Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
Quote from: 1sparkybuc on December 13, 2007, 10:27:37 AMQuote from: Feel Real Good on December 13, 2007, 09:29:19 AMQuote from: 1sparkybuc on December 13, 2007, 09:07:37 AMYou haters will always find something to complain about. The team is about to win it's third division championship in six years. It is out of cap hell (unlike Atlanta) and the team has a talent base and depth never before seen in this franchise's history. We have money for free agency and all of our first day draft picks plus a state of the art facility. You cherry pick your "facts" and try to spoil the fun for the rest of us. I can't at all agree with that. Of course you can't. Thirteen players on IR and the team is on the verge of it's third division championship and a likely double digit win season. Why should it be obvious to you?I'm proud of this current bunch, but there's no way they had nearly the talent nor depth of the Super Bowl team.
Quote from: Feel Real Good on December 13, 2007, 09:29:19 AMQuote from: 1sparkybuc on December 13, 2007, 09:07:37 AMYou haters will always find something to complain about. The team is about to win it's third division championship in six years. It is out of cap hell (unlike Atlanta) and the team has a talent base and depth never before seen in this franchise's history. We have money for free agency and all of our first day draft picks plus a state of the art facility. You cherry pick your "facts" and try to spoil the fun for the rest of us. I can't at all agree with that. Of course you can't. Thirteen players on IR and the team is on the verge of it's third division championship and a likely double digit win season. Why should it be obvious to you?
Quote from: 1sparkybuc on December 13, 2007, 09:07:37 AMYou haters will always find something to complain about. The team is about to win it's third division championship in six years. It is out of cap hell (unlike Atlanta) and the team has a talent base and depth never before seen in this franchise's history. We have money for free agency and all of our first day draft picks plus a state of the art facility. You cherry pick your "facts" and try to spoil the fun for the rest of us. I can't at all agree with that.
You haters will always find something to complain about. The team is about to win it's third division championship in six years. It is out of cap hell (unlike Atlanta) and the team has a talent base and depth never before seen in this franchise's history. We have money for free agency and all of our first day draft picks plus a state of the art facility. You cherry pick your "facts" and try to spoil the fun for the rest of us.
Quote from: BornaBuc on December 12, 2007, 07:04:29 PMThis is the USA Today datebase that I used in the article...http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspxI'm confused, is this your article, or Yuccs? Or did someone forget which board account they wanted to have this discussion under? :p
This is the USA Today datebase that I used in the article...http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx
Quote from: bradentonian on December 12, 2007, 11:48:54 PMQuote from: John Galt? on December 12, 2007, 07:21:09 PMQuote from: BornaBuc on December 12, 2007, 07:04:29 PMThis is the USA Today datebase that I used in the article...http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspxJohn Galt?, I realize it was a little confusing but my point was that we didn't just hand out huge contracts, and we still don't. If you use the database you will see that most of the players in the top25 each year either just signed their deals or are at the end of the deals that were back loaded. Reworking deals is just a part of the game. I'm sure the players prefer it this way because they get their bonuses up front. The salary cap version of this list would show a lot of the same thing. Rarely has a Buccaneers player had a mega salary cap killing contract by league standards.First, I wasn't responding to your point, but commenting on the flawed logic of the original article.Second, the problem wasn't mega-deals, it was lots of deals on backups, ST players, etc. that added up to problems. A couple mega-deals can be restructured (with the players cooperation.) but when you have 20-25 deals, all accelerating at the same time, it is too much for anyone to handle and you're forced to pull out the axe.One of the errors of this FO has been (IMO) the fact that even though the salary cap situation called for "pulling out the axe" and starting fresh, the FO has taken the approach of making as few cuts as possible along with very limited signings. This stretched out the salary cap situation for a longer period than needed and depleted the talent pool of the team as all the signed players grew old together without an infusion of fresh blood (outside of the limted draft picks).If what your getting at is that they should have "blown it up" at some point I'd agree. The pain would now likely be over with but I really wonder how this area would have swallowed that one.
Quote from: John Galt? on December 12, 2007, 07:21:09 PMQuote from: BornaBuc on December 12, 2007, 07:04:29 PMThis is the USA Today datebase that I used in the article...http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspxJohn Galt?, I realize it was a little confusing but my point was that we didn't just hand out huge contracts, and we still don't. If you use the database you will see that most of the players in the top25 each year either just signed their deals or are at the end of the deals that were back loaded. Reworking deals is just a part of the game. I'm sure the players prefer it this way because they get their bonuses up front. The salary cap version of this list would show a lot of the same thing. Rarely has a Buccaneers player had a mega salary cap killing contract by league standards.First, I wasn't responding to your point, but commenting on the flawed logic of the original article.Second, the problem wasn't mega-deals, it was lots of deals on backups, ST players, etc. that added up to problems. A couple mega-deals can be restructured (with the players cooperation.) but when you have 20-25 deals, all accelerating at the same time, it is too much for anyone to handle and you're forced to pull out the axe.One of the errors of this FO has been (IMO) the fact that even though the salary cap situation called for "pulling out the axe" and starting fresh, the FO has taken the approach of making as few cuts as possible along with very limited signings. This stretched out the salary cap situation for a longer period than needed and depleted the talent pool of the team as all the signed players grew old together without an infusion of fresh blood (outside of the limted draft picks).
Quote from: BornaBuc on December 12, 2007, 07:04:29 PMThis is the USA Today datebase that I used in the article...http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspxJohn Galt?, I realize it was a little confusing but my point was that we didn't just hand out huge contracts, and we still don't. If you use the database you will see that most of the players in the top25 each year either just signed their deals or are at the end of the deals that were back loaded. Reworking deals is just a part of the game. I'm sure the players prefer it this way because they get their bonuses up front. The salary cap version of this list would show a lot of the same thing. Rarely has a Buccaneers player had a mega salary cap killing contract by league standards.First, I wasn't responding to your point, but commenting on the flawed logic of the original article.Second, the problem wasn't mega-deals, it was lots of deals on backups, ST players, etc. that added up to problems. A couple mega-deals can be restructured (with the players cooperation.) but when you have 20-25 deals, all accelerating at the same time, it is too much for anyone to handle and you're forced to pull out the axe.
This is the USA Today datebase that I used in the article...http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspxJohn Galt?, I realize it was a little confusing but my point was that we didn't just hand out huge contracts, and we still don't. If you use the database you will see that most of the players in the top25 each year either just signed their deals or are at the end of the deals that were back loaded. Reworking deals is just a part of the game. I'm sure the players prefer it this way because they get their bonuses up front. The salary cap version of this list would show a lot of the same thing. Rarely has a Buccaneers player had a mega salary cap killing contract by league standards.
Quote from: BornaBuc on December 12, 2007, 05:40:09 PMThe main point of the article was to point out that we haven't had big contracts, by league standards, through the years. Booger McFaarland signed in 2003, became highest paid DT in footballSimeon Rice signed in 2003- became highest paid defensive player in footballMartin Gramatica was given a 7 mil bonus in the ealry part of this decadeKeyshawn and Brads Johnson were given extensions after 2002 (how long were they effective after that)Brooks was making al ot of money ever since he held out in 2002 or whenever it was. You are clueless bornabtw, good post John Galt you pretty much nailed this one. Borna has no clue. He is in denial. No, no we werent giving out backloaded salaries that crushed the salary cap for years. The real reasong was a 3 mil signing bonus to Garner and a 6 mil bonus to Steussie. Those deals weere devastating in comparison to giving Gramatica (a frekain kicker!) a 7 mil bonus.
The main point of the article was to point out that we haven't had big contracts, by league standards, through the years.
Quote from: ronde bear on December 12, 2007, 10:31:24 PMQuote from: BornaBuc on December 12, 2007, 05:40:09 PMThe main point of the article was to point out that we haven't had big contracts, by league standards, through the years. Booger McFaarland signed in 2003, became highest paid DT in footballSimeon Rice signed in 2003- became highest paid defensive player in footballMartin Gramatica was given a 7 mil bonus in the ealry part of this decadeKeyshawn and Brads Johnson were given extensions after 2002 (how long were they effective after that)Brooks was making al ot of money ever since he held out in 2002 or whenever it was. You are clueless bornabtw, good post John Galt you pretty much nailed this one. Borna has no clue. He is in denial. No, no we werent giving out backloaded salaries that crushed the salary cap for years. The real reasong was a 3 mil signing bonus to Garner and a 6 mil bonus to Steussie. Those deals weere devastating in comparison to giving Gramatica (a frekain kicker!) a 7 mil bonus.You mention those contracts but none of those players show up on the top25 list. I didn't make the search tool, just referenced it. If you disagree so badly maybe you should send USA Today an email to get them straight on your opinion. The truth hurts, the contracts were written to be cap friendly, we didn't give out huge signing bonuses, by league standards, and the highest paid player in Buccaneers history using the USA Today formula is Gaines Adams. Ouch
Quote from: BornaBuc on December 13, 2007, 06:04:58 PMQuote from: ronde bear on December 12, 2007, 10:31:24 PMQuote from: BornaBuc on December 12, 2007, 05:40:09 PMThe main point of the article was to point out that we haven't had big contracts, by league standards, through the years. Booger McFaarland signed in 2003, became highest paid DT in footballSimeon Rice signed in 2003- became highest paid defensive player in footballMartin Gramatica was given a 7 mil bonus in the ealry part of this decadeKeyshawn and Brads Johnson were given extensions after 2002 (how long were they effective after that)Brooks was making al ot of money ever since he held out in 2002 or whenever it was. You are clueless bornabtw, good post John Galt you pretty much nailed this one. Borna has no clue. He is in denial. No, no we werent giving out backloaded salaries that crushed the salary cap for years. The real reasong was a 3 mil signing bonus to Garner and a 6 mil bonus to Steussie. Those deals weere devastating in comparison to giving Gramatica (a frekain kicker!) a 7 mil bonus.You mention those contracts but none of those players show up on the top25 list. I didn't make the search tool, just referenced it. If you disagree so badly maybe you should send USA Today an email to get them straight on your opinion. The truth hurts, the contracts were written to be cap friendly, we didn't give out huge signing bonuses, by league standards, and the highest paid player in Buccaneers history using the USA Today formula is Gaines Adams. Ouch Not to mention that McKay happens to be the worst WR talent evaluator in NFL history which helped stunt the offense for years.
Gaines is a slotted salary. There is nothing you can do about that if you draft in the top 5. Its a flawed system but it is what it is.
Honestly, I was beginning to believe in McKay's WR curse, but his picks in Atlanta have been performing remarkable better without Vick around to hamper them.
Those two receivers helped us earn playoff victories. Gruden's choices haven't. You do know that Roddy White has more receiving yards than Joey Galloway this season, right? Look at the stats. You might not like them but they crush Gruden's choices who are basically bit part players and special teamers.
Quote from: BucCityBoy55 on December 13, 2007, 07:03:02 PMQuote from: BornaBuc on December 13, 2007, 06:04:58 PMQuote from: ronde bear on December 12, 2007, 10:31:24 PMQuote from: BornaBuc on December 12, 2007, 05:40:09 PMThe main point of the article was to point out that we haven't had big contracts, by league standards, through the years. Booger McFaarland signed in 2003, became highest paid DT in footballSimeon Rice signed in 2003- became highest paid defensive player in footballMartin Gramatica was given a 7 mil bonus in the ealry part of this decadeKeyshawn and Brads Johnson were given extensions after 2002 (how long were they effective after that)Brooks was making al ot of money ever since he held out in 2002 or whenever it was. You are clueless bornabtw, good post John Galt you pretty much nailed this one. Borna has no clue. He is in denial. No, no we werent giving out backloaded salaries that crushed the salary cap for years. The real reasong was a 3 mil signing bonus to Garner and a 6 mil bonus to Steussie. Those deals weere devastating in comparison to giving Gramatica (a frekain kicker!) a 7 mil bonus.You mention those contracts but none of those players show up on the top25 list. I didn't make the search tool, just referenced it. If you disagree so badly maybe you should send USA Today an email to get them straight on your opinion. The truth hurts, the contracts were written to be cap friendly, we didn't give out huge signing bonuses, by league standards, and the highest paid player in Buccaneers history using the USA Today formula is Gaines Adams. Ouch Not to mention that McKay happens to be the worst WR talent evaluator in NFL history which helped stunt the offense for years. You're kidding right? Do you really want to get into a discussion comparing the production of McKay drafted receivers compared to Gruden's choices? At least McKay's produce, even if they don't produce to Randy Moss standards. Gruden's can't even beat out Ike Hilliard to get on the field and now are relegated to playing special teams.QuoteGaines is a slotted salary. There is nothing you can do about that if you draft in the top 5. Its a flawed system but it is what it is.More excuses, look at the list. Gaines is the highest rookie in the top 25 on the list!
One of the errors of this FO has been (IMO) the fact that even though the salary cap situation called for "pulling out the axe" and starting fresh, the FO has taken the approach of making as few cuts as possible along with very limited signings. This stretched out the salary cap situation for a longer period than needed and depleted the talent pool of the team as all the signed players grew old together without an infusion of fresh blood (outside of the limted draft picks).