I say we go with Sam

[mr.stlouis]

I'd rather go with... Hayes

 

[12intheBox]

I totally agree with everything you're saying here. Not saying he's what we expected bradford to be but good enough to win with for at least 2015

To win what with? What's our goal here?

 

[jrry32]

picking between the two is like picking between gabbert and sanchez

i can't really say which one was better because both were god awful.When it comes to that, its not surprising he went with "his guy" that knows his "system" better in a first year offense.

Except you can say which one is better. Sanchez sucks but he's clearly better than Gabbert.

One guy, Glennon, was meh. One guy, McCown, was terrible. There is a clear advantage to one of the two players.

It's not surprising he went with "his guy" because it was "his guy". But the very nature of that statement means that the other guy, coming off of a strong year for a rookie QB, didn't get a fair shot.

But it was a dumb move. Unless Glennon had fallen on his face, he would have had a lot more value this off-season if they started him all year long. If Glennon had even put up something like 26 TDs to 16 Ints and a QB Rating between 83 and 85...he'd likely garner Tampa Bay a 2nd or 3rd round pick if not more in a trade if they chose to draft a QB. Instead, they're likely going to have to settle for a 4th or 5th round pick because they're selling low on a guy they benched for a bum like Josh McCown.

A lot of your stats you're citing off about Glennon came in garbage time and/or the game was out of reach, and thats misleading when you're talking about offensive production

You want to talk misleading. Your statement here is misleading. Glennon threw 5 TDs in the 4th quarter. 3 of the 5 TDs came in one score games.

The claim that "a lot of the stats came in garbage time" is beyond misleading. It's just not true.

And it's the same crap argument that people used to invalidate accomplishments Bradford had.

But if you want to remove the two blowouts, that's fine. It puts Glennon at 7 TDs to 5 Ints in 4 games. Which, if extrapolated over a season, comes out to 28 TDs to 20 Ints. Not much difference from the 29 TDs to 17 Ints from the full 5.5 game sample size.

In fact, as you can plainly see, his TD numbers are nearly identical. So the garbage time argument simply doesn't hold.

Glennon isn't Peyton Manning but if he were that type of player, he wouldn't be on the market. You make do with what you have. But my personal opinion of him is higher than yours. Not to say I see future greatness but I think he can be a Kyle Orton type QB...or possibly even like Carson Palmer in Arizona.

 

[jrry32]

Has he proven that he can play in the league? The guys team has the first pick in the draft this year - and he didn't even beat out the starter for that team.

29 TDs to 15 Ints in the NFL across 619 attempts...that pretty clearly says that he can play in this league. How good will he ultimately be? None of us know. But you, at minimum, know the guy isn't complete shit.

I'm not getting into the bold again. He did beat him out. Read over the discussion I've been having with iced if you want proof on that point.

He isn't awful - but he is a fringe starter at best. Look how many teams have a QB need - and then ask yourself why we would be able to get him on the cheap? He is what he is and he isn't what he isn't.

He's a fringe starter at best? He's 25 years old with 619 attempts on his resume. I don't think anyone can purport to know what a guy is or isn't at this point in his career.

He might only be a fringe starter...or maybe he has the capability to be average or above average. The kid has one of the best all time TD to Int ratios for a rookie QB. I think it's too early to write the book on him.

Why would we be able to get him cheap? Go back to your own point. His own team benched him. As I've stated before, NFL teams tend to 1) make stupid decisions and 2) trust each other's evaluations a little too strongly.

People will employ the same logic you are...couldn't even start over McCown on the worst team in the league...why would I want this guy? And we can use that to our advantage.

 

[12intheBox]

I don't think he is complete crap - but he is far from proven. If anything - all he has "proven" is that he is a fringe starter / good backup. And keep in mind, I like the idea of getting him - just not relying on him to be the guy.

NFL teams are smarter than you think - not all of them, obviously, but these guys (scouts, GMs) are in the pros for a reason. Sure, there are misses - but far fewer misses at the QB position, wouldn't you say?

 

[jrry32]

I don't think he is complete crap - but he is far from proven. If anything - all he has "proven" is that he is a fringe starter / good backup. And keep in mind, I like the idea of getting him - just not relying on him to be the guy.

NFL teams are smarter than you think - not all of them, obviously, but these guys (scouts, GMs) are in the pros for a reason. Sure, there are misses - but far fewer misses at the QB position, wouldn't you say?

I don't think so. Many of them find a way to surprise me in an unpleasant way every year.

 

[iced]

It's not surprising he went with "his guy" because it was "his guy". But the very nature of that statement means that the other guy, coming off of a strong year for a rookie QB, didn't get a fair shot.

You keep saying he didn't get a fair shot but that's totally bogus. 5.5 games is more than adequate; he just squandered his opportunities.

He got his shot - you just don't agree with the coach's decision.

You want to talk misleading. Your statement here is misleading. Glennon threw 5 TDs in the 4th quarter. 3 of the 5 TDs came in one score games.

The claim that "a lot of the stats came in garbage time" is beyond misleading. It's just not true.

And it's the same crap argument that people used to invalidate accomplishments Bradford had.

But if you want to remove the two blowouts, that's fine. It puts Glennon at 7 TDs to 5 Ints in 4 games. Which, if extrapolated over a season, comes out to 28 TDs to 20 Ints. Not much difference from the 29 TDs to 17 Ints from the full 5.5 game sample size.

In fact, as you can plainly see, his TD numbers are nearly identical. So the garbage time argument simply doesn't hold.

But just throwing his numbers up there and saying he didn't get a fair shot isn't accurate either - as I said before, like austin Davis, his play dropped off... his numbers weren't even anything impressive and that was against some terrible defenses (Pit, NO, ATL, CLE).

You can see it in the points.

By the way 17 PPG is not what I want out of a starting QB - the bucs ranked 29th in Points Per game for the season at 17.3, and were only ahead of the Raiders, Titans, and Jaguars.

When you look at it - Glennon really only had 2 good games, and those were against weakest D's at the time...even Atlanta, which is one of the worst defenses, kept the Glennon led Bucs off the score board at a tune to 56-0 until the 4th quarter. (he came in for mccown in the 2nd)

So throwing up Glennon's stats without looking at the context of it doesn't hold water with me.

easy to see why he was benched - 5 td's 4 int's in his last 3 games...

Austin Davis's leash was just as long - after 3 straight bad games he was benched too... he had a good win vs seattle, but his play in KC, SF, Arizona did him in.

Glennon isn't Peyton Manning but if he were that type of player, he wouldn't be on the market. You make do with what you have. But my personal opinion of him is higher than yours. Not to say I see future greatness but I think he can be a Kyle Orton type QB...or possibly even like Carson Palmer in Arizona.

I think even those are an extreme stretch. Both of those players are starting capable; Glennon is a guy that you don't want to have to play for more than 2 or 3 games if your main QB goes down.

Glennon was a quarterback for the worst team in the NFL last season in an offense that had weapons at WR and still ranked 29th... And he hasn't been even close to impressive since coming into the league

 

[jrry32]

You keep saying he didn't get a fair shot but that's totally bogus. 5.5 games is more than adequate; he just squandered his opportunities.

He got his shot - you just don't agree with the coach's decision.

Nope. What's bogus is you being unable to admit it.

If he got a fair shot, he would have still been starting. It was Mike Glennon OR Josh McCown. It was not Mike Glennon or Peyton Manning. It was not Mike Glennon or Jay Cutler.

Glennon playing at a mediocre level would have been enough to bench him and say he got a fair shot IF the QB behind him was playing or played at a higher level.

But the QB behind him was FAR worse.

It's not just, "Oh Glennon wasn't good so he deserved to get benched which means he got a fair shot."

Wrong. A fair shot would entail fair competition. And no matter how you slice it, Josh McCown was not the better QB during the 2014 season. Which means he should NOT have been starting. The fact that he did PROVES that Glennon did not get a fair shot.

So in order to prove your point, you have to prove(or even argue) that Josh McCown was the better QB in 2014.

But just throwing his numbers up there and saying he didn't get a fair shot isn't accurate either - as I said before, like austin Davis, his play dropped off... his numbers weren't even anything impressive and that was against some terrible defenses (Pit, NO, ATL, CLE).

Austin Davis was a first time starter. Glennon started 13 games in 2013. There was plenty of film on him.

Not to mention, I watched the two players and there's a CLEAR difference between them. Glennon is a better QB...and it's not particularly close.

Did you just call Cleveland a terrible defense? Cleveland was #9 in the NFL in PPG Allowed. That's a terrible defense? Pittsburgh was #18 in PPG Allowed. Also not a terrible defense.

View attachment 5147
You can see it in the points.

By the way 17 PPG is not what I want out of a starting QB - the bucs ranked 29th in Points Per game for the season at 17.3, and were only ahead of the Raiders, Titans, and Jaguars.

When you look at it - Glennon really only had 2 good games, and those were against weakest D's at the time...even Atlanta, which is one of the worst defenses, kept the Glennon led Bucs off the score board at a tune to 56-0 until the 4th quarter. (he came in for mccown in the 2nd)

Do you mean 21 PPG? Because that's what they put up in Glennon's 5 starts. On a team that averaged 15.8 PPG in McCown's 10 starts. That speaks volumes.

Glennon's two best games on film were against Pittsburgh and New Orleans. Yes, New Orleans had a bad defense. But then again, it's not surprising he'd do well against a bad defense. That's what you're supposed to do.

Who did his other 3 starts come against? The #6 defense in the NFL in Baltimore, the #9 defense in the NFL in Cleveland, and the #11 defense in the NFL in Minnesota.

And you're really going to criticize the guy heavily because he didn't tear those defenses to shreds...despite playing on an offense that you already told us was one of the worst in the league...

And best yet is you actually trying to use the Atlanta game against him. He came into that game for ONE DRIVE in the 2nd quarter when they were already down 35-0. And yet you said:

Yes, Glennon started off better than Mccown against some terrible defenses in Pitt, ATL, and NO... And if you want to include that *half game* , you should also include the fact that they were down 35-0 at half and 56-0 in the 4th quarter... Glennon's touchdowns were the very definition of garbage time, and couldn't move the ball since coming right before half.

So it was somehow Glennon's fault that Atlanta jumped out to a 35-0 lead before he even got in the game and it was his fault that they barely moved the ball in the first half...when he had all of one drive in a game that he didn't get to even prepare to start for.

So throwing up Glennon's stats without looking at the context of it doesn't hold water with me.

I don't need context. I watched every single one of his starts on NFL Rewind. I'm quite aware of all the context.

easy to see why he was benched - 5 td's 4 int's in his last 3 games...

Against 3 top 11 defenses.

Austin Davis's leash was just as long - after 3 straight bad games he was benched too... he had a good win vs seattle, but his play in KC, SF, Arizona did him in.

Great. Austin Davis sucked on film. Glennon doesn't. Was Peyton Manning benched after 3 bad games?

And yes, I know there's a huge difference between Glennon and Manning...that's the point. There's also a huge difference between Glennon and Davis.

Plus, Shaun Hill >>>>>>>> Josh McCown. I would have started Austin Davis over 2014 Josh McCown.

I think even those are an extreme stretch. Both of those players are starting capable; Glennon is a guy that you don't want to have to play for more than 2 or 3 games if your main QB goes down.

Yea, I don't buy this. I saw Glennon play as a rookie and this year...he's a lot more capable than you give him credit for.

Glennon was a quarterback for the worst team in the NFL last season in an offense that had weapons at WR and still ranked 29th... And he hasn't been even close to impressive since coming into the league

29 TDs to 15 Ints in his first 19 games...I think that's somewhere close to impressive.

The Bucs had weapons at WR? Great. They also had a shitty running game and a terrible OL. And their weapons at WR are overrated. Evans is a stud...but he was also a rookie. Vincent Jackson did not play at the same level last year and might have started declining. Beyond those two, there wasn't much of anything.

So yes, he had two talented WR...and then a whole lot of nothing on offense...

With the QB Coach operating as OC with a new system.