Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: IS Calven Johnson to good to pass up for the Bucs « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5

catch2355

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#30 : January 25, 2007, 05:40:03 PM

Never heard of Calven Johnson.


me neither

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27903
Offline
#31 : January 25, 2007, 05:40:46 PM

I could also ask you who's going to catch passes and threaten teams deep? This logic is way too simple minded to actually work in anything as complicated as football. Yes we need to rush the QB, yes we need to protect the QB, and yes we also need more than one viable pass catching option.

We just drafted one with a day one pick last year.


Huey Freeman

****
Starter

Posts : 921
Offline
#32 : January 25, 2007, 05:42:46 PM

Maybe. 

RedAlert

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4657
Offline
#33 : January 25, 2007, 05:50:13 PM

RedAlert- One player, one position at a time.


Even more of a reason to address the weakest positions on the team, OL and DL. Why sacrifice the talent level you can add at those positions in favor of a player that doesn't elevate the level of anything but depth at WR?

Doesn't make sense, especially when you realize that NO receiver in NFL history has ever elevated a team with such pressing needs along the trench lines to a championship level.

Ever.






leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4438
Offline
#34 : January 25, 2007, 05:51:58 PM

I could also ask you who's going to catch passes and threaten teams deep? This logic is way too simple minded to actually work in anything as complicated as football. Yes we need to rush the QB, yes we need to protect the QB, and yes we also need more than one viable pass catching option.

We just drafted one with a day one pick last year.

We drafted two offensive linemen with Day one picks last year.  So what?

Even with Stovall that leaves us with a guy whose career could be over on any given play due to his age, a guy whose career peaked as a rookie, and a guy whose career hasn't started yet.  Not exactly a strong argument against picking CJ.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46234
Offline
#35 : January 25, 2007, 05:55:33 PM

With 30 million to spend in FA you draft the best player available. Calvin is the best football player in the draft. You tell me, Would you pass on the best football player in the draft? I wouldn't.
  Who made him the best player available - I missed it.  What I have read it that Thomas was the highest rated overall???  And for the record, every team in the league wants a dominant LOT.  They are the hen's teeth of football players.  WRs can be found on a regular basis - yea I know - but the bucs should be doing better, getting a wr who is competent to catch the damn ball is not an issue for most any other team, just here.

\"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

Huey Freeman

****
Starter

Posts : 921
Offline
#36 : January 25, 2007, 05:55:40 PM

If you have a top 5 pick, you have to hope that whichever player you draft will elevate the level of play on your team.  That's the point of having a high pick.  The top of the draft is where the difference makers are.  That's why high picks are at a premium.  

If Jonathan Ogden or Julius Peppers were in this draft, then I would have no problem with the Bucs passing on Calvin Johnson to take a special player to block the short side or rush the passer.  But that player isn't in this draft.  CJ is the most talented player, and is at a level above the options at the other positions.  

Now, are you willing to grab a lesser talent just to fill a hole when there are so many holes to fill?  Are you saying that the Bucs are so deep at the WR position(36 year old Galloway, declining Clayton, unproven though promising Stovall) that they should pass up on a once in a decade talent like CJ?  

RedAlert

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4657
Offline
#37 : January 25, 2007, 05:58:54 PM

I could also ask you who's going to catch passes and threaten teams deep? This logic is way too simple minded to actually work in anything as complicated as football. Yes we need to rush the QB, yes we need to protect the QB, and yes we also need more than one viable pass catching option.

I would rather have Joe Thomas than CJ, but to attempt to break it down into something so crude is ridiculous.

You've never heard of Joey Galloway? He of the 1000+ receiving yards and 7 TD's even with the likes of Simms/Grads/Rattay tossing the rock? You may want to shovel dirt on his grave, but he hasn't shown any sign of slowing down enough where a deep threat all of a sudden becomes a big need.

And simple minded better describes people who don't recognize that if you can't perforn the basic, crude, aspects of the game of football, like blocking and defense, no WR in the world will help that team win.

Logic is good. Logic works. If it's too complicated, you're too simple..


bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27903
Offline
#38 : January 25, 2007, 06:00:16 PM

If you have a top 5 pick, you have to hope that whichever player you draft will elevate the level of play on your team.  That's the point of having a high pick.  The top of the draft is where the difference makers are.  That's why high picks are a premium.  

If Jonathan Ogden or Julius Peppers were in this draft, then I would have no problem with the Bucs passing on Calvin Johnson to take a special player to block the short side or rush the passer.  But that player isn't in this draft.  CJ is the most talented player, and is at a level above the options at the other positions.  

Now, are you willing to grab a lesser talent just to fill a hole when there are so many holes to fill?  Are you saying that are so deep at the WR position(36 year old Galloway, declining Clayton, unproven though promising Stovall) to pass up on a once in a decade talent like CJ?  

I think our best option is to trade down.  Obviously there has to be two to tango, but I think we should be aggressively looking for opportunities.  There are lots of studs that fill needs at 8-15, and we can use the extra ammo to sneak back into the forst round for our second pick.  

I don't like the idea of a WR because this offense is designed to spread the ball around to multiple guys, and premium WRs are not a need.  We rarely have more than 2 WR on the field at a time, which means you wasted your 3rd rounder last year because he'll be on the bench.  I wouldn't mind going after a WR if we got good trade value for Galloway and/or Clayton, but not with #3/4 overall.


leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4438
Offline
#39 : January 25, 2007, 06:02:15 PM

I could also ask you who's going to catch passes and threaten teams deep? This logic is way too simple minded to actually work in anything as complicated as football. Yes we need to rush the QB, yes we need to protect the QB, and yes we also need more than one viable pass catching option.

I would rather have Joe Thomas than CJ, but to attempt to break it down into something so crude is ridiculous.

You've never heard of Joey Galloway? He of the 1000+ receiving yards and 7 TD's even with the likes of Simms/Grads/Rattay tossing the rock? You may want to shovel dirt on his grave, but he hasn't shown any sign of slowing down enough where a deep threat all of a sudden becomes a big need.

And simple minded better describes people who don't recognize that if you can't perforn the basic, crude, aspects of the game of football, like blocking and defense, no WR in the world will help that team win.

Logic is good. Logic works. If it's too complicated, you're too simple..



You cannot win in the NFL with one reciever.  It's also very simple.  Having receivers that can get open is also a basic, crude aspect of football.  I could twist your argument into something just as simple.  Suppose you block all day but you have no receivers that are open?  Then what?  It's way too simplistic to hold up under any kind of real scrutiny.

And for the record, I want Joe Thomas, I just don't resort to absurdly simple arguments to convince people.  

Huey Freeman

****
Starter

Posts : 921
Offline
#40 : January 25, 2007, 06:05:02 PM

I can understand that.  It would have to be quite a deal to move down.  As far as the design of the offense, the play-calling has been hampered by a lack of talent.  When you bring talented players into the fold, it changes the look of an offense and a gameplan.  More of an argument for drafting CJ.  

RedAlert

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4657
Offline
#41 : January 25, 2007, 06:07:12 PM

You cannot win in the NFL with one reciever.  It's also very simple.  And for the record, I want Joe Thomas, I just don't resort to absurdly simple arguments to convince people.  

Convince people? Of what? This isn't a herd of sheep..

Absurdly simple? Disagree if you want to disagree, but I challenge you to prove me wrong if you're going to demean my opinions with petty insults...



rocko23

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3937
Offline
#42 : January 25, 2007, 06:08:24 PM

listen,  we need  guys upfront on that D line I hope we take a DE and UT with our #1 and #2 pick we can get a WR like Joey Porter in FA.

leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4438
Offline
#43 : January 25, 2007, 06:17:55 PM

You cannot win in the NFL with one reciever.  It's also very simple.  And for the record, I want Joe Thomas, I just don't resort to absurdly simple arguments to convince people. 

Convince people? Of what? This isn't a herd of sheep..

Absurdly simple? Disagree if you want to disagree, but I challenge you to prove me wrong if you're going to demean my opinions with petty insults...




Let's start with this then.  Obviously we gave our substandard QB's enough time to hit Galloway deep plenty of times.  After all he had over 1000 yards and 7 TD's.  To hear you tell it that would be an impossible feat because our QB would never have the time to do that.  Yet he clearly did.  Therefore, if we had two receivers capable of being open, the QB would need even less time.  So if we gave him 2 options on every play he wouldn't have to wait as long for our current (only) option to get open.

With Joe Thomas (who I still want more than CJ), we'd be giving our QB's more time to only hit the same receiver for the same production.  Also way too simple an argument because it doesn't take into account Thomas' run blocking which would have an effect on Caddy, which would have an affect on the passing game. 

There are no simple arguments in football.  You came in here and insulted everyone who diagreed with your point, (WR Depth?  Good thinking :() when your logic doesn't hold up either.

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27903
Offline
#44 : January 25, 2007, 07:13:10 PM

We have some 4 WR sets..

Galloway and CJ would start, but to have a healthy Clayton or Stovall in the slot..

What's wrong with starting Galloway and Stovall, with Clayton, Hilliard, and Warren stepping in on mulitiple WR sets?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: IS Calven Johnson to good to pass up for the Bucs « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools