There is also this:
Let's turn to the numbers. In Grossman's Super Bowl season, he completed 54.6 percent of his passes for 3,193 yards with 23 touchdowns and 20 interceptions. In Glennon's rookie year, during which he was surrounded by a diminished supporting cast and started the final 13 games, he completed 59.4 percent of his passes for 2,608 yards, 19 touchdowns and nine interceptions.
Glennon was much better than Grossman already. His situation is different than Grossman's as well.:1) He was a rookie, Grossman was not.2) He did not have an unbelievable defense handing him the ball in short fields.3) He had massive distractions around the team.Rex was a God Awful QB. Glennon is not. He is at least a solid QB, maybe a good or very good one in the right situation. If Glennon had been the QB in 2006, that Bears team would have been significantly better. Would they have won the SB? Maybe not. But they were dragged down by Grossman. They certainly would have had a better shot with Mike.
There is also this:
Let's turn to the numbers. In Grossman's Super Bowl season, he completed 54.6 percent of his passes for 3,193 yards with 23 touchdowns and 20 interceptions. In Glennon's rookie year, during which he was surrounded by a diminished supporting cast and started the final 13 games, he completed 59.4 percent of his passes for 2,608 yards, 19 touchdowns and nine interceptions.
Glennon was much better than Grossman already. His situation is different than Grossman's as well.:1) He was a rookie, Grossman was not.2) He did not have an unbelievable defense handing him the ball in short fields.3) He had massive distractions around the team.Rex was a God Awful QB. Glennon is not. He is at least a solid QB, maybe a good or very good one in the right situation. If Glennon had been the QB in 2006, that Bears team would have been significantly better. Would they have won the SB? Maybe not. But they were dragged down by Grossman. They certainly would have had a better shot with Mike.
As I posted above, Grossman had a really abnormal season in which he was either really good or really bad with not much in between. Glennon was just consistently mediocre. Grossman started 16 games in 2006 and had a QB rating of 98.0 or better 8 times. He also posted ratings below 41.0 five times. Conversely, Glennon started 13 games and finished with a rating of 98.0 or higher 3 times. He finished 41.0 or lower once. One can argue a loss is a loss so it really doesn't matter if you're losing with Grossman posting a QB rating in the 30s and Glennon in the 70s. You're losing either way. But it's a lot easier to win when Grossman gives you games in the 100s and Glennon is in the 80s.
Glennon is not. He is at least a solid QB, maybe a good or very good one in the right situation.
At least? At the least he's a solid back-up or low-end starter. He might end up being better than that but I don't think you can bank on it yet.
There is also this:
Let's turn to the numbers. In Grossman's Super Bowl season, he completed 54.6 percent of his passes for 3,193 yards with 23 touchdowns and 20 interceptions. In Glennon's rookie year, during which he was surrounded by a diminished supporting cast and started the final 13 games, he completed 59.4 percent of his passes for 2,608 yards, 19 touchdowns and nine interceptions.
Glennon was much better than Grossman already. His situation is different than Grossman's as well.:1) He was a rookie, Grossman was not.2) He did not have an unbelievable defense handing him the ball in short fields.3) He had massive distractions around the team.Rex was a God Awful QB. Glennon is not. He is at least a solid QB, maybe a good or very good one in the right situation. If Glennon had been the QB in 2006, that Bears team would have been significantly better. Would they have won the SB? Maybe not. But they were dragged down by Grossman. They certainly would have had a better shot with Mike.
As I posted above, Grossman had a really abnormal season in which he was either really good or really bad with not much in between. Glennon was just consistently mediocre. Grossman started 16 games in 2006 and had a QB rating of 98.0 or better 8 times. He also posted ratings below 41.0 five times. Conversely, Glennon started 13 games and finished with a rating of 98.0 or higher 3 times. He finished 41.0 or lower once. One can argue a loss is a loss so it really doesn't matter if you're losing with Grossman posting a QB rating in the 30s and Glennon in the 70s. You're losing either way. But it's a lot easier to win when Grossman gives you games in the 100s and Glennon is in the 80s.
The problem is, Rex would drag you down, where Glennon wouldn't. When you have that kind of defense you can win consistently with consistently average. You can't win consistently when a QB keeps posting some of the worst games in history. They would have been better served with Mike that year. And that still doesn't even touch on the other differences between the two.
Glennon's rookie year compares unfavorably to Grossman's best year . . so move on from Glennon? Even if you say "okay" to that strange comparison, the next word would be "where?" Who is the guy that should replace Glennon for the 2014 season? If the answer is no one then why even talk about it because we are presumably going to see Glennon play potentially a full season under a better coach and system, right? Certainly not a team in disarray
Glennon is the worst 2nd half quarterback I have ever seen. He folds like a $2 lawn chair.
Any QB who takes his team to the Superbowl in 2014 with a below average OL and no great receiving weapons is as much of a franchise QB as you will ever find. If you watched the games you understand that what he did was monumental. If you are just looking at the stat sheet you aren't getting the complete picture of how Russell Wilson led his team to the Superbowl. As for Glennon, he is what he is. Just like FRG layed out in another thread. Look at Grossmans td int ratio. He threw a lot of picks because he was trying to be a great QB. He was only average and he didn't have a ton of weapons. But that is the difference between Grossman and Glennon. Glennon is trying to not screw up and be an effective game manager. I think there is something to the argument that if you aren't trying to be a great QB you will probably never be one.
Glennon is the worst 2nd half quarterback I have ever seen. He folds like a $2 lawn chair.
Curious if you would say that about Bortles if he were to put up similar numbers and performance. Would you be ready to move on from him after one season?I think it would be foolish to close the book on Glennon before seeing how the new staff and scheme impacts his performance. Considering that the kid had inexperienced running backs, an inept O-line and only one true target to throw to, I can't believe that there are people who place all of the blame on him.
There is also this:
Let's turn to the numbers. In Grossman's Super Bowl season, he completed 54.6 percent of his passes for 3,193 yards with 23 touchdowns and 20 interceptions. In Glennon's rookie year, during which he was surrounded by a diminished supporting cast and started the final 13 games, he completed 59.4 percent of his passes for 2,608 yards, 19 touchdowns and nine interceptions.
Glennon was much better than Grossman already. His situation is different than Grossman's as well.:1) He was a rookie, Grossman was not.2) He did not have an unbelievable defense handing him the ball in short fields.3) He had massive distractions around the team.Rex was a God Awful QB. Glennon is not. He is at least a solid QB, maybe a good or very good one in the right situation. If Glennon had been the QB in 2006, that Bears team would have been significantly better. Would they have won the SB? Maybe not. But they were dragged down by Grossman. They certainly would have had a better shot with Mike.
As I posted above, Grossman had a really abnormal season in which he was either really good or really bad with not much in between. Glennon was just consistently mediocre. Grossman started 16 games in 2006 and had a QB rating of 98.0 or better 8 times. He also posted ratings below 41.0 five times. Conversely, Glennon started 13 games and finished with a rating of 98.0 or higher 3 times. He finished 41.0 or lower once. One can argue a loss is a loss so it really doesn't matter if you're losing with Grossman posting a QB rating in the 30s and Glennon in the 70s. You're losing either way. But it's a lot easier to win when Grossman gives you games in the 100s and Glennon is in the 80s.
The problem is, Rex would drag you down, where Glennon wouldn't. When you have that kind of defense you can win consistently with consistently average. You can't win consistently when a QB keeps posting some of the worst games in history. They would have been better served with Mike that year. And that still doesn't even touch on the other differences between the two.
OK you may have convinced me that the Bears could have had an easier time going 13-3 in 2006 with Glennon's consistent mediocrity and that defense, but it's worth noting they actually needed Grossman a few times that season, such as week 10 they let the Giants put up 20 points while Grossman had a 105.7 QB rating to score 38 points, week 14 the Rams scored 27 points and Grossman had a 114.4 QB rating and scored 42 points, and the next week they let the Bucs score 31 points and Grossman had a 104.3 QB rating and scored 34. But you could also the Bucs would have won more games in 2013 with their average defense and 2006 Grossman who was more prone to good games.
Any QB who takes his team to the Superbowl in 2014 with a below average OL and no great receiving weapons is as much of a franchise QB as you will ever find. If you watched the games you understand that what he did was monumental. If you are just looking at the stat sheet you aren't getting the complete picture of how Russell Wilson led his team to the Superbowl. As for Glennon, he is what he is. Just like FRG layed out in another thread. Look at Grossmans td int ratio. He threw a lot of picks because he was trying to be a great QB. He was only average and he didn't have a ton of weapons. But that is the difference between Grossman and Glennon. Glennon is trying to not screw up and be an effective game manager. I think there is something to the argument that if you aren't trying to be a great QB you will probably never be one.
Ive watched nearly all of his games, living up here in the Seattle area. Russell is a very good QB. However, he is inconsistent at times and makes some mistakes. Not sure if he can carry the team for a sustained period of time should the injury bug hit. His defense is absolutely insane and his coaches have developed a scheme that fits his strengths. Wilson is good, not elite. He is also in a very, very good situation. Is he a franchsie QB? Can you build a team around him? Not so sure. He is not plug and play. Seattle has done a great job with him and he is THEIR franchise QB. Can Tampa do something similar with Glennon? Who knows. However, I think they should try. Glennon is not Andrew Luck but he also isn't Blain Gabbert, Christian Ponder, or Brandon Weeden. He's somewhere in between and the Bucs need to figure out what to do with him moving forward.
Glennon is the worst 2nd half quarterback I have ever seen. He folds like a $2 lawn chair.
Curious if you would say that about Bortles if he were to put up similar numbers and performance. Would you be ready to move on from him after one season?I think it would be foolish to close the book on Glennon before seeing how the new staff and scheme impacts his performance. Considering that the kid had inexperienced running backs, an inept O-line and only one true target to throw to, I can't believe that there are people who place all of the blame on him.
1. Bortles would be a top 10 pick, so no. You have to give him at least two years. Glennon was a 3rd round pick so the investment is not great enough to require any kind of extended suffering. 2. You can throw around all the excuses you want about missing injured players and bad coaching, and those are valid reasons for a young QB to struggle....but there are no excuses for how historically awful he was in the 2nd half of every game. He just sucks. I've seen enough. 3. I don't think anyone puts all the blame on Glennon. Our franchise was an embarrassment last season and there were problems from the ground up. Glennon was just one of those problems.
"Curious if you would say that about Bortles if he were to put up similar numbers and performance. Would you be ready to move on from him after one season?"That's not really a fair comparison. Bortles is much cuter.
Any QB who takes his team to the Superbowl in 2014 with a below average OL and no great receiving weapons is as much of a franchise QB as you will ever find. If you watched the games you understand that what he did was monumental. If you are just looking at the stat sheet you aren't getting the complete picture of how Russell Wilson led his team to the Superbowl. As for Glennon, he is what he is. Just like FRG layed out in another thread. Look at Grossmans td int ratio. He threw a lot of picks because he was trying to be a great QB. He was only average and he didn't have a ton of weapons. But that is the difference between Grossman and Glennon. Glennon is trying to not screw up and be an effective game manager. I think there is something to the argument that if you aren't trying to be a great QB you will probably never be one.
Ive watched nearly all of his games, living up here in the Seattle area. Russell is a very good QB. However, he is inconsistent at times and makes some mistakes. Not sure if he can carry the team for a sustained period of time should the injury bug hit. His defense is absolutely insane and his coaches have developed a scheme that fits his strengths. Wilson is good, not elite. He is also in a very, very good situation. Is he a franchsie QB? Can you build a team around him? Not so sure. He is not plug and play. Seattle has done a great job with him and he is THEIR franchise QB. Can Tampa do something similar with Glennon? Who knows. However, I think they should try. Glennon is not Andrew Luck but he also isn't Blain Gabbert, Christian Ponder, or Brandon Weeden. He's somewhere in between and the Bucs need to figure out what to do with him moving forward.
We can agree to disagree about Wilson. What he did was equivalent to Glennon taking the Bucs to the Superbowl. All Glennon had was Vjax. That is one more weapon than Wilson had. We also disagree about Glennon. I don't want to see anymore because he doesn't have the skill set required. If I am going tarpon fishing I am not going to use 5 pound test fishing line. Glennon is 5 pound test. Why even put the boat in the water?
Which year was it that Orton did most of the heavy lifting for Chicago during the regular season?
"Curious if you would say that about Bortles if he were to put up similar numbers and performance. Would you be ready to move on from him after one season?"That's not really a fair comparison. Bortles is much cuter.
LMAO !!
