I wish the Bucs will cut Winston or trade him

[Patrick McIrish]

We don't know the draft order if we traded down, can you really not grasp that??

I get the thought process though, instead of manning up and just admitting you were wrong, deflect back on the guys that were right and try to infer they may have been wrong as well....

No absolute guarantee you would have been right either Mr McIrish!

It's like me telling Bootz not to drive because he was drunk. He leaves Oprah's book club and falls alseep at the wheel, gets in a huge accident, kills a family of 7.

The next day instead of admitting he should have listened, I could have called a cab and he might have wrecked on the highway and killed some people as well......

Thus you aren't really right Mr McIrish.

Deflection attempt noted.

[Buc2]

blah blah blah

[Bootz2004]

Oprah's book club, Bootz drunk at the wheel and kills family of 7....But I'm the one deflecting??

[Patrick McIrish]

Surrender noted.

Time to look at some hot babes...err.. I mean get in a work-out.

[Bootz2004]

Come on. You can do better than this Patty. Give me 1 name you wanted in that draft. Just 1. Don't show us all that you're as big of a coward as I think you are.

[Buc2]

Don't do it!

[Swashy]

Surrender noted.

Time to look at some hot babes...err.. I mean get in a work-out.

Baby Jesus knows when you masturbate Patty. Buczone on the other hand does not need to

[acacius]

I mean, assuming we could have tempted the Jets with a reasonable trade offer, L. Williams + Wentz > Winston + Hargreaves. That's not building the *offensive* line, of course, but there were plenty of people who advocated going for Williams. The problem, of course, being that there's no way to be certain that the team would have been in position to draft Wentz (or Goff) the following year. There's much to be said for a bird in the hand.

[sanka]

I mean, assuming we could have tempted the Jets with a reasonable trade offer, L. Williams + Wentz > Winston + Hargreaves. That's not building the *offensive* line, of course, but there were plenty of people who advocated going for Williams. The problem, of course, being that there's no way to be certain that the team would have been in position to draft Wentz (or Goff) the following year. There's much to be said for a bird in the hand.

You know what Wentz and Goff have that Winston doesn’t have? Defense, OL, Run game and a good coach. Your thinking abilities are limited....you think if you just draft a QB everything will be all good lol. Eagles were so good they didn’t even need Wentz for their SB run.

[viva la Reagan]

I hate to be so optimistic but Winston will have a monster year if he stays healthy.

They say Megatron is prowling around camps a lot, reason to believe he might be wanting to come back.

You know me, I'm the first guy to fire off at the casuals that want every over-the-hill vet of yesteryear signed.....

But this cat interests me.

I think he'll be 32 but this MF is a monster!! Can you imagine our #1, 2 and 3 WR's?

AS I said Winston will have a monster year, pick up Calvin Johnson and let's prepare for a rematch of our 2002 SB opponent (and win).

The point is OUR SITUATION at that time it was beyond obvious we needed the smorgasbord of players the first overall would have given us.

We simply needed to upgrade at too many positions.

I'm not a "I told you so" kind of guy, but...well..... err.... read my posts since we talked of drafting him and you'd swear I was past posting my thoughts.

We move on.

i did read your posts, & you weren’t the paragon of consistency you claimed.

your view in august of 2017 was that jw was going to have a monster year (not a good year, not a great year, a monster year), and the bucs were one player away (megatron). yet, the bucs were somehow in this envious position after they had executed the flawed strategy of not trading down & picking up a “beyond needed smorgasbord” of players, and instead made the colossal mistake of drafting a qb who was never going to cut it.

[DreadNaught]

Don't do it!

Star Wars did Admiral Akbar dirty in Episode 8. He (It?) deserved better!!

[Rocker]

I hate to be so optimistic but Winston will have a monster year if he stays healthy.

They say Megatron is prowling around camps a lot, reason to believe he might be wanting to come back.

You know me, I'm the first guy to fire off at the casuals that want every over-the-hill vet of yesteryear signed.....

But this cat interests me.

I think he'll be 32 but this MF is a monster!! Can you imagine our #1, 2 and 3 WR's?

AS I said Winston will have a monster year, pick up Calvin Johnson and let's prepare for a rematch of our 2002 SB opponent (and win).

The point is OUR SITUATION at that time it was beyond obvious we needed the smorgasbord of players the first overall would have given us.

We simply needed to upgrade at too many positions.

I'm not a "I told you so" kind of guy, but...well..... err.... read my posts since we talked of drafting him and you'd swear I was past posting my thoughts.

We move on.

i did read your posts, & you weren’t the paragon of consistency you claimed.

your view in august of 2017 was that jw was going to have a monster year (not a good year, not a great year, a monster year), and the bucs were one player away (megatron). yet, the bucs were somehow in this envious position after they had executed the flawed strategy of not trading down & picking up a “beyond needed smorgasbord” of players, and instead made the colossal mistake of drafting a qb who was never going to cut it.

That’s gotta sting.

[Super K]

I mean, assuming we could have tempted the Jets with a reasonable trade offer, L. Williams + Wentz > Winston + Hargreaves. That's not building the *offensive* line, of course, but there were plenty of people who advocated going for Williams. The problem, of course, being that there's no way to be certain that the team would have been in position to draft Wentz (or Goff) the following year. There's much to be said for a bird in the hand.

That's the kicker, you never know if you'll be high enough to grab a franchise worthy QB again...

So you either grab one while you're up there, or trade up (like Philly AND the Rams did) to get one...

[Super K]

You take the QB..always take the QB...

So is it fair to say no evaluation of personnel even necessary, you ALWAYS burn first overall on a QB when given the chance?

Essentially this is the Leonard Williams vs JW or MM argument from 2015 Draft....

We made the right choice...so did Tennessee....

If you need a QB, are picking in the top 10 and there is a top 10 ranked QB on the board then yes...you always go QB...

[Bootz2004]

I truly don't understand the argument for wanting a trade in 2015. "I know I need a QB and I know there are 2 top QBs in this draft to choose from but I'll pass." That's EXACTLY what Cleveland did in 2016 when they released Manziel and a month later traded back with Philly. The result since then is 1-31 and 6 different starting QBs. Trying this cute "trade back and build the line" game doesn't work.

[MJW]

I truly don't understand the argument for wanting a trade in 2015. "I know I need a QB and I know there are 2 top QBs in this draft to choose from but I'll pass." That's EXACTLY what Cleveland did in 2016 when they released Manziel and a month later traded back with Philly. The result since then is 1-31 and 6 different starting QBs. Trying this cute "trade back and build the line" game doesn't work.

Because it didn't work for Cleveland, it doesn't work?

Like I said, I was on team, "Draft the QB" in 2015. But this idea it can't work...I mean, the last Superbowl winning QB drafted in the top ten who wasn't named "Manning" was John Elway. It sure seems like a lot of teams are finding other ways to answer the QB question.

The intervening factor with Cleveland is that they draft **** players btw. It's easy to dog-pile them for passing on Goff/Wentz. Half of that is that those two worked out. The other half is that they did little with the draft capital. Neither point actually addresses their thought process.

[Bootz2004]

I truly don't understand the argument for wanting a trade in 2015. "I know I need a QB and I know there are 2 top QBs in this draft to choose from but I'll pass." That's EXACTLY what Cleveland did in 2016 when they released Manziel and a month later traded back with Philly. The result since then is 1-31 and 6 different starting QBs. Trying this cute "trade back and build the line" game doesn't work.

Because it didn't work for Cleveland, it doesn't work?

Like I said, I was on team, "Draft the QB" in 2015. But this idea it can't work...I mean, the last Superbowl winning QB drafted in the top ten who wasn't named "Manning" was John Elway. It sure seems like a lot of teams are finding other ways to answer the QB question.

The intervening factor with Cleveland is that they draft **** players btw. It's easy to dog-pile them for passing on Goff/Wentz. Half of that is that those two worked out. The other half is that they did little with the draft capital. Neither point actually addresses their thought process.

Anytime someone puts an asterisk on Cleveland as if they aren't an NFL team it's a lazy giveaway that they can't make a point. I'll do you one better. There's a reason Tennessee traded down in 2016 and not 2015. They got their QB in 2015 and as such they were in a position to trade down and acquire picks for the #1 overall selection they got.

[ghostwrap]

i agree with sanka winstn is not good for the team they shd get kapernik

[sanka]

i agree with sanka winstn is not good for the team they shd get kapernik

Motherfucker, weren't you banned?

[MJW]

[Super K]

i agree with sanka winstn is not good for the team they shd get kapernik

Motherfucker, weren't you banned?

This made me crack the **** up...

[Super K]

Because it didn't work for Cleveland, it doesn't work?

Like I said, I was on team, "Draft the QB" in 2015. But this idea it can't work...I mean, the last Superbowl winning QB drafted in the top ten who wasn't named "Manning" was John Elway. It sure seems like a lot of teams are finding other ways to answer the QB question.

The intervening factor with Cleveland is that they draft **** players btw. It's easy to dog-pile them for passing on Goff/Wentz. Half of that is that those two worked out. The other half is that they did little with the draft capital. Neither point actually addresses their thought process.

Anytime someone puts an asterisk on Cleveland as if they aren't an NFL team it's a lazy giveaway that they can't make a point. I'll do you one better. There's a reason Tennessee traded down in 2016 and not 2015. They got their QB in 2015 and as such they were in a position to trade down and acquire picks for the #1 overall selection they got.

I'd still like a verifiable example of a team needing a QB, passing on said QB to trade down and "build up the team" and having that scenario work in their favor...

As a former defensive player and guy whom loves the OL, the idea sounds GREAT...but in reality it's like a damn unicorn...

[MJW]

Anytime someone puts an asterisk on Cleveland as if they aren't an NFL team it's a lazy giveaway that they can't make a point. I'll do you one better. There's a reason Tennessee traded down in 2016 and not 2015. They got their QB in 2015 and as such they were in a position to trade down and acquire picks for the #1 overall selection they got.

I'd still like a verifiable example of a team needing a QB, passing on said QB to trade down and "build up the team" and having that scenario work in their favor...

As a former defensive player and guy whom loves the OL, the idea sounds GREAT...but in reality it's like a damn unicorn...

If those are you exact parameters - they could draft a QB, but they trade back instead - it's a pretty limited sample size. Most teams stick with the conventional wisdom in that situation. Besides which, there will ALWAYS be the intervening factor of what the team instead did with the picks they acquired. In other words, if Cleveland turns their Carson Wentz draft capital into Keanu Neal, Dak Prescott, Jordan Howard, Tyreek Hill, Tre'Davious White, and Alvin Kamara, is this the same conversation?

Besides, if we make the parameters "really needed a QB, but waited to draft one, instead building up other positions first," I can give you dozens of examples of that working out okay for those teams.

Roster construction philosophies are both fascinating and important. But the soundest approaches are worthless if you can't evaluate talent. And the dumbest throw-a-dart front office will stumble into greatness now and again.

[Super K]

I'd still like a verifiable example of a team needing a QB, passing on said QB to trade down and "build up the team" and having that scenario work in their favor...

As a former defensive player and guy whom loves the OL, the idea sounds GREAT...but in reality it's like a damn unicorn...

If those are you exact parameters - they could draft a QB, but they trade back instead - it's a pretty limited sample size. Most teams stick with the conventional wisdom in that situation. Besides which, there will ALWAYS be the intervening factor of what the team instead did with the picks they acquired. In other words, if Cleveland turns their Carson Wentz draft capital into Keanu Neal, Dak Prescott, Jordan Howard, Tyreek Hill, Tre'Davious White, and Alvin Kamara, is this the same conversation?

Besides, if we make the parameters "really needed a QB, but waited to draft one, instead building up other positions first," I can give you dozens of examples of that working out okay for those teams.

Roster construction philosophies are both fascinating and important. But the soundest approaches are worthless if you can't evaluate talent. And the dumbest throw-a-dart front office will stumble into greatness now and again.

MJW, I'm not trying to be a ****, but this reads like a lot of fluff and no substance...

Just give me a dang team!!...

Or, somebody just admit that the thought process of trading down, in this scenario, is just an unconventional wish/plan...kind of like running the triple option in the NFL or never punting ....you can make it look good on paper, but noone would ever try it...

[acacius]

I mean, assuming we could have tempted the Jets with a reasonable trade offer, L. Williams + Wentz > Winston + Hargreaves. That's not building the *offensive* line, of course, but there were plenty of people who advocated going for Williams. The problem, of course, being that there's no way to be certain that the team would have been in position to draft Wentz (or Goff) the following year. There's much to be said for a bird in the hand.

You know what Wentz and Goff have that Winston doesn’t have? Defense, OL, Run game and a good coach. Your thinking abilities are limited....you think if you just draft a QB everything will be all good lol. Eagles were so good they didn’t even need Wentz for their SB run.

What? No. This was more about Williams vs Hargreaves. Sheesh.

And to be crystal clear, I was all for taking a QB in 2015 and still believe that was the right call. The second part of my original post was kind of important to my overall point.

[Super K]

You know what Wentz and Goff have that Winston doesn’t have? Defense, OL, Run game and a good coach. Your thinking abilities are limited....you think if you just draft a QB everything will be all good lol. Eagles were so good they didn’t even need Wentz for their SB run.

What? No. This was more about Williams vs Hargreaves. Sheesh.

And to be crystal clear, I was all for taking a QB in 2015 and still believe that was the right call. The second part of my original post was kind of important to my overall point.

Your point was taken....

Sanka is just a very defensive side piece....

Don't worry about it..

[Deuce]

I truly don't understand the argument for wanting a trade in 2015. "I know I need a QB and I know there are 2 top QBs in this draft to choose from but I'll pass." That's EXACTLY what Cleveland did in 2016 when they released Manziel and a month later traded back with Philly. The result since then is 1-31 and 6 different starting QBs. Trying this cute "trade back and build the line" game doesn't work.

Because it didn't work for Cleveland, it doesn't work?

Like I said, I was on team, "Draft the QB" in 2015. But this idea it can't work...I mean, the last Superbowl winning QB drafted in the top ten who wasn't named "Manning" was John Elway. It sure seems like a lot of teams are finding other ways to answer the QB question.

The intervening factor with Cleveland is that they draft **** players btw. It's easy to dog-pile them for passing on Goff/Wentz. Half of that is that those two worked out. The other half is that they did little with the draft capital. Neither point actually addresses their thought process.

This is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever read. You perfectly set the parameters to make your point. Let's break it down a little.

First off, you're only using SB-winning QB's, so that's the first big issue. That conveniently shuts out Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Donovan McNabb, and Steve McNair, not to mention every good QB who didn't make the SB.

Elway won the SB in 1998, so that gives us 19 years of QBs. For some reason, we're excluding people named Manning, so that takes out 4. 5 have been won by Brady, so we're down to 10. 2 were won by Roethlisberger, who was drafted 11th.

Here are the 8 remaining QB's- Warner, Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Brees, Rodgers, Flacco, Wilson, and Foles.

Out of these, only Rodgers, Flacco, Wilson, and Foles won the SB with the team that drafted them. Foles was not the starter for the majority of the year, so he's excluded. I won't include Brady because we're not drafting the GOAT QB in the 6th round and don't have Belichick as our HC.

So put another way, your point is that 3 teams over the last 19 years have drafted a QB outside the top 10 and won the SB with them, so anyone can do it?

[Deja Entendu]

If those are you exact parameters - they could draft a QB, but they trade back instead - it's a pretty limited sample size. Most teams stick with the conventional wisdom in that situation. Besides which, there will ALWAYS be the intervening factor of what the team instead did with the picks they acquired. In other words, if Cleveland turns their Carson Wentz draft capital into Keanu Neal, Dak Prescott, Jordan Howard, Tyreek Hill, Tre'Davious White, and Alvin Kamara, is this the same conversation?

Besides, if we make the parameters "really needed a QB, but waited to draft one, instead building up other positions first," I can give you dozens of examples of that working out okay for those teams.

Roster construction philosophies are both fascinating and important. But the soundest approaches are worthless if you can't evaluate talent. And the dumbest throw-a-dart front office will stumble into greatness now and again.

MJW, I'm not trying to be a ****, but this reads like a lot of fluff and no substance...

Just give me a dang team!!...

Or, somebody just admit that the thought process of trading down, in this scenario, is just an unconventional wish/plan...kind of like running the triple option in the NFL or never punting ....you can make it look good on paper, but noone would ever try it...

I thought her point was pretty clear, and I agree. There aren't any specific teams that come to mind that have "needed" a QB and traded down instead, but there are plenty of example of teams using premium picks to build their roster and waiting on a QB or used an alternate method.

Current examples, off the top of my head: the Eagles, the Texans, the Vikings, the Raiders, the Bills, the 9ers, the Saints, the Chiefs, the Cowboys, the Broncos, the Cardinals.

There have obviously been a wide range of results among those teams.

There are also plenty of examples of teams passing on the QB when they shouldn't have... or taking the QB when they shouldn't have.

There's more than one way to skin a cat (such a messed up phrase).

[Bootz2004]

Deuce, meet MJW. She routinely sets her own parameters to meet her own agenda at the time.

[Deja Entendu]

FWIW I don't think there's a right or wrong way to do it, because there are so many variables following a "blueprint" would be foolish.

My take on Winston, and the Bucs picking him: it happened. He's our Quarterback. He's also shown the potential to be a damn good one. He obviously needs to get his head on straight and grow up (on and off the field.

All that said, even with 20/20 hindsight and revisionist history there is no "right" answer on what the Bucs should have done, so while the strategic debates are fun there's no platform to stand and proclaim "I told you so."