Manning's INT went from 28 to 15 in year 2. His INT% dropped from 4.9% to 2.8%. His rating went from 71 to 91. His comp% went from 56% to 62%. That is notable progressGlennon has the same INT rate (which is very good BTW so not an issue), his comp% has dropped, and his rating has nosed up an imperceptible 3 points from. 83 to 86. At most we are talking a very incremental improvement not the massive change that Manning saw. Manning is an unfair measuring tool what about more mundane guys like Flacco and Dalton.?Flacco saw his comp% up , INT% down and rating go up in year 2 by 8 points. Dalton saw his comp% go up, his INT% got worse but his rating still went up 7 points because he was more efficient. In other words, you should see a pretty clear set of measurable improvements from year 1 to year 2 even on much more modest QBs.
Because every aspect of every team is identical, except for the QB and how that QB performs. We're right back to the line not mattering, the lack of run game not mattering etc. This is why Gruden's line "stats are for losers" is so true. They don't tell the entire story. You're attempting to make comparisons between players when numerous variables are completely different. It's a very dumbed down and inaccurate way to compare players.
PewterReport.com prides itself on being the most complete, comprehensive news source covering the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and delivering inside scoop on the team found nowhere else.