Francessa: Jets called Bucs about Glennon: MERGED

[drdetroit]

1 hour ago, Gas2No99 said:

So we'll get him on Draft Day for a late 3rd and select Kevin Hogan from Stanford in the 4th or 5th round. YES!!!!

Mike Glennon - QB -  Buccaneers

Bucs GM Jason Licht admitted Monday that the team is listening to trade offers for No. 2 QB Mike Glennon.

"There's always interest. It's not a secret," Licht said. "We'll see how it goes. We've got some time and this is something that could go all the way to the draft." Licht is right to take his time, as the quarterback market will be at its most desperate come draft week. Glennon, who didn't play a snap last season, has always been overhyped as a trade option, but could at the very least compete for the starting job in some cities.

 

 

Source: Tampa Bay Times 

Mar 21 - 3:05 PM

Pull the friggin trigger already

[Tinstar]

5 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

Pull the friggin trigger already

For what price or doesn't it matter ?

[Scott Dierking]

6 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

Pull the friggin trigger already

Yup, nothing like getting an unproven QB who has 1 year left on his deal, only to let him prove himself, and then allow him to go on the open market as a FA.

 

[drdetroit]

31 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Yup, nothing like getting an unproven QB who has 1 year left on his deal, only to let him prove himself, and then allow him to go on the open market as a FA.

 

Franchise tag says hello

 

so does 29 TDs to 16 ints

[drdetroit]

33 minutes ago, Tinstar said:

For what price or doesn't it matter ?

Qb is the most important position.  The Houston Texans spent $72 million on Osweiler who played 7 games

[Villain The Foe]

2 hours ago, Gas2No99 said:

So we'll get him on Draft Day for a late 3rd and select Kevin Hogan from Stanford in the 4th or 5th round. YES!!!!

Mike Glennon - QB -  Buccaneers

Bucs GM Jason Licht admitted Monday that the team is listening to trade offers for No. 2 QB Mike Glennon.

"There's always interest. It's not a secret," Licht said. "We'll see how it goes. We've got some time and this is something that could go all the way to the draft." Licht is right to take his time, as the quarterback market will be at its most desperate come draft week. Glennon, who didn't play a snap last season, has always been overhyped as a trade option, but could at the very least compete for the starting job in some cities.

 

 

Source: Tampa Bay Times 

Mar 21 - 3:05 PM

Please let this happen. I will forgive all past draft transgressions if Macc were to pull this off on draft night.

[AFJF]

37 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

Franchise tag says hello

 

so does 29 TDs to 16 ints

Yep...perfect scenario is to bring him and and see how he fits on this team with these players in this system.  If he's the goods, you tag him or sign him long-term.  If he's not, you let him walk.

The other choice is to get in a bidding war for him if he plays well elsewhere (if the other team doesn't tag/sign him) and even if he plays well elsewhere, it could be result of their different system and supporting cast.

No better way to find out if a guy can play on your team than having him play on your team.

Or, we could just, ya know, worry that it won't work and never trade for another player again because we don't know with 100% certainty exactly how they'll perform.

[Villain The Foe]

5 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Yep...perfect scenario is to bring him and and see how he fits on this team with these players in this system.  If he's the goods, you tag him or sign him long-term.  If he's not, you let him walk.

The other choice is to get in a bidding war for him if he plays well elsewhere (if the other team doesn't tag/sign him) and even if he plays well elsewhere, it could be result of their different system and supporting cast.

No better way to find out if a guy can play on your team than having him play on your team.

Or, we could just, ya know, worry that it won't work and never trade for another player again because we don't know with 100% certainty exactly how they'll perform.

But.....we dont know for sure AFJF! WE MUST KNOW FOR SURE!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Warfish]

I am so tired of QB talk at this point.  I cannot wait for this to be over, no matter which over-hyped, under-performing, fan-delusions-of-grandeur bag of sh*t we play at QB.

[flgreen]

Judging by Woody's comments today, whoever Macc deems is the QB of the future in the next year or so better be the real deal.  Woody seems like he's had it with bad QB play. 

[drdetroit]

55 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Yep...perfect scenario is to bring him and and see how he fits on this team with these players in this system.  If he's the goods, you tag him or sign him long-term.  If he's not, you let him walk.

The other choice is to get in a bidding war for him if he plays well elsewhere (if the other team doesn't tag/sign him) and even if he plays well elsewhere, it could be result of their different system and supporting cast.

No better way to find out if a guy can play on your team than having him play on your team.

Or, we could just, ya know, worry that it won't work and never trade for another player again because we don't know with 100% certainty exactly how they'll perform.

 

 

Just do the deal mac

 

[Charlie Brown]

What if we got Glennon and Fitz?

Would we do that?

 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

6 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

Yup, nothing like getting an unproven QB who has 1 year left on his deal, only to let him prove himself, and then allow him to go on the open market as a FA.

 

I understand how you feel, and don't necessarily disagree, but if he comes here and proves himself I'm not going to lament over not getting him locked up for the best possible deal after that. I'd just be happy we have a good franchise QB at any price.

There's another possibility, and that's extending him by 1 year, half guaranteed, somewhere between the $8-15M range (the lower the better) if you want to hedge your bet. Glennon saw what our WR duo did for Fitzpatrick's passing numbers, then throw Forte and a TE into the mix, and he might figure this is the best place to get his numbers up the most, for his next long-term deal (whether that deal comes with the Jets after 1-2 years here, or if he moves onward elsewhere).

But really, if he somehow turns into "all that" for us, I'm not going to cry because now he wants $23M/year. I'd be sending Maccagnan love letters for getting us a QB worthy of $20M+/year. If we don't/can't re-sign him in 2017 then at least tag him for 1 more year. After that he'll be worth a 3rd-4th round comp pick in 2019. I've seen the Jets pull off 1 or 2 worse exchanges.

The problem is if he's not worth it, I wouldn't want the team changing the offensive roster around to surround him with players that complement his talents (and hide his shortcomings) more. That could be more costly long term than the initial traded pick or his individual salary investment(s). Like drafting Brady over Sapp because a pair of TEs was thought to be a good match for Boomer's aging arm. Oof. 

Ah, who am I kidding? If we pick him up he'll suck. Or he'll be just good enough to offer a big contract to and then he'll suck.

[Scott Dierking]

8 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I understand how you feel, and don't necessarily disagree, but if he comes here and proves himself I'm not going to lament over not getting him locked up for the best possible deal after that. I'd just be happy we have a good franchise QB at any price.

There's another possibility, and that's extending him by 1 year, half guaranteed, somewhere between the $8-15M range (the lower the better) if you want to hedge your bet. Glennon saw what our WR duo did for Fitzpatrick's passing numbers, then throw Forte and a TE into the mix, and he might figure this is the best place to get his numbers up the most, for his next long-term deal (whether that deal comes with the Jets after 1-2 years here, or if he moves onward elsewhere).

But really, if he somehow turns into "all that" for us, I'm not going to cry because now he wants $23M/year. I'd be sending Maccagnan love letters for getting us a QB worthy of $20M+/year. If we don't/can't re-sign him in 2017 then at least tag him for 1 more year. After that he'll be worth a 3rd-4th round comp pick in 2019. I've seen the Jets pull off 1 or 2 worse exchanges.

The problem is if he's not worth it, I wouldn't want the team changing the offensive roster around to surround him with players that complement his talents (and hide his shortcomings) more. That could be more costly long term than the initial traded pick or his individual salary investment(s). Like drafting Brady over Sapp because a pair of TEs was thought to be a good match for Boomer's aging arm. Oof. 

Ah, who am I kidding? If we pick him up he'll suck. Or he'll be just good enough to offer a big contract to and then he'll suck.

It is not a slam dunk decision that some make it out to be. There is a measurable risk. Understand that there is measurable upside also. Not sure it outweighs the risk though. Would rather explore other avenues, with a reasonable Fitz bridge being first.

[Jet Nut]

On March 20, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

No, the reason his on the fly statement can be accepted as gospel is precisely because he wasn't thinking of a way to hedge his statement. There was no hedging because there was no way, absent injury, that FItz wasn't going to be the starter. Absolutely no way. He didn't "really mean" Fitz is the starter so far, entering camp, but that can change where you believe you know what he means better than he knows himself, and that he isn't to be taken at his word.

There is no way to interpret his statement as anything other than: barring injury (which is understood), Fitz is automatically the starting QB of the Jets if he returns. Even more so for a HC like Bowles who hasn't yet held a single competition for a single starting job in the first place. Even when his preferred starter - e.g. Cromartie - is playing horribly in camp, preseason, and during the season.

Besides, the bolded statement is not the same as the others. "I see" no way isn't the same as "There is" no way. His statement, at the PC, was more of the "there is no way" variety.

The only thing that may change it now is that he sees that his boss doesn't care for that option too much. He's not dead-set against it, but he's not so gung-ho for it either. But that is now, well past his totally honest and forthcoming statement.

Its been overthought at this point.  If we sign Fitz, he's the starter.  Well if they sign Fitz they would be making a substantial financial commitment to him, even at the measly $10 or $11 million per year deal it apparently will take.  Well what sense does it make to pay that deal and sit him.  

Nothing had to be said.  You dont payout those dollars for him to sit

[Sperm Edwards]

56 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

It is not a slam dunk decision that some make it out to be. There is a measurable risk. Understand that there is measurable upside also. Not sure it outweighs the risk though. Would rather explore other avenues, with a reasonable Fitz bridge being first.

I don't disagree at all. It isn't as simple as nothing ventured nothing gained. Venture too much and probably still nothing is gained (beyond "now we know"), plus we lose a lot in the process. We don't give someone else a chance, we don't draft someone else where we otherwise might have, etc.

Ultimately I'm in favor of picking him up if he works out, but I'm against it if he turns out to be a bust for us. 

[Sperm Edwards]

52 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Its been overthought at this point.  If we sign Fitz, he's the starter.  Well if they sign Fitz they would be making a substantial financial commitment to him, even at the measly $10 or $11 million per year deal it apparently will take.  Well what sense does it make to pay that deal and sit him.  

Nothing had to be said.  You dont payout those dollars for him to sit

Yep. And that has to be Maccagnan's argument and has to stick to it. That the reason he's being offered $7M is because there's a good chance he will be the best QB on the team come September, and therefore will start. But that doesn't eliminate the team's (at least Maccagnan's) desire to get a better QB than Fitz starting for us, and that doesn't happen when he's chiseled in as the starter just by salary.

I think there's a high probability they have every intention of starting him game 1 and as soon as he starts to be meh again, or when our playoff chances become really unrealistic, to pull him so someone else can get some live reps. That's easier to do with him making $7M than it is with him making 50% more than that.

[slats]

2 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

It is not a slam dunk decision that some make it out to be. There is a measurable risk. Understand that there is measurable upside also. Not sure it outweighs the risk though. Would rather explore other avenues, with a reasonable Fitz bridge being first.

What other avenues would you rather explore? 

You keep repeating this risk line. Of course there's risk. There are only a handful of legitimate franchise QBs in the league. You have to take chances to land one. Drafting one is the ideal, but that's looking pretty risky this year. Hoping Petty is the answer? Seems like there's some risk there. The time has passed, but $17-18M/year for Bradford or Osweiler seems pretty risky, too. 

Fitzpatrick is the low risk option, I guess. Kinda like its low risk to put your life savings into a savings account. 

[AFJF]

3 minutes ago, slats said:

What other avenues would you rather explore? 

You keep repeating this risk line. Of course there's risk. There are only a handful of legitimate franchise QBs in the league. You have to take chances to land one. Drafting one is the ideal, but that's looking pretty risky this year. Hoping Petty is the answer? Seems like there's some risk there. The time has passed, but $17-18M/year for Bradford or Osweiler seems pretty risky, too. 

Fitzpatrick is the low risk option, I guess. Kinda like its low risk to put your life savings into a savings account. 

Exactly.  If it was that simple to go out and grab a potential starting QB with no risk involved, I'd be all for it.  

However, that option does not exist.

The other options are Fitzpatrick or any of the quarterbacks in the draft this year, all of whom are viewed as multi year projects.

Glennon is a guy who has shown that he can at least be productive as a pro quarterback against top defenses. How many of those guys can be had right now? And how many of them come with no risk?

Acquiring a quarterback who is not an established all-pro will always have some level of risk ( and even then there will be some ). Does this mean we should never trade for a quarterback? 

[Scott Dierking]

17 minutes ago, slats said:

What other avenues would you rather explore? 

You keep repeating this risk line. Of course there's risk. There are only a handful of legitimate franchise QBs in the league. You have to take chances to land one. Drafting one is the ideal, but that's looking pretty risky this year. Hoping Petty is the answer? Seems like there's some risk there. The time has passed, but $17-18M/year for Bradford or Osweiler seems pretty risky, too. 

Fitzpatrick is the low risk option, I guess. Kinda like its low risk to put your life savings into a savings account. 

I want to have Fitz as a bridge at a reasonable price and continue developing qb's behind. 

I do not know what this staff feels about Petty. Or Geno for that matter. 

Ron Wolf said that you should draft a qb in every class.

What I don't like is trading a valuable commodity (early draft pick) for a player that has to be considered developmental as well, and then chance losing him. The risk to me outweighs the reward.

[Villain The Foe]

25 minutes ago, slats said:

What other avenues would you rather explore? 

You keep repeating this risk line. Of course there's risk. There are only a handful of legitimate franchise QBs in the league. You have to take chances to land one. Drafting one is the ideal, but that's looking pretty risky this year. Hoping Petty is the answer? Seems like there's some risk there. The time has passed, but $17-18M/year for Bradford or Osweiler seems pretty risky, too. 

Fitzpatrick is the low risk option, I guess. Kinda like its low risk to put your life savings into a savings account. 

Good point. You know the type of risk it took for Pete Carroll to sign Flynn to a 25 million dollar contract only to sit him for a 3rd round rookie and then have to explain the upside of that risk? And granted, not all risk work out that way, my point is that people are scared stiff when it comes to this word "risk". C'mon, this is football. Either Glennon can play football or not. 

Yeah, we've even spoken about possibly given an unknown Glennon millions of dollars immediately just to lock him up. Thats a risk, but its also a risk to let him play out his contract. Its also a risk to even trade for him. Its a risk to NOT trade for him and just move forward with Geno add Petty. Its a risk to resign Fitzpatrick who's history for the most part is mediocre and the last time he played 1 good year and received a payday the team wanted nothing to do with him immediately after. 

It's a risk to draft rookies, its a risk to cut players to make the 53 man roster, its a risk to find out who you want to put on the practice squad and who you want to completely drop. Its a risk every damn day. Why is this suddenly so scary the moment we talk QB? We've taken no risk since Sanchez, and before that Namath. Namath and Sanchez are the only QB's we've ever drafted in the top 5. Taking a risk like that netted a 50% success rate. All of the other QB's we've had with this franchise we've been super careful with and over the last 50 years the only thing we've got to show for it is Ken O'Brien, Vinny Testaverde and Chad Pennington. 

I'd rather not be so shook and petrified and take a risk, especially given the history of the Bucs organization. How many QB's has that organization drafted and either traded away or let hit the market that eventually made it to their conference championship game or even won a SB with another franchise? 

I would take my chances with Glennon given that the kid looks like a football player. If he fails, so what, the QB position with this ball club has been sh_tty for decades, so there's nothing that was done that wasnt already done. But if Glennon hits, then.......

[Scott Dierking]

13 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Exactly.  If it was that simple to go out and grab a potential starting QB with no risk involved, I'd be all for it.  

However, that option does not exist.

The other options are Fitzpatrick or any of the quarterbacks in the draft this year, all of whom are viewed as multi year projects.

Glennon is a guy who has shown that he can at least be productive as a pro quarterback against top defenses. How many of those guys can be had right now? And how many of them come with no risk?

Acquiring a quarterback who is not an established all-pro will always have some level of risk ( and even then there will be some ). Does this mean we should never trade for a quarterback? 

I am not huge on trading for a developmental qb, with one year on his deal. You may very well be developing him for someone else

[Villain The Foe]

35 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I am not huge on trading for a developmental qb, with one year on his deal. You may very well be developing him for someone else

What does developmental QB mean? All players, no matter the position that come into the league are developmental to some degree. Also, whats the point of having a guy in Chan Gailey that is known for developing QB's if you're not going to use the attribute? If Glennon is a developmental QB yet shows some really good promise and you have a coach who's entire history is known for getting the most out of his QB's consistently...along with just showing you that yet again this past season, then what is the problem? 

I seriously dont understand the problem here. I dont see it, I dont hear it. I only see people scared to make decisions or to take risk. 

[Joe Jets fan]

29 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I am not huge on trading for a developmental qb, with one year on his deal. You may very well be developing him for someone else

You trade for him and if he plays well you put the tag on him and work out a deal.  You can tag him twice, so three years of good QB play for a 2nd round pick?  Sign me up right now.

[flgreen]

13 hours ago, Charlie Brown said:

What if we got Glennon and Fitz?

Would we do that?

 

 

We could do that.  Glennon only makes 1.5 million this year, Same as Geno.   It wouldn't hurt the cap at all.  I'm not so sure it would be a good idea.  If Glennon were to have a breakout year, his price would go through the roof next year.  

IMO if they make a move on Glennon they should get him signed for a long term contract.  Man what a risk that is.  If they miss on him, it would probably be the end of Macc.

I suppose they could franchise him next year, see if he can put two good years together,, save their pennies over the next two years.

Think it could be in play, but the Bucs have to move off that 1st round demand IMO

[drdetroit]

"Developmental" Qb - a third year player that has already looked good and shown he can make reads and all the throws.

[drdetroit]

48 minutes ago, Joe Jets fan said:

You trade for him and if he plays well you put the tag on him and work out a deal.  You can tag him twice, so three years of good QB play for a 2nd round pick?  Sign me up right now.

I would love to see Glennon with Marshall and Decker

[Villain The Foe]

14 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

I would love to see Glennon with Marshall and Decker

I'd love to see Glennon with Marshall, Decker, Forte in the backfield Devin Smith putting pressure on those safeties over the top. 

 

I'd love to see the deep ball make an appearance again for the NY Jets. We havent had that since Testaverde and Coles. 

[sourceworx]

16 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

I'd love to see Glennon with Marshall, Decker, Forte in the backfield Devin Smith putting pressure on those safeties over the top. 

 

I'd love to see the deep ball make an appearance again for the NY Jets. We havent had that since Testaverde and Coles. 

We've been going back and forth over Geno. But I'm totally with you on Glennon. I loved him in the draft when he came out. I think he could be awesome in Gailey's system.

[TuscanyTile2]

Offer a 3rd rounder for this beast!

[GoingToMyGraveGreen]

I know this has been discussed before, but especially now that that Fitz wants long-term starter money I'm now in favor of trading for Glennon (and I like Fitz).

Tampa Bay reportedly wants a first for Mike Glennon. That's just a negotiating opening position, and as the draft gets closer (I do not believe the Jets will make a deal with Fitz beforehand unless he takes what the Jets offer - i.e.  $7M) I believe the Jets can package a 2nd, or 3rd or 4th with a conditional pick next year based on Glennon's playing time.

He's young, has a good arm and a good long-term option for the Jets.

He's cheap: $1.8M cap charge this year (according to Overthecap.com).

He was good despite playing on an awful TB team in hist first two years as a pro (rather remarkable considering) - especially in the depleted offense in the years he played (see stats below).

He's in the last year of his rookie contract and will be highly motivated to get a big contract in 2017 when the Jets can afford it.

TB will lose him to someone next year anyway, so they might as well get something for him now.

Chan Gailey can work with this guy - good pocket passer, not a scrambler though.

If he does not work out, the conditional pick forfeits and at worst the Jets let him go (waste a pick) or get a decent backup and Glennon does not get the big contract. The Jets might work out a contract mid year either way.

Frankly I believe all this "we want Fitz back" stuff is a smokescreen to put some pressure on TB to make a deal and get something for Glennon now. Fitz at this point in his career is not worth long term money. But I would not be surprised though if he takes the $7M even if the Jets get Glennon, and also is on the Jets as a fallback option if Glennon struggles.

 

Career stats

Year	Team	CMP%	YDS	TD	INT	Rating
2014	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	57.6	1,417	10	6	83.3
2013	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	59.4	2,608	19	9	83.9
Career		58.8	4,025	29	15	83.7

[Dcat]

you must have missed this thread.  Was just a few topics below yours, so I'm not quite sure how you missed it.

 

[whodeawhodat]

Glennon for Mo plus an apology for how the whole Revis trade ended up.

[GoingToMyGraveGreen]

Hi DCAT - I did see it and maybe I should have added to that thread, but it was long and wanted to see the reaction to an offer for multiple draft picks (not a first) and the maneuvering and smoke screen going on because I think the Jets want Glennon more than Fitz.

[Villain The Foe]

9 minutes ago, GoingToMyGraveGreen said:

I know this has been discussed before, but especially now that that Fitz wants long-term starter money I'm now in favor of trading for Glennon (and I like Fitz).

It's okay. Glennon is a welcomed topic here!