Play From The Rookies

[WarrenDawg]

I watched the Bengals game again, yesterday. Taylor was OK. Sheard was getting destroyed. Marecic was useless. Little nearly tackled Cribbs...

 

I know it's just one game, and maybe these guys weren't ready from a short off-season. I'm disappointed so far, especially with Sheard. Cedric Benson was abusing his side of the line!

 

We can't forget this is Shurmer's rookie debut as a head coach, too. How much of a learning curve do we give as fans? Do you expect things to get better?

[jnuh]

I thought Taylor played very well for a rookie. Way better then I expected. Little had a bad play on special teams, but we drafted him as a WR not special teamer. WRs in general take a little while to pan out ... that will be no different for Little who did not play in college last year. The one I am most worried about is Sheard ... I have hated the pick from day 1. I wanted to roll the dice on Bowers

[Harry Buffalo]

1. Phil Taylor had a great game, 6 tackles 2 TFL and he was the one who put Dalton out of the game with a QB hit.

2. Little can not be blamed for blocking a guy, that was his job on that play, Shit happens and move on.

3. Mareici actually had a good game, I only saw one block that he messed up on and that was on the end around, which in my opinion is a stupid drive killing play anyway and we shouldn't have ran it once, let along 3 god damn times. Honestly it just seems like people say Marecic did bad because his name is Marecic and Vickers did good because his name is Vickers. Pointless bullshit. If you are basing his performance on the rushing stats of the game then just do everyone a favor and shut the hell up.

4. Sheard was not brought in to be a rush stopper, but a pass rusher. If you are expecting him to hold up against the run then you are a moron. If we would have taken Bowers he would have been playing on the other side as our run stopping end, why do you ask, because he is a heavy and slow DE with more power. Having said all that Sheard still needs to get sacks, but at the same time if you are expecting a 2nd round pick rookie to get 12ish sacks in a season you are, and I know I am saying this a lot, a freakin moron.

5. I will not comment on what kind of game Pinkston had. Shurmer said he did good, but I don't know because I wasn't watching where all the pressure was coming from, from my lack of paying attention to the pressure it looked like most of it was coming form the right side so maybe Pinkston did have a decent game for all I know.

6. Skrine did good on special teams. All you can ask for.

 

You guys make it seem like every single rookie should come right in and be stars early and often. News flash they won't be. Last year we only had one decent rookie at this point in the year (Ward) and the other two who ended up starting (McCoy and Haden) were not even starting until the 2nd half of the season. How about you pump the breaks for a second and take a deep breath, because these rookies are not going to perform at a pro bowl level right off the bat with no off season to prepare them.

[jnuh]

1. Phil Taylor had a great game, 6 tackles 2 TFL and he was the one who put Dalton out of the game with a QB hit.

2. Little can not be blamed for blocking a guy, that was his job on that play, Shit happens and move on.

3. Mareici actually had a good game, I only saw one block that he messed up on and that was on the end around, which in my opinion is a stupid drive killing play anyway and we shouldn't have ran it once, let along 3 god damn times. Honestly it just seems like people say Marecic did bad because his name is Marecic and Vickers did good because his name is Vickers. Pointless bullshit. If you are basing his performance on the rushing stats of the game then just do everyone a favor and shut the hell up.

4. Sheard was not brought in to be a rush stopper, but a pass rusher. If you are expecting him to hold up against the run then you are a moron. If we would have taken Bowers he would have been playing on the other side as our run stopping end, why do you ask, because he is a heavy and slow DE with more power. Having said all that Sheard still needs to get sacks, but at the same time if you are expecting a 2nd round pick rookie to get 12ish sacks in a season you are, and I know I am saying this a lot, a freakin moron.

5. I will not comment on what kind of game Pinkston had. Shurmer said he did good, but I don't know because I wasn't watching where all the pressure was coming from, from my lack of paying attention to the pressure it looked like most of it was coming form the right side so maybe Pinkston did have a decent game for all I know.

6. Skrine did good on special teams. All you can ask for.

 

You guys make it seem like every single rookie should come right in and be stars early and often. News flash they won't be. Last year we only had one decent rookie at this point in the year (Ward) and the other two who ended up starting (McCoy and Haden) were not even starting until the 2nd half of the season. How about you pump the breaks for a second and take a deep breath, because these rookies are not going to perform at a pro bowl level right off the bat with no off season to prepare them.

 

Just because Sheard wasn't brought in to be a "run stopper" doesn't mean he shouldn't be expected to hold his own. I am not jumping the gun on anything yet because he is obviously a rookie playing in his first game could be overwhelmed right now ... but I wasn't very impressed with the pick from day 1. Bowers had to much upside to pass up with that pick and was a position of need. Hopefully Sheard proves me wrong, but nothing I have seen or read makes me think he will.

[mcbrownies23]

The punt return wasnt on little if you look at the replay cribbs had the outside it was his fault he decided to run right into little

[ballpeen]

Just because Sheard wasn't brought in to be a "run stopper" doesn't mean he shouldn't be expected to hold his own. I am not jumping the gun on anything yet because he is obviously a rookie playing in his first game could be overwhelmed right now ... but I wasn't very impressed with the pick from day 1. Bowers had to much upside to pass up with that pick and was a position of need. Hopefully Sheard proves me wrong, but nothing I have seen or read makes me think he will.

 

 

 

I agree.....running is a part of the game and if Sheard plays as poorly as he did in that department, he won't get many chances to rush the passer as teams will opt to run right over him.

 

 

He better learn to at least neutralize his blocker at the point of attack.

[htownbrown]

1. Phil Taylor had a great game, 6 tackles 2 TFL and he was the one who put Dalton out of the game with a QB hit.

2. Little can not be blamed for blocking a guy, that was his job on that play, Shit happens and move on.

3. Mareici actually had a good game, I only saw one block that he messed up on and that was on the end around, which in my opinion is a stupid drive killing play anyway and we shouldn't have ran it once, let along 3 god damn times. Honestly it just seems like people say Marecic did bad because his name is Marecic and Vickers did good because his name is Vickers. Pointless bullshit. If you are basing his performance on the rushing stats of the game then just do everyone a favor and shut the hell up.

4. Sheard was not brought in to be a rush stopper, but a pass rusher. If you are expecting him to hold up against the run then you are a moron. If we would have taken Bowers he would have been playing on the other side as our run stopping end, why do you ask, because he is a heavy and slow DE with more power. Having said all that Sheard still needs to get sacks, but at the same time if you are expecting a 2nd round pick rookie to get 12ish sacks in a season you are, and I know I am saying this a lot, a freakin moron.

5. I will not comment on what kind of game Pinkston had. Shurmer said he did good, but I don't know because I wasn't watching where all the pressure was coming from, from my lack of paying attention to the pressure it looked like most of it was coming form the right side so maybe Pinkston did have a decent game for all I know.

6. Skrine did good on special teams. All you can ask for.

 

You guys make it seem like every single rookie should come right in and be stars early and often. News flash they won't be. Last year we only had one decent rookie at this point in the year (Ward) and the other two who ended up starting (McCoy and Haden) were not even starting until the 2nd half of the season. How about you pump the breaks for a second and take a deep breath, because these rookies are not going to perform at a pro bowl level right off the bat with no off season to prepare them.

 

People think Marecic sucks because his name is Marecic? Really? That's beyond ridiculous.

[Harry Buffalo]

People think Marecic sucks because his name is Marecic? Really? That's beyond ridiculous.

 

I haven't really read anything on here or anywhere else to prove other wise. Seriously by all accounts blocking wise he had a good game last week, the problem wasn't with him it was with the O-Line. People are quick to claim he is the biggest miss since Vein-what ever a few years ago, but other than some mental errors he really hasn't done too bad for a rookie.

 

Also Sheard seems to be having the most trouble just adjusting to the RDE spot, when ever he is moved over to the LDE spot he has dominated.

[jnuh]

I haven't really read anything on here or anywhere else to prove other wise. Seriously by all accounts blocking wise he had a good game last week, the problem wasn't with him it was with the O-Line. People are quick to claim he is the biggest miss since Vein-what ever a few years ago, but other than some mental errors he really hasn't done too bad for a rookie.

 

Also Sheard seems to be having the most trouble just adjusting to the RDE spot, when ever he is moved over to the LDE spot he has dominated.

 

I have not seen Sheard dominate at all. Play better perhaps ... but you are using the word dominate far too loose. Personally I have not noticed any good play yet from this kid, but thats just me. I will say this though ... I didn't expect everyone of Heckerts picks to pan out so Sheard bsting wouldn't suprise me especially when I think he did well with a few picks in this draft and a few from last years. Every pick panning out to being a player who actually contributes is unrealistic. I think from this class we are looking at Little, Taylor, Mareceic, Skrine, and possibly even Pinkston panning out. That is very good.

 

I do agree with HIB in saying people are just hating Mareciec because his name isn't Vickers. For reasons unknown to me people on this board have Vickers up on this crazy high level of greatness which I do not see. He was an average at best fullback. And very one dimensional. Obviously right now after 1 game Vickers is still the better full back because he was a pretty good blocker ... but in time when Mareciec can block as well or close to Vickers and is able to significantly outplay Vickers with the rock in his hand people will forget Vickers. I do get the whole we should have kept Vickers one more yr banter though only because we had plenty of money and there is no real negative to keeping him.

 

I still dont understand why the OP had a problem with Taylors game. Kid was really beasting it.

[htownbrown]

I've heard it all now. So Momass gets a pass, but Marecic doesn't. Laughable.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

This thread is stupid and premature.

 

 

It's bad enough that these rookies have a shortened offseason. Add to that extremely little veteran mentoring and the fact that they got the starting nod from the moment they were drafted, and it's like they're walking into an impossible situation.

 

 

As for the Sheard/Bowers argument, it's pretty simple:

 

-Sheard outperformed Bowers Week 1, 3 tackles to 1.

-Bowers isn't starting for the Bucs, therefore his value to them is lesser than Sheard's to us.

-Bowers can benefit from an unbelievably stout defensive line around him that often flies under the radar. As for the Browns defensive line, the jury is still out.

-Sheard is playing at RDE, basically going up against a team's best offensive lineman every week. Bowers is listed at LDE, backing up Bennett.

-Sheard is an everydown DE whereas Bowers is playing as a nickel pass rusher. Bowers isn't being asked to hold his own every down, and essentially is useless to the run anyway by coming in on only passing downs.

 

Now, for the reason (I believe) we drafted Sheard over Bowers:

 

-Sheard and Bowers had pretty similar stats. Outside of Bower's ridiculous 15.5 sack year that propelled him up the draft boards, the stats were just about the same.

-Sheard was more consistent than Bowers in the sack department, recording 5 sack in '08, 5 in '09 and 9 in '10. Compare that to Bowers' 1 in '08, 3 in '09, and then his aforementioned 15.5 in '10.

-Sheard was slightly faster at the Combine in the 40 yard dash, running a 4.68 to Bowers' 4.7.

-They had almost identical measures in reach and hand size. Sheard measured half an inch shorter and 14 lbs lighter than Bowers did, while having less than 1/10th of an inch difference in reach and .2 of an inch difference in hand size.

-Sheard was the Big East Defensive Player of the Year, just as Bowers was for the ACC.

 

They were, in effect, pretty evenly matched statistically. It all came down to Bowers injury history, so Heckert took the guy who performed nearly as well and had no history of injury.

 

Bowers' torn meniscus wasn't, and still isn't, something to be looked over. I tore mine over a month ago in a game, sat out for an entire month, and played in the playoffs for us a couple weeks ago. I lasted four plays before it got hurt again. Needless to say, I'll now miss the National All-Star Game in Atlanta as well as my pro day with AFL, IFL, and college scouts. Meniscal tears are very easy to get, and if it's happened once, it's bound to happen again.

 

All in all, I agree with Sheard pick over Bowers for a team in our position. I know we've been "rebuilding" since we came back, but this one feels...right. And, looking at it logically, the Sheard pick fits in with our type of rebuild. Sure, Bowers has enormous potential and has been in the media since high school. Believe me, I live in South Carolina, I understand the hype behind Bowers. But he also has an injury history, and I believe that is the reason he's in Tampa Bay and not in Cleveland. Sheard put up similar numbers, and comes without the injury asterisk.

 

It's not like we were reaching for Sheard, either. He was a projected 2nd rounder in most mocks, who could have possibly slid to the 3rd.

[Zombo]

I thought the big surprise was Pinkston, a rookie fifth rounder with no OTAs or offseason team activies, team weight room etc., who started his first game in the NFL and did pretty well. Could be quite a steal.

 

I thought the fullback played good, and Taylor looked like a handful. Give Sheard a break, playing defensive end in the NFL is not just athleticism and size, its learning what to expect and how to beat these veteran blockers ... it'll come ... I thought he was pretty solid in preseason.

 

Z

[Soju]

This thread is stupid and premature.

 

 

It's bad enough that these rookies have a shortened offseason. Add to that extremely little veteran mentoring and the fact that they got the starting nod from the moment they were drafted, and it's like they're walking into an impossible situation.

 

 

As for the Sheard/Bowers argument, it's pretty simple:

 

-Sheard outperformed Bowers Week 1, 3 tackles to 1.

-Bowers isn't starting for the Bucs, therefore his value to them is lesser than Sheard's to us.

-Bowers can benefit from an unbelievably stout defensive line around him that often flies under the radar. As for the Browns defensive line, the jury is still out.

-Sheard is playing at RDE, basically going up against a team's best offensive lineman every week. Bowers is listed at LDE, backing up Bennett.

-Sheard is an everydown DE whereas Bowers is playing as a nickel pass rusher. Bowers isn't being asked to hold his own every down, and essentially is useless to the run anyway by coming in on only passing downs.

 

Now, for the reason (I believe) we drafted Sheard over Bowers:

 

-Sheard and Bowers had pretty similar stats. Outside of Bower's ridiculous 15.5 sack year that propelled him up the draft boards, the stats were just about the same.

-Sheard was more consistent than Bowers in the sack department, recording 5 sack in '08, 5 in '09 and 9 in '10. Compare that to Bowers' 1 in '08, 3 in '09, and then his aforementioned 15.5 in '10.

-Sheard was slightly faster at the Combine in the 40 yard dash, running a 4.68 to Bowers' 4.7.

-They had almost identical measures in reach and hand size. Sheard measured half an inch shorter and 14 lbs lighter than Bowers did, while having less than 1/10th of an inch difference in reach and .2 of an inch difference in hand size.

-Sheard was the Big East Defensive Player of the Year, just as Bowers was for the ACC.

 

They were, in effect, pretty evenly matched statistically. It all came down to Bowers injury history, so Heckert took the guy who performed nearly as well and had no history of injury.

 

Bowers' torn meniscus wasn't, and still isn't, something to be looked over. I tore mine over a month ago in a game, sat out for an entire month, and played in the playoffs for us a couple weeks ago. I lasted four plays before it got hurt again. Needless to say, I'll now miss the National All-Star Game in Atlanta as well as my pro day with AFL, IFL, and college scouts. Meniscal tears are very easy to get, and if it's happened once, it's bound to happen again.

 

All in all, I agree with Sheard pick over Bowers for a team in our position. I know we've been "rebuilding" since we came back, but this one feels...right. And, looking at it logically, the Sheard pick fits in with our type of rebuild. Sure, Bowers has enormous potential and has been in the media since high school. Believe me, I live in South Carolina, I understand the hype behind Bowers. But he also has an injury history, and I believe that is the reason he's in Tampa Bay and not in Cleveland. Sheard put up similar numbers, and comes without the injury asterisk.

 

It's not like we were reaching for Sheard, either. He was a projected 2nd rounder in most mocks, who could have possibly slid to the 3rd.

 

Nice analysis on Bowers vs. Sheard. I didn't know the two were that evenly matched.

Nice post TCPU

[jnuh]

This thread is stupid and premature.

 

 

It's bad enough that these rookies have a shortened offseason. Add to that extremely little veteran mentoring and the fact that they got the starting nod from the moment they were drafted, and it's like they're walking into an impossible situation.

 

 

As for the Sheard/Bowers argument, it's pretty simple:

 

-Sheard outperformed Bowers Week 1, 3 tackles to 1.

-Bowers isn't starting for the Bucs, therefore his value to them is lesser than Sheard's to us.

-Bowers can benefit from an unbelievably stout defensive line around him that often flies under the radar. As for the Browns defensive line, the jury is still out.

-Sheard is playing at RDE, basically going up against a team's best offensive lineman every week. Bowers is listed at LDE, backing up Bennett.

-Sheard is an everydown DE whereas Bowers is playing as a nickel pass rusher. Bowers isn't being asked to hold his own every down, and essentially is useless to the run anyway by coming in on only passing downs.

 

Now, for the reason (I believe) we drafted Sheard over Bowers:

 

-Sheard and Bowers had pretty similar stats. Outside of Bower's ridiculous 15.5 sack year that propelled him up the draft boards, the stats were just about the same.

-Sheard was more consistent than Bowers in the sack department, recording 5 sack in '08, 5 in '09 and 9 in '10. Compare that to Bowers' 1 in '08, 3 in '09, and then his aforementioned 15.5 in '10.

-Sheard was slightly faster at the Combine in the 40 yard dash, running a 4.68 to Bowers' 4.7.

-They had almost identical measures in reach and hand size. Sheard measured half an inch shorter and 14 lbs lighter than Bowers did, while having less than 1/10th of an inch difference in reach and .2 of an inch difference in hand size.

-Sheard was the Big East Defensive Player of the Year, just as Bowers was for the ACC.

 

They were, in effect, pretty evenly matched statistically. It all came down to Bowers injury history, so Heckert took the guy who performed nearly as well and had no history of injury.

 

Bowers' torn meniscus wasn't, and still isn't, something to be looked over. I tore mine over a month ago in a game, sat out for an entire month, and played in the playoffs for us a couple weeks ago. I lasted four plays before it got hurt again. Needless to say, I'll now miss the National All-Star Game in Atlanta as well as my pro day with AFL, IFL, and college scouts. Meniscal tears are very easy to get, and if it's happened once, it's bound to happen again.

 

All in all, I agree with Sheard pick over Bowers for a team in our position. I know we've been "rebuilding" since we came back, but this one feels...right. And, looking at it logically, the Sheard pick fits in with our type of rebuild. Sure, Bowers has enormous potential and has been in the media since high school. Believe me, I live in South Carolina, I understand the hype behind Bowers. But he also has an injury history, and I believe that is the reason he's in Tampa Bay and not in Cleveland. Sheard put up similar numbers, and comes without the injury asterisk.

 

It's not like we were reaching for Sheard, either. He was a projected 2nd rounder in most mocks, who could have possibly slid to the 3rd.

 

Bowers was a projected top 5 pick before the injury concerns, while according to you Sheard was a second round grade that could have fallen to the third round. The injuries are obviously a concern, but if he rehabs it and gives it time it should heal. The Bucs are obviously just easing him back. Also don't really know what you mean by the Bucs have a "stout D-Line" that benefits him because there D-line was pretty terrible last yr which is probably why they drafted Dline with there first 2 picks.

 

Bowers was a huge risk/huge reward kind of a pick. Sheard was the safer pick because of the lack of injury concerns. Personally I would have gambled on the HUGE reward of Bowers and passed on Sheard. It is done now though so I will root for Sheard and hope he gets better. I personally have just not seen anything from him to give me any sort of hope.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Bowers was a projected top 5 pick before the injury concerns, while according to you Sheard was a second round grade that could have fallen to the third round. The injuries are obviously a concern, but if he rehabs it and gives it time it should heal. The Bucs are obviously just easing him back. Also don't really know what you mean by the Bucs have a "stout D-Line" that benefits him because there D-line was pretty terrible last yr which is probably why they drafted Dline with there first 2 picks.

 

Bowers was a huge risk/huge reward kind of a pick. Sheard was the safer pick because of the lack of injury concerns. Personally I would have gambled on the HUGE reward of Bowers and passed on Sheard. It is done now though so I will root for Sheard and hope he gets better. I personally have just not seen anything from him to give me any sort of hope.

 

Bowers was a projected first overall pick up until a month before the draft in many mocks. As for the d-line, wait until the end of the year and see how stout Clayborn and McCoy are. The Bucs defensive front will be one of the best in the league by December.

 

 

You're right, Bowers was a HUGE risk/reward, like I said. And at the end of the day, Heckert and Co. didn't feel comfortable taking a defensive lineman with a significant knee injury. Neither did 30 other teams. So for someone who was a projected number one overall to fall into the middle of the second round, it must have been a pretty significant injury. So, once again, I'd take the guy who has nearly the same stats without the injury concerns.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Bowers was a projected top 5 pick before the injury concerns, while according to you Sheard was a second round grade that could have fallen to the third round. The injuries are obviously a concern, but if he rehabs it and gives it time it should heal. The Bucs are obviously just easing him back. Also don't really know what you mean by the Bucs have a "stout D-Line" that benefits him because there D-line was pretty terrible last yr which is probably why they drafted Dline with there first 2 picks.

 

Bowers was a huge risk/huge reward kind of a pick. Sheard was the safer pick because of the lack of injury concerns. Personally I would have gambled on the HUGE reward of Bowers and passed on Sheard. It is done now though so I will root for Sheard and hope he gets better. I personally have just not seen anything from him to give me any sort of hope.

 

Bowers was a projected first overall pick up until a month before the draft in many mocks. As for the d-line, wait until the end of the year and see how stout Clayborn and McCoy are. The Bucs defensive front will be one of the best in the league by December.

 

 

You're right, Bowers was a HUGE risk/reward, like I said. And at the end of the day, Heckert and Co. didn't feel comfortable taking a defensive lineman with a significant knee injury. Neither did 30 other teams. So for someone who was a projected number one overall to fall into the middle of the second round, it must have been a pretty significant injury. So, once again, I'd take the guy who has nearly the same stats without the injury concerns.

[Harry Buffalo]

When all is said and done, these guys are just rookie working with a lot less time to learn the system than our rookie has last year, yet we started 3 more rookies in week one this year than last year while 2 others saw a decent amount of playing time. Rookies normally don't start turning the corner until the second half of the season and that is still a very small amount. Most don't come into their own until sometime between year 1-3, yet people want to bitch and complain that all our draft picks are busts just 1 week into the year. Doesn't make sense to me.