1983-1994: Least terrible Buccaneers team?

[CSKreager]

Somehow, one of those 12 straight seasons of 10+ losses had to be the least terrible by default.

This might be tougher than a similar thread I made 2 years ago about the 90s Bengals (who did have 4 seasons of fewer than 10 losses compared to Tampa’s 0.)

But hey, someone had to be the beat of the worst! After all, there has to be a team among these 12 technically not worst of the worst.

[74_75_78_79_]

I don’t think anyone will consider their ’85 installment (2-14) as “least terrible”, but they did put up 28 pts at Soldier Field on opening day and then gave those Super Bowl Shufflers another game four weeks later. They also gave Rams, Dolphins, and Giants good games and jumped out to a 14-0 lead in their game against that year’s other SB-participant, New England.

Week #14 in ’88 they upset Buffalo by a strange 10-5 score thus spoiling their homefield quest over Cincy. The following year, ’89, they start 3-2 winning at GB in opener, beating Saints two weeks later, and then two weeks after that handing Bears their first loss sending them in free-fall mode from there. They would then go on to complete the sweep weeks later over a now 6-4 (fresh off a 20-0 win at Three Rivers) Bears team at Soldier; Bears would lose their remaining games. They also came razor-close to beating SF in Week #2. Bucs start out 4-2 and 3-1 in ’90 & ’92 respectively only to, in each case as well, crumble from there yet again.

I would guess their “least terrible” would be ’84, McKay/Selmon’s final year at 6-10. DeBerg, Wilder, Giles, etc. Many close losses. Legacy of that infamous stretch were blown leads and, as was the case those seasons mentioned last paragraph, some promising starts all in vain.

[7DnBrnc53]

The 1987 Bucs opened the season with a 48-10 thrashing of Atlanta. After losing 20-3 to Chicago the next week, they won two of their three strike games.

In their first post-strike game, they blew a 12-point lead to the Bears in the fourth quarter, losing 27-26. Then, two weeks later, they blew a 28-3 fourth quarter lead to the Cardinals, losing 31-28. A team that could have started 6-2 was 4-4, and they didn't win another game the rest of the season (although, in their defense, they played four games against teams with winning records).

If they start 6-2, and are able to at least beat Minnesota and Detroit down the stretch, that would have put them in the playoffs.

[conace21]

Ah the 1987 Buccaneers. The original "28-3."

[Todd Pence]

In 1989, the Buccaneers started 3-2, including wins over the Packers, Saints, and Bears, and giving the mighty 49ers a battle. This start prompted Sports Illustrated to write a spotlight feature on the team, proclaiming that they were finally poised to shed their losing ways. It turned out to be just more of the same, however, as a five-game skid followed en route to another dismal 5-11 record.

I, too would probably pick 1984, McKay's last team, as the "least terrible".

[L.C. Greenwood]

In 1989, the Buccaneers started 3-2, including wins over the Packers, Saints, and Bears, and giving the mighty 49ers a battle. This start prompted Sports Illustrated to write a spotlight feature on the team, proclaiming that they were finally poised to shed their losing ways. It turned out to be just more of the same, however, as a five-game skid followed en route to another dismal 5-11 record.

I, too would probably pick 1984, McKay's last team, as the "least terrible".

Those mid 80s teams had RB James Wilder, who was a great player trapped in a horrible situation. He wore down quickly from overuse, but was a dangerous runner/receiver, more nimble than one would expect from a back of his size. Had Wilder come along a decade plus later, with that supporting cast, I don't know if Warrick Dunn or Mike Alstott would have been drafted.

The 1987-92 teams were also hurt by the disappointing play of Vinnie Testaverde, he wasn't a vocal leader, and did not handle adversity well. He just didn't develop the way everyone assumed with a QB of that skillset. It's easy to forget Testaverde had mobility in his 20s, but when things went wrong, he had a tough time going to Plan B.

[74_75_78_79_]

TB, in that infamous stretch, had their moments of ‘not-bad’-ness, but so did those other teams like the Bengals, Rams, and also the Cards who, if not for ’98, would have had an even longer stretch of futility - ’85, Hanifan’s final year, all the way up to Whisenhunt’s 8-8 debut in ’07.

Cards, under Stallings, were a game away from the playoffs in ’87, did have that 7-4 start the following year in their first year in ’Zona (Week #11 handing SF their last road-loss until the ’91 opener), they had those ‘not-bad’ years under Bugel, Buddy going into the ’94 finale at 8-7 with playoffs at stake, and finally McGinnis winning at Philly & Oakland en route to 7-9 in 2001, then starting 4-2 the next year.

Bengals finish 7-9 in Dave Shula’s last full season; the year prior, Jeff Blake opening up that 14-0 lead over Dallas, Coz taking over with 9 games to go in ’96, winning 7 of them. Finish 8-8 again in ’97 but, once again, a case of winning down the stretch once already eliminated. Dick LeBeau started Cincy off at 4-3 in 2001.

As for the ’90s Rams, whose ‘reign’ of futility didn’t last as long as the others mentioned, the only real example of respectability to give is that all-for-naught 5-1/6-2 start in ’95 - their first year in StL. Winning at Dallas in ’92 and that 2-2 start the following year (Rookie Bettis & Co burying his future-team in Week #2) are the only other ‘not-bad’ moments to come to mind. In Vermeil’s first two seasons, there wasn’t even a ‘sign’ of improvement to come yet alone an instant SB-triumph as normally the case with Champs-to-be during those formative years under a new HC.

[74_75_78_79_]

In 1989, the Buccaneers started 3-2, including wins over the Packers, Saints, and Bears, and giving the mighty 49ers a battle. This start prompted Sports Illustrated to write a spotlight feature on the team, proclaiming that they were finally poised to shed their losing ways. It turned out to be just more of the same, however, as a five-game skid followed en route to another dismal 5-11 record.

I, too would probably pick 1984, McKay's last team, as the "least terrible".

Those mid 80s teams had RB James Wilder, who was a great player trapped in a horrible situation. He wore down quickly from overuse, but was a dangerous runner/receiver, more nimble than one would expect from a back of his size. Had Wilder come along a decade plus later, with that supporting cast, I don't know if Warrick Dunn or Mike Alstott would have been drafted.

The 1987-92 teams were also hurt by the disappointing play of Vinnie Testaverde, he wasn't a vocal leader, and did not handle adversity well. He just didn't develop the way everyone assumed with a QB of that skillset. It's easy to forget Testaverde had mobility in his 20s, but when things went wrong, he had a tough time going to Plan B.

As a Penn St fan, I never forgot how mobile Vinny could be. Key example being that long gain from scrimmage he made in that National Championship Game. I wonder if it was that very Fiesta Bowl, coupled with the previous year’s schlacking at the hands of Tennessee, that hurt his confidence as a pro. As great a coach Jimmy was, I think he overused him. Against Penn St, he utilizes Alonzo Highsmith just a tad more, the U wins and that ’86 installment goes down as maybe the greatest college team ever. They run Alonzo much more, and the game - as great as PSU’s D was - is likely a convincer. Vinny did have weaknesses either way though, which would have only been further hidden in such an event. Tennessee basically wrote the book on him for Penn St to read (although it is said that Majors, a friend of Johnson’s, wouldn’t give Penn St the tapes of last year’s game to study), which Penn St then even further wrote for the whole NFL to then read.

[7DnBrnc53]

I wonder if it was that very Fiesta Bowl, coupled with the previous year’s schlacking at the hands of Tennessee, that hurt his confidence as a pro. As great a coach Jimmy was, I think he overused him.

Those two bowl games should have been bigger red flags to NFL scouts. However, it was stupid TB and Hugh Culvercheap that had the #1 pick that year, so it's no surprise that Vinny went first.

[74_75_78_79_]

I wonder if it was that very Fiesta Bowl, coupled with the previous year’s schlacking at the hands of Tennessee, that hurt his confidence as a pro. As great a coach Jimmy was, I think he overused him.

Those two bowl games should have been bigger red flags to NFL scouts. However, it was stupid TB and Hugh Culvercheap that had the #1 pick that year, so it's no surprise that Vinny went first.

Funny, but being in the ‘Leaf will do better than Peyton’ camp going into the ’98 Draft, my ‘logic’ was Peyton’s inability to beat Florida as well as getting decimated by Nebraska as Leaf and his underdog WSU team played well vs the other co-champ, Michigan. Very, very wrong was I although it did take #18 a bit to win a playoff game along with losing some other big games even after getting over the hump against NE (his pro version of Florida, at first) and winning his first SB.