Bowles is an OKAY coach who is capable of getting the Bucs to a SB and winning . . .
We’ll agree to disagree on this one, bud.
and you may be right
Thats one thing that makes this an interesting discussion and hopefully keeps most of us coming back each season
definitely not thread worthy.
yeah . . because the threads here are SOOOOOOOO important that NO ONE --- not even the biggest faux internet bully -- would ever desecrate them . . like . . well . . ya know, this guy:
We’ll see who starts and gets more carries on Sunday. And the week after that. And the week after that. And the week after that. And the week after that.
Imagine keeping that LIE hidden WHILE TROLLING FOR FORTY PAGES . . almost an entire season.
I mean, who would do such a thing? when the threads are so "worthy."
Ya know who?
THE SAME TROLL (BIGGS3535) who STILL cant admit to it . . even when its IN PRINT
https://www.pewterreport.com/community/the-red-board/running-back-depth-2/paged/40/
Dont you like to say about other posters that they have no shame?
You're not ashamed of trolling for 3/4th of a seaosn absed on a lIE, right? Thats why you always INVITE this kind of look back, right?
"definitely not thread worthy' lmao
Bowles gets a tiny pass based on the talent but I'm not buying any of these "16th it points scored" bs. We played some of the worst offenses in the league down the stretch and the good teams we played early weren't exactly offensive juggernauts. Letting Atlanta go for 900 yards in 2 games is inexcusable. But overall he's not getting the most out of the limited talent... He's playing super soft defense and not getting off the field or forcing turnovers. Which is what made Coen's offense that much more impressive.
Context
Bowles Derangement Syndrome at it's finest.
1. 16th in points allowed isn't BS. It's only BS in your head because you guys want to believe the Bucs defense was in the 30s in points and yards. They weren't. They were in the teens.
2. The offense was just as much responsible for the Cowboys and Commanders losses as the defense but all fans and media blamed Bowles.
3. Coen's offense was so impressive in the 4th qtr of the playoff game they couldn't even get snaps and handoffs right.
Bucs fans and media are suffering from a derealization that the Bucs defense was out there giving up 30 points a game and the offense was perfect. The offense was better than the defense, yes. They have much better players across the board. But the offense was actually a problem in critical situations in some of the losses and the defense bailed out the offense in some of the wins.
16th in points allowed isn't BS
Just like 2023 7th in scoring was the only stat that mattered!!!
the reality is the statistical difference between the two seasons is probably closed with just a little better luck with injuries, let alone an actual upgrade in talent.
with either of those we likely win 22 games and/ot beat the Commanders
You're not ashamed of trolling for 3/4th of a season based on a LIE, right? Thats why you always INVITE this kind of look back, right?
everyone knows you’ll ignore this, never admit your past season White trolling (lol) and just continue on trolling
I'm not sure why this is so complicated...
Yes, how many points you give up matters.
But it also matters how many turnovers you force, your third down defense, and ability to get off the field.
And the Washington game is a PERFECT example of this.
The defense got destroyed but because Bowles played soft coverage and let us get cut by a thousand blades, the points allowed looks respectable.
But you can't score points when your defense is out there for over 2/3 of the game and can't get off the field on critical 3rd or 4th down conversations.
And the best part? Game on the line, tied up... Chance to force a punt and get the ball back... They did what they did all game. Slowly drove down the field and scored.
If the clock wasn't their objective they CLEARLY score a TD.
Again, context.
Bowles chose to be conservative. Bowles chose to rely on his defense. He did this 5 or 6 times this year and we lost.
So... We can make the talent excuse but Bowles doesn't get to use that both ways. If talent is the issue, stop relying on the talent.
SUPER SIMPLE STUFF
I'm not sure why this is so complicated...
Yes, how many points you give up matters.
But it also matters how many turnovers you force, your third down defense, and ability to get off the field.
And the Washington game is a PERFECT example of this.
The defense got destroyed but because Bowles played soft coverage and let us get cut by a thousand blades, the points allowed looks respectable.
But you can't score points when your defense is out there for over 2/3 of the game and can't get off the field on critical 3rd or 4th down conversations.
And the best part? Game on the line, tied up... Chance to force a punt and get the ball back... They did what they did all game. Slowly drove down the field and scored.
If the clock wasn't their objective they CLEARLY score a TD.
Again, context.
Bowles chose to be conservative. Bowles chose to rely on his defense. He did this 5 or 6 times this year and we lost.
So... We can make the talent excuse but Bowles doesn't get to use that both ways. If talent is the issue, stop relying on the talent.
SUPER SIMPLE STUFF
The Washington game is indeed a perfect example of Bowles Derangement Syndrome. Defense played more than well enough to win the game. The score was 17-13 in the 4th and we had the ball. The derealization is that you actually believe "the defense got destroyed".
And if they CLEARLY score a TD why did they only score 1 on the previous 5 drives that didn't start on the god damn 13 fucking yard line.
a perfect example of Bowles Derangement Syndrome.
Cool story, kiddo.
Now give us an astute breakdown of Todd’s other amazing traits:
- Leaving star/key players in the 3+ score games with a 99.97% chance of losing
- His passive approach to critical game defining moments
- His clock management
I’ll stick with the simple stuff, as I’m sure you’re busy preparing Todd’s bust for his upcoming induction into the coveted JC Hall of Fame.
And the Washington game is a PERFECT example of this.
Everybody knows we lost to Washington because we didn’t give Tucker 25 carries, as he would’ve had 483.4 yards and 7 TD’s.
I mean, he was averaging 19.3 yards per carry, when running on 2nd and 7, on grass fields, between the hours of 2:30pm and 3:30pm PST, with moderate cloud coverage, 75.9% humidity and temperatures averaging 81 degrees.
I'm not sure why this is so complicated...
It is NOT at all complicated ,but the last sentence below and specifically the part I put in bold, HIGHLIGHTS where there is a reasonable difference in views
Yes, how many points you give up matters.
But it also matters how many turnovers you force, your third down defense, and ability to get off the field.
And the Washington game is a PERFECT example of this.
The defense got destroyed but because Bowles played soft coverage and let us get cut by a thousand blades, the points allowed looks respectable
You attribute "soft coverage" (we played MAN repeatedly against their #1 WR, one of the best in the league) to a PREFERENCE by Bowles, as if he has lots of options and CHOSE THE WRONG ONE.
The reasonable alternative (referenced by Licht) is doing the best with THE LIMITED TALENT available, especially when Dean goes down. When Dean goes down the back up is Hayes and he gets beat for the TD.
So, when you describe it as a CHOICE that allows you to blame Bowles as opposed to actual CREDIT him for keeping the score low and keeping us in the game all the way to the end EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE GUYS LIKE HAYES ON THE FIELD. The Commanders SCORE less against the Bucs then they do against Detroit and AS I POINTED out move the ball BETTER against Detroit than the Bucs, but that is not a CREDIT to Bowles making the Commanders convert it all the way down the field and then actually having a GOAL LINE STOP (that the offense then choked away). Instead, it its a negative CHOICE that cost the Bucs the game . . even though we were in it until the end?
Thats the DIFFERENCE between your view and the point Licht has made now TWICE. Respectfully, it seem absurd to me that it would be a choice BUT that is how the most vocal with your view on Bowles described everything last season. Biggs (falsely) said Davis is traded because Bowles want to pay more zone lol. DH says that Diaby is out in the flat because Bowles wants him to cover, not because they are trying to get pressure.**
Its all SECOND GUESSING to conform with the pre-existing belief ("Bowles sucks") as opposed to reflecting what actually happened in the game, in my view. Again, totally get that reasonable minds can differ.
(** on the screen pass to the RB with Diaby in the flat. -- going off my memory -- Bowles should actually be criticized but its not for having Diaby in the flat, its for relying on the zone blitz so much that the Commanders game planned it. If you look at the play again and my memory is correct, the RB does NOT move over to the pre-snap pressure on the other side i.e., they saw the drop out coming and exploited it)
a perfect example of Bowles Derangement Syndrome.
Cool story, kiddo.
Now give us an astute breakdown of Todd’s other amazing traits:
- Leaving star/key players in the 3+ score games with a 99.97% chance of losing
- His passive approach to critical game defining moments
- His clock management
I’ll stick with the simple stuff, as I’m sure you’re busy preparing Todd’s bust for his upcoming induction into the coveted JC Hall of Fame.
I get that JC5100 is playing the super silly "Coen was bad" card, but JC's silliness is the NOT SO DISTANT cousin to downplaying the talent deficiencies in the defense and the injury issue.
It is not that far off because acknowledging one (defense need to be rebuilt and was heavily injured) does NOT mean you believe Bowles is a HOFer or even a competent HC. Its just acknowledging reality . . as expressed by Licht, Sr, JQ, the entire PR staff . . and most of the free world :-)
a perfect example of Bowles Derangement Syndrome.
Cool story, kiddo.
Now give us an astute breakdown of Todd’s other amazing traits:
- Leaving star/key players in the 3+ score games with a 99.97% chance of losing
- His passive approach to critical game defining moments
- His clock management
I’ll stick with the simple stuff, as I’m sure you’re busy preparing Todd’s bust for his upcoming induction into the coveted JC Hall of Fame.
1. He does leave the starters in too long.
2. He should have went for 2 vs Kansas City.
3. I don't think his clock management has detered us from winning games.
Simple stuff- 16th in points allowed. Stop acting like it's 30th.
And the Washington game is a PERFECT example of this.
Everybody knows we lost to Washington because we didn’t give Tucker 25 carries, as he would’ve had 483.4 yards and 7 TD’s.
I mean, he was averaging 19.3 yards per carry, when running on 2nd and 7, on grass fields, between the hours of 2:30pm and 3:30pm PST, with moderate cloud coverage, 75.9% humidity and temperatures averaging 81 degrees.
Sean Tucker runs instead of McMillan and Baker runs and we're playing in Philly round 2.
Sean Tucker runs instead of McMillan
The perils of being a coach.
I know this is a critical failure play but the failure is one of execution.
If they execute the handoff correctly he's likely in for a big gain.
There is a god-like figure in Buc lore who liked to say "no risk it, no biscuit." This play should be more "biscuit' than "risk it" given the number of times it was run during the season, but alas . . .
