Loyal Bashers Strike Back

[cheveliar]

You know if you really want a different spin, Parcels was an idiot for not taking this job. It was all set up for him to succeed. But who knew? Who knew that with a couple of guys different on offense, predominantly, that we could actually get a trophy. Nobody in their wildest dreams, right? Who wouldn't try to stretch some years out of a perennial top 10 defense in the last decade and try to bring some offense in here to help them become say the 2006 Bears? 

The Glazers know what they gave up to get JG, so why are they going to abandon him after they ransomed the farm for him. They are good businessmen who, I'm sure, get expert advice on every phase and stage of their investment. I’m sure, if reached for comment right now, that the Glazers would give JG that vote of confidence...Ooops, on second thought, JG you better get to winning dawg...

[Garv]

I think the fire Gruden side can have a decent argument. Really, it is a pretty simple argument. It is premature at this point but you can make a case for it.

I, on the other hand, think it is an asinine argument based on knee JERK hate and that there is absolutely NO case to be made for it IF you want to see this team get better and compete for the South and beyond next year.
Is it OK to type that or does the intellectual set demand negative hindsight "thinking" from here on in?

[PRPatrol]

Come on guys.  dbucfan has a great point. This is the kind of thread that I like to read and even comment at times.  Lets not drag it down with name calling and fowl language.

Frankly, I think Parcells is more of an egomaniac than some proclaim Gru to be.

I think Parcells WAS set to come here, to the point of already hiring Bill Muir to run his o-line allegedly.  But he sent a fly down to scope it out, allegedly, and the fly returned to NY and informed Bill that after 2002, the rebuilding would begin.

Parcells being Parcells, wanted no part of that.  So he reneged on the "handshake" with the Glazers, saying "Thanks, but no thanks."  If there is a guy with zero tolerance where patience is concerned, it is Parcells.  Now, in defense of Tuna, he has nothing left to prove in the NFL.  He likely took the Dallas job with the feeling that a total rebuild would not be in order, rather a splash here, a smidgen there, a couple of FA's thrown in.  He had an owner that would spend at all costs, moreover, that owner did not have the same CAP concerns that TB had.  And let's face it, Tuna has backed out on deals before.  His protoge, Bellicheck, did the same thing to the Jets when he bailed to New England.  I, for one, am glad Parcells did not land at TIA.

And thank you to dbucfan.  This forum, as well as others, could use more like yourself, in that you can understand/comprehend what both sides of the ledger are trying to say.

Some think I am dissing Dalbuc because we have a different view.  Quite the opposite.  It is a "Point" Counterpoint" sort of thing between us.  SR/JF do the same thing.  It is healthy when done without name-calling and other juvenilistic bantering.  It gives both sides' views, allowing folks on both sides to hopefully think.

And t-h-i-n-k is the key here.  It does not require a lot of thought to simply come here and say a player or coach "sucks", then bolt like a teenage guy out the backdoor when his gal's old man pulls in the driveway.

[Feel Real Good]

As for Sunday, I think that Gruden from last year could have done more. It is instructive that Simms threw the ball an average of 28 times per game last year while Grads is tossing it 38 times per game thus far. Simms threw the ball 40+ times in 2 of 11 games. Grads has done so in 2 of 4 games. Worse, Grads is throwing that many times in games that he's not being all that effective whereas Simms was throwing because it was working. Gruden last year, rather it was becuase he didn't trust Simms or what, played it closer to the vest and protected his young QB. Now, he's like a kid with a new toy (which might very well be a good sign about what he thinks of Grads potential but it is still just potential) and he's letting Grads loose and the results have not been impressive (11.8 ppg) and several of those are big-time penalty aided drives to get some points.

I don't think it's just Grads. Simms started the season with a very different type of game plan than what he was asked to run last year. I think Gruden planned on him taking the next step and with his inability to do that combined with the way NFL coaches study all off-season to learn to kill what worked for a team the year before, we are where we are.

[alldaway]

ADW, what young players on offense have stepped up? Yeah Joseph has been solid, Buenning has been MIA, Clayton is a mess, Gru won't start Smith over BECHT???

You want balance, I do too, its hard to have balance when you face 9 man fronts and can't throw the ball because the WR's can't catch or the QB can't make the throw.

*Trueblood quietly is playing solid contrary to what many say

*Clayton already has 20 catches this year.  People want to jump on him for that one drop and fumble last week and yet forget he made two clutch cathes the two weeks in a row. 

*Alex Smith is making plays this year but somehow Becht is being featured on offense.  Can not say Smith is "regressing".

*Joseph has quietly been solid.

*Gradkowksi made the throws downfield in this last game  against 9 man fronts. Not to mention Gradkowski has not thrown a lot of costly INT's like Brad Johnson that so many want back next year.

*Stovall showed he can make his presence felt in the red zone but has been inactive for some reason.  Zemaitis is inactive but then again the genious that is Bissacia had Winborn inactive as well.

*Carnell has shown at times to have a burst.  He has also a lot more catches this year compared to last year. 

It is a young offense and they will have their ups and downs so take the good in with the bad.  If you can not then I suggest you do not watch people.   

20 catches? That's a 40 catch season seeing as how this is the halfway point. 40 catches for a first round #15 overall pick?

I was not expecting Clayton to nab 70-80 (but I was expecting Clayton to do better than 30).  Not even Galloway is on pace for 70-80 this year. 

Projecting the catches out for players with double digits catches at this point:

Galloway - 50
Clayton - 40
Pittman - 34
Smith -34
Hilliard -26
Carnell - 40
Becht - 22
Alstott - 26

As you can see the ball is being spread around and that is typical of a WCO.  The year Keenan had a big year there was no one else to go to. Keyshawn was deactivated.  The year Clayton had a big year Galloway was out for most of the year (Keenan was traded).  Tim Brown was a non factor that is why Clayton had such a big year.  And Galloway's big year happened when Clayton was a non factor.

[cheveliar]

I, on the other hand, think it is an asinine argument based on knee JERK hate and that there is absolutely NO case to be made for it IF you want to see this team get better and compete for the South and beyond next year.
Is it OK to type that or does the intellectual set demand negative hindsight "thinking" from here on in?

...and you were arguing with me that you don't want debate but agreement with your point of view? Points of view may be wrong but asinine is hard to say.

Any coach, not Gruden about whom you can say:

1. More losing seasons than winning seasons.
2. Lack of progress - define it how you will but going say 6-10 after being 11-5 can be reasonable argued to not be progress.
3. Coach who has assistant coaches than have consistently low performing units (ST, OL) and won't change them.
4. Coach/OC who's offenses have been below average on some measure each year he's been in his current position.

That's the resume of a lot of fireable coaches in this league, in fact a lot of guys get whacked for 2 or 3 of those 4. Firing Gruden might not be the right answer (and I'm even on board with you that it isn't) but to say it is groundless and asinine is simply not true.

From a broad perspective I think you're right.  You have to look at his record and what he's done and evaluate that yearly.  The Glazers have to do that.  However, you have to temper the conversation with things you know to be true.  Salary cap issues, injuries, draft picks and the lack thereof, and what you are trying to do long term.  I think when you weigh all of those factors and some I'm sure I missed, you come up with keeping JG and staying the course.  I don't know when you start to say, this guy is not the right guy and seriously begin looking for a viable, if any, replacement.

That's the resume of a lot of fireable coaches in this league, in fact a lot of guys get whacked for 2 or 3 of those 4. Firing Gruden might not be the right answer (and I'm even on board with you that it isn't) but to say it is groundless and asinine is simply not true.

Now that statement in the quote above is one that can be agreed with.

Some coaches HAVE been whacked for the track record Jon has had since the SB.  But I think it would be wrong to fire Gru at this juncture.

As stated previously, I think more time is needed with the present core of youngsters, allowing them time to mature and develop, as well as adjust to the speed of the NFL game.  I sincerely believe, that if this group remains healthy through 2007, yet no improvement or hope is forthcoming, a change would then be in order.

[cheveliar]

That's the resume of a lot of fireable coaches in this league, in fact a lot of guys get whacked for 2 or 3 of those 4. Firing Gruden might not be the right answer (and I'm even on board with you that it isn't) but to say it is groundless and asinine is simply not true.

Now that statement in the quote above is one that can be agreed with.

Some coaches HAVE been whacked for the track record Jon has had since the SB. But I think it would be wrong to fire Gru at this juncture.

As stated previously, I think more time is needed with the present core of youngsters, allowing them time to mature and develop, as well as adjust to the speed of the NFL game. I sincerely believe, that if this group remains healthy through 2007, yet no improvement or hope is forthcoming, a change would then be in order.

Just for giggles, who's out there that you'd give up JG for?  Anybody?

[Garv]

Firing Gruden might not be the right answer (and I'm even on board with you that it isn't) but to say it is groundless and asinine is simply not true.

IMO it would be asinine to fire Jon Gruden before he is given next season to turn it around. I don't know how much clearer I can be. We HAVE the HC, the DC and the system to win. Let's continue to aquire the players throught the draft and FA and make it work.
THAT is my opinion, a strong one to be sure. If that makes me a "homer" or less than intellectual in some eyes? TS.

[ABuccs Fan]

That's the resume of a lot of fireable coaches in this league, in fact a lot of guys get whacked for 2 or 3 of those 4. Firing Gruden might not be the right answer (and I'm even on board with you that it isn't) but to say it is groundless and asinine is simply not true.

Now that statement in the quote above is one that can be agreed with.

Some coaches HAVE been whacked for the track record Jon has had since the SB. But I think it would be wrong to fire Gru at this juncture.

As stated previously, I think more time is needed with the present core of youngsters, allowing them time to mature and develop, as well as adjust to the speed of the NFL game. I sincerely believe, that if this group remains healthy through 2007, yet no improvement or hope is forthcoming, a change would then be in order.

Just for giggles, who's out there that you'd give up JG for?  Anybody?

I don't want Jon fired by any stretch.....but Chev you could have asked Saints, JETS, and Vikings fans the same question last season and I'll bet none of them would have said Payton, Mangini or Childress respectively. Just because a guy isn't in the  coaching prospect of the month club, doesn't mean he couldn't win here with these players. Goes for Leinahan and the Rams too.

[cheveliar]

From a broad perspective I think you're right. You have to look at his record and what he's done and evaluate that yearly. The Glazers have to do that. However, you have to temper the conversation with things you know to be true. Salary cap issues, injuries, draft picks and the lack thereof, and what you are trying to do long term. I think when you weigh all of those factors and some I'm sure I missed, you come up with keeping JG and staying the course.

I don't accept the cap issues, injuries or draft picks because you'd have to show me a team that doesn't have cap issues, injuries or draft problems. Take your pick. They all do. The vaunted Pats have lost a ton of good players to the cap (ROT, WR#1, WR#2, ROLB, LILB just this year) and to injuries. They drafted Behtel Johnson in round 2 whihc is a lot like not having an R2 pick that year. They roll on. The Colts are desperately cap strapped and lost their grade A RB, couldn't help their defense and they're 7-0. Seattle lost SA, who is better than anyone we've lost combined in the last 3 years, and they are 4-3.

In other words, there are a lot of excuses that you can make and I can make 'em for everyone. All losing teams have "problems". Winning organizations find solutions to those problems.

True enough, but it doesn't always take a change to find the solutions nor do they all get fixed in what we fans feel is a timely fashion.

[cheveliar]

True enough, but it doesn't always take a change to find the solutions nor do they all get fixed in what we fans feel is a timely fashion.

Change isn't always needed but usually it will be. Coaches are creatures of habit. Most are very poorly adaptable.

I'll give you a great example. Jimmy Johnson was obviously one of the best coaches of the early-mid 90's. 3 Rings in 4 years, hard to argue with the guy. Dallas let him go and folks went bonkers but, when you talked to the players, Jimmy had lost them. Jimmy was an old college coach. He worked well with younger players and, he had about 4-5 years worth of motivational material which is all you needed in college. By the time he was let go players were rolling their eyes about hearing the same stories, getting the same speeches recycled and they weren't youngsters anymore. Jimmy was the wrong man at the wrong time for that team despite how good he'd been. I think Gruden was the right man at the right time for this team in 2002 - obviously- but the question is is he the right man for the challenge we have to undertake over the next few years? That I don't know and I think it is why this and next year are going to be telling to see how he handles what will be a roster in transition.

I totally get that analogy.  I think he's rid himself of the guys that are not going to fall in line.  He also rid himself of a few guys I thought could still help.  He's taken the hit for that in the win/loss column for sure. 

Personally, I think the Bucs are entering an era where they will start to bring in the new "Core of Champions" as Bruce calls them.  To me that's the trick that we haven't perfected yet.  They've tried some guys here and there but other than the kids who are still being evaluated have we identified that new group or added anyone to the existing core? Only Bruce can tell you that immediately.  We find out when someone gets paid some fat cash and you go ahhh, he's a core guy. 

JG has to hone the skills of what he has and keep finding ways to bring that speech in such a manner that the core he has today doesn't tune him out.  I'd say this is a good locker room, but that hasn't translated into wins this year...

[flyinbuc]

Although the pats have lost players and their name constantly comes up they hit a grand Sam jwith Brady who is a Definate HOF QB probably the best in the NFL he makes up for alot of personel mistakes.

[Rusty]

The simple truth is that the Bucs are a team in transition. The transition of the cap from the red to the black, the rebuilding of the offense (which still needs work;center,te,fulback,speed receiver,backup rb), and soon the rebuilding of the defense (Brooks, Mcfarland, Spires, Hovan, Kelly, Babber, Quarles, Phillips, Bolden) all have to be replaced. The offense has some pieces that can be built on but the fact of the matter is that we a re 2,3,4 years from another top echelon position. This HAS to be taken into account when critiqueing the current situation. One has to look at the history and current status before commenting on what to do going forward. I truly believe that the Glazer sons are intimately involved in the long and short term strategies of the Bucs and FULLY support the direction of the team. They don't like the losses but like progress. The Bucs are progressing, in terms of the rebuild. It just doesn't always show up in the win column.