Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: WHAT WOULD OUR RECORD HAVE BEEN WITH RB MICHAEL TURNER? « previous next »
Page: 1 2



Guest
#15 : December 29, 2008, 01:19:27 PM

Depends. Would the Bucs have actually used him like Atlanta did or kept up with the dink and dunk passing? The Falcons ran the ball 109 times more than the Bucs.

That couldnt possibly be because they had the 2nd leading rusher in the NFL and we had a 2nd string back for half the year. Nah that would be too obvious it has to be something more sinister with less facts where more assumptions are used, like Gruden hates the RB position in football

TOP SECRET

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#16 : December 29, 2008, 01:27:15 PM

What would our record have been if we had signed Brees and Turner?

What would our record have been if we had traded up to get Calvin Johnson to go with Brees?

What would our record have been if we had drafted Brian Westbrook?

What would our record have been if we had traded a 4th for Randy Moss?

What would our record have been if we had dealt for Jared Allen?

Seriously, I can do this all day, the point is, don't dwell on it... We will never know how something would've turned out.

nick77777

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1468
Offline
#17 : December 29, 2008, 01:31:33 PM

Better question who would win the superbowl if the sky fell on every team except the Bucs........ As for your question I really Like turner but more than that I like the run blocking scheme Atlanta and Denver run because that can turn a mediocre Running back into a great one.  I remember being out in denver when the Bronco's had their 2 superbowl runs and watching that line open up tunnels not hole freakin tunnels for TD to run through.  If we could adapt that I think our oline would do the same thing for our running backs




Guest
#18 : December 29, 2008, 01:37:23 PM

Better question, why wasnt Gruden a good enough coach to bring the sky down on all the other teams?

Maybe that ones in bad taste right now, he did lose 4 games in a row to miss the playoffs. Regardless iit was obvious that execution was the problem and not coaching. We just werent good enough, and theres nothign we couldve done coaching wise to win any of those 4 games aside from starting McCown over griese. Then again thats not coaching, that was a game day decision and theres no telling what McCown wouldve done in that environment

missed tackles, no pass rush, no coverage, nobody that wants to hit anybody on defense other than Ruud, no playmakers at WR outside BRyant, mediocre ground gamebprobably due to not having our #1 back. And terrible ST yesterday killed us. Just a borderline playoff team talentwise, and we got bounced out

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27805
Offline
#19 : December 29, 2008, 01:39:18 PM

Better question who would win the superbowl if the sky fell on every team except the Bucs........ As for your question I really Like turner but more than that I like the run blocking scheme Atlanta and Denver run because that can turn a mediocre Running back into a great one.  I remember being out in denver when the Bronco's had their 2 superbowl runs and watching that line open up tunnels not hole freakin tunnels for TD to run through.  If we could adapt that I think our oline would do the same thing for our running backs
Atlanta doesn't run anything like the Denver style. They ran the ZBS under Mora and the players and they hated it. Smith and Mularkey are both advocates of big bodies and power football and the Falcons players responded to it.

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

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27805
Offline
#20 : December 29, 2008, 01:40:13 PM

Depends. Would the Bucs have actually used him like Atlanta did or kept up with the dink and dunk passing? The Falcons ran the ball 109 times more than the Bucs.

That couldnt possibly be because they had the 2nd leading rusher in the NFL and we had a 2nd string back for half the year. Nah that would be too obvious it has to be something more sinister with less facts where more assumptions are used, like Gruden hates the RB position in football
There were threads on here after every game when Graham was healthy wondering why they weren't running more.

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



Guest
#21 : December 29, 2008, 01:44:52 PM

FRG

Exactly.  And that is why I say that it doesn't matter what the Bucs DO or DON'T do...there will always be those that rail regardless.  Having a good debate is all good, but the constant railing and bedwetting gets old.  As do the gazillion threads on the same topic.



Guest
#22 : December 29, 2008, 01:57:22 PM


There were threads on here after every game when Graham was healthy wondering why they weren't running more.

As hard as it is to believe, a home teams message board's perception isn't always reality. Through the 8 games Graham played this year at HB, he was on pace for roughly 260 carries. While Dunn was averaging through the first 8 games when Graham was healthy, to end the year with 180 carries. We were on pace for 450 carries until Graham got hurt, so I dont think you pointing out the message board's perception of things about this team is any kind of evidence

Also, again you are talking about the #2 rusher in teh NFL. I didnt say we would equal ATlantas carries if Graham was healthy, because we still wouldnt have the #2 rusher in football.

TBTrojan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3038
Offline
#23 : December 29, 2008, 02:01:31 PM

Instead of signing Warrick Dunn/EG and sending our leftover $24 million in cap money to Manchester United?  ;D ;D


I say 12-4 or 13-3.
And what would our record have been if we lucked into a real QB like Brady a few years ago.
It didn't happen so get over it, there is nothing saying Turner would have been half as good here. For all we know he might have blown his knee out on his first carry as a Buc.

benchwarmer69

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3966
Offline
#24 : December 29, 2008, 02:02:53 PM

Without a good QB it wouldn't have mattered anyway.  [banghead]


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31640
Offline
#25 : December 29, 2008, 02:44:09 PM

Depends. Would the Bucs have actually used him like Atlanta did or kept up with the dink and dunk passing? The Falcons ran the ball 109 times more than the Bucs.

That couldnt possibly be because they had the 2nd leading rusher in the NFL and we had a 2nd string back for half the year. Nah that would be too obvious it has to be something more sinister with less facts where more assumptions are used, like Gruden hates the RB position in football
There were threads on here after every game when Graham was healthy wondering why they weren't running more.

Some were valid, some weren't.


The Q

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1842
Offline
#26 : December 29, 2008, 02:51:29 PM

I would say the record would have been 9-7 with Turner.



The BUCS are gonna surprise people this year!

GameTime

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19642
Online
#27 : December 29, 2008, 02:51:47 PM

im gonna say 9-7 too.

\"Lets put the O back in Country\"
Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: WHAT WOULD OUR RECORD HAVE BEEN WITH RB MICHAEL TURNER? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools