So what I am going to do now, even though most fans will probably disagree with me, is give my reason why I'd keep Kevin Glenn.
I'll start by saying that I am a fan of Kevin Glenn and I make no apologies for that. I try my best to provide an objective voice, but I am still a fan, and as a fan there are certain players I find myself liking. One of those players is Kevin Glenn.
My appreciation for Glenn goes back to his days in Winnipeg, and only intensified when he signed with the Tiger-Cats back in 2009. I am, to put it bluntly, a Kevin Glenn fan. Even if the team decides he's not for them, I will remain a Kevin Glenn fan.
So my stumping for Glenn to get another season with the Ti-Cats is partially biased because I like the guy. Objectively, he has done some good things while wearing the Black & Gold, but not enough to guarantee a return in 2012. But equally as objectively, he hasn't done so little that he doesn't deserve to come back.
During his time in Hamilton, Glenn has had one statistically amazing year (2010), one statistically mediocre year (2011) and one year that is too difficult to judge (2009). It's a trend that Glenn has followed his entire career, but more on that later.
One stat that most Glenn detractors like to bring up is his winning percentage (which hovers around .500), but I think judging players on wins in football – which, in my opinion, is the ultimate team sports – is pointless. Anthony Calvillo threw for over 500 yards against the Tiger-Cats in the 2011 East Division Semi-Final. And lost. Kevin Glenn threw for over 500 yards against the Montreal Alouettes in 2009. And lost. Steven Jyles threw for less than 100 yards against Winnipeg in 2011. And won. Those are just three examples where Quarterback play did not decide the winner or the loser, so judging a Quarterback based on wins and losses is useless, and I am not the only one who holds that opinion.
But in looking for reasons to justify a fourth season in Steeltown for Glenn, you need look no further than his stats to see why 2012 might be the wrong year to get rid of Glenn.
An interesting pattern develops if you look at his year-to-year stats. Glenn, it seems, likes to follow statistically mediocre seasons with statistically great ones.
Indisputably, Glenn's three best seasons as a starting Quarterback were 2005, 2007 and 2010.
In 2005, which was his first full season as a starter, Glenn passed for over 3,500 yards and 27 touchdowns with only 17 interceptions. For a first-year starter (he became the starter midway through 2004 when the Bombers traded Khari Jones), those are very good numbers.
In 2007, Glenn had probably his best year. He threw for 5,117 yards, 25 touchdowns and 13 interceptions, and was a finalist for Most Outstanding Players. He also guided Winnipeg to the Grey Cup, but a broken arm in the East Final in Toronto kept him from playing in it. Had Glenn played in that game, we all might view him differently.
In 2010, Glenn became Hamilton's starting Quarterback and had one of the best seasons a Tiger-Cat QB has ever had. He finished second in the league in passing yards with 5,100, set the Ti-Cat record for touchdown passes with 33 and threw 17 interceptions.
Clearly, the three above years show Glenn can perform at a high level. But Glenn has been far from a model of consistency. In between those great years lies three not-so-good years in 2006, 2008 and 2011.
In 2006, Glenn regressed, throwing for less yards and touchdowns, despite playing in more games. He threw less interceptions, but his TD-to-INT ratio was 17:13, while it was 27:17 the year before. It was a typical sophomore slump, and has been pointed out, he rebounded in 2007.
His 2008 season could be dismissed because he was coming off an injury and was bound to regress following a stellar campaign the year before. But the regression was steep and ended up costing him his job in Winnipeg. He landed in Hamilton in 2009, had a good year as a backup and sometime starter, but he really took off in 2010.
Then 2011 came and Glenn fell back down to Earth once again. His numbers fell across the board and he was platooned with backup Quinton Porter at the end of the season. That explains the lower number of yards and touchdowns (as does a more efficient red zone offense that saw Quinton Porter score nine rushing touchdowns), but if he had played like he did in 2010, there never would have been a platoon in the first place.
So what does this mean? Well, if the past is any indication, Glenn is due to follow up an unspectacular 2011 with a great 2012. If Glenn is given another chance to lead the Tiger-Cats, his personal performance history shows that the team and its fans should expect something akin to 2005, 2007 or 2010 as opposed to 2006, 2008 or 2011.
Kevin Glenn is not the best Quarterback and he is clearly not the most consistent, but his history shows that he follows up bad years with good ones and good ones with bad ones. Since 2011 was a bad year, 2012 should be a good one.
This might be something the Tiger-Cats should think about before they decide to part ways with Glenn.
While I will admit that I am probably fighting a losing battle and Glenn will be replaced and probably by Henry Burris. I still think a case can be made – and I believe I made it – as to why the Hamilton Tiger-Cats should keep Kevin Glenn for 2012.
If football is the ultimate team sport (and I agree with that) and QB play is not the biggest factor in team success, I think we need to look at what may have changed on those teams where Glenn had so much success compared to the ones where he did not.
ReplyDeleteJust thinking about the Ticats, two big factors in 2011 included poorer offensive line play (Glenn didn't have the time he needed often enough), rookie receivers who made some key mistakes (costing yards, at least one TD, INTs, and possibly a few wins), and our running game was abandoned too early many games. Offensive execution overall was off, and Glenn's not the type of QB who can compensate for the mistakes of others.
I suspect if you look at Winnipeg's 2008 team, a year they went 8-10 and only scored more points than the Argos (and just fewer than the 3-15 Cats), there may have been offensive issues that probably dragged his performance down.
I agree with you, that I would keep Glenn over bringing in Burris.
ReplyDeleteI think another reason to keep him over Burris is salary. I could be wrong since I do not know exact figures, but I think we would be saving thousands to spend elsewhere on this team.
What are your thoughts on McPherson in Black & Gold?
Ryan: If the team is to move on at QB, I'd prefer McPherson over Burris. In fact, I'd argue that McPherson has a very similar skill set to a young Burris. McPherson has a cannon arm and is very mobile, those are the two hallmarks of Burris's game (though I think those skills have eroded).
ReplyDeleteMy preference is to keep Glenn, but if the team is steadfast in moving forward with someone else, I'd take McPherson over anyone else that is available.
McPherson does come with some questions, chiefly among them being if he can produce over a full season. There would be growing pains, but I think in the long term, McPherson would be a wise investment.
Glenn is a .500 QB like you said. That's what he is. In his career, he is a .500 QB. If he's here next year, we'll be 9-9.
ReplyDeleteBurris is a lateral move but I think it's necessary. We need new blood at QB. Neither Glenn or Porter has taken the reigns and run away with the job.
I too would prefer McPherson but if we get Burris for a year and trade for McPherson, I would be all for it.
Glenn is just an average QB. Burris does at least run. I think we have a better shot with Burris than Glenn for next year or maybe 2 years.
I know you love Glenn but I think you gotta take a step back.
Inconsistent is his middle name.
At the end of the day, you are trying to use stats to prove your point. I understand where you are going but there is only 1 thing that means anything. SCOREBOARD! That's it. Glenn's scoreboard is .500. Burris is MOP, GC Champ, etc, etc.
Sure you can't look at the past as every year is different but the past is what your reputation is based on. Is Timmy Chang going to come back and light it up? No.
Burris has proven that he is a better QB than Glenn.
The Cats cannot stand pat at QB. Obie should have been fighting tooth and nail for Ray.
I think you may have missed the point. You are focusing on one stat: wins. You can't place a win or a loss on any one player. Did you click on the link I provided regarding judging QBs based on wins? If not, you should. It is a good read and shows the fallacy of using that as a factor in judging a QB.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you want to judge the past, look at where Burris was the last month and a half of the season: on the bench. If Burris is done in one city, why would he come to Hamilton and light it up?
I also think you are being generous in saying that Burris has a year to two left. The Burris I saw last season was one that looks to have nothing left.
How did Glenn not "run away with the job" in 2010? Yes, his 2011 wasn't his best season, but my whole point is that Glenn does that. He runs hot and cold. He can have years where he goes for 5,000-plus yards and years where he looks very ordinary. Based on his history, 2012 will be a magnificent year for him.
Glenn played well in 2010 but what was our record?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately QB is THE most important position. Yes, football is a team game but at the end of the day, there is only 1 stat that means anything. Wins. You can't deny it.
I find that people tend to use stats to defend someone who really isn't that good.
All I see from you is, yeah but.
Roy Halladay played on some terrible Blue Jays team that gave him no run support. He was still a 15 win pitcher every year.
Peyton Manning has averaged 10+ wins every year and without him this year, look at the Colts.
I'm sorry but Glenn is part of the problem, not the solution.
Glenn threw for 5,000 yards in 2010 but that still only got us 9 wins.
Going back to you stats about the playoffs. Even though AC threw 500 yards in the ESF and lost, I bet he wouldn't have laid an egg in Winnipeg the next week.
Glenn is like Katy Perry, hot and cold.
Do I think Burris is the answer? Hell no. He didn't look that great in his last few starts but what we need here is a change.
We need a QB change. We have to change the culture.
Fans aren't accepting the same old, same old.
I know you like Khari but it's time to get a whole new coaching staff and give our offense a brand new look. Our offense has looked the same for the past 6 years.
The Cats are too slow to the table. The Argos got the 2 guys, Milanovich and Ray, that could have put our team over the top.
We are now stuck with probably another rookie head coach. (yes Milanovich is a rookie HC but I think he has the tools to be successful) Burke is the guy I want now but why didn't Obie make a move sooner?
If Glenn is at QB next year, we will have 9 wins. That what he is and that's what he'll always be.
Again, you are judging a QB by wins. If that is the basis of your whole argument, there is nothing to debate because the whole point I am trying to make is don't judge a QB by wins. But you keep going back to that. Yes, wins are the most important thing, but that isn't solely on the QB. If wins is all that matters, I guess Tim Tebow is the second-best QB in the NFL right now and Buck Pierce was the second-best in the CFL last season. Neither of those things are true.
ReplyDeleteIf Glenn throws for 5,000 yards and the team won 9 games, why does the blame lie solely with him? You bring up Peyton Manning. His career playoff record is 9-10 (as the article I linked to stated), I guess that means he's not a very good QB because he loses in the playoffs more than he wins. I guess the Colts should ditch him and find someone else. And before you say that is silly, remember, we're talking about wins. Manning is a great regular season QB, but clearly he is a terrible playoff one. Do you see how silly the QB-wins argument is?
And baseball is a much different game than football, so whether Roy Halladay could win despite an inferior team is irrelevant to this discussion. Also, baseball has been moving away from wins in deciding who the best pitchers are. See Felix Hernandez's 2010 Cy Young season as proof.
Calvillo probably wouldn't have thrown up an egg in the East Final, but if you recall, Glenn didn't either. He was 13 for 18 for 113 yards and the score was 10-3 at halftime. That's important because he missed the entire second half with a knee injury. Yet, for some reason, the loss is on his him? That's ridiculous.
Every coach that has been hired this year is a "rookie head coach." Your comments make me feel like you are angry at the team. You assume that Milanovich would have put the Cats over the top; why do you feel that way? Why can Burke or Dickenson or any other coach not do the same? Is it because Milanovich has a track record? Well, he didn't take Anthony Calvillo, Jamel Richardson, S.J. Green, Josh Bourke and Brandon Whitaker with him, so we'll see how good he really is.
So if Glenn isn't the answer AND Burris isn't the answer, then you're simply making change for the sake of change. That is a recipe for disaster.
You want to hang the Cats' failures solely on Glenn, but he's not the only person that contributed to the 9-9 records. But I think you're missing my point and would rather blame Glenn. So be it. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise, so keep blaming one guy. He probably won't be in Hamilton next year, so you'll have to find someone else to blame everything on.
I am just like you. I am a huge fan of Kevin Glenn and Henry Burris. I am a Stampeders fan and a closet Hamilton fan.
ReplyDeleteBoth Burris and Glenn are great for the CFL on and off the field. Tireless in their communities, they are.
It's hard to believe that their best days are behind them. My Stampeders are doing the right thing. Hamilton, on the other hand has a tougher decision and you're lucky to have Mr. O'Bilovich to make it. I would love to see Burris in a starting position but not necessarily at the expense of Glenn....and we all know that you can't have both those guys.
Not much talk about Quinton Porter...is he finished as the "next one"?
We all know that Tebow and Pearce aren't the 2nd best QBs in their respective leagues.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that baseball is starting to judge awards differently but that's because baseball is an idividual sport and very stat driven. It's the new stats for pitchers that they are looking for.
Sometimes you do put up good numbers but still lose. Are there other factors that go into it? Yes there is. Neither the Als or Cats deserved to lose that game but someone did.
Unfortunately the only stat that matters is wins and loses. Period.
If Glenn only had a couple season in the CFL with the Cats then you could say, yeah, he could be better but his body of work indicates that he's a .500 QB. You can sit down and disect every lose and point out plays that could effect the outcome of the game.
Good QBs win, Average QBs are .500 and bad QBs lose.
To prove how bad the Cats were this year, just imagine if the Argos had scored 1 more touchdown in August. The Cats would have missed the playoffs. Yes, the Cats wouldn't have done that stupid 2 QB system at the end but it's a fine line and the Argos didn't have great QBing. What does that say about Glenn and the Cats?
In all honestly, I do like Glenn but it is time for a change. We know what we can get out of him.
I am glad Khari Jones is a free agent as his play calling was suspect.
I want the Cats to be pointed in a new direction.
Is Glenn or Burris or Porter the answer? No, I don't think so but we may have a year or two of one of them.
I think the Cats missed the boat with Milanovich. An offensive guy who has been successful in the league. Sure it's with AC but he's developed a lot of receivers.
As for the Eastern Final, Glenn was not moving the ball. 100 yards in a half and never close to a threat? He wasn't playing well. The Cats should have destroyed the Bombers. They put up 54 against Montreal and put up 3 against Winnipeg? Give me a break.
The playoff games defined both MB and KG. Geniuses one week, doufuses the next. Inconsistent play.