[Lefty Noob]

It looks as though Chris Simms is going to accept Tampa Bay's 1-year tender offer, at least according to the St. Petersburg Times. Simms is a restricted free-agent and is looking for a big signing bonus, but it doesn't look like he'll get it without a new CBA in place. Everyone sold that he's the answer at QB for the Bucs?

[BigBadBuc]

Chris Simms looked a little scrappier last year. I hadn't seen that in him before. His mental toughness was always in question. He seemed to answer some of that in 2005. He can still go either way but I think that he made progress. I don't know that he is worth the big bucks yet.

BBB

[ThePundit]

The guy really impressed me last year. He throws a nice accurate ball and considering his lack of experience, he didn't make too many mistakes.

I would take him over Eli Manning in a heartbeat. But is he worth the big bucks yet? I guess it never hurts to be too careful.

The Jets and Chad Pennington come to mind as the best example of why it's often better to take your time.

[EmpireWF]

Simms earned his job, he really showed a lot last season. Hopefully Tampa can keep the players around him while adding some quality because Gruden knows how to coach. Simms + Cadillac = a nice young offense for Bucs fans.

[Tampa Bay Buccaneers News]

Up to the minute news about the Tampa Bay Buccaneers from GoTeamsGo. We'll find the latest Tampa Bay Buccaneers news so you can chat about here.

Tampa's Simms is ready to find greatness
RealFootball365.com, AZ - 5 hours ago
When the Tampa Bay Buccaneers chose quarterback Chris Simms in the third round of the 2003 NFL Draft, they were banking on the former University of Texas star ...
Cadillac loses his first year luster Bradenton Herald
all 3 related

Mon, 22 May 2006 05:37:00 GMT

Post your comments about this story here.

[Lefty Noob]

Wow, this article really seems sold on Simms. "After bursting onto the scene as a serviceable starter last season, it appears Simms' time to shine has finally arrived," it says. "Simms did what few inexperienced quarterbacks are able to do in this day and age; limit mistakes and let the running game and defense lead the way to victory." I'm still not convinced he's a big time QB, though.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Wow, this article really seems sold on Simms. "After bursting onto the scene as a serviceable starter last season, it appears Simms' time to shine has finally arrived," it says. "Simms did what few inexperienced quarterbacks are able to do in this day and age; limit mistakes and let the running game and defense lead the way to victory." I'm still not convinced he's a big time QB, though.

I think "serviceable starter" is exactly where this kid stands...He comes across as a game manager, not a clear cut passer and leader.

[ThePundit]

I think the guy is going to be better than serviceable. As a matter of fact, I would take Simms over Eli Manning if I had a choice.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by ThePundit

I think the guy is going to be better than serviceable. As a matter of fact, I would take Simms over Eli Manning if I had a choice.

Ah Pundit man, you are nuts...or whatever the GoTeamsGo PC term for "nuts" is...

Archie's kid for Phil Simms kid?...are you kidding me...Eli's upside is way better than Simms. Simms plays not to lose...he reminds me of Steve deBerg (whom I really liked)...it was said DeBerg plays just well enough to lose...I think Simms is like that...

and while we are on the subject Archie was better than Phil...

[Lefty Noob]

and while we are on the subject Archie was better than Phil...

You had me until this statement, Gotham. Eli Manning over Chris Simms? Okay, I can see that, although it may be closer than a lot of people think and its definitely closer than the hype would have you believe. Archie Manning over Phil Simms? Nuh-uh. No way. Super Bowl XXI, baby. Most accurate passer in the history of the big game. They don't get any more clutch than that. And Phil was a tough son of a gun, too. Archie wasn't bad, but Simms was clearly his superior.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

You had me until this statement, Gotham. Eli Manning over Chris Simms? Okay, I can see that, although it may be closer than a lot of people think and its definitely closer than the hype would have you believe. Archie Manning over Phil Simms? Nuh-uh. No way. Super Bowl XXI, baby. Most accurate passer in the history of the big game. They don't get any more clutch than that. And Phil was a tough son of a gun, too. Archie wasn't bad, but Simms was clearly his superior.

Simms was not fit to carry Archie's jock strap...Archie was a first class quarterback stuck on a decade long loser for which he was even voted the League MVP one year...Phil Simms rode the coat tails of one of the greatest defenses of all time all the way to that big Super Bowl game...

Infact that is all anyone can ever say about the darling Phil Simms...one game...heck Trent Dilfer had "one game," and you don't see us singing his praise...

I will say it again...Archie over Phil in a no brainer...Archie was a better qb than Terry Bradshaw while we are at it...but hey, Terry had argueable the best defense in all of football and a pair of wideouts called Swan and Stallworth...not to mention some pretty good backs....what did Archie have?...He had to run for his life...and the guy still had enough in him to get an MVP on a team that on their best days couldn't make the playoffs...

Never saw Archie lose his starting job the way Terry lost it to that great qb...what was his name?...Joe Gilliam?...and where was Phil during the Giants 1990's Super Bowl for that matter?

Sometimes the game is a bit more than one guys contribution to a big game...

[Lefty Noob]

Come on, Gotham, I know you're an Archie fan, but Simms not fit to carry his jock strap? Puh-lease.

Simms has a career completion percentage of 55.4; Archie's was 55.2. Simms career passer rating was 78.5; Archie's was 67.1. Unlike Manning, Simms actually has more career TDs than INTs. He had 199 scores and 157 INTs compared to Manning's 125 TDs and 173 picks. Phil Simms also threw for 10,000 more career yards than Archie Manning, despite playing just one more season than Peyton and Eli's sire. And unless I'm missing something, Archie Manning was named the UPI NFC Player of the Year in 1978 but NEVER the NFL MVP; Simms was named both the 1985 Pro Bowl MVP and the 1986 Super Bowl MVP.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Come on, Gotham, I know you're an Archie fan, but Simms not fit to carry his jock strap? Puh-lease.

Simms has a career completion percentage of 55.4; Archie's was 55.2. Simms career passer rating was 78.5; Archie's was 67.1. Unlike Manning, Simms actually has more career TDs than INTs. He had 199 scores and 157 INTs compared to Manning's 125 TDs and 173 picks. Phil Simms also threw for 10,000 more career yards than Archie Manning, despite playing just one more season than Peyton and Eli's sire. And unless I'm missing something, Archie Manning was named the UPI NFC Player of the Year in 1978 but NEVER the NFL MVP; Simms was named both the 1985 Pro Bowl MVP and the 1986 Super Bowl MVP.

Okay Player of the year, not MVP...small difference...the numbers don't tell the story...its like looking at Joe Namath's lifetime numbrers and comparing him to Steve DeBerg and then saying DeBerg was the better QB....different era...you could legally mug a receiver in Archie's era...unlike Simms era...Look at Namath's lifetime numbers...173 TDS/220 INT , 27,000 yards ...DeBerg 196/204, 34,000 yards...Can you honestly stretch that into saying DeBerg was better? Come on, don't tell me you can't see that?

Plain and simple...the football gods smiled down on Simms and crapped on Archie...one was blessed with a team the other was the freakin team....

If I was starting a franchise...no way in heck I'd take Phil over Archie...

Phil is not in Archie's company...he should thank LT and friends every day of his life....without them...the name wouldn't even be remembered...

[Lefty Noob]

Hmm... had no idea Namath's career numbers were that bad. No, I wouldn't say that Deberg was better ALTHOUGH I do know that a lot of so-called experts do feel that Joe was an overrated QB on the whole. At any rate, we're kind of getting off topic here, anyway (sorry everyone). Disagree with you as I might on Phil Simms, I think you're right about Chris Simms. I was never big on him in college, and I'm still not sold on him as a strong NFL signalcaller.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

BTW, For all of Phil's great teams, he managed just two Pro Bowl appearances...same as Manning...though Manning never played on a winning team...8-8 was the best...those two Pro Bowl appearances were all him...and his NFC Player of the year was on a 7-9 team, showing that he really did not have anyone one around him, he was a one man crew pretty much...(he did have some good backs from time to time Chuck Munchie and George Rogers who came along in 1981 after the fact)