Alaskan Grizzly

Hell, McMahon and Grossman both led our team to the Super Bowl, so there is that. I'm with you though Brad, not excited for the next chapter in QB...not yet anyhow.

They tried (I believe) the last two years but got no takers.

I drank all mine after I head Cutler was leaving. (Lolo). But youre right, may need to invest in a new stockpile. Do they sell Laughivilan(sp?) in bulk like at Costco? I'm not a totally worried just yet, they still have Fox there so I have some faith. But like I asked a few weeks ago I'm really starting to wonder what Pace's strategy is. With all this Cap space I thought for sure we'd be filling some of the middle sized holes, not making them bigger! Aye carumba!

I feel, with Glennon, there is a potential for as much down side as there is upside. I sure hope they still draft another.

Meh

I'm done with it. Sorry to have added to the hijacking of this thread. We're past it now and onto a new era. The Mike Glennon era...?

Here we go again, the ongoing 'it's everything but Jays fault' argument. Just because I'm curious I looked up "good Qbs with bad olines" and found this: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/06/ranking-nf...-patriots-brady Here are a few names from this article with their particular olines and where they ranked going into last season. With each name I put up I would add not always are they (QB) successful but the team, despite their Oline ranking. Brady - 26th, A. Smith - 20th, Tannehill/Dolphins - 27th, J. Winston - 21st, R. Wilson - 30th, E. Manning - 25th, Mariota - 32nd, Luck - 28th. So you see, it isn't so difficult to find a successful QB/team after all. (and I didn't add Rodgers). If Jay signs on with another team and LEADS that team to the playoffs and the Super Bowl, I'll eat crow. Until then I wish him the best in whatever he does next.

I don't think this is about settling on the journeyman backup. It's certainly not about falling in love with him. (Not for me anyhow). Hoyer just made the most sense since he was here last year and had worked with Loggains before. I think the majority agree that a QB needs to be drafted. The question is whomever that is; whether drafted earlier or later, probably won't be ready to start. Thus the discussion of having a veteran in place for the "bridge" to whenever that rookie is ready to play. Personally I'd like to see 3-4 QB in an open competition for the starting position. Whether it's Glennon at this point, Shaw, Barkley and a draft pick I just want the best that will come from that . Glennon should not be guaranteed the job if he signs.

Id still prefer they have at least one other veteran. Unfortunately, justified or no Shaw has an injury history going back to college. Nothing chronic it appears. Just bad luck.

Well crap (about Hoyer not Taylor). They must not be having any luck in dislodging Cousins from Wash. Read they were looking at getting Garçon too.

Hmmm. Good question. If for nothing else maybe it'll help the Bears from overpaying for Glennon if they are bound and determined.

Rather than rehash the last 10(?) years of this topic I'll say; 'tomato / toMAHto' and I mean that as we pinpoint problems on the team for different reasons yet knowing there are (were) in fact, problems.

Anthony Becht the former Tight End? That would be like having Martellus Bennett weigh in on Cutler...oh wait. If they sign him (Glennon) to a deal, I hope he does prove his worth as a starter, if only for the short term. Of those who will potentially be on the roster (and depending on who they draft for the position) my money's on Shaw winning the job.

That's almost a 'double negative' sentence. Have we ever agreed on anything?

I think the better alternative (IMHO) would be to try and keep Hoyer AND draft a rookie QB. With Hoyer you have the known of not only how he'll perform while in Chicago but has worked with Loggains system more than just in Chicago. And he could be had for virtually the same deal (or better) than Glennon. When I speak of unknowns, I'm comparing Glennon with Hoyer and either being in Chicago. Not a rookie.

I'm curious of this "upside" you speak of. . Isn't that what the Texans said last year?

The only way I'll like this is if they draft a QB this year. There are way too many unknowns with Glennon to consider him "starter" quality. The guy hasn't even played for a few years and there don't appear to be anyone else after his services. We'll definitely need other options besides Shaw.

Not sure I understand the logic in this. You have a 'known' with a Hoyer on the team but you're willing to spend that type of money (1 year deal or no) on a relative 'unknown' in Glennon. And that doesn't consider the guy hasn't played for 2-3 years? And there are no other suitors to boot? That should tell you something. This makes almost zero sense to me. Granted I'm intrigued in Glennon but not enough to cobble this type of deal.

Is it me or does this draft analysis list more negatives than positives?

I chose the Hoyer option but would say 'draft a 1st (or later) round' QB and make it an open competition with Hoyer, Shaw (maybe even Barkley) and the rook. Why not?

Isn't his style of coaching similar to his dad's? To me Cutler would make more sense(?) since he had some success under Shanny Sr. But perhaps Hoyer makes more sense since he actually witnessed his play calling first hand. Same could be said for Loggains. Guess we'll see.

So in reading more up on this and knowing they 'spent' big on Massie last year, I see Pace had an escape clause in place. Maybe Pace knows what he's doing after all? http://bearswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/07/b...e-ricky-wagner/

Wasn't sure who this was reference to but it appears to be Patterson. Hmmm.... http://bearswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/07/b...elle-patterson/

Maybe still a little high but this (to me) makes more sense.