For years fans clamored for th Bucs to develop their younger players....

[Feel Real Good]

I like Bruce Allen's theory of building a team, which is he tries to have a young player at a certain position along with a veteran.

Example:

Derrick Brooks and Barrett Ruud
Ronde Barber and Aqib Talib
Jermaine Phillips and Tanard Jackson
Chris Hovan and Jovan Haye
Kevin Carter and Gaines Adams
Warrick Dunn and Cadillac Williams/Earnest Graham
Joey Galloway/Ike Hilliard and Antonio Bryant/Michael Clayton

I think Bruce Allen's theory of team building was to have every position manned by a known quantity of a veteran, no matter how limited of a player, and if it becomes a last resort then try a young, unproven player.

That sort of hyperbole doesn't do your argument any credit.  How many times over the last few years have we seen people note how the team has one of youngest offensive lines in the NFL or how the supposed fact that the defense was ancient was rather overrated?

As I said they try veterans until it absolutely doesn't work and they have no other choice. We saw Steussie, Deese, Stinchcomb, Petitgout, Wade, and co. fail before they realized the only way they'll get good offensive linemen is to draft them high. And I know they didn't have draft picks before 2004, but once they did that didn't stop them from picking players like Michael Clayton over Shawn Andrews and Carnell Williams over Jammal Brown.

[dbucfan]

So you know about the lack of money and picks, and still persist in making the argument - okay, can't overcome ignoring reality. 

[acacius]

As I said they try veterans until it absolutely doesn't work and they have no other choice. We saw Steussie, Deese, Stinchcomb, Petitgout, Wade, and co. fail before they realized the only way they'll get good offensive linemen is to draft them high. And I know they didn't have draft picks before 2004, but once they did that didn't stop them from picking players like Michael Clayton over Shawn Andrews and Carnell Williams over Jammal Brown.

Of course, while you may have ONE case in Clayton where he didn't start, Williams did get used and overused right out of the gate.  I'm not sure what their having started drafting skill position players before they went offensive line has to do with your argument that they would only go with young players as a last resort.

[bucs1]

I like Bruce Allen's theory of building a team, which is he tries to have a young player at a certain position along with a veteran.

Example:

Derrick Brooks and Barrett Ruud
Ronde Barber and Aqib Talib
Jermaine Phillips and Tanard Jackson
Chris Hovan and Jovan Haye
Kevin Carter and Gaines Adams
Warrick Dunn and Cadillac Williams/Earnest Graham
Joey Galloway/Ike Hilliard and Antonio Bryant/Michael Clayton

I think Bruce Allen's theory of team building was to have every position manned by a known quantity of a veteran, no matter how limited of a player, and if it becomes a last resort then try a young, unproven player.

I did not say I think that was Bruce Allen's theory, it is Allen's theory. He even said it himself.

[David4ROTY]

Do people just fuss just to fuss?  Of course we have needs, all teams do.  Everyone is complaining saying we are too young and unproven in alot of areas on defence.  But did we really lose that much?  There wasn't much talk of being too young on def last year.  What changed for def?  Brooks, haye, buch, and cato?  One "seasoned vet" a so-so corner, an undersized LB that can only fit the tampa 2 which we don't run anymore, and haye who will not really fit the system.  Buch situation isn't that bad.  They can draft a corner to play nickel: Solved.  I think what everyone is getting fussy over is the two starting LB spots going to 2 unproven young guys.  There is a large chance that we will get a lb or two in phase 2 of free agency.  As far as DT goes, we didn't allow a 100 yard rusher almost all year until Hovan and Haye got hurt.  Hovan can still play and trust me, haye is replaceable.  Bates wants a hole stuffer.  We can find a big boy in the draft.  

They finally fix the offence, minus the qb (Though who knows if Luke, or JJ (I'm really pulling for him), are the answer.  Only TC will tell.)  With the weapons we got now, and the defence not changing too much in regards to last year ( as much as many tend to disagree), I don't see any problem with our team that can't be addressed this year.  

So tell me, if our DEF is so horrendous right now, that like some of you say, we won't be able to hold people under 30 points a game, then what is the fix?  

Our DL is not as bad as you all think.  Injuries were a big cause of the drop off in the last games.

[HughC]

I don't have any problem with the ideas of getting younger, changing schemes to get bigger and more physical, or with the concept that this change will take more than one year.  I am just a bit baffled that since we are going to have an entirely new scheme on both offense and defense that so few new players (four, including a kicker) have been signed.  It's not about not signing Haynesworth or Taylor or Owens or whomever; I wonder more why the Bucs haven's signed more mid to low level pay players at positions that need depth and competition, such as DT, OT, CB and OLB.  Sure, build through the draft, but the Bucs have only one day one pick, and just two picks among the first 80+ picks.  In fact we don't get multiple picks until the last round, and seventh round draft choices are just as likely to be cut as make the team. 

The relative lack of activity for a team with so many needs and so much cap space is a bit puzzling to me because the alternative is to count on multiple unproven rookies and UDFAs to not just make the team, but contribute in a big way.  Considering how much of a crapshoot the draft is, that's expecting a lot - and that is what bothers me.

[JavaBuc]

Good post HughC.

As far as the people who were "clamoring" for the Bucs to develop younger players, those were the same people who were always calling for Gruden's head.   They got Gruden fired and they still aren't happy.

[bradentonian]

Good post HughC.

As far as the people who were "clamoring" for the Bucs to develop younger players, those were the same people who were always calling for Gruden's head.   They got Gruden fired and they still aren't happy.

I'm pretty happy so far

[JavaBuc]

I'm pretty happy so far

Then you must only be happy for the Gruden firing.  Because this team has done nothing to improve so far.

Imagine this team with Gruden still as head coach and the rest of the coaching staff still in place with Raheem as DC as Gruden had appointed him (by the way, this would be a stronger team if this were true), but all other moves remain the same at this point.    Would you still be happy?    The moves thus far have not been impressive in any way.   If Gruden was still around, the Gruden haters would be throwing fits.

Put aside any personal hatred for any particular individual... anyone can see this team is in trouble.

[HughC]

Good post HughC.

As far as the people who were "clamoring" for the Bucs to develop younger players, those were the same people who were always calling for Gruden's head. They got Gruden fired and they still aren't happy.

I'm pretty happy so far

I'm quite happy with Ward and Winslow too.

My question now is to bradentonian, or anyone else, do you agree or disagree with the rest of my comment?

[OldBloodandBucs]

One always wants what one doesn't have...whether one needs it or not.

The grass is always greener . . .

Great pic, Scurvy.

[NotDeadYet]

   Developing and motivating young players appears to be what Raheem is all about. There's still a lot of off-season left; way, way, way too early to pass judgement. What these so called "low ball" offers in free agency mean is they think their own young players are or soon will be as good as the available FA's.

[buccaneerbruce76]

I don't have any problem with the ideas of getting younger, changing schemes to get bigger and more physical, or with the concept that this change will take more than one year.  I am just a bit baffled that since we are going to have an entirely new scheme on both offense and defense that so few new players (four, including a kicker) have been signed.  It's not about not signing Haynesworth or Taylor or Owens or whomever; I wonder more why the Bucs haven's signed more mid to low level pay players at positions that need depth and competition, such as DT, OT, CB and OLB.  Sure, build through the draft, but the Bucs have only one day one pick, and just two picks among the first 80+ picks.  In fact we don't get multiple picks until the last round, and seventh round draft choices are just as likely to be cut as make the team. 

The relative lack of activity for a team with so many needs and so much cap space is a bit puzzling to me because the alternative is to count on multiple unproven rookies and UDFAs to not just make the team, but contribute in a big way.  Considering how much of a crapshoot the draft is, that's expecting a lot - and that is what bothers me.

Not really saying much but that was a great post.

[SnookAU]

This is a great topic.

Reminds me a lot of all the people who complained when the Bucs finally made the move to start Ruud.

[dalbuc]

The thing is that no one is clamoring for us to go sign a ton of old folks but, when there are positions that are as thin and as untested as we have, why don't you want to challenge those positions with more young players? Again, we saw the poor results when the vets didn't sustain a high level of play (LB) or got hurt (DT) and those are the same guys we are gonna roll with now. Toss in that our pitiful WR corps is even thinner and more pitiful- but more expensive- we're thinner at CB and there should be opening and opening that are not gonna get filled by the draft alone.