simms, then bring in Jeff Garcia. OK, that's good for Garcia, not good for Simms. Then they sign tackle Luke Petitgout after the Giants pass. Listen, New York needs offensive linemen like the Mideast needs peace, so when the Giants give up on a guy -- particularly someone who was their starting left tackle -- you have to wonder what's left. So I wonder. Patrick Chukwurah? My lasting memory of him was blowing cookies on the field against New England. I know he can play, but he was strictly second team on a Broncos defense that faded down the stretch. You sign him, let Dewayne White walk, and that's supposed to be a good thing? Sorry, don't get it.

Sounds like they are pretty dead on with the train wreck of an offseason Gruden, the wonder kid and his lackey Bruce Allen have had.

I guess the draftniks should take a look at who the Bucs will pick with the #1 overall next year.
That's what it looks like if you put down the koolade! Top 10 for sure.

Hey Karen. do you post crazy replies just so people can but your gut? What Kooliad this is the offseason. Who thought the Saints were going to be as good as they where. They only signed Twp big names last off-season and that was Reggie Bush and Drew Brees amd look where they ended up this season. Won the Division and got to the NFC title game. You dont know. Why should stop drinking that haterade because that is all you are. Why are you even a fan. I tend to think the Bucs have done well in FA not throowing out money at people but making smart decisions on Building depth and adding veteran leadership and yet we still got 15 mil left to spend and have more money to sign more players while other are spending the back. ie. 49ers Clemons 80 mil..lol


PA BuccsFan

**
Rookie

Posts : 26
Offline
#68 : March 14, 2007, 07:33:50 PM



I guess the draftniks should take a look at who the Bucs will pick with the #1 overall next year.


I doubt that


gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#69 : March 14, 2007, 07:57:23 PM

And the questions that begs are:
1) What rookie? Do we have one with the upside for it? You don't just "play a rook", you may develop one that you think has a future, but you don't blow games now when you don't have a future starter penciled in already. KC is here to replace Wyms, who isn't exactly a spring chicken himself. (28)

A rookie we draft, obviously.  It would be a shame if we didn't address DT in the draft again.  Instead of KC, I would have rather seen us sign a young guy with some upside (Anthony Adams, maybe).  Maybe give Hovan a chance to slide to UT.  If it doesn't work out, we are no worse off than we are now.  If it does work out, we have an answer for the future.  The problem with a guy like KC is that whether or not he does well (and I think he will do well), we are no closer to an answer this time next year.

And what do these current signings do to preven drafting a rookie?  That's right, nothing

2) Do you relly think you can get young overnight?  Fielding a line of younger, QUALITY guys takes time.  We've missed quite a few primo draft picks in the past 10 years, thanks to trader Rich...

I agree, due to poor drafting from both the current and previous regime
more the previous than the current.  Current didn't trade Rd 1 picks like they were rd 6's

3) Just how many young guys do you think were available?  How many Clements-style could we really have fit under our cap?

Where did I ask for a Clements-style guy?  I just want a guy with some potential upside, like Davis for example
There's a limit to the number of guys with 'upside' of the youth sort.  who else is out there you think we  could have grabbed.  The current regime has looked at multiple players with both the potential and the age to be long term solutions, with Hovan and PBuc being the most apparent.  You act like there are dozens of guys out there that can be checked, but the reality is there aren't, and even if there were, there is a limit on how many you can try out at once

4) What is so much better about Davis?  His age?  He's another reach, low cost high reward type, but he may not even grade out.  The problem is you can't just sign young potential guys, you ahve to mix in proven starters. 

Davis has upside.  That's the difference.  If he doesn't pan out, we need to look elsewhere next year.  If he does, we have a solution.  A guy with only 1 or 2 years left is a stop-gap with no upside.
Again, where do you expect to find all these young studs?  You should prolly let Bruce know.  In case you didn't get the memo, last year our line SUCKED.  If you can't find the solution in young players in FA, you find it on older players in FA.  You don't just give up on solving the problem and say 'take our lumps' (your own quote).  You fill with what you can, because there are limited amounts of picks in the draft.  And signing older players is actually great, as long as you don't screw the cap.     

This team already takes more than enough chances on potential, more on that side than the aging vet side.  The reason it doesn''t look like that is because "potential" guys have a nasty habit of not working out.

I agree the "potential" guys often don't work out.  The difference is that sometimes they do.  With a one-or two-year stop-gap, you have to replace them whether or not they do well.  No upside.  A great plan for a team that has Superbowl potential, but I don't think the Bucs are that team this year.  Maybe the FO disagrees.
Again, limited number of 'potential' guys, better results from proven vets, no cap issues with current signings, and a realization that it takes time to build with youth -- you can't just draft 4 DL's and expect them to grow.
And BTW, signing one or two high-profile guys is less important than getting solid across the board.

I agree 100%.  I never advocated making a lot of "splash" signings.  I just don't view stop-gap players as a solution to getting solid across the board.

you're wrong.  You take improvement where you can get it, get some young talent through the draft (the ONLY way you get it), take a few gambles on guys who didn't fit their teams but may have potential, and build with a long term look.  Long term means you don't try to grab every potential future stud at once, you grab a few at a time and sign vets to mentor them and keep your team afloat during the process. You always have a few of those 'stop-gap' guys.  It's just not possible to field a solid team without them.


MiltonMack21

User is on moderator watch listWatched
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 9285
Offline
#70 : March 14, 2007, 08:01:47 PM

I guess the draftniks should take a look at who the Bucs will pick with the #1 overall next year. 

Care to make a wager that the Bucs will be picking #1 overall next season? I'll be glad to bet that they won't.
Not as long as the Raiders are still owned by Al Davis




Guest
#71 : March 14, 2007, 08:09:37 PM

You, like the other koolaid drinkers, are in your own little magical world where Jon Gruden fairies wave their magical wands and produce good football teams.

Somehow, I just know that Lloyd is making some sort of deeply profound philosophical point here, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is.


gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#72 : March 14, 2007, 08:44:18 PM

You, like the other koolaid drinkers, are in your own little magical world where Jon Gruden fairies wave their magical wands and produce good football teams.

Somehow, I just know that Lloyd is making some sort of deeply profound philosophical point here, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is.



I'm actually with Lloyd on this one!

Garcia is deifinitely a Gruden 'Fairy' ...

I'm sure he'll wave his magic 'wand' around Tampa...

And produce a significantly better team than last season...
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: CBS Sportsline Analysis of the Bucs Free Agency « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools