We have 4 QBs. If you do not create a hierarchy amongst the 4 QBs you have, then you do not diminish the trade value that any of them might carry. For example, Bollinger is probably #4 on Mangini's depth chart... however, by not coming out and making that public Brooks can have more perceived value on the trade market as he may be getting shopped as a #3 or marginal #2 QB. Right now the Buccaneers are interested in Bollinger, so I bet he sees plenty of time in tonights game. I am going to take a peak at the TB depth chart at RB and DT... who knows? Maybe the FO can work out another 3-way. TB send Washington a 5th rounder for Ladell Betts TB send Ladell Betts to NYJ to Bollinger
exactly,trade washington? a rookie who was considered a steal in the 4th? for a back whos already peaked and proven to be avg.
Wow, does anybody read anymore? Or do you all just skip over the comprehension part and go directly to spouting off snivelling responses that make you sound like a bunch of homers? I said a 3-WAY TRADE. TB acquires Ladell Betts from Washington for a 5th rounder, then TB trades Ladell Betts to NYJ for Brooks Bollinger. Get it? I chose this scenario because of the most recent KFFL update: Buccaneers | Team may be interested in Bollinger Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:40:57 -0700 Rich Cimini, of the New York Daily News, reports the Tampa Bay Buccaneers may have some interest in New York Jets backup QB Brooks Bollinger. Bollinger has a fan in Buccaneers quarterbacks coach Paul Hackett, the Jets' former offensive coordinator. Jets | Team interested in Betts Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:31:22 -0700 Rich Cimini, of the New York Daily News, reports the New York Jets reportedly have some interest in Washington Redskins RB Ladell Betts.
For trade purposes, I think its irrelevant whether Mangini announces a definitive depth chart. The other teams aren't idiots. They know Pennington is our #1, they know we're not going to trade away Clemens since he's our hope for the future, they see we just signed Ramsey to a one year extension so that leaves Bollinger as the odd man out. If the bucs are interested in Bollinger (god knows why they would be) then by all means he should get plenty of playing time in tonight's game. But the idea that by not announcing a clear depth chart we're somehow upping his trade value from that of a #4 qb to a #2 or #3 qb makes no sense.
ok sorry, too early for perfect proof reading on my part. either way, its just yet another non starting quality rb on the roster. thats just me though.
No, I agree. No more RBs. Work with what we've got and find out what they're made of. There's always April '07 or maybe something pops up in the meantime.
I agree. Let's see what we have with Houston, Askew, and Blaylock. They'll always be a decent RB out there available. No need to trade for one so soon, especially when we need every draft pick we have.
Everybody keeps saying "lets just see what we have...." How about, No. Mangini has not let any information slip out of his grasp, except for the fact that we are interested in pursuing a veteran RB to add to our roster. I am thinking training camp was the period of time where coaches said, "lets just see what we have..." and they didn't like what they saw. Lets be clear on something, I am not hating on our current players... but the franchise clearly doesn't want to go to war with inexperienced ball carriers. I am with them, not with the fans who seem to think its okay to continue to insist players we have already are better than they are and/or ever will be. Sorry guys. I love this team, but I am not with any of you that think that your personal opinion and scouting report is a better litmus test than the evaluation of our coaches.
Now that we have "just seen what we have," can you all stop the bellyaching about possibility that our front office wants to improve the running game?
this is exactly true....Mr. thread starter do you really think manigini is pulling the wool over anyones eyes here.....im sure the bucs are thinking..."hmmm this bollinger guy might be there number 1, lets get him":breakdance:
First off, I think GMs around the league are abit smarter than "hey, let's see where they rank on the depth chart". They probably actually care about stats and how the player actually performs in a game. In terms of trade value, it's pretty irrelevant. Secondly, just for kicks, let's pretend it does affect trade value. Wouldn't you rather put Brooks Bollinger #1 on the depth chart, then? By your logic, since GMs care so much about depth chart, seeing him as #1 should increase it, right?
Wow! Hilarious. Is that original material? You should have your own sitcom, yeah, it can be a show about nothing... nobody has used that idea yet either...
I love the fact that Chad kept his no INT streak in the red zone alive. It's nice to have a qb that recognizes his limitations. Maybe that's why he hasn't been named the starter?
The object is to score TDs when a team gets into the red zone! A high QB rating does not translate to SB wins! TDs do!
