Here's a few stats that might tell a better story. League average rushing is 113 yards per game. I looked up Mikes passing stats in games where we rushed for more than 100 yards, as a team. Not talking individual rushers over 100, I'm talking total rushing with starter, back up and Mike himself running for 100 yards combined. First of all that was 5 games, out of 13 that mike started. Secondly we eclipsed the LEAGUE AVERAGE just 4 times all year while Mike was starting. Pretty pathetic for a run based team huh?
The problem with stats is they are just numbers on a page, take your 100 yards rushing stat, it's meaningless because most teams run the ball when they are winning and for obvious reasons get away from it when they fall behind.It's a chicken or the egg situation, did they win because they were running the ball or did they run the ball because they were winning?It's similar to how some people claim Mike struggles to look good when the running game is bad, why don't they think that it might just be the running game looks bad because Mike is playing badly & the D can focus on the run? It's not like Mike has proven he can carry a team on his back or is clutch, he's done nothing to make teams fear him.
While "people" do run when winning, we didn't. We ran the ball over and over again and got into 3rd and long. In fact we had the 2nd most 3rd and longs in the league. I'm not comparing running and winning with other teams because what you say is true, people get ahead and run to wear the clock. We would routinely run the ball with very little yardage gained which did a couple things. Put us in long down and distance and also let the defense keep their safeties back to play pass.My argument is sort of being missed. My argument is that we ran the ball very often and in games we gained yardage Mike was put into better positions and played better and we won. A better offense allows us, hopefully, to stay out of our very high rate of 3rd down and long plays. Do you run to pass or pass to run? Well again, with our team, we ran to pass and when we couldn't run throwing lanes were smaller and PA didn't work as well. Is that Mike's fault? Please don't consider what other teams do. Consider what WE do and our entire offense was built around the run game starting it. That's all fine and dandy but if your o-line stinks and you can't run it, everything is going to struggle and that is my point. No run game makes it a lot harder to pass unless your team has one of the elite 4.
Running and passing despite the efforts of people to make them "effect" each other...don't. You have teams that are good at running and bad at passing and vice versa. If running sets up passing then good run teams should become better passing teams over time. They don't. Rushing also doesn't open up passing either in the traditional "sucking guys up to the line" way nor because of play action. Running in the NFL serves really , only two functions and it doesn't do either terribly well:1. Chewing up clock and the value of that is fairly minimal because possession is more important. It is really at the margins it works. 2. Creating good down and distance situations. Rushing is still shockingly bad at this because while run averages look good run actuals are extremely uneven with one big run masking a lot of futile efforts. Good runs account for less than half of all runs. Our backs did it less than 40% of the time which says a lot about our OL.
I guess we'll agree to disagree. I can't accept that running the ball well has no effect on ability to pass. I see what your saying but teams that run the ball well are committed to it and that's what thye like to do. They don't want to turn into a passing team, the want to be a run team and occasionally strike you with a freebie in the pass game because you have to commit to stop the run.
The NFL game has changed such that running to set up the pass works sometimes but if you are able to pass you set up the run. But even if the run isn't set up from the pass you still have a chance of winning..so if play action fails to yield big passing plays and your team is running the football you are still in danger of losing a football game. As Jaworksi puts it " points are scored through a passing game" and I think it rings more true.
its interesting to watch people portray running/play action passing in ancient terms. I doubt there are many teams (especially now that Schiano is out of the league - lol) that "run to set up the pass" (i.e., who run 3 yards and a cloud of dust repeatedly to set up a defense for one big pass play). No one is suggesting that (except Schiano and Sullivan-lol). Maybe some teams take that approach, but they are in the distinct minority.It's not that difficult a concept, if a defense thinks you will only pass or only run it is easier to defend than if you run and pass. The key is keeping a defense off balance. It's pretty hard to do that is you are pass only or run only.On top of all of this is one other factor: keeping the other team and your defense off the field. Hard to do if you only do one thing
I am not against a running game its that if you run it 1 time per set of downs and average 4 ypc that still leaves you in favorable down and distances to convert (2nd and 6 or 3rd an 6). I do not see it as a balance anymore given how the rules protector passers and pass catchers now. The middle of the field is now wide open for slants, hitch and go's (Vincent Jackson's favorite in the slot), up the seem, drags, etc....players like Goldshon no longer have free reign over the middle.
You will never have great players at every position and even when you are close you will have injuries. You can't count on all your offensive weapons being there and your starting O-line starting 16 games and providing 4 seconds every snap. It's the NFL. There will be adversity. You have to build a team that can overcome it. QBs that only perform well under perfect conditions are back ups.QBs that can deal with bad situations and still figure out a way to win are starters.I think it is very clear what we have.
I don't disagree with any of that until the point where you think it's already clear what Mike is. Look at the 4 best QBs in the league...Rogers, Brady, Manning and Brees. Only Manning played as a rookie and threw 28 interceptions. It's simply silly to think Glennon has reached his peak or to think you know what he will be or won't be. I think we both agree, we both want the best QB possible taking snaps next year. I guess i'm just not ready to say that Mike isn't that guy yet.
I get so tired of hearing the Peyton Manning example. Peyton Manning started poorly and had just 4 TDs and a whopping 12 Interceptions in his first 5 games...BUT he improved and from week 6 on he was clearly special. He had 5 games of 300+ passing yards and 4 games with 3 TDs. He finished the year with almost 4000 yards passing. The Colts went 3-13 that year, but that's mostly because they were awful on defense (2nd worst in the league) and were losing several games in which Manning threw 3 TDs and had a QB rating over 100. And he did all this 16 years ago when the game was much harder and defenses were actually allowed to hurt the QB, The comparison hold no water. Please stop using it.
You will never have great players at every position and even when you are close you will have injuries. You can't count on all your offensive weapons being there and your starting O-line starting 16 games and providing 4 seconds every snap. It's the NFL. There will be adversity. You have to build a team that can overcome it. QBs that only perform well under perfect conditions are back ups.QBs that can deal with bad situations and still figure out a way to win are starters.I think it is very clear what we have.
I don't disagree with any of that until the point where you think it's already clear what Mike is. Look at the 4 best QBs in the league...Rogers, Brady, Manning and Brees. Only Manning played as a rookie and threw 28 interceptions. It's simply silly to think Glennon has reached his peak or to think you know what he will be or won't be. I think we both agree, we both want the best QB possible taking snaps next year. I guess i'm just not ready to say that Mike isn't that guy yet.
I get so tired of hearing the Peyton Manning example. Peyton Manning started poorly and had just 4 TDs and a whopping 12 Interceptions in his first 5 games...BUT he improved and from week 6 on he was clearly special. He had 5 games of 300+ passing yards and 4 games with 3 TDs. He finished the year with almost 4000 yards passing. The Colts went 3-13 that year, but they were awful on defense and were losing several games in which Manning threw 3 TDs and had a QB rating over 100. And he did all this 16 years ago when the game was much harder and defenses were actually allowed to hurt the QB, The comparison hold no water. Please stop using it.
Yeah Glennon never broke the 300 yard passing threshold or 3 TD game performance. However, he was fairly close in several contests so he is borderline but in a pass oriented league a QB that average 200 yards passing per game is no longer the norm but it could have been schematic reasons from the previous coaching staff responsible. Hard to say.
You will never have great players at every position and even when you are close you will have injuries. You can't count on all your offensive weapons being there and your starting O-line starting 16 games and providing 4 seconds every snap. It's the NFL. There will be adversity. You have to build a team that can overcome it. QBs that only perform well under perfect conditions are back ups.QBs that can deal with bad situations and still figure out a way to win are starters.I think it is very clear what we have.
I don't disagree with any of that until the point where you think it's already clear what Mike is. Look at the 4 best QBs in the league...Rogers, Brady, Manning and Brees. Only Manning played as a rookie and threw 28 interceptions. It's simply silly to think Glennon has reached his peak or to think you know what he will be or won't be. I think we both agree, we both want the best QB possible taking snaps next year. I guess i'm just not ready to say that Mike isn't that guy yet.
I get so tired of hearing the Peyton Manning example. Peyton Manning started poorly and had just 4 TDs and a whopping 12 Interceptions in his first 5 games...BUT he improved and from week 6 on he was clearly special. He had 5 games of 300+ passing yards and 4 games with 3 TDs. He finished the year with almost 4000 yards passing. The Colts went 3-13 that year, but that's mostly because they were awful on defense (2nd worst in the league) and were losing several games in which Manning threw 3 TDs and had a QB rating over 100. And he did all this 16 years ago when the game was much harder and defenses were actually allowed to hurt the QB, The comparison hold no water. Please stop using it.
except that wasn't the comparison he made . . his point is in bold
You will never have great players at every position and even when you are close you will have injuries. You can't count on all your offensive weapons being there and your starting O-line starting 16 games and providing 4 seconds every snap. It's the NFL. There will be adversity. You have to build a team that can overcome it. QBs that only perform well under perfect conditions are back ups.QBs that can deal with bad situations and still figure out a way to win are starters.I think it is very clear what we have.
I don't disagree with any of that until the point where you think it's already clear what Mike is. Look at the 4 best QBs in the league...Rogers, Brady, Manning and Brees. Only Manning played as a rookie and threw 28 interceptions. It's simply silly to think Glennon has reached his peak or to think you know what he will be or won't be. I think we both agree, we both want the best QB possible taking snaps next year. I guess i'm just not ready to say that Mike isn't that guy yet.
I get so tired of hearing the Peyton Manning example. Peyton Manning started poorly and had just 4 TDs and a whopping 12 Interceptions in his first 5 games...BUT he improved and from week 6 on he was clearly special. He had 5 games of 300+ passing yards and 4 games with 3 TDs. He finished the year with almost 4000 yards passing. The Colts went 3-13 that year, but that's mostly because they were awful on defense (2nd worst in the league) and were losing several games in which Manning threw 3 TDs and had a QB rating over 100. And he did all this 16 years ago when the game was much harder and defenses were actually allowed to hurt the QB, The comparison hold no water. Please stop using it.
except that wasn't the comparison he made . . his point is in bold
The Manning example was the lead up and basis for the point that your bolded. Clearly.
Mike Glennon ranked 35th in passing yards per game. 35th in a 32 team league.
Yeah this has me concerned. He didn't start a full season but even if you take into account three extra games and use his average he is still way below average.
You will never have great players at every position and even when you are close you will have injuries. You can't count on all your offensive weapons being there and your starting O-line starting 16 games and providing 4 seconds every snap. It's the NFL. There will be adversity. You have to build a team that can overcome it. QBs that only perform well under perfect conditions are back ups.QBs that can deal with bad situations and still figure out a way to win are starters.I think it is very clear what we have.
I don't disagree with any of that until the point where you think it's already clear what Mike is. Look at the 4 best QBs in the league...Rogers, Brady, Manning and Brees. Only Manning played as a rookie and threw 28 interceptions. It's simply silly to think Glennon has reached his peak or to think you know what he will be or won't be. I think we both agree, we both want the best QB possible taking snaps next year. I guess i'm just not ready to say that Mike isn't that guy yet.
I get so tired of hearing the Peyton Manning example. Peyton Manning started poorly and had just 4 TDs and a whopping 12 Interceptions in his first 5 games...BUT he improved and from week 6 on he was clearly special. He had 5 games of 300+ passing yards and 4 games with 3 TDs. He finished the year with almost 4000 yards passing. The Colts went 3-13 that year, but they were awful on defense and were losing several games in which Manning threw 3 TDs and had a QB rating over 100. And he did all this 16 years ago when the game was much harder and defenses were actually allowed to hurt the QB, The comparison hold no water. Please stop using it.
Yeah Glennon never broke the 300 yard passing threshold or 3 TD game performance. However, he was fairly close in several contests so he is borderline but in a pass oriented league a QB that average 200 yards passing per game is no longer the norm but it could have been schematic reasons from the previous coaching staff responsible. Hard to say.
Mike Glennon ranked 35th in passing yards per game. 35th in a 32 team league.
Mike Glennon ranked 35th in passing yards per game. 35th in a 32 team league.
Yeah this has me concerned. He didn't start a full season but even if you take into account three extra games and use his average he is still way below average.
The amount of games he played doesn't effect the Yards per Game stat.
Running and passing despite the efforts of people to make them "effect" each other...don't. You have teams that are good at running and bad at passing and vice versa. If running sets up passing then good run teams should become better passing teams over time. They don't. Rushing also doesn't open up passing either in the traditional "sucking guys up to the line" way nor because of play action. Running in the NFL serves really , only two functions and it doesn't do either terribly well:1. Chewing up clock and the value of that is fairly minimal because possession is more important. It is really at the margins it works. 2. Creating good down and distance situations. Rushing is still shockingly bad at this because while run averages look good run actuals are extremely uneven with one big run masking a lot of futile efforts. Good runs account for less than half of all runs. Our backs did it less than 40% of the time which says a lot about our OL.
I guess we'll agree to disagree. I can't accept that running the ball well has no effect on ability to pass. I see what your saying but teams that run the ball well are committed to it and that's what thye like to do. They don't want to turn into a passing team, the want to be a run team and occasionally strike you with a freebie in the pass game because you have to commit to stop the run.
...but it isn't even about yardage. Even in terms of efficiency a good rushing team should become a more efficient passing team over time...and that also doesn't happen. Again, a lot of this is about the nature of the run game. Because the run game in the NFL can't produce U of Wisconsin-esque drives where you rip off 4 or 5 yards consistently teams usually don't have to commit a lot extra to the run. There are also two distinct kinds of big number rushing team. There are teams afraid to throw the ball because their QB sucks (bills, jets, titans) and those that get ahead and run out the string. Marshawn Lynch for example has 135 rushes when his team is ahead and a scant 56 when behind.in this case the pass makes the run "better" but mostly because the pass gets you ahead and allows you to run a lot in the second half.
Mike Glennon ranked 35th in passing yards per game. 35th in a 32 team league.
Yeah this has me concerned. He didn't start a full season but even if you take into account three extra games and use his average he is still way below average.
The amount of games he played doesn't effect the Yards per Game stat.
It can change the average rate depending if he had a huge game or a down game in those three games he didn't play in.Freeman in 9 games as a rookie had 1,855 passing yards. For Glennon to make the leap into year 2 he needs to ramp up the yardage big time.
You will never have great players at every position and even when you are close you will have injuries. You can't count on all your offensive weapons being there and your starting O-line starting 16 games and providing 4 seconds every snap. It's the NFL. There will be adversity. You have to build a team that can overcome it. QBs that only perform well under perfect conditions are back ups.QBs that can deal with bad situations and still figure out a way to win are starters.I think it is very clear what we have.
I don't disagree with any of that until the point where you think it's already clear what Mike is. Look at the 4 best QBs in the league...Rogers, Brady, Manning and Brees. Only Manning played as a rookie and threw 28 interceptions. It's simply silly to think Glennon has reached his peak or to think you know what he will be or won't be. I think we both agree, we both want the best QB possible taking snaps next year. I guess i'm just not ready to say that Mike isn't that guy yet.
I get so tired of hearing the Peyton Manning example. Peyton Manning started poorly and had just 4 TDs and a whopping 12 Interceptions in his first 5 games...BUT he improved and from week 6 on he was clearly special. He had 5 games of 300+ passing yards and 4 games with 3 TDs. He finished the year with almost 4000 yards passing. The Colts went 3-13 that year, but they were awful on defense and were losing several games in which Manning threw 3 TDs and had a QB rating over 100. And he did all this 16 years ago when the game was much harder and defenses were actually allowed to hurt the QB, The comparison hold no water. Please stop using it.
Yeah Glennon never broke the 300 yard passing threshold or 3 TD game performance. However, he was fairly close in several contests so he is borderline but in a pass oriented league a QB that average 200 yards passing per game is no longer the norm but it could have been schematic reasons from the previous coaching staff responsible. Hard to say.
Mike Glennon ranked 35th in passing yards per game. 35th in a 32 team league.
Matt Ryan was top 5 probably . . . they both won the same number of games . . . . fire Matt Ryan
What does Matt Ryan have to do with anything? So the Falcons had an awful team this year and went 4-12.....but guess what. Matt ryan still was top five in yards per game because he is a valid starter and doesn't need everything to be perfect in order to do his job.Was that your point?
Glennon averaged 200 yards per game which would have been fine in 2001 but in the year 2014 you need a QB averaging at least 250+ yards per game. If Glennon can pull it off it remains to be seen.
