We need a pass rusher more than a DB

[I-4_Fan]

The Bucs' communications staff has "situational" tables dating back to 1996. Thus, we can see how the team has done in certain situations over a pretty large sample size of 16.5 seasons. And cranking up the pass rush seems to have a strong correlation with winning.



Specifically, the Bucs have been quite a bit more successful when their defense has been able to break past two sacks in a game. Since 1996, here are the Buccaneers' records when they've had two or fewer sacks in a game, and when they've had three or more:



Situation


W-L


Pct.

2.0 Sacks or Less/Game


65-98


.399

3.0 Sacks or More/Game


68-34


.667



There is something of a causation issue that must be considered here. Those who believe that winning leads to more carries, and not the other way around, point out that winning teams have a lot of runs because their backs are grinding out the clock at the end, not getting tons of ground-game-establishing carries early. One could make a similar argument that teams that are ahead on the scoreboard are likely to face more passes, which increases the opportunity for sacks.



That's an argument worth considering, but here's why it might not be that damning to the sacks-wins corollary after all: Tampa Bay's game-by-game sack totals haven't really coincided directly with their opponents' pass attempts totals. For instance, the Bucs had three sacks on opening day, when Cam Newton attempted 33 passes, but they had zero the next week, when Eli Manning threw it a whopping 51 times. They got to Minnesota's Christian Ponder three times in 38 drop-backs, but only dropped Oakland's Carson Palmer twice in 64 drop-backs. The same lack of correlation can be found in the 2011 and 2010 game-by-game totals as well.



Therefore, we're here to say it, and believe it: If the Buccaneers' defense can sack Newton at least three times this Sunday, Tampa Bay will have a very good chance of leaving Charlotte with a victory.


Just a bit of the read that's on the Bucs website.

I think we need some one who pushes up the middle to open up room for McCoy and the DE's. If we had more pressure on the QB I think he would have less ability to cut our DBs up like a surgeon. Our Corners aren't exactly the top of the league, but I think they are better then the dead last rank we see on stats. But they need more help from the front. I like Claiborne, Bennett, Teo, and Bowers. But After McCoy we have no real threat in the middle.

[bucsfan25]

Were gunna see alot of watson now, hes a good pass rusher, he just hasnt had playing. I gaurentee he gets a sack Sunday. But ys, a pass rusher is a must get

[Capital T]

The Bucs' communications staff has "situational" tables dating back to 1996. Thus, we can see how the team has done in certain situations over a pretty large sample size of 16.5 seasons. And cranking up the pass rush seems to have a strong correlation with winning.



Specifically, the Bucs have been quite a bit more successful when their defense has been able to break past two sacks in a game. Since 1996, here are the Buccaneers' records when they've had two or fewer sacks in a game, and when they've had three or more:



Situation


W-L


Pct.

2.0 Sacks or Less/Game


65-98


.399

3.0 Sacks or More/Game


68-34


.667



There is something of a causation issue that must be considered here. Those who believe that winning leads to more carries, and not the other way around, point out that winning teams have a lot of runs because their backs are grinding out the clock at the end, not getting tons of ground-game-establishing carries early. One could make a similar argument that teams that are ahead on the scoreboard are likely to face more passes, which increases the opportunity for sacks.



That's an argument worth considering, but here's why it might not be that damning to the sacks-wins corollary after all: Tampa Bay's game-by-game sack totals haven't really coincided directly with their opponents' pass attempts totals. For instance, the Bucs had three sacks on opening day, when Cam Newton attempted 33 passes, but they had zero the next week, when Eli Manning threw it a whopping 51 times. They got to Minnesota's Christian Ponder three times in 38 drop-backs, but only dropped Oakland's Carson Palmer twice in 64 drop-backs. The same lack of correlation can be found in the 2011 and 2010 game-by-game totals as well.



Therefore, we're here to say it, and believe it: If the Buccaneers' defense can sack Newton at least three times this Sunday, Tampa Bay will have a very good chance of leaving Charlotte with a victory.


Just a bit of the read that's on the Bucs website.

I think we need some one who pushes up the middle to open up room for McCoy and the DE's. If we had more pressure on the QB I think he would have less ability to cut our DBs up like a surgeon. Our Corners aren't exactly the top of the league, but I think they are better then the dead last rank we see on stats. But they need more help from the front. I like Claiborne, Bennett, Teo, and Bowers. But After McCoy we have no real threat in the middle.

Wow really, now that we've all put this past us u start a stupid thread like dis? Lol unbelievable!!! Yo fact is this is a completely different team and organization, past stats are for the past, leave them there!

[TKiv18]

^^^Dude, I wouldn't call this thread stupid. Say what you want, those stats are pretty telling. You are right, it is a different team, but the same could be said every year. But the bottom line is that those stats illustrate the value of a consistent pass rush.

I know we can all go round and round about DE vs. CB, but I truly believe that the 2013 draft going to come down to best available player. That might not even include a CB or End. But to write off one position or the other; or any position for that matter; would be really short sighted.

This is my question... What happens if the top TE falls to us in the draft and he's considered a can't miss prospect? Or Manti Te'o? Neither player would fill a hole in our secondary, but should we take a lesser prospect just to fill a hole? That seems like a recipe for disaster. Gaines Adams over AP anyone...?

[Justintyme]

Just look at the giants the past few years, LBs and DBs very average, pass rush outstanding. Nuff said

[JollyRanch]

It's a HUGE need.

This season, we're tied for 26th in the league in generating sacks.

In 2011, we were dead last in sacks with 23. Hell, Jared Allen had 22 BY HIMSELF.

In 2010, we were 30th in the league in sacks.

In 2009, we were tied for 26th in the league in sacks.

In 2008, we were 20th in the league in sacks.

So yeh, we need some monsters at DE.

[ebbucsfan]

Michael Bennet is turning into a really good defensive end. 7 sacks on the year and amazing against the run. If Clayborn, Bowers, and McCoy can all stay healthy and play up to their potential we could have a really nice core going forward. But as of right now the pass rush is our biggest problem.

[aecon13]

[QUOTE=TKiv18;24360311]^^^Dude, I wouldn't call this thread stupid. Say what you want, those stats are pretty telling. You are right, it is a different team, but the same could be said every year. But the bottom line is that those stats illustrate the value of a consistent pass rush.

I know we can all go round and round about DE vs. CB, but I truly believe that the 2013 draft going to come down to best available player. That might not even include a CB or End. But to write off one position or the other; or any position for that matter; would be really short sighted.

This is my question... What happens if the top TE falls to us in the draft and he's considered a can't miss prospect? Or Manti Te'o? Neither player would fill a hole in our secondary, but should we take a lesser prospect just to fill a hole? That seems like a recipe for disaster. Gaines Adams over AP anyone...?[/QUOTE]

Coming into the 2007 season Cadillac was the future of the franchise. He was coming into his third season, and was probably the best offensive player on the team. Every team out there can sit back and say why "I can't believe we didn't draft Tom Brady, or AP, or Patrick Willis". The arguement just simply does not hold any water. G. Adams was viewed as the top pass rusher in the draft, and a solid top 5 pick. We were in serious need of a pass rusher, and so we took him. The pick did not pan out, and sometimes that happens. I agree that a team should never reach for a player to fill a need, and pass on one just because his position is not a serious need. That was not the case in 2007. I don't think we have reached a single time in the first round over the past few years.

[andrews1469]

The point is moot. All of our guys are either banged up or lack any experience to say whether they will make it as a long term solution to our lack of pass rush. I have seen flashes out of every single one of these guys. Anyone who seriously thinks we are going to draft a magical DE that comes in and dominates right away is fairly ill informed. Give our young guys a little time. Frikin microwave society I swear.

[TKiv18]

Aecon: Gaines was the most logical pick. That's not the point I was making. All I'm saying is that if the top pass rusher falls to us; even though we have greater needs elsewhere: we should seriously consider taking him.

I agree that Gaines wasn't a reach. but we can all agree that AP was the best player available. And hindsight being what it is, it's easy to say we should have taken Peterson. I just don't want to see us reach or miss a superior player because we're more focused on filling a hole.

[bwallstreet]

^^^^So your using the fact that Gaines Adams a highly rated DE was a bust as a reason why we should draft another highly rated DE? IDK

There is more than one area the pick could go.

[TKiv18]

^^^No, that wasn't/isn't my reasoning.

I should leave it at that, but I will explain, again. First, forget the Gaines/AP analogy. What I'm saying is that if a stud DE falls to us; even if we have bigger needs, i.e. CB; then we should consider it. Even with Bowers, Clayborn, and Bennett on the roster. Can I make it any clearer? Pass rushers that post 10 sack seasons year after year are hard to come by. So, if a JPP, Von Miller, etc., falls into our lap, we'd be crazy not to take him.

The talk about Gaines vs. AP was only meant to illustrate that drafting for need (even though Gaines was a top rated DE) instead of taking the best player can backfire. Does it mean that it was wrong to draft Gaines? No. But clearly we would have had a more productive player had we taken Peterson. That doesn't make any difference, clearly, but it is what it is.

Also, I know that you think CB is a bigger need so why ask me to clarify when you'll just disagree anyway?

[aecon13]

^^^No, that wasn't/isn't my reasoning.

I should leave it at that, but I will explain, again. First, forget the Gaines/AP analogy. What I'm saying is that if a stud DE falls to us; even if we have bigger needs, i.e. CB; then we should consider it. Even with Bowers, Clayborn, and Bennett on the roster. Can I make it any clearer? Pass rushers that post 10 sack seasons year after year are hard to come by. So, if a JPP, Von Miller, etc., falls into our lap, we'd be crazy not to take him.

The talk about Gaines vs. AP was only meant to illustrate that drafting for need (even though Gaines was a top rated DE) instead of taking the best player can backfire. Does it mean that it was wrong to draft Gaines? No. But clearly we would have had a more productive player had we taken Peterson. That doesn't make any difference, clearly, but it is what it is.

Also, I know that you think CB is a bigger need so why ask me to clarify when you'll just disagree anyway?

I get what your saying. I agree that there is no reason to reach. I think most of us would agree on that.

[TKiv18]

^^^Thanks man. Sometimes I think I'm better off explaining myself a little more so that people will understand. Then I try and realize that it's a mistake.