Read what I said. The Glazer boys ran the daily operations. I never said they didn't. I said Malcom had final say. If it was just a toy he bought for his kids, he wouldn't even be at the Super Bowl. I saw more interest in the team from him than his sons. The kids have always ran the daily operations, but Malcom always had the final veto, since it was his team. A lot of stuff changed after his stroke and the purchase of ManU.
Read what I said. The Glazer boys ran the daily operations. I never said they didn't. I said Malcom had final say. If it was just a toy he bought for his kids, he wouldn't even be at the Super Bowl. I saw more interest in the team from him than his sons. The kids have always ran the daily operations, but Malcom always had the final veto, since it was his team. A lot of stuff changed after his stroke and the purchase of ManU.
Really? Find me an article that says Malcom had final veto powers then, or are you just talking out of your ass since I found something that contradicts what you say? A lot has changed since 2004 because the Glazers never wanted to be in cap hell again and they have made sure of that since.
You can't be serious. You are telling me the guy that actually OWNS the team. The guy who you always actually saw in the owner's box. You are telling me he didn't have final veto power over his kids? Really? Think about that one for a minute than get back to me. Think hard. I have a PC that I bought for both me and my kids to enjoy. Nowadays they seem to be on it far more than me. I entrust them to the daily "operation" of the PC with certain stipulations. If they want to do something I disgree with, I have the final veto power over them. If Malcom didn't have the final veto, he wouldn't be the owner. The kids would be the co-owners. They aren't. Malcom is, or at least was (not sure what the current legal status is).It really amazes me people don't think these things through. Malcome, not the Glazer boys, bought and OWNED the team. If he told his sons who to hire or fire, you can bet your last dollar that it happened. There were a lot of things that changed after the team bought ManU and cleared up cap space (less you forget). They had plenty of room the last 3 years Gruden was here, but he wasn't able to bring in some players he really wanted because the team wasn't allowed to spend the money. Despite this, Gruden still won games, but wasn't as consistent, since he didn't have the talent on both sides of the ball.
If it was just a toy he bought for his kids, he wouldn't even be at the Super Bowl.
that's some funny stuff right there.
And ABuccsFan, I don't "love" Gruden. I'm just able to see the situation for what it was and what a number of insider articles pointed out.
I Guess you missed all the articles about Gruden being a front runner, and only able to achieve success when things are running smoothly with no adversity, and no ability to overcome adversity and rally his team. A huge quality any good HC must have. Gruden would have crumbled under the MRSA/Freeman controversy earlier this season.
just how much crow would the glazers have to eat to admit they made a gigantic ,rediculous move b y firing on e of the b est coachs in the nfl....and then go ahead and hire him back and give him free reign.
Yeah Your back...Glad to see ya bud....OBD
And ABuccsFan, I don't "love" Gruden. I'm just able to see the situation for what it was and what a number of insider articles pointed out.
I Guess you missed all the articles about Gruden being a front runner, and only able to achieve success when things are running smoothly with no adversity, and no ability to overcome adversity and rally his team. A huge quality any good HC must have. Gruden would have crumbled under the MRSA/Freeman controversy earlier this season.
Opinion articles. The fact is Gruden took the 2005 and 2007 squads, with serious lack of talent, to the playoffs, and had the 2008 team at 9-3 before Monte threw in the towel to be with Lane. That team was playing quite well and probably would have finished with 11 wins and might have had a shot at a run in the playoffs. But...yeah...all of this other BS opinion stuff is what counts...right? As I said, the man won, as a matter of FACT, with less talented rosters than just about any coach I have seen. Period. Nothing you have said changes that simple fact. For whatever reason, you hated the guy. Why? Did he kick you in the nuts or something? Might explain a few things.
That is the key problem. While I agreed with letting Dungy go because he didn't seem to understand the need for a more capable offense, the Glazers really lost it after buying ManU and Malcom had his stroke. The boys have been running it fully unchecked since and have often failed to have the Bucs as their number one priority. Shuffling the deck repeatedly will not get this team anywhere, and they have issue understanding where to place blame at times. I hope they are smarter with this next hire. And, assuming they get a good pick-up, they need to back off and let the coach and GM make this team a winner, and give them a few years to do so.
you say that the glazer boys dont have the Bucs as their #1 priority, but you also say they need to back off to let the team become a winner? the 2 statements dont match imo.
Read what I said. The Glazer boys ran the daily operations. I never said they didn't. I said Malcom had final say. If it was just a toy he bought for his kids, he wouldn't even be at the Super Bowl. I saw more interest in the team from him than his sons. The kids have always ran the daily operations, but Malcom always had the final veto, since it was his team. A lot of stuff changed after his stroke and the purchase of ManU.
again, the same thing. you state that the glazer boys ran the daily operations...but that malcolm was more interested because he had an alleged veto power?
As I said, the man won, as a matter of FACT, with less talented rosters than just about any coach I have seen. Period.
he did win, some. but he had a very abrasive personality and would not find a long term answer at QB. a longterm answer at QB is needed. belicheck wins more with less imo. he won 11 games with matt cassell. he won 11 this year without a WR or TE, and not all that much to brag about on defense. but he found a QB.
You don't understand what I meant by backing off and what ManU did. The finances and the desire to focus on creating a winning organization is what was missing. By backing off, I meant they need to let the football people do what they need to do without micromanaging them. Just give them enough resources to get the job done.Seriously, do you honestly believe Gruden didn't want a long term QB here? Really? Chris Simms was shoved on him, and he had to get whatever veteran FA QB he could get (pickings were quite slim during that span); i.e. what FA QB was available and management would allow him to spend the money on. Even Garcia wasn't his top choice, but it was the best he could get in here that fit his system, and he managed to make both of these QB's lead the team to the playoffs. The only really bad seasons we had with him were 2004 and 2006. The 2003 season was very close to being a playoff season, but the injuries to Kelley, Alstott, Jurevicious, Lynch, and Sapp, on an aging team, not too mention the whole Keyshawn saga, all led to the team falling a couple games short of the playoffs. Just think, the really poor 2004 and 2006 rosters were slightly upgraded and both made the playoffs.The whole abrasive personality thing is really overblown. Some of the best coaches in the league are bigger pricks to their players than Jon ever was.
