Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
Quote from: m~j~s on December 16, 2006, 10:25:38 AMQuote from: JavaBuc on December 16, 2006, 10:20:13 AMQuote from: m~j~s on December 16, 2006, 10:13:19 AMI would guess that over 80% of Buccs fans want Gruden out now.I think that depends on your definition of a Buc fan. Â Â I think if you include all the recent bandwagon fans, you would be accurate. Â But if you only counted the votes of the people who migrated over from the old sombrero as season ticket holders (the long time fans), no way is it anywhere close to 80%.80% was a low estimate, there isn't a lot of support for Gruden around town these days Java. I stick to my original statement. Â I think if you took a poll of the long time fans, it would be less than 50%.
Quote from: JavaBuc on December 16, 2006, 10:20:13 AMQuote from: m~j~s on December 16, 2006, 10:13:19 AMI would guess that over 80% of Buccs fans want Gruden out now.I think that depends on your definition of a Buc fan. Â Â I think if you include all the recent bandwagon fans, you would be accurate. Â But if you only counted the votes of the people who migrated over from the old sombrero as season ticket holders (the long time fans), no way is it anywhere close to 80%.80% was a low estimate, there isn't a lot of support for Gruden around town these days Java.
Quote from: m~j~s on December 16, 2006, 10:13:19 AMI would guess that over 80% of Buccs fans want Gruden out now.I think that depends on your definition of a Buc fan. Â Â I think if you include all the recent bandwagon fans, you would be accurate. Â But if you only counted the votes of the people who migrated over from the old sombrero as season ticket holders (the long time fans), no way is it anywhere close to 80%.
I would guess that over 80% of Buccs fans want Gruden out now.
The longterm fans are the ones who tend to cling to the Dungy-McKay era.
Quote from: m~j~s on December 16, 2006, 03:06:15 PMThe longterm fans are the ones who tend to cling to the Dungy-McKay era. I don't agree with that. Â I think the ones who cling to the Dungy-McKay era are the fans who came on board in 1997 with the uniform change and start of the successful years. Â The long term fans I'm talking about are the ones who had season tickets back in the John McKay through Sam Wyche days as well. Â Those fans are the ones who don't overreact.I agree with itchalot's analysis.
If you were here 24/7 and experienced the local media and water-cooler talk, you would know there isn't much support for Gruden anymore. Even the people that want him to stick around wouldn't really shed a tear if he left in a couple of months.
Sure Bucs could be winless, but they also could have a much better record if a few things fall their way. I agree, controversial editorials are designed to get people talking and sell papers. Plus, from what all the locals here have said, the Tribune never liked Gruden anyway. Maybe they're hoping a new coach will spoon feed reporters stories so they don't have to work like McKay did.
Quote from: PewterReportSR on December 16, 2006, 10:44:58 AMI find it stunning and breathtaking that the Tampa Tribune and The St. Petersburg Times ALWAYS fail to mention Tampa Bay's salary cap woes over the past couple of years. The major, overriding factor in failing to keep the likes of John Lynch, Joe Jurevicius, Warren Sapp, Thomas Jones and others is that the Bucs couldn't afford to keep them and attempt to upgrade the team in other areas that needed upgrading.I will play devils advocate a little here though SR; Â They didn't have the money to match the $10 million deal Thomas Jones received from Chicago, but they had $20 million for Charlie Garner. Â
I find it stunning and breathtaking that the Tampa Tribune and The St. Petersburg Times ALWAYS fail to mention Tampa Bay's salary cap woes over the past couple of years. The major, overriding factor in failing to keep the likes of John Lynch, Joe Jurevicius, Warren Sapp, Thomas Jones and others is that the Bucs couldn't afford to keep them and attempt to upgrade the team in other areas that needed upgrading.
Quote from: m~j~s on December 16, 2006, 10:55:00 AMI will play devils advocate a little here though SR; Â They didn't have the money to match the $10 million deal Thomas Jones received from Chicago, but they had $20 million for Charlie Garner. Â Widely misconstrued- Garner was here on a 2 year deal that was heavily backloaded for 2 more. Jones Signed a more spread out deal worth 11mil. In the first two years both earned with their SB spread over the life roughly 2-2.5mil per- They basically made the same until year 3 where likely Garner would have been done or restructured.
I will play devils advocate a little here though SR; Â They didn't have the money to match the $10 million deal Thomas Jones received from Chicago, but they had $20 million for Charlie Garner. Â
Quote from: H-D-E on December 16, 2006, 02:38:28 PMQuote from: m~j~s on December 16, 2006, 10:55:00 AMI will play devils advocate a little here though SR; They didn't have the money to match the $10 million deal Thomas Jones received from Chicago, but they had $20 million for Charlie Garner. I've often wondered about that myself.It is simply because Garner understood Gruden and his system, Gruden understood what a dual-RB threat Garner could be, and Garner was a better RB in the WCO than TJ was esteemed to be. Garner, when he was healthy, was a nice little back. He ran hard, could juke with the best of them, and could catch as well as any RB with good hands could. I always called Garner the Dervish, for all the spin moves he used, and thought he was a very good shifty back. TJ wasn't a bad back, busted his hiney, but it all came down to who Gruden preferred. IS that such a sin?I mean in hindsight, it looks, and is bad. But back then, I was stoked about Garner, despite his age and gas tank. I wish we all could have seen him run more than he did...we might not be starting up all these TJ threads.
Quote from: m~j~s on December 16, 2006, 10:55:00 AMI will play devils advocate a little here though SR; They didn't have the money to match the $10 million deal Thomas Jones received from Chicago, but they had $20 million for Charlie Garner. I've often wondered about that myself.
I will play devils advocate a little here though SR; They didn't have the money to match the $10 million deal Thomas Jones received from Chicago, but they had $20 million for Charlie Garner.
It is so obvious you have Blinders on when it come to Gruden. Can't you just agree that this was a bad move? Whether or not Jones "fit the system" is pointless; he went on to be productive with another team.The game of football is about wins and losses, not excuses. PR has gone to great lengths to bring out the issues that would argue the reasoning behind our teams failures, but at some point you have to just realize that Gruden is not getting it done for the Bucs.This is not a fire Gruden thread, just a reality check.