Buccaneers willing to trade much-needed CB for WR

[top dawg]

3 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

Cause Fuller is better than Ginn. I'm not afraid to admit that. Fuller is also better than Funchess. Fuller was able to beat out Jalen Strong his rookie year, Funchess couldn't beat out Cotchery or Philly his rookie season. Through 7 games Fuller already has 350 yards and 2 TD with arguably the worst starting QB in the NFL. That's more than what Funchess has now playing with a elite QB. Keep in mind Fuller has been dealing with a hamstring injury.  

Stop throwing around the "elite QB" label like it's a fat lady at the Golden Corral. 

Anyway, Strong has been as disappointing as any receiver in the league. His work ethic, among other things, has been questioned repeatedly. The Texans not only drafted Fuller to ostensibly replace Strong, but they also took a flyer on Braxton Miller. They wanted to overhaul their receiving corps, which badicalky meant Fuller was bound to start. Funchess did not come into thst situation. He came into a conservative culture where the coach takes a slower approach when it comes to throwing rookies in the fire. Furthermore, one huge thing that you and others just mysteriously fail to acknowledge is that Funchess was a tight end. His transition to the NFL was bound to take decidedly more time than others who actually played receiver in college (and H.S.).

[top dawg]

21 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

You forgot to mention after NE got caught with deflated footballs Lafell's hands went back to sh*t and ended up getting cut.

 

You just mentioned 3 receivers who have had 1000 yard seasons with sub par QBs, meanwhile Funchess is on pace for a whopping 300 yards with a MVP QB.

Cam was an MVP QB last season, you know, last season, the thing where Funchess did in fact show some talent, regardless if you want to downplay it or not.

[GoobyPls]

18 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Stop throwing around the "elite QB" label like it's a fat lady at the Golden Corral. 

Anyway, Strong has been as disappointing as any receiver in the league. His work ethic, among other things, has been questioned repeatedly. The Texans not only drafted Fuller to ostensibly replace Strong, but they also took a flyer on Braxton Miller. They wanted to overhaul their receiving corps, which badicalky meant Fuller was bound to start. Funchess did not come into thst situation. He came into a conservative culture where the coach takes a slower approach when it comes to throwing rookies in the fire. Furthermore, one huge thing that you and others just mysteriously fail to acknowledge is that Funchess was a tight end. His transition to the NFL was bound to take decidedly more time than others who actually played receiver in college (and H.S.).

If not elite very good. You pretty much been blaming Cam for Funchess lack of production since the get-go anyways, you just don't want to come out and say it.

Theirs were you are wrong, if you followed even a little bit of the Texans off season you would know Fuller wasn't handed the number 2, he took it. Why cause he's better, same way Kelvin was better in his rookie year than any other veteran receiver you keep using as excuses for Funchess. FYI that disappointment Strong has been better than Funchess this year with Brock fugging Osweiler. I can't even imagine Funchess in Houston, he wouldn't even see the field.

 

I know Funchess was a tight end his sophomore year, one of the reasons I didn't want him in the first place. I keep referring you to his scouting report which was never good. Ask Michigan fans and other big 10 viewers what they thought of Funchess, not many positive reviews.

 

 

400 yards in a season playing with the MVP is talent to you, than you have very low standards. What Amari Cooper did last year was talent. What Odell, Kelvin, Watkins that 2014 class did their rookie season was talent.

[top dawg]

58 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

If not elite very good. You pretty much been blaming Cam for Funchess lack of production since the get-go anyways, you just don't want to come out and say it.

Theirs were you are wrong, if you followed even a little bit of the Texans off season you would know Fuller wasn't handed the number 2, he took it. Why cause he's better, same way Kelvin was better in his rookie year than any other veteran receiver you keep using as excuses for Funchess. FYI that disappointment Strong has been better than Funchess this year with Brock fugging Osweiler. I can't even imagine Funchess in Houston, he wouldn't even see the field.

 

I know Funchess was a tight end his sophomore year, one of the reasons I didn't want him in the first place. I keep referring you to his scouting report which was never good. Ask Michigan fans and other big 10 viewers what they thought of Funchess, not many positive reviews.

 

 

400 yards in a season playing with the MVP is talent to you, than you have very low standards. What Amari Cooper did last year was talent. What Odell, Kelvin, Watkins that 2014 class did their rookie season was talent.

Like I said, number of snaps and situation. Transition between positions!

According to PFF's WRER (WR efficiency rating), Funchess was super efficient with his snaps last season. You should ask yourself what has changed. 

It's not all on Cam, or all about Cam. Cam's numbers this time last year were similar, though worse. As the season progressed, he progressed. Guess who else magically progressed. This season his mechanics and presumed willingness to spread the ball around have retrogressed. There are several reasons for that, including Cam himself. Our receiving corps last year was surprisingly productive as a unit. The receivers as individuals, nor as a group, just didn't turn into poo overnight. Everyone, from Rivera to Shula to Cam has to step it up, use all of their available tools in a more efficient, if not expedient, manner to get some wins. Our offense, irrespective of the defense, can step up a notch.

[GoobyPls]

6 hours ago, top dawg said:

Like I said, number of snaps and situation. Transition between positions!

According to PFF's WRER (WR efficiency rating), Funchess was super efficient with his snaps last season. You should ask yourself what has changed. 

It's not all on Cam, or all about Cam. Cam's numbers this time last year were similar, though worse. As the season progressed, he progressed. Guess who else magically progressed. This season his mechanics and presumed willingness to spread the ball around have retrogressed. There are several reasons for that, including Cam himself. Our receiving corps last year was surprisingly productive as a unit. The receivers as individuals, nor as a group, just didn't turn into poo overnight. Everyone, from Rivera to Shula to Cam has to step it up, use all of their available tools in a more efficient, if not expedient, manner to get some wins. Our offense, irrespective of the defense, can step up a notch.

Fuller is also better. No GM in their right mind would draft Funchess over Fuller.

 

Using pff as a source should pretty much disqualify your argument. PFF also said we had the worst WR core in the NFL 

 

Outside of KB and Olsen our receiving core is trash, Cam played at a unsustainable level last season. Cam, Shula, Rivera are all figuring out what those Michigan fans already knew, Funchess isn't that good

[top dawg]

1 hour ago, GoobyPls said:

Using pff as a source should pretty much disqualify your argument. PFF also said we had the worst WR core in the NFL 

This is just contentious reasoning.  One is simply an opinion, while the other is based upon metrics and what has already happened. For you to suggest that PFF is just some invalid source for analyzing football when so many professionals use PFF is just "silly," as Scot would say.

[TheRed]

The offense as a whole is being hindered by the OL, and the absence of Stewart.

This squad looked damn good last year when Cam actually had a pocket to step up into, and we had a real threat in the run game not named Cam Newton.

We're a running team. The offense goes as the run game goes. Until that is established consistently again, you can't really fairly evaluate the receiving core.

[iamhubby1]

2 hours ago, TheRed said:

The offense as a whole is being hindered by the OL, and the absence of Stewart.

This squad looked damn good last year when Cam actually had a pocket to step up into, and we had a real threat in the run game not named Cam Newton.

We're a running team. The offense goes as the run game goes. Until that is established consistently again, you can't really fairly evaluate the receiving core.

 

I was saying something  similar recently. That until the Offense gets its act together, evaluating the WR corp, from a fan perspective, ain't an easy task.

 

It is a difficult task in the first place, as we don't really know what is/was supposed to happen. But when the Offense struggles like we have lately, everything looks off. So we look for answers. We were looking for Funchy to take a step up in his development. That does not appear to be the case from what us fans can see.

 

I see a very smooth route runner, who can actually get yards after the catch. He blocks really well, and is not afraid to be physical with CBs. To me, he is bigger version of Philly, just not quite as quick. One of the main areas of concern for me is the lack of targets for Funch, and Philly.

 

 

 

 

[GoobyPls]

6 hours ago, top dawg said:

This is just contentious reasoning.  One is simply an opinion, while the other is based upon metrics and what has already happened. For you to suggest that PFF is just some invalid source for analyzing football when so many professionals use PFF is just "silly," as Scot would say.

Their are articles out there disproving PFF grading system. 

 

Either way no one thinks Funchess is good, outside a few people who haven't come to grips. These are the same people who thought Clausen should of got a second season.

[top dawg]

2 hours ago, GoobyPls said:

Their are articles out there disproving PFF grading system. 

 

Either way no one thinks Funchess is good, outside a few people who haven't come to grips. These are the same people who thought Clausen should of got a second season.

Their "grading system" is just one among many things that they do. Those articles aren't compelling enough to make professionals on what amounts to an institutional level stop using them. 

As for "no one" thinking Funchess is good...LOL.  Clausen?  LOL 

The people who actually make decisions thought Clausen was a screw-up---couldn't get him outta here fast enough.  The Cam-Gabbert decision was more real. That's where the question was. Clausen was an obvious failure from day one. Gettleman didn't have anything to do with that, but he did give Funchess a first round grade. I'm not saying Funchess is the answer to all of our problems, but what I am saying, among other things, is that the sample size is way too small. But keep bashing him if that's what floats your boat.

 

 

[GoobyPls]

21 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Their "grading system" is jut one among many things that they do. Those articles aren't compelling enough to make professionals on what amounts to an institutional level top using them. 

As for "no one" thinking Funchess is good...LOL.  Clausen?  LOL 

The people who actually make decisions thought Clausen was a screw-up---couldn't get him outta here fast enough.  The Cam-Gabbert decision was more real. That's where the question was. Clausen was an obvious failure from day one. Gettleman didn't have anything to do with that, but he did give Funchess a first round grade. I'm not saying Funchess is the answer to all of our problems, but what I am saying, among other things, is that the sample size is way too small. But keep bashing him if that's what floats your boat.

 

 

Who are these institutional top level using PFF? people on forums? ESPN uses their own grading system, NFL network barely uses pff, fox sports barely uses it either. Outside of NBC I can't think of another sports outlet that uses PFF.

 

I don't care if Gettleman gave Funchess a first round, he sure as hell isn't producing like a first round pick. You keeping bring up sample size, and I keep telling you the fact that he is one of the worst snaps per production players IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE. I think only Tavon Austin is worst.

 

If bashing means stating facts than so be it. I'm sorry I want a better receiver on the team I root for.

[top dawg]

48 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

Who are these institutional top level using PFF? people on forums? ESPN uses their own grading system, NFL network barely uses pff, fox sports barely uses it either. Outside of NBC I can't think of another sports outlet that uses PFF.

 

I don't care if Gettleman gave Funchess a first round, he sure as hell isn't producing like a first round pick. You keeping bring up sample size, and I keep telling you the fact that he is one of the worst snaps per production players IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE. I think only Tavon Austin is worst.

 

If bashing means stating facts than so be it. I'm sorry I want a better receiver on the team I root for.

I think we've already went around the block about Funchess, so it is what it is.

If you don't hear media analysts refer to PFF on a continual basis, it's because you're not listening, but regardless of that, here is one article that I remember reading over the last several years.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/25/pro-football-focus-nfl-neil-hornsby-cris-collinsworth-analytics

" ...Pro Football Focus, began nine years ago in Luton, England, some 30 miles north of London. Living stateside since October, he now counts 13 NFL teams—40% of the league—as clients, including seven teams from this season’s playoff field."

"PFF’s statistics are widely cited in NFL media reports about players, teams and trends, and Hornsby has appeared in several stories on The MMQB. But what the public sees on Pro Football Focus’s website is just a tidal pool compared to the ocean of information that NFL teams are paying very good money (PFF won’t disclose how much) to access."

" PFF has also created a computer program that diagrammed each of the 32,779 regular-season plays from the line of scrimmage in 2014, depicting details like wide receiver splits, depth of players off the line, motions, and route combinations. That information is then linked to a team’s video system so coaches can put eyes on what the numbers are telling them."

 

There are other pieces on PFF. You can give them credence or not, but the fact is that plenty of professionals do. This is not to say that PFF is an end-all way to look at things, but the company does offer plenty of tools and services for professionals. There is really no debate about that. It's fact. And even more teams, some of the more successful ones, use PFF and other advanced metrics companies to draw conclusions, develop plans, and help their players improve. It is deeply ingrained within NFL culture whether you give it credence or not. And, more people, organizations and teams are relying on it each year.

[GoobyPls]

24 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I think we've already went around the block about Funchess, so it is what it is.

If you don't hear media analysts refer to PFF on a continual basis, it's because you're not listening, but regardless of that, here is one article that I remember reading over the last several years.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/25/pro-football-focus-nfl-neil-hornsby-cris-collinsworth-analytics

" ...Pro Football Focus, began nine years ago in Luton, England, some 30 miles north of London. Living stateside since October, he now counts 13 NFL teams—40% of the league—as clients, including seven teams from this season’s playoff field."

"PFF’s statistics are widely cited in NFL media reports about players, teams and trends, and Hornsby has appeared in several stories on The MMQB. But what the public sees on Pro Football Focus’s website is just a tidal pool compared to the ocean of information that NFL teams are paying very good money (PFF won’t disclose how much) to access."

" PFF has also created a computer program that diagrammed each of the 32,779 regular-season plays from the line of scrimmage in 2014, depicting details like wide receiver splits, depth of players off the line, motions, and route combinations. That information is then linked to a team’s video system so coaches can put eyes on what the numbers are telling them."

 

There are other pieces on PFF. You can give them credence or not, but the fact is that plenty of professionals do. This is not to say that PFF is an end-all way to look at things, but the company does offer plenty of tools and services for professionals. There is really no debate about that. It's fact. And even more teams, some of the more successful ones, use PFF and other advanced metrics companies to draw conclusions, develop plans, and help their players improve. It is deeply ingrained within NFL culture whether you give it credence or not. And, more people, organizations and teams are relying on it each year.

I want names of teams, a just cause some one in the organization uses it doesn't mean they are living and dying by it. Teams have  said they use Mel Kiper and Mayock draft boards also, that doesn't mean much. Teams have their own analytical guys who study tape.

Do you even know how PFF got started? most off the PFF employers were sports bloggers who had to much time in their hands. They were even asking fans of teams to apply for PFF.

You think Carson Wentz is the second best QB in the NFL this season? You think the ravens secondary is the best in the league?

[top dawg]

3 hours ago, GoobyPls said:

I want names of teams, a just cause some one in the organization uses it doesn't mean they are living and dying by it. Teams have  said they use Mel Kiper and Mayock draft boards also, that doesn't mean much. Teams have their own analytical guys who study tape.

Do you even know how PFF got started? most off the PFF employers were sports bloggers who had to much time in their hands. They were even asking fans of teams to apply for PFF.

You think Carson Wentz is the second best QB in the NFL this season? You think the ravens secondary is the best in the league?

What? You're not making sense now.

You're just disregarding what I've told you my last three posts in order to be contentious and prove some point that invalidates PFF, when so many professionals within the NFL rely on one or more of its services as a tool to improve their team. 

If you don't think that PFF deserves any type of validation, that's your perogative, but there are plenty of people that do. A throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater mentality is generally not the best approach when dealing with issues that are not black and white, but if that's your way, you do you.