Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: State your allegiance: SIMMS or NO SIMMS « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5

Boid Fink

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 54359
Offline
#60 : July 10, 2007, 01:18:35 AM

I hope Simms throws for 3500 yards, and 22 TDs and 1 pick.




As the backup.






All of you would be wise to hope as such.



Trust me.


mjs020294

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2245
Offline
#61 : July 10, 2007, 08:54:12 AM

I hope Simms throws for 3500 yards, and 22 TDs and 1 pick.

As the backup.

All of you would be wise to hope as such.


I hope for that but I just don't see it happening.  Nothing would please me more than Simms stepping in and nailing the starters job once and for all......one less worry in 2008.


ryan24

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 10780
Online
#62 : July 10, 2007, 10:38:44 AM

Look, I am NOT saying that Chris Simms deserves to be the starter, or should not lose his job to injury, especially if he is not physically able to perform yet at an acceptable level. I am strongly saying that he deserves at least the shot to be the backup here, and I , for one, certainly do not want to have Gradkowski as the only available backup like last year. As I stated in an earlier thread which I started, being #2 at this point for Simms is likely the best possible position. The Bucs may have a "last-place" schedule but their first five games are tough (Seattle, Carolina and INDY on the road, with New orleans and St. Louis at home), and it may be difficult to win even two of those games.  A 3-2 start likely means a playoff run for the Bucs, but a 1-4 start may leave the natives restless.

The Crow's Nest

Good overall post.


The Simms debate is missing one important point....right now he's not in play....for any roster spot.

The Bucs wanted to upgrade the QB position. That can mean a lot of things which include the guys on the roster from last year improving to bringing in guys for, at the very least, competition. The Bucs certainly didn't want to go into '07 with Simms starting and Grads backing him up even if everyone was healthy....barring major improvement over last year's performance from both players.

Based on his career so far there is no way anyone can conclude that Simms should be, without question, the starter at QB. He's been inconsistent...at times been pretty good....at times been absolutely awful and others he's been passable. I don't think there's really a "read" on the guy yet. Had he been healthy, the Bucs could have run him out there as the starter however what if the "awful" surpasses the "pretty good"? I also realize that he could improve to the point in which he was a capable NFL QB but then the Bucs have to consider that Simms has had a lot of trouble staying on the field. So that's more incentive to get a reliable vet into the rotation.

The Simms fans seem to be particularly upset that Garcia was named the starter so early in the process. After having seen Simms perform at Mini camp it should be apparent to anyone that he is a long way from playing in an NFL game. So stating that Garcia was light years ahead of anyone really wasn't anything to get ones panties in a bunch about. There is no alternative right now. I think there would have been competition if Simms were healthy. 

As to whether Simms should be the backup....if he were healthy I don't think there's much question he would be the backup. He's only down the depth chart because of health issues not because of ability. Simms will either be well enough to be the backup or PUP'd or IR'd. 

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

mjs020294

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2245
Offline
#63 : July 10, 2007, 10:42:27 AM

Look, I am NOT saying that Chris Simms deserves to be the starter, or should not lose his job to injury, especially if he is not physically able to perform yet at an acceptable level. I am strongly saying that he deserves at least the shot to be the backup here, and I , for one, certainly do not want to have Gradkowski as the only available backup like last year. As I stated in an earlier thread which I started, being #2 at this point for Simms is likely the best possible position. The Bucs may have a "last-place" schedule but their first five games are tough (Seattle, Carolina and INDY on the road, with New orleans and St. Louis at home), and it may be difficult to win even two of those games. A 3-2 start likely means a playoff run for the Bucs, but a 1-4 start may leave the natives restless.

The Crow's Nest

Good overall post.


The Simms debate is missing one important point....right now he's not in play....for any roster spot.

The Bucs wanted to upgrade the QB position. That can mean a lot of things which include the guys on the roster from last year improving to bringing in guys for, at the very least, competition. The Bucs certainly didn't want to go into '07 with Simms starting and Grads backing him up even if everyone was healthy....barring major improvement over last year's performance from both players.

Based on his career so far there is no way anyone can conclude that Simms should be, without question, the starter at QB. He's been inconsistent...at times been pretty good....at times been absolutely awful and others he's been passable. I don't think there's really a "read" on the guy yet. Had he been healthy, the Bucs could have run him out there as the starter however what if the "awful" surpasses the "pretty good"? I also realize that he could improve to the point in which he was a capable NFL QB but then the Bucs have to consider that Simms has had a lot of trouble staying on the field. So that's more incentive to get a reliable vet into the rotation.

The Simms fans seem to be particularly upset that Garcia was named the starter so early in the process. After having seen Simms perform at Mini camp it should be apparent to anyone that he is a long way from playing in an NFL game. So stating that Garcia was light years ahead of anyone really wasn't anything to get ones panties in a bunch about. There is no alternative right now. I think there would have been competition if Simms were healthy.

As to whether Simms should be the backup....if he were healthy I don't think there's much question he would be the backup. He's only down the depth chart because of health issues not because of ability. Simms will either be well enough to be the backup or PUP'd or IR'd.


Outstanding post....you nailed it there my friend.   8)


JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#64 : July 10, 2007, 11:01:15 AM

I don't think we even have an NFL quality Qb on the roster right now other than Garcia since Simms isn't healthy.

Watchman

****
Starter

Posts : 462
Offline
#65 : July 10, 2007, 02:30:30 PM

I don't think we even have an NFL quality Qb on the roster right now other than Garcia since Simms isn't healthy.

I agree, which is a huge concern.  If you assume Simms goes on the PUP list the QB situation isn't much different than last year.  An injury to Garcia and Grads is starting again.  Grads is an interesting project at this point, but I'm not comfortable with him as the starting QB over an extended period of time.

While I'm not a huge Simms fan, having him at the #2 QB does give me a greater comfort level going into the season.  I really wish Plummer had reported.

NativeOfTheBay

***
Second String

Posts : 233
Offline
#66 : July 10, 2007, 05:01:07 PM

Can anyone imagine what will happen if Garcia goes down with an injury? Gradkowski?? I don't think so, lets not run Simms out of town just yet.
what he said.


lhasara

*
Second String
***
Posts : 176
Offline
#67 : July 12, 2007, 12:12:45 AM

When Simms learns to get rid of the ball (either to the proper revciever or to the sideline ala Brad Johnson) and when he quits using that long wind up release - (always looking for the homerun) he MIGHT become a good QB. He might actually help his o-line by running something other than Max Protect (like using a TE to THROW a PASS to - rather than block). If he could disguise the run plays by completing passes then the RB might be able to get into the game on something other than obvious running plays - which is the purpose of the WCO - pass to set up the run.

The problem in all of that last analysis is Simms.

but all that goes away this year.

You are probably right , but it is interesting that the ONLY game in 2005 where Simms did NOT complete a pass to a tight end was against Washington, where he was 15-29 for 279 yards and 3 TD's, but no picks. BTW, they had only 61 yards rushing that game with "max protect".

The Crow's Nest

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#68 : July 12, 2007, 02:46:58 AM

I know crow - but opposing defenses obviously picked up on that tidbit too. Once Washington exposed that in the playoff game, Simms was never the same in 2006 - before the inury I mean.

Incomparable sig by Incognito
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: State your allegiance: SIMMS or NO SIMMS « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools