Don't cry for Mike Glennon

[Mongo3451]

That's been my stance and dilemma the entire time.

 

If Glennon blows up, the Bears:

-Good: Have a starting QB who is a stud.

-Bad: Have a #2 pick overall who doesn't see the field.

There is no bad if Glennon blows up. Trubisky would still be coveted by Cleveland. Hell you could even trade him before the deadline if you wanted. Your QB situation is solved and you have an arsenal of draft picks for next season. Now you can start drafting BPA and making pin point FA strikes on your way to the Superbowl.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

There is no bad if Glennon blows up. Trubisky would still be coveted by Cleveland. Hell you could even trade him before the deadline if you wanted. Your QB situation is solved and you have an arsenal of draft picks for next season. Now you can start drafting BPA and making pin point FA strikes on your way to the Superbowl.

Getting the QB right is the first step, we may have two. I see the benefit more when we can trade down in drafts for QB needy teams. Next year there will be just as many or more and it could be a frenzy.

[Stinger226]

That's been my stance and dilemma the entire time.

 

If Glennon blows up, the Bears:

-Good: Have a starting QB who is a stud.

-Bad: Have a #2 pick overall who doesn't see the field

 

If Glennon sucks, the Bears:

-Good: Have absolutely no reason not to get their #2 guy in the game

-Good: Can cut Glennon and free up his money.

-Bad: Wasted money on Glennon when they were going to pick a QB at #2 anyway.

If Tribusky was his guy and Cleveland decided to take him at #1, what would be your backup plan? It is his way of upgrading the QB position without knowing the future.

Ideally you play Glennon two years and he plays well, then its Mitches turn to shine and you trade Glennon.

He attacked the QB position with the intent of winning now and getting a future franchise QB. How is that a bad scenario?

[madlithuanian]

My guess is the #1 spot was simply too much to give up. I imagine it wold have cost next years' #1 and more... My guess is they said, "If he's not taken at #1, we're doing what we can to get him at the second slot barring selling the farm."

 

 

 

If Tribusky was his guy and Cleveland decided to take him at #1, what would be your backup plan?

 

[Stinger226]

My guess is the #1 spot was simply too much to give up. I imagine it wold have cost next years' #1 and more... My guess is they said, "If he's not taken at #1, we're doing what we can to get him at the second slot barring selling the farm."

I didnt mean what should move up to #1 but Jason was saying we should have not signed Glennon if we wanted Tribusky but I am saying there is the chance he would not have been there.

[madlithuanian]

Gotcha.

 

Even so, which rook is always ready to play out of the gate? Glennon was a wise move. We have ton of cap space and it's apparent Pace (and maybe Fox) didn't care for what Hoyer/Barley brought to the table...

 

I didnt mean what should move up to #1 but Jason was saying we should have not signed Glennon if we wanted Tribusky but I am saying there is the chance he would not have been there.

 

[jason]

If Tribusky was his guy and Cleveland decided to take him at #1, what would be your backup plan? It is his way of upgrading the QB position without knowing the future.

Ideally you play Glennon two years and he plays well, then its Mitches turn to shine and you trade Glennon.

He attacked the QB position with the intent of winning now and getting a future franchise QB. How is that a bad scenario?

 

Assuming the "Cleveland picks Trubisky"-scenario, you pick defense in one of the best defensive drafts in history. Seems pretty straightforward.

[Stinger226]

Assuming the "Cleveland picks Trubisky"-scenario, you pick defense in one of the best defensive drafts in history. Seems pretty straightforward.

I know that, I am refering to getting a QB he wanted. We would have taken either Thomas or Garrett, if Trubisky went #1.

 

I agree with you that I would have preferred the defensive draft we thought we were getting but I understand that Pace IDed the franchise QB he wanted and understand all the moves following after that. What we dont know is, what they think they have going forward with the FA additions, and players about ready to take a step forward.

They must think they have answers in Bullard, D. Hall, Bush, Cooper and Demps.

I think all of this would have been perceived differently had we not been ladened with injuries and would have finished close to 8-8, then we would have understood they are farther along, but to much unknown now.

[jason]

There is no real bad in losing money on Glennon if he sucks...we aren't cap strapped and the overall amount spent at the QB position is not too different from last year. It's not egregious. It's the cost of wanting a better option than they guys we had last year.

 

And if Glennon is a stud, then the problem of finding a franchise QB is addressed. We hedged our bet. yeah, it would have been nice to know that before we drafted a QB...but there was no way of knowing that.

 

Our QB situation I think is as good as we could hope given our unique set of circumstances.

 

It's money that could have been used to entice a top FA like Bouye, Gilmore, or Campbell.

 

I agree with the hedged bet comment. That's the best outlook we can have on it.

[jason]

I know that, I am refering to getting a QB he wanted. We would have taken either Thomas or Garrett, if Trubisky went #1.

 

I agree with you that I would have preferred the defensive draft we thought we were getting but I understand that Pace IDed the franchise QB he wanted and understand all the moves following after that. What we dont know is, what they think they have going forward with the FA additions, and players about ready to take a step forward.

They must think they have answers in Bullard, D. Hall, Bush, Cooper and Demps.

I think all of this would have been perceived differently had we not been ladened with injuries and would have finished close to 8-8, then we would have understood they are farther along, but to much unknown now.

 

If Trubisky was his guy, and unavailable, he should be prepared for that. Glennon was already in place, so QB for 2017 was already settled. At that point he may be disappointed, but he shouldn't be so myopic as to have a single plan. Just load up on defense, and hope Glennon is awesome. If he isn't? The team should be overall better due to the picks, and QB could be priority in 2018's superior class.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

It's money that could have been used to entice a top FA like Bouye, Gilmore, or Campbell.

 

I agree with the hedged bet comment. That's the best outlook we can have on it.

I think they still had that money, shows 26 million still available. I think they set a limit on those guys and they exceeded it, which is ok if you are not contending and one was a final piece type move.

[Mongo3451]

It's money that could have been used to entice a top FA like Bouye, Gilmore, or Campbell.

 

I agree with the hedged bet comment. That's the best outlook we can have on it.

Top free agents are hard to sign unless you are ascending. Gotta have a QB for any hope of that. We have money.

[madlithuanian]

I disagree.

 

I'm sure he was prepared for Trubisky being unavailable if Cleveland took him at 1. The logical conclusion of how things played out is that Pace felt the price to jump to #1 was simply too high to pay. But, to jump up one slot to #2, was not.

 

Additionally, having Glennon in place doesn't mean anything other than having a veteran in place, and certainly far from "settled". There was not en enormous bidding war for the guy. We more than likely over-paid. But it's well under our cap space. Especially when considering the cost of the position in whole.

 

Your point of loading up on defense and hoping Glennon is awesome I'm sure was the plan. ,,,if Trubisky was selected #1 overall.

 

The dude finally made a move to improve the most important position on a pro football team. He made 2 moves...an insurance move to have the position covered by a veteran with some potential upside, and a guy he's figuring that will be the franchise for years to come.

 

He may be wrong. But, he may be right. I am hoping he's right. Am I weary of this franchise? Absolutely. But, Pace has shown some either skill or luck in finding talent. I'm going to give him some benefit of the doubt here. You don't have to. You have every right to be negative and skeptical. I expect very little this season. But, I expect improvement. The following year, is where I start getting my expectations truly up. For now, I just plan to hopefully enjoy how this plays out...

 

 

 

If Trubisky was his guy, and unavailable, he should be prepared for that. Glennon was already in place, so QB for 2017 was already settled. At that point he may be disappointed, but he shouldn't be so myopic as to have a single plan. Just load up on defense, and hope Glennon is awesome. If he isn't? The team should be overall better due to the picks, and QB could be priority in 2018's superior class.

[BearFan2000]

Here's a 'what if' (just for the devils advocate perspective). What if Glennon goes Tom Brady on us and becomes Hall of Fame like in his performances? And Trubisky, with limited action looks more like a pedestrian QB (ala Garrapolo) that potentially could be a great back up QB? Do you still keep Glennon long term? Do you try and trade Biscuit while he still has value?

 

In no way do I think this happens, just curious what would happen if it did? (It's a while until any real football action so why not?)

 

I think that what if would kick start us into following the model for QB development used by teams like GB, NE, Denver, etc. Green Bay got Brett Favre in a trade with Atlanta and he became a long time starter. In Brett's time there GB continued to draft QB's high every so often so that they'd have the next guy in house when it was time for Favre to either hang em up or move on. Backups like Hasselbeck went on to be successful starters elsewhere. Till it was time for Favre to move on Rodgers was waiting in the wings to take over. We've seen how other teams value the backups on teams like GB, NE, Denver, etc. That value is a good thing to have and allows you get good value in trade for relative unknowns because teams respect the system they are coming from. The key ultimately comes down to how successful our offense is and the team is overall. But if Glennon pulled a Tom Brady it would bode well for the unit's success if not the whole teams success. It'd certainly be a good problem to have and one that's a bit uncharted for the Bears.

[madlithuanian]

That would be interesting if we turned a corner on that area, and kept hacking away at QB in some round on a continual basis. It would appear to be a wise move. At least, one that would prove interesting at least.

 

I think that what if would kick start us into following the model for QB development used by teams like GB, NE, Denver, etc. Green Bay got Brett Favre in a trade with Atlanta and he became a long time starter. In Brett's time there GB continued to draft QB's high every so often so that they'd have the next guy in house when it was time for Favre to either hang em up or move on. Backups like Hasselbeck went on to be successful starters elsewhere. Till it was time for Favre to move on Rodgers was waiting in the wings to take over. We've seen how other teams value the backups on teams like GB, NE, Denver, etc. That value is a good thing to have and allows you get good value in trade for relative unknowns because teams respect the system they are coming from. The key ultimately comes down to how successful our offense is and the team is overall. But if Glennon pulled a Tom Brady it would bode well for the unit's success if not the whole teams success. It'd certainly be a good problem to have and one that's a bit uncharted for the Bears.