Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Buccaneers not doing much to be more likeable « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 6

DailyRich68

*
Starter
****
Posts : 572
Offline
#15 : November 23, 2011, 07:55:16 AM

I know I had love for those teams and related to those players far more than the current players.

James Wilder or LeGarrette Blount?
Jimmie Giles or Kellen Winslow?

There is no comparison.  Those old teams were far more likeable.

Sounds more like nostalgia at work to me.  Those old teams seem more likeable because they exist as this perfect memory that can't be tainted by a new bad game or a new negative headline.  They're in stasis, forever the way you want to remember them.

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37078
Offline
#16 : November 23, 2011, 07:56:58 AM

If the Bucs put up more performances the next six weeks like we saw against Green Bay they will become more likeable.

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#17 : November 23, 2011, 08:00:05 AM

meh, Im just tired of Shelton as hes always injecting his own opinion


He's a **CENSORED**ing columnist. What do you expect?

Ladyfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6754
Offline
#18 : November 23, 2011, 08:31:28 AM

I think Sheldon is spot on.  His comments cut across all the major forces in football.  Starting with players more unknown and tested than unlikeable, to the schedule, to the blackouts, to the coaches, the lousy play on the field ( I'd rather watch Tebow who is very entertaining ), the lack of passion and hustle, the gross inconsistency so that you never know which Bucs team is going to show up to play, the regression of QB play, and finally to the owners lack of financial commitment, the romance with London games and their lack of visibility in the community.

The back stories on many of these Bucs is sketchy.  There is no inspiration of a Warrick Dunn who lost his mother and raised his sibling and the his well known chariity work....there in no longer the inspiriation of a Caddilac who worked to overcome not one but two crippling injuries and became a model of uncomplaining humble team mate,  no charismatic bad boy like Sapp, golden boy like Lynch.  We do have the wonderful, ageless and ultimate football guy Ronde Barber.

Our owners aren't eccentric enough to be interesting like Al Davis nor have his love of the game, they don't have the brash swagger of a Jerry Jones, the classy success of Robert Kraft and so forth.  The Glazers seemed to have bought a toy for their two sons to play with as a business venture rather than a deep love and passion for football.  They simply do not have a feel for "football" its fans or even its business needs to build success.  Meh.

While the above is all critical, I say it with loving regret like when your kid makes a bad choice but you still love them while dishing out discipline and disappointment.  Frankly, I've beern both a defender of the Glazers and a critic I've arrive at the point where I would support a public demand for the Glazers to sell the team to owners who are more connected to the community and to the sport.  Pam Iorio would be a great owner.  She is Tampa and she is knowlegable and loves football and would hire great coaches and put some money in great players....I know, I know that's off the wall, but she just popped into my head.  I used to watch her grill the coaches and the players on her weekly Bucs show on public TV.  She was knowledable and a lot of fun...she has a football twinkle in her eyes....

But I digress.  A team of unknowns within the Tampa Bay Community, an absence of owner presence ( its not enough to sit in your private suite and watch the games guys),  an unknown coach, pretty good GM IMHO and loss after loss plus embarrassing performances on national TV as well as the blackouts all add up to  TIME FOR A CHANGE AND FOR HEADS TO ROLL....START WITH OWNERSHIP....

DOWN WITH THE GLAZERS......OCCUPY ONE BUC!!!


JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
#19 : November 23, 2011, 09:11:26 AM

I know I had love for those teams and related to those players far more than the current players.

James Wilder or LeGarrette Blount?
Jimmie Giles or Kellen Winslow?

There is no comparison.  Those old teams were far more likeable.

Sounds more like nostalgia at work to me.  Those old teams seem more likeable because they exist as this perfect memory that can't be tainted by a new bad game or a new negative headline.  They're in stasis, forever the way you want to remember them.

Naw.   I remember how I felt about the team then and how I feel about them now.   I liked the players and team much better back then.


JohnBuc06

****
Starter

Posts : 665
Offline
#20 : November 23, 2011, 09:32:20 AM

I know I had love for those teams and related to those players far more than the current players.

James Wilder or LeGarrette Blount?
Jimmie Giles or Kellen Winslow?

There is no comparison.  Those old teams were far more likeable.

Sounds more like nostalgia at work to me.  Those old teams seem more likeable because they exist as this perfect memory that can't be tainted by a new bad game or a new negative headline.  They're in stasis, forever the way you want to remember them.

Naw.   I remember how I felt about the team then and how I feel about them now.   I liked the players and team much better back then.


I'm with Java on this one ...those mid 80-90 teams were never disliked.  There might have been some apathy due to how bad they were (ironically all back on the owners shoulder), but the community was willing to embrace them at any sign of them coming around.  Heck I remember Perkins coming in and winning his first game and the town was ecstatic ...Vinny Testeverde throwing a then rookie records for yards his first game on the road against the Saints in a losing effort but came home to a heroes welcome.  Everyone loving Wilder through those horrendous Leman Bennet teams.  People actually excited ...EXCITED ...about Richard Williamson getting the perm head coaching job.  And we're talking about historically bad teams.  BUT none of those teams were disliked.  This year's team is a talented team, it does have the making of a competitive team building for a long run ....but I agree the community has a dislike for it that stems right back to the ownership and their apparent lack of interest to use the Bucs as nothing more than a revenue stream.  And you can argue about the merits of Raheem and his coaches all you want ...the average fan looks at him as a cheap cost alternative for the owners.  The ironic thing about all this is that Culverhouse was notoriously cheaper than the Glazers ever have been.  But at least he made himself known in the area and put on a front that he wanted the team to win.  Plus he didn't run off to play with his new prize possession (ManU) and leave the Bucs to fall even further down than they were already at.  And that's a perception that the fan's hate that goes right to them not embracing this team.

jerseybucsfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 13590
Offline
#21 : November 23, 2011, 09:49:22 AM

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but the Bucs didn't start to be disliked when Raheem came. The dislike began in the Gruden Era. It's not so much of a product of who's on the team, but the NATURE of expectation. The the older Bucs WERE ignored more than any of the current Bucs teams, but weren't disliked in the same way because they weren't taken seriously. They were a joke. Pre-1979 they were a national joke and post-1982 they were a joke again. It was never ''if they do this'' they'll be good because no one bothered to speculate. It was hopeless. Dungy made them relevant and was a victim of his own expectations. Then Gruden suffered the same fate. This is a natural progression of perennial basement teams. They rise like the phoenix and then become ordinary with mundane feelings of malice, blame, idealization.
The 2004 Bucs were far more dislikeable than this team. Then look at some of the other guys of that era. Simms, Steussie, Deese, Stinchcomb, Tim Brown .... And let's not romanticize Culverhouse. He was a racist. People have a short memory.

In Verner We Trust

JohnBuc06

****
Starter

Posts : 665
Offline
#22 : November 23, 2011, 09:57:25 AM

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but the Bucs didn't start to be disliked when Raheem came. The dislike began in the Gruden Era. It's not so much of a product of who's on the team, but the NATURE of expectation. The the older Bucs WERE ignored more than any of the current Bucs teams, but weren't disliked in the same way because they weren't taken seriously. They were a joke. Pre-1979 they were a national joke and post-1982 they were a joke again. It was never ''if they do this'' they'll be good because no one bothered to speculate. It was hopeless. Dungy made them relevant and was a victim of his own expectations. Then Gruden suffered the same fate. This is a natural progression of perennial basement teams. They rise like the phoenix and then become ordinary with mundane feelings of malice, blame, idealization.
The 2004 Bucs were far more dislikeable than this team. Then look at some of the other guys of that era. Simms, Steussie, Deese, Stinchcomb, Tim Brown .... And let's not romanticize Culverhouse. He was a racist. People have a short memory.

Agreed it started the tail end of Gruden's run ...but I believe that fell back on the owners as well with thier overall handling of the team ...Raheem was just the icing on the cake.  And NO ONE is romanticizing Culverhouse.  Racism aside as I stated the Glazers have never been as cheap as he was ...but he did attempt to show that he cared about winning ...something the Glazer boys have never done since they got their other Football team.

Bucpride5

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1793
Offline
#23 : November 23, 2011, 10:00:21 AM

The attitude towards the team just shows how poor and un loyal the Tampa area is to it's sports teams. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'm still excited by this team and watch every week hoping for the best, hoping to see the continued development of promising young players like Freeman, Blount, Williams, Benn, Foster, Clayborn and others.

Jerseybucsfan is right the divide in the fanbase began in the Gruden/Allen regime the way veteran players were treated/lied to by those in charge especially since those players were beloved by the community.

Formerly known as T

 I\'ll be optimistic until I see a reason not to be

jerseybucsfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 13590
Offline
#24 : November 23, 2011, 10:04:17 AM

Granted that the Glazers are more moles and isolationists than Culverhouse. But the bad feelings began in 2003. The genesis was mostly media-related (including the same guy who wrote this column). Then the perception took the biggest hit with the purchase of ManU. At first many gave them the benefit of the doubt. But since they have owned the team they really haven't shown any real evidence that the Bucs are a real priority if not a MAJOR priority to them. But Blount, MW, Freeman have little to do with that. It's a bad Oline, awful linebackers, lack of a pass rusher you can really believe in, the Talib Factor, etc.

In Verner We Trust

jerseybucsfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 13590
Offline
#25 : November 23, 2011, 10:08:17 AM

The attitude towards the team just shows how poor and un loyal the Tampa area is to it's sports teams. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'm still excited by this team and watch every week hoping for the best, hoping to see the continued development of promising young players like Freeman, Blount, Williams, Benn, Foster, Clayborn and others.

Jerseybucsfan is right the divide in the fanbase began in the Gruden/Allen regime the way veteran players were treated/lied to by those in charge especially since those players were beloved by the community.
I didn't say anything about the ''lied to'' factor, but the perception of them being lied to contributed to things. Again, this is a natural progression. When stars fade and when you get post-championships, there is rarely a good way to part ways. Gruden and Allen made some mistakes, but you add some real bad dudes in terms of attitude (Sapp, while we love him on the field, was generally regarded as a schmuck; Keyshawn had a lot of off-the-field issues and is a classic narcicissist; Keenan used the Bucs in an unforgivable way, etc.) plus an agenda-driven negative media (Fennelly, Stroud, Bianchi, etc.) and you forge MALICE.

In Verner We Trust

Theoldbuc

****
Starter

Posts : 589
Offline
#26 : November 23, 2011, 10:37:48 AM

Tampa Bay Buccaneers not doing much to be more likeable



 By Gary Shelton, Times Sports Columnist
In Print: Wednesday, November 23, 2011
 



They have not won in more than a month. Twice in six games, they have been accused of loafing, once by their head coach. Home games are almost always blacked out, and more and more, you get the feeling that road games are being tuned out.

So how do you like your Bucs now?

Over 10 weeks, they have one of the worst offenses in the league, which is troubling because they also have one of the worst defenses. They still spend less than most teams in the NFL. Also, the defensive huddle breaks with Aqib, Albert and Tanard.

And let's ask again. Do you like this team?

Still?

That was one of the goals of the new regime, remember? The Bucs wanted to be embraceable again. They not only wanted to win, they wanted to admired, the way they were in the old days. They wanted kids to wear their jerseys, adults to wear their caps. They wanted to win back the hearts of Tampa Bay.

It was that way in the old days, remember? The Bucs would play on Sunday, and Warrick Dunn would give away a house on Tuesday, and Derrick Brooks would mentor kids on Wednesday, and Mike Alstott would make an appearance for charity on Thursday, and John Lynch would visit his foundation on Friday. They were not only fine football players, they were fine people, and even in weeks they didn't win, the community still cared.

Now?

Do you like them? Do you think they are fun? Do they entertain you? Do their results affect your mood? Here's a question: When referring to the Bucs, do you use the words "we'' or "us?''

Three years into the current Bucs era and there still seems to be a disconnect between team and community. It is as if the Bucs and their fans are still at arm's length, still trying to figure each other out.

Start with losing, because in professional sports, that's the easiest thing to dislike. The Bucs haven't won a playoff game since 2002, and sadly, they don't look close to getting back to a postseason anytime soon. This year, there have been many more times when they have looked like the 3-13 team of 2009 rather than the 10-6 team of 2010.

Much of that has come down on the head coach. Still, give Raheem Morris credit for this much: The schedule is harder. That said, a head coach is the last person who should bring it up. In the NFL, no one grades on a curve.

Remember how Morris bristled last year when anyone mentioned the Bucs weren't beating winning teams? If the schedule is a reason for the current underachievement, then logic says it was the reason for the overachievement of last year, and suddenly, the Bucs have devalued the success of 2010.

Besides, you may remember this: The Bucs beat San Francisco by 21 points last year. They lost by 45 this year. That doesn't have a thing to do with the schedule.

Of course, fans might like the team better if they could follow it more closely. Again, I understand why owners grasp the blackout rule so firmly. If I were an owner, I wouldn't want to give away my product either. That said, the blackouts, and the ongoing rhetoric, isn't helping team win back fans.

Then there is the roster, where most players haven't been around long enough for fans to develop an emotional investment. Ask yourself this: Except for Ronde Barber's, and maybe Josh Freeman's, whose jersey would you purchase for your kid?

Aqib Talib's? Albert Haynesworth's? Tanard Jackson's? Yeah, yeah. Talib's trial isn't until next year, and the team is more talented with him. Haynesworth is still more of a Band-Aid than a blueprint, and no, no one really considers him a mentor. (Let's hope). Jackson was an upgrade.

Still, I have to tell you, it was puzzling that Jackson not only was active his first game, but started. And he not only started, but was introduced. And he was not only introduced, but was introduced last and carried the team flag as he entered the field. It was a hero's return to the field, not the return of a guy who had let down his team by being suspended for drugs.

Just wondering, but was there a point when discussing these players that the Bucs wondered about their team image? Even a little?

You know what people like? They like effort. They like achievement. They like discipline. They like players who stand for more than games on Sunday. They like the impression that today is going to be better than yesterday, and tomorrow is going to be better than that.

They like young players, as long as they are improving. They like toughness, as long as it can be counted on. They like character, as long as it is genuine. They like home games, as long as they aren't based in London.

Also, they like owners who want to win as badly as they do.

Yes, it comes back to the Glazers. Why wouldn't it? There have been too many years of low payroll for anyone to believe it's a coincidence. There is nothing wrong with building through the draft, but when the drafts were as bad as they were in the Bruce Allen years, there are too many holes to fill without signing the right free agent or two.

So how do you rekindle a relationship with fans? First, you win. We all agree on that.

After that, the standards should be raised when it comes to character. No one expects Boy Scouts in shoulder pads, but it's time to reduce the size of the off-field headlines on this team.

After that, cut a loafer. Cut two. Cut as many as it takes until effort is no longer an issue. And the front office should stop acting as if they shouldn't be questioned. For crying out loud, the president gets questioned.

Also, stop talking about the schedule. If you want easier opponents, go coach in the Big East.

As for the Glazers, it is time to be more visible (and more audible) in the community. Convince people you have a blueprint to win. Convince people it ticks you off as much as it ticks them off. Oh, and spend a little money, won't you?

This is what the Bucs needed to realize. As tough as the economy is, there are other reasons the stands are no longer stuffed. If you want a community to embrace you, then embrace it.

The Bucs need to be good. They need to be efficient. They need to be entertaining.

For the good of Tampa Bay, they need to be likeable.

Judging from this year, they have work to do.


This has to be one of the most venomous articles I have read. In Kansas, we have the Chiefs who haven't  been to the Super Bowl since 1971. They have made the playoffs once since 1995. They have a roster of no names and are losing in the AFC west, horribly and still sell out games. You don't see this kind of article. And fan perception is driven by the media. They choose what the want to write about the Bucs. This article could just as easily have been written about how the Bucs played better against the Super Bowl champs and may be turning the corner. It could have been written about the efforts that exist in the community that are generating a positive perception as the team strives to deliver on the field. It could have included something about how Haynesworth appears to be making a positive contribution, so far.  It could have been any number of positive angles. then what would the public perception be? My guess is that if the public reads and hears about positives they will be more jnclined to support the team. And for the record, there was a sell out for the Monday night game and the Dallas game is sold out. Maybe the writer could say, if the Bucs when the next three games (all winnable, Tennessee, Carolina, Jacksonville) the Dallas game will have huge playoff implications. Perhaps that would spur fan interest. But, alas, it is more important to create any negative slant he can find, old or imaginary, and throw that out there. Happy Thanksgiving, Mr. Shelton!

Hate

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 39894
Offline
#27 : November 23, 2011, 10:38:25 AM

Blount is the least likeable RB in team history.   He's a punk.   I'll likely never support him.   Guys like James Wilder, Ricky Bell, Gary Anderson, Warrick Dunn, Mike Alstott,   Hell, even Reggie Cobb and Errict Rhett easier to cheer for than fists first Blount.

I've literally liked every roster in Buc history prior to the arrival of Raheem better than any roster Raheem has fielded.   And you already know what I think about Raheem.

This team is flat out unlikeable.

Yet you're still here........ watching. How ignorant is that???

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but the Bucs didn't start to be disliked when Raheem came. The dislike began in the Gruden Era.

Without question!!!
: November 23, 2011, 10:40:02 AM Hate

-------------------------------------------------------
   

 I thought Lovie said he wanted quickness & speed, even at the QB position?

bashear

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2433
Offline
#28 : November 23, 2011, 10:43:22 AM

Plain and simple, articles like this accompany losing. If the Bucs were winning, and a credible threat to win every game they play in, they would be likeable. A few playmakers who routinely show up would also help interest.

JavaRay

User is banned from postingMuted
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17206
Offline
#29 : November 23, 2011, 10:58:30 AM

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but the Bucs didn't start to be disliked when Raheem came. The dislike began in the Gruden Era.

I'm not arguing that.  I lost a lot of interest in the Bucs starting at the end of the 2006 season.   I had little to no connection to the players at that point and did not like the makeup of the team at all.   Gruden was a great coach,  but a terrible talent assessor.   I will say I liked the 2007 team better than this current team, but I wasn't a big fan of the players on the 2007 team either.   Then I completely lost interest when Raheem was hired.   He wasn't ready to be a head coach.   Had they made a smart hire like Rex Ryan,  it would have been totally different from hiring Raheem.  The hiring of Heemy was a huge mistake.   It's time to get rid of that bone head and move on.

I do have an "interest" in the team hoping that they fire Raheem and have a fun team again in the future so I still hang around.   But they could cut the entire roster today and fire all coaches and I wouldn't be upset one bit.
: November 23, 2011, 11:00:48 AM JavaRay

Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Buccaneers not doing much to be more likeable « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools