Bears said to be interested in Mike Glennon

[scs787]

Rapaport is reporting that the Bears are interested in Mike Glennon.

 

Probably won't be popular, but I have zero problem with this. You can still draft a QB in the 3-5 range(I'm falling for Peterman personally) and groom him a couple years. If Glennon grasps his potential then you can possibly put yourself in the position to trade him assuming your mid round draft pick pans out.

 

Continue to build a young strong defense early in the draft. I want Adams and Conley in the 1st 2 rounds.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Rapaport is reporting that the Bears are interested in Mike Glennon.

 

Probably won't be popular, but I have zero problem with this. You can still draft a QB in the 3-5 range(I'm falling for Peterman personally) and groom him a couple years. If Glennon grasps his potential then you can possibly put yourself in the position to trade him assuming your mid round draft pick pans out.

 

Continue to build a young strong defense early in the draft. I want Adams and Conley in the 1st 2 rounds.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't more 'smoke and mirrors'. A few weeks ago it was Garrapolo. Yesterday it was McCarron. Now this? Are they trying to throw others 'off the scent' of their intent to draft QB in the 3rd or are they legitimately looking at all these backups?

[madlithuanian]

'Tis the season for B.S...

 

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't more 'smoke and mirrors'. A few weeks ago it was Garrapolo. Yesterday it was McCarron. Now this? Are they trying to throw others 'off the scent' of their intent to draft QB in the 3rd or are they legitimately looking at all these backups?

 

[dawhizz]

One other possibility I'm starting to consider: Trevor Siemian. Let's say Romo goes to the Broncos (one of his rumored landing places). They already have their QB of the future in Paxton Lynch. So would they take a 2018 5th round pick for Siemian, which could be a 4th depending on starts/etc.? Isn't he just about at Glennon's level, plus you don't have to spend a ton of money on Mike Glennon (which would kind of hurt my soul), and you still have your pick of QBs in the draft if you want? Siemian does well, maybe you can flip him. He doesn't, all you've lost is a 5th round pick and you still have a competent back-up.

[adam]

It is definitely going to be someone no one is talking about, like Geno Smith.......

[Stinger226]

One other possibility I'm starting to consider: Trevor Siemian. Let's say Romo goes to the Broncos (one of his rumored landing places). They already have their QB of the future in Paxton Lynch. So would they take a 2018 5th round pick for Siemian, which could be a 4th depending on starts/etc.? Isn't he just about at Glennon's level, plus you don't have to spend a ton of money on Mike Glennon (which would kind of hurt my soul), and you still have your pick of QBs in the draft if you want? Siemian does well, maybe you can flip him. He doesn't, all you've lost is a 5th round pick and you still have a competent back-up.

If Romo goes there, there not going to get rid of Siemian. Romo has a history of injuries and then all there left with is Lynch which couldnt get on the field last year. He is cheap and already part of the system, if there seriously trying to get to the Super Bowl again, absolutely no reason to get rid of him.

[Stinger226]

It is definitely going to be someone no one is talking about, like Geno Smith.......

How about Nick Foles, he is scheduled to earn 6.75 mil this year and they cant afford him. (KC)

[bradjock]

How about Nick Foles, he is scheduled to earn 6.75 mil this year and they cant afford him.

 

Can we PLEASE just keep Cutler one more year? I get that he sucks but every QB mentioned, including Brian Hoyer, is way worse. Christ almighty. Let's just dump our bad QB for a worse one and let our #1 WR walk. WTF?

[Stinger226]

Can we PLEASE just keep Cutler one more year? I get that he sucks but every QB mentioned, including Brian Hoyer, is way worse. Christ almighty. Let's just dump our bad QB for a worse one and let our #1 WR walk. WTF?

That may be an option but this is a team on the rebuild, I honestly dont think there planning on being good next year. I think they need one more year.There is simply no good options at QB this year period. I like Jimmy G but he wont be available.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Can we PLEASE just keep Cutler one more year? I get that he sucks but every QB mentioned, including Brian Hoyer, is way worse. Christ almighty. Let's just dump our bad QB for a worse one and let our #1 WR walk. WTF?

It is starting to look like a good option even though it seems the bridges have been burned on the management/fans side. The best scenario will be the Bears getting first dibs on the QB of choice round 1. Some fans may not like it, but QB has to be taken either 3 or by 36, I'd rather not gamble on one not being there later.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

That may be an option but this is a team on the rebuild, I honestly dont think there planning on being good next year. I think they need one more year.There is simply no good options at QB this year period. I like Jimmy G but he wont be available.

That is why I do not see them firing Fox unless he really screws up. As we see now, they still have a couple years to go just to be in the mix.

[lemonej]

Glennon would be an option that I could be on board with but if we are going fishing why not a 5th round pick for not Jimmy G but Jacoby Brissett? Young enough to be developmental and has taken snaps in an NFL game.

[jason]

I don't know why everyone is so quick to throw away draft picks on guys who have either not have sufficient snaps in the NFL, aren't quality starters, and/or are relative unknowns who have been drafted late.

 

Glennon - No. He sucks.

Gacrapalo - No. He will cost too much, and the uncertainty of former NE QBs is too great.

Brissett - No. See above, except he's a 3rd stringer.

Romo - No. Will cost too much, will likely miss half the season.

Cutler - No. The bridge has been burned.

 

Look at the list of FA QBs, and cost/production ratio, there isn't a guy I would rather have than Hoyer.

 

The Bears would be better off resigning Hoyer.

 

Why is everyone down on Hoyer so much? Look at his stats!

 

In what amounts to 4.5 games (only played the 4th QTR of his first game, and the 1st QTR of his last game), he put up an average of 321 yards a game, 1.3 TDs a game, and most importantly ZERO interceptions a game. He had the stretch of the year where the Bears' WRs were relatively healthy, and he spread it around. The offense under his guidance outgained 3 of 4 opponents. He was not the main problem. The team just wasn't very good.

 

Extrapolate his performance for the year and it's pretty damn good. Even if you throw in a few INTs (because he won't have a clean slate), it still looks like over 4000 yards, 21 TDs, and a few INTs. I think any of us would take that in a heartbeat.

[adam]

I don't know why everyone is so quick to throw away draft picks on guys who have either not have sufficient snaps in the NFL, aren't quality starters, and/or are relative unknowns who have been drafted late.

 

Glennon - No. He sucks.

Gacrapalo - No. He will cost too much, and the uncertainty of former NE QBs is too great.

Brissett - No. See above, except he's a 3rd stringer.

Romo - No. Will cost too much, will likely miss half the season.

Cutler - No. The bridge has been burned.

 

Look at the list of FA QBs, and cost/production ratio, there isn't a guy I would rather have than Hoyer.

 

The Bears would be better off resigning Hoyer.

 

Why is everyone down on Hoyer so much? Look at his stats!

 

In what amounts to 4.5 games (only played the 4th QTR of his first game, and the 1st QTR of his last game), he put up an average of 321 yards a game, 1.3 TDs a game, and most importantly ZERO interceptions a game. He had the stretch of the year where the Bears' WRs were relatively healthy, and he spread it around. The offense under his guidance outgained 3 of 4 opponents. He was not the main problem. The team just wasn't very good.

 

Extrapolate his performance for the year and it's pretty damn good. Even if you throw in a few INTs (because he won't have a clean slate), it still looks like over 4000 yards, 21 TDs, and a few INTs. I think any of us would take that in a heartbeat.

 

Hoyer/Shaw is probably the best option this year. However, I don't think that should mean not drafting one in the first 3 rounds.

 

You also mentioned Schaub in another post, would you rather have him than Hoyer? What about Geno Smith, RG3?

[scs787]

I do think Glennon has more potential than Hoyer, but I would have zero problem going with Hoyer and a 3rd or 4th round pick.

 

Glennon was sacked 40 times in 13 games his rookie year and then he was on pace for even more in year 2(16 in 6 games). Its hard for any NFL QB, let alone a rookie, to do any kind of damage behind a god awful offensive line.

[scs787]

No to Geno and RG3. I would much rather have Tyrod Taylor or hell, give me Ryan Fitzpatrick. Fitz seems to be good every once in awhile and you might get lucky and he has a good year. He's also a smart guy who I think would be a great mentor for a rookie QB.

[AZ54]

Glennon biggest claim to fame is that he drove his team to use a #1 overall pick on another QB. I like the fact Pace won't hand over high picks to NE for JimmyG in desperation, at least not yet. While we have no idea what's been offered this is a good sign he's got his head on right when it comes to the valuation of players. If Belichick wants to play hard ball we just move on to other options.

 

I tend to agree with Jason, other than Garoppolo none of the other options are really better than Hoyer. They might offer different physical talent (i.e. stronger arm) but at least we know Hoyer has the mental side of it down on passes within 15 yards of the LOS. I'd say anyone such as Glennon would likely end up backing up Hoyer.

 

I know none of the rookies are ready to play in year 1. I still like Trubisky but don't necessarily like the idea of using #3 overall on him. In this marketplace (and draft) we have to consider the total value of any deal we make. Give up a 2nd and next year's 3rd for JimmyG? Trade a 3rd for Glennon who is somewhat of a known commodity?

 

The flip side is you can package that 3rd Rd pick with our 2nd Rd pick to move up to #20 in the 1st Rd and take Mahommes. I'd rather have Mahommes' upside even knowing he's at least a 2 year project. Everything I've read says Mahommes has the right approach to being a franchise QB. We might get Kizer or Watson at #20 too, maybe even Trubisky. I think all four of them are better options than Glennon. I'd put Garoppolo in the same category as the top 4 QBs in this draft. Pace should stay within his valuation window on these QBs. If another team overpays for Garoppolo that just takes them off the QB list for the draft. When going for JimmyG or Glennon we must also figure in the high cost of their new contracts because that's an offset against signing another FA starter, or solid FA backup.

 

FWIW I still think Trubisky at #3 plus keeping our 2nd and 3rd Rd picks in this draft is at least an equal value to the above options. There are starting caliber players to be had in those rounds. We'll see how Trubisky looks at the combine and again at his pro day.

[jason]

Hoyer/Shaw is probably the best option this year. However, I don't think that should mean not drafting one in the first 3 rounds.

 

You also mentioned Schaub in another post, would you rather have him than Hoyer? What about Geno Smith, RG3?

 

I'm unlike most here when it comes to risk/reward. I would absolutely kick the wheels on guys like Geno Smith, RG3, and even Manziel if the price is right. Give those dudes minimum, incentive-based contracts and let them know up front their asses are gone at the first sign of trouble. They don't pan out? No big deal. They show everyone why their talent got them drafted/evaluated highly, the Bears reap the rewards.

 

Out of those guys, I don't care much, but I'd rather go with Hoyer. Schaub would likely be cheaper (around $2-$3M), but is just a place-holder. If I were in charge I'd sign Hoyer with the intent of starting him (but tell him he had to earn it), sign one of the risk guys mentioned above, draft a guy mid-round (preferably Chad Kelly who is also high risk/reward), and let them all compete for the starting job.

[madlithuanian]

Shotgun theory...

 

It's hard to argue against leaving no stone unturned until we find our guy...

 

 

I'm unlike most here when it comes to risk/reward. I would absolutely kick the wheels on guys like Geno Smith, RG3, and even Manziel if the price is right. Give those dudes minimum, incentive-based contracts and let them know up front their asses are gone at the first sign of trouble. They don't pan out? No big deal. They show everyone why their talent got them drafted/evaluated highly, the Bears reap the rewards.

 

Out of those guys, I don't care much, but I'd rather go with Hoyer. Schaub would likely be cheaper (around $2-$3M), but is just a place-holder. If I were in charge I'd sign Hoyer with the intent of starting him (but tell him he had to earn it), sign one of the risk guys mentioned above, draft a guy mid-round (preferably Chad Kelly who is also high risk/reward), and let them all compete for the starting job.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I'm unlike most here when it comes to risk/reward. I would absolutely kick the wheels on guys like Geno Smith, RG3, and even Manziel if the price is right. Give those dudes minimum, incentive-based contracts and let them know up front their asses are gone at the first sign of trouble. They don't pan out? No big deal. They show everyone why their talent got them drafted/evaluated highly, the Bears reap the rewards.

 

Out of those guys, I don't care much, but I'd rather go with Hoyer. Schaub would likely be cheaper (around $2-$3M), but is just a place-holder. If I were in charge I'd sign Hoyer with the intent of starting him (but tell him he had to earn it), sign one of the risk guys mentioned above, draft a guy mid-round (preferably Chad Kelly who is also high risk/reward), and let them all compete for the starting job.

 

I agree, for the most part. I think we have very capable veterans already on the roster. Those being Hoyer, Barkley and Shaw. What's more, they've all worked in the Gace/Loggains system already. And as we discussed not all that long ago, there was a list that identified the top three QB FA's. Of those two, Hoyer and Barkley, are on our roster already (the other - at the time - was Cousins). I have a hard time legitimizing the signing of someone else's backup QB or throw away IE: RGIII or Manziel without looking at what we got already.

 

(As a sidebar: Anyone have some concern with all the connections to Cleveland we're starting to see with our offense? Hoyer, Shaw, RGIII, Manziel and Loggains have at one time all had exposure to Cleveland and somehow they've collected, or could, in Chicago. It makes me nauseous to consider).

 

Anyhow, Hoyer's been down this road before. The "you get to be starter only if you prove yourself" role. That time being in Houston where he and Mallett had the battle royal for the starting position. Hoyer managed to win where he eventually made it to the playoffs before he fell flat. Anyhow, I'd agree that he'd probably make the most sense at least in being a game manager placeholder for the franchise QB draftee.

[Stinger226]

I agree, for the most part. I think we have very capable veterans already on the roster. Those being Hoyer, Barkley and Shaw. What's more, they've all worked in the Gace/Loggains system already. And as we discussed not all that long ago, there was a list that identified the top three QB FA's. Of those two, Hoyer and Barkley, are on our roster already (the other - at the time - was Cousins). I have a hard time legitimizing the signing of someone else's backup QB or throw away IE: RGIII or Manziel without looking at what we got already.

 

(As a sidebar: Anyone have some concern with all the connections to Cleveland we're starting to see with our offense? Hoyer, Shaw, RGIII, Manziel and Loggains have at one time all had exposure to Cleveland and somehow they've collected, or could, in Chicago. It makes me nauseous to consider).

 

Anyhow, Hoyer's been down this road before. The "you get to be starter only if you prove yourself" role. That time being in Houston where he and Mallett had the battle royal for the starting position. Hoyer managed to win where he eventually made it to the playoffs before he fell flat. Anyhow, I'd agree that he'd probably make the most sense at least in being a game manager placeholder for the franchise QB draftee.

The Bears are the most tight lipped group other than NE in the league. Anything you hear are writers throwing there opinions around like its new secrets. Lets wait and see what's up next week.

[Stinger226]

The Bears are the most tight lipped group other than NE in the league. Anything you hear are writers throwing there opinions around like its new secrets. Lets wait and see what's up next week.

I think all the talk about Glennon is just a ploy to get Hoyer to sign a cheaper contract, since there is very little difference between the two. 5 mil or 12 mil? its not brain surgery

[lemonej]

Glennon biggest claim to fame is that he drove his team to use a #1 overall pick on another QB. I like the fact Pace won't hand over high picks to NE for JimmyG in desperation, at least not yet. While we have no idea what's been offered this is a good sign he's got his head on right when it comes to the valuation of players. If Belichick wants to play hard ball we just move on to other options.

 

I tend to agree with Jason, other than Garoppolo none of the other options are really better than Hoyer. They might offer different physical talent (i.e. stronger arm) but at least we know Hoyer has the mental side of it down on passes within 15 yards of the LOS. I'd say anyone such as Glennon would likely end up backing up Hoyer.

 

I know none of the rookies are ready to play in year 1. I still like Trubisky but don't necessarily like the idea of using #3 overall on him. In this marketplace (and draft) we have to consider the total value of any deal we make. Give up a 2nd and next year's 3rd for JimmyG? Trade a 3rd for Glennon who is somewhat of a known commodity?

 

The flip side is you can package that 3rd Rd pick with our 2nd Rd pick to move up to #20 in the 1st Rd and take Mahommes. I'd rather have Mahommes' upside even knowing he's at least a 2 year project. Everything I've read says Mahommes has the right approach to being a franchise QB. We might get Kizer or Watson at #20 too, maybe even Trubisky. I think all four of them are better options than Glennon. I'd put Garoppolo in the same category as the top 4 QBs in this draft. Pace should stay within his valuation window on these QBs. If another team overpays for Garoppolo that just takes them off the QB list for the draft. When going for JimmyG or Glennon we must also figure in the high cost of their new contracts because that's an offset against signing another FA starter, or solid FA backup.

 

FWIW I still think Trubisky at #3 plus keeping our 2nd and 3rd Rd picks in this draft is at least an equal value to the above options. There are starting caliber players to be had in those rounds. We'll see how Trubisky looks at the combine and again at his pro day.

 

You don't need to trade for Glennon he is a FA.

[jason]

I think all the talk about Glennon is just a ploy to get Hoyer to sign a cheaper contract, since there is very little difference between the two. 5 mil or 12 mil? its not brain surgery

 

I really hope you're right. I can't stand the idea of Glennon. Especially if he's going to ask for upwards of $10M per year. No freaking way. That dude didn't beat out Josh McCown. $10M per year?! GTFO.

[scs787]

Bucs offered Glennon 8mil a year which would be the biggest contract in history for a baxkup.