mdb1958 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:17 am
Here is another opinion I have - Todd Bowles promotion is/was like a hush mouthed interim promotion. Arians was there one day and gone the next only to position himself into a cozy front office position.
When the head coach retires on March 30th you can't really conduct any kind of legitimate search.
Yeah, give Bowles the outhouse with no TP in it. Meanwhile Arians is rushed into glory even though they knew things would be under a huge amount of duress. An empty cash box puts Bowles in a poor position.
kaimaru wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:36 pm
I was considering starting a new thread, but let me express my thought here. We moved Dee Delany to safety last game bc stubborn Bowles finally admitted Ryan Neal was a liability. Not that he was much better. If anyone had an albatross on their neck was Carlton Davis. Boomer Esiason, Bill Cowher, and Chris Simms all piled on Bowles defensive decisions, lack of blitzing, and refusal to play man. Quite a few people think the defense has tuned Bowles out. Davis, Dean, and Hayes look doubtful. Meaning Dee Delany may be a starting corner and Izien may have to start at corner. Not looking good. That would also mean Ryan Neal is a starting safety again. My question is this. If Canales has to open up the playbook and we score 30+ (we now know Bowles is the reason we run so much). Who would be willing to fire Bowles now and see what an unhindered OC can do with this team as an interim coach?
Do people bother watching the games at all?
We scored 37 points in that game because we were balanced. Guess how many times we passed the ball? 30. Guess how many times we ran it? 31. Now 3 of Bakers 4 rushes were scrambles, so you can adjust some there. But for the most part us staying balanced allowed the PA game to work. We score the same number of times on the ground as we did through the air, twice each.
Furthermore I'd love to see evidence of this claim.
kaimaru wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:36 pmwe now know Bowles is the reason we run so much).
Canales has been rather vocal and unapologetic about trying to establish a run game. He didn't "open up the playbook" much. There was simply better execution by our players.
I'm not at all defending Bowles here. He deserves a ton of criticism. But at least come with some facts. It's a good thing you didn't start a new thread.
So, I checked the play by play on ESPN on neutral downs (1st/2nd, outside of last 2 minutes each half) and we ran a whopping 25 runs plays to 17 pass plays (59.5%). So I was clearly not paying attention. Do you think Feller being out and Stinnie being in is what made us decent running the ball?
We scored 37 points in that game because we were balanced. Guess how many times we passed the ball? 30. Guess how many times we ran it? 31. Now 3 of Bakers 4 rushes were scrambles, so you can adjust some there. But for the most part us staying balanced allowed the PA game to work. We score the same number of times on the ground as we did through the air, twice each.
Furthermore I'd love to see evidence of this claim.
Canales has been rather vocal and unapologetic about trying to establish a run game. He didn't "open up the playbook" much. There was simply better execution by our players.
I'm not at all defending Bowles here. He deserves a ton of criticism. But at least come with some facts. It's a good thing you didn't start a new thread.
So, I checked the play by play on ESPN on neutral downs (1st/2nd, outside of last 2 minutes each half) and we ran a whopping 25 runs plays to 17 pass plays (59.5%). So I was clearly not paying attention. Do you think Feller being out and Stinnie being in is what made us decent running the ball?
Honestly I'd say yes. Houston is actually above average at stopping the run. We weren't great, but we were a lot more productive in the run game than we have been. And I'd say the change up front did play a roll.
That's how this offense will be successful. We aren't going to beat many teams going pass happy. It ain't happening. But if we can be balanced, at least try to run and execute, we can have success. Just gotta be better on defense.
So, I checked the play by play on ESPN on neutral downs (1st/2nd, outside of last 2 minutes each half) and we ran a whopping 25 runs plays to 17 pass plays (59.5%). So I was clearly not paying attention. Do you think Feller being out and Stinnie being in is what made us decent running the ball?
Honestly I'd say yes. Houston is actually above average at stopping the run. We weren't great, but we were a lot more productive in the run game than we have been. And I'd say the change up front did play a roll.
That's how this offense will be successful. We aren't going to beat many teams going pass happy. It ain't happening. But if we can be balanced, at least try to run and execute, we can have success. Just gotta be better on defense.
I think that was always the plan this year - play defense, operate a balanced, efficient offense, win close, low scoring games.
Unfortunately, the defense has been hit and miss, the quarterback is not efficient by nature (something we knew going in), and the crappy run blocking has led to the negligible run game.
FWIW, I think the ceiling for that plan, even when working, was 7-9 wins.
"So let's get to the point
Let's roll another joint
And let's head on down the road
There's somewhere I got to go..."
Honestly I'd say yes. Houston is actually above average at stopping the run. We weren't great, but we were a lot more productive in the run game than we have been. And I'd say the change up front did play a roll.
That's how this offense will be successful. We aren't going to beat many teams going pass happy. It ain't happening. But if we can be balanced, at least try to run and execute, we can have success. Just gotta be better on defense.
I think that was always the plan this year - play defense, operate a balanced, efficient offense, win close, low scoring games.
Unfortunately, the defense has been hit and miss, the quarterback is not efficient by nature (something we knew going in), and the crappy run blocking has led to the negligible run game.
FWIW, I think the ceiling for that plan, even when working, was 7-9 wins.
Welcome back!! I hope all is well.
I think 7-9 wins was what most expected honestly. We certainly weren't going to be better than 2022 when we won just 8 games.
The defense took a major step back in that 2nd half in Houston. Don't know why. But they have the opportunity to correct it.
The offense did well and have something to build off of. Let's see if they can keep it going.
kaimaru wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:36 pm
My question is this. If Canales has to open up the playbook and we score 30+ (we now know Bowles is the reason we run so much). Who would be willing to fire Bowles now and see what an unhindered OC can do with this team as an interim coach?
One thing you can always count on is buc fans disregarding what is actually said by everyone to pitch a secret conspiracy theory to shift blame around.
Canales has full control of the O. Bowles wants someone he can fully trust to have full control of the O, and he's chosen Dave to be that guy.
He chose Dave in part because of DAVE'S OWN run philosophy, which Bowles liked and agreed with.
We have some deep perverted need to make every regime into a soap opera drama with invisible hands and puppet masters and office politics and all that because the idea of having a harmonious front office is just unbearable.
Doctor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:20 pm
Somehow I seem to be the crazy one here. So let me ask. Considering that...
Year 1 - Division Title
You have an offense that is locked into place from OC to QB to the system built on a high repetition. By mid year the offense was mailing it in and in an offense where the only way up is "grind more", well we saw what happened. Yet we won the division.
Year 2 - Division Title?
So we're midway through year 2, though you could say year 1 of Bowles having HIS team from staff to roster. And even the roster part you have to take with a grain of salt given the $75M in dead cap as well. But hey, he's got a pretty cool new OC who has managed to re-energize these players. The QB situation is dicey, but even with that we could still win the division and make the playoffs for a franchise record 4th straight year.
Year 3 - Division Title... and more?
So we go into year 3 (or 2 depending on who is counting). You have a Godwin, a re-signed Evans, and Palmer one year into this offense. A line that has had a year to gell as well and Cade Otton going to the traditional breakout 3rd year (and hopefully not his 3rd offense in 3 years like some want to doom him too). Maybe White has developed the feel to run these lanes, maybe we have someone else.
Have you ever asked players how they feel during their 2nd offseason versus their 1st? I imagine it is similar of OCs. You get the most gains in your first year. He'll also have a majority of his ensemble one year deep too, which will be come in handy when we welcome in our new franchise QB. Yes, I know, shock and aw. But just because you don't believe in tanking doesn't mean you don't believe in drafting a QB, especially in a draft class like this where you know some studs are outside the top 15.
On defense, the guys who developed and took their game to the next level keep their jobs. The ones that didn't can make their way as role players as we use our massive influx of cash to bring in some veterans. On both sides, don't worry, plenty of cash to go around.
So my question is... in the deep depths of your despair right now... what would it take for you to make the "crazy" decision of giving the back to back division title winning HC that third year? Worst case you fire them all the following year and get a new offensive HC who loves your QB.
Grahamburn wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:41 pm
Did not see the 5-1 finish coming, but these last couple games took the shine off of it.
In a 17 game sample size, we are closer to the team we saw the last two weeks than the team from two weeks prior that dominated the Packers and Jaguars.
Grahamburn wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:41 pm
Did not see the 5-1 finish coming, but these last couple games took the shine off of it.
In a 17 game sample size, we are closer to the team we saw the last two weeks than the team from two weeks prior that dominated the Packers and Jaguars.
The Bucs have looked like unprepared dog shit that either plays down to its competition and has choked/nearly choked in wins and losses alike all but like 5 games this year. I'm not saying the Bucs should have been like 12-5 but I am saying it's not as mediocre as 9-8. Whatever extra gear this team has, we have seen in maybe 1/4 of our games.
When a game is tied, you don't have to panic because your team didn't score. But I do every time. And its "Oh shit" every time because I don't know the next time they might even get into scoring range. Or when the defense is going to inevitably run out of gas.
These Are The Days wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 3:57 pm
The Bucs have looked like unprepared dog shit that either plays down to its competition and has choked/nearly choked in wins and losses alike all but like 5 games this year. I'm not saying the Bucs should have been like 12-5 but I am saying it's not as mediocre as 9-8. Whatever extra gear this team has, we have seen in maybe 1/4 of our games.
When a game is tied, you don't have to panic because your team didn't score. But I do every time. And its "Oh shit" every time because I don't know the next time they might even get into scoring range. Or when the defense is going to inevitably run out of gas.
Points For: 348 (20.5/g) 20th of 32
Points Against: 325 (19.1/g) 7th of 32
Expected W-L: 9.2-7.8 -- Pro Football Reference Formula
Lost to almost every winning team. Beat almost every losing team.
24th overall team grade per PFF.
idk, 9-8 seems exactly what they should have been, and were.
In a 17 game sample size, we are closer to the team we saw the last two weeks than the team from two weeks prior that dominated the Packers and Jaguars.
Says who?
So you disagree? You think the team looking like dogshit on offense in back to back weeks is an anomaly?
Below are the games where our offense looked like dogshit at least until halftime.
Babeinbucland wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 11:35 pm
The problem with that query is that it takes a blanket “Winning the division” as the highest barre. In reality, at least for me, if we win the division it should be at a minimum of 10 games and a clear trouncing of division opponents. Winning the division when the division sucks is akin to grading on a curve based on the score of the kid who was absent the day of the test.
I 100% stand by this. However, if we make it past the egglets then I will see us as continuing to improve.
