I guess nobody remembers the preseason? If you didn't know by Labor Day that the O-line had major issues, you weren't paying attention.
To me, this is the point of the thread. The sack numbers were always thrown in the face to those that said the OL wasn't protecting the passer well. The OL really didn't play all that much worse than they have in the past 5-6 years, but the QB was sacked quite a bit more.
Actually, the OL was significantly worse this season. That's the point being made by the poster you responded to. It was bad whether it was Josh or Mike back there. Neither QB played stellar last year, but the line was awful and it was clear even before the season started.
So you're saying the line was awful in both 2012 and 2013 yet in 2013 they gave up 21 more sacks than 2012. Hmmmm. I wonder what changed?
Doug Martin was top 5 in rushing last year. Same back this year looked much different, yes?
Martin is overrated.
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.
lol, the part in bold -- how in the heck would you know that?
Lol 4real
It should be pretty clear the two players adopted different risk/reward strategies in their rookie seasons. Manning was will to take more risks because his arm couldn't execute what his eyes could see was there and he threw a lot of INTs. After his rookie season, Manning received a tremendous reward for being able to complete these difficult plays. Glennon was anti-risk and thus didn't throw a lot of INTs, but he also didn't get much reward, as evidenced by his #37 YPA and the team having the #32 offense. If the Bucs are ever going to know reward with Glennon, he's going to have to take more risks, like Manning. But that's another thread. This thread was supposed to be how the Bucs gave up a monumental amount more sacks as soon as Glennon started playing.
I think FRG is on the right track here. Look - nobody is denying that it's good to to avoid picks. But that's not the goal of a QB. The goal of the QB is to lead the team down the field and score points. If Glennon had done that more often, we wouldn't be trying to tease out whether he's a good or bad QB. If you think it's the greatest stat ever, ere are some other young QBs (rookie or second year) since 1998 with at least 300 attempts to have a low int % (3% or lower). I went to second years in some cases because otherwise I miss young QBs who didn't have enough attempts and/or didn't start as rookies. If both years came up for a QB, I posted just the rookie year: Nick Foles (1% - year 2), RGIII (1.3%), Josh Freeman (year 2, 1.3%), Sam Bradford (1.7% year 2), Charlie Batch (2%), Jason Campbell (2.6%, year 2), Tyler Thigpen (2.5%), Christian Ponder (2.5%), Carson Palmer (2.4%, year 2), Cam (2.5%, year 2) Chris Simms (2.2%), Jamarcus Russell (second year, 2.2%), Russell Wilson (2.5%), Patrick Ramsey (second year, 2.7%). EJ Manuel (2.9%), Luck (2.9%), Byron Leftwich (second year 2.3%) Garcia (2.93), Trent Edwards (second year, 2.75%), Matt Ryan (2.53%), Flacco (2.8%), Brady (2.9%), Kurt Warner (2.6%), Ryan Tannehill (2.7%), Shaun King (3.0% year 2), Dalton (2.5%), Sanchize (2.6%, year 2), Cutler (2.99% year 2), Brees (3.0%, year 2). Guys like Weeden, Leinart, Griese, and Couch narrowly missed the 3.0% int % cut-off. Notice that 3 Buc QBs - Simms, King, and Free - made the list? Anybody who truly thinks looking at the archaic, context-less numbers and thinks Glennon as a rookie is comparable (or better!) than a rookie version of Peyton Manning needs to go find a copy of The Football Outsiders Almanac and study it. There's only one set of numbers I know of that a) puts the numbers into situational context (i.e., a 3rd and 10 pass that goes for 11 yards is a success, while one that goes for 8 isn't), b) compares those throws to what joe average does in comparable situations; c) and adjusts for the strength of the opposing defenses. Things like QB Rating and QBR are just combinations of a number of statistics all lumped together in a single rating (and QB rating double-counts accuracy) - they might be an ok way to sum up a set of numbers, but they provide no context. Pro Football Focus has interesting things to say, but they don't provide that context either. Football Outsiders includes that context. Glennon this year was 22 in DYAR, and 26 in DVOA. His raw scores were actually adjusted upwards because he played such a strong schedule. Manning was 12 in DYAR and 20 in DVOA as a rookie. He was simply better. As I've mentioned before, I'm on the fence on Glennon. On my pro-Glennon days, I think he could be in the Matt Ryan class. On my con-Glennon days, I think he's more Christian Ponder or Andy Dalton. I don't see any reason to completely pull the plug on him right now, but I also don't think we should necessarily put all our eggs in one basket IF there's an opportunity to upgrade the position significantly. By that, I mean, I'm all for drafting a QB we a high pick if we think the QB is 150% - 200% Mike Glennon. If it's 110% Mike Glennon, I'm not all that interested. And no, I'm not sure who that QB would be.
I don't see any reason to completely pull the plug on [Glennon] right now, but I also don't think we should necessarily put all our eggs in one basket IF there's an opportunity to upgrade the position significantly. By that, I mean, I'm all for drafting a QB we a high pick if we think the QB is 150% - 200% Mike Glennon. If it's 110% Mike Glennon, I'm not all that interested. And no, I'm not sure who that QB would be.
I would think that is how most feel
I don't see any reason to completely pull the plug on [Glennon] right now, but I also don't think we should necessarily put all our eggs in one basket IF there's an opportunity to upgrade the position significantly. By that, I mean, I'm all for drafting a QB we a high pick if we think the QB is 150% - 200% Mike Glennon. If it's 110% Mike Glennon, I'm not all that interested. And no, I'm not sure who that QB would be.
I would think that is how most feel
You wouldn't know it from the commentary.
If you think it's the greatest stat ever, ere are some other young QBs (rookie or second year) since 1998 with at least 300 attempts to have a low int % (3% or lower). I went to second years in some cases because otherwise I miss young QBs who didn't have enough attempts and/or didn't start as rookies. If both years came up for a QB, I posted just the rookie year: Nick Foles (1% - year 2), RGIII (1.3%), Josh Freeman (year 2, 1.3%), Sam Bradford (1.7% year 2), Charlie Batch (2%), Jason Campbell (2.6%, year 2), Tyler Thigpen (2.5%), Christian Ponder (2.5%), Carson Palmer (2.4%, year 2), Cam (2.5%, year 2) Chris Simms (2.2%), Jamarcus Russell (second year, 2.2%), Russell Wilson (2.5%), Patrick Ramsey (second year, 2.7%). EJ Manuel (2.9%), Luck (2.9%), Byron Leftwich (second year 2.3%) Garcia (2.93), Trent Edwards (second year, 2.75%), Matt Ryan (2.53%), Flacco (2.8%), Brady (2.9%), Kurt Warner (2.6%), Ryan Tannehill (2.7%), Shaun King (3.0% year 2), Dalton (2.5%), Sanchize (2.6%, year 2), Cutler (2.99% year 2), Brees (3.0%, year 2).
Very good data set that shows there's a pretty considerable group of players who were able to play a conservative brand of football to avoid turnovers.
I don't see any reason to completely pull the plug on [Glennon] right now, but I also don't think we should necessarily put all our eggs in one basket IF there's an opportunity to upgrade the position significantly. By that, I mean, I'm all for drafting a QB we a high pick if we think the QB is 150% - 200% Mike Glennon. If it's 110% Mike Glennon, I'm not all that interested. And no, I'm not sure who that QB would be.
I would think that is how most feel
You wouldn't know it from the commentary.
squeaky wheel syndrome. on message boards people usually oversell their point and people in the middle get squashed out with the fighting from the poles.
It's an interesting group. I think the obvious ones are the dink-and-dunkers - you would expect that they would be in there. The non-obvious are some of the more mobile guys, like RGIII, Wilson, Cam, and even Thigpin. I suspect that their mobility means that they have a lot of easy throws - bootlegs, designed rollouts. Notice that even Cutler - who especially when younger - was very mobile is in there, and recall that he and RGIII both played in the Shanny system that featured those things.
