I just don't want a guy I have to keep making excuses for. Or someone who has to have a dominant offense around him to perform at a level that moves an offense and wins games. We kind of just went through that.
The bolded part is exactly what we'll get if we draft a first round QB this year. Whichever one we get (assuming we get one) you'll hear all the excuses for at least the next 3 years, and we'll be obliged to stick with that QB because we invested a high pick in him. Quite frankly we heard it all with Freeman, and were eventually left with egg on our faces, in steps Glennon who did a decent job and folks want to get rid of him instantly. I'm all for competition, but drafting a QB in round 1 isn't competition, it's an anchor that you are stuck with for at least 3-4 years. As for the second part of your comment, that is exactly what a majority of the NFL rely on, only a select few teams have a QB that carries the team, and one of those got spanked badly in the Superbowl this year.
Nailed it!
I suspect the excuses for qbs will continue until one pans out and the buccaneer's offense becomes effective even against good teams. As for Glennon's 'decent' job - he showed ups and downs. Mostly downs though there is no doubt in my mind last year's coaching staff contributed to that outcome. However, it difficult to see if or when he might graduate from 'he might make it' to NFL average. Looking around at the NFL qbs - I suspect a fair analysis would indicate teams have a better shot at obtaining an effective qb in the first round, though surely qbs can be found in subsequent rounds.
Saying someone needs a better supporting cast and saying they need a dominant supporting cast are two different things. Even the greats need a little help.I'm not opposed to some competition for Glennon, but if we spend our first on a QB then there is no competition. Who was the last QB picked in the top 10 that didn't start day 1?
Yep. As far as needing help goes, we need look no further than the QB who set all kinds of NFL regular season records this year. That help he got all season vanished in the Super Bowl...
Saying someone needs a better supporting cast and saying they need a dominant supporting cast are two different things. Even the greats need a little help.I'm not opposed to some competition for Glennon, but if we spend our first on a QB then there is no competition. Who was the last QB picked in the top 10 that didn't start day 1?
Yep. As far as needing help goes, we need look no further than the QB who set all kinds of NFL regular season records this year. That help he got all season vanished in the Super Bowl...
I don't see how 'don't draft a qb in the first round' evolves from your post.
But how long do you let a guy play until you get rid of him dbuc? We gave Freeman the better part of 4 years and then got rid of him. Some QBs need a little time and a chance to learn, too many people want them to come in and be "elite" the first day they put on the uniform. If they aren't then they want to get rid of him for the next media hyped college prospect. Glennon could be the franchise QB we've been looking for, but we won't know until we have given him a chance to properly sink or swim. 13 games on team dysfunctional isn't a proper way to evaluate him. If we are prepared to give a 1st round QB the benefit of the doubt for 4 years, then we should be willing to give a 3rd round QB the benefit of the doubt for 2 years, especially after he was pretty decent on a bad team.
You should know in year 2 for most QBs short of some odd events. Yes there are outliers, but if you don't know at the end of next year it means you don't have the guy. This isn't a long term commitment and teams are too loathe to see what is in front of their eyes as QBs develop or fail to. Freeman was especially odd since his second year he did look like the answer and then fell apart in a way almost no QB has done in history.
He wastes little cap space. He was a rookie. He played under bad coaching. He had one weapon. His offensive line didn't block for him. All of that changes this year. That alone justifies giving him a shot at competing for the starting gig this offseason. The better question: Why do the anti-Glennon people think its such a good idea to outright cut the kid?
But how long do you let a guy play until you get rid of him dbuc? We gave Freeman the better part of 4 years and then got rid of him. Some QBs need a little time and a chance to learn, too many people want them to come in and be "elite" the first day they put on the uniform. If they aren't then they want to get rid of him for the next media hyped college prospect. Glennon could be the franchise QB we've been looking for, but we won't know until we have given him a chance to properly sink or swim. 13 games on team dysfunctional isn't a proper way to evaluate him. If we are prepared to give a 1st round QB the benefit of the doubt for 4 years, then we should be willing to give a 3rd round QB the benefit of the doubt for 2 years, especially after he was pretty decent on a bad team.
I don't think there is a good timeline Nicodemus - one thing I believe helps is not to rush a rookie onto the field. I understand the needs of a team, the desire to get the higher cost player playing... but I think letting a qb watch and learn would be helpful to their eventual outcome. Insofar as Glennon - I don't see a franchise qb. While he is said to be savvy - I miss a lot of that. When folks report him as accurate I see a guy who is less accurate than I would like to see. As to the coaches - having a less than average NFL coaching staff has been an issue - since Raheem was hired as a HC. Raheem needed to learn how to coach/manage coaches. He needed to step back from the players - and learn how to get things done through others. That never happened.So - I think watching and learning for a year as a back up, and then a couple of years on the field - by then the staff should know what they have - and if he is worth keeping.I don't believe I have said to cut Glennon - he might be a solid back up. But I don't see a quality starting qb (let alone a franchise qb) when I watch him. And I could be wrong on Glennon... I have been wrong about a lot of players over the years. Unfortunately, too many where I thought players the bucs were trying to get by with, well - I thought they were wasting their time....
Saying someone needs a better supporting cast and saying they need a dominant supporting cast are two different things. Even the greats need a little help.I'm not opposed to some competition for Glennon, but if we spend our first on a QB then there is no competition. Who was the last QB picked in the top 10 that didn't start day 1?
Yep. As far as needing help goes, we need look no further than the QB who set all kinds of NFL regular season records this year. That help he got all season vanished in the Super Bowl...
I don't see how 'don't draft a qb in the first round' evolves from your post.
Glennon needed a team around him to be successful, just like Peyton Manning did in the Super Bowl. There ain't no such thing as a QB who can win games on his own. The assumption that Glennon is a poor QB is based more on the failure of his teammates than on Glennon's inability to play QB. Things like quickly read defenses and throw the ball accurately to an open receiver...
Saying someone needs a better supporting cast and saying they need a dominant supporting cast are two different things. Even the greats need a little help.I'm not opposed to some competition for Glennon, but if we spend our first on a QB then there is no competition. Who was the last QB picked in the top 10 that didn't start day 1?
Yep. As far as needing help goes, we need look no further than the QB who set all kinds of NFL regular season records this year. That help he got all season vanished in the Super Bowl...
I don't see how 'don't draft a qb in the first round' evolves from your post.
Glennon needed a team around him to be successful, just like Peyton Manning did in the Super Bowl. There ain't no such thing as a QB who can win games on his own. The assumption that Glennon is a poor QB is based more on the failure of his teammates than on Glennon's inability to play QB. Things like quickly read defenses and throw the ball accurately to an open receiver...
Glennon needed a coaching staff, a team, and some good fortune to be successful. I don't recall saying there is a qb who wins games on his own. Nor have I seen consistent quick and correct reads on defenses, or consistent accuracy except in a short passing attack. (and don't compare him to our friend, the departed Josh - because but for some sporatic games - he was none of those either.)As for the quality of coaching - I couldn't safely say which was worse - Raheem or Schiano's group. Both reminded me of past Buccaneer staff who failed miserably. And yes it is hard to evaluate players when coaching is suspect - one is relegated to simply watching physical talents too often. And none of this prevents the coaching staff from drafting a first round qb. Which if recall correctly, was the issue. One more thing - the comparison to Manning - that just doesn't work. If the bucs had been in the Super Bowl this discussion wouldn't be taking place.
I just don't want a guy I have to keep making excuses for. Or someone who has to have a dominant offense around him to perform at a level that moves an offense and wins games. We kind of just went through that.
The bolded part is exactly what we'll get if we draft a first round QB this year. Whichever one we get (assuming we get one) you'll hear all the excuses for at least the next 3 years, and we'll be obliged to stick with that QB because we invested a high pick in him. Quite frankly we heard it all with Freeman, and were eventually left with egg on our faces, in steps Glennon who did a decent job and folks want to get rid of him instantly. I'm all for competition, but drafting a QB in round 1 isn't competition, it's an anchor that you are stuck with for at least 3-4 years. As for the second part of your comment, that is exactly what a majority of the NFL rely on, only a select few teams have a QB that carries the team, and one of those got spanked badly in the Superbowl this year.
You are taking a worst case scenario. Basing your opinion of any 1st round quarterback around what we saw from Josh Freeman. There are lots of QBs who come in and show great potential for improvement, and then actually improve rather quickly. Because they struggle, but have some success and you can project the limitation of their struggles and continued improvement. Drafting a qb in the 1st (especially high first) used to be an anchor. Because you would be contractually tied to them for several seasons. That is no longer the case. Now if a franchise ties themselves for multiple seasons to a quarterback just because they drafted him high, it's only because they are stupid. Are we looking to be the Vikings, Titans, Cardinals (who did manage a good season with a mediocre QB), Raiders, Bills, Jags, etc? Is that the model we are trying for? Those fewer (minority, but not by a bunch) teams that have a quarterback who tends to raise the play of those around him seem to be the ones filling up the playoff spots most seasons. The strengths in Mike's game are limited potential. We keep going round and round on this, but it doesn't seem to sink in. People keep saying: "he was just a rookie", but everyone here (including his proponents) admit he didn't much play like a rookie. He already takes care of the football, how much can he improve on that? When he was clean and on time he already delivered a pretty accurate short and medium pass. He does not have a strong arm. It's toward the bottom of NFL starting QBs. Seriously, other then guys who are over 35, who has a weaker throwing arm amongst the starters? You're not going to rattle off many names. He obviously has very limited mobility. Like arm strength, that is something that is not going to significantly improve. His weaknesses he can't greatly improve on, and his strengths he was already pretty good at as a rookie. Could he be Kurt Warner? Well, yeah I guess he could. Just that like Kurt Warner, for Mike Glennon to be a top level NFL QB he's either going to need the time to MASTER the position of quarterback. Or he's going to have to be surrounded by cream of the crop talent. That's not what I want to bank the franchise on.I keep seeing that the offense sucked and the receivers sucked. Well maybe, fine, it did (they did). But again, that is limited growth potential for Mike Glennon imo. Ok, we didn't scheme receivers wide open. Well, a strength of Mike Glennon's game is accuracy. If he isn't fitting balls into tight windows, we have to bank on him growing a pair? A big part of the credit people want to give him and look forward to a bright future is how well he protected the football. He protected the football by not making those throws to covered receivers as often as other quarterbacks. The receivers suck. How do receivers get wide open enough for Mike to throw them the football? Either they have to be superior to the players defending them (cream of the crop talent), or we have to give them more time to get open (cream of the crop oline talent or fewer receivers in patterns), or the quarterback creates time for the receivers to get open (buys time or breaks down a defense with his mobility). The last of those Mike Glennon will never do (realistically). The others get back to players around him making our quarterback better instead of vise versa. I just can't for the life of me understand the perception that Mike Glennon was successful as a quarterback last season. You can make all the excuses you want, and many of them are valid (imo). To say that the quarterback of the last place offense in the NFL, with the last place passing attack earned anything (other then possibly a pink slip) is insane to me. Especially one who showed no (NO as in NONE) flashes of greatness.
He wastes little cap space. He was a rookie. He played under bad coaching. He had one weapon. His offensive line didn't block for him. All of that changes this year. That alone justifies giving him a shot at competing for the starting gig this offseason. The better question: Why do the anti-Glennon people think its such a good idea to outright cut the kid?
The hyperbole by some of you Glennonites. Show me one poster (other then Milton, and I think even Milton has said he'd keep him as a cheap backup?) who has suggested that Mike Glennon should be cut. Some of you honestly seem to equate not wanting to hand him the job unopposed in 2014 to wanting him cut.
He wastes little cap space. He was a rookie. He played under bad coaching. He had one weapon. His offensive line didn't block for him. All of that changes this year. That alone justifies giving him a shot at competing for the starting gig this offseason. The better question: Why do the anti-Glennon people think its such a good idea to outright cut the kid?
The hyperbole by some of you Glennonites. Show me one poster (other then Milton, and I think even Milton has said he'd keep him as a cheap backup?) who has suggested that Mike Glennon should be cut. Some of you honestly seem to equate not wanting to hand him the job unopposed in 2014 to wanting him cut.
I'll hold my hands up and admit that from what I saw of the kid I think he's far closer to the level of player that should be outright cut than he of being a guy that should be just handed the team.I want no part of him being the starter again because he's too ineffective no matter what his stat sheet or the team injury report say.I'll pray he proves me wrong if he does end being QB1 but I've not seen anything to make me think he will.
The strengths in Mike's game are limited potential. We keep going round and round on this, but it doesn't seem to sink in. People keep saying: "he was just a rookie", but everyone here (including his proponents) admit he didn't much play like a rookie. He already takes care of the football, how much can he improve on that? When he was clean and on time he already delivered a pretty accurate short and medium pass. He does not have a strong arm. It's toward the bottom of NFL starting QBs. Seriously, other then guys who are over 35, who has a weaker throwing arm amongst the starters? You're not going to rattle off many names. He obviously has very limited mobility. Like arm strength, that is something that is not going to significantly improve. His weaknesses he can't greatly improve on, and his strengths he was already pretty good at as a rookie. Could he be Kurt Warner? Well, yeah I guess he could. Just that like Kurt Warner, for Mike Glennon to be a top level NFL QB he's either going to need the time to MASTER the position of quarterback. Or he's going to have to be surrounded by cream of the crop talent. That's not what I want to bank the franchise on.I keep seeing that the offense sucked and the receivers sucked. Well maybe, fine, it did (they did). But again, that is limited growth potential for Mike Glennon imo. Ok, we didn't scheme receivers wide open. Well, a strength of Mike Glennon's game is accuracy. If he isn't fitting balls into tight windows, we have to bank on him growing a pair? A big part of the credit people want to give him and look forward to a bright future is how well he protected the football. He protected the football by not making those throws to covered receivers as often as other quarterbacks. The receivers suck. How do receivers get wide open enough for Mike to throw them the football? Either they have to be superior to the players defending them (cream of the crop talent), or we have to give them more time to get open (cream of the crop oline talent or fewer receivers in patterns), or the quarterback creates time for the receivers to get open (buys time or breaks down a defense with his mobility). The last of those Mike Glennon will never do (realistically). The others get back to players around him making our quarterback better instead of vise versa. I just can't for the life of me understand the perception that Mike Glennon was successful as a quarterback last season. You can make all the excuses you want, and many of them are valid (imo). To say that the quarterback of the last place offense in the NFL, with the last place passing attack earned anything (other then possibly a pink slip) is insane to me. Especially one who showed no (NO as in NONE) flashes of greatness.
The fact that he played well as a rookie is now proof to you he is no good. Can he get better taking care of the ball? Marginally yes but ball security is a good thing. Now you extrapolate from that one skill to "he is already a finished product" and so he's done. History alone disproves this because most QB's see their highest jump in performance from year 1 to year 2 in the NFL.Accuracy in a clean pocket is important. Mobility is stupid and overrated in terms of running, moving in the pocket he is certainly no worse than Flacco or Elii for example. Neither of them are good in the sense of how Brady moves in the pocket but that is elite levels of movement. Arm strength is binary, enough or not. His arm isn't legendary but his arm among guys like Foles, Smith, Bradford, and Brady. In other words, good enough.His accuracy was good, his decision making wasn't that good. He missed a lot of wide open guys and not so much even passing up long for short throws (he wasn't tossing the ball short inordinate amounts of times his short throw % was less Luck's for example) but just missing open receivers. Now, a lot of that is that he passed up open players to throw to VJax which I can sorta understand but at the same time decision making in the pocket is one of the things you expect to get better in the NFL. So in other words, as he learns to understand what he is seeing from defenses and understand his offense he should throw the ball to the right guy more often. You speed up that decision making you reduce the burden on the OL, increase completion % which also pumps up his YPA.Talking about 32nd ranked passing is silly since we also threw the ball 27th in the league. Attempts = yards so playcalling dictated his low total output. You also look at his stats and see the pitiful RAC we put out. Whereas some QB's got bonus yards from their receivers we didnt. Glennon was dead last in % of yards from YAC but 13th in yards in the air of his passes. He was above av erage throwing the ball but he demonstrably had zero help.
Even someone who definitely wants him benched stops short of calling for his cut. Which is good, because wanting him to be cut would be idiotic. Releasing Mike Glennon would save us less then 250k against the cap and we could not even sign another body at QB to take his place for that.
The points in the original post seem to be very dumb and one sided. One point i really have a problem with is that Tedford's Qb's fizzle out. He is great with Qb's and now he will have the opportunity to actually coach an NFL talented QB. When his players went to NFL teams they got new coaches and they probably were told to do different things. All coaches want their players to listen to them and do things their certain ways. When Tedford worked with Rodgers he helped him improve his mechanics, holding the ball high and ready at all times. I remember watching during the Cal games, the commentators repeatidly talking about how Rodgers mechanics were taught to him while at Cal. Whose to say Glennon won't benefit greatly with the help from Tedford and the new QB coach.
