Are the days of the drop-back passer slowly fading in the NFL? Does the future at the QB position consist of players like Russell Wilson, Cam Newton and Colin Kaepernick? What does this mean for incumbent Bucs starter Mike Glennon? Read what new Tampa Bay QB coach Marcus Arroyo thinks about Glennon's future and if he is the right fit. https://www.pewterreport.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=9621:&Itemid=15
Did you miss the game? Seattle's D won the Super Bowl last night. Not Russell Wilson.That'd be like writing an article after the Bucs won the Super Bowl titled: "Should all NFL teams go get tall, slow, old QBs?"
In the first half Wilson went 5-7 on third down passing, scrambling, or picking up a defensive penalty.
Doubt it. Theres not many QBs coming out anymore that aren't mobile
No actually didn't watch it, a new Downton Abbey was on, but my wife filled me in on it this morning as I was getting my eyebrows plucked and a pedicure. Of course I watched it and several other Seattle games this season. And of course Seattle's defense deserves a ton of credit, but the last No. 1 D to win a Super bowl was what 10 years ago? It isn't all about defense anymore. And having a mobile guy who can extend plays (like Wilson) versus a guy who doesn't move well (Manning) was a big factor in this game especially when the Seahawks were building their lead. How many of those Seattle plays would have Glennon have been sacked on in the first two quarters? More than one.Without Wilson's mobility, the Bucs would have beaten the Seahawks this year. How many plays did Wilson get outside and make key throws in that game?
The bolded part isn't necessarily the case. Glennon's sack rate was 8.8%, Wilson's was 9.8% OTOH, Wilson's run threat loosens the defense, no doubt.
It will be interesting to see what direction our staff goes. Either arguement has validity, TBH. The advantage of having a mobile QB is WRs don't need to be as good at getting open as they would need to be with a stationary QB. The mobile QB forces a D to loosen their coverage or give up big chunks on the ground to the QB. Wilson is very disciplined and will find his receivers downfield once coverage is loosened. Lesser skilled guys will suffice for the offense to be effective. The advantage of a tall, strong-armed, smart, and accurate QB who stays in the pocket is his ability to see receivers downfield more consistantly. He'll make more plays with his vision and arm than a mobile QB because he sees the whole field and can get the ball there. However, the pocket passer needs receivers more able to get open, and better blocking to give the pocket QB the time to get passes delivered. Arguments have been made saying none of the QBs coming out are clearly elite QBs once they don NFL uniforms. I would say the Bucs need to be sure what they are getting at #7 in the draft, so it would honestly surprise me if the use that pick on a QB. Personally, I'd like us to trade down if we don't see a slam-dunk pick at #7, and pick up that missing 3rd round pick. Being a Bucs fan, if they opt for a QB I'd still support it until I see it fail...
Who cares about Wilson?Without Seattle's D, Wilson would lose in a shootout with a STATUE QB in Peyton Manning.
Honestly, Manziel and Bridgewater are the only two guys I'm convinced will be an upgrade. A flyer on McCarron or Murray would interest me but taking someone like Bortles or Carr just to draft a QB would frustrate me to hell
Bortles is going to be very good. He stays strong in the pocket, has a great arm, and if all else fails he can run it. Not to mention he is very mature and we gain respect from the vets.
Who cares about Wilson?Without Seattle's D, Wilson would lose in a shootout with a STATUE QB in Peyton Manning.
Maybe so, but Denver's defense played very well the two previous playoff games. They sacked Philip Rivers 4 times and only allowed Tom Brady to throw 1 TD on 38 passes. Wilson didn't get sacked once and converted on 2 TD passes while only throwing the ball 25 times.
Bortles is going to be very good. He stays strong in the pocket, has a great arm, and if all else fails he can run it. Not to mention he is very mature and we gain respect from the vets.
I'm sorry, I watch him and think Tannehill. Can't get that out of my head.
Who cares about Wilson?Without Seattle's D, Wilson would lose in a shootout with a STATUE QB in Peyton Manning.
Maybe so, but Denver's defense played very well the two previous playoff games. They sacked Philip Rivers 4 times and only allowed Tom Brady to throw 1 TD on 38 passes. Wilson didn't get sacked once and converted on 2 TD passes while only throwing the ball 25 times.
Wilson had an ok game in a very easy situation. He's a good player, but lets not make his performance last night into something it wasn't.
Who cares about Wilson?Without Seattle's D, Wilson would lose in a shootout with a STATUE QB in Peyton Manning.
Maybe so, but Denver's defense played very well the two previous playoff games. They sacked Philip Rivers 4 times and only allowed Tom Brady to throw 1 TD on 38 passes. Wilson didn't get sacked once and converted on 2 TD passes while only throwing the ball 25 times.
Wilson had an ok game in a very easy situation. He's a good player, but lets not make his performance last night into something it wasn't.
+1
Who cares about Wilson?Without Seattle's D, Wilson would lose in a shootout with a STATUE QB in Peyton Manning.
Wilson didn't get sacked once and converted on 2 TD passes while only throwing the ball 25 times.
The game was 29-0 before Wilson even threw his 1st TD pass (which was a ridiculous play by his receiver)...
Who cares about Wilson?Without Seattle's D, Wilson would lose in a shootout with a STATUE QB in Peyton Manning.
Wilson didn't get sacked once and converted on 2 TD passes while only throwing the ball 25 times.
The game was 29-0 before Wilson even threw his 1st TD pass (which was a ridiculous play by his receiver)...
In the first half Wilson went 5-7 on 3rd downs by either passing, scrambling, or forcing a defensive penalty (and I think he should have gotten the spot on the play they challenged but lost) and didn't turn the ball over. That lead to two field goals and a one yard TD run by Lynch. That's winning football. It wasn't Joe Flacco last year or anything, but he did everything his team needed him to do and he didn't let the moment get to him at all.
My point in using Russell Wilson's name was he is the BEST among mobile QBs today, and not just because his team is carrying around a Lombardi. He is a rare combination of smarts, discipline, high escapeability, and arm strength. Cam Newton is a better athlete, as is Special K, but neither touch him on smarts and discipline, which are MORE crucial to winning big games. And it was HE who kept his offense alive in the critical TOP battle with Manning. Give the ball to Manning enough times, more often than not he'll find a way to beat you. No doubt Denver's D and STs did nothing to help their cause, either. As far as Glennon, I saw nothing from Glennon the rookie to indicate he will not be a very good NFL QB. Given his lack of overall receiving talent, up-and-down run game, and combo of long-developing pass plays from a static pocket with erratic pass blocking, I'm more impressed with his accomplishments than deflated by his lack of mobility. A better OC will counter that issue, as Glennon CAN run as he showed on the occasional rollout the Bucs used. The problem is when the blocking breaks down unexpectedly, which happened more often as the season wound down. Beefing up the O'line and adding a better all-round TE to the mix, along with another WR or 2 in Tedford's new offensive scheme IMO will in the long run benefit us more than drafting a QB at #7...
Are the days of the drop-back passer slowly fading in the NFL? Does the future at the QB position consist of players like Russell Wilson, Cam Newton and Colin Kaepernick? What does this mean for incumbent Bucs starter Mike Glennon? Read what new Tampa Bay QB coach Marcus Arroyo thinks about Glennon's future and if he is the right fit. https://www.pewterreport.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=9621:&Itemid=15
Did you miss the game? Seattle's D won the Super Bowl last night. Not Russell Wilson.That'd be like writing an article after the Bucs won the Super Bowl titled: "Should all NFL teams go get tall, slow, old QBs?"
No actually didn't watch it, a new Downton Abbey was on, but my wife filled me in on it this morning as I was getting my eyebrows plucked and a pedicure. Of course I watched it and several other Seattle games this season. And of course Seattle's defense deserves a ton of credit, but the last No. 1 D to win a Super bowl was what 10 years ago? It isn't all about defense anymore. And having a mobile guy who can extend plays (like Wilson) versus a guy who doesn't move well (Manning) was a big factor in this game especially when the Seahawks were building their lead. How many of those Seattle plays would have Glennon have been sacked on in the first two quarters? More than one.Without Wilson's mobility, the Bucs would have beaten the Seahawks this year. How many plays did Wilson get outside and make key throws in that game?
If we had a coaching staff at the time that knew how to make adjustments at half time and didn't CHOKE and panic with stupid play calls and a play not to lose attitude, the Seahawks get beaten. Wilson was part of a TEAM effort to win the SB you make it out that he was the only reason they did. I remember seeing WRs going above and beyond to get the yards and a D that was rampant from the start as well as a good Kicker, punter and very good Oline and RB. Not to mention a HC who game planned perfectly to win. The Broncos had a number of miscues that on a different day may not have happened. So to all intents and purposes, your sarcastic reply does seem to indicate you did watch Downton Abbey.
