What are the Bears doing?

[oldunclemark]

You spend $15 mil a year on a QB..Mike Glennon....

..and then you give up low round picks to move up one spot and draft a QB

 

who sits?

The guy you guaranteed $15 mil for 2 years at least...

..or the guy you traded up to get?

 

If Glennon is good, what do you do with Trubisky  (I'll have to learn how to spell his name)

If Trubisky is good fast......your backup makes $15 mil

 

..and what about your needs at OT, WR, LB, safety, CB and DE?

....whats the plan here?

Edited April 28, 2017 by oldunclemark
spell

[jvan1973]

27 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

You spend $15 mil a year on a QB..Mike Glennon....

..and then you give up low round picks to move up one spot and draft a QB

 

who sits?

The guy you guaranteed $15 mil for 2 years at least...

..or the guy you traded up to get?

 

If Glennon is good, what do you do with Trubisky  (I'll have to learn how to spell his name)

If Trubisky is good fast......your backup makes $15 mil

 

..and what about your needs at OT, WR, LB, safety, CB and DE?

....whats the plan here?

I'm sure going into camp glennon will be the starter

[oldunclemark]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

I'm sure going into camp glennon will be the starter

I would agree....and I think they did say that before the draft...

But I thinks its crossed logic to bring in a guy who, in a best case scenario, wont start for 2 years....

...and in a worst case scenario, isn't ready to start, as is evidenced by the fact that you signed a 'bridge QB' to give him 2 years to learn.

 

[oldunclemark]

 

 

They need a left tackle badly....6 picks to go

[jvan1973]

12 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

I would agree....and I think they did say that before the draft...

But I thinks its crossed logic to bring in a guy who, in a best case scenario, wont start for 2 years....

...and in a worst case scenario, isn't ready to start, as is evidenced by the fact that you signed a 'bridge QB' to give him 2 years to learn.

 

It worked for aaron rodgers.   But I'm not sure the coach and gm last long enough to see him play if they wait two years

[dw49]

1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:

You spend $15 mil a year on a QB..Mike Glennon....

..and then you give up low round picks to move up one spot and draft a QB

 

who sits?

The guy you guaranteed $15 mil for 2 years at least...

..or the guy you traded up to get?

 

If Glennon is good, what do you do with Trubisky  (I'll have to learn how to spell his name)

If Trubisky is good fast......your backup makes $15 mil

 

..and what about your needs at OT, WR, LB, safety, CB and DE?

....whats the plan here?

 

There're OK here.

 

IF Glennon is good they just trade him. What you have messed up a bit is inferring that Chicago has "committed" 15 mill of cap space to Glennon for 2 years. 

 

Year one , you are correct . But year two if they cut or trade him , they are on the hook for only 4.5 mill if cut and only 2 mill if traded. So it was pretty much a 1 year deal as far as a commitment.

[Nesjan3]

21 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

It worked for aaron rodgers.   But I'm not sure the coach and gm last long enough to see him play if they wait two years

Yea Mike Glennon is no Brett Farvre, he may be forced into action before they intend him to be .

[ColtsBlueFL]

Glennon, will be good, but not great.  If the Bears do not get better at their needs, Glennon may be forced out by pressure from fans and upper management.

 

 

Mike Glennon is going to be a very good backup, but not a franchise QB or upper level starter, IMO..  That's why Tampa took Jameis Winston.  As long as the Bear compete well enough, Glennon will give time for Trubiskey to mature, and learn the  'system' without pressure- both to win and getting a pounding by NFL caliber defenders.  A look at Glennons contract shows the Bears have an easy out after one year.  Thus it is clear the Bears took Glennon as a rental. Unfortunately, his price puts him out of reach for Lucks backup in 2018.  :-(

 

 

[chad72]

Hibernating still  

[ColtsBlueFL]

^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^

[PrincetonTiger]

This is a real head scratcher 

[Qwiz]

It's a strange situation. Maybe they're following the Broncos blueprint to have the rookie sit and let the other guy show what he can do first. If it doesn't work, trade away Glennon to a team like the Browns. Otherwise, I'm not sure what Chicago's FO is getting at. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 4/28/2017 at 2:27 PM, PrincetonTiger said:

This is a real head scratcher 

 

It's not really. 

Trivia: Name the last Chicago Bears Hall of Fame franchise QB?  If you said Sid Luckman, you're a winner.  Not Since Luckman threw his last pass 64 years ago has Chicago had a HOF QB.  Yet, the Bears have more players Busts (statue kind) in the HOF than any other teams.  Except they also have more busts (Not the statue kind) at QB as well.  Check the pay rate for a decent lower tier QB (That's Glennon, and likely his ceiling) that has to start.  Think Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brock Osweiler types.. It's lofty

 

The Bears are gambling that taking Trubisky and training him up, and not having to toss him out there too early will end the QB drought, like the Cubs finally ended the World Series drought.  Glennon is a rental stopgap beyond Cutler to appease fans until Trubisky is ready, that's all.  And Chicago made Glennon an easy jettison from the team from 2018 onward if need be.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

It's not really. 

Trivia: Name the last Chicago Bears Hall of Fame franchise QB?  If you said Sid Luckman, you're a winner.  Not Since Luckman threw his last pass 64 years ago has Chicago had a HOF QB.  Yet, the Bears have more players Busts (statue kind) in the HOF than any other teams.  Except they also have more busts (Not the statue kind) at QB as well.  Check the pay rate for a decent lower tier QB (That's Glennon, and likely his ceiling) that has to start.  Think Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brock Osweiler types.. It's lofty

 

The Bears are gambling that taking Trubiskey and training him up will end the QB drought, like the Cubs finally ended the World Series drought.  Glennon is a rental stopgap beyond Cutler to appease fans until Trubiskey is ready, that's all.  And Chicago made Glennon an easy jettison from the team from 2018 onward if need be.

Trubisky won't sit as the #2 pick 

[ColtsBlueFL]

12 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Trubisky won't sit as the #2 pick 

 

I feel Trubisky doesn't automatically get the starting role, no more than Deshaun Watson does over Tom Savage.  They have to grasp the system and show the coaches more than the guy already on the roster, and they give the team a better chance at winning.  Trubisky sits until he can take the job from Glennon (IME, that is at least 8 games...probably more) unless Chicago loses their first 5 in a row and the fans grab their pitchforks and torches, like they did to Jeff Fisher and Jared Goff (he wasn't ready yet either).

 

To be fair, If Watson gets the playbook down quickly, Savage will be on the pine in an eyeblink.  Not so with Mitchell.  Or Mahomes. Or Kizer, Or Kaaya, or Davis Webb, or...  rest of 2017 QB class if their drafting team doesn't want to ruin them.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I feel Trubisky doesn't automatically get the starting role, no more than Deshaun Watson does over Tom Savage.  They have to grasp the system and show the coaches more than the guy already on the roster, and they give the team a better chance at winning.  Trubisky sits until he can take the job from Glennon (IME, that is at least 8 games...probably more) unless Chicago loses their first 5 in a row and the fans grab their pitchforks and torches, like they did to Jeff Fisher and Jared Goff (he wasn't ready yet either).

 

To be fair, If Watson gets the playbook down quickly, Savage will be on the pine in an eyeblink.  Not so with Mitchell.  Or Mahomes. Or Kizer, Or Kaaya, or Davis Webb, or...  rest of 2017 QB class.

KC will not start Mahommes until Reid thinks his is ready and/or Smith is done

 

I agree just not sure the Bears will be able to wait it out

[Mr. Irrelevant]

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Glennon, will be good, but not great.  If the Bears do not get better at their needs, Glennon may be forced out by pressure from fans and upper management.

 

 

Mike Glennon is going to be a very good backup, but not a franchise QB or upper level starter, IMO..  That's why Tampa took Jameis Winston.  As long as the Bear compete well enough, Glennon will give time for Trubiskey to mature, and learn the  'system' without pressure- both to win and getting a pounding by NFL caliber defenders.  A look at Glennons contract shows the Bears have an easy out after one year.  Thus it is clear the Bears took Glennon as a rental. Unfortunately, his price puts him out of reach for Lucks backup in 2018.  :-(

 

 

 

I get that they aren't high on Mike Glennon, but why not wait for next year's draft then? It is not like they are on the brink of a deep SB run. Isn't the next draft supposed to be better for QB's?

[ColtsBlueFL]

30 minutes ago, Mr Clueless said:

 

I get that they aren't high on Mike Glennon, but why not wait for next year's draft then? It is not like they are on the brink of a deep SB run. Isn't the next draft supposed to be better for QB's?

 

If they wanted to get a high QB next year, they would have to tank this year. My feeling is they think Glennon is good enough to keep them form getting a good draft pick next year.  Also, The knock on this years QB crop isn't ceiling, but experience and lack of transferable skills.  The top guys might be as good as anybody, just not as ready out of the box.  Next year crop appears to be more ready, and thus look like higher potential.  But QB is a weird bird.  If picking them were easy, all 32 teams would have a Tom Brady type on their team.they did.

 

Chicago wants their Franchise QB, and now. and trading up this year was likely their best chance to grab a decent prospect, so they did.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

1 minute ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

If they wanted to get a high QB next year, they would have to tank this year. My feeling is they think Glennon is good enough to keep them form getting a good draft pick next year.  Also, The knock on this years QB crop isn't ceiling, but experience and lack of transferable skills.  The top guys might be as good as anybody, just not as ready out of the box.  Next year crop appears to be more ready, and thus look like higher potential.  But QB is a weird bird.  If picking them were easy, all 32 teams would have a Tom Brady type on their team.they did.

 

Chicago wants their Franchise QB, and now. and trading up this year was likely their best chance to grab a decent prospect, so they did.

Out of likes, so good points.

[Buck Showalter]

Bears just falling for the oldest trick in the book...

That sneaky, sneaky John Lynch starting those rumors about the Browns doubling down...

[Buck Showalter]

Well Bears replenished some of their picks I guess...

[Synthetic]

 

They traded up one spot to draft a QB no one cared about. 

 

Trubisky has bust written all over him. Don't forget, this is the same team who fired the only other coach who got them to the SB cause he went 10-6 in a rare season where 10-6 didn't get you to the playoffs. They set themselves up to fail. 

[BOTT]

Bears are doing what the Bears do......suckin'

 

may the Bears organization rot in hell for eternity.

[Buck Showalter]

5 minutes ago, BOTT said:

Bears are doing what the Bears do......suckin'

 

may the Bears organization rot in hell for eternity.

Ha, that's a bit harsh no??? 

I mean, they did give the world the Super Bowl Shuffle...

[Dingus McGirt]

Trubisky will surprise...he will surprise - pleasantly for Bears fans.

[BOTT]

10 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

Ha, that's a bit harsh no??? 

I mean, they did give the world the Super Bowl Shuffle...

 

I even disliked Walter Payton

[Buck Showalter]

22 minutes ago, BOTT said:

 

I even disliked Walter Payton

Ha, I'm not surprised...

[Buck Showalter]

24 minutes ago, BOTT said:

 

I even disliked Walter Payton

Ha, I'm not surprised...

[oldunclemark]

12 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

There're OK here.

 

IF Glennon is good they just trade him. What you have messed up a bit is inferring that Chicago has "committed" 15 mill of cap space to Glennon for 2 years. 

 

Year one , you are correct . But year two if they cut or trade him , they are on the hook for only 4.5 mill if cut and only 2 mill if traded. So it was pretty much a 1 year deal as far as a commitment.

Maybe but the Bears lose either way..

.......They have glaring needs..left tackle is one...corner is another..

they have just spent a minimum of $17 mil AND the No. 2 pick in the draft for two guys at a positon where you can only play one..

 

If Glennon is Johnny Unitas, they still passed on every other player in the draft....and they have multiple rat holes in their roster...including that left tackle situation which is critical

If Tribusky is Otto Graham, we wont know because they paid for Glennon....they have already named him the starter.......plapu you gave up 2 draft choices to get a guy they could have picked at No. 3 anyway

 

....Aaron Rodgers was low first round pick on a good team...that isn't this

    This Bears move is a lose-lose proposition...

 

 

 

 

[oldunclemark]

5 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

Bears just falling for the oldest trick in the book...

That sneaky, sneaky John Lynch starting those rumors about the Browns doubling down...

I'm afraid you are right, Buck.

Bears bought the old Oke-Doke..and 'J' is right..this may cost the GM and old John Fox their jobs

[dw49]

14 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Maybe but the Bears lose either way..

.......They have glaring needs..left tackle is one...corner is another..

they have just spent a minimum of $17 mil AND the No. 2 pick in the draft for two guys at a positon where you can only play one..

 

If Glennon is Johnny Unitas, they still passed on every other player in the draft....and they have multiple rat holes in their roster...including that left tackle situation which is critical

If Tribusky is Otto Graham, we wont know because they paid for Glennon....they have already named him the starter.......plapu you gave up 2 draft choices to get a guy they could have picked at No. 3 anyway

 

....Aaron Rodgers was low first round pick on a good team...that isn't this

    This Bears move is a lose-lose proposition...

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying it was a good pick . I just made the point that they do not have a real cap issue with Glennon . It's pretty much a 1 year and see what happens kind of deal. You mentioned that they are committed to pay him around 15 mill for 2 years. That's not the case. 

[oldunclemark]

3 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

I'm not saying it was a good pick . I just made the point that they do not have a real cap issue with Glennon . It's pretty much a 1 year and see what happens kind of deal. You mentioned that they are committed to pay him around 15 mill for 2 years. That's not the case. 

You're missing the larger point...its lose-lose for the Bears what the final dollar amount is

If its just $17 mil or if its (more likely) $30 mil (Because Tribursky isn't ready to play by most all accounts)

...they spent a hunk of money on one guy and then spent the No.2 pick in the draft and 2 extra choices on another guy.

 

You can only play one QB at a time...and they passed on every other player in the draft or multiple players if you traded 'down'

 

Bears GM created a no-win scenario

[dw49]

45 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

You're missing the larger point...its lose-lose for the Bears what the final dollar amount is

If its just $17 mil or if its (more likely) $30 mil (Because Tribursky isn't ready to play by most all accounts)

...they spent a hunk of money on one guy and then spent the No.2 pick in the draft and 2 extra choices on another guy.

 

You can only play one QB at a time...and they passed on every other player in the draft or multiple players if you traded 'down'

 

Bears GM created a no-win scenario

 

 

Why is it 30 million if Tribursky sits a year behind Glennon ? Please show me that one. There's nothing wrong with paying a starting QB around 15 mill while a high draft pick sits behind him for a year. It's a 17 mill hit for the year Glennon plays and Tribursky sits. If Glennon is Glennon , they just cut him and eat 4.5 mill in salary cap in 2018. If somehow Gennon plays well , they can trade him as his salary is not crazy high for 2018. Add to that Tribursky's approx 6 mill cap cost for 2018 and 2018 QB cost is around 10 mill. Then goes to 6 mill in 2019. 

 

I have no idea where you are getting Glennon will cost 30 mill if Triburski sita a year. You just keep saying the same incorrect thing. Now do I think the Bears made a smart move  ? No . They way over drafted Tribursky and paid way way way too much to move up one spot. 

[buccolts]

14 hours ago, Nesjan3 said:

Yea Mike Glennon is no Brett Farvre, he may be forced into action before they intend him to be .

 

And Trubiskey is no Aaron Rodgers, so there's that...

[buccolts]

What are the Bears thinking?

"Boy, wasn't 1985 great?"

[buccolts]

3 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

Ha, that's a bit harsh no??? 

I mean, they did give the world the Super Bowl Shuffle...

 

You should ban youself just for mentioning that.  

[oldunclemark]

16 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

Why is it 30 million if Tribursky sits a year behind Glennon ? Please show me that one. There's nothing wrong with paying a starting QB around 15 mill while a high draft pick sits behind him for a year. It's a 17 mill hit for the year Glennon plays and Tribursky sits. If Glennon is Glennon , they just cut him and eat 4.5 mill in salary cap in 2018. If somehow Gennon plays well , they can trade him as his salary is not crazy high for 2018. Add to that Tribursky's approx 6 mill cap cost for 2018 and 2018 QB cost is around 10 mill. Then goes to 6 mill in 2019. 

 

I have no idea where you are getting Glennon will cost 30 mill if Triburski sita a year. You just keep saying the same incorrect thing. Now do I think the Bears made a smart move  ? No . They way over drafted Tribursky and paid way way way too much to move up one spot. 

Its 30 mil if he sits 2 years ... ....and you're again missing the point

 

I'll try again. The point is...again....its a no-win scenario for the Bears

Glennon is committed to start.....They must pay him and they passed on every other player in the draft.

You cant play 2 quarterbacks....they gave up 2 extra picks and maybe more had they traded down

They were 3-13 last year and have multiple holes to fill

But now, either their highest draft choice or their No.1 free agent will sit out every game this year

Whether Glennon is good or bad..the Bears lost money or talent either way...Understand?

 

 

[oldunclemark]

dw aint here to cause no trouble!

 

He's just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle!!

[dw49]

9 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Its 30 mil if he sits 2 years ... ....and you're again missing the point

 

I'll try again. The point is...again....its a no-win scenario for the Bears

Glennon is committed to start.....They must pay him and they passed on every other player in the draft.

You cant play 2 quarterbacks....they gave up 2 extra picks and maybe more had they traded down

They were 3-13 last year and have multiple holes to fill

But now, either their highest draft choice or their No.1 free agent will sit out every game this year

Whether Glennon is good or bad..the Bears lost money or talent either way...Understand?

 

 

 

[dw49]

5 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

dw aint here to cause no trouble!

 

He's just here to do the Super Bowl Shuffle!!

 

 

We're cool .. Just deleted the response I had written which wasn't nice. BTW... we do agree that the Bears totally botched their draft..