Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Joel Glazer - "The key to any sports team we believe is stability" « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9

keeponbucn

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11481
Offline
#30 : April 01, 2008, 11:00:14 AM

Where's McKay in all this? Didn't the offensive genius Gruden cry up and down Dale Mabry that McKay wouldn't listen about the players he wanted to sign and/or draft? Yet we're supposed to believe a defensive specialist head coach had the authority to make every call on offensive personnel?


Bro, have you paid attention at all?

alldaway

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 36754
Offline
#31 : April 01, 2008, 11:13:27 AM

Quote
ADW, he may not have had talent in your estimation, but he got what he asked for: Keyshawn, Bert Emmanuel, Reidel Anthony, and Jacquez Green were all on his watch. That's 2 firsts in a trade, his free agent WR (at the time a fairly large deal given previous production), and a 1 and a 2. Dunn was a first. Brad Johnson was a big free agent acquisition. He also had Cosey Coleman (a 2), Yatta (first +), and hand-picked free agents in McDaniel and Christy.

It was also his call on his offensive coaches - did Foerster develop a single OL when he was there? How about the OCs?

The idea that the team didn't have the talent to go all the way is laughable - what the heck did the Ravens have in 2000? For that matter, how about that awful Giants team that year?

In 1999 the Bucs were nearly there with much less talent than they had in 2001.

I agree that the players brought in helped, but let's not get crazy - Lomas Brown waved a towel from the sideline. There wasn't a bidding war over Roman Oben. Who wanted Michael Pittman? Heck, Gruden wanted Dunn. McCardell was a cheap free agent that everybody thought was done. Jurevicious wasn't exactly coveted either. Dilger was on the down side

Dungy didn't have as much influencing in the shaping the roster as McKay did.  McKay was the major driving force in the acquiring of talent (and later on the push for Key, Rice, and Brad).  It would be misleading to say Dungy had a lot of say over the talent aquired on the offensive side of the ball and then fault him for some of the lousy talent on the offensive side of the ball.  You can fault Tony Dungy for firing Les Steckel but the lack of talent on the offensive side of the ball can't be pinned on Tony.

Gruden has chosen to retain Muir when we all know the offensive line is heading in a different direction (larger than what Muir prefers).  

You argue the talent the Bucs in 2001 had could have gone all the way (defensive side of the ball sure, but the 2001offense was putrid as the 2002 team proved)?  The 2000 Ravens didn't lack talent on offense either unless you consider Ogden lunchmeant.   Bucs didn't have a franchise caliber OL let alone franchise caliber player on offense (closest was Keyshawn).

You would be hard pressed to prove the 2001 squad was more talented than the 2002 squad.  If you want to try be my guest but I have a feeling it will be difficult.

The 1999 team went deeper and should be commended.  But if that team overachieved its talent level then why should the goal posts move drastically for teams in the 2000 and 2001 who were not exactly that much better in terms of talent?

Lomas Brown - was THE OL coach for this team that gelled the o-line unit in 2002 and had
Kenyatta playing the best football (probably in all of his career).  With his departure the following year in 2003 and 2004 with Muir alone on the staff disaster along the OL ensued.  Stability was somewhat restored with Kromer brought on board in January of 2005 (not to mention moving away from the prefered Muir OL).  Kromer is gone now and we shall see if Muir can do it alone.  You want to dismiss Lomas's contribution to this team?  That is your choice but I disasgree strongly.

McCardell wasn't considered done from what I recall.  He was a gem that the Bucs found post June 1st.  The 2001 squad didn''t have a Keenan McCardell on it did they?

Oben, Dudely, and Spires were considered trash by the Browns, but turned out to be treasures.  All ended up being upgrades over what was on the 2001 squad.  Do you disagree?

The choice was Dunn or use the money elsewhere (eg Rice).  Knowing McKay who was in charge he chose to go with Rice and Pittman was the consolation prize.  Did that prove to be wrong?  If you want to argue the Bucs win the Super Bowl without Rice and Pittman but with Dunn be my guest.

Jurevicious was a bust in New York but was an upgrade for this team in 2002.  Should we all remind ourselves who was the #3 WR in 2001?




Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26717
Offline
#32 : April 01, 2008, 11:21:39 AM

Where's McKay in all this? Didn't the offensive genius Gruden cry up and down Dale Mabry that McKay wouldn't listen about the players he wanted to sign and/or draft? Yet we're supposed to believe a defensive specialist head coach had the authority to make every call on offensive personnel?


Bro, have you paid attention at all?
So McKay let Dungy pick all the offensive players he wanted but wouldn't let Gruden?

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

ryan24

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 10612
Offline
#33 : April 01, 2008, 12:06:38 PM

Quote
I am suggesting that Dungy would not have won with more offensive talent, this team needed a change. 

I am suggesting that the team is nearing that point once more that change may be needed.  Another one and done in the playoffs and it will very difficult to defend. Do you disagree? 

The Glazers likely do.

Quote
The lack of talent arguement will not be a valid no longer considering they had tons of cap space to work with but chose not to use it to acquire talent. 

That really brings us back to how much "talent" was really out there beyond a couple of guys.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

alldaway

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 36754
Offline
#34 : April 01, 2008, 12:08:50 PM

Quote
The Glazers likely do.

Another 1st round playoff loss may be even difficult for them to defend.

Quote
That really brings us back to how much "talent" was really out there beyond a couple of guys.

Which is said every year and I do not see the talent available next year being better either. 


ryan24

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 10612
Offline
#35 : April 01, 2008, 12:09:58 PM

- I agree another one and done in the playoffs after this point is grounds for a change, no question.

While I don't disagree with you, it appears that the Glazers probably would not make a change in that scenario....pending the circumstances.

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

ryan24

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 10612
Offline
#36 : April 01, 2008, 12:18:26 PM

Quote
The Glazers likely do.

Another 1st round playoff loss may be even difficult for them to defend.

I disagree and more importantly they very likely disagree. I think there would have to be a set of circumstances...such as a locker room mutiny....which would cause a dismissal of two guys they just extended. I think, as others have pointed out, that Allen and Gruden are looked upon by the Glazers as leading the team out of the transition. By contrast, since it has been brought up in this thread, I think that Dungy was fired because of the fear that the "window" was closing.

Quote
Quote
That really brings us back to how much "talent" was really out there beyond a couple of guys.

Which is said every year and I do not see the talent available next year being better either.



You're probably correct. If that remains so we won't see the Bucs signing "big name" FA's. They will use their cap space to retain the players on the team they wish to retain.
Quote

Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

alldaway

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 36754
Offline
#37 : April 01, 2008, 12:26:33 PM

Quote
I disagree and more importantly they very likely disagree. I think there would have to be a set of circumstances...such as a locker room mutiny....which would cause a dismissal of two guys they just extended. I think, as others have pointed out, that Allen and Gruden are looked upon by the Glazers as leading the team out of the transition. By contrast, since it has been brought up in this thread, I think that Dungy was fired because of the fear that the "window" was closing

But at what point can we say the Bucs are beyond the transition period?  After having three full drafts (2005, 2006,2007) and another fourth one this upcoming draft (2008) where do we (or even the Glazers) draw the line?  The lack of cap space and lack of draft picks is in the past and I believe the team is beyond that transition point.  If there is a continued focus on past troubles without looking at what troubles lie ahead I think that would be a wrong attitude to take. 

Do we all agree the start of the transition period took place in 2005?  We are now in the year 2008, and like I have stated earlier it doesn't take 5-6 years to rebuild a team.

Maybe the Glazers feel that way (recent 3 year extension) but looking around the league I do not see teams taking 5-6 years to rebuild.


ryan24

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 10612
Offline
#38 : April 01, 2008, 01:00:53 PM

Quote
I disagree and more importantly they very likely disagree. I think there would have to be a set of circumstances...such as a locker room mutiny....which would cause a dismissal of two guys they just extended. I think, as others have pointed out, that Allen and Gruden are looked upon by the Glazers as leading the team out of the transition. By contrast, since it has been brought up in this thread, I think that Dungy was fired because of the fear that the "window" was closing

But at what point can we say the Bucs are beyond the transition period? After having three full drafts (2005, 2006,2007) and another fourth one this upcoming draft (2008) where do we (or even the Glazers) draw the line? The lack of cap space and lack of draft picks is in the past and I believe the team is beyond that transition point. If there is a continued focus on past troubles without looking at what troubles lie ahead I think that would be a wrong attitude to take.

Do we all agree the start of the transition period took place in 2005? We are now in the year 2008, and like I have stated earlier it doesn't take 5-6 years to rebuild a team.

Maybe the Glazers feel that way (recent 3 year extension) but looking around the league I do not see teams taking 5-6 years to rebuild.


The Glazers apparently do feel that way. I think you have to look at the statements made prior to the season when they were nebulous in their comments and these recent comments in which they were very specific comments.


Happy and Peppy and Bursting with love.

keeponbucn

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11481
Offline
#39 : April 01, 2008, 01:17:28 PM

Do we all agree the start of the transition period took place in 2005? We are now in the year 2008, and like I have stated earlier it doesn't take 5-6 years to rebuild a team.

Maybe the Glazers feel that way (recent 3 year extension) but looking around the league I do not see teams taking 5-6 years to rebuild.

It's been an on-the-fly transition IMO, there's no clear point of reference. Having said that the Glazer's have a good idea where the franchise is at this point

alldaway

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 36754
Offline
#40 : April 01, 2008, 01:22:31 PM

All teams rebuild on the fly in todays NFL.  It is not like the Falcons will roll over and play dead in 2008?

Quote
The Glazers apparently do feel that way. I think you have to look at the statements made prior to the season when they were nebulous in their comments and these recent comments in which they were very specific comments.

Or it could be an attempt to ease concerns within the fanbase.   The Glazers attitude behind the scenes may be dramatically different with another one and done first round playoff loss.



keeponbucn

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11481
Offline
#41 : April 01, 2008, 01:34:01 PM

All teams rebuild on the fly in todays NFL. It is not like the Falcons will roll over and play dead in 2008?

There are team's, like the Falcons and the Titans, that don't do it on the fly ADW.

The Falcons are in total rebuild mode, of course they won't play dead but you have to start somewhere. The Falcons will be turrible for the next 2 years at least, it's going to take a while.

I have a hard time with the notion that a full rebuild takes only a couple of years. The Bucs are totally rebuilding the roster while still staying competitive, that was Glazer's point. He sees it from a prespective that none of us have and he's confident the right course of action is in place. Again, I'll trust his instinct.

alldaway

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 36754
Offline
#42 : April 01, 2008, 01:37:12 PM

Quote
I have a hard time with the notion that a full rebuild takes only a couple of years

Yes rebuilding doesn't take as long as the past.  It is sometimes difficult trying to draw parallels from the past with the present.


Booker Reese

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7724
Offline
#43 : April 01, 2008, 01:48:06 PM

Quote
ADW, he may not have had talent in your estimation, but he got what he asked for: Keyshawn, Bert Emmanuel, Reidel Anthony, and Jacquez Green were all on his watch. That's 2 firsts in a trade, his free agent WR (at the time a fairly large deal given previous production), and a 1 and a 2. Dunn was a first. Brad Johnson was a big free agent acquisition. He also had Cosey Coleman (a 2), Yatta (first +), and hand-picked free agents in McDaniel and Christy.

It was also his call on his offensive coaches - did Foerster develop a single OL when he was there? How about the OCs?

The idea that the team didn't have the talent to go all the way is laughable - what the heck did the Ravens have in 2000? For that matter, how about that awful Giants team that year?

In 1999 the Bucs were nearly there with much less talent than they had in 2001.

I agree that the players brought in helped, but let's not get crazy - Lomas Brown waved a towel from the sideline. There wasn't a bidding war over Roman Oben. Who wanted Michael Pittman? Heck, Gruden wanted Dunn. McCardell was a cheap free agent that everybody thought was done. Jurevicious wasn't exactly coveted either. Dilger was on the down side

Dungy didn't have as much influencing in the shaping the roster as McKay did.  McKay was the major driving force in the acquiring of talent (and later on the push for Key, Rice, and Brad).  It would be misleading to say Dungy had a lot of say over the talent aquired on the offensive side of the ball and then fault him for some of the lousy talent on the offensive side of the ball.  You can fault Tony Dungy for firing Les Steckel but the lack of talent on the offensive side of the ball can't be pinned on Tony.

Gruden has chosen to retain Muir when we all know the offensive line is heading in a different direction (larger than what Muir prefers).  

You argue the talent the Bucs in 2001 had could have gone all the way (defensive side of the ball sure, but the 2001offense was putrid as the 2002 team proved)?  The 2000 Ravens didn't lack talent on offense either unless you consider Ogden lunchmeant.   Bucs didn't have a franchise caliber OL let alone franchise caliber player on offense (closest was Keyshawn).

You would be hard pressed to prove the 2001 squad was more talented than the 2002 squad.  If you want to try be my guest but I have a feeling it will be difficult.

The 1999 team went deeper and should be commended.  But if that team overachieved its talent level then why should the goal posts move drastically for teams in the 2000 and 2001 who were not exactly that much better in terms of talent?

Lomas Brown - was THE OL coach for this team that gelled the o-line unit in 2002 and had
Kenyatta playing the best football (probably in all of his career).  With his departure the following year in 2003 and 2004 with Muir alone on the staff disaster along the OL ensued.  Stability was somewhat restored with Kromer brought on board in January of 2005 (not to mention moving away from the prefered Muir OL).  Kromer is gone now and we shall see if Muir can do it alone.  You want to dismiss Lomas's contribution to this team?  That is your choice but I disasgree strongly.

McCardell wasn't considered done from what I recall.  He was a gem that the Bucs found post June 1st.  The 2001 squad didn''t have a Keenan McCardell on it did they?

Oben, Dudely, and Spires were considered trash by the Browns, but turned out to be treasures.  All ended up being upgrades over what was on the 2001 squad.  Do you disagree?

The choice was Dunn or use the money elsewhere (eg Rice).  Knowing McKay who was in charge he chose to go with Rice and Pittman was the consolation prize.  Did that prove to be wrong?  If you want to argue the Bucs win the Super Bowl without Rice and Pittman but with Dunn be my guest.

Jurevicious was a bust in New York but was an upgrade for this team in 2002.  Should we all remind ourselves who was the #3 WR in 2001?


ADW, I didn't say a thing about 2001 v. 2002. Of course the team was better in 2002.  I did say that the talent level was much better in 2001 than it was in 1999 though - and how can you possibly argue, unless you believe that Trent Dilfer and a rookie Shaun King were better than 16 games of Brad Johnson, that Keyshawn wasn't on a different planet from Reidel, Quez, and Bert, and that adding Rice wasn't that big of a deal.

And how are we moving the goalposts drastically? The 1999 team won a division and went to the NFC championship team. The 2001 team didn't even manage to tread water - it drowned. A 9-7 record, 3rd in the division, and out of the playoffs without even bothering to show up.

And sure, McKay was a big part of those moves - but I think you understate the level of Dungy's influence. Shaun King and Bert Emmanuel reek of Dungy, and are you telling me that Foerster and Dungy had no role in the arrival of McDaniel and Christy, both of whom CF coached in Minnesota? Yeah, right. As for Lomas Brown, nobody is denigrating his behind the scenes role in 2002, but that's a different thing all together - this whole discussion is about talent v. coaching. That you concede that Lomas Brown was essentially a coach says it all.

A point on Steckel - the points went up dramatically, but the record was worse, and we did zero in the playoffs. And in any case, we still scored more in 2001 than we did in 1999.
And it's not just the OC - did Charlie Williams or Foerster develop a single player in TB?

As for the Ravens, I didn't say they had no talent on offense. My point is that what you seem to regard as an impossible dream for the 2001 Bucs was basically accomplished by the 2000 Ravens. Ogden or not, the 2000 Ravens numbers on offense are quite comparable to the 2001 Bucs. Both teams averaged 20 points per game. We protected the football better than them, they ran the ball better than us. And the 2000 Giants also had a very similar offense in terms of points to the 2001 Bucs as well. Yet both teams ended up 12-4 and in the SB.

The hidden truth of the Bucs 2001 performance is that the Bucs scored more per game (about 3 points) and gave up more per game in 2001 (about 3 points) than they did in 1999.

I think it's you who is moving the goalposts - the talent of the 2005 wasn't close to the level of the 2001 team.

I think you are missing the point on my discussion of the additions in 2002 - the point is that with the exception of McCardell, none of those guys had a track-record that indicated they were anything special at all. Oben had done nothing prior to his arrival in TB. I wouldn't be as harsh as you are with Jurevicious in NY, but certaintly he had an unremarkable career. Pittman? Was anybody interested in him at all outside of law enforcement? Yet the coaching staff made chicken salad out of this crew.

In contrast, what did the Bucs under Dungy's coordinators do with Dunn? Certaintly nothing that Atlanta couldn't do a lot better. Do you really think that Clyde Christiansen plus Gruden's collection of guys would have done anything?


I was a bit over the top on McCardell - certaintly he was seen as being on the downside or else he would have signed a bigger contract; but saying he was believed to be "done" is an overstatement by me.

The only thing I agree with you on is that this crew will have to draft better (more like 2007 than 2005) if this offseason is any indication of how the team wants to build.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46020
Offline
#44 : April 01, 2008, 01:49:36 PM

It doesn't ADW - hmmm - I think that is wrong with the increasing cap room.  Limits the number of quality FAs when compared to years past - improvement limited to mid range FAs (who get overpaid) and the draft...


\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Joel Glazer - "The key to any sports team we believe is stability" « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools