Blount, K2 and Talib and more

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #21944
    AlecEiffel
    Participant

    Earlier the Bucs FO was actually criticized for these three deals. Talib is inactive, K2 suspended (?) and Blount an afterthought on a team with depth issue at RB (he had 5 carries but for a good average)Mike James has done well in his role as Earnest Graham Part II. We didn't get much from Demps. I don't recall what we did with the Talib pick, but he is his same up and down self. Our current TE is doing well, although he appears to be a Schiano guy more than a FO guy. Lots to be unhappy about and plenty of legitimate criticism of the coach and FO bit this earlier criticism was silly. The more relevant criticism lies in the horrible returns they have gotten from premium picks (recent picks bring the possible exception)Wonder if big changes are coming?

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...

    #43694
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    This team would still be better with those three on the team IMO.James had too many carries for a single game and that type of play is punishing on a back when there are 8 games to go.  That is the same argument used to justify why Bennett was let go (Bowers would be taking over).  Assuming Bowers becomes NFL starter quality, you don't let depth go just because.K2's suspension will be up soon and if he was still with the team it would give the Bucs a double threat at TE with Wright and more option for Glennon.Talib with Revis would form the better m2m duo in the league.And the biggest criticism I have of Schiano/Dom regime thus far is Meredith.  Dom wanted to trade away Meredith for what reason?  Because he wasn't a starter?  Meredith showed he was good depth last year and the Bucs had the itch to want to trade away that depth.  And the Bucs coaching staff was stubborn about playing Meredith as well but he came through once more when given a chance.Building a football team isn't just about starters, but also about depth and the overall roster make up.  The goal of team building to accumulate talent not trade it away for peanuts.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43695
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    This team would still be better with those three on the team IMO.

    Putting aside that that ^^^ comment only reflects half the conversations (i.e., you have to look at trading them THEN not just would you want them on the team now), I don't know how anyone could possibly think that unless we were playing Madden. All those players come with the baggage and you can't separate that out (unless you're playing Madden).  Having James is WAY better than Blount because he does everything and is EG-like in terms of the team.  In a Madden world, yes it would be nice to have a silent, healthy, game-only version of Talib playing opposite Revis, but that's not the real world . . its Madden.  Same with K2.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43696
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Those tree are knuckleheads, spare parts, not cogs in a long term plan. All will be gone soon from the NFL. Wouldn’t want them on my team.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43697
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I disagree.The baggage that those players "bring" has been dwarfed by the other baggage this season.  And it is hard to outdo the antics of Talib but this entire season has been a raging dumpster fire of bad public relations for the Bucs.  Also, having depth has nothing to do with "Madden".Reality is this if we accept to honestly examine what you are asking:1. Have the players that were discarded been replaced adequately? You are arguing that they have while I disagree (biggest one being the DE and CB positions which are paramount to NFL wins).2. Have the Bucs adequately been paid for the players they traded away? It could be argued that Talib was gone no matter what but I don't see how Demps is adequate replacement for Blount.  Demps is pretty much a utility/gadget player for an NFL offense that is built on the pound and ground strategy (completely out of place).  Demps' value will increase with a new coaching staff that has a wide open offensive attack on the other hand. You don't trade away (Blount) or cut(Hillis) if you want to hand the ball off to a RB 30+ per game.  That is where depth becomes important.  And please note Martin is out so that reinforces why the ground and pound strategy require you load up on RB's that can take the load.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43698
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I disagree.The baggage that those players "bring" has been dwarfed by the other baggage this season . . . .

    actually, that means you don't disagree.  Note that you go on to raise other issues.(Btw, Demps was the replacement for Blount? Is that correct?)

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43699
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Each of these players had negative issues and their reasons for release/trading were logical and independent of one another.  Blount was a one-trick pony who was ineffective at pass pro or receiving – teams knew we were running with him in.  K2 was a head case, often injured, and was seen as detrimental to the development of the offence and our franchise QB at the time.  Talib, who I very much liked, was prone to the big play, and was likely one more strike away from being considered a team cancer/head case.  Bennett simply wanted (reportedly) too much money for the role he would play (ie. shared time LDE), although he ended up taking a lower deal with a chance to win in SEA.  And by the way, he often disappeared in games, despite getting a few sacks here and there.  They all had some useful skills, so it was no surprise that they would have some role somewhere else.  If these were all isolated to football only decisions, sure, they could have been kept.  But in building teams, you have to make decisions, and these were deemed to be expendable pieces.  You may disagree with the decisions, but they were not illogical moves by any stretch, even now with hindsight.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43700
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    .(Btw, Demps was the replacement for Blount? Is that correct?)

    If that's a question....they were traded for each other.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43701
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    .(Btw, Demps was the replacement for Blount? Is that correct?)

    If that's a question....they were traded for each other.

    I thought Blount was traded for a pick AND the rights to Demps?

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43702
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    .(Btw, Demps was the replacement for Blount? Is that correct?)

    If that's a question....they were traded for each other.

    I thought Blount was traded for a pick AND the rights to Demps?

    Right. They were traded for each other.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43703
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I disagree.The baggage that those players "bring" has been dwarfed by the other baggage this season . . . .

    actually, that means you don't disagree.  Note that you go on to raise other issues.(Btw, Demps was the replacement for Blount? Is that correct?)

    The other issues are related...personnel decisions have to all be examined for a team that is 0-8.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43704
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Each of these players had negative issues and their reasons for release/trading were logical and independent of one another.  Blount was a one-trick pony who was ineffective at pass pro or receiving - teams knew we were running with him in.  K2 was a head case, often injured, and was seen as detrimental to the development of the offence and our franchise QB at the time.  Talib, who I very much liked, was prone to the big play, and was likely one more strike away from being considered a team cancer/head case.  Bennett simply wanted (reportedly) too much money for the role he would play (ie. shared time LDE), although he ended up taking a lower deal with a chance to win in SEA.  And by the way, he often disappeared in games, despite getting a few sacks here and there.  They all had some useful skills, so it was no surprise that they would have some role somewhere else.  If these were all isolated to football only decisions, sure, they could have been kept.  But in building teams, you have to make decisions, and these were deemed to be expendable pieces.  You may disagree with the decisions, but they were not illogical moves by any stretch, even now with hindsight.

    I disagree and here is why:Blount's one trick is important for what the Bucs do.  The Bucs are not a prolific passing attack or a good play action team, so the passing game isn't important when we know the Bucs are running on downs 1 and 2 the majority of the time.  Based on the number of carries James received yesterday, the ground and pound strategy is the cornerstone of what Schiano wants to do.  Thus, the value of a RB that is very good at that one trick (running the football) increases substantially.K2 isn't a headcase compared to Talib for example, however his production is undeniable and if I was to be logical...having Wright and K2 running routes out of a double TE formation or a cluster formation provides more options for the Bucs rookie QB.  Especially with the #2 WR on IR and no decent slot WR either.Talib: He had a run where he was considered the best CB for the month of October.http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/09/28/aqib-talib-has-come-age-patriots-secondary/SSiJ7wz0de1n0LhO5VicwM/story.htmlHaving him opposite of Revis solves a lot of issues for this Bucs defense.  Having Gorrer back reinforces that having another capable CB makes this team better.  Especially if LJ doesn't see the field much.Bennett showed that he could have been a full time player.  The year before he had the sack generation but not the discipline to play the run but showed growth in that area while increasing his sack total.  Pass rushers are coveted like gold so they are worth every penny.Yes this team is better by having this talent on this team.  Their production with other teams hints at this but some remain unconvinced. 

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43705
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Again with this KW-2 nonsense? We let him go in 2012, not 2013, and he was out of the league virtually ALL LAST SEASON. He was having an ok year until oops - he got suspended. He's just an average TE at this point. If you want to make the point that we need better TEs, go right ahead - but if you think we should have kept KW-2 and his big salary in 2012-2013 so he could contribute his average TE contribution for a total of 6 games, you are nuts. Oh yeah - also, he made no secret that he wasn't all that excited to be here. 

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43706
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I believe that the majority was okay with them going elsewhere and also Freeman.  I hope they have successful careers.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
    #43707
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Disappointed with the Bennett thing, since he was such a pressing need and also a vocal leader.  Never saw what others did in Bowers.  Blount, I'm up in the air on.  RB is perhaps the easiest position to replace.  He could beast it sometimes, but his short yardage issue was underwhelming.Talib, amicable departure for all parties.  K2. . .really.  That guy was past his prime when he was here, and also a bit too demanding of the ball.  Did make a lot of great catches, but totally fine with watching his immature ass walk.The problem I have is not so much that we let these guys go, as much as we didn't successfully replace them.

    0
    0
    No votes yet.
    Please wait...
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.