| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RoeKG
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4004
Location: PA
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Buccaneer Bruce wrote: |
It's easy to see. Teams that won in the playoffs this past season.
New England Ben Jarvis Green-Ellis
New York Giants Jacobs/Bradshaw
Baltimore Ravens Ray Rice
Houston Texans Arian Foster
San Fransisco 49ers Frank Gore (They beat the Saints because of Smith)
|
Ray Rice isn't dynamic to you? By the way the Giants running game was bad during the season but tore it up in the playoffs. I love this whole you don't need a running game to win deal. Yes, you do. You need all aspects to be functional, not just a passing game or whatever people want to focus on.
| Buccaneer Bruce wrote: | Now teams who had "dynamic running backs"
Vikings Picking top 5
Rams Picking top 5
Jacksonville Picking top 10
Titans Picking 20th (still missed playoffs)
|
What a coincidence that all these teams had rookie or 2nd year QBs. Again, you can't win with just a running game, you need both aspects.
| Buccaneer Bruce wrote: | | So, outside of Ray Rice who was drafted in the second round all of the other winning teams had running backs that were drafted 3rd or below. The Buccaneers have been down this road before and wasted a pick on Cadillac Williams. I just don't want to spend another high pick on a player that you can literally bring in off the street or as an UDFA. I really am not trying to troll, just think Richardson is a 1 contract player and you never take those in the top 5. We NEED to get the defense squared away. |
So you're upset we got burned with Caddy.
The UDFA thing needs to go away too. Blount, Foster and Fred Jackson went undrafted for reasons. Blount for character issues and the other 2 were very unlikely to ever succeed, but they did. Arguing a 2nd or 3rd round RB is sound. This notion really isn't, though.
The last part is legit, and you should have been posting this all along, IMO.
| Buccaneer Bruce wrote: | | Furhtermore to Trent Fanbois, running backs like Martin or James can be had later. |
All of us Trent Fanbois - literally every one - has said we'd be more than happy with Claiborne and addressed that we could draft RBs past round 1. Most of us have been posting about this in the last 24 hours. Get your ducks in a row before you post like this.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dbtb135
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
Posts: 3832
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Trent Richardson is responsible for the economic crisis. Talk about a character concern.
Trent Richardson once cut me in line at the grocery store. That kind of me-first attitude will make him a bust at the next level.
Trent Richardson HATES The Princess Bride, and LOVES Dane Cook. If he wants to be a relevant back in this league, he'll have to get his movie criticisms down straight. Like Arian Foster. It also shows stupidity, which would affect his ability to learn the offense.
Just too risky, guys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
REDandPEWTER
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 3782
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
What puzzles me about taking a RB like Trent Richardson at 5th overall in the 1st round is, why take someone who will split carries with our current RB, Lagarette Blount?
I still don't get why people think he's trash all of a sudden. I think with a bette coaching staff and more trust, he can be developed as a better overall back. Not saying he'll be that back, but when he got involved in the passing game, he made plays in the open field, which is why Olsen was a terrible coach.
If we want a back to split the load with Blount, you can get that in the 2nd-4th round range. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buccaneer Bruce
Joined: 20 Nov 2007
Posts: 136
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| RoeKG wrote: | | Buccaneer Bruce wrote: |
It's easy to see. Teams that won in the playoffs this past season.
New England Ben Jarvis Green-Ellis
New York Giants Jacobs/Bradshaw
Baltimore Ravens Ray Rice
Houston Texans Arian Foster
San Fransisco 49ers Frank Gore (They beat the Saints because of Smith)
|
Ray Rice isn't dynamic to you? By the way the Giants running game was bad during the season but tore it up in the playoffs. I love this whole you don't need a running game to win deal. Yes, you do. You need all aspects to be functional, not just a passing game or whatever people want to focus on.
| Buccaneer Bruce wrote: | Now teams who had "dynamic running backs"
Vikings Picking top 5
Rams Picking top 5
Jacksonville Picking top 10
Titans Picking 20th (still missed playoffs)
|
What a coincidence that all these teams had rookie or 2nd year QBs. Again, you can't win with just a running game, you need both aspects.
| Buccaneer Bruce wrote: | | So, outside of Ray Rice who was drafted in the second round all of the other winning teams had running backs that were drafted 3rd or below. The Buccaneers have been down this road before and wasted a pick on Cadillac Williams. I just don't want to spend another high pick on a player that you can literally bring in off the street or as an UDFA. I really am not trying to troll, just think Richardson is a 1 contract player and you never take those in the top 5. We NEED to get the defense squared away. |
So you're upset we got burned with Caddy.
The UDFA thing needs to go away too. Blount, Foster and Fred Jackson went undrafted for reasons. Blount for character issues and the other 2 were very unlikely to ever succeed, but they did. Arguing a 2nd or 3rd round RB is sound. This notion really isn't, though.
The last part is legit, and you should have been posting this all along, IMO.
| Buccaneer Bruce wrote: | | Furthermore to Trent Fanbois, running backs like Martin or James can be had later. |
All of us Trent Fanbois - literally every one - has said we'd be more than happy with Claiborne and addressed that we could draft RBs past round 1. Most of us have been posting about this in the last 24 hours. Get your ducks in a row before you post like this. |
Wrong on all accounts, I laid out exactly why you don't spend a top 5 pick on a running back in today's NFL. It's ALL right there. No way no how does Richardson deserve to be picked in the top 5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buccaneer Bruce
Joined: 20 Nov 2007
Posts: 136
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| REDandPEWTER wrote: | What puzzles me about taking a RB like Trent Richardson at 5th overall in the 1st round is, why take someone who will split carries with our current RB, Lagarette Blount?
I still don't get why people think he's trash all of a sudden. I think with a bette coaching staff and more trust, he can be developed as a better overall back. Not saying he'll be that back, but when he got involved in the passing game, he made plays in the open field, which is why Olsen was a terrible coach.
If we want a back to split the load with Blount, you can get that in the 2nd-4th round range. |
People who are clamoring for Richardson at number 5 still believe he will be a difference maker for this team Now you throw him on a team like the Patriots, Giants, Chargers, Steeler or even the Cowpies and he would succeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoeKG
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4004
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| REDandPEWTER wrote: | What puzzles me about taking a RB like Trent Richardson at 5th overall in the 1st round is, why take someone who will split carries with our current RB, Lagarette Blount?
I still don't get why people think he's trash all of a sudden. I think with a bette coaching staff and more trust, he can be developed as a better overall back. Not saying he'll be that back, but when he got involved in the passing game, he made plays in the open field, which is why Olsen was a terrible coach.
If we want a back to split the load with Blount, you can get that in the 2nd-4th round range. |
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=474785&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
| Buccaneer Bruce wrote: |
Wrong on all accounts, I laid out exactly why you don't spend a top 5 pick on a running back in today's NFL. It's ALL right there. No way no how does Richardson deserve to be picked in the top 5. |
Oh ok, I guess you win. You said I was wrong after I questioned all your points, so I must be wrong then. I mean, I must be so wrong that you don't even try to discuss the stuff. I'm sorry if I insulted you with asking you to back up your troll like posts.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buccaneer Bruce
Joined: 20 Nov 2007
Posts: 136
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I backed them all up, with the teams that won in the playoffs this year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoeKG
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4004
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Buccaneer Bruce wrote: | | I backed them all up, with the teams that won in the playoffs this year. |
If you think that means anything then I'm not even going to try to discuss this.
P.S. It doesn't mean anything.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buccaneer Bruce
Joined: 20 Nov 2007
Posts: 136
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| RoeKG wrote: | | Buccaneer Bruce wrote: | | I backed them all up, with the teams that won in the playoffs this year. |
If you think that means anything then I'm not even going to try to discuss this.
P.S. It doesn't mean anything. |
Wait.. winning in the playoffs doesn't mean anything? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
REDandPEWTER
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 3782
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thing is, why risk the 5th overall pick on a RB? Sure, Richardsons talents and style of play are top 5-10 like, but you have to remember, when picking in the top 5, you don't want to spend it on a pick that won't carry the load for your team. At RB, the position is brutal and it wears your body down.
Do you really think MJD can put up that kind of production for the next 3 years? How about Matt Forte? he couldn't even finish the season. Adrian Peterson's body has taken a beating his entire 5 year career to a point, he was always on the injury report week after week it seemed and this year, injuries did him in.
For the season Ray Rice just had, you'd think they'd shower him with the 8-10 million a year long term deal he seeks. But, they won't because they know the durability of the RB position, thus tagging him for next year.
Also, if Cleveland or Tampa do not Take T-Rich, the only other team in the top 15 I see taking him is Kansas City.
My point is, I think we can build a better team without taking a RB at 5 overall. This class has some quality backs and it's been proven year after year, you don't need an elite RB on your team. You need to have a solid 2 back system that is physical and successful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoeKG
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4004
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| REDandPEWTER wrote: | Thing is, why risk the 5th overall pick on a RB? Sure, Richardsons talents and style of play are top 5-10 like, but you have to remember, when picking in the top 5, you don't want to spend it on a pick that won't carry the load for your team. At RB, the position is brutal and it wears your body down.
Do you really think MJD can put up that kind of production for the next 3 years? How about Matt Forte? he couldn't even finish the season. Adrian Peterson's body has taken a beating his entire 5 year career to a point, he was always on the injury report week after week it seemed and this year, injuries did him in.
For the season Ray Rice just had, you'd think they'd shower him with the 8-10 million a year long term deal he seeks. But, they won't because they know the durability of the RB position, thus tagging him for next year.
Also, if Cleveland or Tampa do not Take T-Rich, the only other team in the top 15 I see taking him is Kansas City.
My point is, I think we can build a better team without taking a RB at 5 overall. This class has some quality backs and it's been proven year after year, you don't need an elite RB on your team. You need to have a solid 2 back system that is physical and successful. |
I'm not going to argue against you, in fact I think you might be right, for 2 reasons:
1. With the way the coaches have come in, including Byner as RB coach and Cooper as DB coach, along with everyone else who should improve the defense, Blount may improve and we might be a corner and safety away from a solid unit. Talib and Barber may be still be around which actually makes me want Claiborne more. I would hope that the front 7 play should improve and then if the secondary is solid like it could be with Claiborne, well look out we might just have a good defense if everyone stays healthy.
2. The RB class is shaping up pretty well. It'd take a crazy run on RBs for us to not have a shot at Martin, Wilson or Miller. Then there's still Cyrus Gray, LMJ and Polk too. I would still be very upset if we didn't take a RB in the first 2 rounds but we could definitely get by without TR.
I feel like I'm split evenly on who I want at this point.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mfw096
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 2621
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| RoeKG wrote: | | REDandPEWTER wrote: | Thing is, why risk the 5th overall pick on a RB? Sure, Richardsons talents and style of play are top 5-10 like, but you have to remember, when picking in the top 5, you don't want to spend it on a pick that won't carry the load for your team. At RB, the position is brutal and it wears your body down.
Do you really think MJD can put up that kind of production for the next 3 years? How about Matt Forte? he couldn't even finish the season. Adrian Peterson's body has taken a beating his entire 5 year career to a point, he was always on the injury report week after week it seemed and this year, injuries did him in.
For the season Ray Rice just had, you'd think they'd shower him with the 8-10 million a year long term deal he seeks. But, they won't because they know the durability of the RB position, thus tagging him for next year.
Also, if Cleveland or Tampa do not Take T-Rich, the only other team in the top 15 I see taking him is Kansas City.
My point is, I think we can build a better team without taking a RB at 5 overall. This class has some quality backs and it's been proven year after year, you don't need an elite RB on your team. You need to have a solid 2 back system that is physical and successful. |
I'm not going to argue against you, in fact I think you might be right, for 2 reasons:
1. With the way the coaches have come in, including Byner as RB coach and Cooper as DB coach, along with everyone else who should improve the defense, Blount may improve and we might be a corner and safety away from a solid unit. Talib and Barber may be still be around which actually makes me want Claiborne more. I would hope that the front 7 play should improve and then if the secondary is solid like it could be with Claiborne, well look out we might just have a good defense if everyone stays healthy.
2. The RB class is shaping up pretty well. It'd take a crazy run on RBs for us to not have a shot at Martin, Wilson or Miller. Then there's still Cyrus Gray, LMJ and Polk too. I would still be very upset if we didn't take a RB in the first 2 rounds but we could definitely get by without TR.
I feel like I'm split evenly on who I want at this point. |
Even with me all High on Richardson you make a good point about this class being pretty good at running back and if we don't get Richardson we better take a back in the 2nd or trade up to get one.
We need options for Freeman for him to succeed and the more depth the better we are.
_________________
Adopt a Buc:
Doug Martin 1454yds 49rec 472yds 12Tds
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Renegades5544
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1641
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Richardson is an is an amazing running back prospect, the best in a long time, I just think that the NFL has changed since the ground and pound days of yore. If you look at the offenses that are set up to be successful for the next 5-10 years, it's the Texans, Giants, Packers, Lions, Pats, Saints, and Steelers and there is a definite emphasis on airing it out for those teams.
The Texans lost Foster for a period of time, and their offense didn't suffer too much. The Giants RBs were plagued by injuries for most of the year, their offense was fine. The Packers lost Grant, and their offense was still as dynamic as ever. The Lions lost Leshore and Best and still had one of the best offenses in the league. The Pats run the ball by committee, and still rank near the top of the league in rushing, year in, year out. The Saints lost Ingram for a while and Thomas and Ivory are unspectacular, yet still got the job done.
My point is that having a workhorse back is a luxury, and that it's far more important in today's game to have weapons, a strong offensive line, and a group of running backs that can perform at a high level as a committee rather than having one guy to carry a running game.
If we end up picking Richardson, I won't be upset by any means. I think he instantly makes our team tougher and changes our identity on offense. I'm just not sure he changes our identity to one that has a long term place in the pass happy league the NFL has become.
_________________
^Props to eggybucsfan31 for the sig ^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caaddy24
Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 4829
Location: cali/texas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Renegades5544 wrote: | | Richardson is an is an amazing running back prospect, the best in a long time, I just think that the NFL has changed since the ground and pound days of yore. |
I agree with this for the most part, but everybody can have their own strategies on how to win games, you have to play to your team strengths. Example: 49ers/Alex Smith, run the ball, short passes. Pats/Tom Brady, Pass 75%
| Renegades5544 wrote: | | If you look at the offenses that are set up to be successful for the next 5-10 years, it's the Texans, Giants, Packers, Lions, Pats, Saints, and Steelers and there is a definite emphasis on airing it out for those teams. |
1. Texans: Ben tate and the most productive RB in the league right now(with AP out), Arian Foster
2. Giants: Yes and they went 9-7 barely making the playoffs until Bradshaw got healthy for the playoffs
3. Packers: They have Aaron Rodgers, they don't need a running game
4. Lions: Mikel Lesoure out for the year so they had to rely on Best, which he did very good and soon as he got hurt the Lions started to decline a bit on offense until Stafford heated up and just started airing it out to CJ(Best WR in the NFL)
5. Pats: Have Tom Brady, again, dont need a running game with him
6. Saints: have Brees, same argument as the Pats
7. Steelers: They pound it with Mendenhall quite frequently
8. I think people are forgetting about the 9ers already, in my opinion were a better team than the Giants but got a little unlucky in that playoff game. Not saying Gore carried them or anything but they are a good team going back to old school style which is a dominate defense and a sufficient pass/run game
| Renegades5544 wrote: | | The Texans lost Foster for a period of time, and their offense didn't suffer too much. |
I don't have the exact stats I suck at stats but I can tell you their offense was not the same without Foster, and he was only out a few games
| Renegades5544 wrote: | The Giants RBs were plagued by injuries for most of the year, their offense was fine. The Packers lost Grant, and their offense was still as dynamic as ever. The Lions lost Leshore and Best and still had one of the best offenses in the league. The Pats run the ball by committee, and still rank near the top of the league in rushing, year in, year out. The Saints lost Ingram for a while and Thomas and Ivory are unspectacular, yet still got the job done.
My point is that having a workhorse back is a luxury, and that it's far more important in today's game to have weapons, a strong offensive line, and a group of running backs that can perform at a high level as a committee rather than having one guy to carry a running game.
If we end up picking Richardson, I won't be upset by any means. I think he instantly makes our team tougher and changes our identity on offense. I'm just not sure he changes our identity to one that has a long term place in the pass happy league the NFL has become. |
Richardson is that rare back that can do everything which makes him worth a top 10/top 5 pick. It's all about how Schiano wants to use him and the offense in general, but it is true, RBs don't last long nowadays, so it is kind of a risk to go that route. Although even if we get TR, we can still split carries with him and someone else
I wish i could get into more detail but in kind of a hurry hope its not that sloppy
_________________
^^sig by HandsomeBob29^^
Regarding Trent Green...
| ironman2008 wrote: | | He needs to retire before finishing a coloring book is the most fun of the day |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Renegades5544
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1641
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Caaddy24 wrote: | | Renegades5544 wrote: | | Richardson is an is an amazing running back prospect, the best in a long time, I just think that the NFL has changed since the ground and pound days of yore. |
I agree with this for the most part, but everybody can have their own strategies on how to win games, you have to play to your team strengths. Example: 49ers/Alex Smith, run the ball, short passes. Pats/Tom Brady, Pass 75%
| Renegades5544 wrote: | | If you look at the offenses that are set up to be successful for the next 5-10 years, it's the Texans, Giants, Packers, Lions, Pats, Saints, and Steelers and there is a definite emphasis on airing it out for those teams. |
1. Texans: Ben tate and the most productive RB in the league right now(with AP out), Arian Foster
2. Giants: Yes and they went 9-7 barely making the playoffs until Bradshaw got healthy for the playoffs
3. Packers: They have Aaron Rodgers, they don't need a running game
4. Lions: Mikel Lesoure out for the year so they had to rely on Best, which he did very good and soon as he got hurt the Lions started to decline a bit on offense until Stafford heated up and just started airing it out to CJ(Best WR in the NFL)
5. Pats: Have Tom Brady, again, dont need a running game with him
6. Saints: have Brees, same argument as the Pats
7. Steelers: They pound it with Mendenhall quite frequently
8. I think people are forgetting about the 9ers already, in my opinion were a better team than the Giants but got a little unlucky in that playoff game. Not saying Gore carried them or anything but they are a good team going back to old school style which is a dominate defense and a sufficient pass/run game
| Renegades5544 wrote: | | The Texans lost Foster for a period of time, and their offense didn't suffer too much. |
I don't have the exact stats I suck at stats but I can tell you their offense was not the same without Foster, and he was only out a few games
| Renegades5544 wrote: | The Giants RBs were plagued by injuries for most of the year, their offense was fine. The Packers lost Grant, and their offense was still as dynamic as ever. The Lions lost Leshore and Best and still had one of the best offenses in the league. The Pats run the ball by committee, and still rank near the top of the league in rushing, year in, year out. The Saints lost Ingram for a while and Thomas and Ivory are unspectacular, yet still got the job done.
My point is that having a workhorse back is a luxury, and that it's far more important in today's game to have weapons, a strong offensive line, and a group of running backs that can perform at a high level as a committee rather than having one guy to carry a running game.
If we end up picking Richardson, I won't be upset by any means. I think he instantly makes our team tougher and changes our identity on offense. I'm just not sure he changes our identity to one that has a long term place in the pass happy league the NFL has become. |
Richardson is that rare back that can do everything which makes him worth a top 10/top 5 pick. It's all about how Schiano wants to use him and the offense in general, but it is true, RBs don't last long nowadays, so it is kind of a risk to go that route. Although even if we get TR, we can still split carries with him and someone else
I wish i could get into more detail but in kind of a hurry hope its not that sloppy |
I agree with you, there are different approaches to creating a winning formula. I just think that one (vertical passing game, running back by committee), has shown a little bit more success of late than the more traditional, run heavy offenses.
The Steelers were 14th in rushing and 10th in passing last year, btw.
With the Packers, Pats, and Saints, they have an offensive environment that makes it easy to run the ball. They pass to set up the run, and it works. The Texans have a zone blocking system that allows lots of backs to step in and produce. Foster is an amazing back, and fits the system to a T, but they could still have an effective running game without him, which was my point.
I didn't mention the 49ers because I believe they are the exception to the rule. They have probably the most complete team in the NFL, and I personally feel that as long as Alex Smith is under center, they will never win a Super Bowl. They were forced to run it as much as they did because Smith was a liability and could only act as a game manager.
If we were a team like the Packers, I would take Richardson in a heartbeat. They don't have that many other needs and would make them more multi-dimensional. I just think until we have an offensive identity set up, a first round RB is a luxury. I think we can build a very good (possibly championship caliber) team while having some above average backs.
_________________
^Props to eggybucsfan31 for the sig ^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
