Reality check: The Bucs were not that good last year

[JavaRay]

If the Saints win that game they get home field advantage and never lose against the Seahawks in the first post season game.

Not true.   The Saints finished 11-5 and the Falcons finished 13-3.   No matter what, the Saints are a Wild Card and playing their first game on the road against the Seahawks.   

Here was the seeding:

1) Atlanta Falcons  (division winner)
2) Chicago Bears  (division winner)

Both 1 and 2 had a bye week for the first week of the playoffs.

3) Philadelphia Eagles (division winner)
4) Seattle Seahawks (division winner)
5) New Orleans Saints  (11-5 wildcard)
6) Green Bay Packers (10-6 wildcard)

Even if the Saints win that Bucs game, they finish 12-4 and are STILL the #5 seed in the playoffs going to Seattle for their first playoff game.   That Bucs game in the final week of season was meaningless to the Saints playoff picture.

[MiltonMack21]

Damn... I don't know that I have ever seen Boid do any of that. Anyway.. about the article, the only games that really got out of hand were against the Steelers and the Saints. The other losses were completely winnable, hell if Sabby and Ruud didn't get run by, by Heap the Bucs probably win that game, if Java's hero Stovall actually tackles Weems the Bucs win that one.

[BucNCane]

Anyone notice it says we're a year away from being contenders in the NFC West? Hell, we'd stomp that division this year!

[BucNY]

I knew when I saw Java had made 3 new topics we were in for a long day.

[Skull and Bones]

Damn... I don't know that I have ever seen Boid do any of that.

he goes off like that all the time... 

[jerseybucsfan]

If you use this mentality, the Eagles take away their MNF rout of the Redskins and then Vick isn't an MVP candidate either.
I believe I'm correct in that the Bucs simply had a WEIRD schedule last year; they didn't play any teams that won 8, 9 or 10 games. So they played GREAT winning teams, not just borderline teams, or losing teams.
1. Seattle was still fighting for a division title so that game DID matter.
2. The Saints are always playing the Bucs for something (even if that's merely for a future foothold). I guarantee you they didn't lay down and aren't happy they lost to us.
3. You take away any team's best games and their pt. differential is going to be worse. Play the game the other way too (take away the first NO game and the Pitt game) and their pt. differential looks incredible. Point here is that they looked a lot better in their final four games against winning teams than their first two. That's the definition of progress.

[dalbuc]

You can make a lot of excuses but the article is correct. We weren't as "good" as our record showed. I suspect in reality we'd get punked by winning teams more times than not (bad OL and bad DL being the main problems) and beat most losing teams (QB being why) more times than not. If you could do a 1000 game NFL round Robin we'd likely be a 8-8 type team.

That said the problem is with the theory that we will regress this year based on schedule and that is that most teams are just not this young. While you always have a fair number of teams flopping around in that 6-10/10-6 area what you tend not to have are teams with guys who are difference makers as young as ours. The theory for Bucs fans is if the guys who were good last year get better but were 1st and second year players then we're going to be a much better team than they were last year.

[JavaRay]

We'll see how much progress there has been the first couple of games this season.

[jerseybucsfan]

The Bucs had a negative point differential in the first half, which suggests they weren't as good as 5-3.
They had a plus-55 in the second half and went 5-3.
Their schedule strengths were pretty much equal in the two halves. So the improvement appears to be legitimate.
You can't simply go on win-loss record. How good was the other team at the time? Had the Bucs played the Lions in the first 12 games they probably beat them. Without Talib, the coverage is weaker. Without McCoy, the pass rush is weaker. So they put no pressure on the weak QB and were weakest in the one area you couldn't afford to be weak at, covering Megatron. So an 100-yard receiving game became 150.
That made a W a tossup game. The Bucs played badly enough to lose the Cincy, St. Louis and Washington games. But they also played well enough to win either of the Atlanta games. They lost by a TD in Baltimore too. So I'm not sure what you're looking for from the 2010 Bucs. It's not good enough for the youngest team in the league to win? They had to win convincingly too? They had to beat everyone?
Using that criteria, they had to be a 12-win team to be a playoff team. Well, that's not a fair criteria. Only by FLUKE did they miss the playoffs (fourth tiebreaker to a team they didn't play).
What about the Roddy White pushoff to win the Baltimore game? What about San Fran not downing the ball and choking in Atlanta? What about the blocking in the back in FULL VIEW on the Weems TD return? What about the dropped INT by Grimes (according to Michael Perreira) that somehow there wasn't sufficient evidence for?
There was more to question in Atlanta's run than ours. This is why New Orleans should be favored to win the South and why if the Bucs' O-line plays as well as we hope, second place is very possible.

[Zsnore]

I saw a gutsy, exceptionally conditioned, well coached team last year. Yes young, yes inexperienced, yes the o-line sucks. But... We got stronger down the stretch, and late in games, while being one of the least penalized teams last year, a fact that never gets mentioned around here. Freeman can still roll out, Mike W. still catches everything near him, K2 is/was always freak, and LG is hungry as ever. Guess what? With the exception of K2, and maybe Freeman are any of these guys getting paid yet? None of these guys are sitting on that proverbial nest egg yet. The incentive to play well, and be good is definitely still there, hence 'youngry'. Did I mention the D-line is a 100x's better? I wouldn't count against the Bucs this year. I will say the division IS that good, and we may be a team just outside the playoffs again.  That is not becuase we aren't heading in the right direction, its because we simply aren't there yet, and yes experience plays a HUGE factor.

[jerseybucsfan]

Yes, Zsnore, you take everything in context. New Orleans was healthier the first time we played them. We were less experienced. So naturally we played a lot worse the first time we played them. The Bucs played some ugly games last year. But there were a lot fewer of them in the second half. The Baltimore game, in part, had something to do with the wind. Does Weems return a KO for a TD this year? Not with the new rules. And things snowball. So you hope to start strong.
I'm watching Michael Strahan sip the Atlanta Kool-Aid now, making excuses for them last year. They were experienced. They were healthy. They were home. So how can they legitimately improve? I don't see it. They may not get another shot like that again, but our window is just opening.

[rob]

If the Saints win that game they get home field advantage and never lose against the Seahawks in the first post season game.

Not true.   The Saints finished 11-5 and the Falcons finished 13-3.   No matter what, the Saints are a Wild Card and playing their first game on the road against the Seahawks.    ...That Bucs game in the final week of season was meaningless to the Saints playoff picture.

Not true.  Before the game, the Saints were still not eliminated from winning the division.  If they win and the Falcons lose, they would both end the season at 12-4 and there was a scenario where the Saints win the tie-breaker.

That is why they played all of their starters at the beginning of the game.  It was not until halftime (when it was obvious the Falcons were going to beat the Panthers) that they gave up.  Convenient, since it was equally obvious they were not going to beat us either.

[blackthoughtz]

The Seahawks and Saints were both playin to win a division before we utterly crushed both teams.

[blackthoughtz]

Furthermore, if the schedule was so easy...why were the Panthers 2-14? Not to mention we were the youngest team in the league by far and we battled injuries all year? Nobody point out the face that just because you have an "easy schedule" doesn't mean you come out and still win.

[tatmanfish]

Saints didnt give up until well into the 4th quarter once the game was out of reach and the Falcons had there game in the bag.

Brees threw 38 passes an played well into the 4th. Doesnt sound like a team with nothing to play for to me. Why else would you have your franchise QB throw that many passes in a "meaningless" game?