I say we go with Sam

[Memphis Ram]

Thin QB crop could mean high demand for Bucs’ Glennon
By Roy Cummings | Tribune Staff
Published: January 26, 2015 | Updated: January 27, 2015 at 06:48 AM

Mike Glennon could fetch the Bucs a fourth-round draft pick from a team looking for a quarterbck. TRIBUNE FILE PHOTO

TAMPA — The growing consensus among NFL scouts and draft analysts is that no position group runs out of top-level 2015 draft prospects sooner than quarterback.

The 2015 class of free-agent quarterbacks isn’t any deeper. With Mark Sanchez, Brian Hoyer and Shaun Hill expected to lead the way, it too seems to be lacking both star and starter quality talent.

All of which could prove to be good news for the Bucs.

With the first overall pick in the draft, the Bucs will have their choice of either Jameis Winston or Marcus Mariota, who just may be the two most promising quarterbacks available this offseason.

But most of the other teams in need of quarterback help, such as the Jets, Texans and Bills, may have to try to work out a trade to fill their need. That’s where the Bucs come in.

Several teams called the Bucs to inquire about the availability of quarterback Mike Glennon during last year’s draft proceedings, and some around the league believe the same will happen again this year.

Speaking on “NFL Insiders” last Friday, ESPN Insider Adam Caplan said the general manager of a team not in need of a quarterback told him teams looking for quarterbacks are sure to call the Bucs about Glennon.

“He said that the tape wasn’t great on Glennon from last season, but (he pointed out that) he’s got (two years) left on his contract and the Bucs aren’t paying him a lot ($1.4 million through 2016),’’ Caplan said. “He said that’s a guy you have to take a look at (if you’re a team in need of a quarterback).’’

Not that Glennon is likely to bring much in return. With his mixed bag of experience over the course of the last two years, he may only net the Bucs a fourth- or fifth-round draft pick.

But if the Bucs are ready to move on from Glennon, and their refusal to go back to him even after their slim playoff hopes faded completely last year has many believing they are, then a fourth-round pick might not be a bad return.

http://tbo.com/sports/blogs/bucs-re...d-mean-high-demand-for-bucs-glennon-20150126/

 

[Memphis Ram]

If Jameis Winston doesn't fall into their laps or the team doesn't trade up for him, Glennon sounds like the next best option, IMO.

The kid had a decent rookie season. Last year, he lost his offensive coordinator at the end of camp due to an illness and Lovie gave the starting job to McNown the day he was signed. Plus, both seasons, the kid has played with a poor rushing attack.

Build the strong rushing attack some of us have been waiting for since Fisher's arrival to take some of the pressure off, and Glennon might be good enough to win with in 2015.

 

[WestCoastRam]

Whether it's Gennon, Foles, Bradford or some putz from this draft... I think we can all agree that our success on offense rests on fixing the oline this offseason.

 

[jrry32]

or maybe Mcclown was better than glennon....

whatever the reason - glennon had his shot and lost it, says volumes...

He wasn't.

Had to have a "shot" to have a lost it...

 

[Dagonet]

He wasn't.

Had to have a "shot" to have a lost it...

Can't see him losing it without shots. Shots can to that to one. That said, let's see what shakes out in FA instead of trading?

 

[Dagonet]

Whether it's Gennon, Foles, Bradford or some putz from this draft... I think we can all agree that our success on offense rests on fixing the oline this offseason.

I hope Snisher is reading this.. Just saying. OL all the way man. That simple.

 

[badnews]

We should go with Bradford.
But wait.
We should go with Bradford as our Offensive Coordinator!!!

Yeah! No one will see that one coming....

 

[Dagonet]

We should go with Bradford.
But wait.
We should go with Bradford as our Offensive Coordinator!!!

Yeah! No one will see that one coming....

I saw it coming thanks to you. That said, Bradford all the way and build the OL! :cheers:

 

[iced]

He wasn't.

Had to have a "shot" to have a lost it...

Yea - he did, and he lost it...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...ke-glennon-benched-for-josh-mccown-as-bucs-qb

Mike Glennon benched for Josh McCown as Bucs QB

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers haven't given up on the idea of Josh McCown turning their fortunes around.

Mike Glennon told Tampa's WDAE-AM on Tuesday night that he has been told McCown will reclaim the starting quarterback job for Sunday's game versus the Atlanta Falcons.

"I met with (interim offensive coordinator) Marcus Arroyo and Lovie (Smith) this morning," Glennon said, "and they decided that it would be best for Josh to go ahead this week and get the start."

It's hard to evaluate Glennon's performance, because the pass protection from the refurbished offensive line has been so sporadic. On balance, though, he has been one of the toughest quarterbacks to watch on Game Rewind, as he has failed to move the offense for quarters and even halves at a time.

The Bucs were the most aggressive sellers leading up to last week's trade deadline, a tacit acknowledgement that 2014 is a rebuilding year.

Turning back to McCown at this point in the season tells us the team's brass still believes the veteran has a chance to emerge as a solution for 2015. They aren't ready to throw in the towel on a quarterback hailed as a leader and savior a few months ago.

It also tells us Smith is going to follow his almost career-long penchant of ignoring the widely held maxim that a team with two starting quarterbacks has no quarterback.

Glennon started 5 straight games - weeks 4-9 w/ a bye week 7

 

[dieterbrock]

Yea - he did, and he lost it...


Glennon started 5 straight games - weeks 4-9 w/ a bye week 7

Glennon got in when Mcown got hurt.
Mcown got healthy and Lovie put his guy back in.
If Glennon didnt have warts, he wouldnt be on the market (allegedly), nobody saying he's perfect.
But to assume he was a failure based on losing time to Mcown just isnt accurate
I think he's a great fit for what we need.
He also fits the NY Jets, Buffalo Bills and possibly Cleveland.
Watch his value go up.

 

[lockdnram21]

I hear you... wht I meant to enphasize is... "at what cost"?

Can you afford to take up a fair amount of cap space... or maybe give up some higher round draft choices?

Is it wiser to concentrate on the Oline? Without that, probably doesn't matter who you put back there... likey they'll get injured too.

I agree they need a better back-up than what they currently have... but I'd be very careful about how much I was willing to shell out (money and/or picks).

this team is built to win now. The defense is legit. Neither Glennon or Foles were first round picks and still on there rookie deals I think. So they not making that much are they?

 

[iced]

Glennon got in when Mcown got hurt.
Mcown got healthy and Lovie put his guy back in.
If Glennon didnt have warts, he wouldnt be on the market (allegedly), nobody saying he's perfect.
But to assume he was a failure based on losing time to Mcown just isnt accurate

To assume that the only reason why Mccown got the job back because he's "Lovie's guy" and not because of Glennon's play is just completely inaccurate - as well as Glennon "not getting a shot."

Do you really think Glennon would have been benched if he would have been more accurate, decisive/better at reading the field, just plain better, etc.?

He's pretty awful for long stretches - can't tell you how many times I'd be watching the Rams game and at half time or later be watching the bucs (local) , and just think "and I thought our QB situation was a mess..."

It's hard to evaluate Glennon's performance, because the pass protection from the refurbished offensive line has been so sporadic. On balance, though, he has been one of the toughest quarterbacks to watch on Game Rewind, as he has failed to move the offense for quarters and even halves at a time.

If Glennon were playing good, he would not have been benched. His play did not warrant the starting job.

 

[jrry32]

To assume that the only reason why Mccown got the job back because he's "Lovie's guy" and not because of Glennon's play is just completely inaccurate - as well as Glennon "not getting a shot."

Do you really think Glennon would have been benched if he would have been more accurate, decisive/better at reading the field, just plain better, etc.?

He's pretty awful for long stretches - can't tell you how many times I'd be watching the Rams game and at half time or later be watching the bucs (local) , and just think "and I thought our QB situation was a mess..."

If Glennon were playing good, he would not have been benched. His play did not warrant the starting job.

I saw every single snap from Glennon in 2014. I saw multiple games of McCown. Glennon was CLEARLY the better QB. Glennon did not get a shot. He got in the game when McCown got hurt and Lovie pulled him when McCown was fully healthy.

But since my assessment of play may not matter to you, I'll supplement that with stats.
Josh McCown - 10.5 games
56.3% completion%
210.1 passing yards per game
6.7 YPA
3.4% TD%
4.3% Int%
70.5 QB Rating
9.9% Sack%
2 games with a 80+ QB Rating
14 total TDs
24 Ints/Fumbles
18 total TOs

Per 16 games
3362 passing yards
17 passing TDs
21 Ints
21 total TDs
27 total TOs

Mike Glennon - 5.5 games
57.6% completion%
257.6 passing yards per game
7.0 YPA
4.9% TD%
3.0% Int%
83.3 QB Rating
7.3% Sack%
3.5 games with a 80+ QB Rating
10 total TDs
8 Ints/Fumbles
6 total TOs

Per 16 games
4122 passing yards
29 passing TDs
17 Ints
29 total TDs
17 total TOs

I went ahead and bolded the superior player statistically in each category.

Glennon is better in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.

So not only was Glennon better on the eye test but in this case, the statistics actually back him up as the better passer.

And here's something else, McCown started and finished 10 games. Glennon started and finished 5 games. In Glennon's 5 starts, the Buccaneers averaged 21.0 PPG. In McCown's 10 starts, the Buccaneers averaged 15.8 PPG.

I'm sorry, Iced, but there's not a good argument for starting McCown if you're actually judging a guy by performance and play.

Do you really think Glennon would have been benched if he would have been more accurate, decisive/better at reading the field, just plain better, etc.?

Yes. Because that's exactly what happened.

 

[iced]

I saw every single snap from Glennon in 2014. I saw multiple games of McCown. Glennon was CLEARLY the better QB. Glennon did not get a shot. He got in the game when McCown got hurt and Lovie pulled him when McCown was fully healthy.

But since my assessment of play may not matter to you, I'll supplement that with stats.
Josh McCown - 10.5 games
56.3% completion%
210.1 passing yards per game
6.7 YPA
3.4% TD%
4.3% Int%
70.5 QB Rating
9.9% Sack%
2 games with a 80+ QB Rating
14 total TDs
24 Ints/Fumbles
18 total TOs

Per 16 games
3362 passing yards
17 passing TDs
21 Ints
21 total TDs
27 total TOs

Mike Glennon - 5.5 games
57.6% completion%
257.6 passing yards per game
7.0 YPA
4.9% TD%
3.0% Int%
83.3 QB Rating
7.3% Sack%
3.5 games with a 80+ QB Rating
10 total TDs
8 Ints/Fumbles
6 total TOs

Per 16 games
4122 passing yards
29 passing TDs
17 Ints
29 total TDs
17 total TOs

I went ahead and bolded the superior player statistically in each category.

Glennon is better in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.

So not only was Glennon better on the eye test but in this case, the statistics actually back him up as the better passer.

And here's something else, McCown started and finished 10 games. Glennon started and finished 5 games. In Glennon's 5 starts, the Buccaneers averaged 21.0 PPG. In McCown's 10 starts, the Buccaneers averaged 15.8 PPG.

I'm sorry, Iced, but there's not a good argument for starting McCown if you're actually judging a guy by performance and play.



Yes. Because that's exactly what happened.

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.

Baltimore game? same thing - Ravens were up 38-0 at half time. Yea you can argue his defense wasn't helping him; but baltimore also had one of most leaky pass d's and the bucs offense also put up a goose egg. In fact they only crossed the 50 yard line once, which was right before the 2 minute warning - kicker missed it.

Glennon isn't impressive at all, and I think bringing him as "competition" would be a joke for Bradford. I'd rather have Shaun Hill or Austin Davis over Glennon - he was often ineffective.

And yea, 5.5 games is getting a shot - he squandered his opportunity.. I know you live in the Tampa area so I know you had to have heard the clamoring for Mccown to start back again once he was healthy. He didn't do enough to keep the job from him when he came back - unlike what Austin Davis did vs Shaun hill.

Sorry man - but no way in hell am I going to agree that Glennon's play wasn't a big factor in him going back to the bench... And for all we know, there could be other issues or intangibles like grasping the playbook.

I never argued to start Mccown - I just said Glennon never won the job.

Glennon actually looked very similar to Austin Davis just with less success - first 3 games were good against bad defenses, next 3 defenses got tape on him and end of story.

Last 3 games: 17-48 L vs Balt, 13-19 L vs Min, 17-22 L @Cleveland... 15.67 point average

 

[jrry32]

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.

Baltimore game? same thing - Ravens were up 38-0 at half time. Yea you can argue his defense wasn't helping him; but baltimore also had one of most leaky pass d's and the bucs offense also put up a goose egg. In fact they only crossed the 50 yard line once, which was right before the 2 minute warning - kicker missed it.

Glennon isn't impressive at all, and I think bringing him as "competition" would be a joke for Bradford. I'd rather have Shaun Hill or Austin Davis over Glennon - he was often ineffective.

And yea, 5.5 games is getting a shot - he squandered his opportunity.. I know you live in the Tampa area so I know you had to have heard the clamoring for Mccown to start back again once he was healthy. He didn't do enough to keep the job from him when he came back - unlike what Austin Davis did vs Shaun hill.

I never argued to start Mccown - I just said Glennon never won the job.

Glennon actually looked very similar to Austin Davis just with less success - first 3 games were good against bad defenses, next 3 defenses got tape on him and end of story.

Last 3 games: 17-48 L vs Balt, 13-19 L vs Min, 17-22 L @Cleveland... 15.67 point average

That's a contradiction.

The better player should "win" the job. If Glennon is the better player, he should have started. So the fact that he didn't means he didn't get a fair "shot".

So if you're arguing he did get a "shot" and earned being benched then you're arguing that McCown should have started.

Gotta choose a stance.

Glennon was CLEARLY the better QB. But did not get a fair shot in 2014.

Oh, and the garbage time argument sounds just like the criticism certain posters would use against Bradford.

Sorry man - but no way in hell am I going to agree that Glennon's play wasn't a big factor in him going back to the bench... And for all we know, there could be other issues or intangibles like grasping the playbook.

If Glennon's play was a big factor, that would mean the guy replacing him would have to provide better "play". We both know that's not true. So then play wasn't the big factor in him going back to the bench.

Truth is that Glennon wasn't good or great. But he didn't have to be to be better than McCown.

Yea, I'll go ahead and buy low on the kid to be our Plan B behind Bradford. The Buccaneers are idiots for not starting the kid in 2014.

 

[12intheBox]

As for Glennon - he is a decent prospect, but nothing to hang the 2015 season on (by himself anyway)

In other words, bringing him in to compete w Sam is a great idea. Bringing him in as Sams replacement is a downgrade - a significant one.

Put Glennon in this draft and where is he? A 3rd rounder at the very highest? Probably a day 3 pick, right?

Here is the real question I think we need to ask ourselves and it's one I struggle with ....

Most all of us want Sam at lower $$ - but what if his agents say either cut him or pay him?

What if he intends on testing the market before he signs for less here (as his agent probably should advose him to)

Do you bring him back under the last year of his rookie contract or not?

Today, as things stand, I say yes - bring his gimpy ass back and hope for the best.

 

[jrry32]

As for Glennon - he is a decent prospect, but nothing to hang the 2015 season on (by himself anyway)

In other words, bringing him in to compete w Sam is a great idea. Bringing him in as Sams replacement is a downgrade - a significant one.

Put Glennon in this draft and where is he? A 3rd rounder at the very highest? Probably a day 3 pick, right?

He's a 3rd rounder in this class. There's no way he'd be a Day 3 pick. But he's not a prospect anymore. He's actually shown he can play at this level.

Here is the real question I think we need to ask ourselves and it's one I struggle with ....

Most all of us want Sam at lower $$ - but what if his agents say either cut him or pay him?

What if he intends on testing the market before he signs for less here (as his agent probably should advose him to)

Do you bring him back under the last year of his rookie contract or not?

Today, as things stand, I say yes - bring his gimpy ass back and hope for the best.

I give them a take it or leave it offer that I deem as fair. If they leave it, I cut him and we see if he can get a better offer on the market.

 

[12intheBox]

He's a 3rd rounder in this class. There's no way he'd be a Day 3 pick. But he's not a prospect anymore. He's actually shown he can play at this level.



I give them a take it or leave it offer that I deem as fair. If they leave it, I cut him and we see if he can get a better offer on the market.

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.

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.

 

[dieterbrock]

He's a 3rd rounder in this class. There's no way he'd be a Day 3 pick. But he's not a prospect anymore. He's actually shown he can play at this level.



I give them a take it or leave it offer that I deem as fair. If they leave it, I cut him and we see if he can get a better offer on the market.

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

 

[iced]

That's a contradiction.

The better player should "win" the job. If Glennon is the better player, he should have started. So the fact that he didn't means he didn't get a fair "shot".

So if you're arguing he did get a "shot" and earned being benched then you're arguing that McCown should have started.

Gotta choose a stance.

Glennon was CLEARLY the better QB. But did not get a fair shot in 2014.

Oh, and the garbage time argument sounds just like the criticism certain posters would use against Bradford.

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.

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