Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What would our record be if Rattay was the starter? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

1sparkybuc

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7267
Offline
: December 18, 2006, 10:18:09 AM

And why did Gruden show so little respect for his abilities?

Gruden ignored Simms (starter), raved about Gradkowski (rookie), and dissed Rattay (experienced veteran).Who the hell knows what he thinks about McCown. He might as well be on the PS. He gets no mention.

All of this makes me question his judgement.



Guest
#1 : December 18, 2006, 10:19:41 AM

 Thank You!!!!!!! I agree.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#2 : December 18, 2006, 10:19:55 AM

He loves McCown and if he'd not gotten hurt Rattay was lunchmeat.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.



Guest
#3 : December 18, 2006, 10:21:00 AM

And why did Gruden show so little respect for his abilities?

Gruden ignored Simms (starter), raved about Gradkowski (rookie), and dissed Rattay (experienced veteran).Who the hell knows what he thinks about McCown. He might as well be on the PS. He gets no mention.

All of this makes me question his judgement.

Honestly, I have no idea.  Well, the McCown situation is more based on his rehab from injury, I think, than anything else.

I think that Gruden's choice of QB may have been different if we had been 3-0 rather than 0-3 when Simms went down...

Anyway, I do believe that Rattay would've been good for a couple more wins.

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37083
Offline
#4 : December 18, 2006, 10:23:21 AM

Most likely a losing record but a lower draft position.

With all seriousness his judgement could be (should be) questioned if Rattay lights it up the rest of the way.  With that said as an established HOJ(Hater of Jon) that I am even I have to defend Gruden's decision to start Gradkowski over Rattay becuase that is how Gruden estabilishes his depth chart.  It is based on practices and pre season evaluation before heading into the season.  This is where Gradkowski beat out Rattay according to the depth chart that Jon established.

I do not agree with Gruden but he believes that a player with good practices earns their right to play in real games.  I feel differently in that a player that produces in real game situations is better than a player in practice.  But Jon disagrees.



Guest
#5 : December 18, 2006, 10:26:35 AM

 True, but how long do you ride a dead horse? WE rode way too many miles on ours this year. I'm not saying that Grads is a total loss, but to start him for that long with no improvement and to say that he still saw "something", I didnt see it after the second or third start.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#6 : December 18, 2006, 10:29:04 AM

ADW that might be true but at the same time we all know what playing a rookie means. Here's the problem we're at now:

1. 0-3 the season wasn't over. Gruden decides to play Grads and basically costs his team goodness knows how many games with the decision.

2. 0-3 the season was over. Gruden decides to play Gradkowksi because he's the future.That fine but now playing Rattay in the spots he has make zero sense.

What he's done is called both assumptions into paly and his answers on both come up lacking becuase there is no right answer anymore based on what he's done.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4436
Offline
#7 : December 18, 2006, 10:29:37 AM

We'd finish about 6-10 I think.  Still nothing to write home about.

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37083
Offline
#8 : December 18, 2006, 10:32:19 AM

ADW that might be true but at the same time we all know what playing a rookie means. Here's the problem we're at now:

1. 0-3 the season wasn't over. Gruden decides to play Grads and basically costs his team goodness knows how many games with the decision.

2. 0-3 the season was over. Gruden decides to play Gradkowksi because he's the future.That fine but now playing Rattay in the spots he has make zero sense.

What he's done is called both assumptions into paly and his answers on both come up lacking becuase there is no right answer anymore based on what he's done.

Yes that is true.  But how quickly people forget that Gradkowski almost won his first start and won the next two?    With the way the defense was playing earlier in the year the Bucs would still be looking at losing record. 

I do not like Gruden not being able to stick with something.  I mean what offensive identity do the Bucs have? But I think he did stick with Gradkowski a lot longer then people anticipated.  I mean that amount of games Gradkowkis has stared as someone has said is lightyears in Jon Gruden terms.


Itchalot

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5747
Offline
#9 : December 18, 2006, 10:45:36 AM

I think its hilarious that you all are on the Rattay bandwagon. He stunk in the preseason, while Gradkowski shined.  Grads earned his #2 spot and you all know it.  You saw the preseason.  But you choose to have a selective memory.  And Grads looked just as good as Rattay does now in his first couple games as a starter.  A lot of people thought he was the QB of the future.

Where were all the "START RATTAY!" threads?  Where was the groundswell of support for this guy during the middle of this disasterous season?  It wasn't there.  Why?  Because you and everybody else thought Rattay stunk.

I had posted about Rattay on the Worst Buc QB Ever thread saying if Rattay had played he would be the worst ever.   Obviously I was way off on that, but I like everybody else based my opinions on what we had previously seen from Rattay in a Bucs uniform, which was that he was horrible.

You can only go on what you see and what Gruden and everybody else saw of Rattay in the preseason was that he was a disaster with a helmet on. 

Now you people want to put on 20-20 hindsight and say that Rattay could have saved the season.   What a joke. 



leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4436
Offline
#10 : December 18, 2006, 10:50:38 AM

I think its hilarious that you all are on the Rattay bandwagon. He stunk in the preseason, while Gradkowski shined.  Grads earned his #2 spot and you all know it.  You saw the preseason.  But you choose to have a selective memory.  And Grads looked just as good as Rattay does now in his first couple games as a starter.  A lot of people thought he was the QB of the future.

Where were all the "START RATTAY!" threads?  Where was the groundswell of support for this guy during the middle of this disasterous season?  It wasn't there. Why? Because you and everybody else thought Rattay stunk.

I had posted about Rattay on the Worst Buc QB Ever thread saying if Rattay had played he would be the worst ever.   Obviously I was way off on that, but I like everybody else based my opinions on what we had previously seen from Rattay in a Bucs uniform, which was that he was horrible.

You can only go on what you see and what Gruden and everybody else saw of Rattay in the preseason was that he was a disaster with a helmet on. 

Now you people want to put on 20-20 hindsight and say that Rattay could have saved the season.   What a joke. 



No one in here said anything remotely like what you just described.

dalbuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 21495
Offline
#11 : December 18, 2006, 10:51:55 AM


Now you people want to put on 20-20 hindsight and say that Rattay could have saved the season.   What a joke. 


People get fired for hindsight. Hey, who could have  predicted JoeHa, BMW, Charles Rodgers would be dogs...right?

The fact that "we the people" didn't see it is immaterial. What does matter is that the professionals who get paid big $$$$ to make these calls didn't. When you makes a mistake that costs your team games then youo have failed in the most important job as an HC - roster composition, well actually second to winning that is. Worse is that this implies that in Gruden's core competencey (QB's) he blew the biggest decision around and it doesn't matter than you and I didn't make the right call, it does matter that he didn't.

All posts are opinions in case you are too stupid to figure that out on your own without me saying it over and over.

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37083
Offline
#12 : December 18, 2006, 10:55:06 AM

I think its hilarious that you all are on the Rattay bandwagon. He stunk in the preseason, while Gradkowski shined.  Grads earned his #2 spot and you all know it.  You saw the preseason.  But you choose to have a selective memory.  And Grads looked just as good as Rattay does now in his first couple games as a starter.  A lot of people thought he was the QB of the future.

Where were all the "START RATTAY!" threads?  Where was the groundswell of support for this guy during the middle of this disasterous season?  It wasn't there.  Why?  Because you and everybody else thought Rattay stunk.

I had posted about Rattay on the Worst Buc QB Ever thread saying if Rattay had played he would be the worst ever.   Obviously I was way off on that, but I like everybody else based my opinions on what we had previously seen from Rattay in a Bucs uniform, which was that he was horrible.

You can only go on what you see and what Gruden and everybody else saw of Rattay in the preseason was that he was a disaster with a helmet on. 

Now you people want to put on 20-20 hindsight and say that Rattay could have saved the season.   What a joke. 



I rarely agree with you Itch but this time I do. O.o

Itchalot

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5747
Offline
#13 : December 18, 2006, 10:55:41 AM

ADW that might be true but at the same time we all know what playing a rookie means. Here's the problem we're at now:

1. 0-3 the season wasn't over. Gruden decides to play Grads and basically costs his team goodness knows how many games with the decision.

2. 0-3 the season was over. Gruden decides to play Gradkowksi because he's the future.That fine but now playing Rattay in the spots he has make zero sense.

What he's done is called both assumptions into paly and his answers on both come up lacking becuase there is no right answer anymore based on what he's done.

Lets examine the ancient history of the 2006 season.  We went 0-3 with Simms.  Grads came in and played well in the first three games and we went 2-1. OK we are 2-4 but we just beat Philly with a 62 yard FG and it looks like there may be some glimmer of hope.  Then Grads has a bad game, then two.

At that point we are 2-6 which is when maybe the coach could try somebody else, but we didn't have anybody else. All we had was Rattay who by all accounts was the worst QB drawing an NFL paycheck. So he stuck with Grads and we went 2-7, then 3-7.  But Grads is 3-4, and if you give him the first game as a warmup he's really 3-3. Given the alternative which was "none", you just had to hope Grads could turn it around.

Then things really went South and when do you pull the kid?  Maybe one or two games earlier than he did.  When we are 3-9 is that going to save the season?

When did the "Bench Gradkowski" threads start on this board?  I'd like one of these hindsight guys to go back and find their "Bench Gradkowski" thread for me please.  


Boid Fink

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 53905
Offline
#14 : December 18, 2006, 10:58:06 AM

Given Rattays performance in preseason, and the word out of TC, would you have gone anywhere near Rattay with a ten foot pole?  It was a move BASED ON OBSERVATION.  Who knew that versus the Bears he would come out firing like an all-pro?  Not me, and not any of you guys either.  Gimme a break here.

It isn't so much of the hindsight thing, it is more of DIRECT Sight...

But after watching Grads struggle like a feeb for the last few games, it became apparent that Rattay actually deserved a shot.  It isn't so much a question of what QB should the Bucs use outright, but what QB is going to allow for better evaluation of guys like JAzz, Stove, Smith, etc...a better eval of the offense.  I mean with Grads in there, it was a garbage heap of an offense.  Slow, weak passes, innaccuracy, and a ton of three and outs.  A change had to be made not just for the QB sake, but for the offensive analysis.

I liked what I saw in Stove, out of Jazz, and Smitty had a TD, and Galloway showed his 34 year old legs aren't run down yet, and Ike showed some quicks out there as well...but if Grads was in there, I would not have liked it.

I mean, we all know Pittman can catch a ball by now.

P.S. I still don't think Rattay is the man either.  I give him his one game props though.

Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What would our record be if Rattay was the starter? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools