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

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27671
Offline
#30 : March 24, 2007, 11:24:38 PM

Boucon.  The answer is zero.

Lets say you ask your freind to go buy a light bulb.  He says "Count on me! I'll go do it right now!"  He goes and comes back six times without the light bulb.  Each time he has a very legitimate excuse as to why he couldn't get the lightbulb.  Then you really need the light bulb and you don't have any more chances.  Your friend says "Hey I'll go don't worry about me!"  Are you worried?

But part of the problem here (with White, for example), is that by the time he got back with the bulb, we had already changed the fixture.  He bought the bulb we asked for, but since there is a new fixture it doesn't fit.


bouconagain

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1098
Offline
#31 : March 24, 2007, 11:38:09 PM

Boucon.  The answer is zero.

Lets say you ask your freind to go buy a light bulb.  He says "Count on me! I'll go do it right now!"  He goes and comes back six times without the light bulb.  Each time he has a very legitimate excuse as to why he couldn't get the lightbulb.  Then you really need the light bulb and you don't have any more chances.  Your friend says "Hey I'll go don't worry about me!"  Are you worried?

Sorry, didn't see this until right now.  I think you're overreacting.  Not every pick is going to bake you a cake.  Sorry, buy you a lightbulb.  Some will only turn the oven on.  Others will break the eggs and put the food coloring in.  And then they'll leave because someone gives them $20 mill over 3 years to hold the chef's apron.  And you're all "dude, I just want you to put the freaking cake in the oven."  I mean, change the lightbulb.  But they're all off laughing about how they're in the game to make money, and you're not paying them enough, and some other sucker really likes cupcakes so they're giving them more flow than you can afford.  And you're like: "homeslice, why can't we refer to it as 'money' instead of 'flow,' and they're like, dog, stop drinking beer if you want to be coherent," and it goes downhill from there, but the larger point is that analogies -- of any kind -- don't change the fact that the nfl is somewhat of a market economy, and your argument would be just buckets-load stronger if Dewayne White didn't just get Reggie White money and was instead fixing my tub, which leaks every freaking time I take a shower.

Nature

**
Rookie

Posts : 87
Offline
#32 : March 24, 2007, 11:43:39 PM

All I know is that we picked up Cato June and Kevin Carter,which is a plus. June of course will excell in our system




bouconagain

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1098
Offline
#33 : March 24, 2007, 11:45:16 PM

All I know is that we picked up Cato June and Kevin Carter,which is a plus. June of course will excell in our system

Listen, nature, if that is your real name, I doubt that Carter will have much impact, given, like, history of 30+ year old D-Line, and June may be a different story, but we've got the whole Brooks thing to figure out, but the larger point here is that this has nothing to do with what we're talking about in this thread.  Kindly step away, good sir.

Nature

**
Rookie

Posts : 87
Offline
#34 : March 24, 2007, 11:50:22 PM

Laugh out Loud
boucon- I will contribute to this thread and say
Dewayne White was decent
Dwight Smith was good
Barrett Ruud is uncertain
Marquis Cooper was a special teamer
Anthony McFarland servicable could have done better
Nate Webster was solid
our drafting was pretty solid,just we should have kept Ruskell




bouconagain

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1098
Offline
#35 : March 25, 2007, 12:11:04 AM

Laugh out Loud
boucon- I will contribute to this thread and say
Dewayne White was decent
Dwight Smith was good
Barrett Ruud is uncertain
Marquis Cooper was a special teamer
Anthony McFarland servicable could have done better
Nate Webster was solid
our drafting was pretty solid,just we should have kept Ruskell


Laugh out loud away, good friend.

My personal spin would be that 1st rounders are held to a different level.  Booger would have been serviceable side-by-side to Sapp.  Actually, that's not fair - in the lesser position, he would have remained the wow-he's-got-so-much-potential-why-isn't-he-in-the-key-position next to Sapp if things had stayed status quo.  Then Sapp left, and Booger moved, and we all know the crappy results.

For the rest of the draft, and taking Ruud out for whom I think the bell hasn't tolled yet, these other guys are what you'd expect from 3rd round picks.  Obviously, you want to hit a Lynch with all of these guys.  Obviously again, the worst result is a Cooper.  To be fair--which I think Itchalot is intentionally avoiding being--these guys all fall somewhere in the middle--they certainly weren't superstars, but they all did serviceable jobs.  In fact, if we had paid Detroit-money for a guy like White, we could still be debating about some of these guys.

devasher

*
Starter
****
Posts : 828
Offline
#36 : March 25, 2007, 10:16:25 AM

I started to drift away when I read "But we're basically 0 for 6!". I don't know what world you live in Itch, but it's apparently not the same one I'm in.

Your right, we didn't draft Dwight Freeney, or some AMAZING player with all those "first day picks" *nevermind only 1 was a first rounder

You conveniently state that "Since Brian Kelly"....yeah, since we drafted Kelly in the 2nd Round in 98, Dexter Jackson in the 4th Round, and Ronde Barber in the 3rd round the year prior, we haven't drafted enough Superbowl MVP's, or near Hall-of-Fame caliber players with our 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Oh no!! The sky is falling, our 2nd and 3rd round picks only turned into marginal starters and not superstars! Monte isn't a Golden God after all!!!

Take a look around you Itch, read up on former drafts, look at the 2nd, 3rd (hell even the 1st round) and come back to me with all the HOFers we blew the chance to get while getting scrubs like Dwight Smith, McFarland, Ruud, and White.

Your argument is akin to telling people to be celibate if they can't date a girl as hot as Jessica Alba. Lower your standards a little.

Itchalot

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5747
Offline
#37 : March 25, 2007, 10:44:22 AM

It wasn't just the money on White, Boucon.  We used a 2nd round pick on him in 2003. He didn't become a starter until 2006, thats four years.  Then we decided he wasn't the player who was going to fill our DE position as a full time starter.  If he was we would have shelled out the money, because thats the market.

When the scouts and GMs and coaches get together before the draft, they aren't just trying to draft good players. They are drafting players who will fit into the plans of the team, who will become starters for OUR team for a good four, five, six or ten years.  If that doesn't happen then somewhere along the line something didn't go right.

Don't look at it as why did each particular player not work out.  Ask yourself why we have not drafted a player who DID work out for US.  I don't know the answer, but if you want to hero worship Monte Kiffin or the Bucs organization so that you can't even ask the question, then I think you have put blinders on.   The Bucs darn well should be asking that question, and figuring out solutions.  If you refuse to look inward, and just taking the position that "Its just bad luck.  Stay the course."  Well we know how that goes.


Itchalot

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5747
Offline
#38 : March 25, 2007, 10:53:37 AM

I started to drift away when I read "But we're basically 0 for 6!". I don't know what world you live in Itch, but it's apparently not the same one I'm in.

Oh no!! The sky is falling, our 2nd and 3rd round picks only turned into marginal starters and not superstars! Monte isn't a Golden God after all!!!
No we aren't in the same world. 

Hey I would take marginal starters, solid players who do the job even if they aren't probowlers.  You don't need to turn a 3rd rounder into a probowler to be a success.  We both agree on that.   However, its my opinion that the players aren't on the team any more, and all we got was one pick at the end of the 2nd round and a lousy T-shirt. 

Its my opinion that we have not drafted any defensive players in 8 drafts, 24 rounds of drafting in rounds 1,2 or 3, who have lived up to reasonable expectations for us. Its your opinion that these marginal players indeed are here somewhere toiling away in obscurity for the Bucs.  I'm just not recognizing it.

Who needs the reality check?


wc24

***
Second String

Posts : 179
Offline
#39 : March 25, 2007, 11:29:01 AM

Just because they left for more money doesn't mean Smith and White didn't pan out. They were solid picks and good players on the field.
They aren't playing on our team.  Who cares what they are doing for another team.

Because of finances. I'll say it again, just because a player leaves as a FA doesn't mean it wasn't a good pick.

If White was felt to be a capable starter on this team he'd be with the Bucs. He wasn't. Pick hasn't worked out all that well.

OpTiOnMaStA

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#40 : March 25, 2007, 12:08:19 PM

What is scary about the Cooper pick is that it could have been Matt Shaub.

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#41 : March 25, 2007, 12:39:53 PM

Meh.  All the complaining about not spending enough picks on defense, and now we add complaining that we're wasting picks on Defense?  Kinda silly.  But anyway the 0-6 argument is BS.  It's statistical manipulation.  Like the "3 losing seasons in 4 years" crap.  You convenitrntly set the starting point at the worst possible time so it can prove your point.  The problem is that you aren't allowed to do that an have your numbers have any value.  Just because the picks from the years before don't fit into your pretty little theory, doesn't mean you're allowed to ignore them.  If you want to say the numbers prove something, you have to include them ALL, not just the ones you like.   And you also tie the work of two different scouting/personnel regimes together. 

Then, your arguments on the players lack weight.  This defense is a TOP defense, and it isn't easy to crack that lineup.  Ruud isn't a wasted pick because he sat behind Quarles.  White isn't wasted because he sat behind Spires. Booger was a disappointment, but mostly because of high expectations and the fact he cost us Sapp. Webster, meh. Smith was a great pick.

You seem to think that every other team consistently drafts successes, while only we are wasting picks ?!  Here's a newsflash Sparky, everyone has busts.  And if you think a round 2 is wasted because someone didn't start, take a look who he's behind.  True started because he was behind Yatta.  You think the players in front of those round 2s you see starting as rooks have nothing to do with them starting?  Q has had llots of injuries and could have been done before 05.  Ruud was a good pick.  White would still be providing rotation, and may actually have started in 07 if he hadn't gotten so much from DET.

And the argument that someone is a waste if they play elsewhere is just stupid.  If you're going to say we can't judge talent, the fact someone does well on another team blows your argument out of the water.  You can't discount it by ignoring it or saying "we aren't drafting for other teams".  Talent is Talent and if theyare successfull, then they have talent, and that means we judged it correctly.

When trying to work with a hypothesis, you have to look at the facts and if they don't match your hypothesis you have to admit you were wrong.  You can't just start twisting the facts to make THEM fit your theory.  And that's what you've done here.

big_JLB

****
Starter

Posts : 771
Offline
#42 : March 25, 2007, 12:43:08 PM

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.

bradentonian, that actually makes alot of sense...despite my hatred of the eagles and pats


JC510

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#43 : March 25, 2007, 12:49:23 PM

Meh.  All the complaining about not spending enough picks on defense, and now we add complaining that we're wasting picks on Defense?  Kinda silly.  But anyway the 0-6 argument is BS.  It's statistical manipulation.  Like the "3 losing seasons in 4 years" crap.  You convenitrntly set the starting point at the worst possible time so it can prove your point.  The problem is that you aren't allowed to do that an have your numbers have any value.  Just because the picks from the years before don't fit into your pretty little theory, doesn't mean you're allowed to ignore them.  If you want to say the numbers prove something, you have to include them ALL, not just the ones you like.   And you also tie the work of two different scouting/personnel regimes together. 

Then, your arguments on the players lack weight.  This defense is a TOP defense, and it isn't easy to crack that lineup.  Ruud isn't a wasted pick because he sat behind Quarles.  White isn't wasted because he sat behind Spires. Booger was a disappointment, but mostly because of high expectations and the fact he cost us Sapp. Webster, meh. Smith was a great pick.

You seem to think that every other team consistently drafts successes, while only we are wasting picks ?!  Here's a newsflash Sparky, everyone has busts.  And if you think a round 2 is wasted because someone didn't start, take a look who he's behind.  True started because he was behind Yatta.  You think the players in front of those round 2s you see starting as rooks have nothing to do with them starting?  Q has had llots of injuries and could have been done before 05.  Ruud was a good pick.  White would still be providing rotation, and may actually have started in 07 if he hadn't gotten so much from DET.

And the argument that someone is a waste if they play elsewhere is just stupid.  If you're going to say we can't judge talent, the fact someone does well on another team blows your argument out of the water.  You can't discount it by ignoring it or saying "we aren't drafting for other teams".  Talent is Talent and if theyare successfull, then they have talent, and that means we judged it correctly.

When trying to work with a hypothesis, you have to look at the facts and if they don't match your hypothesis you have to admit you were wrong.  You can't just start twisting the facts to make THEM fit your theory.  And that's what you've done here.

Well said.

After 4 or 5 years if a player wants to leave he can, and that doesn't mean he was a bad pick. Was Hutchinson a bad pick for the Seahawks because he left as a FA? Of course not.

gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#44 : March 25, 2007, 01:03:53 PM

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.

bradentonian, that actually makes alot of sense...despite my hatred of the eagles and pats

I'm not a big fan of making the youn'uns sit either, but the formula has had literally THE BEST track record in the league over the last ten years, so it's hard to argue with it.
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