When you compare the 2022 opening depth chart to the projected 2023 opening depth chart, you get:
QB - New Starter
RB - New Starter
TE - New Starter
LT - New Starter
LG - New Starter
RG - New Starter
RT - New Starter
______________________________
LDE - New Starter
RDE - New Starter
LCB - New Starter
SS - New Starter
______________________________
KR - New Starter
PR - New Starter
K - New Starter
That's 11/22 starters on Offense/Defense and damn-near all of the specialists (save Camarda) that are new starters. That's just the starters. We'll have to wait for final cuts, but a large number of the back-ups are new to the team as well. Also, you have a new OC with a new system for these new and old starters to learn.
lolz @ "essentially the same team, same head coach."
The bottom line is the Professor has been saying for months that this roster wasn't going to change very much, even giving a long list of players that were "locks" for 2023. Needless to say it didn't take very long for that list to start falling apart as multiple players were either cut, traded, or simply signed with other teams. The roster - starters and backups - is quite different from 2022. There is really only one dingleberry that believes and continues to believe otherwise - despite all factual evidence to the contrary presented. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make that ignorant equine drink.
we all are holding out hope that baker is the guy but when looking at the depth of this team;
we remained the same or downgraded in all position rooms except offensive line and defensive line when comparing to 2022
One can maybe argue we upgraded there but would really depend how the rookie class performs this year
when comparing to say 2021, this team is worse in every positional group!
That's 11/22 starters on Offense/Defense and damn-near all of the specialists (save Camarda) that are new starters. That's just the starters.
“iT’s eSsEnTiAlLy tHe sAmE tEaM”
Derp…
OK dudes, you want to start this all over again. I count 44 players still on the roster from last year. Only a handful of meaningful players signed with other teams, literally maybe five or so?, signed with other teams, others retired or as as yet unsigned. That doesn't count as a major roster turnover in my book. It's nothing more than a normal year in the NFL.
From Over The Cap: "To say NFL rosters are unstable is certainly an understatement. On average only 56% of players return from one year to the next and two years out it is just around 35%." The Bucs will be well higher than 56% roster retention when the final 53 are announced. 56% would be about 30, not 44. Even if a couple of those don't make it, we are still at about 40 returnees. There are always changes. That's life in the NFL. That doesn't mean the Bucs are undergoing a major rebuilding effort.
If they go 4-13 as T-Kraz say, then there will be an overhaul of course. Right now, there is no overhaul underway. Licht isn't on board with that. This is his roster he put together. Bowles isn't on board with that. He'll be fired if he doesn't produce this year. I don't know who is on board with that other than the people in the media who have no stake in the team.
That doesn't count as a major roster turnover in my book.
"Your book" was also the one who said Brady was no better than Dalton.
So, yeah, your book isn't worth the paper it was written on.
From Over The Cap: "To say NFL rosters are unstable is certainly an understatement. On average only 56% of players return from one year to the next and two years out it is just around 35%." The Bucs will be well higher than 56% roster retention when the final 53 are announced. 56% would be about 30, not 44. Even if a couple of those don't make it, we are still at about 40 returnees. There are always changes. That's life in the NFL. That doesn't mean the Bucs are undergoing a major rebuilding effort.
Blah, blah, blah.
Whether you'd like to accept it or not, a 50% turnover in starters is not "essentially the same team".
The fact that this needs to be explained to you is mind-blowing.
OK dudes, you want to start this all over again.
Wrong again, bud.
You're the one who started it (again).
We're simply the ones finishing it (again).
That doesn't count as a major roster turnover in my book.
Your "book" had Donovan Smith, Shaq Mason, Leonard Fournette, Ryan Succop, Rakeem Nunez-Roches, & Blaine Gabbert all coming back for 2023. That list has four starters and two backups - poof, all gone. Your book, be damned.
I don't think you can call it a rebuild when the 10 highest paid players not named Brady will be back: Godwin, Vea, Barrett, Smith, Evans, Davis, Jensen, David, Gage, Mason. D. White, Fournette, Wirfs, Succop, Tryon, Nunez-Roches, Hall, Gabbert, Winfield, Goedeke, Trask, R. White, Nunez-Roches, Hainsey, Vaughn, Wirfs, Otton, Camarda, McCollum, Kieft, Dean (franchise tag). All coming back.
Possibly losing: Brady, David, Hicks, Jones, Gholston, Brate, Rudolph, Bunting, Neal, Edwards, Nelson, but we may keep half of those.
So I'd say the turnover will be minimal. Same HC, same GM. You can't call 2023 a rebuild IMO.
Your "book" is pretty meaningless, with every player in bold from your quote being gone. The roster turnover has been anything but minimal.
First, you are confusing "roster" and "starters". You well know that I was talking about starters. But lets examine the change in starters and how it might indicate a change in the team's goals and outlook:That doesn't count as a major roster turnover in my book.
"Your book" was also the one who said Brady was no better than Dalton.
So, yeah, your book isn't worth the paper it was written on.
From Over The Cap: "To say NFL rosters are unstable is certainly an understatement. On average only 56% of players return from one year to the next and two years out it is just around 35%." The Bucs will be well higher than 56% roster retention when the final 53 are announced. 56% would be about 30, not 44. Even if a couple of those don't make it, we are still at about 40 returnees. There are always changes. That's life in the NFL. That doesn't mean the Bucs are undergoing a major rebuilding effort.
Blah, blah, blah.
Whether you'd like to accept it or not, a 50% turnover in starters is not "essentially the same team".
The fact that this needs to be explained to you is mind-blowing.
OK dudes, you want to start this all over again.
Wrong again, bud.
You're the one who started it (again).
We're simply the ones finishing it (again).
You say 11 starters were changed.
Wirfs switched. LG has always been fluid. 1 year rentals Hicks and Mason. Washed up/retired: Rudolph, Brate, Fournette, Succop, Gholston and Brady. None of them are currently on a roster of another team. Correct me if I'm wrong there. Bunting and Stewart moved on because of salary. Those two would be your evidence.
This is all business as usual in the NFL with every team every year. You want to nitpick about my words, Biggs, but you can't refute my point that this is just business as usual in the NFL and that the Bucs are not in a rebuild mode. You choose to avoid that point, rather than address it. OK have your fun. But isn't the point of a debate to get to the point?
How about, as an example, the 2022 "run it back again" Bucs of 2022 vs. 2021. Nobody said they were in a transition year. Lets compare the impact players who were lost:
2021: Gronk, Marpet, Cappa, Pierre Paul, Whitehead
2022: Brady, Brate, Hicks, Bunting, Fournette, Gholston, Mason, Succop.
How can you even compare? The losses from 22 to 23, Brady aside, were replaceable players, and they've been replace with equal or better players. You lost three HOF or ROH players in Gronk, Marpet and Pierre Paul. We lost one this year, Brady.
The Bucs were "running it back" in 2022 and "transition year" 2023, and yet the changes were much more significant that 2022 year than they are in 2023.
It all comes down to Brady. Was Brady ...
A) like the national media and many Bucs fans believe, holding a flawed team together, covering up weaknesses, making up for mistakes? Was his leadership and talent the main reason the Bucs were even able to make it as far as they did last year? Or....
B) was he a player who was distracted, caused distractions with his personal drama, talent on the decline, forcing the coach to retire and be replaced in mid-stream? Was the team unable to move forward and be on the same page because of these distractions?
This is really the crux of it this offseason. What is the real truth? Based on predictions and comments of the Media, sports books and even Bucs media (TKraz) and fans, the answer is "A" for most people. My choice is "B".
The Bucs were "running it back" in 2022 and "transition year" 2023, and yet the changes were much more significant that 2022 year than they are in 2023.
You are going to be hard-pressed to find anyone to agree with you that "changes were much more significant that 2022 year than they are in 2023," and there are a lot of fuggin' morons on this board. Not to mention, there was nothing to "run back" in 2022. 2021 was when they "running back" to the Superbowl, after retaining every single starter on the team. Your analysis continues to be laughable.
No doubt Bucs lost some key players last year (AB, Gronk, Marpet, Suh, JPP) but they will were considered an NFC favorite. Second odds only to buffalo in superbowl so clearly the expectations were still high
The argument here is not so much turnover this year versus last year but “how hard is management trying”
they aren’t purposefully tanking by any stretch but they also aren’t gunning for championships like they did the last 3 years
we still have some key and older pieces from the Super Bowl team…but management is showing to me that whether they win 4-7-10 games, it doesn’t matter really in terms of the rebuild plan
they are taking the salary cap medicine this year
Yes they are taking their salary cap medicine because they essentially didn't have a choice. I guess it's assumed that there was an option to push some of the Brady money into future years, but we don't know whether Brady was willing to do that. The end result is we took a hit on the cap this year, and I don't think it would have been responsible for Licht to try to push money into the future.No doubt Bucs lost some key players last year (AB, Gronk, Marpet, Suh, JPP) but they will were considered an NFC favorite. Second odds only to buffalo in superbowl so clearly the expectations were still high
The argument here is not so much turnover this year versus last year but “how hard is management trying”
they aren’t purposefully tanking by any stretch but they also aren’t gunning for championships like they did the last 3 years
we still have some key and older pieces from the Super Bowl team…but management is showing to me that whether they win 4-7-10 games, it doesn’t matter really in terms of the rebuild plan
they are taking the salary cap medicine this year
But good teams continue to restock regardless of the cap situation. The Steelers, Packers, Patriots have ups and downs, but they don't take a year off because of cap problems. The Packers got rid of Rodgers. Nobody is saying they are rebuilding. The Steelers moved on from Roethlisberger. They continue to field a competitive team. The Bucs aspire to be a team like that, and I'm not saying they've achieved that by any means. But that's what you aspire to, to be a team that continues to restock mostly through the draft and is competitive every year, not a team who took their shot and now have to suffer through another five years of losing.... or ten.
This year will go a long way towards showing which kind of team the Bucs are. A perennial loser, as they have been in the past, who had their day in the sun and now back to reality, or have we progressed and now are a team who can compete year in and year out.
No doubt Bucs lost some key players last year (AB, Gronk, Marpet, Suh, JPP) but they will were considered an NFC favorite. Second odds only to buffalo in superbowl so clearly the expectations were still high
Correct. The Over/Under in Wins is another metric to verify this point:
2022 Over/Under Wins - 11.5
2023 Over/Under Wins - 6.5
I'm not sure why there is such a big difference, when I have the Professor telling me the teams are "essentially the same" from 2022 to 2023.
The argument here is not so much turnover this year versus last year but “how hard is management trying”
The Professor is definitely arguing about the amount of turnover, and has been for months. Now, he's doing a piss-poor job. But that is his argument.
You are correct as to what the argument should be. But that's not the route the Professor is taking.
The Packers got rid of Rodgers. Nobody is saying they are rebuilding.
Nobody? There are actually quite a few, including one of their players:
It's pretty easy to find this stuff, Professor. Your penchant for posting things that are verifiably incorrect continues.
Even with less chances in the line up it wouldn’t be “essentially the same team” because they are installing an entirely new offense and trying to reassemble a pass rush (ie drafting d line doesn’t usually mean immediate results because even premium rookies have to adapt/develop) for a defense that relies on pass rush.
the convo is almost impossible to follow but it looks like it went from “essentially the same team” to “okay different payers but should still be about the same.” Lol. Now, back to “essentially the same?”
on a separate note hard to understand why traffic is so low on the RB
lol
No doubt Bucs lost some key players last year (AB, Gronk, Marpet, Suh, JPP) but they will were considered an NFC favorite. Second odds only to buffalo in superbowl so clearly the expectations were still high
Correct. The Over/Under in Wins is another metric to verify this point:
2022 Over/Under Wins - 11.5
2023 Over/Under Wins - 6.5
I'm not sure why there is such a big difference, when I have the Professor telling me the teams are "essentially the same" from 2022 to 2023.
The argument here is not so much turnover this year versus last year but “how hard is management trying”
The Professor is definitely arguing about the amount of turnover, and has been for months. Now, he's doing a piss-poor job. But that is his argument.
You are correct as to what the argument should be. But that's not the route the Professor is taking.
The Packers got rid of Rodgers. Nobody is saying they are rebuilding.
Nobody? There are actually quite a few, including one of their players:
It's pretty easy to find this stuff, Professor. Your penchant for posting things that are verifiably incorrect continues.
As for the Packers, - Baktiari from that article: "I'm not saying that we're going to be bad. I'm not saying we're going to be good. I don't know and that's the beauty. No one really knows how good they are. We start the season, everyone is batting 1.000. No one has any losses. No one has any wins. And let the season play out however it may be." So he's saying yes you can call it a rebuild but he's not planning on a losing season. We'll see if he's just talking, or if he means it. I don't see the Packers being a team that would take a 4-13 season lying down, as apparently some think the Bucs would do. Since 2000 the Packers have had 17 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons. The worst season was 6-10. After they won the Superbowl they had six more winning seasons in a row.
the convo is almost impossible to follow but it looks like it went from “essentially the same team” to “okay different payers but should still be about the same.” Lol. Now, back to “essentially the same?”
The flip-flopping has been entertaining to watch, no doubt.
