Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Bruce and Joey, Joey and Bruce « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19743
Offline
: October 24, 2006, 09:53:30 AM

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/24/Bucs/Offense_conservative_.shtml

SCBUCFAN

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1910
Offline
#1 : October 24, 2006, 10:30:58 AM

"Bruce hasn't been working with Galloway for more than three weeks," Gruden said. "He hasn't really done a lot of the things that we're asking him to do and hopefully he'll improve at that the longer we practice and get to know one another. But our goal (Sunday) was to not have any turnovers. And I thought he was a little cautious at times, which was part of our game plan going in. He didn't take a lot of chances with the ball."

I am hoping this goal will change to scoring touchdowns and make plays.  Emphasising not to turnover the ball is great but when it means completely limiting your production that is not a good thing.  Without the two returns for touchdowns(which wont happen every week) the team loses because the offense couldn't get in the endzone.  I understand the importance of turnovers but I also understand that sometimes they are part of the game.  We don't have the defense anymore to rely solely on them to win games, we need an offense that can score.


DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19743
Offline
#2 : October 24, 2006, 10:34:26 AM

I am hoping this goal will change to scoring touchdowns and make plays.  Emphasising not to turnover the ball is great but when it means completely limiting your production that is not a good thing.  Without the two returns for touchdowns(which wont happen every week) the team loses because the offense couldn't get in the endzone.  I understand the importance of turnovers but I also understand that sometimes they are part of the game.  We don't have the defense anymore to rely solely on them to win games, we need an offense that can score.

With a rookie QB going against Jim Johnson, probably the most aggressive DC in the game, the strategy is sound. Johnson could have had Gradkowski for breakfast if they weren't so careful.

Pick6

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5150
Offline
#3 : October 24, 2006, 10:41:18 AM

it won't get much easier against a pressure defense that's whitewashed QBs in the last 2 games (7 sacks on vick)....shockingly, i think we can truthfully say our OL is better than Dallas' (how many unblocked rushers did you see last night), especially in pass pro.

still, i think the priority of "no turnovers" over "push the ball downfield" might have been enough for dallas (and bledsoe) to stay in the game.  i see us being pretty conservative on the road vs NY too, especially with arrington hurt and given the way bruce's deep ball has looked lately.

CurtR1995

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2695
Offline
#4 : October 24, 2006, 11:48:43 AM

Gradkowski = Trent Dilfer with a weaker arm

QB Ratings by Game:

NO: 107.6
CINN: 72.5
PHIL: 60.2

bchrist

*
Starter
****
Posts : 315
Offline
#5 : October 24, 2006, 12:15:41 PM

Gradkowski = Trent Dilfer with a weaker arm

QB Ratings by Game:

NO: 107.6   -  Should've been a W
CINN: 72.5  - W
PHIL: 60.2  - W

ZenBuc

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 4
Offline
#6 : October 24, 2006, 01:20:58 PM

Gradkowski = Trent Dilfer with a weaker arm

QB Ratings by Game:

NO: 107.6
CINN: 72.5
PHIL: 60.2

he IS a rookie....I think dal had a thread up, maybe on the old boards, with stats for rookie QBs and had a kinda benchmark to expect. While his comp% has gone down, he has a 4:1 TD:INT ratio, which is very good for a rook. And the most important thing is he hasn't made any stupid plays that cost a game.

RedAlert

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4657
Offline
#7 : October 24, 2006, 01:30:04 PM


With a rookie QB going against Jim Johnson, probably the most aggressive DC in the game, the strategy is sound. Johnson could have had Gradkowski for breakfast if they weren't so careful.


...i.e. pick your fights wisely. Good post.

Boid Fink

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 53281
Online
#8 : October 24, 2006, 03:41:02 PM

Gradkowski = Manager.

King = Manager.

Simms = resigned.


OpTiOnMaStA

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#9 : October 24, 2006, 03:44:50 PM

Gradkowski = Manager.

King = Manager.

Simms = resigned.

You're crazy. King = had a great rushing offense. We have a good one now, but we are going to need to lean on Gradkowski down the stretch.

DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19743
Offline
#10 : October 24, 2006, 03:46:03 PM

Simms = resigned.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would compell Gruden to bring Simms back as anything other than a backup, since Gruden didn't draft him, doesn't think he fits his offense, has been frustrated by his poor play and inability to handle the offense, sees that he lacks the instincts and decision making ability he wants, and has stated over and over that mobility at QB is something that this team has lacked and needed for a long time?

Boid Fink

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 53281
Online
#11 : October 24, 2006, 04:00:33 PM

Simms = resigned.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would compell Gruden to bring Simms back as anything other than a backup, since Gruden didn't draft him, doesn't think he fits his offense, has been frustrated by his poor play and inability to handle the offense, sees that he lacks the instincts and decision making ability he wants, and has stated over and over that mobility at QB is something that this team has lacked and needed for a long time?

Because Gruden likes veteran QBs, that is why.  Simms is a veteran who knows the offense, and was drawing rave reviews in TC, and he is intriguing enough to hold onto as a backup guy for another year at least.  Simms won't ask for much, won't get much from anyone else, and Gruden will resign him.

That should answer your curiosity well enough.  Nothing I stated is subjective, it is all fact.

What is SImms going to command afte this year?  Not much.


Boid Fink

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 53281
Online
#12 : October 24, 2006, 04:02:44 PM

Gradkowski = Manager.

King = Manager.

Simms = resigned.

You're crazy. King = had a great rushing offense. We have a good one now, but we are going to need to lean on Gradkowski down the stretch.

And Gradkowski, in theory, should have a great rushing offense.  Right?

Pittman, Caddy, and Alstott.

Pittman, Dunn, and Alstott.

Not much of a difference man.  Just in production.  Of course, the Bucs had a defense then, so when Dunn got his 65, and Alstot got his 40, you all thought we were a great running team.  It was a field position, smash your face defense that won the games for the Bucs, and the QBs job was to not screw it all up.  That is a manager.

And Grads is a manager right now.


DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19743
Offline
#13 : October 24, 2006, 04:06:43 PM

Because Gruden likes veteran QBs, that is why.  Simms is a veteran who knows the offense, and was drawing rave reviews in TC, and he is intriguing enough to hold onto as a backup guy for another year at least.  Simms won't ask for much, won't get much from anyone else, and Gruden will resign him.

That should answer your curiosity well enough.  Nothing I stated is subjective, it is all fact.

What is SImms going to command afte this year?  Not much.

Again, he might be resigned as a backup. The fact that he won't command much money elsewhere should be a clear signal regarding his worth. As far as drawing rave reviews in training camp goes, I think you may need to re-evaluate that position. He might not have even been the opening day starter if the quarterback coach had his say.

Boid Fink

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 53281
Online
#14 : October 24, 2006, 04:09:46 PM

Because Gruden likes veteran QBs, that is why. Simms is a veteran who knows the offense, and was drawing rave reviews in TC, and he is intriguing enough to hold onto as a backup guy for another year at least. Simms won't ask for much, won't get much from anyone else, and Gruden will resign him.

That should answer your curiosity well enough. Nothing I stated is subjective, it is all fact.

What is SImms going to command afte this year? Not much.

Again, he might be resigned as a backup. The fact that he won't command much money elsewhere should be a clear signal regarding his worth. As far as drawing rave reviews in training camp goes, I think you may need to re-evaluate that position. He might not have even been the opening day starter if the quarterback coach had his say.
Trust me, I heard enough to learn that Simms was a guy who EVERYONE thought had a huge upside.  You act like I NEVER pay attention to football man.  Gimme a break, Simms was a sleeper on practically everybodies list.  You gonna deny that?

Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Bruce and Joey, Joey and Bruce « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools