Glennon Is A Week-To-Week Starting QB

Rise · Jun 27, 2017

Teddy KGB said:
Well, I've seen teams do it your "right way" and they seem to get all the press in April, but rarely a Superbowl, and more often than not miss the playoffs.

So with all due respect, I'll take Ryan Pace's way over your way. 2 prominent teams that do it the way Pace does? Green Bay Packers and New England Patriots, 2 teams that despite personal hatred for them, are always in the playoffs and contending for Superbowls.

So yeah, I'm glad we don't do it your way. From 2007 on, Jerry Angelo tried doing it your way, which is why we are in the mess we are in now...

What are you talking about? The Packers and Patriots have several comp picks every year, and almost always have 9-12 picks which is exactly what I am talking about. The difference is the Patriots have buy years (this year) and sell years, the Packers never have buy years. The Patriots also play the trade game which the Packers don't really do either.

You seem to be confused with what I am advocating for. I want to take advantage of compensation picks, and the fact that salary cap can roll over for a few years. You seem to think my only goal is signing a bunch of random FAs, that is not what I am saying at all.

https://overthecap.com/compensatory-draft-picks-cancellation-chart/

Please look at that and understand what we could of had, and not just this year.

Mdbearz · Jun 27, 2017

I'm ok with our situation, we have a vet that is young and could play well and a rookie that looks to be the best of his class.

Much better than the last eight years

Teddy KGB · Jun 27, 2017

Rise said:
What are you talking about? The Packers and Patriots have several comp picks every year, and almost always have 9-12 picks which is exactly what I am talking about. The difference is the Patriots have buy years (this year) and sell years, the Packers never have buy years. The Patriots also play the trade game which the Packers don't really do either.

You seem to be confused with what I am advocating for. I want to take advantage of compensation picks, and the fact that salary cap can roll over for a few years. You seem to think my only goal is signing a bunch of random FAs, that is not what I am saying at all.

https://overthecap.com/compensatory-draft-picks-cancellation-chart/

Please look at that and understand what we could of had, and not just this year.

Packers and Patriots have been drafting longer than the Bears successfully, and therefore as some of those players depart, they get the comp picks. Bears are at the very beginning of that process. Its going to take time to get there.

gpphat · Jun 27, 2017

xer0h0ur said:
How do you not understand a simple concept? If Glennon proves to be a competent enough starter then either we have a good albeit expensive backup quarterback behind Trubisky or you have an affordable starting quarterback to be traded to another team for a draft pick. Exactly how in the fuck did you read my posts and interpret them as Trubisky not ending up the starting quarterback at some point? Everyone knows this to be a mere matter of time.

The simple fact you keep harping on me calling Glennon an expensive insurance plan, and stating that isn't so because he is the starter and his salary compared to the rest of the league starters is at the bottom half. If you understood that it is a mere matter of time that Trubisky would be starting the expensive tag wouldn't matter, because (as you have stated) when Glennon is the backup he will be an expensive backup.

And you are making trading a backup QB who has been supplanted twice (once Trubisky inevitably becomes the starter) by rookies in his career would be an easy thing to do...trading backup QB's are not common place, so what makes you think there will be a market for Glennon? Because you are crossing your fingers that he somehow plays at a level where teams would be willing to give up picks for him?

Rise · Jun 27, 2017

Teddy KGB said:
Packers and Patriots have been drafting longer than the Bears successfully, and therefore as some of those players depart, they get the comp picks. Bears are at the very beginning of that process. Its going to take time to get there.

It isn't just based on drafting though but I hear what you're saying. You need other teams to sign your players for the comp picks to really roll in. That said in 2015 and this offseason we had opportunities to get a few mid round picks. They chose in both offseasons to instead sign a few middle of the road FAs. With a little planning they could have signed similar players over the previous two offseasons, not spent this offseason, and had picks.

Hope that makes sense. Now that said it doesn't mean Pace doesn't want to do this. I just won't buy into him until I see him successfully playing this game. Thats when we will know we have a winning GM.

modo · Jun 27, 2017

I think the main reason that the Bears signed Glennon was to get Trubisky. Re-signing Hoyer would let the other teams know that the Bears were getting a QB early.

By signing Glennon you signaled that you got a potential future QB and teams may not have thought that the Bears would draft their QB early.....Pace was so certain that he wanted Trubisky he played a long game on it.

The other "benefit" to signing Glennon over Hoyer is that their is a chance Glennon could be better and it would put the Bears in the potentially "good problem to have category".

Everyone knew what they had with Hoyer and it wasn't much.....Glennon may turn out to be worse, but the still have Trubisky.

I don't know the ins and the outs of Trubisky's situation, but I do believe he could be learning more playing under center right now.....If Trubisky starts to look and play better than Glennon, I believe the Bears will start him sooner rather than later.

gpphat · Jun 27, 2017

didshereallysaythat said:
It's easy to say that once you have Trubisky also.

But would you rather have overpaid for Bouye and have Hoyer starting with Barkley backing him up, or our current situation?

I want to be sure I am understanding this right:

Would I rather have Hoyer at $12M for 2 years and Barkley at $4M for 2 years with Bouye at CB or Glennon at $45M for 3 years and Sanchez at $2M for 1 year without Trubisky and the CB's we currently have?

gpphat · Jun 27, 2017

Rory Sparrow said:
I don't understand how Glennon could be basically a $15M "smokescreen" that allowed the Bears to acquire Trubisky, yet at the same time the Bears had to give away additional assets to move up 1 spot (perhaps unnecessarily) to get Trubisky. Even if Teddy KGB's draft day story is to be believed, how does the acquisition of Glennon allow Pace to omniscently know what other NFL teams are offering the Niners for their #2 pick (if anything)? Is Glennon some type of crystal ball? How would Pace have known that the other GMs assuredly would be thinking "The Bears are set at QB...they have Glennon on that 1-year guarantee"?

The acquisition of Glennon did not allow the Bears to 'play it cool' and let Trubisky fall into their laps...they still frantically tried to trade up...offering more...offering more...until the Niners accepted their offer and ended up getting the guy they wanted at #3.

Talk about an extremely bad strategy "let's give Glennon $18M guaranteed so we can trick the teams looking for a QB to think we won't draft one and then on draft day we trade up to get the QB we were setting the smoke screen for"

modo · Jun 27, 2017

Rory Sparrow said:
I don't understand how Glennon could be basically a $15M "smokescreen" that allowed the Bears to acquire Trubisky, yet at the same time the Bears had to give away additional assets to move up 1 spot (perhaps unnecessarily) to get Trubisky. Even if Teddy KGB's draft day story is to be believed, how does the acquisition of Glennon allow Pace to omniscently know what other NFL teams are offering the Niners for their #2 pick (if anything)? Is Glennon some type of crystal ball? How would Pace have known that the other GMs assuredly would be thinking "The Bears are set at QB...they have Glennon on that 1-year guarantee"?

The acquisition of Glennon did not allow the Bears to 'play it cool' and let Trubisky fall into their laps...they still frantically tried to trade up...offering more...offering more...until the Niners accepted their offer and ended up getting the guy they wanted at #3.

I think Glennon served two purposes....an expensive smoke screen, but also insurance.....Insurance if they could not get Trubisky and insurance if Trubisky does not work out....I think the smokescreen part was part of the plan, but sort of a happy coincidence.

According to Pace they targeted Trubisky a while ago and so Glennon, to me, was an insurance policy.

Yes the Bears did trade up, but Pace went all out to get his guy and prevented the Browns from drafting him 1....

Pace may not have needed to do this, but I don't think he wanted to fuck around at getting his guy.........right or wrong he went for broke without sweating the small stuff and spent a lot to minimize the risk.

gpphat · Jun 27, 2017

modo said:
I think Glennon served two purposes....an expensive smoke screen, but also insurance.....Insurance if they could not get Trubisky and insurance if Trubisky does not work out....I think the smokescreen part was part of the plan, but sort of a happy coincidence.

According to Pace they targeted Trubisky a while ago and so Glennon, to me, was an insurance policy.

Yes the Bears did trade up, but Pace went all out to get his guy and prevented the Browns from drafting him 1....

Pace may not have needed to do this, but I don't think he wanted to fuck around at getting his guy.........right or wrong he went for broke without sweating the small stuff and spent a lot to minimize the risk.

Are you saying because Pace signed Glennon it made the Browns lean more towards Garrett instead of Trubisky???

didshereallysaythat · Jun 27, 2017

Rory Sparrow said:
Interesting thread. Lots of talking points. But, IMO, its not that complicated. Its standard operating procedure for the Bears.

Trubisky doesn't get "better" by sitting on the bench, and he doesn't learn anything by not playing. On the other hand, you avoid "ruining" him by not playing him too early, but even that is illogical...like buying a 1963 Corvette but just keeping it under a tarp in your garage without every driving it.

Glennon is the nominal starter. He is taking practice reps away from Trubisky. This continued CCS idea of trading Glennon is nonsense...if he is as bad as Cutler, no one will want him. If he is actually good, then why would the Bears trade away the first good QB they've had in decades?

I view Glennon as a sunk cost. I remember Stephen Gilmore ripped Pace for his lowball FA offer. To say that Glennon's contract had no effect on other Bears' potential free agents is baseless.

Hoyer would have been the better option...cheaper, knows the system, knows he's a backup. With Glennon, the QB situation is muddled. It was like the Glennon signing was independent of the Trubisky pick, which I find to be astounding.

This idea that Glennon will either establish himself as the starter or will suck is funny. We all know how this is going to play out...Glennon will be annoyingly average, and Fox will waffle on any decision to play Trubisky. Does the Glennon signing help Trubisky in any way? No. Take that $15M and sign Alshon Jeffery to a deal and let Trubisky have at least one established NFL target for his rookie year.

And yes, as long as Trubisky remains a backup to Glennon of all people, I will consider him a "bust". You can't produce for your team from the bench.

I mentioned this to you a while ago and I never got a response.

I said that if Glennon plays like a top QB, we don't trade him. Instead we trade Trubisky and probably for more than a mere first rounder since we got him at number 2. The reason is not only that Glennon would at that point be more of a guaranteed thing, but also the contract. We would have a proven QB in Glennon playing in 2018 for pennies. In fact, we would probably have to rework his contract at some point in 2018.

didshereallysaythat · Jun 27, 2017

Rory Sparrow said:
And yes, as long as Trubisky remains a backup to Glennon of all people, I will consider him a "bust". You can't produce for your team from the bench.

That's fine. No one remembers Aaron Rodgers as a bust for 3 years from 2005 to 2007. They remember the MVP caliber years.

didshereallysaythat · Jun 27, 2017

gpphat said:
I want to be sure I am understanding this right:

Would I rather have Hoyer at $12M for 2 years and Barkley at $4M for 2 years with Bouye at CB or Glennon at $45M for 3 years and Sanchez at $2M for 1 year without Trubisky and the CB's we currently have?

That is correct. Would you?

didshereallysaythat · Jun 27, 2017

gpphat said:
Are you saying because Pace signed Glennon it made the Browns lean more towards Garrett instead of Trubisky???

Probably not although it made Adam Schefter think that, lol.

Teddy KGB · Jun 27, 2017

gpphat said:
Are you saying because Pace signed Glennon it made the Browns lean more towards Garrett instead of Trubisky???

Yeah, he kind of had me with him up until that point and then completely lost me.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

gpphat · Jun 27, 2017

didshereallysaythat said:
That is correct. Would you?

Yes I would rather have the Hoyer/Barkley combo over Glennon/Sanchez...Hoyer and Barkley have most recently run the current offense the Bears have under Loggains. Hoyer was at least somewhat efficient when he was running the offense and has recent starting experience. So yes I would much rather gamble on one of the best CB's last year to continue his top play then to hope Glennon potentially pans out without having Trubisky.

Trubisky makes the veteran FA QB a nonfactor.

gpphat · Jun 27, 2017

didshereallysaythat said:
That's fine. No one remembers Aaron Rodgers as a bust for 3 years from 2005 to 2007. They remember the MVP caliber years.

What HOF QB was Glennon sitting behind?

didshereallysaythat · Jun 27, 2017

gpphat said:
Yes I would rather have the Hoyer/Barkley combo over Glennon/Sanchez...Hoyer and Barkley have most recently run the current offense the Bears have under Loggains. Hoyer was at least somewhat efficient when he was running the offense and has recent starting experience. So yes I would much rather gamble on one of the best CB's last year to continue his top play then to hope Glennon potentially pans out without having Trubisky.

Trubisky makes the veteran FA QB a nonfactor.

Sorry but eventually you have to take a swing at a franchise level QB. I would rather have a sense of direction which I believe they have now.

didshereallysaythat · Jun 27, 2017

gpphat said:
What HOF QB was Glennon sitting behind?

That's not what he said though. He basically said that any QB sitting on the bench is a bust at that point.

Mongo_76 · Jun 27, 2017

didshereallysaythat said:
I mentioned this to you a while ago and I never got a response.

I said that if Glennon plays like a top QB, we don't trade him. Instead we trade Trubisky and probably for more than a mere first rounder since we got him at number 2. The reason is not only that Glennon would at that point be more of a guaranteed thing, but also the contract. We would have a proven QB in Glennon playing in 2018 for pennies. In fact, we would probably have to rework his contract at some point in 2018.

Glennon Is A Week-To-Week Starting QB

Well-known member

Well-known member

Cultural Icon

2020 CCS Fantasy Football Champ (ESPN League)

My favorite teams

Well-known member

Based

2020 CCS Fantasy Football Champ (ESPN League)

My favorite teams

2020 CCS Fantasy Football Champ (ESPN League)

My favorite teams

Based

2020 CCS Fantasy Football Champ (ESPN League)

My favorite teams

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Cultural Icon

2020 CCS Fantasy Football Champ (ESPN League)

My favorite teams

2020 CCS Fantasy Football Champ (ESPN League)

My favorite teams

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member