Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Dominik on his 24-40 record ......... "My record is what it is" « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 45993
Online
#30 : April 19, 2013, 10:49:08 AM

Why was Bowers - with is knee issues - more valuable to you than Houston TBT?

\"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

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26707
Offline
#31 : April 19, 2013, 10:53:27 AM

You only have to look at Bowers, this was a potential #1 overall based on pure talent, using a 2nd rounder to get that talent and risking how well he recovered from injury was worth a shot.
The guy who has 4.5 sacks in two seasons? That's an example of a good move?
Isn't hindsight a great thing, if you bothered to read what was actually said it was that his talent was worth a shot, taking a risk on injury.
You do know what taking a risk means don't you?
It means he might not recover and as luck would have it he has had injury issues.
He was still worth taking a flyer on.
Why not take a flyer on Justin Houston, who was also seen as a 1st round draft pick, who slipped to the 3rd round, and now has 15.5 sacks in two seasons.
Because he wasn't available when we were picking due to us taking a flyer on Bowers who as previously mentioned had #1 overall talent as an upside rather than a late first rounder.
Who knows what might have happened if he'd fallen another half a round, Dom might have weighed the options and risked that pick too instead of going with Foster.
Those 15.5 sacks are great but once again it's all hindsight, if there was no risk involved in picks and GMs knew exactly what they were getting you wouldn't see things like the Pats getting Brady in the 6th round of the same draft they wasted a second rounder on the "legendary" Adrian Klemm and Courtney Brown went #1 overall.
My point why not take a flyer on Houston instead of Bowers? And it's not hindsight. A few of us liked Justin Houston before the draft. The Bucs had him in for a pre-draft visit. They knew who he was. He didn't come out of thin air.

All this talk about "hindsight" talk is loser talk. It's the same thing posters on here said about Bruce Allen 5-6 years ago as his picks were busting left and right.
Maybe you should try reading posts you are replying to for once, see those bits that are bolded, THAT is why they went for Bowers over Houston.
Lets see do we take the flyer on the guy with #1 overall potential 51 picks later
OR
Do we take the guy viewed as a late first rounder just 20(ish) picks later.

Also hindsight isn't loser talk, it's just something morons don't understand.
Who cares if the Bucs had him in for a pre draft visit, it doesn't mean they knew what he was, you think the Chargers didn't have Ryan Leaf in for a visit or the Raiders visit with Russell.
It's great to know what we know now and say "we should have done this" but that isn't reality, you go with what you know at the time.
Also whats to say that Houston would have 15.5 sacks if he came to Tampa, different teammates, different coaching, different schemes, different schedules. All that can make quite the difference.

So what I am hearing you say is that GM's should never be fired since all evaluation is made with hindsight?
Exactly. The only reason Mark Dominik is even the GM is because four years ago the owners used hindsight and said too many of the previous GM's picks sucked. Hindsight is how GM's get evaluated.

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

TBTrojan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2782
Offline
#32 : April 19, 2013, 11:10:34 AM

Maybe you should try reading posts you are replying to for once, see those bits that are bolded, THAT is why they went for Bowers over Houston.
Lets see do we take the flyer on the guy with #1 overall potential 51 picks later
OR
Do we take the guy viewed as a late first rounder just 20(ish) picks later.

Also hindsight isn't loser talk, it's just something morons don't understand.
Who cares if the Bucs had him in for a pre draft visit, it doesn't mean they knew what he was, you think the Chargers didn't have Ryan Leaf in for a visit or the Raiders visit with Russell.
It's great to know what we know now and say "we should have done this" but that isn't reality, you go with what you know at the time.
Also whats to say that Houston would have 15.5 sacks if he came to Tampa, different teammates, different coaching, different schemes, different schedules. All that can make quite the difference.
A lot of players at one time had "#1 overall potential". Brady Quinn was once thought to have #1 overall potential. Somehow all the other teams decided Bowers wasn't too good of a value to pass up. They didn't care people on TV thought Bowers may go #1 overall four months before the draft.

And if the Bucs didn't know who Justin Houston was after having him inside their building, people should be fired. That's what they're paid to do.
And oddly enough being as Houston was viewed as a late 1st rounder and he went in the 3rd that means the very same thing holds true for him.

As for the idea of "you know a person because you met them for a few hours in your building," that is one of the dumbest things I've read on here, including all of Javas trolling.
I guess Bill Belichick should have been fired long ago after they still wasted a first round pick on Laurence Maroney even after he had a visit, THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN EVERYTHING!!!!!!

TBTrojan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2782
Offline
#33 : April 19, 2013, 11:18:01 AM

You only have to look at Bowers, this was a potential #1 overall based on pure talent, using a 2nd rounder to get that talent and risking how well he recovered from injury was worth a shot.
The guy who has 4.5 sacks in two seasons? That's an example of a good move?
Isn't hindsight a great thing, if you bothered to read what was actually said it was that his talent was worth a shot, taking a risk on injury.
You do know what taking a risk means don't you?
It means he might not recover and as luck would have it he has had injury issues.
He was still worth taking a flyer on.
Why not take a flyer on Justin Houston, who was also seen as a 1st round draft pick, who slipped to the 3rd round, and now has 15.5 sacks in two seasons.
Because he wasn't available when we were picking due to us taking a flyer on Bowers who as previously mentioned had #1 overall talent as an upside rather than a late first rounder.
Who knows what might have happened if he'd fallen another half a round, Dom might have weighed the options and risked that pick too instead of going with Foster.
Those 15.5 sacks are great but once again it's all hindsight, if there was no risk involved in picks and GMs knew exactly what they were getting you wouldn't see things like the Pats getting Brady in the 6th round of the same draft they wasted a second rounder on the "legendary" Adrian Klemm and Courtney Brown went #1 overall.
My point why not take a flyer on Houston instead of Bowers? And it's not hindsight. A few of us liked Justin Houston before the draft. The Bucs had him in for a pre-draft visit. They knew who he was. He didn't come out of thin air.

All this talk about "hindsight" talk is loser talk. It's the same thing posters on here said about Bruce Allen 5-6 years ago as his picks were busting left and right.
Maybe you should try reading posts you are replying to for once, see those bits that are bolded, THAT is why they went for Bowers over Houston.
Lets see do we take the flyer on the guy with #1 overall potential 51 picks later
OR
Do we take the guy viewed as a late first rounder just 20(ish) picks later.

Also hindsight isn't loser talk, it's just something morons don't understand.
Who cares if the Bucs had him in for a pre draft visit, it doesn't mean they knew what he was, you think the Chargers didn't have Ryan Leaf in for a visit or the Raiders visit with Russell.
It's great to know what we know now and say "we should have done this" but that isn't reality, you go with what you know at the time.
Also whats to say that Houston would have 15.5 sacks if he came to Tampa, different teammates, different coaching, different schemes, different schedules. All that can make quite the difference.

So what I am hearing you say is that GM's should never be fired since all evaluation is made with hindsight?
No and I'm not sure where you get that from.
If a GM makes too many bad picks with the information he has at the time he should be fired.
You don't fired a guy for drafting a guy and somebody else ends up with a better pick later in the draft, you fire the GM because the guy he picked (along with a whole bunch of other guys) turned out bad.
At that point you know that they can't use whatever information they have at the time to pick good players.
You can use hindsight to judge how well a guy has done in the past and decide to fire them but how exactly are you meant to see into the future when drafting a player "Oh we know for a fact this guy that's dropping will have 15.5 sacks in 2 years so we will take a chance."
Can I borrow somebodies time machine, must be great to know the future.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26707
Offline
#34 : April 19, 2013, 11:20:46 AM

Maybe you should try reading posts you are replying to for once, see those bits that are bolded, THAT is why they went for Bowers over Houston.
Lets see do we take the flyer on the guy with #1 overall potential 51 picks later
OR
Do we take the guy viewed as a late first rounder just 20(ish) picks later.

Also hindsight isn't loser talk, it's just something morons don't understand.
Who cares if the Bucs had him in for a pre draft visit, it doesn't mean they knew what he was, you think the Chargers didn't have Ryan Leaf in for a visit or the Raiders visit with Russell.
It's great to know what we know now and say "we should have done this" but that isn't reality, you go with what you know at the time.
Also whats to say that Houston would have 15.5 sacks if he came to Tampa, different teammates, different coaching, different schemes, different schedules. All that can make quite the difference.
A lot of players at one time had "#1 overall potential". Brady Quinn was once thought to have #1 overall potential. Somehow all the other teams decided Bowers wasn't too good of a value to pass up. They didn't care people on TV thought Bowers may go #1 overall four months before the draft.

And if the Bucs didn't know who Justin Houston was after having him inside their building, people should be fired. That's what they're paid to do.
And oddly enough being as Houston was viewed as a late 1st rounder and he went in the 3rd that means the very same thing holds true for him.

As for the idea of "you know a person because you met them for a few hours in your building," that is one of the dumbest things I've read on here, including all of Javas trolling.
I guess Bill Belichick should have been fired long ago after they still wasted a first round pick on Laurence Maroney even after he had a visit, THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN EVERYTHING!!!!!!
My only point was once Bowers didn't go #1, #2, or #3 overall, he was no longer a potential #1 overall pick, he was just a guy, just like Justin Houston. The Bucs had their between two guys and chose the one who would get 4.5 sacks over the next two years instead of the one who would get 15.5 sacks. Typical for the Bucs.

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

GameTime

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18806
Online
#35 : April 19, 2013, 11:23:06 AM

My point why not take a flyer on Houston instead of Bowers? And it's not hindsight. A few of us liked Justin Houston before the draft. The Bucs had him in for a pre-draft visit. They knew who he was. He didn't come out of thin air.

possibly the Bucs viewed him more of a 3-4 player?

\"Lets put the O back in Country\"

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 26707
Offline
#36 : April 19, 2013, 11:23:31 AM

You only have to look at Bowers, this was a potential #1 overall based on pure talent, using a 2nd rounder to get that talent and risking how well he recovered from injury was worth a shot.
The guy who has 4.5 sacks in two seasons? That's an example of a good move?
Isn't hindsight a great thing, if you bothered to read what was actually said it was that his talent was worth a shot, taking a risk on injury.
You do know what taking a risk means don't you?
It means he might not recover and as luck would have it he has had injury issues.
He was still worth taking a flyer on.
Why not take a flyer on Justin Houston, who was also seen as a 1st round draft pick, who slipped to the 3rd round, and now has 15.5 sacks in two seasons.
Because he wasn't available when we were picking due to us taking a flyer on Bowers who as previously mentioned had #1 overall talent as an upside rather than a late first rounder.
Who knows what might have happened if he'd fallen another half a round, Dom might have weighed the options and risked that pick too instead of going with Foster.
Those 15.5 sacks are great but once again it's all hindsight, if there was no risk involved in picks and GMs knew exactly what they were getting you wouldn't see things like the Pats getting Brady in the 6th round of the same draft they wasted a second rounder on the "legendary" Adrian Klemm and Courtney Brown went #1 overall.
My point why not take a flyer on Houston instead of Bowers? And it's not hindsight. A few of us liked Justin Houston before the draft. The Bucs had him in for a pre-draft visit. They knew who he was. He didn't come out of thin air.

All this talk about "hindsight" talk is loser talk. It's the same thing posters on here said about Bruce Allen 5-6 years ago as his picks were busting left and right.
Maybe you should try reading posts you are replying to for once, see those bits that are bolded, THAT is why they went for Bowers over Houston.
Lets see do we take the flyer on the guy with #1 overall potential 51 picks later
OR
Do we take the guy viewed as a late first rounder just 20(ish) picks later.

Also hindsight isn't loser talk, it's just something morons don't understand.
Who cares if the Bucs had him in for a pre draft visit, it doesn't mean they knew what he was, you think the Chargers didn't have Ryan Leaf in for a visit or the Raiders visit with Russell.
It's great to know what we know now and say "we should have done this" but that isn't reality, you go with what you know at the time.
Also whats to say that Houston would have 15.5 sacks if he came to Tampa, different teammates, different coaching, different schemes, different schedules. All that can make quite the difference.

So what I am hearing you say is that GM's should never be fired since all evaluation is made with hindsight?
No and I'm not sure where you get that from.
If a GM makes too many bad picks with the information he has at the time he should be fired.
You don't fired a guy for drafting a guy and somebody else ends up with a better pick later in the draft, you fire the GM because the guy he picked (along with a whole bunch of other guys) turned out bad.
At that point you know that they can't use whatever information they have at the time to pick good players.
You can use hindsight to judge how well a guy has done in the past and decide to fire them but how exactly are you meant to see into the future when drafting a player "Oh we know for a fact this guy that's dropping will have 15.5 sacks in 2 years so we will take a chance."
Can I borrow somebodies time machine, must be great to know the future.
Well it wasn't Bruce Allen's fault that Michael Clayton, Carnell Williams, and Dan Buenning would start out great, get injured, and never be the same. It wasn't his fault Arron Sears would go crazy. It wasn't his fault Tanard Jackson started out great and then couldn't live without smoking dope. It wasn't his fault Gaines Adams died. Bruce Allen got a raw deal. He made great decisions with the information he had at the time.

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

GameTime

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18806
Online
#37 : April 19, 2013, 11:26:17 AM

1. How many years of not making the playoffs does it take to get a feeling of despair?

i realize im not the best one to answer this question, but i didnt have a feeling of despair after the 10-6 season, nor do i have a feeling of despair now.  i am very excited about the upcoming season and feel the playoffs are very much in play.

\"Lets put the O back in Country\"

TBTrojan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2782
Offline
#38 : April 19, 2013, 11:27:54 AM

Why was Bowers - with is knee issues - more valuable to you than Houston TBT?
Who said he was?
I'm just saying it's easy to see why the pick was what it was rather than Houston.
I personally, knowing what I knew at the time, wouldn't have touched Bowers with his injury issues but then I didn't know EVERYTHING about him from spending a few hours with him during a visit or see all the medical reports maybe if I had I would have made the same pick, who knows, and I'm not sure I would have taken Houston at that point either.
I'm not even going to pretend to remember who I would have taken at that point in time with the knowledge that I had, I know I had been hoping Rudolph would drop to us at that pick but the Vikes messed that up.

GameTime

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18806
Online
#39 : April 19, 2013, 11:29:08 AM

1. You mean like he fixes the pass rush which is actually worse than what he inherited?
2. Hope means nothing once you lose. It dissipates quickly. Late-season flops are a result of poor drafting, no depth. Gruden and Allen got fired for that and Dom is well on his way to the same.

i think dominik has attempted to fix the pass rush...multiple DC's, multiple high picks invested on the DL.  if you are ready to give up on mccoy/bowers/clayborn then yeah, i understand giving up on dominik.  personally, im not.

\"Lets put the O back in Country\"

TBTrojan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2782
Offline
#40 : April 19, 2013, 11:33:44 AM

Maybe you should try reading posts you are replying to for once, see those bits that are bolded, THAT is why they went for Bowers over Houston.
Lets see do we take the flyer on the guy with #1 overall potential 51 picks later
OR
Do we take the guy viewed as a late first rounder just 20(ish) picks later.

Also hindsight isn't loser talk, it's just something morons don't understand.
Who cares if the Bucs had him in for a pre draft visit, it doesn't mean they knew what he was, you think the Chargers didn't have Ryan Leaf in for a visit or the Raiders visit with Russell.
It's great to know what we know now and say "we should have done this" but that isn't reality, you go with what you know at the time.
Also whats to say that Houston would have 15.5 sacks if he came to Tampa, different teammates, different coaching, different schemes, different schedules. All that can make quite the difference.
A lot of players at one time had "#1 overall potential". Brady Quinn was once thought to have #1 overall potential. Somehow all the other teams decided Bowers wasn't too good of a value to pass up. They didn't care people on TV thought Bowers may go #1 overall four months before the draft.

And if the Bucs didn't know who Justin Houston was after having him inside their building, people should be fired. That's what they're paid to do.
And oddly enough being as Houston was viewed as a late 1st rounder and he went in the 3rd that means the very same thing holds true for him.

As for the idea of "you know a person because you met them for a few hours in your building," that is one of the dumbest things I've read on here, including all of Javas trolling.
I guess Bill Belichick should have been fired long ago after they still wasted a first round pick on Laurence Maroney even after he had a visit, THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN EVERYTHING!!!!!!
My only point was once Bowers didn't go #1, #2, or #3 overall, he was no longer a potential #1 overall pick, he was just a guy, just like Justin Houston. The Bucs had their between two guys and chose the one who would get 4.5 sacks over the next two years instead of the one who would get 15.5 sacks. Typical for the Bucs.
And the same holds true for Houston, he dropped into the 3rd, therefore he was viewed as a 3rd rounder at the time of his drafting, Bowers went higher therefore was viewed as the prospect that had the better upside.
It's not rocket science, they took the guy that before their issues was seen as potentially better, both dropped for their own reasons.
Why did no other team take a chance on either of them earlier than they did, who knows, it's just how it went down.

TBTrojan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2782
Offline
#41 : April 19, 2013, 11:50:44 AM

You only have to look at Bowers, this was a potential #1 overall based on pure talent, using a 2nd rounder to get that talent and risking how well he recovered from injury was worth a shot.
The guy who has 4.5 sacks in two seasons? That's an example of a good move?
Isn't hindsight a great thing, if you bothered to read what was actually said it was that his talent was worth a shot, taking a risk on injury.
You do know what taking a risk means don't you?
It means he might not recover and as luck would have it he has had injury issues.
He was still worth taking a flyer on.
Why not take a flyer on Justin Houston, who was also seen as a 1st round draft pick, who slipped to the 3rd round, and now has 15.5 sacks in two seasons.
Because he wasn't available when we were picking due to us taking a flyer on Bowers who as previously mentioned had #1 overall talent as an upside rather than a late first rounder.
Who knows what might have happened if he'd fallen another half a round, Dom might have weighed the options and risked that pick too instead of going with Foster.
Those 15.5 sacks are great but once again it's all hindsight, if there was no risk involved in picks and GMs knew exactly what they were getting you wouldn't see things like the Pats getting Brady in the 6th round of the same draft they wasted a second rounder on the "legendary" Adrian Klemm and Courtney Brown went #1 overall.
My point why not take a flyer on Houston instead of Bowers? And it's not hindsight. A few of us liked Justin Houston before the draft. The Bucs had him in for a pre-draft visit. They knew who he was. He didn't come out of thin air.

All this talk about "hindsight" talk is loser talk. It's the same thing posters on here said about Bruce Allen 5-6 years ago as his picks were busting left and right.
Maybe you should try reading posts you are replying to for once, see those bits that are bolded, THAT is why they went for Bowers over Houston.
Lets see do we take the flyer on the guy with #1 overall potential 51 picks later
OR
Do we take the guy viewed as a late first rounder just 20(ish) picks later.

Also hindsight isn't loser talk, it's just something morons don't understand.
Who cares if the Bucs had him in for a pre draft visit, it doesn't mean they knew what he was, you think the Chargers didn't have Ryan Leaf in for a visit or the Raiders visit with Russell.
It's great to know what we know now and say "we should have done this" but that isn't reality, you go with what you know at the time.
Also whats to say that Houston would have 15.5 sacks if he came to Tampa, different teammates, different coaching, different schemes, different schedules. All that can make quite the difference.

So what I am hearing you say is that GM's should never be fired since all evaluation is made with hindsight?
No and I'm not sure where you get that from.
If a GM makes too many bad picks with the information he has at the time he should be fired.
You don't fired a guy for drafting a guy and somebody else ends up with a better pick later in the draft, you fire the GM because the guy he picked (along with a whole bunch of other guys) turned out bad.
At that point you know that they can't use whatever information they have at the time to pick good players.
You can use hindsight to judge how well a guy has done in the past and decide to fire them but how exactly are you meant to see into the future when drafting a player "Oh we know for a fact this guy that's dropping will have 15.5 sacks in 2 years so we will take a chance."
Can I borrow somebodies time machine, must be great to know the future.
Well it wasn't Bruce Allen's fault that Michael Clayton, Carnell Williams, and Dan Buenning would start out great, get injured, and never be the same. It wasn't his fault Arron Sears would go crazy. It wasn't his fault Tanard Jackson started out great and then couldn't live without smoking dope. It wasn't his fault Gaines Adams died. Bruce Allen got a raw deal. He made great decisions with the information he had at the time.
Let's see...
Yes it was his fault that
Yes it was his fault Caddy was a bust, you don't take the 3rd back in the draft 5th overall when he is already injury prone and split carries in college, that was a bad pick right from the get go based on the information at the time. Just a real BAD pick but saying that most of the rest of the picks around us were nothing special. And before you say it there is a massive difference between risking a mid 2nd rounder on a guy with #1 overall potential and risking the #5 overall on a guy that wasn't even the best back in the draft from his college team.
Yes it was his fault that we never got a young high potential quarterback on the roster.
Yes it as his fault that he was tied to Gruden and as a pairing they had simply stagnated with an old roster, when your drafts aren't working out you don't try to fix it with retirement home residents and guys living in dumpsters but that was the Gruden/Allen way.

Sure it isn't all his fault like Adams or Sears but at the end of the day a GM gets graded on how the players he took panned out NOT how the ones he didn't panned out.
If Freeman stinks it up again, McCoy gets hurt again, Bowers/Clayborn can't stay on the field and the team fails then the results are what they are, Dom failed and deserves to be fired but it doesn't change the fact that he could only use what information he had at the time to make the moves he did, NOBODY knew Houston was going to get 15.5 sacks and stay clean, if they had he wouldn't have dropped to where he did and likely wouldn't have been there for us to take in the 2nd anyway.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 45993
Online
#42 : April 19, 2013, 11:59:37 AM

So it appears one does look at the performance history of the players a GM selects - or hindsight (or doesn't select) - when evaluating the GM.  I agree. 
: April 19, 2013, 12:07:15 PM dbucfan

\"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

benir0

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3134
Offline
#43 : April 19, 2013, 12:09:13 PM

When they drafted Freeman, they said that their future was on him.  It's still true, but it's not a surprise.

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21198
Offline
#44 : April 19, 2013, 12:12:18 PM

So it appears one does look at the performance history of the players a GM selects - or hindsight (or doesn't select) - when evaluating the GM.  I agree.

apparently it is when convenient
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Dominik on his 24-40 record ......... "My record is what it is" « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools