Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Elephant in the Living Room « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

Itchalot

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5747
Offline
ę : March 24, 2007, 09:47:34 PM Ľ

...that noboby seems to notice.   Everybody is talking about getting more players for Monte.  WHY IS NOBODY WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE DO DRAFT PLAYERS FOR MONTE? Nine years ago in 1998, we drafted Brian Kelly. He is the last 1st Day defensive player drafted by the Bucs who has panned out. Since then we have lived off of the old guard and bringing in new guys via free agency.

1st Day D picks under Kiffin:
Barrett Ruud - third year will probably start
Marquise Cooper - didn't pan out, not resigned
DeWayne White - started because of injury, not resigned
Dwight Smith - left for starter money, not happy with position
Nate Webster - didn't pan out. Started but was not the answer.
Booger McFarland - 1st rounder who started but did not live up to expectations.

OK thats not a lot of players, six.  But we're basically 0 for 6! If you say "I'm not worried..." Well damn you should be worried! We haven't had a success in the last 8 drafts and you're not worried?  WORRY!

Yeah you say Dwight Smith, Booger they weren't that bad.... Thats the point!  These players were either just bad, or they did not fit into our needs, or we didn't have a place for them.  Whatever it is we have not successfully found a round peg for a round hole.  There is a DISCONNECT between the drafters and Monte Kiffin.   

We could overlook it because who cares when you have Brooks, Sapp and Lynch out there.  But now we can't overlook it.   Was the defense a failure?  Um no.  But was our DRAFTING of defense a failure?  0 for 6.  What other word is there besides failure?

In a successful operation, you have the DC deeply involved in the scouting, the drafting, and then when he gets the players they fit into what he needs and he puts them in the lineup.  Thats how its supposed to work. For whatever reason it doesn't work like that in Tampa Bay. Once again, it didn't matter before. It matters now.

Is Monte Kiffin saying "Just give me who you are going to give me.  I'll play them or I won't.  I'm not getting in your way in the war room and you don't get into my way during the season."?  You tell me is that his approach?  That is not a productive approach. If that doesn't change we are in trouble.  We are going to waste more draft picks, and now its critical that we don't.

We need to draft good players who fit what Monte needs, and we need Monte to put them in the lineup. Sounds simple.¬† We haven't done that SINCE 1998!  "Just get Monte some players!"¬† Oh we'll do that.¬† Thats the wrong thing to worry about.¬† We should be very worried about what happens after that.


shall555

****
Starter

Posts : 737
Offline
ę #1 : March 24, 2007, 09:56:33 PM Ľ

Great points. Maybe the Bucs alleviate this problem by drafting mostly defenders from the Senior Bowl? Monte knows what he can get from those prospects after having worked with them all week.

I'm still disgusted by the Julian Jenkins over Mark Anderson fiasco. At the time, Mark Anderson was the BEST DE left on the board, a 2nd round talent in the 5th round. It was a slam dunk, instead they take Jenkins. Total BS. That's when I realized that maybe our personnel guys aren't as good as the ones who left.

dm4bucs

*
Starter
****
Posts : 752
Offline
ę #2 : March 24, 2007, 10:01:06 PM Ľ

Good post...i agree that our drafting has been lacking the last few years and not just on defense, but also our late round picks have turned into training camp fodder/depth like jenkins over anderson who was rated higher at the time of the draft.

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27666
Online
ę #3 : March 24, 2007, 10:01:11 PM Ľ

There's a lot more going on than we drafted these guys and they didn't work out.  Going off of draft intelligence, Booger was a slam-dunk pick and a great fit in the system.  Even after playing at nose, it was obvious he had the ability to play UT here, hence the new contract.  The problem was that nobody could motivate him.

I think Smith was a great pick and a great fit.  Too bad he was behind Kelly and Barber.  The only way to keep all the best players on the field was to move him to Safety, a move that he resented.  

Webster was a fine player; just had injury problems.  Looks like Denver is ready to let him replace Wilson.

Cooper was a bust.  But he was brought on with the same kind of logic as when the Colts took June.  Just didn't make the transition, and never had a chance to learn on the field because of Brooks.

Jury is still out on Ruud.

Rod thought enough of White for him to sign as a starter.  He didn't fit the new style of DL player we are transitioning to; that doesn't make him a bad choice.

I don't see anything here that makes me worry about picking majority D this year.  I'm not sure what your deal is against Monte, but he's proven he can get results with sub-par players, and outstanding results with better players.  Let's get him some better players.


Itchalot

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5747
Offline
ę #4 : March 24, 2007, 10:07:05 PM Ľ

I'm just focusing on Day1, because those players should not be hit and miss.  But it makes you wonder where is Monte when the draft is going on?  Is he being listened to? Is this because they aren't listening or he isn't being assertive in there?  Or he isn't being specific enough about what he needs and what players would fill that?  Or he won't commit to using a particular player so the guys in the war room are gun shy? That is what I think might be part of it.  So they end up drafting guys who don't work.   Its not just the personnel guys. Its are the personnel guys in sync with Kiffin and vice versa?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that we can't just accept that if we draft some players for Monte that boom there ya go.  Monte can take it from there.  That just hasn't been the case.


karen anderson

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
ę #5 : March 24, 2007, 10:10:54 PM Ľ

So maybe he wasn't kidding in the interview when the interviewer spoke about needing to draft defense & Monte said 'please email Jon.'

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27666
Online
ę #6 : March 24, 2007, 10:14:32 PM Ľ

I'm just focusing on Day1, because those players should not be hit and miss.  But it makes you wonder where is Monte when the draft is going on?  Is he being listened to? Is this because they aren't listening or he isn't being assertive in there?  Or he isn't being specific enough about what he needs and what players would fill that?  Or he won't commit to using a particular player so the guys in the war room are gun shy? That is what I think might be part of it.  So they end up drafting guys who don't work.   Its not just the personnel guys. Its are the personnel guys in sync with Kiffin and vice versa?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that we can't just accept that if we draft some players for Monte that boom there ya go.  Monte can take it from there.  That just hasn't been the case.

I agree that I'd love to be in the war room while it is all going on.  I'ts not like Monte's in there saying, "No, John, I don't want Kiwi, the guy I really want is Jenkins in round 5.  You go ahead and use that pick on a better value like Guard."  At least I hope he's not.  I always kind of imagined it as Gruden basically saying "We're using this draft to build the offense as instructed by the Glazers.  Monte, I'll throw you a few bones for you to use as bandaids.  Once the offense is clicking we'll go all out drafting defense."  But who knows what's really going on.


Nature

**
Rookie

Posts : 87
Offline
ę #7 : March 24, 2007, 10:15:04 PM Ľ

2a. S/DE
2b. DE/S
3. DT
4. CB
5. C
7. OLB
7. DE




Itchalot

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5747
Offline
ę #8 : March 24, 2007, 10:15:47 PM Ľ

I think Smith was a great pick and a great fit.  Too bad he was behind Kelly and Barber.  The only way to keep all the best players on the field was to move him to Safety, a move that he resented.  

Webster was a fine player; just had injury problems.  Looks like Denver is ready to let him replace Wilson.

Cooper was a bust.  But he was brought on with the same kind of logic as when the Colts took June.  Just didn't make the transition, and never had a chance to learn on the field because of Brooks.

Jury is still out on Ruud.

Rod thought enough of White for him to sign as a starter.  He didn't fit the new style of DL player we are transitioning to; that doesn't make him a bad choice.

Yes if it isn't one thing its another thing.  Six times.  Smith wasn't a great fit if there was no where to fit him.   Webster I think you are being kind.  We would have kept him around if injuries were the only problem.  Yes the jury is still out on Ruud....two years later. He was a very high 2nd rounder.  It shouldn't be year three when we are just finding out if there is a spot for him.  

What should make you worry is that we have put the round peg into the round hole zero times. 

I have no problem with Monte. I just don't think anybody is as perfect as fans think he is.  He's human.  There has been a problem. So in the absence of any information that something has been done to solve it, I don't see how you can say you don't see anything to worry about.  I guess my advice would be open your eyes.

And Bradenton, its not just Gruden-Kiffin.  Gruden hasn't been here for the last eight years.


shall555

****
Starter

Posts : 737
Offline
ę #9 : March 24, 2007, 10:17:27 PM Ľ

I don't think the personnel guys are totally in sync with what Kiffin needs for the Tampa 2. When we had Angelo and Ruskell and those guys, they knew exactly how to build the system like finding Quarles, an undrafted CFL reject or Ellis Wyms in the 6th, who was very important in 2002. We need to find some diamonds like those. This personnel staff hasn't shown it can do it yet, but I do like the late season pickups like Jovan Haye.

Right now, they are more like substitute teachers. We also have to remember that Kiffin probably had zero input when Dungy/McKay/Angelo were running things. Kiffin just coached and was happy with whatever he received. I think with Gruden coming in, Kiffin has had more of an input on what he wants. The prospects just haven't been panning out.

Itchalot

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5747
Offline
ę #10 : March 24, 2007, 10:22:38 PM Ľ

So maybe he wasn't kidding in the interview when the interviewer spoke about needing to draft defense & Monte said 'please email Jon.'
He was kidding but a lot of humor has a grain of truth.   But I mentioned the word "gun shy" because when it comes down to the nitty gritty and they are just about to pull the trigger on a 1st day pick they ask "Will this player be an impact on our team?"  When they aren't 100% sure what Monte is going to do once he gets the player that might cause them to hesitate.


bouconagain

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1098
Offline
ę #11 : March 24, 2007, 10:26:42 PM Ľ

Ruud (2) : projected to start this year
Cooper (3): big flop
White (2): starter here, starter in Detroit for real money
Smith (3): starter here, starter in NO for real money (or at least more money)
Webster (3): starter here, poached by Cincy
Booger (1): starter here, starter in Indy PLUS traded for premium pick

I'm not sure you make your point with these players.  Aside from Cooper - and, for every Bucs fan, Booger, these are all quality guys who started here and elsewhere.  You could argue that Booger is the most quality, given that Dungy picked him up for a premium pick.

Look, I see the point that the slide of the defense has got to rest on Monte, given Gruden's hands-off approach to the defense.  But I think there are better ways to attack Monte than using these first day picks as an example.  Cooper is the big flop, but he was a third rounder.  Regardless of what you think of White, he played out his contract and is getting real money in Detroit (and probably would have gotten real money from 5-6 other teams in this weak FA market).  Just not sure I see your point (though that may be the five beers and the fact that the wife is watching The Holiday in the other room and I'm working my balls off to avoid that).

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27666
Online
ę #12 : March 24, 2007, 10:29:43 PM Ľ

Yes if it isn't one thing its another thing.  Six times.  Smith wasn't a great fit if there was no where to fit him.   Webster I think you are being kind.  We would have kept him around if injuries were the only problem.  Yes the jury is still out on Ruud....two years later. He was a very high 2nd rounder.  It shouldn't be year three when we are just finding out if there is a spot for him. 

What should make you worry is that we have put the round peg into the round hole zero times. 

I have no problem with Monte. I just don't think anybody is as perfect as fans think he is.  He's human.  There has been a problem. So in the absence of any information that something has been done to solve it, I don't see how you can say you don't see anything to worry about.  I guess my advice would be open your eyes.

And Bradenton, its not just Gruden-Kiffin.  Gruden hasn't been here for the last eight years.
My biggest beef with Monte is that he's slow to get the youngsters on the field.  In a lot of cases, with our Defense, that was impossible due to all the stars.  But some of these guys will never put it together until they can do it full-speed on the field.  Part of that might be BA's influence as well.  I would think on perennial contenders like the Eagles or the Pats, White would have been on the field becuase Spires would have been gone.  Smith probably would have been on the field because Barber would have been gone.  Those teams either trade their 30-something's or let them walk so the young talent can get on the field.  But here, the vets stay on the field and when the youngsters' contracts come up, nobody can figure out how to evaluate them because of their limited play time.  Is the decision to hang on to those vets more Monte or Bruce?  Beats me.  Probably Monte.  But if those guys were gone, I think we would probably have different opinions of some of thos draft picks because they would be proving it (good or bad) on the field.


Itchalot

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5747
Offline
ę #13 : March 24, 2007, 10:31:17 PM Ľ

I'm not sure you make your point with these players.
In the last 8 drafts, how many 1st day defensive picks successfully lived up to what we expected them to do for this team?


bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27666
Online
ę #14 : March 24, 2007, 10:33:37 PM Ľ

So maybe he wasn't kidding in the interview when the interviewer spoke about needing to draft defense & Monte said 'please email Jon.'
He was kidding but a lot of humor has a grain of truth. But I mentioned the word "gun shy" because when it comes down to the nitty gritty and they are just about to pull the trigger on a 1st day pick they ask "Will this player be an impact on our team?" When they aren't 100% sure what Monte is going to do once he gets the player that might cause them to hesitate.

I think (at least for the early picks), the question is more like "Will this player be an immediate impact on our team?"  Which of course will usually be "no", because it usually takes a defensive player about a year to acclimate to Monte's scheme (at least that's what gets thrown around here all the time).  So instead we pick an offensive player that can walk right on the field and go.

Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Elephant in the Living Room « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools