Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
Quote from: dalbuc on November 24, 2006, 09:41:06 PMQuote from: PreferNFL on November 24, 2006, 09:00:04 PMRead the last couple of Fab 5's by SR. It will tell you what you need to know.What I stated way back when, was that last year's 11-5 was a mirage. Go back, look at some of the games from 2005, and then conciously tell me that the Bucs were a legit 11-5 team.Man, i love that all the Gruden lovers are now trying to dis the 11-5 season. Which is really odd because it means that he's been lousy for 4 years in a row? If anyone, especially a "hater" had claimed that last year's 11-5 was lucky and made up of a soft schedule in the off-season when there were plenty of folks claiming big things this year it would have been a friggin' rhetorical bloodbath. Now that this season is shot it has become impertaive for the Grudenista, for some odd reason, to try and minimize last year. Even worse is that an 11-5 year is ridden down and a 3-13? season is being pumped up as not as bad as we think. It'd be funny if it wasn't ...no, it pretty much is just funny.Absolutely! I actually thought either A) Gruden did a great job of coaching last year and adapting with what he had to work with, or B) He got extremely 'lucky' in ver close games and didn't know what in the world he was doing. I choose A. But during the off season he made the fatal mistake in not trying to keep Griese around and selling the farm in Simms; I believe that move will cost him his job.
Quote from: PreferNFL on November 24, 2006, 09:00:04 PMRead the last couple of Fab 5's by SR. It will tell you what you need to know.What I stated way back when, was that last year's 11-5 was a mirage. Go back, look at some of the games from 2005, and then conciously tell me that the Bucs were a legit 11-5 team.Man, i love that all the Gruden lovers are now trying to dis the 11-5 season. Which is really odd because it means that he's been lousy for 4 years in a row? If anyone, especially a "hater" had claimed that last year's 11-5 was lucky and made up of a soft schedule in the off-season when there were plenty of folks claiming big things this year it would have been a friggin' rhetorical bloodbath. Now that this season is shot it has become impertaive for the Grudenista, for some odd reason, to try and minimize last year. Even worse is that an 11-5 year is ridden down and a 3-13? season is being pumped up as not as bad as we think. It'd be funny if it wasn't ...no, it pretty much is just funny.
Read the last couple of Fab 5's by SR. It will tell you what you need to know.What I stated way back when, was that last year's 11-5 was a mirage. Go back, look at some of the games from 2005, and then conciously tell me that the Bucs were a legit 11-5 team.
Yes if you want to know what happened first if you think way back, it was Simms getting the balls batted back into his face. That was the beginning of a very long season.
And it still is a problem with the Buc QB's, Gradkowski included.
Quote from: Boid Fink on November 25, 2006, 09:18:39 AMAnd it still is a problem with the Buc QB's, Gradkowski included.Not even close. Yeah Gradkowski has some batted balls but that's not a function of his mechanics. Rather it's just pass rush and proximity of the defender.Simms has an inherent batted ball problem because of his molasses windup and delivery and his visible locking on receivers that allows defenders to know exactly what he is going to do.
More important than batted balls is how many are picked off? Simms had two picks against Washington in the WC last year from batted balls. In the Baltimore game a NT got one and ran it back 60 yards.Every QB has batted balls. For Simms it's a huge problem that needs to be corrected if he's going to be a successful pro.