To Suh or not to Suh

Team Discussions regarding games, players, coaches, or anything else related to Buccaneer Football.
post

If Miami decides to trade Suh away, are you good with this or would you rather pass?

I'm absolutely on board.
23
66%
I'd rather pass and find our fix with the draft/other FA's
12
34%
 
Total votes : 35

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:42 am

BucaRican wrote:
If Suh is designated as a post-June 1 cut, the team would save $17 million against the 2018 salary cap. Releasing Suh now would save the Dolphins just $3.9 million against the cap.


Not sure why you guys thought it would be 22 mil. Seems that if they do it and make it post June 1st, its just a 3.9mil hit.


By releasing Suh the Dolphins have a $22.2m dead cap hit. They can spread the penalty over the next two seasons (2018 & 2019) w/ a post June-1 designation, but they are incurring that $22.2m of dead cap one way or another.

By placing a post June 1 designation the Dolphins are splitting the penalty over the next two seasons. $9.1m in '18, $13.1m in '19 ($22.2m TOTAL).

The "$17m in savings against the '18 cap" your quote is referring to is because Suh had a 2018 cap charge of $26m and now has dead cap of $9.1m, thus a difference of $16.9m.

To put simply, instead of having Suh on the roster in '18 w/ a cap charge of $26m the Dolphins are electing to cut him and take a $9.1m dead cap charge in '18 and another $13.1m dead cap charge in '19 (totaling $22.2m in dead cap over the next 2 years).
Last edited by DreadNaught on Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:14 am, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby bahamian:bucfan » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:56 am

I see 32% said that they would not want Suh.

I have to ask; why would you not want him on this team?

I honestly feel his nastiness is exactly what the defense needs.

So again I ask; why would you not want Suh on this team?
Image
User avatar
bahamian:bucfan
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:03 pm
Location: Freeport, Grand Bahama; Bahamas
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby BucaRican » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:58 am

bahamian:bucfan wrote:I see 32% said that they would not want Suh.

I have to ask; why would you not want him on this team?

I honestly feel his nastiness is exactly what the defense needs.

So again I ask; why would you not want Suh on this team?


We have a lot of guys on here that are happy with the way the team has performed. Probably about 32%
Image
BucaRican
 
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby BucaRican » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:59 am

DreadNaught wrote:
BucaRican wrote:
Not sure why you guys thought it would be 22 mil. Seems that if they do it and make it post June 1st, its just a 3.9mil hit.


By releasing Suh the Dolphins have a $22.2m dead cap hit. They can spread the penalty over the next two seasons (2018 & 2019) w/ a post June-1 designation, but they are incurring that $22.2m of dead cap one way or another.

By placing a post June 1 designation the Dolphins are splitting the penalty over the next two seasons. $9.1m in '18, $13.1m in '19 ($22.2m TOTAL).

The "$17m in savings against the '18 cap" your quote is referring to is because Suh had a 2018 cap charge of $26m and now has dead cap of $9.1m, thus a difference of $16.9m.

To put simply, instead of having Suh on the roster w/ in '18 w/ a cap charge of $26m the Dolphins are electing to cut him and take a $9.1m dead cap charge in '18 and another $13.1m dead cap charge in '19 (totaling $22.2m in dead cap over the next 2 years).


Thanks for that.
Image
BucaRican
 
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:27 am

bahamian:bucfan wrote:I see 32% said that they would not want Suh.

I have to ask; why would you not want him on this team?

I honestly feel his nastiness is exactly what the defense needs.

So again I ask; why would you not want Suh on this team?


I wouldn't be mad if we brought Suh here. He is the type of DT we've needed next to McCoy for some time in that someone who can take advantage of a 1v1 since McCoy is always doubled.

Obviously there seems to be some locker room related issues with Suh that need to be vetted, but just b/c a guy is bad for one locker room doesn't always mean he will be for the next. Suh won't be the the 'Huge FA addition' with his next team that he was in Miami.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:46 am

DreadNaught wrote:
BucaRican wrote:
Not sure why you guys thought it would be 22 mil. Seems that if they do it and make it post June 1st, its just a 3.9mil hit.


By releasing Suh the Dolphins have a $22.2m dead cap hit. They can spread the penalty over the next two seasons (2018 & 2019) w/ a post June-1 designation, but they are incurring that $22.2m of dead cap one way or another.

By placing a post June 1 designation the Dolphins are splitting the penalty over the next two seasons. $9.1m in '18, $13.1m in '19 ($22.2m TOTAL).

The "$17m in savings against the '18 cap" your quote is referring to is because Suh had a 2018 cap charge of $26m and now has dead cap of $9.1m, thus a difference of $16.9m.

To put simply, instead of having Suh on the roster w/ in '18 w/ a cap charge of $26m the Dolphins are electing to cut him and take a $9.1m dead cap charge in '18 and another $13.1m dead cap charge in '19 (totaling $22.2m in dead cap over the next 2 years).


Thanks for braking that down. Smart move by Miami.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6899
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby ComingThisFall » Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:49 am

Anyone else feel like putting Suh and McCoy together is just asking the other team to run the ball down our throats?
Image
ComingThisFall
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:56 am

ComingThisFall wrote:Anyone else feel like putting Suh and McCoy together is just asking the other team to run the ball down our throats?


Image
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2294
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 155 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:59 am

ComingThisFall wrote:Anyone else feel like putting Suh and McCoy together is just asking the other team to run the ball down our throats?


Nope. If anything the combination would allow our LBs to play with less hesitation. Run the ball, McSuh would keep the LBs clean and allow them to make plays. Pass it, good luck blocking that interior.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 21244
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:00 pm

ComingThisFall wrote:Anyone else feel like putting Suh and McCoy together is just asking the other team to run the ball down our throats?


Image
Last edited by DreadNaught on Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:00 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:
ComingThisFall wrote:Anyone else feel like putting Suh and McCoy together is just asking the other team to run the ball down our throats?


Nope. If anything the combination would allow our LBs to play with less hesitation. Run the ball, McSuh would keep the LBs clean and allow them to make plays. Pass it, good luck blocking that interior.


This.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6899
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby ComingThisFall » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:17 pm

Meh, I see two guys getting in the backfield real quick. Too quick at times
Image
ComingThisFall
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby Cheb » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:18 pm

bahamian:bucfan wrote:I see 32% said that they would not want Suh.

I have to ask; why would you not want him on this team?

I honestly feel his nastiness is exactly what the defense needs.

So again I ask; why would you not want Suh on this team?


The question posed in the poll referred to trading for him and his outlandish cap number. I voted against it, one of those 32%, because his contract is too damn high for his production, especially since he's now 31.

Now, if he is released as expected and he wants to sign here for, I dunno, $10 million a year (or whatever number makes you happy), that'd be a different question. For one, do you feel comfortable with him being a 4-3 nosetackle, when he's spent his career as a 4-3 undertackle and a 3-4 defensive end? Unless you'd rather move McCoy, which is an idea as stupid as it is clumsy. Back to Suh, moving him to nose is a question about projection, and you can argue that either way. But signing him begs the question if we would be paying for the idea of a young Suh rather than the reality of the player we would be getting today.

I said it at the start of the thread, and I'll repeat it again. I'd rather spend our offseason resources correcting our proven issues. In free agency, that means signing proven veterans at high positions of need, to close the gaps in our roster so we can go BPA in the draft. The biggest four gaps on our team right now are at edge rusher, running back, corner, and interior offensive line; you can argue which one is higher than the other, but it's generally regarded as those four in some order. Suh wouldn't correct any of those four problems. Which begs the question of why the Bucs should spend their limited resources on him.

I'd rather we swung for the fences to get the best guys to fill one of those gaps, than spend 8 figures a year on Suh. He'd be a band-aid solution for a problem that doesn't exist, a dirty player on the downside of his career who would be playing a new position.

No thank you.
Image
Cheb
 
Posts: 3298
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:00 pm
Location: West Coast is best coast
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 289 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 12, 2018 12:53 pm

ComingThisFall wrote:Meh, I see two guys getting in the backfield real quick. Too quick at times


They are defensive linemen. I'm not sure how it's possible to get into the backfield "too quick" unless you're called for offsides/encroachment.

I really don't understand the point you're trying to make here? Are you saying you'd rather the Dline not get any penetration and just get blocked by the Oline? You must be a Chris Baker fan.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:00 pm

Cheb wrote:
bahamian:bucfan wrote:I see 32% said that they would not want Suh.

I have to ask; why would you not want him on this team?

I honestly feel his nastiness is exactly what the defense needs.

So again I ask; why would you not want Suh on this team?


The question posed in the poll referred to trading for him and his outlandish cap number. I voted against it, one of those 32%, because his contract is too damn high for his production, especially since he's now 31.

Now, if he is released as expected and he wants to sign here for, I dunno, $10 million a year (or whatever number makes you happy), that'd be a different question. For one, do you feel comfortable with him being a 4-3 nosetackle, when he's spent his career as a 4-3 undertackle and a 3-4 defensive end? Unless you'd rather move McCoy, which is an idea as stupid as it is clumsy. Back to Suh, moving him to nose is a question about projection, and you can argue that either way. But signing him begs the question if we would be paying for the idea of a young Suh rather than the reality of the player we would be getting today.

I said it at the start of the thread, and I'll repeat it again. I'd rather spend our offseason resources correcting our proven issues. In free agency, that means signing proven veterans at high positions of need, to close the gaps in our roster so we can go BPA in the draft. The biggest four gaps on our team right now are at edge rusher, running back, corner, and interior offensive line; you can argue which one is higher than the other, but it's generally regarded as those four in some order. Suh wouldn't correct any of those four problems. Which begs the question of why the Bucs should spend their limited resources on him.

I'd rather we swung for the fences to get the best guys to fill one of those gaps, than spend 8 figures a year on Suh. He'd be a band-aid solution for a problem that doesn't exist, a dirty player on the downside of his career who would be playing a new position.

No thank you.


1 - I'm comfortable with Suh playing the 1-tech/NT in a 4-man front. We all know Suh plays with immense strength at the POA and is more than capable of filling that role. Teams have put him at 3-tech since it's more difficult to double that position compared to a 1 or 0 tech.

2 - You are severely underestimating what the Bucs currently have at DT if you believe it's a 'problem that doesn't exist' imo. DT is a HUGE need for the Bucs. McCoy is currently the ONLY DT on roster who was on the 53 last season. It could be argued we are better off at EDGE than we are at DT currently, which is sad. With or without Suh the Bucs need to sign or draft a few bodies at DT.
Last edited by DreadNaught on Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:01 pm

ComingThisFall wrote:Meh, I see two guys getting in the backfield real quick. Too quick at times


And if they do the RB is likely redirected which allows the other defenders to make plays. That was Monte Kiffin 101 on how to play the run back then.
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 21244
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby ComingThisFall » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:04 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
ComingThisFall wrote:Meh, I see two guys getting in the backfield real quick. Too quick at times


They are defensive linemen. I'm not sure how it's possible to get into the backfield "too quick" unless you're called for offsides/encroachment.

I really don't understand the point you're trying to make here? Are you saying you'd rather the Dline not get any penetration and just get blocked by the Oline? You must be a Chris Baker fan.


I think we get gashed for runs up the middle with McCoy and Suh as the starting DTs. If you want to have a rotation with Suh and McCoy and/or put them out there on 3rd downs then great. But doubt that plan comes to fruition. Id rather our Bucs pursue Poe, Star or select a DT on day 2
Last edited by ComingThisFall on Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
ComingThisFall
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:07 pm

ComingThisFall wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
They are defensive linemen. I'm not sure how it's possible to get into the backfield "too quick" unless you're called for offsides/encroachment.

I really don't understand the point you're trying to make here? Are you saying you'd rather the Dline not get any penetration and just get blocked by the Oline? You must be a Chris Baker fan.


I think we get gashed for runs up the middle with McCoy and Suh as the starting DTs. If you want to have a rotation with Suh and McCoy and put them out there on 3rd downs then great. But doubt that plan comes to fruition. Id rather our Bucs pursue Poe, Star or select a DT on day 2


Are you saying that both McCoy and Suh will not play IAW their assignments and abandoned their gap responsibilities?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby ComingThisFall » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:35 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
ComingThisFall wrote:
I think we get gashed for runs up the middle with McCoy and Suh as the starting DTs. If you want to have a rotation with Suh and McCoy and put them out there on 3rd downs then great. But doubt that plan comes to fruition. Id rather our Bucs pursue Poe, Star or select a DT on day 2


Are you saying that both McCoy and Suh will not play IAW their assignments and abandoned their gap responsibilities?


Didn’t say that. I just don’t like the idea of them playing next to each other. Come to think of it...With Noah Spence out there...We would give up record number rushing yards
Image
ComingThisFall
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby The Outsider » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:46 pm

Cheb wrote:
bahamian:bucfan wrote:I see 32% said that they would not want Suh.

I have to ask; why would you not want him on this team?

I honestly feel his nastiness is exactly what the defense needs.

So again I ask; why would you not want Suh on this team?


The question posed in the poll referred to trading for him and his outlandish cap number. I voted against it, one of those 32%, because his contract is too damn high for his production, especially since he's now 31.

Now, if he is released as expected and he wants to sign here for, I dunno, $10 million a year (or whatever number makes you happy), that'd be a different question. For one, do you feel comfortable with him being a 4-3 nosetackle, when he's spent his career as a 4-3 undertackle and a 3-4 defensive end? Unless you'd rather move McCoy, which is an idea as stupid as it is clumsy. Back to Suh, moving him to nose is a question about projection, and you can argue that either way. But signing him begs the question if we would be paying for the idea of a young Suh rather than the reality of the player we would be getting today.

I said it at the start of the thread, and I'll repeat it again. I'd rather spend our offseason resources correcting our proven issues. In free agency, that means signing proven veterans at high positions of need, to close the gaps in our roster so we can go BPA in the draft. The biggest four gaps on our team right now are at edge rusher, running back, corner, and interior offensive line; you can argue which one is higher than the other, but it's generally regarded as those four in some order. Suh wouldn't correct any of those four problems. Which begs the question of why the Bucs should spend their limited resources on him.

I'd rather we swung for the fences to get the best guys to fill one of those gaps, than spend 8 figures a year on Suh. He'd be a band-aid solution for a problem that doesn't exist, a dirty player on the downside of his career who would be playing a new position.

No thank you.



Someone speaking sense? Get outta here!
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 205 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:31 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Cheb wrote:
The question posed in the poll referred to trading for him and his outlandish cap number. I voted against it, one of those 32%, because his contract is too damn high for his production, especially since he's now 31.

Now, if he is released as expected and he wants to sign here for, I dunno, $10 million a year (or whatever number makes you happy), that'd be a different question. For one, do you feel comfortable with him being a 4-3 nosetackle, when he's spent his career as a 4-3 undertackle and a 3-4 defensive end? Unless you'd rather move McCoy, which is an idea as stupid as it is clumsy. Back to Suh, moving him to nose is a question about projection, and you can argue that either way. But signing him begs the question if we would be paying for the idea of a young Suh rather than the reality of the player we would be getting today.

I said it at the start of the thread, and I'll repeat it again. I'd rather spend our offseason resources correcting our proven issues. In free agency, that means signing proven veterans at high positions of need, to close the gaps in our roster so we can go BPA in the draft. The biggest four gaps on our team right now are at edge rusher, running back, corner, and interior offensive line; you can argue which one is higher than the other, but it's generally regarded as those four in some order. Suh wouldn't correct any of those four problems. Which begs the question of why the Bucs should spend their limited resources on him.

I'd rather we swung for the fences to get the best guys to fill one of those gaps, than spend 8 figures a year on Suh. He'd be a band-aid solution for a problem that doesn't exist, a dirty player on the downside of his career who would be playing a new position.

No thank you.



Someone speaking sense? Get outta here!


Another person that hasn't looked at the roster lately.

Other than Gerald McCoy who the hell is playing DT for the Bucs 2018? How is DT not a major position of concern for Bucs when we only have 1 player currently on the team that was even on an NFL roster last season? How is DT less of an issue than Oline where there atleast we have 4/5 starters all returning and a kid like Benenoch that has atleast played a few games. Or DE w/ Ayers, Spence, and Gholston all returning (not great but atleast they they are warm bodies)? NFL teams need 4 healthy DTs on Sunday and we have 1. ONE!!!!!

It could be easily and persuasively argued that DT is currently the thinnest position on the entire Bucs team. But sure, let's go with 'the problem doesn't exist' narrative. I love and respect Cheb just like most, but this was an oversight on his part. I'm not saying we have to sign Suh or else, but we damn sure need to SERIOUSLY address the DT position so the justification to not pursue Suh due to it 'not being a need' makes zero sense. Sorry.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby The Outsider » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:44 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
The Outsider wrote:

Someone speaking sense? Get outta here!


Another person that hasn't looked at the roster lately.

Other than Gerald McCoy who the hell is playing DT for the Bucs 2018? How is DT not a major position of concern for Bucs when we only have 1 player currently on the team that was even on an NFL roster last season? How is DT less of an issue than Oline where there atleast we have 4/5 starters all returning and a kid like Benenoch that has atleast played a few games. Or DE w/ Ayers, Spence, and Gholston all returning (not great but atleast they they are warm bodies)? NFL teams need 4 healthy DTs on Sunday and we have 1. ONE!!!!!

It could be easily and persuasively argued that DT is currently the thinnest position on the entire Bucs team. But sure, let's go with 'the problem doesn't exist' narrative. I love and respect Cheb just like most, but this was an oversight on his part. I'm not saying we have to sign Suh or else, but we damn sure need to SERIOUSLY address the DT position so the justification to not pursue Suh due to it 'not being a need' makes zero sense. Sorry.



If you think DT is the thinnest position on the team you haven't looked at d-end, corner, or safety, or interior offensive line. Also,seriously, you're going to **** talk about someone not being informed and then say we only have one DT on the roster? We still have Stevie T. and Sealver Siliga on the roster along with McCoy.

Jesus kid, you're ****ing lost here.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 205 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:51 pm

The Outsider wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Another person that hasn't looked at the roster lately.

Other than Gerald McCoy who the hell is playing DT for the Bucs 2018? How is DT not a major position of concern for Bucs when we only have 1 player currently on the team that was even on an NFL roster last season? How is DT less of an issue than Oline where there atleast we have 4/5 starters all returning and a kid like Benenoch that has atleast played a few games. Or DE w/ Ayers, Spence, and Gholston all returning (not great but atleast they they are warm bodies)? NFL teams need 4 healthy DTs on Sunday and we have 1. ONE!!!!!

It could be easily and persuasively argued that DT is currently the thinnest position on the entire Bucs team. But sure, let's go with 'the problem doesn't exist' narrative. I love and respect Cheb just like most, but this was an oversight on his part. I'm not saying we have to sign Suh or else, but we damn sure need to SERIOUSLY address the DT position so the justification to not pursue Suh due to it 'not being a need' makes zero sense. Sorry.



If you think DT is the thinnest position on the team you haven't looked at d-end, corner, or safety, or interior offensive line. Also,seriously, you're going to **** talk about someone not being informed and then say we only have one DT on the roster? We still have Stevie T. and Sealver Siliga on the roster along with McCoy.

Jesus kid, you're ****ing lost here.


bro
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2294
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 155 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:51 pm

The Outsider wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Another person that hasn't looked at the roster lately.

Other than Gerald McCoy who the hell is playing DT for the Bucs 2018? How is DT not a major position of concern for Bucs when we only have 1 player currently on the team that was even on an NFL roster last season? How is DT less of an issue than Oline where there atleast we have 4/5 starters all returning and a kid like Benenoch that has atleast played a few games. Or DE w/ Ayers, Spence, and Gholston all returning (not great but atleast they they are warm bodies)? NFL teams need 4 healthy DTs on Sunday and we have 1. ONE!!!!!

It could be easily and persuasively argued that DT is currently the thinnest position on the entire Bucs team. But sure, let's go with 'the problem doesn't exist' narrative. I love and respect Cheb just like most, but this was an oversight on his part. I'm not saying we have to sign Suh or else, but we damn sure need to SERIOUSLY address the DT position so the justification to not pursue Suh due to it 'not being a need' makes zero sense. Sorry.



If you think DT is the thinnest position on the team you haven't looked at d-end, corner, or safety, or interior offensive line. Also,seriously, you're going to **** talk about someone not being informed and then say we only have one DT on the roster? We still have Stevie T. and Sealver Siliga on the roster along with McCoy.

Jesus kid, you're ****ing lost here.


Stevie T has never been on a 53 man roster

Siliga is a FA LINK

Don't be defensive. If DT isn't an issue than answer the questions in my post.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 462 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:54 pm

The Outsider wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Another person that hasn't looked at the roster lately.

Other than Gerald McCoy who the hell is playing DT for the Bucs 2018? How is DT not a major position of concern for Bucs when we only have 1 player currently on the team that was even on an NFL roster last season? How is DT less of an issue than Oline where there atleast we have 4/5 starters all returning and a kid like Benenoch that has atleast played a few games. Or DE w/ Ayers, Spence, and Gholston all returning (not great but atleast they they are warm bodies)? NFL teams need 4 healthy DTs on Sunday and we have 1. ONE!!!!!

It could be easily and persuasively argued that DT is currently the thinnest position on the entire Bucs team. But sure, let's go with 'the problem doesn't exist' narrative. I love and respect Cheb just like most, but this was an oversight on his part. I'm not saying we have to sign Suh or else, but we damn sure need to SERIOUSLY address the DT position so the justification to not pursue Suh due to it 'not being a need' makes zero sense. Sorry.



If you think DT is the thinnest position on the team you haven't looked at d-end, corner, or safety, or interior offensive line. Also,seriously, you're going to **** talk about someone not being informed and then say we only have one DT on the roster? We still have Stevie T. and Sealver Siliga on the roster along with McCoy.

Jesus kid, you're ****ing lost here.


You've got to smoking a bad batch today or trolling. Siliga is a FA and Stevie T has yet to take an NFL snap at age 27..
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 21244
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby The Outsider » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:01 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
The Outsider wrote:

If you think DT is the thinnest position on the team you haven't looked at d-end, corner, or safety, or interior offensive line. Also,seriously, you're going to **** talk about someone not being informed and then say we only have one DT on the roster? We still have Stevie T. and Sealver Siliga on the roster along with McCoy.

Jesus kid, you're ****ing lost here.


Stevie T has never been on a 53 man roster

Siliga is a FA LINK

Don't be defensive. If DT isn't an issue than answer the questions in my post.



Eh, I did bad research on Siliga. And I'm not being defensive at all your post came off as pissy so I responded in kind.

Anyway, I've never said DT isn't a problem. It's just not the weakest position IMO. And I don't want Suh for a variety of reasons, among them his age, attitude, and cost. He's a scumbag.

We don't need another dominant DT, we need a dominant edge rusher, period.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 205 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby The Outsider » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:02 pm

Bootz2004 wrote:
The Outsider wrote:

If you think DT is the thinnest position on the team you haven't looked at d-end, corner, or safety, or interior offensive line. Also,seriously, you're going to **** talk about someone not being informed and then say we only have one DT on the roster? We still have Stevie T. and Sealver Siliga on the roster along with McCoy.

Jesus kid, you're ****ing lost here.


You've got to smoking a bad batch today or trolling. Siliga is a FA and Stevie T has yet to take an NFL snap at age 27..



If the pot was making me more impaired than usual it would most likely not be due to poor quality. Quite the opposite really.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 205 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:04 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:
You've got to smoking a bad batch today or trolling. Siliga is a FA and Stevie T has yet to take an NFL snap at age 27..



If the pot was making me more impaired than usual it would most likely not be due to poor quality. Quite the opposite really.

He's right. That's kinda how pot works.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 10673
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 552 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby Bootz2004 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:09 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Bootz2004 wrote:
You've got to smoking a bad batch today or trolling. Siliga is a FA and Stevie T has yet to take an NFL snap at age 27..



If the pot was making me more impaired than usual it would most likely not be due to poor quality. Quite the opposite really.


I wouldn't know
User avatar
Bootz2004
 
Posts: 21244
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 452 times

Re: To Suh or not to Suh

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:12 pm

The Outsider wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
Stevie T has never been on a 53 man roster

Siliga is a FA LINK

Don't be defensive. If DT isn't an issue than answer the questions in my post.



Eh, I did bad research on Siliga. And I'm not being defensive at all your post came off as pissy so I responded in kind.

Anyway, I've never said DT isn't a problem. It's just not the weakest position IMO. And I don't want Suh for a variety of reasons, among them his age, attitude, and cost. He's a scumbag.

We don't need another dominant DT, we need a dominant edge rusher, period.


It wasn't 'pissy' in any posters direction. Just that there is this prevailing oversight among a large portion of the fanbase that DT isn't a major concern currently on the Bucs roster. Obviously McCoy us a great player, but he's 1 guy thus DT is the "thinnest" position (I never stated "weakest").

If you/fans don't want to sign Suh b/c he's an ***hole/cost/etc, I can respect that and wasn't ever challenging that part.

I don't disagree those other areas (EDGE, CB, RB, etc) Cheb and you mentioned are also weak and/or thin areas on the roster. I've commented on them like many others. But as it relates to this thread and Cheb's justification that DT is not an area of need, I'm sorry, but that is a bad take.

Quit sprinkling estrogen in your weed, it's making you sensitive. :birdiedoublered:
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 462 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Team Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Heidguy, Jason Bourne, Mex-Buc, Mountaineer Buc, Nano, Zarniwoop and 17 guests