Bucs sign Ross Cockrell

[Mr. Scot]

I know he was a popular guy here and given some of our secondary woes many thought we should bring him back, but apparently leadership wasn't that interested.

He's a Buc now (practice squad).

[The Lobo]

Damn that sucks he was solid last year

[Panthercougar68]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I know he was a popular guy here and given some of our secondary woes many thought we should bring him back, but apparently leadership wasn't that interested.

He's a Buc now.

Good for him.

I believe Douglas will be a better pick up overall.

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, Panthercougar68 said:

Good for him.

I believe Douglas will be a better pick up overall.

Douglas might be our #1 CB if he keeps up his level of play. 

[t96]

So, no team was interested in signing him to their roster -- which is telling.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, t96 said:

So, no team was interested in signing him to their roster -- which is telling.

The Giants talked to him not long ago but didn't end up signing him (don't remember why).

[BrizzMachete]

Great in coverage he just slow . But he know where to be on the field . He’ll be in the bucs rotation very soon 

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, t96 said:

So, no team was interested in signing him to their roster -- which is telling.

Serviceable zone CBs are a dime a dozen. Like non-pass rushing LBs who are liabilities in coverage. We just didn't get the memo on that latter one.

[Jeremy Igo]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

Serviceable zone CBs are a dime a dozen.

Why do we have 1? 

[LinvilleGorge]

Just now, Jeremy Igo said:

Why do we have 1? 

[t96]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Serviceable zone CBs are a dime a dozen. Like non-pass rushing LBs who are liabilities in coverage. We just didn't get the memo on that latter one.

It depends how you define "serviceable." I don't think any team with SB aspirations would want a player of Cockrell's caliber getting any meaningful snaps. It's one thing to have him as a depth guy in case of injury to fill in but if you have to rely on him to play even 25% of the snaps, your secondary is in trouble to some degree.

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, t96 said:

It depends how you define "serviceable." I don't think any team with SB aspirations would want a player of Cockrell's caliber getting any meaningful snaps. It's one thing to have him as a depth guy in case of injury to fill in but if you have to rely on him to play even 25% of the snaps, your secondary is in trouble to some degree.

He also looked better here because the people around him looked worse. The league value for him was obviously pretty low. 

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, t96 said:

It depends how you define "serviceable." I don't think any team with SB aspirations would want a player of Cockrell's caliber getting any meaningful snaps. It's one thing to have him as a depth guy in case of injury to fill in but if you have to rely on him to play even 25% of the snaps, your secondary is in trouble to some degree.

That's basically what I mean by serviceable. You don't want to have to play him but he won't be a massive liability if you do. His main issue is low ceiling. There's no potential factor there to entice.

[Mr. Scot]

My question would be how does he compare to what we have on the depth chart now?