PDA

View Full Version : Chris Colmer


fischbowl
06-07-2007, 07:04 PM
Why was he released?

dbtb135
06-07-2007, 09:31 PM
Failed a physical because of his Parsonage Turner Syndrome affecting his shoulders since college. We were pretty much set at tackle anyway with Petitgout/Davis on the left and True/Denman on the right. Still, what a waste of a draft pick. As a team who had little young talent, they should have known better than to take huge medical risk, with limited potential, with a first day pick. But what can you do?

Caddy
06-08-2007, 12:40 AM
Failed a physical because of his Parsonage Turner Syndrome affecting his shoulders since college. We were pretty much set at tackle anyway with Petitgout/Davis on the left and True/Denman on the right. Still, what a waste of a draft pick. As a team who had little young talent, they should have known better than to take huge medical risk, with limited potential, with a first day pick. But what can you do?

That was the reason why he was drafted. He had potential. The problem with the "p" word is that it doesn't always work out and that is what we got with Colmer.

dbtb135
06-08-2007, 01:38 AM
That was the reason why he was drafted. He had potential.

LIMITED potential. Of course he had potential, but not the type of potential that makes you overlook his situation. Especially in the 1st day.

As I explained on the PR boards, Marcus McNeil had crazy potential. Freak of nature size, legit LT potential, outstanding play in a tough conference, didn't miss a game in his last two seasons at Auburn(IIRC), among the best LTs in football his junior and senior seasons. And he still fell a round because of his back concerns. Meanwhile, Colmer: a man of limited potential (he wasn't counted on to be our LT of the future, maybe not even our RT of the future), best play was 2nd team All ACC, missed an entire football season due to this syndrome he had, didn't even work out at the combine. And he didn't even fall out of the first day?

Big risk, that was fulfilled in that he never even played a down for us/ minimal reward.

simms2clayton
06-08-2007, 01:45 AM
LIMITED potential. Of course he had potential, but not the type of potential that makes you overlook his situation. Especially in the 1st day.

As I explained on the PR boards, Marcus McNeil had crazy potential. Freak of nature size, legit LT potential, outstanding play in a tough conference, didn't miss a game in his last two seasons at Auburn(IIRC), among the best LTs in football his junior and senior seasons. And he still fell a round because of his back concerns. Meanwhile, Colmer: a man of limited potential (he wasn't counted on to be our LT of the future, maybe not even our RT of the future), best play was 2nd team All ACC, missed an entire football season due to this syndrome he had, didn't even work out at the combine. And he didn't even fall out of the first day?

Big risk, that was fulfilled in that he never even played a down for us/ minimal reward.

I think Gruden was targeting McNeil in round 2 but unfortunately San Diego got him and so we grabbed Trueblood instead.

I think McNeil would have been a much better RT than LT for us and we would have won a lot more games with him last season.

Watchman
06-08-2007, 01:58 AM
Colmer was a wasted pick, as was Cooper, hopefully Zematis doesn't turn out to be the same. It is frustrating how the Bucs' current managment throws away picks, especially day 2 picks.

Caddy
06-08-2007, 02:34 AM
LIMITED potential. Of course he had potential, but not the type of potential that makes you overlook his situation. Especially in the 1st day.



Of course potential is limited, but you were downplaying the potential Colmer had. He was a classic boom/bust guy. You can't win them all, or any if you look at the current Bucs.

dbtb135
06-08-2007, 03:43 AM
Of course potential is limited, but you were downplaying the potential Colmer had. He was a classic boom/bust guy. You can't win them all, or any if you look at the current Bucs.

We can agree to disagree there. It might seem like I'm not giving Colmer his due, but I just didn't see the reward outweighing the risk there. He was a guy who probably didn't have the size or agility to compete with the ends he would have been facing in the South. Adequate RT or guard at most. To take a risk like that, he should be an impact player in the making. But he wasn't a guy you'd already pencil into the lineup Eg: Davin, Sears, McNeil, etc.

And this was Gruden's big character/intelligence draft with Ruud, Alex Smith, and Buenning preceding and following the Colmer pick. If memory serves correctly, Colmer was a pretty smart guy with no record IIRC. Maybe his intelligence and interviews earned him points from the staff.

I think Gruden was targeting McNeil in round 2 but unfortunately San Diego got him and so we grabbed Trueblood instead.

I think McNeil would have been a much better RT than LT for us and we would have won a lot more games with him last season.

A Davin/McNeil draft would have put a TON of potential on that RIGHT side of the line. But what can you do?

Caddy
06-08-2007, 05:46 AM
We can agree to disagree there. It might seem like I'm not giving Colmer his due, but I just didn't see the reward outweighing the risk there. He was a guy who probably didn't have the size or agility to compete with the ends he would have been facing in the South. Adequate RT or guard at most. To take a risk like that, he should be an impact player in the making. But he wasn't a guy you'd already pencil into the lineup Eg: Davin, Sears, McNeil, etc.


A Davin/McNeil draft would have put a TON of potential on that left side of the line. But what can you do?

Joseph, Sears and McNeil were 1st/2nd rounders and Colmer was not so to expect the same kind of play is kind of ridiculous.

Davin Joseph doesn't play left side.

etk
06-08-2007, 12:50 PM
we would have won a lot more games with him last season.

An upgrade at RT would not have won us a single extra game last year.

dbtb135
06-08-2007, 02:25 PM
Joseph, Sears and McNeil were 1st/2nd rounders and Colmer was not so to expect the same kind of play is kind of ridiculous.

Thats entirely my point! He wasn't on par with those types of talent, AND had a huge medical reg flag to boot. Not a guy you should be taking chances on in the 1st day. If he falls to the 5th round, you take the chance. Like a Larry Brackins or Greg Peterson, a project that doesn't hurt too much if it fails. But us of all teams shouldn't be taking this risk day 1. He should be a top 2 round type of talent in order to take him in the 3rd, all things considered. As it is, he simply wasn't on par with the 2nd rounders of the same consideration. The Justin Blalocks, Arron Sears, Khalif Barnes, Michael Roos outclass this guy by a country mile BEFORE potentially not even playing comes into the picture.

Davin Joseph doesn't play left side.

Right side I meant, going by his assumption that we put McNeil at RT.

Caddy
06-08-2007, 09:56 PM
Thats entirely my point! He wasn't on par with those types of talent, AND had a huge medical reg flag to boot. Not a guy you should be taking chances on in the 1st day. If he falls to the 5th round, you take the chance. Like a Larry Brackins or Greg Peterson, a project that doesn't hurt too much if it fails. But us of all teams shouldn't be taking this risk day 1. He should be a top 2 round type of talent in order to take him in the 3rd, all things considered. As it is, he simply wasn't on par with the 2nd rounders of the same consideration. The Justin Blalocks, Arron Sears, Khalif Barnes, Michael Roos outclass this guy by a country mile BEFORE potentially not even playing comes into the picture.




Obviously he wasn't on par with them dude. He wasn't drafted in the same round as the guys you listed. He was a 3rd rounder so comparing him to Sears, McNeil, Joseph etc is pointless.

dbtb135
06-09-2007, 12:12 AM
Obviously he wasn't on par with them dude. He wasn't drafted in the same round as the guys you listed. He was a 3rd rounder so comparing him to Sears, McNeil, Joseph etc is pointless.

I'm not saying this to be insulting or condescending in any way, but reading back through my posts do you understand my point at all? You're seemingly missing it entirely.

MORE is expected of more talented guys. If Colmer was taken in the 3rd by us, ALL THINGS CONDISERED, he should be a 2nd round type talent. Maybe even better, considering how his situation was more career threatening than 99% of most players that come out of college with a torn ACL or broken arm. This syndrome is not curable. He cannot rehab it. But when you look at the 2nd rounders like the Roos, Barnes, Sears, Blalock, and the like. Solid 2nd rounders. They outclass Colmer in terms of talent, easily. So that would make him a borderline 2nd/3rd round talent who we took in the 3rd. His SITUATION should have dropped him more than that.

If he had the type of Joesph/Blalock potential, he'd should STILL be drafted a round lower than them because they're able bodied guys, and he might not be. Right? Ie: McNeil.

This is going off my point of LIMITED potential. If he's not on par with guys like that to begin with, why is his potential worth the pick? How do you rationalize that pick in the 1st day if you're not expecting a big time payoff? As I said, huge risk/minimal reward.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Caddy
06-09-2007, 12:23 AM
I'm not saying this to be insulting or condescending in any way, but reading back through my posts do you understand my point at all? You're seemingly missing it entirely.

MORE is expected of more talented guys. If Colmer was taken in the 3rd by us, ALL THINGS CONDISERED, he should be a 2nd round type talent. Maybe even better, considering how his situation was more career threatening than 99% of most players that come out of college with a torn ACL or broken arm. This syndrome is not curable. He cannot rehab it. But when you look at the 2nd rounders like the Roos, Barnes, Sears, Blalock, and the like. Solid 2nd rounders. They outclass Colmer in terms of talent, easily. So that would make him a borderline 2nd/3rd round talent who we took in the 3rd. His SITUATION should have dropped him more than that.

If he had the type of Joesph/Blalock potential, he'd should STILL be drafted a round lower than them because they're able bodied guys, and he might not be. Right? Ie: McNeil.

This is going off my point of LIMITED potential. If he's not on par with guys like that to begin with, why is his potential worth the pick? How do you rationalize that pick in the 1st day if you're not expecting a big time payoff? As I said, huge risk/minimal reward.

Do you get what I'm saying?

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree because I really don't believe any of what you are saying. Colmer was picked in the third round because he was 2nd round talent. Parsonage-Turners disease was not expected to have an impact on his football career but it can have a tendency to reform, in Colmer's case it did which is unfortunate but true.

His condition does not compare to that of a QB who has torn a rotator cuff, or a RB who has shot knees. It is a neurological condition affecting his nervous system and there was a decent chance he could have gone his whole career without an onset. He was chosen in the region he was supposed to be chosen and unfortunately it didn't pay off.

I also don't quite understand why you think his potential was 'limited'. I know that everyones potential is limited, but condition aside, he had the potential to be a more than satisfactory starter in the NFL which demonstrates more than 'limited' potential.

All in all, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

dbtb135
06-09-2007, 12:39 AM
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree because I really don't believe any of what you are saying. Colmer was picked in the third round because he was 2nd round talent. Parsonage-Turners disease was not expected to have an impact on his football career but it can have a tendency to reform, in Colmer's case it did which is unfortunate but true.

His condition does not compare to that of a QB who has torn a rotator cuff, or a RB who has shot knees. It is a neurological condition affecting his nervous system and there was a decent chance he could have gone his whole career without an onset. He was chosen in the region he was supposed to be chosen and unfortunately it didn't pay off.

I also don't quite understand why you think his potential was 'limited'. I know that everyones potential is limited, but condition aside, he had the potential to be a more than satisfactory starter in the NFL which demonstrates more than 'limited' potential.

All in all, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Colmer already missed an entire season due to the effects of it. That alone makes him a huge risk. Again, one of the only comparisons to his situation that could be made is McNeil. Remember how much was made out of his situation at the combine and the weeks following? Could you imagine how much McNeil falls if he missed an entire season?

It's not like a regular injury like a blown knee, I agree completely. Guys have come back from a bad knee or knees in Frank Gore's case. Or rotator cuff(s) in Chad Pennington's case. But the risk of Colmer's case is entirely out of the hands of the coaching staff and the training staff. It could have lasting effects that cannot be rehabbed. This is what makes it such a bigger deal than a muscle or bone or ligament injury. It's incurable and already robbed Colmer of a season. That makes it a much bigger risk than your average injury.

Limited potential doesn't mean he couldn't be a starter for us. It doesn't mean he had the talent of a backup. It just means that I don't think he had the type of potential an elite, or even well above average, tackle/guard has. He could have maybe become a decent starter. Like a notch below what True is on pace for. But the fact that he's closer to a Dan Buenning than an Arron Sears says that he's not worth the risk day 1 to a team like us who had lacked youth and picks. Thats just my opinion though.

Caddy
06-09-2007, 01:04 AM
Colmer already missed an entire season due to the effects of it. That alone makes him a huge risk. Again, one of the only comparisons to his situation that could be made is McNeil. Remember how much was made out of his situation at the combine and the weeks following? Could you imagine how much McNeil falls if he missed an entire season?

It's not like a regular injury like a blown knee, I agree completely. Guys have come back from a bad knee or knees in Frank Gore's case. Or rotator cuff(s) in Chad Pennington's case. But the risk of Colmer's case is entirely out of the hands of the coaching staff and the training staff. It could have lasting effects that cannot be rehabbed. This is what makes it such a bigger deal than a muscle or bone or ligament injury. It's incurable and already robbed Colmer of a season. That makes it a much bigger risk than your average injury.

Limited potential doesn't mean he couldn't be a starter for us. It doesn't mean he had the talent of a backup. It just means that I don't think he had the type of potential an elite, or even well above average, tackle/guard has. He could have maybe become a decent starter. Like a notch below what True is on pace for. But the fact that he's closer to a Dan Buenning than an Arron Sears says that he's not worth the risk day 1 to a team like us who had lacked youth and picks. Thats just my opinion though.

OK I definitely agree with some of the stuff you are saying now. He was definitely a boom/bust guy, kind of like McNeil like you said. We took a gamble, which we probably couldn't afford to do looking back on things, and it didn't pay off.

StaticGator
06-09-2007, 11:28 AM
I think McNeil would have been a much better RT than LT for us and we would have won a lot more games with him last season.

Why the heck would you take a guy who as a rookie not even starting every game was a pro bowl alternate at left tackle, easily the most demanding position on the offensive line, and move him to right tackle, which is a far less important and meaningful position?

----------

Just because I love looking at these things, the following players were available with the 91st pick in 2005: OT Nick Kaczur, RB Marion Barber, RB Brandon Jacobs, OG Jason Brown, OG Todd Herremans, DE Chauncey Davis, and RB Darren Sproles.

etk
06-09-2007, 01:26 PM
Just because I love looking at these things, the following players were available with the 91st pick in 2005: OT Nick Kaczur, RB Marion Barber, RB Brandon Jacobs, OG Jason Brown, OG Todd Herremans, DE Chauncey Davis, and RB Darren Sproles.

Your point?

StaticGator
06-09-2007, 04:34 PM
Your point?

The team is coming off a 4-12 season and is 27-37 (I think) in the last 4 years. A big reason for that is finding next to no value in the draft after the 1st round. Chris Colmer is one of many who haven't done anything. Knowing what other players were available makes one think if the Bucs drafted Jammal Brown, Lofa Tatupu, and Marion Barber instead of Cadillac Williams, Barrett Ruud, and Chris Colmer, they probably wouldn't have had the #4 pick last April.

dbtb135
06-09-2007, 07:45 PM
The team is coming off a 4-12 season and is 27-37 (I think) in the last 4 years. A big reason for that is finding next to no value in the draft after the 1st round. Chris Colmer is one of many who haven't done anything. Knowing what other players were available makes one think if the Bucs drafted Jammal Brown, Lofa Tatupu, and Marion Barber instead of Cadillac Williams, Barrett Ruud, and Chris Colmer, they probably wouldn't have had the #4 pick last April.

But thats not realistic. Thats like saying they'd be better off having taken Marques Colston in round 3 last year. Brown wasn't a top 5 pick in 05. And Tatupu was thought of as a reach when Seattle traded up to take him earlier than anyone expected. Colmer, on the other hand, was a pick that didn't have to be made....

etk
06-10-2007, 07:21 AM
The team is coming off a 4-12 season and is 27-37 (I think) in the last 4 years. A big reason for that is finding next to no value in the draft after the 1st round. Chris Colmer is one of many who haven't done anything. Knowing what other players were available makes one think if the Bucs drafted Jammal Brown, Lofa Tatupu, and Marion Barber instead of Cadillac Williams, Barrett Ruud, and Chris Colmer, they probably wouldn't have had the #4 pick last April.

I understand and agree that we have drafted poorly over the years, especially later in the draft, but none of those players you mentioned earlier were exceptional enough to merit a "what-if" consideration.

StaticGator
06-10-2007, 08:46 AM
But thats not realistic. Thats like saying they'd be better off having taken Marques Colston in round 3 last year. Brown wasn't a top 5 pick in 05. And Tatupu was thought of as a reach when Seattle traded up to take him earlier than anyone expected. Colmer, on the other hand, was a pick that didn't have to be made....


I understand and agree that we have drafted poorly over the years, especially later in the draft, but none of those players you mentioned earlier were exceptional enough to merit a "what-if" consideration.

You guys take draft theory way too seriously. I understand that on draft day certain players are considered reaches and such. But once everything gets sorted out on the field, that stuff is all thrown out the window. Jamaal Brown may not have been considered a top 5 pick in 2005, but in 2007 aren't pro bowl left tackles considered worthy of top 5 picks? Tatupu was considered a reach, but Seattle showed that they were smarter than everyone else and now he is easily worth that 2nd round pick. Derrick Brooks was the #28 player taken in 1996. Mike Mamula (#7) was considered a much more valuable player. Ten years later, would you fault any team for taking Brooks top 10 or would you excuse them for not "reaching"? I brought up Marion Barber. He was selected over 100 players after Cadillac Williams. In 2 seasons he has a 4.4 YPC compared to Cadillac's 3.8 and 19 TDs to Cadillac's 7, including 2 against the Bucs last Thanksgiving. And all those touchdowns came in 242 fewer attempts. Barber also only has 9 fewer receptions (with 2 TDs) than Cadillac (0 Tds) with considerably less playing time and 7.6 yards per catch compared to Williams' 5.5. Would he not warrant a higher pick now?

dbtb135
06-10-2007, 04:53 PM
You guys take draft theory way too seriously. I understand that on draft day certain players are considered reaches and such. But once everything gets sorted out on the field, that stuff is all thrown out the window. Jamaal Brown may not have been considered a top 5 pick in 2005, but in 2007 aren't pro bowl left tackles considered worthy of top 5 picks? Tatupu was considered a reach, but Seattle showed that they were smarter than everyone else and now he is easily worth that 2nd round pick. Derrick Brooks was the #28 player taken in 1996. Mike Mamula (#7) was considered a much more valuable player. Ten years later, would you fault any team for taking Brooks top 10 or would you excuse them for not "reaching"? I brought up Marion Barber. He was selected over 100 players after Cadillac Williams. In 2 seasons he has a 4.4 YPC compared to Cadillac's 3.8 and 19 TDs to Cadillac's 7, including 2 against the Bucs last Thanksgiving. And all those touchdowns came in 242 fewer attempts. Barber also only has 9 fewer receptions (with 2 TDs) than Cadillac (0 Tds) with considerably less playing time and 7.6 yards per catch compared to Williams' 5.5. Would he not warrant a higher pick now?

It's not realistic though. You can say "well, looking back if we would have drafted perfectly in 05 we wouldn't be back in the top 5". Well, yeah. Thats pretty easy to say now, given hindsight. It surpasses easy. But taking Jammal Brown top 5 just wasn't a possibility, so how can you fault them for it? I was with you on the players that we very well could have taken instead of risking it with Colmer, but you cannot fault them for not taking a guy who was never considered a top 5 pick. He outplayed his draft position, it happens.

Again you make a point on Brooks/Mamula that is moot. We know Brooks is a HOFer and Mamula is one of the more notorious busts and workout warriors ever. Anyone can look back and say "we should have picked this guy over this guy", even the most casual of sports fans. But it's all about AT THE TIME, knowing who to take. Does that mean every team that passed on Colston 7x over made a huge mistake and should be chastised for it? No, it means the guy worked out better than ANYONE could have expected and the Saints are lucky to have him.

Plus, on the Barber/Caddy front, your stats are misleading. Caddy was a better back in 05, and played last year with as poor an OL and QB I've ever seen. They didn't have the strength of the Dallas OL, or the very solid Dallas passing game. The Cowboys were still a playoff team without Barber last year. Forget Caddy, put Barber behind our line last year with a stacked box on the other side and watch him get hit by two guys in the backfield for a loss, too.

He, and many others, would warrant a higher pick if all teams could predict the future. But alas, they aren't infallible.

StaticGator
06-10-2007, 05:23 PM
I simply want my GM to make the right decision. I'm arguing for a paradigm in which a GM says "I'm making this pick because I think it's the right pick and I don't care if Mel Kiper has x number of players ranked higher." Your local columnist may rip you but 2-3 years later when Jamaal Brown/Derrick Brooks/Ed Reed or whoever is in the pro bowl, you get the last laugh.

And I understand it's hard to look good with Tampa's offensive line, but remember how much Dallas' line got killed for all the sacks Drew Bledsoe took. As far as the rest of the league goes, that line is pretty average. None of their guys are going to make the pro bowl. But still Barber has 3 times the total touchdowns of Cadillac with more than 200 fewer touches. That's something.

simms2clayton
06-10-2007, 05:42 PM
After the 2006 and 2007 drafts you have to give Allen and Co. a lot of credit.

Our offensive line is set imo now with Petigout at LT, Sears at LG, and Buenning at C.

We have WR depth with Maurice Stovall who we got in round 3 last year.

Bruce Gradkowsi should be a reliable backup for years to come and was a steal in round 5 or 6 or whatever.

Apparently, Gaines Adams and Greg Peterson are doing great in workouts and could be the DE and UT of the future for us.

Quincy Black looks like the prototypical Cover 2 LB with his strength/speed/instincts/ball skills and I think he is gonna be a very good player in his career.

Not to mention after last year's horrendous season of safety play it looks like we are set at safety for the next 5+ years with Sabby at SS and Tanard Jackson at FS.

etk
06-10-2007, 06:45 PM
I simply want my GM to make the right decision. I'm arguing for a paradigm in which a GM says "I'm making this pick because I think it's the right pick and I don't care if Mel Kiper has x number of players ranked higher." Your local columnist may rip you but 2-3 years later when Jamaal Brown/Derrick Brooks/Ed Reed or whoever is in the pro bowl, you get the last laugh.

You just don't understand the draft process. Teams enter the draft with a narrow board of "targeted" players that they call a "big board". Each team likens different players depending on how well they fit. GMs often make a list the night before the draft with 3-4 targeted players in each of the first 3-4 rounds, and usually the players selected come from this projection. Basically what I'm saying is that we select the best guy available from those that we like. That's what may lead to the "unbelievable reaches" that draftniks disapprove of. Many of those players you listed earlier probably weren't even on our board. Our drafts are a direct result of our scouting and our schemes. Analysts have no impact on drafting. You just keep re-iterating the same points about how we "should've drafted so-and-so" and it's getting tiresome. You just can't look at the draft that way unless you know it was a direct toss-up between a player. Otherwise, if a team screws up you blame their scouting process.
But still Barber has 3 times the total touchdowns of Cadillac with more than 200 fewer touches. That's something.

Only TNewFan or Achilles honestly believes that Marion Barber is better than Cadillac.

ks_perfection
06-10-2007, 06:52 PM
The fact that Barber had more TDs is irrelvant since he handled goaline duties in Dallas and Alstott did it in TB. The high yac is the more concerning number, but thats a big reflection of the offense line and threat of a good passing game than it is of the runners ability alone.

dbtb135
06-10-2007, 06:57 PM
I simply want my GM to make the right decision. I'm arguing for a paradigm in which a GM says "I'm making this pick because I think it's the right pick and I don't care if Mel Kiper has x number of players ranked higher." Your local columnist may rip you but 2-3 years later when Jamaal Brown/Derrick Brooks/Ed Reed or whoever is in the pro bowl, you get the last laugh.

And I understand it's hard to look good with Tampa's offensive line, but remember how much Dallas' line got killed for all the sacks Drew Bledsoe took. As far as the rest of the league goes, that line is pretty average. None of their guys are going to make the pro bowl. But still Barber has 3 times the total touchdowns of Cadillac with more than 200 fewer touches. That's something.

It's not about Mel Kiper, I'm sure the GMs of the NFL don't have decisions that are make or break relying on his Big Board. They don't spend thousands and thousands of dollars hiring scouts, sending guys to pro days, interviewing, and going over game tape to come home and watch Sportscenter to see who they should pick. The fact is, the consensus right before the draft and the draft results themselves show roughly where a guy is valued by the NFL. I mean, if you were in you're living room that year screaming for Jammal Brown, my hat's off to you. But other than that, you really don't have a legitimate complaint.

The Dallas line in pass protection has nothing to do with the Dallas line run blocking. Teams can have good push and still not be able to catch up with pass rushers. The Chiefs OL of last year comes to mind. The Ravens OL of recent years. The Giants last year was also a great example, much better run blocking. Atlanta. Mainly teams with tackles who can get a push, but can't stop the pocket from collapsing. Dallas was pretty good at providing a push last year, but couldn't protect great to save their butts. One has little to do with the other. Just as I expect our line to do much of the same. Sears, Petitgout, and True are all much better run blockers than they are pass protectors.

Barber gets goalline carries, Alstott gets a lot of our goalline carries. Last year dallas was 4th in points per game. We were 31st. They were 5th in yards, we were 29th. They were 3rd in rushing TDs last year with 21, we were 31st with 6. More touchdowns in less touches last year isn't surprising at all.

In 05, Caddy had more rushing yards, a better rushing average, and more rushing TDs. He took a step back in 06, when ironically enough our QB situation and line was among the worst in the league.

StaticGator
06-11-2007, 07:09 AM
After the 2006 and 2007 drafts you have to give Allen and Co. a lot of credit.

Our offensive line is set imo now with Petigout at LT, Sears at LG, and Buenning at C.

We have WR depth with Maurice Stovall who we got in round 3 last year.

Bruce Gradkowsi should be a reliable backup for years to come and was a steal in round 5 or 6 or whatever.

Apparently, Gaines Adams and Greg Peterson are doing great in workouts and could be the DE and UT of the future for us.

Quincy Black looks like the prototypical Cover 2 LB with his strength/speed/instincts/ball skills and I think he is gonna be a very good player in his career.

Not to mention after last year's horrendous season of safety play it looks like we are set at safety for the next 5+ years with Sabby at SS and Tanard Jackson at FS.

The same thing could have been said 2-3 years ago about Chris Simms, Travis Stephens, Marquis Walker, Marquis Cooper, Lance Nimmo, Austin King, Dewayne White, Will Allen, Jermaine Phillips, Sean Mahan, and Jeb Terry being the foundation for the Bucs' future. Let's wait for the new group of players to do something before we annoint them as anything special.

StaticGator
06-11-2007, 08:31 AM
You just don't understand the draft process. Teams enter the draft with a narrow board of "targeted" players that they call a "big board". Each team likens different players depending on how well they fit. GMs often make a list the night before the draft with 3-4 targeted players in each of the first 3-4 rounds, and usually the players selected come from this projection. Basically what I'm saying is that we select the best guy available from those that we like. That's what may lead to the "unbelievable reaches" that draftniks disapprove of. Many of those players you listed earlier probably weren't even on our board. Our drafts are a direct result of our scouting and our schemes. Analysts have no impact on drafting. You just keep re-iterating the same points about how we "should've drafted so-and-so" and it's getting tiresome. You just can't look at the draft that way unless you know it was a direct toss-up between a player. Otherwise, if a team screws up you blame their scouting process.
You're actually making my point. I said I want the GM to get the pick right regardless of what other people say at the time. I want "who they like" to be the best player available. Not now, but once they actually play. And if you want a couple toss-up decisions, how about Marquis Cooper over DeMorrio Williams, Colmer over Nick Kaczur, Barrett Ruud over Lofa Tatupu, Davin Joseph over Marcus McNeil, etc.?


Only TNewFan or Achilles honestly believes that Marion Barber is better than Cadillac.
The question isn't whether Cadillac is better than Marion Barber, the question is whether he is $30+ million better? In the NFL you only have so many resources to spend building your team and Cadillac is a nice player, but I'm not sure he has justified his draft position.

The fact that Barber had more TDs is irrelvant since he handled goaline duties in Dallas and Alstott did it in TB. The high yac is the more concerning number, but thats a big reflection of the offense line and threat of a good passing game than it is of the runners ability alone.
So the Bucs don't need a goal line back? Alstott had 3 TDs last year playing all 16 games and a 2.9 YPC.

etk
06-11-2007, 01:47 PM
The same thing could have been said 2-3 years ago about Chris Simms, Travis Stephens, Marquis Walker, Marquis Cooper, Lance Nimmo, Austin King, Dewayne White, Will Allen, Jermaine Phillips, Sean Mahan, and Jeb Terry being the foundation for the Bucs' future. Let's wait for the new group of players to do something before we annoint them as anything special.

2-3 years ago we didn't know Gruden was the worst drafter among mankind. It should make it even harder to annoint them as future stars especially when you consider Jon's track record.

etk
06-11-2007, 01:48 PM
And if you want a couple toss-up decisions, how about Marquis Cooper over DeMorrio Williams, Colmer over Nick Kaczur, Barrett Ruud over Lofa Tatupu, Davin Joseph over Marcus McNeil, etc.?




How do you know that those were toss-ups? Those players could've been scratched off our boards for various reasons.

StaticGator
06-11-2007, 03:25 PM
How do you know that those were toss-ups? Those players could've been scratched off our boards for various reasons.

If your job was based on making guesses, and you don't find out the answers for a couple years, wouldn't you want to look back and see how your past guesses can help you make guesses in the future? If all those players were scratched off Tampa's board when they were available in slots the team picked similar positions, I'd want to know why that is.

StaticGator
06-12-2007, 10:44 AM
Here's one: What if the Bucs used the #5 pick in 2005 on Frank Gore and in 2006 he rushed for 1695 yards like with the 49ers and went to the pro bowl? Would that have been ok or would it have been a reach?

etk
06-12-2007, 01:18 PM
Here's one: What if the Bucs used the #5 pick in 2005 on Frank Gore and in 2006 he rushed for 1695 yards like with the 49ers and went to the pro bowl? Would that have been ok or would it have been a reach?

You really have a problem. Have you ever considered therapy?

That would've been fine if he didn't have 397029234 major knee surgeries. I always knew he was a hell-of-a-back from his Miami days, only his injuries scared off teams. He was a very nice investment on all of my fantasy teams last year...

dbtb135
06-12-2007, 03:39 PM
Here's one: What if the Bucs used the #5 pick in 2005 on Frank Gore and in 2006 he rushed for 1695 yards like with the 49ers and went to the pro bowl? Would that have been ok or would it have been a reach?

Wouldn't happen....

StaticGator
06-12-2007, 03:45 PM
You really have a problem. Have you ever considered therapy?

That would've been fine if he didn't have 397029234 major knee surgeries. I always knew he was a hell-of-a-back from his Miami days, only his injuries scared off teams. He was a very nice investment on all of my fantasy teams last year...

I'm certainly not losing any sleep over the Bucs not doing it. You say it would have been fine if he wasn't damaged goods. By 2006 he obviously wasn't damaged. I'm more interested in how accepting people on here are of rocking the boat and doing something unconventional yet having it pay off (and then some).

etk
06-12-2007, 03:46 PM
I'm certainly not losing any sleep over the Bucs not doing it. You say it would have been fine if he wasn't damaged goods. By 2006 he obviously wasn't damaged. I'm more interested in how accepting people on here are of rocking the boat and doing something unconventional yet having it pay off (and then some).

When it involves one of my favourite players, I'm all for it!

Caddy
06-13-2007, 03:39 AM
I'm certainly not losing any sleep over the Bucs not doing it. You say it would have been fine if he wasn't damaged goods. By 2006 he obviously wasn't damaged. I'm more interested in how accepting people on here are of rocking the boat and doing something unconventional yet having it pay off (and then some).

Doing something unconventional is one thing. But taking a player with huge injury concerns 2-3 rounds earlier than he should is ridiculous. I could understand if it was a 6th round guy being taken in the 4th, but a 3rd rounder at the top of the 1st is ludicrous.

Obviously the whole hindsight is 20/20 thing comes into it, but going into the draft Caddy was a clear cut top 10 prospect, Gore was not.

StaticGator
06-13-2007, 07:24 AM
Doing something unconventional is one thing. But taking a player with huge injury concerns 2-3 rounds earlier than he should is ridiculous. I could understand if it was a 6th round guy being taken in the 4th, but a 3rd rounder at the top of the 1st is ludicrous.

Obviously the whole hindsight is 20/20 thing comes into it, but going into the draft Caddy was a clear cut top 10 prospect, Gore was not.

So does no one else agree the object is to have the best player 2-3 after the draft and not on draft day?

Caddy
06-13-2007, 08:19 AM
So does no one else agree the object is to have the best player 2-3 after the draft and not on draft day?

If I could predict the future I would gladly make the picks for the Bucs Static. The problem with what you are saying is that we do not know what will happen in the future. The team takes the player they think will succeed, sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. You have to take the good with the bad unfortunately.

etk
06-13-2007, 11:25 AM
Obviously the whole hindsight is 20/20 thing comes into it, but going into the draft Caddy was a clear cut top 10 prospect, Gore was not.

Even the 'great' Rich McKay thought Caddy was one of the best prospects in the draft, maybe even his favourite.

StaticGator
06-13-2007, 11:52 AM
Even the 'great' Rich McKay thought Caddy was one of the best prospects in the draft, maybe even his favourite.

When has he ever drafted an offensive player worth a crap to have an opinion that matters?

etk
06-13-2007, 12:23 PM
When has he ever drafted an offensive player worth a crap to have an opinion that matters?

I'm just saying Carnell was highly rated and viewed by GMs and scouts across the league for his talent, work ethic and character. He's a great person and a great player.

Edit: He drafted Jerious Norwood in the middle of the 3rd round

Norwood is considered by many to have been the steal of the 2006 draft, as he has already found great success both rushing and receiving as a compliment to Warrick Dunn. In 14 regular season games, Norwood amassed 633 yards rushing on 99 carries, with an NFL-best 6.4 yards per carry for running backs.

Watchman
06-13-2007, 12:27 PM
I'm just saying Carnell was highly rated and viewed by GMs and scouts across the league for his talent, work ethic and character. He's a great person and a great player.

I like Caddy a lot, and I still believe he'll be the feature back he was drafted to be, but "great player" is pushing it at this point.

etk
06-13-2007, 12:30 PM
I like Caddy a lot, and I still believe he'll be the feature back he was drafted to be, but "great player" is pushing it at this point.

Time will tell...

Watchman
06-13-2007, 12:40 PM
Time will tell...

True, true.