Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Would you include Mike Williams in a trade for Revis? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
#30 : January 26, 2013, 04:59:24 PM

Screw those efing new yorkers......hate the ones we have down here in FLA.....ever hear the joke about nothing better than a Canadian headed north up I75 with two efing NYers under each arm?   Give those efing NYJ Trueblood, too. Throw in all of our crappy players for that matter.

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31573
Offline
#31 : January 26, 2013, 05:17:49 PM

      Wright and Blount for Revis would work for me. Even throw in Underwood...
  sounds good  to me...not sure if Revis' salary will fly w/ the Glazers, though.

Good call.  If only they were the owners that signed over $200M worth of contracts over the last two offseason.  Those guys don't mind spending money, unlike the Glazers.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46178
Offline
#32 : January 26, 2013, 05:31:43 PM

I get so confused - where the guys last year the glazers or was that the glazers in the 7 years prior when the bucs spent less than the #31 team by tens of millions... hard to recall - lol.  Glad to see them back on the program of getting talent on the team.  Whomever is doing it.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27540
Offline
#33 : January 26, 2013, 05:37:43 PM

I get so confused - where the guys last year the glazers or was that the glazers in the 7 years prior when the bucs spent less than the #31 team by tens of millions... hard to recall - lol.  Glad to see them back on the program of getting talent on the team.  Whomever is doing it.
2010 was really the only offseason the Bucs didn't spend money. They've generally spent a lot of new money every offseason. It's just that in the past the team was losing medium-to-large salaried players who couldn't play anymore at a pretty high level so it was difficult to amass a large total payroll. Only now do they have the balance other teams have of homegrown players who have signed large extensions and highly paid free agents.

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

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31573
Offline
#34 : January 26, 2013, 05:39:42 PM

I get so confused

That happens when one is on Morgana's side of the argument.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46178
Offline
#35 : January 26, 2013, 05:41:47 PM

And they got to 32 of 32 by spending money... got it FRG... okay, if that is how you wish to describe it.  For the masses who don't get it - over the prior 7 years the bucs spent tens of millions less then the 31 other teams. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27540
Offline
#36 : January 26, 2013, 05:49:40 PM

And they got to 32 of 32 by spending money... got it FRG... okay, if that is how you wish to describe it.  For the masses who don't get it - over the prior 7 years the bucs spent tens of millions less then the 31 other teams.
Again, every year but 2010 the Bucs spent around $20 million in new money, just like they did last year. The only difference is now the players they spent that $20 million on 3-4 years ago are mostly still on the team. Previously, they'd all be gone.

Additionally, many of the players who are now bumping the Bucs payroll up are the same players who were making peanuts 3-4 years ago when the payroll was so low. In 2009 Donald Penn, Davin Joseph, Jeremy Trueblood, Jeremy Zuttah, and Quincy Black combined to make about $5 million per year. Now those same players make around $30 million. So despite spending a bunch more money, the Bucs aren't much more competitive on the field than they were 3-4 years ago when they weren't spending a lot of total money. They still have the same players.

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

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46178
Offline
#37 : January 26, 2013, 05:57:08 PM

I fully understand FRG.  The  bucs didn't spend much over time period - for a variety of reasons.  The outcome is unchanged if the players aren't good.  Nor this is the bottom line changed.  The question that went unanswered is why not get better players, and what might of happened if they had... but fortunately the bucs haven't had to face salary cap issues for a good long while.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27540
Offline
#38 : January 26, 2013, 06:03:17 PM

The question that went unanswered is why not get better players
Easier said than done. But I'd say one reason is because the relative uptick in draft success that began around 2007 gave the overall roster much better depth than they previously had and allowed the team to focus that $20 million per year on a few quality players rather than a mass of average players the disastrous drafts from 2004 and earlier forced them to do.

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

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46178
Offline
#39 : January 26, 2013, 06:07:57 PM

You and I have been on this board for a while.  I have never tried to bs you, and won't now.  The bucs avoided FA involving the limited prime FAs that show up irregularly - like the plague, add that to crap draft outcomes - and you have lots of money around.  Now - what is the plan... folks can figure that out on their own - not going to get into this one again.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31573
Offline
#40 : January 26, 2013, 06:14:04 PM

The bucs avoided FA involving the limited prime FAs that show up irregularly - like the plague

Like who?


Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27540
Offline
#41 : January 26, 2013, 06:16:06 PM

The bucs avoided FA involving the limited prime FAs that show up irregularly - like the plague

Like who?
Clearly when the 3-4 prime FA's that change teams every year don't end up in Tampa and instead one of the other 31 teams, it's because the Glazers are avoiding them like the plague.

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

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46178
Offline
#42 : January 26, 2013, 06:19:55 PM

The bucs avoided FA involving the limited prime FAs that show up irregularly - like the plague

Like who?
We have had this one before - and it went on for the 7 year period.  So anyone and everyone that was a FA in the period - and every year there is/are some(one).   

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31573
Offline
#43 : January 26, 2013, 06:22:30 PM

The bucs avoided FA involving the limited prime FAs that show up irregularly - like the plague

Like who?
We have had this one before - and it went on for the 7 year period.  So anyone and everyone that was a FA in the period - and every year there is/are some(one).   

So you mean guys like Albert Haynesworth.


holiday21

**
Rookie

Posts : 36
Offline
#44 : January 26, 2013, 06:26:59 PM

no.just no.

we have a top 5 wr duo, and breaking it up would be foolish.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Would you include Mike Williams in a trade for Revis? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools