Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Winners and Losers After Week 4
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers suffered a tough home loss in the closing seconds to the Washington Redskins, 24 to 22. The Buccaneers offense made some big plays during the game, but there were mistakes on both sides of the ball that allowed Robert Griffin III to lead the Redskins to a game-winning field goal. Here are the winners and losers after Week 4.
Winner—Lavonte David—The rookie linebacker, making the calls for the defense, had a break-out game where he recorded 14 tackles on the afternoon. David was all over the field and continues to shine in his first season as a starter.
Winner—Receivers—The Buccaneer passing game got going and Mike Williams and Vincent Jackson came up big. Williams had four receptions for 115 yards and Jackson had six receptions for 100 yards and a touchdown.
After the questionable play-calling from last week, offensive coordinator Mike Sullivan did open up the playbook and got the the ball to the big-time receivers for the Buccaneers.
Winner—Connor Barth—The Buccaneers' field goal kicker made three big field goals for the Buccaneers, including a 57-yarder. Barth has been perfect since last season and continues to come up with clutch kicks. He hit what appeared to be the game winner, until the defense gave it up late.
Loser—Defense—The defense, after getting pressure against Tony Romo last week, was gashed for 474 yards. The Buccaneers' prevent defense late in the game allowed RGIII to drive down the field to get the game-winning field goal.
Loser—Coaching staff—The Bucs opened up the passing game, but didn't mix in enough of the running game to help balance out the attack. The staff also called for a prevent defense late that allowed RGIII to run wild and set up the game-winning field goal.
Loser—Discipline—After a sloppy game against the Cowboys last week, many would think the team would try to clean it up, but 10 penalties for 100 yards later, mental mistakes are still happening. The Buccaneers gave away a lot of free yards in this game and they have to clean it up going forward.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?