There was a series of events that led to him leaving the team. What you guys are doing is ignoring all of the things the team (Brady and Arians) did and blaming it all on AB because he's AB.
You continue to act as if everything the player said is/was accurate. It's not.
There was a path to AB playing the playoffs. They chose a different path that backfired. When you guys are given the path that would have led to AB playing in the playoffs you will make every excuse to not hear it.
I have some questions regarding this "path" you are advocating for: How many other players get to not play while still get six-figure game checks whenever they want? Is it just for the prima-donna, headache WR or can other guys take advantage of this genius idea? I'm sure that would lead to very cohesive locker room.
I remember when Gruden got shit for letting Galloway sit out early-week practices. That was one thing. Letting a guy sit out games when cleared to play, while still getting paid, is moronic. I'm not sure there is a football coach on the planet that would agree with you. Keep your front office job.
There was a path to AB playing the playoffs. They chose a different path . ..
Your argument has morphed to an after the fact hypothetical "path" they could have taken.
You continue to act as if everything the player said is/was accurate. It's not.
Exactly.
There was a series of events that led to him leaving the team. What you guys are doing is ignoring all of the things the team (Brady and Arians) did and blaming it all on AB because he's AB.
You continue to act as if everything the player said is/was accurate. It's not.
There was a path to AB playing the playoffs. They chose a different path that backfired. When you guys are given the path that would have led to AB playing in the playoffs you will make every excuse to not hear it.
I have some questions regarding this "path" you are advocating for: How many other players get to not play while still get six-figure game checks whenever they want? Is it just for the prima-donna, headache WR or can other guys take advantage of this genius idea? I'm sure that would lead to very cohesive locker room.
I remember when Gruden got shit for letting Galloway sit out early-week practices. That was one thing. Letting a guy sit out games when cleared to play, while still getting paid, is moronic. I'm not sure there is a football coach on the planet that would agree with you. Keep your front office job.
Brown was 33 and injured, we won the division by 4 games and didn't have a realistic path to the #1 seed. Players in that situation rest all the time. The Jeff Garcia situation in 2007 was nearly identical. He was injured, "cleared" to come back and play, but they sat him again the last game and half because they couldn't get a bye week and couldn't drop below 4. Let me guess, ThAT's DiFfErEnT.
Brown was 33 and injured, we won the division by 4 games and didn't have a realistic path to the #1 seed.
They didn't have a "realistic" path? They finished tied with Green Bay for the best record in the NFC at 13-4. With two weeks left in the regular season, there was a realistic path. Hell, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady were playing in Week 18. Antonio Brown should have been playing in Week 17.
You can keep talking about how injured Brown was, all while ignoring his performance the previous week while also "injured", if you like. It's not getting you anywhere. There is a reason you have no interest in addressing Brown's performance the previous week vs. Carolina, as it annihilates the points you are attempting to make.
Players in that situation rest all the time. The Jeff Garcia situation in 2007 was nearly identical. He was injured, "cleared" to come back and play, but they sat him again the last game and half because they couldn't get a bye week and couldn't drop below 4. Let me guess, ThAT's DiFfErEnT.
Your guess is correct, because you and I both know it's different. The 2007 Buccaneers playoff seed was locked when Garcia sat the final game of the regular season in lieu of the JC All-Star, Luke McCown. There was no difference between winning and losing. That is when players are rested, when playoff seeding is locked. That wasn't the case for the 2021 Buccaneers with two weeks remaining in the regular season.
You can come at this from whichever direction you like, but you're still going to be wrong.
In a world where intellectually honesty required legs this AB discussion would be a wheelchair demo derby
Brown was 33 and injured, we won the division by 4 games and didn't have a realistic path to the #1 seed.
They didn't have a "realistic" path? They finished tied with Green Bay for the best record in the NFC at 13-4. With two weeks left in the regular season, there was a realistic path. Hell, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady were playing in Week 18. Antonio Brown should have been playing in Week 17.
You can keep talking about how injured Brown was, all while ignoring his performance the previous week while also "injured", if you like. It's not getting you anywhere. There is a reason you have no interest in addressing Brown's performance the previous week vs. Carolina, as it annihilates the points you are attempting to make.
Players in that situation rest all the time. The Jeff Garcia situation in 2007 was nearly identical. He was injured, "cleared" to come back and play, but they sat him again the last game and half because they couldn't get a bye week and couldn't drop below 4. Let me guess, ThAT's DiFfErEnT.
Your guess is correct, because you and I both know it's different. The 2007 Buccaneers playoff seed was locked when Garcia sat the final game of the regular season in lieu of the JC All-Star, Luke McCown. There was no difference between winning and losing. That is when players are rested, when playoff seeding is locked. That wasn't the case for the 2021 Buccaneers with two weeks remaining in the regular season.
You can come at this from whichever direction you like, but you're still going to be wrong.
1. Packers had to lose to both the 7-8 Vikings and 3-12 Lions for us to be the #1 seed. Like I said, not a realistic path.
2. 2007 Bucs were not locked into their seed when they pulled starters vs SF. They could have finished 11-5 and been the #3 seed over the 10-6 Seahawks. Should have done your research before typing all of that.
3. As for Brown vs the Panthers, he played but wasn't fully healthy. He played well but his numbers were inflated because Brady was throwing him short passes at the snap to get his incentives. He also wasn't fully practicing. Like I said, should have sat him, cut the check and he would have been playing in the playoffs.
There was a series of events that led to him leaving the team. What you guys are doing is ignoring all of the things the team (Brady and Arians) did and blaming it all on AB because he's AB.
You continue to act as if everything the player said is/was accurate. It's not.
There was a path to AB playing the playoffs. They chose a different path that backfired. When you guys are given the path that would have led to AB playing in the playoffs you will make every excuse to not hear it.
I have some questions regarding this "path" you are advocating for: How many other players get to not play while still get six-figure game checks whenever they want? Is it just for the prima-donna, headache WR or can other guys take advantage of this genius idea? I'm sure that would lead to very cohesive locker room.
I remember when Gruden got shit for letting Galloway sit out early-week practices. That was one thing. Letting a guy sit out games when cleared to play, while still getting paid, is moronic. I'm not sure there is a football coach on the planet that would agree with you. Keep your front office job.
Brown was 33 and injured, we won the division by 4 games and didn't have a realistic path to the #1 seed. Players in that situation rest all the time. The Jeff Garcia situation in 2007 was nearly identical. He was injured, "cleared" to come back and play, but they sat him again the last game and half because they couldn't get a bye week and couldn't drop below 4. Let me guess, ThAT's DiFfErEnT.
who said anything about the #1 seed?
Bucs finished at 13-4 and the Cowboys and Rams finished at 12-5
it was all about getting homefield against a team like the Rams who dominated us earlier in the year
Turns out that homefield didnt help being down 27-3 at one point in the playoff game but strategically that was the only team and on the road that would be our kryptonite
1. Packers had to lose to both the 7-8 Vikings and 3-12 Lions for us to be the #1 seed. Like I said, not a realistic path.
This is true. Division winners never lose multiple games to lesser division opponents. It happens damn-near every year in damn-near every division.
And the Packers did lose to the 3-12 Lions in Week 18. At the start of Week 17, it wasn't unrealistic for the Bucs to play for the #1 seed. Refuse the itch to be a dumbass.
2. 2007 Bucs were not locked into their seed when they pulled starters vs SF. They could have finished 11-5 and been the #3 seed over the 10-6 Seahawks. Should have done your research before typing all of that.
Going into the last week of the season, Seattle was 10-5 and Tampa was 9-6. When you were compiling all of your research, I bet you noticed who had the tiebreaker - and it wasn't Tampa.
The playoff seeding was wrapped up.
3. As for Brown vs the Panthers, he played but wasn't fully healthy.
Thank you. End of discussion.
I expected better from you Biggs. The Packers clinched the #1 seed after their win over the Vikings, their starters only played a half or less vs the Lions. Don't act like the Packers would have lost that game if they needed it.
Ignorning Week 16 of 2007 is disengenious of you Biggs. Bucs pulled starters in the 2nd half of that game and lost, which then and only then locked them into the #4 seed. If they won those last 2 and Seattle still lost to Atlanta the Bucs would have been the #3 seed.
If you just look no further than they guys NFL salaries grievances it should make you very skeptical of ANYTHING AB has said, ESPECIALLY when you consider this thread is about his bankruptcy filing.
He filed a salary grievance against the Patriots. It was settled when the Pats needed cap room
He filed a $30 million grievance against the Raiders CLAIMING HE WAS CUT . . . until the Raiders produced his text messages showing his request for a release. . and the grievance disappeared.
He was setting up EXACTLY the same thing with the Bucs. He even claimed he would sue them for cutting him over an "injury." I dont believe he ever did and I dont think he ever had the surgery he claimed to need.
Maybe he was too busy flopping as a rapper
https://www.outkick.com/nfl/antonio-brown-gives-laughably-bad-rap-performance-during-music-festival
I was excited to see him come here but then to piss it all away with the antics during a game was so disappointing to me. A man gifted with all that talent yet never to grow up.
