Chicago Bears asked Mike Glennon To Be At Team's Draft Party

[Restored]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/bears-asked-mike-glennon-soldier-field-draft-party-traded-replacement-180233682.html

 

Just wow. I realize nothing is guranteed in the NFL and Glennon had to think the team would take a QB at some point in the draft but geez.

[ReMeDy]

Hmm, something tells me Mike Glennon isn't going to take kindly to mentoring his replacement.

[oldunclemark]

.they also said that John Fox found out about the pick when he saw it on TV like everybody else

[Synthetic]

1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:

.they also said that John Fox found out about the pick when he saw it on TV like everybody else

 

 

John Fox is not a bad coach, but they're setting him up to be the fall guy. After all, Chicago did fire the only other coach in their history who got them to the SB after posting a 10-6 record in a rare year where 10-6 didn't get you a wildcard playoff appearance. 

[Qwiz]

3 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

.they also said that John Fox found out about the pick when he saw it on TV like everybody else

That's terrible. Mitch could be a good QB, but his selection has the Bears looking silly. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

Glennon is good enough to keep the Bears from being n a position to draft a highly valued QB next year.  So they 'rented' Glennon's services for 2017 and took a QB this year that's in need of a year of work before he is ready for NFL duty.

 

That the Bears did this did not catch me off guard.  That they gave up so much just to move up one spot very much did catch me off guard.  This means they had "one guy" targeted, and were afraid someone would leapfrog them and take the guy; real or imagined.

 

I mentioned this before, Glennon will likely price himself out of being our backup, and will look to land on a QB needy team next year.  He now knows he is auditioning for a starting gig somewhere else next year.  He will not let Trubisky beat him out in camp, or the starter job (unless injury factors in) this year.  Trubisky needs the season to refine his QB skills anyway.  I think the bears know they can't rush this kid onto the field (like Jeff Fisher knew Jared Goff could not be rushed onto the field, and he was a #1 overall draft pick!) for fear of ruining him a la Tim Couch, David Carr, etc...

[csmopar]

Chicago is much closer after the draft to being on the same level as the Browns for the next decade then they are making the playoffs..

[King Colt]

The Bears gave up a lot for Trubisky but they are a lousy team that has never ever had a great offense much less a great QB. I like what they did in that it shows balls because they can only get better and if it takes thinking outside the box then so be it. I grew up in Chicago as a Colts fan and disliked the Bears but loved Gayle Sayers. The Bears were the most cut and dry, no imagination team in the league.  If, and I say if Trubisky pans out to be one of the best it will light up the Bears fans and hopefully they can build on him. The Packers have been king of that division for decades and the Bears fans wear it like a ball and chain.   

[Superman]

9 hours ago, King Colt said:

The Bears gave up a lot for Trubisky

 

They didn't even really give up that much. They gave up #3, #67, and #111, and next year's third. 

 

Houston gave up #25 this year, and a first next year. The difference is basically that people like Watson more than they like Trubisky, at least given their respective draft positions.

 

If you think the QB is the right QB for you -- and obviously the Bears at least HOPE Trubisky is their guy -- then the value of that trade holds up. It's relatively cheap, in comparison with what the Rams and Eagles gave up last year. 

 

And everyone knew Mike Glennon was a stopgap, including Mike Glennon. Assume he's the starter this year, and it allows them to take their time with Trubisky (which is what all these teams should be doing with young QBs, in general, especially this year). 

 

I really don't get all the criticism. I didn't think they needed to trade up, but it doesn't sound like they were the only team that wanted Trubisky. The Niners played it well, but if the Bears have their QB -- and none of us knows the answer to that, tbh -- they will have won this trade.

[oldunclemark]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

They didn't even really give up that much. They gave up #3, #67, and #111, and next year's third. 

 

Houston gave up #25 this year, and a first next year. The difference is basically that people like Watson more than they like Trubisky, at least given their respective draft positions.

 

If you think the QB is the right QB for you -- and obviously the Bears at least HOPE Trubisky is their guy -- then the value of that trade holds up. It's relatively cheap, in comparison with what the Rams and Eagles gave up last year. 

 

And everyone knew Mike Glennon was a stopgap, including Mike Glennon. Assume he's the starter this year, and it allows them to take their time with Trubisky (which is what all these teams should be doing with young QBs, in general, especially this year). 

 

I really don't get all the criticism. I didn't think they needed to trade up, but it doesn't sound like they were the only team that wanted Trubisky. The Niners played it well, but if the Bears have their QB -- and none of us knows the answer to that, tbh -- they will have won this trade.

No, they gave up the chance to pick any defensive player in the country..and they badly need defensive help.

They also don't have a left tackle

 

They gave up 3 picks for a guy who will sit out the first year. They've already said Glennon will start..and Trubisky isn't ready.

 

Plus they didn't need to give up 3 picks to move up..Nobody else. was going to take him.

Either Glennon is a $15 mil backup or the Bears gave up four future  players to get a clipboard holder.

Its the worst draft day trade I've ever seen

[Superman]

27 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

No, they gave up the chance to pick any defensive player in the country..and they badly need defensive help.

They also don't have a left tackle

 

They gave up 3 picks for a guy who will sit out the first year. They've already said Glennon will start..and Trubisky isn't ready.

 

Plus they didn't need to give up 3 picks to move up..Nobody else. was going to take him.

Either Glennon is a $15 mil backup or the Bears gave up four future  players to get a clipboard holder.

Its the worst draft day trade I've ever seen

 

The only position at which needs based drafting is defensible is QB. Given that the rest of your post is basically in exercise in needs based drafting, I don't know what else there is to say.

 

I don't know why people can't get past this short term thinking, especially with regard to QBs. Unless the Bears plan on dissolving their franchise in the next year, why would anyone think that the only way Trubisky can help them is if he starts right away? 

 

Also, you absolutely do NOT know that nobody else was going to take him. It's silly to pretend that you do.

 

The Browns gave up almost as much to move up one spot for Trent Richardson. 

[Yoshinator]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The only position at which needs based drafting is defensible is QB. Given that the rest of your post is basically in exercise in needs based drafting, I don't know what else there is to say.

 

I don't know why people can't get past this short term thinking, especially with regard to QBs. Unless the Bears plan on dissolving their franchise in the next year, why would anyone think that the only way Trubisky can help them is if he starts right away? 

 

Also, you absolutely do NOT know that nobody else was going to take him. It's silly to pretend that you do.

 

The Browns gave up almost as much to move up one spot for Trent Richardson. 

No one else was going to take him. If the Browns wanted him, they would of taken him at 1. If the 49ers were truly interested in him and thought he was a franchise QB, they would of taken him at 2. The reason I know that no else would of taken him is that Peter King was in the 49ers draft room and he said no one other than the Bears made an offer to move up for him. The Bears bid against themselves and made a stupid move. It would of almost been better giving up their 2nd round pick instead of 3 mid round picks just because of the talent they lost. Now they only had 5 picks in the draft, and they missed out on the the talent that fell out of the 1st round by trading down in the 2nd to recoup some picks, and they have no 3rd rounder next year.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

12 hours ago, King Colt said:

The Bears gave up a lot for Trubisky but they are a lousy team that has never ever had a great offense much less a great QB. I like what they did in that it shows balls because they can only get better and if it takes thinking outside the box then so be it. I grew up in Chicago as a Colts fan and disliked the Bears but loved Gayle Sayers. The Bears were the most cut and dry, no imagination team in the league.  If, and I say if Trubisky pans out to be one of the best it will light up the Bears fans and hopefully they can build on him. The Packers have been king of that division for decades and the Bears fans wear it like a ball and chain.   

I don't think two 3rd's and a 4th is too much to risk for a QB they think might be above average.

[oldunclemark]

50 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The only position at which needs based drafting is defensible is QB. Given that the rest of your post is basically in exercise in needs based drafting, I don't know what else there is to say.

 

I don't know why people can't get past this short term thinking, especially with regard to QBs. Unless the Bears plan on dissolving their franchise in the next year, why would anyone think that the only way Trubisky can help them is if he starts right away? 

 

Also, you absolutely do NOT know that nobody else was going to take him. It's silly to pretend that you do.

 

The Browns gave up almost as much to move up one spot for Trent Richardson. 

Youre overlooking what was done here.  Deal only with what happened...not the future hope that Trubirsky 'can help them...or that they could have drafted any other QB at '3' That's not the point.'

At a position where you can only play one player..the Bears spent $15 mil on that position and they traded 3 mid round picks for the right to move up one spot in the draft and take a player for the SAME position.

 

Forget the probability that they could have gotten Trubirsky with the 3 pick (we dont know anyone was going to draft Trubirsy at '2'.......so we don't know if  SF may have conned them)'

Unless the Bears plan on dissolving the franchise, they gave up 3 future players to get a player at a position they'd just spent $15 mil to fill...and passed on every defensive player in the draft except Myles Garrett.

Understand? The Bears defense is very weak but they gave away multiple pick chances and $15 mil in free agent cash to get help.

 

It doesnt matter how good Trubirsky is..they cant get those 3 picks back and they cant get the $15 mil back they could have spent on a LT or a CB for this coming season.

The Bears defense is starving for some beef and instead of buying steaks they spent their money on a baby calf.

 

[southwest1]

23 hours ago, Synthetic said:

 

 

John Fox is not a bad coach, but they're setting him up to be the fall guy. After all, Chicago did fire the only other coach in their history who got them to the SB after posting a 10-6 record in a rare year where 10-6 didn't get you a wildcard playoff appearance. 

I concur with you 100% Bogie. Fox is a solid HC as was Lovie Smith & it feels like Bears ownership railroaded them both. I couldn't agree more.

 

It still bothers me that Tampa Bay fired Lovie so quickly after 1 yr with Winston under center. Give the man a chance. 

[oldunclemark]

       They would not have fallen to 4-12 and 3-13 had Lovie stayed

[southwest1]

On May 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Restored said:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/bears-asked-mike-glennon-soldier-field-draft-party-traded-replacement-180233682.html

 

Just wow. I realize nothing is guranteed in the NFL and Glennon had to think the team would take a QB at some point in the draft but geez.

I heard Micheal Lombardi on the Rich Eisen Show say that with the new CBA rules & limiting practice in full pads how are you gonna give adequate reps to both QBs in Chicago now?

 

A dumb move. Why sign Glennon at all if you are gonna go after Mitchell Trubisky? 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, southwest1 said:

I heard Micheal Lombardi on the Rich Eisen Show say that with the new CBA rules & limiting practice in full pads how are you gonna give adequate reps to both QBs in Chicago now?

 

A dumb move. Why sign Glennon at all if you are gonna go after Mitchell Trubisky? 

Signing Mike Glennon is essentially a 1 year deal. After his first year, they can cut him if they want and only take a $4.5 million cap hit. It's mostly to get Trubisky ready to play in the NFL and have time to learn.

[oldunclemark]

I want Tribursky to do well.....I;ve never actually seem him on anything but highlights......but he seems like a project with a high ceiling.

...the problem is:  we needed a LT (and RT) and a CB and a safety and another edge rusher..and a wide receiver

 

....Bears had so many needs......what is Fox supposed to do with those holes ?

Edited May 3, 2017 by oldunclemark

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

I want Tribursky to do well

...but we needed a LT (and RT) and CB and a safety and another edge rusher..

 

....Bears had so nay needs......what is Fox supposed to do with those holes 

We? I thought you were a Colts fan. Are you a Bears fans just posting on this forum? You are supposed to draft defense in the best defensive draft in a long time and keep mid-round picks after you lost a lot of high end talent. Your team was depleted of talent.

[southwest1]

4 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

       They would not have fallen to 4-12 and 3-13 had Lovie stayed

Preach OUM! Preach! I've always been a huge fan of Lovie Smith, a guy with a really sharp defensive mind. 

 

It just bothers me that black head coaches get a shorter timeframe to prove their worth in the NFL than white coaches typically do. Other then the late Dennis Green in Minnesota or Mike Tomlin in Pittsburgh, African American coaches seldom get ample time to shine. 

 

Okay, Marvin Lewis has been in Cincinnati for a long time, but that's only because the Bengals owner is notoriously cheap. 

 

[oldunclemark]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

We? I thought you were a Colts fan. Are you a Bears fans just posting on this forum? You are supposed to draft defense in the best defensive draft in a long time and keep mid-round picks after you lost a lot of high end talent. Your team was depleted of talent.

I'm a fan of more than one team.

In Lake County Indiana up here....a lot of us are.....Bears and Colts fans

 

.....The Bears and Colts rarely meet.....its easy

[oldunclemark]

1 minute ago, southwest1 said:

Preach OUM! Preach! I've always been a huge fan of Lovie Smith, a guy with a really sharp defensive mind. 

 

It just bothers me that black head coaches get a shorter timeframe to prove their worth in the NFL than white coaches typically do. Other then the late Dennis Green in Minnesota or Mike Tomlin in Pittsburgh, African American coaches seldom get ample time to shine. 

 

Okay, Marvin Lewis has been in Cincinnati for a long time, but that's only because the Bengals owner is notoriously cheap. 

 

The Marvin Lewis thing doers blow up the black coach  theory...

...but Lovie's players were deeply committed to him..and he was fired after a 10-6 season?

 

No off-the field issues....no player revolt

Media really attacked him but they do that to all the coaches....

 

I still don't know why he was fired

[southwest1]

22 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Signing Mike Glennon is essentially a 1 year deal. After his first year, they can cut him if they want and only take a $4.5 million cap hit. It's mostly to get Trubisky ready to play in the NFL and have time to learn.

All true Jared. However, by picking Mitchell as high as the Bears did in the first round, even if Glennon out plays Trubisky; Mitchell will automatically be given the nod to start given all the draft ammo that Chicago gave up to go & grab him.

 

Translation: Glennon is screwed by virtue of where Trubisky was selected & the money he is guaranteed by the draft slot itself. In other words, the deck is stacked against Mike Glennon regardless of how well he plays in the Windy City. 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, southwest1 said:

All true Jared. However, by picking Mitchell as high as the Bears did in the first round, even if Glennon out plays Trubisky Mitchell will automatically be given the nod to start given all the draft ammo that Chicago gave up to go & grab him.

 

Translation: Glennon is screwed by virtue of where Trubisky was selected & the money he is guaranteed by the draft slot itself. 

In today's NFL, there's a very good chance that's true. Trubisky could start day 1, but he could also sit as well with a coach like John Fox who likes to go with the veteran more often. Trubisky only started 13 games in college, so I thik it's far from a guarantee he is the opening day starter this year. I would actually put my money on Glennon.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

No one else was going to take him. If the Browns wanted him, they would of taken him at 1. If the 49ers were truly interested in him and thought he was a franchise QB, they would of taken him at 2. The reason I know that no else would of taken him is that Peter King was in the 49ers draft room and he said no one other than the Bears made an offer to move up for him. The Bears bid against themselves and made a stupid move. It would of almost been better giving up their 2nd round pick instead of 3 mid round picks just because of the talent they lost. Now they only had 5 picks in the draft, and they missed out on the the talent that fell out of the 1st round by trading down in the 2nd to recoup some picks, and they have no 3rd rounder next year.

 

I don't think that's what Peter King said. In fact, King said the Niners had a call with another team before making the deal with Chicago. I think we know better that that Niners were not going to take Trubisky -- and we knew that all along -- than we know that no other team would come up to #2.

 

And still, the point is that if the Bears weren't certain, but they wanted him, they did the right thing in securing him. In their mind, this is their franchise QB. Go get him. I have no problem with that strategy.

 

I don't think as highly of Trubisky, but I'm just a guy on the Internet. I have no problem with them going up for their QB.

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think that's what Peter King said. In fact, King said the Niners had a call with another team before making the deal with Chicago. I think we know better that that Niners were not going to take Trubisky -- and we knew that all along -- than we know that no other team would come up to #2.

 

And still, the point is that if the Bears weren't certain, but they wanted him, they did the right thing in securing him. In their mind, this is their franchise QB. Go get him. I have no problem with that strategy.

 

I don't think as highly of Trubisky, but I'm just a guy on the Internet. I have no problem with them going up for their QB.

The Bears weren't certain for sure, it was impossible for them to know. Even so, I don't see the difference in someone like Trubisky, as opposed to Watson, Mahomes, or even Kizer (who they could of got in the 2nd round). Trubisky started all of 13 games in college. He's far from ready. Next year's QB class is much better. At best, they got their guy and overpaid for what maybe (and I say maybe) the best QB of a weak class. At worst, they passed on an elite defensive player and a similar QB later in the 2nd round in Kizer. Their class is weak, and they only got one player on defense in a strong defensive class. Other GM's were baffled at what the Bears did, that should be telling. It won't set the franchise back 5 years like the RGIII trade, but it'll put them behind the proverbial 8 ball.

[Superman]

58 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Youre overlooking what was done here.  Deal only with what happened...not the future hope that Trubirsky 'can help them...or that they could have drafted any other QB at '3' That's not the point.'

At a position where you can only play one player..the Bears spent $15 mil on that position and they traded 3 mid round picks for the right to move up one spot in the draft and take a player for the SAME position.

 

Forget the probability that they could have gotten Trubirsky with the 3 pick (we dont know anyone was going to draft Trubirsy at '2'.......so we don't know if  SF may have conned them)'

Unless the Bears plan on dissolving the franchise, they gave up 3 future players to get a player at a position they'd just spent $15 mil to fill...and passed on every defensive player in the draft except Myles Garrett.

Understand? The Bears defense is very weak but they gave away multiple pick chances and $15 mil in free agent cash to get help.

 

It doesnt matter how good Trubirsky is..they cant get those 3 picks back and they cant get the $15 mil back they could have spent on a LT or a CB for this coming season.

The Bears defense is starving for some beef and instead of buying steaks they spent their money on a baby calf.

 

 

Deal only with what happened...not the future hope that Trubirsky 'can help them.

 

That right there tells me that you don't really appreciate what the draft is. Forget about 2017. They hope Trubisky is their franchise QB for the next DECADE.

 

No one cares how much you spend on the QB position. That's been obvious since the Ravens made Joe Flacco the highest paid QB in the league. The Dolphins have a higher cap hit for Ryan Tannehill than the Bears will have for Glennon and Trubisky, combined. 

 

You MUST have a QB to compete. That's something the Bears haven't had and haven't done for a very long time. Glennon is their stopgap. You don't pass on the player you expect to be your franchise QB for the next decade because you just signed Mike Glennon. 

 

If anything, they improved their chances of actually developing their rookie QB by having a capable veteran in front of him.

 

And again, forget about needs. That's not what the draft is for. Unless it's your franchise QB. 

 

If Trubisky looks like Matt Ryan in a couple years -- which, again, is what the Bears obviously hope -- this consternation over their draft day trade will look awfully silly. And on the other hand, if he looks like Mark Sanchez, everyone criticizing them will feel vindicated. But the problem isn't with trading up for a QB, it will have been with their evaluation of this particular QB. If they really think he's the guy, I have no problem with their deal.

[southwest1]

28 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

The Marvin Lewis thing doers blow up the black coach  theory...

...but Lovie's players were deeply committed to him..and he was fired after a 10-6 season?

 

No off-the field issues....no player revolt

Media really attacked him but they do that to all the coaches....

 

I still don't know why he was fired

The funny thing about Marvin Lewis is this: He is able to retain his head coaching position despite lacking 1 playoff win under his belt, but if you removed his name from consideration as a longterm black NFL coach with at least a decade in tenure with 1 franchise, you'd be hard pressed to find another African American coach in the modern era who was given plenty of time to institute a division winning program though not including Mike Tomlin.

 

I think John Elway will give Vance Joseph every opportunity to succeed & thrive with money & resources at his disposal to win quickly. 

 

Getting back to Lovie Smith. Yes, he was well respected in every football locker room he ever coached in. He deserved at least 3 yrs in Tampa IMO.  

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The Bears weren't certain for sure, it was impossible for them to know. Even so, I don't see the difference in someone like Trubisky, as opposed to Watson, Mahomes, or even Kizer (who they could of got in the 2nd round). Trubisky started all of 13 games in college. He's far from ready. Next year's QB class is much better. At best, they got their guy and overpaid for what maybe (and I say maybe) the best QB of a weak class. At worst, they passed on an elite defensive player and a similar QB later in the 2nd round in Kizer. Their class is weak, and they only got one player on defense in a strong defensive class. Other GM's were baffled at what the Bears did, that should be telling. It won't set the franchise back 5 years like the RGIII trade, but it'll put them behind the proverbial 8 ball.

 

The evaluation of the player is a separate story, to me, as is the strength of this QB class in comparison with next year's. They might be dead wrong on him. That's happened before, and will happen again. 

 

But if they're right, if he winds up being a franchise level QB, then it illustrates perfectly why you give up some extra picks to get your guy. And relatively speaking, they didn't give up all that much. 

 

The 2014 draft class hits free agency next season. (I was going to use 2013, but that was maybe a historically bad draft class.) The 67th pick was Billy Turner, who was waived last season. Number 111 was Russell Bodine, an average at best starter. The Bears gave up a future third; the third round of the 2014 draft has as many flame-outs as regular starters.

 

We're acting like they gave up foundational picks, and they didn't. I think Rounds 2-4 can be super valuable, but these aren't sure thing, blue chip players. And if you don't have a QB, their value to your team is hard to pin down, because you aren't winning anything anyway. The Texans haven't drafted a QB in the first three rounds in over a decade, and it shows. At a certain point, you have to get your guy.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

No, they gave up the chance to pick any defensive player in the country..and they badly need defensive help.

They also don't have a left tackle

 

They gave up 3 picks for a guy who will sit out the first year. They've already said Glennon will start..and Trubisky isn't ready.

 

Plus they didn't need to give up 3 picks to move up..Nobody else. was going to take him.

Either Glennon is a $15 mil backup or the Bears gave up four future  players to get a clipboard holder.

Its the worst draft day trade I've ever seen

 

I think it's three future players,  not four.

 

They traded two 3's and a 4.

 

They didn't want to take the chance of another team doing a deal with SF so they played it safe by making the deal.      It won't look bad if Trubisky is ultimately a success.      It will only look bad if Trubisky flames out......

 

[southwest1]

21 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

In today's NFL, there's a very good chance that's true. Trubisky could start day 1, but he could also sit as well with a coach like John Fox who likes to go with the veteran more often. Trubisky only started 13 games in college, so I thik it's far from a guarantee he is the opening day starter this year. I would actually put my money on Glennon.

I agree with you on that Jared. Glennon has a good arm & can scramble a little bit when he has too. 

 

The problem for Chicago is this: What if Glennon lights it up his first yr & the Bears win a playoff game? I say that because you can only justify Trubisky warming the bench for really 1 season. So now, you have all this money in Mitchell & yet Glennon is balling out? Uh oh. You see the dilemma here. The cheap salary QB is out performing the heir apparent & now the club has to decide what's more important? Winning games or losing money as an expensive rookie sits & doesn't grow intellectually on the field? Hmmm...

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

The evaluation of the player is a separate story, to me, as is the strength of this QB class in comparison with next year's. They might be dead wrong on him. That's happened before, and will happen again. 

 

But if they're right, if he winds up being a franchise level QB, then it illustrates perfectly why you give up some extra picks to get your guy. And relatively speaking, they didn't give up all that much. 

 

The 2014 draft class hits free agency next season. (I was going to use 2013, but that was maybe a historically bad draft class.) The 67th pick was Billy Turner, who was waived last season. Number 111 was Russell Bodine, an average at best starter. The Bears gave up a future third; the third round of the 2014 draft has as many flame-outs as regular starters.

 

We're acting like they gave up foundational picks, and they didn't. I think Rounds 2-4 can be super valuable, but these aren't sure thing, blue chip players. And if you don't have a QB, their value to your team is hard to pin down, because you aren't winning anything anyway. The Texans haven't drafted a QB in the first three rounds in over a decade, and it shows. At a certain point, you have to get your guy.

Oh absolutely, you definitely have to get your guy. I actually think Patrick Mahomes is the best QB in this class, so I'm biased, and I also see Kizer as relatively close to Trubisky. Like your quote said, I'm maximizing value. Rather get Solomon Thomas/Jamal Adams and Kizer than Trubisky/Shaheen. My opinion though. The two 3rd round picks and the 4th are valuable to me because this is a deep class depth wise and next year's 3rd is still possibly a starter all on a weak roster. It was fair on the value chart though. They went with their board and we'll see if it works out. The day of hope, after the draft. I would of just played more towards the draft's strengths.

[Yoshinator]

2 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

I agree with you on that Jared. Glennon has a good arm & can scramble a little bit when he has too. 

 

The problem for Chicago is this: What if Glennon lights it up his first yr & the Bears win a playoff game? I say that because you can only justify Trubisky warming the bench for really 1 season. So now, you have all this money in Mitchell & yet Glennon is balling out? Uh oh. You see the dilemma here. The cheap salary QB is out performing the heir apparent & now the club has to decide what's more important? Winning games or losing money as an expensive rookie sits & doesn't grow intellectually on the field? Hmmm...

Glennon has a 3 year, $45 million dollar contract. It's frontloaded, but not cheap. If he does great and wins a playoff game, then they start him another year or try to trade him, simple as that. I don't see any way that the Bears make the playoffs though in the NFC and with so few improvements (especially if their 1st rounder doesn't play and the rest of the draft are just depth guys besides Shaheen).

[southwest1]

3 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Glennon has a 3 year, $45 million dollar contract. It's frontloaded, but not cheap. If he does great and wins a playoff game, then they start him another year or try to trade him, simple as that. I don't see any way that the Bears make the playoffs though in the NFC and with so few improvements (especially if their 1st rounder doesn't play and the rest of the draft are just depth guys besides Shaheen).

While I agree that GB under the helm of Aaron Rogers is problem the only team to make the playoffs in the NFC North & that the Bears in all likelihood won't make the post season; you gotta remember that Chicago fans will be resistant to trading Glennon after living through the disappointing Jay Cutler yrs. I know; I know. Owners make trades all the time or their GMs do at the suggestion of their boss not the fans themselves. 

 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, southwest1 said:

While I agree that GB under the helm of Aaron Rogers is problem the only team to make the playoffs in the NFC North & that the Bears in all likelihood won't make the post season; you gotta remember that Chicago fans will be resistant to trading Glennon after living through the disappointing Jay Cutler yrs. I know; I know. Owners make trades all the time or their GMs do at the suggestion of their boss not the fans themselves. 

 

Maybe so, but if it revitalizes his career and gets the Bears an early pick, you do that 100 out of 100 times with Trubisky in the wings, especially after the first year when most of Glennon's contract is out of the way.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Oh absolutely, you definitely have to get your guy. I actually think Patrick Mahomes is the best QB in this class, so I'm biased, and I also see Kizer as relatively close to Trubisky. Like your quote said, I'm maximizing value. Rather get Solomon Thomas/Jamal Adams and Kizer than Trubisky/Shaheen. My opinion though. The two 3rd round picks and the 4th are valuable to me because this is a deep class depth wise and next year's 3rd is still possibly a starter all on a weak roster. It was fair on the value chart though. They went with their board and we'll see if it works out. The day of hope, after the draft. I would of just played more towards the draft's strengths.

 

I absolutely agree with maximizing value, and I think the Niners did a masterful job of doing just that. But ideal draft theory kind of gets turned on its head when it's time to draft a QB. The Rams and Eagles did that last year. Washington did it for Griffin. Pretty soon, the Niners will probably do it for their guy.

 

I think the Browns did a good job of staying patient. If they can resist throwing Kizer out there before he's ready, they have a chance to develop their guy while their roster gets better. And because they haven't thrown a bunch of draft capital at the position yet, they can realistically still make a move for a franchise guy if they feel inclined to do so. 

 

Still, the draft's strengths are one thing, but if all the other QBs are awful, it doesn't matter to the Bears as long as Trubisky is what they think he can be. They're not worried about the fact that they could have had the 12th best corner in a deep corner draft, or the 20th best edge rusher in a deep edge rusher draft. In their minds, they got a franchise QB.

 

Of course, ff they're wrong, everybody goes. John Fox is probably on borrowed time anyway.

[Yoshinator]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I absolutely agree with maximizing value, and I think the Niners did a masterful job of doing just that. But ideal draft theory kind of gets turned on its head when it's time to draft a QB. The Rams and Eagles did that last year. Washington did it for Griffin. Pretty soon, the Niners will probably do it for their guy.

 

I think the Browns did a good job of staying patient. If they can resist throwing Kizer out there before he's ready, they have a chance to develop their guy while their roster gets better. And because they haven't thrown a bunch of draft capital at the position yet, they can realistically still make a move for a franchise guy if they feel inclined to do so. 

 

Still, the draft's strengths are one thing, but if all the other QBs are awful, it doesn't matter to the Bears as long as Trubisky is what they think he can be. They're not worried about the fact that they could have had the 12th best corner in a deep corner draft, or the 20th best edge rusher in a deep edge rusher draft. In their minds, they got a franchise QB.

 

Of course, ff they're wrong, everybody goes. John Fox is probably on borrowed time anyway.

I will say this, I don't blame them for going for it for the simple reason that they may not draft that high in a while. The future will tell if they're right. If they miss, then it will hurt something awful, for the simple fact that this particular draft probably improved every team in some way.

[oldunclemark]

4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

In today's NFL, there's a very good chance that's true. Trubisky could start day 1, but he could also sit as well with a coach like John Fox who likes to go with the veteran more often. Trubisky only started 13 games in college, so I thik it's far from a guarantee he is the opening day starter this year. I would actually put my money on Glennon.

I would, too.

...Glennon has already been named the starter for the season.

Unless he is injured, Fox will start him...There is so little pre-season camp...

 

That's the mistake...no matter what Trubisky does.....Bears needed talent on a  7-27 team (the last 2 years) and they passed on at least 3 other players (there is a chance they could have traded down, and picked more than 3 more players)....but they chose a guy who they had stated (before the draft) will start the season on the bench

 

..The Bears needed the a 3rd round corner or a 4th-round edge rusher and they could have drafted any other QB in the draft...or even traded down and drafted Trubisky

That's the point........they put a lot of chips on the table and then folded

[shakedownstreet]