The release of Bennett will rank as one of the all time worst moves made in Buc history only exceeded by the Doug Williams fiasco, Bo Jackson, and the trading of Steve Young. IMO Sure could have used Bennett this year. I am sure Bennett is smiling tremendously today!
I think that's a bit harsh. He was not released, he was an unrestricted FA. He took more money to play in Seattle. I think he's going to be an unrestricted FA again, after the Super Bowl. Does not signing him make him the fifth worst move? And what about Alvin Harper? Pretty bad move, could be a top four. Warren Sapp went on to have a 10 sack season with the Raiders.... poor decision? You win some you lose some and you keep going forward.What happen from now on counts. Maybe we sign Jared Allen and THAT becomes of the worst moves EVER! One one of the best moves EVER!And if Bennett is not smiling on playing in the Super Bowl than he's dead. Of course he is. His comments were still unnecessary and classless IMO.
Just musing, but the GM finishing his career the year after not re-signing a much needed DE might be an indicator.
The release of Bennett will rank as one of the all time worst moves made in Buc history only exceeded by the Doug Williams fiasco, Bo Jackson, and the trading of Steve Young. IMO Sure could have used Bennett this year. I am sure Bennett is smiling tremendously today!
I think that's a bit harsh. He was not released, he was an unrestricted FA. He took more money to play in Seattle. I think he's going to be an unrestricted FA again, after the Super Bowl. Does not signing him make him the fifth worst move? And what about Alvin Harper? Pretty bad move, could be a top four. Warren Sapp went on to have a 10 sack season with the Raiders.... poor decision? You win some you lose some and you keep going forward.What happen from now on counts. Maybe we sign Jared Allen and THAT becomes of the worst moves EVER! One one of the best moves EVER!And if Bennett is not smiling on playing in the Super Bowl than he's dead. Of course he is. His comments were still unnecessary and classless IMO.
I agree the comments were unnecessary but the fact remains the Bucs should have kept him. Just another move by the organization that made you say WTF?Every team makes mistakes pointing them out just shows that all decisions aren't necessarily the right ones. Like the Glazers promoting Morris and Dominik.
True. But for all the second guessing the fact is that IF the Bucs made such huge mistakes with releasing or not signing Bennett, Talib and Blount the fact remains they still COULD be signed as they are all unrestricted FA's in a month. Maybe their teams decide to re-up them all with huge contracts but I have my doubts. The Buccaneers will certainly add a player or two to the DE mix and I'm just not all that worried about it. Those guys at One Buc are doing nothing BUT evaluating players on and off the team now. I trust they know what they're looking at. Kind of have to.......
Just musing, but the GM finishing his career the year after not re-signing a much needed DE might be an indicator.
Odd, considering how many times I've been told that the Front Office has more information than the message board GM's and therefore can make better decisions.
Just musing, but the GM finishing his career the year after not re-signing a much needed DE might be an indicator.
Odd, considering how many times I've been told that the Front Office has more information than the message board GM's and therefore can make better decisions.
lol, way to prove you'r a stand-up guy Buggsy ^^^. Here I was thinking you would come on here to past you were wrong about: a) the big stage b) Schiano did not want Bennett because he was too small or c) that the Bucs couldv'e gotten Bennett for the same deal as Seattle.Now, note your carefully chosen use of the word "can" . . . .having more information does NOT = always making the correct decision, but if you think YOU actually have more information than an NFL front office . . . wow
True. But for all the second guessing the fact is that IF the Bucs made such huge mistakes with releasing or not signing Bennett, Talib and Blount the fact remains they still COULD be signed as they are all unrestricted FA's in a month. Maybe their teams decide to re-up them all with huge contracts but I have my doubts. The Buccaneers will certainly add a player or two to the DE mix and I'm just not all that worried about it. Those guys at One Buc are doing nothing BUT evaluating players on and off the team now. I trust they know what they're looking at. Kind of have to.......
Like everything so far with the new organization and decisions being made..
And the "bigger stage/bet on himself" is the newest "fact" we'll read from the Counselor ad nausea. Eventually, he's hoping someone will think it's an actual fact.
;)"After today’s Super Bowl, bringing back defensive end Michael Bennett will be the Seattle Seahawks’ highest priority according to NFL.com’s Ian Rappaport."
You mean a player playing on a Superbowl winning team is happy that he's with that team? I'm truly stunned.I never cease to be amazed at the lack of shame displayed by the good Counselor on this issue:
I didn't come away as I expected, which was to feel as if the Bucs made a catastrophic mistake. Lets see how the rest of free agency and the draft play out. Could the Bucs use Bennett? Absolutely. Can his sack totals be replaced? They should actually be doubled (AC/Bowers) even if the Bucs don't make another move.
AC had 7 sacks (I think) his first year, playing some of the time without McCoy. You think he should get 7 sacks this year playing with MCCoy and Bowers? If he does, Bennett was just replaced (almost) and we havent even counted Bowers stats. You think Bowers would do better than Bennett straight up? Why wouldn't he? Now, how about Bowers playing with GMC and AC at the other end (something Bennett did not have). You think Bowers should have Bennetts stats in him in that scenario? I would think so.How about GMC playing with Bowers and AC on each side? Think he should do better than having no one on the right and Bennett on the left?If we had 27 sacks last year with the make up of our D line -- a D line that includes AC and GMC and Bowers should out produce a DL that includes just GMC and Bennett.Injuries are always a concern, nothing is guaranteed, we need depth but we have the talent on the roster already to be a better D line
"and Tampa clearly didnt want Bennett" Count Tampa in the HUGE majority of NFL teams. The ONLY thing the guy could get was a 1 year deal with Seattle.It's not "the he said, Bucs said" that is interesting, it's the selective editing of Bennett's comments and actions to conform them with the conclusion that the Bucs were at fault (even though every team but Seattle agreed). I am not sure why THAT isnt incredibly clear
Many here are seemingly so sure that their analysis of Bennett's ability was not only superior to the Bucs (a professional organization that saw him every day and on tape) but to the entire league (professional teams with coaches scouts and tape) that it simply must be that something happened . . that's it . . there was a fallout . . because Bennett said so. How about the Bucs (and the rest of the league) just didnt place the value on Bennett that he placed on himself?
Many here are seemingly so sure that their analysis of Bennett's ability was not only superior to the Bucs (a professional organization that saw him every day and on tape) but to the entire league (professional teams with coaches scouts and tape) that it simply must be that something happened . . that's it . . there was a fallout . . because Bennett said so. How about the Bucs (and the rest of the league) just didnt place the value on Bennett that he placed on himself?
The good Counselor then thinks he's hit gold after an injury, that anybody paying attention already knew about, was reported.
Message board two-step:1 Bennett not resigned- end of the world, Bucs incompetent, Bucs pissed hom off, who knows if Bowers or Clayborn can play/stay healthy2. Bennett injured - injury is no big deal, pay no attention to prior comments lol
Why are people acting like a torn rotator cuff, for a D lineman, is some sort of career ending injury?
Simply, because that would validate the team's decision to not resign Bennett.
Talk about a Planet of the Apes moment. You were one of the biggest Chicken Little guys, you should be saying "oops, maybe they had another reason.. my bad". Lmao
LMAO, nice try but that's not my point, not the reason I posted that. Here, let me spell it out for you:My point is that if you look through the various Bennett threads there are many posters assigning some form of bad motive or incompetence to the Bucs because they didn't re-sign Bennett. Many of those same posters are also holding Bennett out as a VICTIM, in particular, selectively believing/crediting/quoting Bennett's "no love" comment while ignoring his promise to give the Bucs a chance to beat any offer. Turns out Bennett was a freaking LIAR because he certainly knew he had a rotator cuff injury and he ahd to know that colored the Bucs analysis, at a minimum.It also turns out . . . .as ridiculously uncontroversial as this is . . . that . . .. . . . the team knew more than all of us. That is the funny part, not the scope of the injury. I doubt the whole league knew of his injury and, if not, that still means a bunch of teams just did not pay him on the merits. In fact, anyone who thinks the injury is no big deal, then they just had no interest on the merits. But, clearly the Bucs knew and discount it if you wnat, but any reasonable person would count it as ANOTHER reason not to give the guy a long-term deal (btw, rotator cuff pretty important to a DE and a rehab that is less than certain too. Funny how that matters for Bowers and Clayborn, but not Bennett?)THE TEAM KNOWS MORE. They are not "incompetent." They make mistakes and decisions we disagree with, but they are still always in a better position to make those decisions than us . . . a lesson often missed by many and a lesson that sometimes causes people to overreact. The funny thing is that is completely understandable because we are all fans, but shouldnt the first comments out of the keyboards for some be "oops . . guess that explains it . . ." Instead, its "oh, that injury is nothing."
Bennett, of course, went on to play in every game this season.
Right, that means that all the heavy breathing about Bennett being wronged etc isn't really about Bennett. It's not about a "Buccaneer Man" getting cast aside or Bennett being treated unfairly in a "fallout,' or 'what happened to building through the draft," as some have argued in these threads. It is just about depth. Heck, it's not even about depth it's about a lack of depth in March :-)I think it will all work out fine. Bennett might be the next Freeney walking out the door, but then again he could also be the next Dezmon Briscoe
I guess that depends on your defintion of effectively. I think I saw Holder report that he believed Bennett injured his shoulder in November and I think he even said the Raiders game. Could be wrong, but as I recall that was about the half way point of the season. Through the Raiders game Bennett had 6 of his 9 sacks and 3 forced fumbles. After that game, only 3 more sacks (2 were in that home game against the Eagles, I think) and no forced fumbles, I think. I could be wrong about those stats, but I am not sure Bennett was as "effective" post rotator cuff injury. No doubt part of why the market dropped for him. He seems like he is not going ot get surgery, but either way, the ACTUAL dropoff for the Bucs was they lost a guy that was either going to miss part of the season (surgery) or produce about a sack every three games (playing w/ the injury, if the above stats are right). I mean, assuming that Bowers and/or Clayborn are not viewed as replacements. The Bucs didnt sign Selvie to replace Bennett, they "signed" Bowers.
Look, there's a reason that he got nothing from anyone (except Seattle). PFF said he struggled against first line RTs, so maybe it was just that simple, but the guy faded in the most important category for DEs after the Oakland game that several reporters claim was the one in which he seriously injured his shoulder. Clearly no one in the NFL thought of him as a "9 sack" DE and certainly not someone who was on the verge of double digit sacks. Hell, most of them didnt even think of the guy as decent depth if we are saying he "played through a KNOWN torn rotator cuff. Wouldnt every team in the league sign that guy to a long-term deal because if he actually played with a torn rotator cuff and got 9 sacks then he is a 13-16 sack guy when health right?
No, I was not suggesting that anyone said he was a 13-16 sack guy, just that that would be the reasonable conclusion if one believes he was playing with a torn rotator cuff while amassing 9 sacks. Somebody would have given him a long-term deal, let him have his surgery and then they would have had a guy that was going to produce double digit sacks. I think the truth is closer to himplaying in a contract year and unfortunately getting injured in Oakland. henplayed through it, but his production in the key stat for DEs looking for big money dropped off considerably.No big Bennett support (that I recall) argued that the Bucs should have signed him because he was a " 9 sack guy with a torn rotator cuff." Most that I recall just said "he was a 9 sack guy" It comes out that he torn his cuff and that gets morphed into he "played and got 9 sacks while having a torn cuff" Not sure that's actually true, but then again you also read things like Adrian Clayborn (who had 7.5 sacks his first year) may not be able to replace bennett's sacks because he had no sacks in the games before he was injured." I think Clayborn only had 1 sack in the first 3 games of 2011. The Bucs will be fine, maybe Bennett will get 9 sacks for Seattle this year.
I don't think stats work out linear, but an injured guy is less than his whole selfBennett wasn't going to get 9 sacks for the Bucs this year because absent an injury to someone else he wouldn't get the 1,000 snaps he got this year AND he himself is seriously injuredBoth Bowers and Clayborn can get 9 sacks. Clayborn had 7.5 in a year mostly w/o GMC. Bowers had a higher sack rate last year, I think.
And all of that idiocy is just from one thread out of dozens where the Counselor goes on and on about how letting Bennett wasn't a mistake by the team. No shame, whatsoever.
You mean a player playing on a Superbowl winning team is happy that he's with that team? I'm truly stunned.I never cease to be amazed at the lack of shame displayed by the good Counselor on this issue:###And all of that idiocy is just from one thread out of dozens where the Counselor goes on and on about how letting Bennett wasn't a mistake by the team. No shame, whatsoever.
your response is to quote me and not respond to your own comments, which were clearly wrong? Yeah, I guess that is what I expected . lol
And, still, the premier mission remains to either get Bowers to play better or draft a DE that will compliment Clayborn's play. Let's hope our guys get it right this time.
And, still, the premier mission remains to either get Bowers to play better or draft a DE that will compliment Clayborn's play. Let's hope our guys get it right this time.
+1
Damn Biggs, you can make the search function sing..... and yea, after all is said and done the bucs need a DE. Damnittohell
PA ^^^"do as I say, not as I do"lol
Damn Biggs, you can make the search function sing..... and yea, after all is said and done the bucs need a DE. Damnittohell
Got one in mind? Other than Clowney?
