Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: PFT ranks the Bucs 24th « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 7

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23571
Online
#15 : July 13, 2013, 09:35:54 PM

Its about right IMO.  We are all homers so we expect a top 10 ranking AT LEAST !

No way do i think we're top 10 YET... but we sure as hell aren't 24th.




Well,   as an example, the Dolphins are rated better.  And they should be.  Tannehill had a pretty nice season, and they are expecting a big year out of him with Mike Wallace.

Wish we could say that about #5.
 




Benchwarmer#1

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13416
Online
#16 : July 13, 2013, 09:37:43 PM

That's crap.

Within two years the bucs brought in VJ, nicks, revis, and goldson. Even had some draft success with MW, LD, MF, and DM.

On any other team it would've mattered, right? I'm sure the jets would be top 20 if they had half those guys I mentioned.

Naismith was right about Revis. Everyone else is a dummy.

chace1986

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13451
Offline
#17 : July 13, 2013, 09:42:02 PM

Its about right IMO.  We are all homers so we expect a top 10 ranking AT LEAST !

No way do i think we're top 10 YET... but we sure as hell aren't 24th.
Well,   as an example, the Dolphins are rated better.  And they should be.  Tannehill had a pretty nice season, and they are expecting a big year out of him with Mike Wallace.

Wish we could say that about #5.

Just curious...If you could make the trade, would you take Tannehill over Freeman, straight up?


The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23571
Online
#18 : July 13, 2013, 09:44:10 PM

That's crap.

Within two years the bucs brought in VJ, nicks, revis, and goldson. Even had some draft success with MW, LD, MF, and DM.

On any other team it would've mattered, right? I'm sure the jets would be top 20 if they had half those guys I mentioned.



They haven't done anything yet, though.   [revis/goldson]
 
They can't rate teams on how they look on paper.



The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23571
Online
#19 : July 13, 2013, 09:46:07 PM

Its about right IMO.  We are all homers so we expect a top 10 ranking AT LEAST !

No way do i think we're top 10 YET... but we sure as hell aren't 24th.
Well,   as an example, the Dolphins are rated better.  And they should be.  Tannehill had a pretty nice season, and they are expecting a big year out of him with Mike Wallace.

Wish we could say that about #5.

Just curious...If you could make the trade, would you take Tannehill over Freeman, straight up?




Right now?   Yes

Tannehill is looking like the real deal. Another good season from him and people will notice.



Hate

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 40303
Online
#20 : July 13, 2013, 09:47:03 PM

Its about right IMO.  We are all homers so we expect a top 10 ranking AT LEAST !

No way do i think we're top 10 YET... but we sure as hell aren't 24th.

Well,   as an example, the Dolphins are rated better.  And they should be.  Tannehill had a pretty nice season, and they are expecting a big year out of him with Mike Wallace.

Wish we could say that about #5.

I completely disagree that Miami is a better team than we are. And Mike Wallace is a one trick pony. Give me VJax err day!!

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

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

Hate

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 40303
Online
#21 : July 13, 2013, 09:48:11 PM

 
They can't rate teams on how they look on paper.

That's what you just did with Tannehill and Wallace.

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

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

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23571
Online
#22 : July 13, 2013, 09:49:21 PM

Its about right IMO.  We are all homers so we expect a top 10 ranking AT LEAST !

No way do i think we're top 10 YET... but we sure as hell aren't 24th.

Well,   as an example, the Dolphins are rated better.  And they should be.  Tannehill had a pretty nice season, and they are expecting a big year out of him with Mike Wallace.

Wish we could say that about #5.

I completely disagree that Miami is a better team than we are. And Mike Wallace is a one trick pony. Give me VJax err day!!



Agree on the Vincent part.  Its not WR's I am sayin are better.  Its the QB's.



The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23571
Online
#23 : July 13, 2013, 09:53:32 PM

 
They can't rate teams on how they look on paper.

That's what you just did with Tannehill and Wallace.



Its not strictly on paper.  Tannehill already had a good year last season.  What I like about him, is he just keeps on progressing.  Keeps getting better and better. That is how your suppposed to do it.  Not look good for awhile,  then regress big time. Its a frekin roller coaster ride with #5.



Hate

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 40303
Online
#24 : July 13, 2013, 09:55:27 PM

Its a frekin roller coaster ride with #5.

On that we're in 100% agreement. Still think we have the better team and should be ranked middle of the pack.....somewhere in the 14-18 range.

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

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

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
#25 : July 13, 2013, 09:59:54 PM

That's crap.

Within two years the bucs brought in VJ, nicks, revis, and goldson. Even had some draft success with MW, LD, MF, and DM.

On any other team it would've mattered, right? I'm sure the jets would be top 20 if they had half those guys I mentioned.



They haven't done anything yet, though.   [revis/goldson]
 
They can't rate teams on how they look on paper.



It's the offseason. Nobody has even played a preseason game. Of course they are rating from how they look on paper. And on paper, the Bucs are a helluva lot better than 24. Record wise, we finished tied for 18th in the league and we added Revis and Goldson and we get Nicks/Joseph back. On paper, it just doesn't add up to have us at 24. I love it though. It's motivation.

The idea that the Tannehill and the Dolphins are better than us, in any universe makes me literally laugh out loud. I guess we'll see in week 10.



I think CBS got much closer a few months ago. It's right on imo except for the Rams....he has them a little too high.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/powerrankings
: July 13, 2013, 10:06:21 PM JDouble


The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23571
Online
#26 : July 13, 2013, 10:01:53 PM

Its a frekin roller coaster ride with #5.

On that we're in 100% agreement. Still think we have the better team and should be ranked middle of the pack.....somewhere in the 14-18 range.




Agree on middle of the pack. 



Hate

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 40303
Online
#27 : July 13, 2013, 10:02:01 PM

I think CBS got much closer a few months ago. It's right on imo except for the Rams....he has them a little too high.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/powerrankings

Bears, Bengals and Rams are too high

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

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

Benchwarmer#1

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 13416
Online
#28 : July 13, 2013, 10:04:43 PM

That's crap.

Within two years the bucs brought in VJ, nicks, revis, and goldson. Even had some draft success with MW, LD, MF, and DM.

On any other team it would've mattered, right? I'm sure the jets would be top 20 if they had half those guys I mentioned.



They haven't done anything yet, though.   [revis/goldson]
 
They can't rate teams on how they look on paper.

Why not? ...they did it with the eagles.

Naismith was right about Revis. Everyone else is a dummy.

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23571
Online
#29 : July 13, 2013, 10:07:58 PM

That's crap.

Within two years the bucs brought in VJ, nicks, revis, and goldson. Even had some draft success with MW, LD, MF, and DM.

On any other team it would've mattered, right? I'm sure the jets would be top 20 if they had half those guys I mentioned.



They haven't done anything yet, though.   [revis/goldson]
 
They can't rate teams on how they look on paper.



It's the offseason. Nobody has even played a preseason game. Of course they are rating from how they look on paper. And on paper, the Bucs are a helluva lot better than 24.

The idea that the Tannehill and the Dolphins are better than us in any universe makes me literally laugh out loud.



I think CBS got much closer a few months ago. It's right on imo except for the Rams....he has them a little too high.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/powerrankings



Disagree they are rating strictly on new additions.  If they were, the Bucs would be much higher.   They see teams that had decent years last season.  And didn't lose a ton of players, so they think those teams will be taking the next step. 


Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 7
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: PFT ranks the Bucs 24th « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools