Bucs 2015 Game And What It Means

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(08-23-2017, 04:48 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Would you take Clarke over Gilberry if it came down to it if Chris Smith replaced MJ?

I know you're a PFF guy (or at least used to be).
Last year in limited snaps, Gilberry was 72.2 rating and Clarke was 45.5.
Plus Gilberry has the ability to swing inside on passing downs.
Both Gilberry and Clarke have contracts expiring after this season and Gilberry only costs an extra $500k against the cap compared to Clarke.

EDIT - Gilberry had 2.5 sacks, 5 combine tackles, and 1 TFL in 140 defensive snaps for the Bengals, whereas Will Clarke had 4.0 sacks, 15 combined tackles, 1 PD, and 1 TFL in 372 defensive snaps.
Projecting Gilberry's stats over the same number of snaps as Clarke would be 6.5 sacks, 13 combined tackles, and 2 TFL.

Used to be; them diluting the stats and putting in that stupid, clearly subjective rating system (at least the old ratings had a tested and true scale that worked and was easier to read, whether one like it or not, notwithstanding () that averages out instead of being cumulative... yeah, plus their ridiculous prices ($20.00 USD a year was more than fine. Now? Ridiculous) just has me saying no.

Yes, I see the stats would project differently... hmm, I just saw him much more involved last year, probably due to the fact that he just got more snaps lol. Still, Dingleberry's not as strong against the run as he used to be, so for this year, I'm not sure how both would stack up against each other.

But I'm still going on Clarke, for now

(08-24-2017, 08:30 AM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Pretty sure we signed MJ because Clarke wasnt coming along fast enough. Everyone had hoped that Clarke would make us forget about MJ, then he didnt, and we resigned MJ. Now here we are and Clarke still isnt generating enough buzz. I don't notice when Clarke is on the field, thats not necessarily a bad thing, but its also not a good thing.

I don't agree with that; Clarke only needed 1 year to get bigger, stronger, learn the system AND be the starter?

If he was a 1st/2nd round pick and was a stud in college, I could see that, but he was drafted to be devloped, so to thrust him in the role after one year of very limited snaps, I don't buy that he was supposed to be the starter; even MJ took until his 4th year to start, Dunlap the same.

I DO agree with you, if it had been 2016 and we resigned MJ, because an extra year would've probably been enough.

Just how the team operates, I'm not sure the Clarke/MJ thing is correct.

Now, switch Clarke with Hunt, then I'd think you'd have a great talking point :)