Are the Bucs targeting Cassel? - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

tombonneau · 02-26-2009, 04:23 PM

Bucs & Vikings are going to look very dumb when Cassel gets traded elsewhere and has a solid season while Vikes/Bucs founder with Rosenfels/McCown.

***Rob0729*** · 02-26-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks

What I think? The new management down there is looking to put their own imprint on the club and a trade for Cassel will take valuable draft picks they want for other positions...they think McKown/McCown is enough to get them through 2009 so they can draft a top QB in 2010.

Enough to get them a top 5 draft pick to assure them of one of the top 2 QBs. Luke McCown has played 12 games his entire career. The two he played last year, he threw one pass for a 0% completion percentage (or he was 0 for 1 on passes). He had one good game, one decent game, and three clunkers in 2007. He didn't play at all in 2006 or 2005. In 2004, he had one garbage time game and threw for 4 TDs and 7 INTs in the other 4 and had a 52.6 passer rating that season.

McCown is enough to to make the Bucs one of the worst offenses in the league. I think people confuse Luke McCown with his brother Josh. Josh was a mediocre starter, but he is more talented than his brother. Luke hasn't shown that he can be more than an adequet back up who can fill in a game or two. He certainly hasn't shown he can be a full time starter for an entire season.

***Rob0729*** · 02-26-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metaphors

Also agree. I thought TB was a sneaky candidate for Cassel but now it looks like they are on the 3-5 year plan. You need the franchise QB in place by year 3, not now. It could be that they plan to try and buy success immediately with their cap space, but I'm skeptical.

Why? They were in the race for the a playoff spot until the end. If they didn't collapse against the Raiders the final week, they would have made the playoffs instead of the Eagles with a 10-6. Why would they tank 2009?

In fact, I will argue that if they had a franchise QB last season, they might have gone to the Super Bowl.

How is a 9-7 team that were 9-3 at one point in the season suddenly go into a a 3-5 year plan? They are not a 6-10 team. I think they are a few pieces away from being a legitimate contender in the NFC especially since the conference is weak.

patsfaninpittsburgh · 02-26-2009, 04:44 PM

That's the important point.

TB probably released the players due to age since they probably thought this was part of their collapse. (Usually happens when "younger/faster" is mentioned)

One the whole, why they need a 3-5 year plan sounds like they hired Matt Millen

***Rob0729*** · 02-26-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfaninpittsburgh

That's the important point.

TB probably released the players due to age since they probably thought this was part of their collapse. (Usually happens when "younger/faster" is mentioned)

One the whole, why they need a 3-5 year plan sounds like they hired Matt Millen

Didn't Miami and Atlanta prove this year that there is no such thing as a 3-5 year plan? Any team on a 3-5 year plan are really on a 5-7 year plan because they have to wait for 3-5 years that 3-5 year plans are BS and then get someone in who is competent. In today's NFL, you gotta plan to win today while trying to build for the future. That is why the Pats have stayed on top or near the top for nearly a decade now. That is why the Dolphins and Falcons went from the two worst teams in the NFL to playoff teams in one year.

***VJCPatriot*** · 02-26-2009, 05:42 PM

Is it a confirmed fact that the Bucs hired Matt Millen? Do you have a link for that?

***AndyJohnson*** · 02-26-2009, 07:42 PM

Here is what I think Tampa is doing.
They will not be competing this year.
They fired Gruden to hire the least expensive HC they could find.
They cut everyone who makes decent $$.
They will pay large salaries and small signing bonusses (i.e. instead of a 10mill sb and first year salary of 2 mill, they will pay a first year salary of 12mill and no signing bonus) that way they use up the max cap space for the min real cash expenditure so that they meet the salary cap minimum at the lowest real $$ cash cost.
They will trade down out of round 1 to not pay the high pick.
They will get to the cap minimum as cheaply as possible, then if there is an uncapped year they will have the lowest payroll in the league.
Basically because it would appear the ownership is running out of money.
They will become the KC Royals or Florida Marlins of the NFL, and sell the team in 2010 or 2011.

***VJCPatriot*** · 02-26-2009, 07:47 PM

I think you're making some hasty assumptions here. Although these moves are clearing cap room. They still have to spend up to the cap minimum. It's ALSO quite possible that the Bucs are preparing to make a splash in free agency with their newfound cap space. So let's not be so hasty in pronouncing them the marlins of the nfl.

***AndyJohnson*** · 02-26-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VJCPatriot

I think you're making some hasty assumptions here. Although these moves are clearing cap room. They still have to spend up to the cap minimum. It's ALSO quite possible that the Bucs are preparing to make a splash in free agency with their newfound cap space. So let's not be so hasty in pronouncing them the marlins of the nfl.

I dont know that I PRONOUNCED them that, but that it what i see developing.
The combination of ownership having financial problems and cutting good players that you have plenty of cap room to keep is not a good omen.

jmt57 · 02-26-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

I dont know that I PRONOUNCED them that, but that it what i see developing.
The combination of ownership having financial problems and cutting good players that you have plenty of cap room to keep is not a good omen.

You may be on to something there. The ownership (Glazer family) also owns Manchester United, and word is they lost $85 million on them last year. Tampa Bay was also one of the top two or three teams in the NFL as far as being under the cap last year, if I recall correctly.

Edit: Couldn't they also cut or trade one of two veterans with long term contracts that were signed with big signing bonuses, causing big cap hits - to get them closer to the salary floor?