moochman wrote:Brad Johnson, Griese, and Garcia were developed vets long before they went to Tampa. So name me the QBs that Gruden has developed. And save me the limited talent of these QBs since they are the ones Chucky wanted.
Oh wow, the guy who prefers veteran QBs hasn't fully developed a QB. Astonishing. Luke McCown has come along nicely, although it remains to be seen if he or Josh Johnson will be given the shot next season when Garcia is out of the picture.
Gruden wanted those guys because they fit the offense. In no way is Brian Griese or Bruce Gradkowski close to an ideal starting QB candidate you want going into a season. Saying he chose the guys doesn't mean that they should be expected to perform at an above average level, because they aren't. But he got a career season out of Griese, the best football Brad Johnson ever played, and a Pro Bowl season out of a banged up Jeff Garcia who didn't even play but around 11 1/2 games.
Where's the problem again, mooch?
moochman wrote:On dumbing down the game I guess I was of the understanding that you knew what I meant.
Ahhh...questioning the merit of anything you've said so far must be meant with a backhanded insult to my intelligence. Just get to the point already...
moochman wrote:It’s making plays as easy to execute as possible so that players with less-than latent can make the play. See power running game relies on making and following blocks, something any player can do. The same applies to the short pass game. Much easier to make a 6 yd pass work than a 30 yard pass. Especially when you have weak QB play.
So basically any WCO that relies on a run game and doesn't go deep often is a "dumbed down" offense? Doing what we're best suited at after building up the OL with 1st and 2nd round draft picks and having one of the worst WR corps in the NFL, resulting in running more than fancy passes, is just saying we're too stupid to run anything else. Thats pretty vague logic, don't you think?
moochman wrote:(BTW, not exactly the type of game plan that develops a QB much either).
Once more, Johnson, Griese, and Garcia all played at well above average levels. Simms played adequate, and Grads sucked. Aside from McCown, Simms is the only half-way decent young talent that Gruden has had to work with here. And he ruptured his spleen
. Please humor me and give me something more than "he didn't develop anybody". You know, a little backing up your argument or responding to my counterpoint at all has never hurt anyone? It'd actually be greatly appreciated. I'd rather have an open discussion than you just repeating yourself....
moochman wrote:And you fall right into the comfortable trap that it makes it easier to win games. Tampa didn’t win the division because of dumbing down the game as much as it did by having a great defensive season and a mediocre division play. And that’s fine. Good for you. I am not trying to take anything away from last season. You seem to want to make this a personal attack when it is more of a statement of a coaching style and how it is making for a duller brand of football.
And defensive teams with so-so passing games and a weak armed QB would want to go deep constantly? Again, you're saying you want to see more exciting football, even though thats not what we're suited for, AND the exact opposite
is what is working quite well for us. I just don't think it makes any sense, none at all, whatsoever. Entertainment value vs. winning. Not so even trade off.
Also, let me note, I don't see that as a personal attack AT ALL. I still don't understand how you won't address my points, but you'll assume something different entirely....
moochman wrote:Oh and you may have won your division, but I think someone else won the championship.
Shows what you know. Hey, how many points did Dungy's teams score in his last 3 playoff games? 18. How many did Gruden's team score in the Super Bowl season? 106 in a similar 3 game period. Different offense, different players, different outcome in Philly. It's crazy that Dungy built a great defense, but his offense was never even close to good enough to win a championship. Someone comes in and actually gets production out of the offense, and we win. The offense under Dungy would have never improved, and we wouldn't have won that championship....
moochman wrote:If you look at all the teams that won since Dungy’s Tampa Bay team you’ll notice some subtle differences in style of play. They all had down field passing games and big play running games. Oddly enough, it seems that football that utilizes the talents of players is also championship football. Now that is more entertaining to me, not that that means a whole lot.
We're still in the process of developing a big play running offense. Make no mistake, we're getting there. But the down the field passing game is also just as overrated as it is successful. Oddly enough, the Rams never won another championship after Martz's crazy powerful passing attack took the reigns, then his Detroit teams floundered. The Colts had quite the impressive passing attack for years, tons of fun to watch, and yet they had that streak of never winning in the playoffs. The two (vertical passing games and winning big) don't always go hand in hand, so I fail to see the direct connection you're trying to make.
moochman wrote:Now do try to understand that my opinion is simply based on my experience with the NFL as a whole and not a personal attack on Gruden or the Bucs.
I honestly think you're just an uninformed fan who knows little about the Bucs and goes by his personal dislike of Gruden and his style of offense. I don't care if you love the guy like a brother or can't stand his guts, the truth of the matter is you've made very vague statements and backed them up with little actual facts and knowledge of this situation. This isn't meant to come off as an insult to you, I'm not insinuating that you're dumb or anything like that. Just that you have a strong opinion backed up with little to no real information. Your failure to go into greater detail with any of the QBs or the offensive talent, etc just plays into that. You have conceded nothing, and still backed up nothing.
moochman wrote:So remove your knee-jerk defense of Chucky. He needs not your help, his record stands on its’ own. Concentrate rather on your thoughts on an opinion and weather you have any valid response. Judging opinions as poorly-based, hate driven, and lame adds nothing to the thread or your opinion. Always better to stick to the concept of the opinion you wish to rebutt and try to give a more focused thoughtful reply.
I have no knee-jerk defense of Chucky. If someone says something against him that I disagree with or agree with, I'm going to state this and why. I don't see why I'm not allowed to say "I think you're wrong" in your whole rant about "opinion".
It's also funny that you haven't directly addressed the points that I think are quite valid, but somehow come back with "try to give a more focused, thoughtful reply". I, however, look forward to your continual side-steps of my counter-arguments....