Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Rumors starting to fly that the Glazers are short on dollar signs « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31372
Offline
« #30 : December 23, 2008, 03:39:34 PM »

It's like passing on Simeon Rice because the Bucs already had Chidi Ahanotu.

Not really.  Rice was a known commodity while Turner had question marks.

I would say the Bucs were more set at RB with Graham and Bennett than Atlanta was with just Jerious Norwood, and I really like Norwood.


Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26674
Offline
« #31 : December 23, 2008, 03:46:29 PM »

It's like passing on Simeon Rice because the Bucs already had Chidi Ahanotu.

Not really.  Rice was a known commodity while Turner had question marks.

I would say the Bucs were more set at RB with Graham and Bennett than Atlanta was with just Jerious Norwood, and I really like Norwood.
That's what we were talking about yesterday. The Bucs may have been "set", but that's about the nicest word you could use. They weren't loaded by any means. Atlanta, on the other hand, took a page from Jim Fassel and put all their chips in the center of the table and went all in saying "Michael Turner is going to be our guy and we're riding him this season". It's risk/reward. Atlanta took a big risk and got a big reward. The Bucs didn't want any risk, so they got no reward.

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

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28675
Offline
« #32 : December 23, 2008, 03:41:51 PM »

Any exposure to Madoff? 

I was thinking the same thing.

skip

****
Starter

Posts : 503
Offline
« #33 : December 23, 2008, 04:42:39 PM »

I think the John Romano article is dead on. I have been stating for a couple years now that the Glazers remind me of the Culverhouse era.
No reason to be that far under the cap.

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31372
Offline
« #34 : December 23, 2008, 04:50:00 PM »

It's like passing on Simeon Rice because the Bucs already had Chidi Ahanotu.

Not really.  Rice was a known commodity while Turner had question marks.

I would say the Bucs were more set at RB with Graham and Bennett than Atlanta was with just Jerious Norwood, and I really like Norwood.
That's what we were talking about yesterday. The Bucs may have been "set", but that's about the nicest word you could use. They weren't loaded by any means. Atlanta, on the other hand, took a page from Jim Fassel and put all their chips in the center of the table and went all in saying "Michael Turner is going to be our guy and we're riding him this season". It's risk/reward. Atlanta took a big risk and got a big reward. The Bucs didn't want any risk, so they got no reward.

It was definitely a risk/reward for Atlanta, but I would still say that they needed to take that risk because all they had was Norwood, who would have been a bigger risk than Turner.  They HAD to sign Turner, the Bucs necessarily didn't.


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31372
Offline
« #35 : December 23, 2008, 04:51:00 PM »

Out of curiosity, how much difference would Turner make on this Buccaneer team with the run blocking being what it has been and a QB unable to stretch defenses?


DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19743
Offline
« #36 : December 23, 2008, 04:56:16 PM »

I think the John Romano article is dead on. I have been stating for a couple years now that the Glazers remind me of the Culverhouse era.

If you were around OBP during the Culverhouse era you'd never even think such a thing.

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21177
Offline
« #37 : December 23, 2008, 04:57:49 PM »

Out of curiosity, how much difference would Turner make on this Buccaneer team with the run blocking being what it has been and a QB unable to stretch defenses?

I'm not sure, but our O-line looked much better with Graham back there and Turner's better than Graham

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28675
Offline
« #38 : December 23, 2008, 04:58:02 PM »

I think the John Romano article is dead on. I have been stating for a couple years now that the Glazers remind me of the Culverhouse era.

If you were around OBP during the Culverhouse era you'd never even think such a thing.

Did you have to pay a quarter to use the bathroom?


DanTurksGhost

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 19743
Offline
« #39 : December 23, 2008, 05:01:44 PM »

Did you have to pay a quarter to use the bathroom?

No, but you had to put money in a machine for a soda.

T-Bone

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1048
Offline
« #40 : December 23, 2008, 05:16:07 PM »

i believe the evidence is reasonable. i think its true

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21177
Offline
« #41 : December 23, 2008, 05:19:25 PM »

ok judge **CENSORED**ner

T-Bone

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1048
Offline
« #42 : December 23, 2008, 05:27:26 PM »

who whizzed in your corn flakes this mornin' olaf?

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21177
Offline
« #43 : December 23, 2008, 05:29:43 PM »

who whizzed in your corn flakes this mornin' olaf?


nobody, I'm quite chipper actually ... lighten up your honor ...

krazybuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8479
Offline
« #44 : December 23, 2008, 05:30:57 PM »

This thread proves there are A LOT of people that don't know ANYTHING about the NFL and A LOT of "FANS" that take more stock in sportsradio rumors or tribune articles then they do actual facts.
  Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Rumors starting to fly that the Glazers are short on dollar signs « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools