Team sacks: 2013: 47 sacks 2012: 26 sacks2011: 32 sacks2010: 30 sacks2009: 33 sacks2008: 32 sacks2007: 36 sacks2006: 33 sacks2005: 41 sacks2004: 44 sacksYou have to go back to Chris Simms and Brian Griese for QBs who took sacks like Glennon does. For as immobile as Byron Leftwich is, he was only sacked twice in 107 pass attempts in 2009 playing for one of the worst teams any of us have seen.
It would be relevant to show sack and INT totals for other rookie QBs recently. Manning was only sacked 22 times, but he threw 28 INTs. So there was obviously occasions when he should have just taken the sack. Geno Smith- 21 INTs, 43 sacksAndrew Luck- 18 INTs, 41 sacksRG3- 5 INTs, 30 sacksRussell Wilson- 10 INTs, 33 sacksRyan Tannehill- 13 INTs, 35 sacks
I think it's pretty meaningless to look at one year for sacks and draw a conclusion from that. I find it much more informative to look at trends from that team. Here are all those teams the year before those rookies: Jets 2012: 47 sacksColts 2011: 35 sacksRedskins 2011: 41 sacksSeahawks 2011: 50 sacksDolphins 2011: 52 sacksWe can see Smith took sacks at about the same rate as the year before, Luck took more, and RGIII, Wilson, and Tannehill all did a good bit better than the year before.
It would be relevant to show sack and INT totals for other rookie QBs recently. Manning was only sacked 22 times, but he threw 28 INTs. So there was obviously occasions when he should have just taken the sack. Geno Smith- 21 INTs, 43 sacksAndrew Luck- 18 INTs, 41 sacksRG3- 5 INTs, 30 sacksRussell Wilson- 10 INTs, 33 sacksRyan Tannehill- 13 INTs, 35 sacks
the problem is those making the case with statistics are showing the full context for someone to accept it as a reliable analysis. This gets closer, but add in how they all performed overall. So, for example, Glennon only had 9 ints, I think. He may not have played as much as some of those guys, and we don't know how much different the tams and the circumstances were, but that would suggest he held on to the ball to avoid INTs, wouldn't it? Not sure that is a bad trade or that it is a permanent trait, either way, but doesn't that matter in the context of the points being made in this thread?
One thing bothering me is that you guys are using absolute numbers for sacks (and ints). Just for example, Manning threw the ball as a rookie 575 times. Glennon threw it 416 times.
It would be relevant to show sack and INT totals for other rookie QBs recently. Manning was only sacked 22 times, but he threw 28 INTs. So there was obviously occasions when he should have just taken the sack. Geno Smith- 21 INTs, 43 sacksAndrew Luck- 18 INTs, 41 sacksRG3- 5 INTs, 30 sacksRussell Wilson- 10 INTs, 33 sacksRyan Tannehill- 13 INTs, 35 sacks
I think it's pretty meaningless to look at one year for sacks and draw a conclusion from that. I find it much more informative to look at trends from that team. Here are all those teams the year before those rookies: Jets 2012: 47 sacksColts 2011: 35 sacksRedskins 2011: 41 sacksSeahawks 2011: 50 sacksDolphins 2011: 52 sacksWe can see Smith took sacks at about the same rate as the year before, Luck took more, and RGIII, Wilson, and Tannehill all did a good bit better than the year before.
Now you're throwing in more variables and have to analyze if the lines were the same, different offenses, etc. I was just pointing out if a rookie QB doesn't know what to do he either throws picks or takes sacks. And I'd rather it be take sacks.
Glennon's int rate was a very good 2.2% (Manning's was 4.8% as a rookie). I would definitely put that in the plus column. On the other hand, I think was entirely too risk averse at times, particularly when we we were trailing and we were desperate for big plays. It's a balance thing. It's ok to take a sack in a tied game on 3rd and long with nobody open. It's not ok to take a sack on 3rd and long, trailing with little time left because everybody is covered (especially with V-Jax on the team). How much of that is him, or how much of that was pounded into his brain by Schiano/Sullivan/McNulty is a whole different issue.
Glennon's int rate was a very good 2.2% (Manning's was 4.8% as a rookie). I would definitely put that in the plus column. On the other hand, I think was entirely too risk averse at times, particularly when we we were trailing and we were desperate for big plays. It's a balance thing. It's ok to take a sack in a tied game on 3rd and long with nobody open. It's not ok to take a sack on 3rd and long, trailing with little time left because everybody is covered (especially with V-Jax on the team). How much of that is him, or how much of that was pounded into his brain by Schiano/Sullivan/McNulty is a whole different issue.
I've said all along I don't think INTs are all that bad for rookies. The reason Manning threw all those INTs is because he was trying to play like a great QB as a rookie but he wasn't great yet. Glennon threw a low number of INTs because he wasn't trying to play like a great QB. At some point if Glennon wants to be a great QB, he's going to have to try to play like one.
Glennon's int rate was a very good 2.2% (Manning's was 4.8% as a rookie). I would definitely put that in the plus column. On the other hand, I think was entirely too risk averse at times, particularly when we we were trailing and we were desperate for big plays. It's a balance thing. It's ok to take a sack in a tied game on 3rd and long with nobody open. It's not ok to take a sack on 3rd and long, trailing with little time left because everybody is covered (especially with V-Jax on the team). How much of that is him, or how much of that was pounded into his brain by Schiano/Sullivan/McNulty is a whole different issue.
That last line is a huge point for me, is his deficiencies a product of the Schiano fist rule, or is he incapable of running a successful NFL offense.
Only a Bucs fan would find something wrong with their rookie QB only throwing 9 INTs.
Glennon's int rate was a very good 2.2% (Manning's was 4.8% as a rookie). I would definitely put that in the plus column. On the other hand, I think was entirely too risk averse at times, particularly when we we were trailing and we were desperate for big plays. It's a balance thing. It's ok to take a sack in a tied game on 3rd and long with nobody open. It's not ok to take a sack on 3rd and long, trailing with little time left because everybody is covered (especially with V-Jax on the team). How much of that is him, or how much of that was pounded into his brain by Schiano/Sullivan/McNulty is a whole different issue.
That last line is a huge point for me, is his deficiencies a product of the Schiano fist rule, or is he incapable of running a successful NFL offense.
If he was a gunslinger in college and became much more conservative in the NFL then I think you could blame the coaching staff. However he's the same guy now he was in college.
Glennon's int rate was a very good 2.2% (Manning's was 4.8% as a rookie). I would definitely put that in the plus column. On the other hand, I think was entirely too risk averse at times, particularly when we we were trailing and we were desperate for big plays. It's a balance thing. It's ok to take a sack in a tied game on 3rd and long with nobody open. It's not ok to take a sack on 3rd and long, trailing with little time left because everybody is covered (especially with V-Jax on the team). How much of that is him, or how much of that was pounded into his brain by Schiano/Sullivan/McNulty is a whole different issue.
That last line is a huge point for me, is his deficiencies a product of the Schiano fist rule, or is he incapable of running a successful NFL offense.
If he was a gunslinger in college and became much more conservative in the NFL then I think you could blame the coaching staff. However he's the same guy now he was in college.
Yup, coaching staff was stellar...cant be their fault at all.
Only a Bucs fan would find something wrong with their rookie QB only throwing 9 INTs.
I don't have a problem with his int rate of 2.2%. It's fantastic. I could live with him taking more risks in games where the marginal cost of taking the risk is small. If you don't think he had an issue with that (especially later in the year) you weren't watching the games. As I said, it could have been the coach's influence - you remember, the guy who liked to punt in the fourth quarter down multiple tds?
Glennon's int rate was a very good 2.2% (Manning's was 4.8% as a rookie). I would definitely put that in the plus column. On the other hand, I think was entirely too risk averse at times, particularly when we we were trailing and we were desperate for big plays. It's a balance thing. It's ok to take a sack in a tied game on 3rd and long with nobody open. It's not ok to take a sack on 3rd and long, trailing with little time left because everybody is covered (especially with V-Jax on the team). How much of that is him, or how much of that was pounded into his brain by Schiano/Sullivan/McNulty is a whole different issue.
+1
Waaaahahahh he's smart with the football. Waaaahahahh!!!
Glennon's int rate was a very good 2.2% (Manning's was 4.8% as a rookie). I would definitely put that in the plus column. On the other hand, I think was entirely too risk averse at times, particularly when we we were trailing and we were desperate for big plays. It's a balance thing. It's ok to take a sack in a tied game on 3rd and long with nobody open. It's not ok to take a sack on 3rd and long, trailing with little time left because everybody is covered (especially with V-Jax on the team). How much of that is him, or how much of that was pounded into his brain by Schiano/Sullivan/McNulty is a whole different issue.
That last line is a huge point for me, is his deficiencies a product of the Schiano fist rule, or is he incapable of running a successful NFL offense.
If he was a gunslinger in college and became much more conservative in the NFL then I think you could blame the coaching staff. However he's the same guy now he was in college.
I don't know - I don't recall him having trouble chucking it in college to the same extent.
