This whole conversation is a joke. JDouble, what you describe in your post is not what happened on the field. Sorry, but even professional announcers during the games were commenting on how poised he was in the pocket, how he would quickly go through his progressions, and how he managed to not make a lot of mistakes. His accuracy was also a big plus. You are seeing things that weren't there. Perhaps you were drunk off your posterior. All QB's can get flustered at times, and Glennon is no exception, but he spent a lot more time being poised during the rush than not. He actually reminded me a lot of the way Manning hangs in the pocket trying to stay calm until a receiver gets open. The problem he had was what he was throwing to and how much time he actually had to stand there and go through the reads. It's funny that people who do this for a living seem to think differently than the Glennon haters on this board. That should tell you something.Is he a franchise QB? Too early to tell. But, as I said, with talent around him, and an offense that makes defenses actually have to think and read, I think he's a top 15 QB. More than good enough to win a Super Bowl if you have the other pieces. Another thing to consider is how much better he looked in the no-huddle when he could dictate the offense to the defense. The kid's good, and likely good enough. We need to get some competition in here, no doubt, but he's not a throw away like some of you think. Freeman, however, was. He had the same problems continue to pop up.Oh, and JDouble, how can you have the same o-line when several players that played last year were injured and players were being shuffled around all season? And how can you be running the exact same offense from one year to the next when you've switched to a rookie, and thereby have to dumb it down even more than it already is? And why did Freeman suck in the first 3 games? Exactly. Your argument is invalid.
You mean those same guys that would talk about Bowers when mentioning how we had the parts of a special line, doing it right up until the end of the season? Those Guys?The same guys that would start games saying what you did and then after actually getting a look at him play would be questioning what the hell he was doing?I remember a game where he threw the ball away on 3rd down with no pressure on him and we had a wide open Underwood (might have been Dawson) downfield, the comments after that weren't about how poised he was and lack of mistakes, it was more along the lines of "What was he thinking, he's just cost his team in a big way."I saw the exact same things on the field as JDouble, in fact I think his assessment might even be a little kind towards Glennon.
Dude, he's a rookie. They do dumb things at times. Manning was horrible during his rookie year, throwing picks left and right. You have to look at the fundamentals of how they handle things in general.
This whole conversation is a joke. JDouble, what you describe in your post is not what happened on the field. Sorry, but even professional announcers during the games were commenting on how poised he was in the pocket, how he would quickly go through his progressions, and how he managed to not make a lot of mistakes. His accuracy was also a big plus. You are seeing things that weren't there. Perhaps you were drunk off your posterior. All QB's can get flustered at times, and Glennon is no exception, but he spent a lot more time being poised during the rush than not. He actually reminded me a lot of the way Manning hangs in the pocket trying to stay calm until a receiver gets open. The problem he had was what he was throwing to and how much time he actually had to stand there and go through the reads. It's funny that people who do this for a living seem to think differently than the Glennon haters on this board. That should tell you something.Is he a franchise QB? Too early to tell. But, as I said, with talent around him, and an offense that makes defenses actually have to think and read, I think he's a top 15 QB. More than good enough to win a Super Bowl if you have the other pieces. Another thing to consider is how much better he looked in the no-huddle when he could dictate the offense to the defense. The kid's good, and likely good enough. We need to get some competition in here, no doubt, but he's not a throw away like some of you think. Freeman, however, was. He had the same problems continue to pop up.Oh, and JDouble, how can you have the same o-line when several players that played last year were injured and players were being shuffled around all season? And how can you be running the exact same offense from one year to the next when you've switched to a rookie, and thereby have to dumb it down even more than it already is? And why did Freeman suck in the first 3 games? Exactly. Your argument is invalid.
Great post.One of the biggest differences I have noticed in watching Freeman play and watching Glennon play is this:With Freeman, you would have flashes of A+ playing, where it completely surprised you, and you didn't know where it came from. But there was always that feeling of "this isn't going to last for long" and lo and behold, out came the bone-headed play. The type of "WHAT THE F WERE YOU THINKING????" playWith Glennon, I'm watching somebody who never makes that "WTF" play. I always see what he was trying to do. I see a guy that is careful with the ball, who goes through his progressions, makes the best-informed decision, and tries to put it where he wants to.Albeit, he's a human, playing in the NFL, so he's bound to make a physical mistake, as even manning and brady do sometimes. But I don't think there has been a game where I watched Glennon play and thought to myself "C'mon MAN - what the f were you thinking??" - it's always: "ya - I get you"That's just my honest opinion. I had the same exact opinion about Garcia and The Bull too. I trusted those guy to do what was best. And that's what makes Glennon's NFL ceiling high. He is a hard-working, intelligent distributor of the football.
Glennon needs to work on not having mechanical break downs late in the game or when under pressure. That was his big weakness in college and it showed up in the pros, but I think that with a different scheme tailored to his strengths this weakness can be minimized. However, he has to be consistent in the third/fourth quarter with his footwork so his accuracy doesn't tank.
Glennon needs to work on not having mechanical break downs late in the game or when under pressure. That was his big weakness in college and it showed up in the pros, but I think that with a different scheme tailored to his strengths this weakness can be minimized. However, he has to be consistent in the third/fourth quarter with his footwork so his accuracy doesn't tank.
Agreed. However, I am also of the belief that some of his footwork breakdowns come from the o-line break down late in games, some of which come from long-drop back playcalls, some of which come from guys like DPenn and Joseph just being gassed.The former (long drop backs) come from us trying to score 21 points in 1 drive and long routes. 26 of his 40 sacks come when we are behind. (8 from ahead, 6 from tied).The latter (o-line gassed), albeit mixed in with the fact that we are also generally behind in the 4th quarter, shows up in that 19 of 40 sacks came in the 4th quarter.I think another year of mechanic work, another year of getting comfortable with the NFL speed, and a reworked O-line will lead to fewer pressures -> fewer hits -> fewer sacks -> fewer mechanical breakdowns -> fewer turnoversand the guy still had a 2:1 TD:INT ratio
Glennon needs to work on not having mechanical break downs late in the game or when under pressure. That was his big weakness in college and it showed up in the pros, but I think that with a different scheme tailored to his strengths this weakness can be minimized. However, he has to be consistent in the third/fourth quarter with his footwork so his accuracy doesn't tank.
Agreed. However, I am also of the belief that some of his footwork breakdowns come from the o-line break down late in games, some of which come from long-drop back playcalls, some of which come from guys like DPenn and Joseph just being gassed.The former (long drop backs) come from us trying to score 21 points in 1 drive and long routes. 26 of his 40 sacks come when we are behind. (8 from ahead, 6 from tied).The latter (o-line gassed), albeit mixed in with the fact that we are also generally behind in the 4th quarter, shows up in that 19 of 40 sacks came in the 4th quarter.I think another year of mechanic work, another year of getting comfortable with the NFL speed, and a reworked O-line will lead to fewer pressures -> fewer hits -> fewer sacks -> fewer mechanical breakdowns -> fewer turnoversand the guy still had a 2:1 TD:INT ratio
Yup a lot of it was schematic long developing plays, lack of enough personnel at the receiver spots (eg. not enough to flood zone coverage underneath) while having an o-line that was inconsistent. A slot WR and a two way TE to team with Wright flooding the underneath zones will help out a lot.
Also, one more tid-bit I just realized about mike glennon, which can be found here: http://www.nfl.com/player/mikeglennon/2539275/situationalstats Opponent's 19-1 Yard Line (commonly referred to as the "redzone"):12 TDs0 Ints
Yes Glennon was very efficient in the red zone.
The simple answer is that he played like a rookie. I keep saying if you look at Luck's rookie year it isn't all that impressive. He has flaws but most of them are things experience will take care of - being more decisive, speed of decision making. Getting a hire done soon so the books can get to Glennon PDQ matters.
Glennon needs to work on not having mechanical break downs late in the game or when under pressure. That was his big weakness in college and it showed up in the pros, but I think that with a different scheme tailored to his strengths this weakness can be minimized. However, he has to be consistent in the third/fourth quarter with his footwork so his accuracy doesn't tank.
Agreed. However, I am also of the belief that some of his footwork breakdowns come from the o-line break down late in games, some of which come from long-drop back playcalls, some of which come from guys like DPenn and Joseph just being gassed.The former (long drop backs) come from us trying to score 21 points in 1 drive and long routes. 26 of his 40 sacks come when we are behind. (8 from ahead, 6 from tied).The latter (o-line gassed), albeit mixed in with the fact that we are also generally behind in the 4th quarter, shows up in that 19 of 40 sacks came in the 4th quarter.I think another year of mechanic work, another year of getting comfortable with the NFL speed, and a reworked O-line will lead to fewer pressures -> fewer hits -> fewer sacks -> fewer mechanical breakdowns -> fewer turnoversand the guy still had a 2:1 TD:INT ratio
Very telling stats. Glennon may not have been P. Manning in his prime, but he certainly was not the trash heap that a few posters are trying to make him out to be. But then again, what would the red Baord be without all the over exaggeration and hyperbole?
Glennon isn't getting enough credit, imo. Good first year, especially when you consider the circumstances. I think he takes significant strides physically and mentally this offeseason. It will be funny to hear/see people's reaction when we see Glennon next year with another 15-20 lbs on him and another year of growth. Also sounds like he fits Tedford pretty well. I'm happy to have him here. Should be interesting
I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying. One thing I would like to add is that many of his mechanical breakdowns happened the same games our oline was terrible. I am not saying Glennon is a finished product because he has much to learn, but any QB that gets sacked 7 times in a game is going to start playing poorly. That's why pass rushers make so much. That's how the Giants beat the Pats in the Superbowl.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees it. He played very well for a rookie. That simply can't be denied. But, like all rookies, he had his share of mistakes. The TD:INT ratio is usually a pretty good indicator for a QB, especially if you are looking at a QB that's throwing 20 or more TD's per 16 games (19 in 13 games is certainly there). This offense just takes too long to develop, and adding the extra half second of deciphering a rookie needs makes it that much more problematic. It's also why we see the dramatic difference when they went no-huddle. My opinion is that he will be best suited to a system similar to what Tedford runs, where you have plenty of short route, west coast type elements in it, combined with deeper posts, curls, and go routes. Give him a set of quick and long developing routes to select from, and he should be better able to make the right read and play quicker that with the current post snap adjustment offense they run.Time will tell.
Glennon is going to a look next season, but I agree that we shouldn't proceed without a viable "Plan B". A late-round rookie isn't going to do that. This is why I'd prefer a veteran to be brought in and let the winner take all. All of this, of course, depends on who is coaching the team next season. The new guy, if one is brought in, might have a different philosophy. One that doesn't include a QB like Glennon.
So...we let Glennon fight it out against a recycled nobody and that gains us exactly what?Scenario 1) Glennon wins, now we have a nobody with no upside backing him upScenario 2) Glennon loses. Now we have a nobody starting and Glennon backing him up.Great plan there.
You should not discount the possibility that we could find a Rich Gannon type guy like McCown and win a bunch of games while allowing Glennon to really learn this offense bywitnessing a pro QB execute the offense. This would only allow Glennon time to mature physically and get really comfortable in the offense when his number is called. THAT is a better idea to me than running with the Twig Cannon.
I'll be honest, I'm not high on Glennon but that may be a combination of him being a rookie and the system that was in play. You can say Luck or RG3 stats were the same, etc but the difference is I never once thought that Glennon could bring us back a the end of the game. I think fans of the other teams with the rookie QBs we compare him to could (and often did) think that.That being said, after reading more about Tedford, I'm goign to 100% back his decision. If they draft a QB 1st round, I'll be under the impression that he studied all the tape and thought Glennon did not have the skills (although he may be smart enough) to be handed the keys. If they DO NOT draft a QB, I'll back Glennon fully because it means Tedford is confident he can coach Glennon up.
