Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Geno Hayes playing an early sign of Derrick's Last year? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

bucjoe

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 15655
Offline
#30 : September 26, 2008, 10:22:39 AM

Ian Gold left because he wanted to play the Will lb.  The Bucs did not WANT him to leave.

He was very good at Sam and as the season progressed, he made more and more plays.

IIRC, he was the first Sam lb we had to make over 100 tackles in this defense.

June did it last year too.

.....just my opinion

Magnaccia

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1983
Offline
#31 : September 26, 2008, 10:25:10 AM

1.) Ian Gold didn't play for a head coach who used to work for the Bucs.

2.) The Bucs had no intention of him playing for more than that one year. He was coming off a major injury in which he only played 6 games in 2003. His contract was up and Denver wasn't sure they wanted to pay full price for damaged goods. So he signed a minimum deal to play an easy position for a loaded defense and show he was healthy again. When that season was over, the Bucs had no money to sign him and historically Sam linebacker has not been a position the Bucs spent much money on, so he went back to Denver and got a nice contract.

The point being, where he was a good fit in Denver, he wasn't so much here.

There have been quite a few hot free agents who switch teams and all of a sudden fall off the face of the earth.


And even if we had signed Briggs, we'd still have probably drafted Hayes for depth.. so we'd be faced with 30 threads crying about how dumb it was to waste huge money on Briggs, threads demanding Briggs be traded for xxx and a lot of overall whinning about the front office's poor free agency/draft moves.

http://www.graphicdesignmoney.comMake $$$$ online, ask me how :]

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26713
Online
#32 : September 26, 2008, 10:32:54 AM

The point being, where he was a good fit in Denver, he wasn't so much here.
I still maintain, as does bucjoe, that Gold was a fine fit in Tampa.

There have been quite a few hot free agents who switch teams and all of a sudden fall off the face of the earth.
I don't believe Gold was one of them.

And even if we had signed Briggs, we'd still have probably drafted Hayes for depth.. so we'd be faced with 30 threads crying about how dumb it was to waste huge money on Briggs, threads demanding Briggs be traded for xxx and a lot of overall whinning about the front office's poor free agency/draft moves.
I never said the Bucs should have signed Briggs; I just disagreed that he wouldn't have been a good fit.

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

Magnaccia

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1983
Offline
#33 : September 26, 2008, 10:45:28 AM

The point being, where he was a good fit in Denver, he wasn't so much here.
I still maintain, as does bucjoe, that Gold was a fine fit in Tampa.

There have been quite a few hot free agents who switch teams and all of a sudden fall off the face of the earth.
I don't believe Gold was one of them.

And even if we had signed Briggs, we'd still have probably drafted Hayes for depth.. so we'd be faced with 30 threads crying about how dumb it was to waste huge money on Briggs, threads demanding Briggs be traded for xxx and a lot of overall whinning about the front office's poor free agency/draft moves.
I never said the Bucs should have signed Briggs; I just disagreed that he wouldn't have been a good fit.

Bucweiser was the one saying we should have signed Briggs lol.

Gold wasn't one that flopped, but there are many that have. Eugene Wilson wasn't a superstar but he didn't fit here. Everyone remembers Peerless Price once he left Buffalo, Donte Stallworth and Jerry Porter look pretty bad on their new teams as well.

My point was it's not as easy as signing a guy then all of a sudden they slip in like they've been here their whole career. I'm happier when a draft choice works out in a big way than when we overspend on a guy through free agency.

http://www.graphicdesignmoney.comMake $$$$ online, ask me how :]

Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8710
Offline
#34 : September 26, 2008, 10:53:59 AM

Signing Briggs would be a cap disaster.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26713
Online
#35 : September 26, 2008, 10:54:53 AM

Signing Briggs would be a cap disaster.
The Bucs have so much cap room it's ridiculous. They could have afforded him if they wanted to.

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

Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8710
Offline
#36 : September 26, 2008, 11:08:29 AM

Signing Briggs would be a cap disaster.
The Bucs have so much cap room it's ridiculous. They could have afforded him if they wanted to.


Are you sure about that?    There are a lot of young players that will be due a raise soon as well as some veterans.


Listening to Allen I believe you might be in error in thinking Briggs price would be a good deal.

I think you are correct though IF THEY WANTED TO..  Obviously they don't.

I admit I was hot on Briggs at one time.  Not so sure he would be that great a fit here.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26713
Online
#37 : September 26, 2008, 11:18:08 AM

Are you sure about that?� � There are a lot of young players that will be due a raise soon as well as some veterans.
None of the vets except maybe Buchanon are getting raises. Ruud is the only young player who will need a new deal after this season.

Listening to Allen I believe you might be in error in thinking Briggs price would be a good deal.
You're the one who erred because I never said Briggs would have been a good deal. I just said the Bucs had the money and he wouldn't kill the cap.

I think you are correct though IF THEY WANTED TO..  Obviously they don't.
That's why I said "if they wanted to".

I admit I was hot on Briggs at one time.� Not so sure he would be that great a fit here.
I've never been in favor of trading for or signing him, but I still think he's a good player and would fit in fine.

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

Madman

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5484
Offline
#38 : September 26, 2008, 11:42:44 AM

Briggs is a monster but he wasn't really gonna leave Chicago. Very interested to see how Hayes progresses at the Will.



Pick6

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5150
Offline
#39 : September 27, 2008, 01:42:08 AM

haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but brooks has been questionable with a hamstring injury each of the last 2 games, and now through this week too.  he hasn't been practicing.  that's not the situation in which you play someone on 75-100% of the defensive snaps.

when derrick brooks is going all out in practice and isn't feeling the effects of that hamstring (if that happens at any point this year), you won't see much of Geno Hayes.

ShotCaller

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1324
Offline
#40 : September 27, 2008, 09:24:50 AM


hayes will play every game this year if he stays healthy. whether brooks is out because of X, Y and Z reason doesn't matter. he's not there in all the practices. he's not there in all the plays. he's on the down side of his career. maybe he comes back next year. maybe he does not. either way is good with me. but in either scenario, getting geno on the field and experiencing live fire in limited situations is a wonderful way to break him into the league. get him some reps, let him learn under brooks and if it is one, two, or three years until brooks leaves, we'll have our replacement.

geno was a 6th rounder (i think).. but he is young .. had he stayed for another year at FSU, he might have been a first day pick.
Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Geno Hayes playing an early sign of Derrick's Last year? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools