Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Mike Glennon confident « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 26

youngone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 11773
Offline
« #150 : July 25, 2013, 09:07:44 AM »

Seeing what having a great QB can do for a team, I don't care if they picked one every year to come in and compete to be the starter and until they found the franchise guy.

freddy

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3572
Offline
« #151 : July 25, 2013, 11:08:28 AM »

The thing I don't get is this idea by many that it was a good pick because we needed a good back up. This doesn't add up to me. There are always plenty of options for a veteran back up. There was nothing wrong with Dan the Man Orlovsky as our back up. You want your back up to be a veterna game manager that can get you through a game or two if need be. Not a rookie that has the ceiling of a good back up. No, you don't replace a veteran back QB with a rookie QB unless you think he something special. You don't spend a 3rd round pick on a career back up. The Bucs obviously feel Glennon has what it takes to be an eventual starter, or they would not have taken him in the 3rd round.

JDouble, I credit you for at least trying to use logic to discuss your position instead of snippets of partial stats or exaggerations.  Saying that, I think your idea of what a back-up QB is, is too narrow and does not account for different realities.  There are times when yes, the team wants the back up to be a veteran game manager that can get you through a game or two if need be.  But there are times when that simply is not the best option.  At least not in today’s NFL.

Dan O was brought on board not to try and win us any games. He was brought on to try and help Freeman learn and progress. Dan, who learned how to break down a defense and do film work form Peyton Manning, was asked to teach Freeman how to do that. In this case, I believe Dan was brought with the main goal of mentoring Freeman.  Being able to win a game or two was purely secondary. For this very reason, I would not be surprised if the team kept three QB's this year.  But there are other times, like when you have an established QB, then the team is better off drafting a rookie QB that has the potential to progress into something special.  Let the rookie learn from the veteran. This is what the Patriots did with Mallot for example. The Bucs, are in a different situation than both of those above. They might be set at QB with Freeman, or they might not be. Dan is certainly not a long term replacement. Can't spend a 1st on a QB, didn't even have one. They drafted a player that can be the backup to an established QB and they also got one that, if Freeman fails, might be the long term answer.  It is a gamble in many ways.  Glennon was not drafted for the sole purpose of being a lifelong back-up. He is a lower cost insurance against Freeman.  Best case is Freeman is the QB we all hope he can be and Glennon turns out to be spectacular as well. So the team has a high quality back-up at low cost and a good chance of trading him for a high pick a few years down the road.  Worst case is Freeman and Glennon are horrible with no hope.  In that case, I doubt any other player that could have been drafted at Glennon’s spot would have saved the team.

Overall, what this breaks down to, and I think I recall you agreeing to this earlier is, you and others think Glennon was selected a round too early. If that’s the case, then having a dozen threads calling Glennon a wasted pick is a bit ridiculous. You think he would have been there, Schiano and Dom didn't.  It simply boils down to that.  I could understand if they used a 1st on him, but a 3rd vice a 4th is just not that big of a deal.  Certainty not worth all the attention it has garnered.

freddy

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 3572
Offline
« #152 : July 25, 2013, 11:17:27 AM »

I keep seeing in this thread that QBs have about a 10% chance to be good.  The number isn't important- it could be 2% or 20%- but doesn't logic reason that the more times you try the more likely you are to have success?  Don't the good teams generally draft a QB before they need him?
Logic also tells you have have 22 starters and 53 players on your roster and only so much money and draft picks to acquire good players, so picking a player at a position where history tells you there's a 10% chance of that player being good over positions where a 3rd round pick might give you a good player 20%, 30%, or 40% of the time can be not the most efficient way to build a team.

FRG's Money Ball for the NFL. Again with the bogus numbers. Please provide a link of the success rates. Also, lets provide some relevance.  For example, if we used just success percentages as you suggest, then all teams should use their 1st round picks on kickers as all kickers drafted in the top 100 over the last 15 years have been a good player. You can't do better than 100% right?

Once again your use of "statistics", especially those that are just really guesses on your part, shoots holes in your own statements.  We get it, you don't like the pick.  But going all Java on us with such ridiculous statements is not helping your cause one bit. If you want to do something besides just complaining about yet another Buc player, look to people like JDub and how he does it. A conversation can be had without having to resort to such hyerbole.
« : July 25, 2013, 02:22:28 PM Freddy »

Bradspace

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1427
Offline
« #153 : July 25, 2013, 11:47:08 AM »

Has Glennon won the starting gig yet?  The first day of training camp is almost over.

sammich

****
Starter

Posts : 720
Online
« #154 : July 25, 2013, 02:07:36 PM »

I keep seeing in this thread that QBs have about a 10% chance to be good.  The number isn't important- it could be 2% or 20%- but doesn't logic reason that the more times you try the more likely you are to have success?  Don't the good teams generally draft a QB before they need him?
Logic also tells you have have 22 starters and 53 players on your roster and only so much money and draft picks to acquire good players, so picking a player at a position where history tells you there's a 10% chance of that player being good over positions where a 3rd round pick might give you a good player 20%, 30%, or 40% of the time can be not the most efficient way to build a team.


I would agree if all positions were of equal importance, but they aren't.

GameTime

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18836
Offline
« #155 : July 25, 2013, 05:42:36 PM »

It was widely accepted before the draft that Wilson had everything you could want in a QB except for height. He was basically considered a 5'10" Andrew Luck. There was no doubt about his talent, just his height. I could find 50 articles saying he would be a 1st round pick if he was 4 inches taller. That is entirely different than Napoleon Dynamite. Comparing the two is laughable.
why is it laughable when they played in the same system and put up very similar numbers?

\"Lets put the O back in Country\"

GameTime

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18836
Offline
« #156 : July 25, 2013, 05:46:20 PM »

Seeing what having a great QB can do for a team, I don't care if they picked one every year to come in and compete to be the starter and until they found the franchise guy.
agree.  if you find the franchise guy, missing out on a 3rd round DT is meaningless in the long run.

\"Lets put the O back in Country\"

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 28495
Online
« #157 : July 25, 2013, 05:57:04 PM »

It was widely accepted before the draft that Wilson had everything you could want in a QB except for height. He was basically considered a 5'10" Andrew Luck. There was no doubt about his talent, just his height. I could find 50 articles saying he would be a 1st round pick if he was 4 inches taller. That is entirely different than Napoleon Dynamite. Comparing the two is laughable.
why is it laughable when they played in the same system and put up very similar numbers?



Drafting a QB purley off college stats would be ridiculous. Anyone who watched them play could see there is clearly a huge difference.

Draft Aaron Donald



GameTime

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18836
Offline
« #158 : July 25, 2013, 05:59:27 PM »

Drafting a QB purley off college stats would be ridiculous. Anyone who watched them play could see there is clearly a huge difference.
i do agree with that, and i didnt pay much attention to both guys play in college.  is there a brief description (aside from running ability) that you would say is the difference?

\"Lets put the O back in Country\"

Bradspace

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1427
Offline
« #159 : July 25, 2013, 06:12:33 PM »

Drafting a QB purley off college stats would be ridiculous. Anyone who watched them play could see there is clearly a huge difference.
i do agree with that, and i didnt pay much attention to both guys play in college.  is there a brief description (aside from running ability) that you would say is the difference?

Well, Tom O'Brien was going to bench Wilson in favor of Glennon.  That's different.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15615
Offline
« #160 : July 25, 2013, 06:14:32 PM »

Drafting a QB purley off college stats would be ridiculous. Anyone who watched them play could see there is clearly a huge difference.
i do agree with that, and i didnt pay much attention to both guys play in college.  is there a brief description (aside from running ability) that you would say is the difference?

There's a huge difference , except for the fact that for NC State , there was absolutely no difference...

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 22255
Offline
« #161 : July 25, 2013, 06:16:01 PM »

Because of his baseball commitments.


JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 28495
Online
« #162 : July 25, 2013, 06:17:31 PM »

Well....his ability to move is a pretty huge part, but the guy exudes leadership. Go watch his college interviews and he sounds like Peyton Manning. He was able to transfer to Wisconsin and take that team to a whole new level in his first year in that offense, which shows great football intelligence and the ability to pick up an entirely new offense in a very short amount of time. A feat he repeated for the Seahawks after he was drafted. As far as on the field, in his final year he had 33 TDs to only 4 Interceptions. A 72% completion percentage, and he also ran for 6 TDs. Every scouting report you read on the guy said his football smarts and leadership ability was off the charts. The only negative against the guy, the only thing keeping him out of the top 5...is his height. I don't think teams will put so much stock into a QBs height anymore.


Anyways, Glennon has the big arm and outstanding height. So if he was anywhere near Russell Wilson's level....he would have been the #1 pick of this draft. He doesn't show that off the charts football smarts or the same leadership though. His on the field play is inconsistent. He makes very inaccurate passes out of no where. He makes bad decisions. He can look really good at times and can move around surprisingly well for a guy his size...but the wildly inconsistencies in his accuracy and decision making hurts him big time as a prospect. Kinda sounds like another QB I know.....

Draft Aaron Donald



Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15615
Offline
« #163 : July 25, 2013, 06:37:39 PM »

Drafting a QB purley off college stats would be ridiculous. Anyone who watched them play could see there is clearly a huge difference.
i do agree with that, and i didnt pay much attention to both guys play in college.  is there a brief description (aside from running ability) that you would say is the difference?

Well, Tom O'Brien was going to bench Wilson in favor of Glennon.  That's different.

LOL

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46055
Offline
« #164 : July 25, 2013, 06:38:15 PM »

He is still entitled to feel confident. (Bucpride5)

But, I like the concept. I think I would have drafted Barkley/Nassib as a backup. But Glennon is growing on me. It was a smart pick, a contingency plan. Just not a QB I would have taken. This one has S's fingerprints all over it.
If you look at his stats and his team's record one would conclude they are trying to find a second Freeman. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant
  Page: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 26
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Mike Glennon confident « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools