Four Big Ways the new CBA Proposal affects the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
by Sander on Jul 22, 2011 12:01 PM EDT
Email
Print
Here are 4 big implications for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the CBA proposal that is now on the table for the players. While the players have not ratified this agreement yet, these four points are unlikely to change in the final CBA, whenever it is accepted.
1. The salary cap will be set at $120.375 million, and teams will be forced to spend 99% of that cap in cash in 2011 and 2012.
After 2012, the cash minimum for the teams will be set at 89%, with the league-wide minimum set at 95%. For the Bucs in 2011, this means they will have to spend. Now, I wrote an article recently on how they could do so without bringing in outside free agents, but that was assuming the cash minimum would be set at 90% of the salary cap. They still could get there by re-signing Davin Joseph, Barrett Ruud, Cadillac Williams and Quincy Black and frontloading a number of those deals. But it's starting to look more and more likely that the Bucs will have to go out and at least sign a second-tier free agent.
2. The NFL will continue to enforce the Personal Conduct Policy for incidents occurring during the lockouts
This will mostly affect Aqib Talib, though it could also affect Alex Magee who was cited for marijuana possession. Aqib Talib's legal issues have been well-documented, and they won't be resolved until after the season. This could hold off Roger Goodell, who likes to wait for the process to play out before making a decision. However, this does give him the ability to suspend Talib immediately.
3. Four years are needed for unrestricted free agency
As it used to be in the past, players will become unrestricted free agents after four years of accrued service. This means that Davin Joseph, Quincy Black, Barrett Ruud, Cadillac Williams, Jeremy Trueblood and many other Buccaneers will be free agents.
4. 4-year deals for rookies, with a fifth-year option for first-rounders, as well as a strict rookie cap.
This will not have a big impact now, though it will force Adrian Clayborn's money down a little. It will be interesting to see whether there will be a rookie re-signing push each year, as rookies will now have their contract expire all at the same time.
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good bye Ruud (I hope)
No reason to not go after a certain soon to be former Raider!!!
I'm not negative, I'm just telling you how it is.
Also no real reason not to keep Ruud. He takes a lot of crap for not being a very physical player and not shedding blocks, but some of that was from playing behind a terrible defensive line. Some was Ruud’s fault, but there’s enough blame to go around.
Since we’re going to have to spend the money anyways, I see no real reason not to bring Ruud back, on an incentive-laden contract if nothing else. He’s an experienced MLB, knows our system, and with a shortened training camp we don’t have to worry about trying to get someone up to speed there. I’d rather see Ruud back than Black, and Foster/McKenzie can fight over Quincy Black’s former spot. I’d also want Foster/McKenzie to have another year in our system before turning over an all-important defensive position like MLB to one of them.
If we’re still unhappy with him and his production after having boosted our d-line, there is always the ability to cut or trade him and allow Foster or McKenzie to take over next season, where there is a full-offseason for them to learn.
Actually you can't blame being dragged down the field 10 yards on the D line.
Being caught out of position, missing tackles, not strong enough to finish a tackle does not qualify for a new deal here. The guy sucks and if the team really wanted to keep him, they would have locked him up last year. he did nothing to prove to the team that he deserves that contract that he and you think he does. It really irks me that pushing somebody out of bounds and jumping on a pile (which Ruud does very well) are considered tackles. He’s had more time here than any team would give any other player, it’s time for him to move on and us too.
I'm not negative, I'm just telling you how it is.
He rarely makes the stop anywhere near first contact.
Go watch some game video. He usually hits from the side, and gets dragged down the field 2 or 3 more yards and eventually gets credited for the tackle. At 240 lbs, he should square up and quit being such a p*ssy. MLB Mike Singletary was a MUCH smaller man and would hit you square in the mouth.
Its about courage and grit – and Ruud has none.
by Cracker Ball on Jul 23, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
He runs into them, the offensive ones.
Oh, and he does miss tackles, even DB missed tackles.
I'm not negative, I'm just telling you how it is.
Everyone misses tackles, yes
But Ruud is a very sure tackler who misses very few tackles, except against shifty running backs in space
I've always thought he was too small
wished he would put on some weight. I still think he should stick around for one more year though.
RUN THE BALL ON FIRST DOWN!!!!!!
by bucfanlostiniowa on Jul 22, 2011 3:59 PM EDT reply actions
Ruud weighs in at 242...
so how much weight should he put on? He lacks toughness – not weight.
by Cracker Ball on Jul 23, 2011 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions
The question isn't should the Bucs bring Ruud back, its does Ruud want to comeback?
I don’t think he will be willing to accept a one year incentive laden contract when he could probably go to another team and get a big long term contract. Which he could probably get from the Lions or Giants, 2 LB hungry teams.
You know...
If you were able to resign Ruud and Black, you could have:
Middle – Ruud, McKenzie
Weak – Hayes, Watson
Strong – Black, Foster
I’m not sure I see us coming up with a stronger linebacking core than that. Plus good competition at every position.
We gotta do something for the run-d; there shouldn't be any debate
Seriously, it was deplorable. When Ivory took it up the gut, i nearly vomited and choked and died.
[url="Check out this mean tune":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVaEHtHJqeM]
I vote to let Ruud walk...
He will never be the run-stopper we need him to be and until we fix that problem teams will continue to attack us on the ground. Yes he’s good at lining up the defense and dropping into coverage but he sucks at the primary job of a MLB (run-stopping). I know that we’ve had issues with our d-line but I still place most of the blame for our run defense on Ruud. The MLB should be the toughest SOB on the field; yet, instead of Ruud sticking his nose in there and destroying a lead blocker he’d much rather side step the lead blocker to avoid contact so he can make a ankle tackle; he literally plays like he’s scared to break a nail and I’m sick of it. That’s the biggest problem I have with Ruud; he never ever, ever, ever forces the issue, instead of attacking the play and punishing somebody he allows the opposition to initiate the contact and that goes against everything a MLB is all about; absolutely, positively no intensity. I’ve never him chew a teammates a** out for missing an assignment, I’ve never seen him blow-up a lead blocker, I’ve never seen him lay the wood on a RB, I’ve never seen him knockout a Receiver coming across the middle and those are the type of things that sets the tone on defense. IMO he’s the sweetest, softest, powder-puff starting at LB in the league; a real hugs N kisses kinda guy. Run defense is mind-set that is mostly want-to, and attitude and Ruud clearly dosent want to hit anybody. How can you expect to stop an opposing team from ramming the ball down your throat when the “leader” of your defense is running around playing patty cake with ball carriers. I’ll give him some credit, he’s great at padding his stats racking up tackles but that’s mostly due to fact that he’s well prepared and he never misses games. IMO we need to sign Stephen Tulloch he’ll give us the attitude/toughness we need from that position and we don’t sign Tulluch, I’d rather take my chances with Foster or McKenzie than have Ruud stay one more year.
by ctd1977 on Jul 23, 2011 12:08 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
... see Stephen Tulloch
That is the kind of MLB we need. Who ever heard of a finesse defense?
by Cracker Ball on Jul 23, 2011 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions
What do you expect? The Glazers dog him for cash every year
He’s smart yo. Why kill yourself for someone who obviously is stingy with him? He has NO injury issues, hes mad durable, and he covers. I think he should shed some weight and play OLB for his coverage skills.
WE’ve had the cheapest tackle leader in the league… OH wait, hitting IVORY in the jaw on the goaline to cause a fumble was SOOO powder puff.. pfftt
[url="Check out this mean tune":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVaEHtHJqeM]
please send me a link...
I’d love to see that because I missed the part were Ruud hit Ivory in the jaw. To me it looked like his elbow accidentally knocked the ball out; it wasn’t because he was trying to punish a ball carrier. Yes, Ruud can get the defense lined up but we can find that anywhere. Like I said, a MLB primary job is to STOP-THE-RUN; dropping into coverage is secondary to that. I’d much rather loose a little bit in coverage in order to gain a lot in our ability to stop the run; preferably somewhere close to line of scrimmage, not 8 yards down the field. Letting Ruud walk and signing Tulloch would improve our run defense literally the second Tulluch walks into One Buc place.
by ctd1977 on Jul 23, 2011 9:32 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Stopping the pass is much more important than stopping the run in order to win games
That’s a simple consequence of passing being much more efficient than running the ball.
In addition, in the Bucs’ scheme and the way the Bucs use Ruud, an MLB has to be good in coverage. That is more important than being a punishing linebacker against the run in this scheme. Plus, it’s not like Ruud is the reason the Bucs get run on like crazy. That’s much more on people (Quincy Black, Geno Hayes, Sabby when he was still starting) overrunning plays and missing assignments and the defensive line not playing well. This is a one-gap scheme, the Bucs run: if everyone executes their assignment, you can stop the run.
Ruud won’t hit someone in the mouth and won’t shed a block, but he will execute his assignment and that is good enough to stop the run, if everyone else does the same. He is not the problem in this scheme. You could do more to stop the run with a better MLB, and I’m not saying he’s perfect, but the idea that he’s the big reason this defense has not been able to stop the run is nonsense.
The DL has been the biggest problem of late...
and has been suitable addressed. Those nagging DL problems have also exposed the weaknesses of Barrett Ruud. True, he may play the pass fairly well, but is far from a complete player and nowhere near the “dream” MLB we should be looking for.
The MLB calls the adjustments and sets the tone of the entire defense. I don’t want a “finesse” defense. TB is all about the defense historically, and I want a quick, scary MLB that knocks your chinstrap loose.
by Cracker Ball on Jul 23, 2011 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
The D-line did not play the run well these past two years
There has been more talent, but Ruud has not had the advantage of playing behind a good D-line.
Ruud is a kicker trapped inside of...
LB’s body. We have a MLB in Ruud that dosen’t like contact; that’s a real problem. Wow, he drops back in coverage. Ooooo, he gets the defense lined up; how about hitting somebody. The MLB position was literally invented to stop the run 1st; and having the ability to drop into coverage is a bonus, not the other way around. IMO he’s better suited to play OLB but unfortunately he’s not athletic enough. It’s time we moved on. I can’t stand it anymore; I’m tired of seeing him side step blockers and ankle tackle ball carriers.
by ctd1977 on Jul 23, 2011 11:09 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Again: in the scheme the Bucs run, what you say is simply not true
Stopping the run is secondary to stopping the pass in the Bucs scheme. That’s just the way that scheme works.
I understand the scheme we run...
Requires a MLB that’s good in zone coverage. But, what happens if the opposing team decides they’re gonna force feed the run down your throat all game until you stop it. In that scenario you better have a MLB that is willing to tighten up the chin-strap and hit somebody. There has been numerous cases over the past 2 or 3 years that teams have decided to attack us like that; but, instead of RUUD attacking the line of scrimmage and sticking his nose in there and plugging a hole he literally stands there and waits for the blocker to come take him out of the play. Or, he let’s them run by him all together and ankle tackles the RB down the field. I don’t care who we put in front of him; until he’s willing to start knocking heads with people we’ll continue to have one of the worst defenses against the run.
by ctd1977 on Jul 23, 2011 2:00 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
We had one of the better run defenses in the NFL when he was starting in '07 and '08
Until the ‘08 Panthers game, that is. As easy as it is to point to a linebacker lacking physicality and saying "it’s all his fault", that’s just not how it works.
If the Bucs get their D-line to play better, and get Geno Hayes specifically to not mess up his assignments, the run defense will be fine, with Ruud at MLB. It can be better with other LBs, and Ruud is far from perfect, but he does exactly what’s needed to stop the run in this scheme: he executes his assignments and has his gap. That’s infinitely more important than being a big hitter. Ideally you have a linebacker who is physical, who hits, who sheds blocks, and who is always on his assignments. But you can certainly stop the run with Ruud.
There are lots of reasons we were better back then...
I believe that Cato June and Derrick Brooks were better than Quincy Black and Geno Hayes are now? Perhaps Jermaine Phillips was better in run support than Cody Grimes? We still had some DL vets up front at that time too. DC Monte Kiffin was still here and was very much on his game.
Most of those reasons have been cut or moved on… and now we suck.
by Cracker Ball on Jul 23, 2011 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions
That doesn't help the argument that Rudd sucks.
Derrick Brooks played better than any Linebacker we have now, and no on will replace him. Same for Kiffin calling the D. Rudd isn’t the problem. He is one of the better linebackers in the league at what he does, and that is call the defense and play the pass. Is he the best runstopper? No. Is he Terrible? No, far from it. If Rudd isn’t brought back, we are looking at a worse overall D. No Linebacker we have on the roster is ready to take his spot. If he leaves, we lose the ability to keep our D in position. That, coupled with the Fact we could be starting up to 4 players with 0 starting experience in our front 7 seven, and we would have a run D that would look much worse. Because the lookout may have stunted McKenzies or Fosters growth, Rudd is the best option for us in the Middle.
I believe the point is moot...
because Ruud is very unhappy with the way he has been treated here. For 2 years he has been seeking a long term contract – and has nothing to show for it. He saw OT Donald Penn get his, but still nothing.
Ruud will be leaving and I, for one, am glad he’s good as gone. We will be forced to replace him with somebody and if we’re lucky, it will be Tulloch.
by Cracker Ball on Jul 24, 2011 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Nation
Related FanShots on Bucs Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
