Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Steve White breakdown « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26695
Online
#30 : December 15, 2010, 01:04:44 PM

On the vast majority of the big runs on Sunday, the ballcarrier could pulled one of Ruud's luscious locks out.  He was always close to the play, but couldn't make it.
Did Morris flat out tell Ruud not to try and make plays this year? It seemed like he actually tried last year and got flattened in the process fairly often. This year he's getting flattened a lot less, but it just seems like he's hanging around and not actually trying to do anything.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26695
Online
#31 : December 15, 2010, 01:09:41 PM

Barrett Ruud = Shelton Quarles. Ruud haters always love to pump up Quarles like he was some kind of stud. He was just a good player. No more, no less. Ruud's numbers in 2008 blew Quarles Pro Bowl 2002 numbers out the water. Ruud finished 3rd to Patrick Willis and London Fletcher on the ballots that year, and many believed he deserved it more than Fletcher. In the Tampa 2, they are at least equal, although Ruud may actually be better because Quarles never had to QB the defense or step up to be a leader because Derrick Brooks did both.

Ruud's productivity took a dip when Raheem Morris became coach. Why have none of you Ruud haters stopped to think that the two things might be related? Morris does not use the MLB the same way that Kiffin did. It's extremely doubltful that Quarles, who was much smaller than Ruud, would have done any better against the run in Morris' defense.
The thing is Quarles was at best the sixth best player on that defense. He didn't have to do that much. The Bucs kept him around because all they needed was someone to not screw things up while Rice, Sapp, Brooks, Lynch, and Barber made most of the plays. These days we don't have five regular Pro Bowl players on defense. We need to find five regular Pro Bowl players, so with that in mind it makes no sense to keep a player (with a raise, at that) we know at best is a game manager and prevent us from possible finding a regular Pro Bowl player at his position.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#32 : December 15, 2010, 01:10:31 PM

On one hand you say Quarles was better than Ruud against the run because Ruud is struggling when not in the Tampa 2. But Quarles never played anything but the Tampa 2, so how do you know that he would fare any better against the run in Morris' hybrid defense than Ruud is? Quarles was allowed to run free and make plays because he was shielded by having Warren Sapp and Simeon Rice in front of him and had Derrick Brooks lined up next to him. Ruud has never had the amount of complimentary players alongside him to take the pressure or focus off of him that Quarles did. As a result, Quarles never, EVER, faced the amount of O-lineman in his face that Ruud has had to over the last two seasons, nor was he forced to compensate for the poor play of the OLB's lined up next to him.

It all goes back to that physical mentality.  Quarles had it, and Ruud will show it very, very little on the field.  He had one TFL vs. Washington where he shot his gap and made a play - but that was it.

Bottom line is, Ruud just isn't physical enough for the middle.  I think he could well on the outside.

TFL is really an overrated stat for linebackers, especially MLB, because TFL at that position is almost completely reliant on the type of scheme the defense runs. Case and point being Geno Hayes, who got more TFL in 2009 than Derrick Brooks got in any one of his 14 seasons here. Despite that stat, no one in their right mind would say Hayes was as good or better than Brooks was.

I don't disagree, however, that Ruud may not be the prototypical MLB for the defense Morris wants to run, and may be better suited for the outside in this defense. My issue is with people who seem to think that just anybody could do better at MLB. I am not oppsed to getting a thumper at MLB, but I think it's moronic to think the Bucs can let Ruud walk and just plug in anybody and somehow become a better defense because of it. That's irrationality at it's best.


ryan24

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 10609
Offline
#33 : December 15, 2010, 02:16:15 PM



As for Hayes, why wouldn't he be back next year?

Hayes may be back because his contract is not up however he is at least as big of a problem as Ruud is. The fact that the Will is more important in the run game in the Bucs defense makes it imperative that the position is either upgraded or Hayes plays a lot better.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

ryan24

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 10609
Offline
#34 : December 15, 2010, 02:17:58 PM

Barrett Ruud = Shelton Quarles. Ruud haters always love to pump up Quarles like he was some kind of stud. He was just a good player. No more, no less. Ruud's numbers in 2008 blew Quarles Pro Bowl 2002 numbers out the water. Ruud finished 3rd to Patrick Willis and London Fletcher on the ballots that year, and many believed he deserved it more than Fletcher. In the Tampa 2, they are at least equal, although Ruud may actually be better because Quarles never had to QB the defense or step up to be a leader because Derrick Brooks did both.

Ruud's productivity took a dip when Raheem Morris became coach. Why have none of you Ruud haters stopped to think that the two things might be related? Morris does not use the MLB the same way that Kiffin did. It's extremely doubltful that Quarles, who was much smaller than Ruud, would have done any better against the run in Morris' defense.
The thing is Quarles was at best the sixth best player on that defense. He didn't have to do that much. The Bucs kept him around because all they needed was someone to not screw things up while Rice, Sapp, Brooks, Lynch, and Barber made most of the plays. These days we don't have five regular Pro Bowl players on defense. We need to find five regular Pro Bowl players, so with that in mind it makes no sense to keep a player (with a raise, at that) we know at best is a game manager and prevent us from possible finding a regular Pro Bowl player at his position.

Quarles was the cleanup man in the Bucs defense just as Ruud was for a few years when he was playing well. There's one major difference between Ruud playing now and Quarles and Ruud from a few years age....55.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26695
Online
#35 : December 15, 2010, 02:21:24 PM

There's one major difference between Ruud playing now and Quarles and Ruud from a few years age....55.
I certainly won't dispute that. So we have two options: 

1. Find the next Derrick Brooks.

2. Find a real playmaking MLB.

I know which one I'd rather hedge my bets on.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

Detrimental

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5980
Offline
#36 : December 15, 2010, 02:57:05 PM

On one hand you say Quarles was better than Ruud against the run because Ruud is struggling when not in the Tampa 2. But Quarles never played anything but the Tampa 2, so how do you know that he would fare any better against the run in Morris' hybrid defense than Ruud is? Quarles was allowed to run free and make plays because he was shielded by having Warren Sapp and Simeon Rice in front of him and had Derrick Brooks lined up next to him. Ruud has never had the amount of complimentary players alongside him to take the pressure or focus off of him that Quarles did. As a result, Quarles never, EVER, faced the amount of O-lineman in his face that Ruud has had to over the last two seasons, nor was he forced to compensate for the poor play of the OLB's lined up next to him.

It all goes back to that physical mentality.  Quarles had it, and Ruud will show it very, very little on the field.  He had one TFL vs. Washington where he shot his gap and made a play - but that was it.

Bottom line is, Ruud just isn't physical enough for the middle.  I think he could well on the outside.

TFL is really an overrated stat for linebackers, especially MLB, because TFL at that position is almost completely reliant on the type of scheme the defense runs. Case and point being Geno Hayes, who got more TFL in 2009 than Derrick Brooks got in any one of his 14 seasons here. Despite that stat, no one in their right mind would say Hayes was as good or better than Brooks was.

I don't disagree, however, that Ruud may not be the prototypical MLB for the defense Morris wants to run, and may be better suited for the outside in this defense. My issue is with people who seem to think that just anybody could do better at MLB. I am not oppsed to getting a thumper at MLB, but I think it's moronic to think the Bucs can let Ruud walk and just plug in anybody and somehow become a better defense because of it. That's irrationality at it's best.

1. Ruud is not suited to play for this team. I have no clue why the PR and staff are trying to spew garbage and convince you otherwise. Ruud is slow, not stout at the POA and has never played OLB in his whole life. That is a joke of a theory to even consider. NFL OLB's have to be able to be laterally quick to play sidelines-sidelines and he's not it. Go watch Derrick Brooks highlights, he was small but that guy knew how the shed blocks. Brooks would hit the lineman to shed the block BEFORE they were squared up on him due to his quickness.

2. Ruud does nothing special. Its not moronic to think anybody could do better, because the guy is JUST an average MLB in the NFL. There are probably 10 very good MLB and the rest are above average - average down the line. Let him walk and we will find a better player better suited for our new scheme. 1 dimensional MLB's aren't as special as YOU make him to be.
: December 16, 2010, 02:30:12 PM PRPatrol

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#37 : December 15, 2010, 02:58:24 PM

There's one major difference between Ruud playing now and Quarles and Ruud from a few years age....55.
I certainly won't dispute that. So we have two options: 

1. Find the next Derrick Brooks.

2. Find a real playmaking MLB.

I know which one I'd rather hedge my bets on.

We don't need another Derrick Brooks. Another Cato June would work. When June played ROLB for the Colts, he was no Derrick Brooks, but he was still head and shoulders better than Geno Hayes. MLB is actually a much more difficult position to play than OLB, so the odds of finding a stud OLB is far more likely than finding a stud MLB. Especially in next year's draft.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#38 : December 15, 2010, 03:07:35 PM

Dude please wipe your chin, its got too much Ruud DNA on it. This is pathetic.

1. Ruud is not suited to play for this team. I have no clue why the PR and staff are trying to spew garbage and convince you otherwise. Ruud is slow, not stout at the POA and has never played OLB in his whole life. That is a joke of a theory to even consider. NFL OLB's have to be able to be laterally quick to play sidelines-sidelines and he's not it. Go watch Derrick Brooks highlights, he was small but that guy knew how the shed blocks. Brooks would hit the lineman to shed the block BEFORE they were squared up on him due to his quickness.

Actually, MLB's need good lateral quickness and need to play sideline to sideline. OLB's are typically only responsible for their side of the field. Not sure if you are aware of this, but part of the reason Derrick Brooks was so great is because he redefined the position. He took on more of a role in the defense than is typical for an OLB to take. That makes him the exception, not the rule. Do your homework before you go spouting off at the mouth, sport.

2. Ruud does nothing special. Its not moronic to think anybody could do better, because the guy is JUST an average MLB in the NFL. There are probably 10 very good MLB and the rest are above average - average down the line. Let him walk and we will find a better player better suited for our new scheme. 1 dimensional MLB's aren't as special as YOU make him to be.

If you actually paid attention to what I said rather than deciding to flex nuts on me, then you would have read me say that Ruud may not be suited for our defense and I am not opposed to him being replaced IF AN ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT IS AVAILABLE. It would be moronic to think the Bucs can let Ruud walk and just plug some scrub in at MLB and expect a better defense, and you are a moron if you think otherwise. Period.


Condor Bastadon

****
Starter

Posts : 606
Offline
#39 : December 15, 2010, 03:13:26 PM

I actually think Ruud might make a decent WLB. He could be like an old Derrick Brooks(after he lost some of his mobility) who had to rely more on his smarts than his speed. He'd have less blockers to take on, he'd get more opportunities to shoot his gap in situations that he'd be very able to diagnose, and his coverage skills would still be put to use. I don't see it as likely to happen or anything but it's an idea.

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31377
Online
#40 : December 15, 2010, 03:17:06 PM

I actually think Ruud might make a decent WLB. He could be like an old Derrick Brooks(after he lost some of his mobility) who had to rely more on his smarts than his speed. He'd have less blockers to take on, he'd get more opportunities to shoot his gap in situations that he'd be very able to diagnose, and his coverage skills would still be put to use. I don't see it as likely to happen or anything but it's an idea.

Agreed.  But is Ruud willing to do this and at what price?


Detrimental

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5980
Offline
#41 : December 15, 2010, 03:19:25 PM

Actually, MLB's need good lateral quickness and need to play sideline to sideline. OLB's are typically only responsible for their side of the field. Not sure if you are aware of this, but part of the reason Derrick Brooks was so great is because he redefined the position. He took on more of a role in the defense than is typical for an OLB to take. That makes him the exception, not the rule. Do your homework before you go spouting off at the mouth, sport.
Linebackers period need good lateral quickness NOT just MLB's. OLB's have to be able to work down the line too and should always be around the ball. Ruud doesn't fit none of those matters, so the rationale behind him playing OLB is moot.


Too bad I don't think that. but on the contrary I'm sorry that YOU made it seem in this entire thread that an "adequate replacement" would be such a hard thing to find. Seeing that you are backing up Ruud for the most part. Like honestly, is it really going to be hard to replace Ruud? Its not, so why bring him back?

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26695
Online
#42 : December 15, 2010, 03:48:09 PM

There's one major difference between Ruud playing now and Quarles and Ruud from a few years age....55.
I certainly won't dispute that. So we have two options: 

1. Find the next Derrick Brooks.

2. Find a real playmaking MLB.

I know which one I'd rather hedge my bets on.

We don't need another Derrick Brooks. Another Cato June would work. When June played ROLB for the Colts, he was no Derrick Brooks, but he was still head and shoulders better than Geno Hayes. MLB is actually a much more difficult position to play than OLB, so the odds of finding a stud OLB is far more likely than finding a stud MLB. Especially in next year's draft.
1. The Colts were routinely lousy against the run when Cato June was their best linebacker.
2. If you want to design a defense where the ROLB makes all the plays, fine. But if you're going to do things that way, it means your MLB needs to be cheap. You need to save your money for your ROLB who makes all the plays and your DT's who keep the blockers off your MLB. So if Morris' defense does not require the MLB to do anything of significance on the field, you shouldn't be paying him anything of significance off the field.
3. And I'd say the odds of finding a good playmaking MLB is much more likely than a good playmaking OLB. A big reason Derrick Brooks kept making Pro Bowls after he declined was because for most defenses 4-3 OLB is just not a difference making position.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

barbernbrooks

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2646
Offline
#43 : December 15, 2010, 04:06:33 PM

Why don't people understand that bad linebackers are bad linebackers no matter where they line up. Changing him from mlb to olb isn't suddenly gonna make him faster, stronger, more aggressive, and smarter. All it's going to do is give us an olb who's soft, slow and always out of position, instead of a mlb who's soft, slow, and always out of position. The only difference is that he's gonna be less experienced playing it, so he'll be even worse. That, and we may give up even more big runs, because most big runs are to the outside, and the olb's get there first.

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27371
Offline
#44 : December 15, 2010, 08:24:57 PM

On the vast majority of the big runs on Sunday, the ballcarrier could pulled one of Ruud's luscious locks out.  He was always close to the play, but couldn't make it.
Did Morris flat out tell Ruud not to try and make plays this year? It seemed like he actually tried last year and got flattened in the process fairly often. This year he's getting flattened a lot less, but it just seems like he's hanging around and not actually trying to do anything.

He has been asked not to attack the LOS on most plays, and clean up plays not made by the OLBs.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Steve White breakdown « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools