Image Image Image Image

Mike Glennon

Moderators: chitownsports4ever, emperorjones

patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,149
And1: 468
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#81 » by patryk7754 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:05 am

fleet wrote:

That's a funky looking fella
fleet
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 41,862
And1: 8,888
Joined: Dec 23, 2002
     

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#82 » by fleet » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:13 am

patryk7754 wrote:
fleet wrote:

That's a funky looking fella

The more I consider the fallout of this move, the Bears are missing one thing that he needs to succeed, and that is a clean pocket. The Bears have to come out of this draft with a DB, and a OT. They should be trading down and picking up a tackle, and obviously with the low amount of tackles, it has to be one of the guys that have a 1st round grade. One thing Jay Cutler will be glad to be away from, is the Bears O-Line.
User avatar
RedBulls83
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 27,673
And1: 10,788
Joined: Jan 19, 2009
Location: Waiting in Grant Park
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#83 » by RedBulls83 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:10 am

fleet wrote:
patryk7754 wrote:
fleet wrote:

That's a funky looking fella

The more I consider the fallout of this move, the Bears are missing one thing that he needs to succeed, and that is a clean pocket. The Bears have to come out of this draft with a DB, and a OT. They should be trading down and picking up a tackle, and obviously with the low amount of tackles, it has to be one of the guys that have a 1st round grade. One thing Jay Cutler will be glad to be away from, is the Bears O-Line.

Yeah, completely with you on that.

When is the last time the Bears had a competent oline? Seems like a mythical creature that doesn't exist. Just like the QB position in this town.
Straight Buckets!

Follow me on twitter: https://twitter.com/NinetiesDynasty
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,149
And1: 468
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#84 » by patryk7754 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:40 am

RedBulls83 wrote:
fleet wrote:
patryk7754 wrote:That's a funky looking fella

The more I consider the fallout of this move, the Bears are missing one thing that he needs to succeed, and that is a clean pocket. The Bears have to come out of this draft with a DB, and a OT. They should be trading down and picking up a tackle, and obviously with the low amount of tackles, it has to be one of the guys that have a 1st round grade. One thing Jay Cutler will be glad to be away from, is the Bears O-Line.

Yeah, completely with you on that.

When is the last time the Bears had a competent oline? Seems like a mythical creature that doesn't exist. Just like the QB position in this town.

The bears have one of the best interior o-lines in the league so its not as bad as it has been for most of Cutler's time with the bears. Leno isn't bad but he isn't as good as you want your LT to be. Massie is ass. If we add a RT I think we're in good shape.
User avatar
transplant
General Manager
Posts: 9,777
And1: 1,501
Joined: Aug 16, 2001
Location: state of perpetual confusion

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#85 » by transplant » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:39 pm

If you want a QB who is completely ready to run a NFL offense, there are a handful of free agents who fit the bill. If you want one who is under 30 and might be more than just a bridge, there's Mike Glennon.

Smart contract and good signing.
Until the actual truth is more important to you than what you believe, you will never recognize the truth.

- Blatantly stolen from truebluefan
fleet
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 41,862
And1: 8,888
Joined: Dec 23, 2002
     

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#86 » by fleet » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:32 pm

Who was the last good QB 6' 6 or over? IDK.
Betta Bulleavit
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,845
And1: 1,000
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#87 » by Betta Bulleavit » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:55 pm

transplant wrote:If you want a QB who is completely ready to run a NFL offense, there are a handful of free agents who fit the bill. If you want one who is under 30 and might be more than just a bridge, there's Mike Glennon.

Smart contract and good signing.

I agree 100%. I can understand why people aren't necessarily excited about the signing because he's not exactly a known quantity. Having said that, it does no good to pay big money for guys that are retreads at best and the only thing that they have proven is that they aren't necessarily good enough to be "the guy". The best QBs in the NFL aren't attainable for any price. The Packers aren't trading Rogers. The Pats aren't trading Brady. The Steelers aren't trading Ben. The Falcons aren't trading Ryan. So if you are looking for your QB of the future, you either have to draft one, which the Bears could still do. Or take a leap of faith on a guy that has shown something but might have been the victim of a bad situation. And that describes Glennon. There are a bunch of great QBs that were career backups until they got a chance to be starters.
Betta Bulleavit
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,845
And1: 1,000
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#88 » by Betta Bulleavit » Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:09 pm

fleet wrote:Who was the last good QB 6' 6 or over? IDK.

The 6'6 benchmark is rather arbitrary if you ask me. While I can't really name any to answer your question, there have been tons of 6'4 and 6'5 guys that have been fantastic. Brady, Manning, Roethlesberger, Newton, Warner and Ryan just to name a few. If Glennon isn't great, I highly doubt that it will have anything to do with an inch or two.
User avatar
CjayC
RealGM
Posts: 10,134
And1: 362
Joined: Mar 02, 2005
Location: Hoiball
   

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#89 » by CjayC » Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:14 pm

fleet wrote:The more I consider the fallout of this move, the Bears are missing one thing that he needs to succeed, and that is a clean pocket. The Bears have to come out of this draft with a DB, and a OT. They should be trading down and picking up a tackle, and obviously with the low amount of tackles, it has to be one of the guys that have a 1st round grade. One thing Jay Cutler will be glad to be away from, is the Bears O-Line.


I think you're underrating the line a bit. They were tied for 7th in the league in sacks given up with Dallas and that was with a gang of injuries to the line. Leno isn't a world beater, but he's not J'marcus Webb. He gave up 4 sacks the entire year and one of them was Cutler doing Cutler things by holding the ball forever. You can upgrade the LT, but it's down the list of thing's that need to be addressed. The only urgent spot needing to be upgraded is the RT IMO.

You can win with a limited mobility pocket passer provided their awareness and pocket maneuverability is on point. The Superbowl just had two of them. With Glennon's long neck he should have a booth's view of the field :D
heir_jordan22
Analyst
Posts: 3,729
And1: 172
Joined: Jul 16, 2008
   

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#90 » by heir_jordan22 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:27 pm

chitownsports4ever wrote:
City of Trees wrote:
chitownsports4ever wrote:

Id rather have Hoyer and either Gilmore and Bouye and then the Demps signing and i would consider that winning so far but right now this is not looking good .

Hoyer us a dead end with the writing already in the wall. At least with Glennon there is potential to be good. Given the cap situation, I prefer the gamble on Glennon over signing Hoyer.

Also, Gilmore was overpaid, Hard pass. On the other hand Bouye I'd consider overpaying.


Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app


How was Gilmore overpaid ? You think the cheapo Pats decided to overpay for Gilmore when they had Butler already ?

Everyone knew that Gilmore and Bouye were gonna set the market so its one thing to talk like you wanna stomp with the biog dogs but at some point you gotta put your money where your mouth is .


No matter how you try and add it up Hoyer + Gilmore/Bouye + Demps is better than Glennon + Demps .

You focus on getting Glennon but neither of the top DBs and you failed

Not to mention why are we still even talking to Alshon if you want him sign him if not move on . The Bears are cash flush and still trying to squeeze blood out of a rock

We don't know if we would've signed Demps of we git Gilmore or Bouye. Nor do we know if we're done adding corners to our roster. This is premature criticism

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app
Betta Bulleavit
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,845
And1: 1,000
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#91 » by Betta Bulleavit » Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:40 pm

Looks like we got Prince Amukamara. Nice signing!!
User avatar
chitownsports4ever
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 18,650
And1: 506
Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Location: southside of chicago
       

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#92 » by chitownsports4ever » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:28 pm

heir_jordan22 wrote:We don't know if we would've signed Demps of we git Gilmore or Bouye. Nor do we know if we're done adding corners to our roster. This is premature criticism

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app


Demps and Gilmore were presented by the same agent so its safe to say that if we locked up Gilmore on the 8th like we should have that we couldve still talked to and moved away from Jefferson and his 8 mil dollar price tag early on the 9th and Demps wouldve still been there like he was .

We ended up signing Prince who didnt have a pick last year when we had a chance to grab 25 yr old pro bowl caliber Dbs .

Some of you must not have been following this situation for the last few weeks because if you have been listening to Pace since the end of the year there is no way that whats going on is in any way close to what how he said the bears were prepared to to attack free agency .

Pace's entire strategy blew up in their faces this year
Got a Gold Name Plate that says "I wish you would"
heir_jordan22
Analyst
Posts: 3,729
And1: 172
Joined: Jul 16, 2008
   

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#93 » by heir_jordan22 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:48 pm

chitownsports4ever wrote:
heir_jordan22 wrote:We don't know if we would've signed Demps of we git Gilmore or Bouye. Nor do we know if we're done adding corners to our roster. This is premature criticism

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app


Demps and Gilmore were presented by the same agent so its safe to say that if we locked up Gilmore on the 8th like we should have that we couldve still talked to and moved away from Jefferson and his 8 mil dollar price tag early on the 9th and Demps wouldve still been there like he was .

We ended up signing Prince who didnt have a pick last year when we had a chance to grab 25 yr old pro bowl caliber Dbs .

Some of you must not have been following this situation for the last few weeks because if you have been listening to Pace since the end of the year there is no way that whats going on is in any way close to what how he said the bears were prepared to to attack free agency .

Pace's entire strategy blew up in their faces this year

And what was his strategy? Overpay on two or three guys so they can't address the other 7 or 8 needs?

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
transplant
General Manager
Posts: 9,777
And1: 1,501
Joined: Aug 16, 2001
Location: state of perpetual confusion

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#94 » by transplant » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:50 pm

Betta Bulleavit wrote:
fleet wrote:Who was the last good QB 6' 6 or over? IDK.

The 6'6 benchmark is rather arbitrary if you ask me. While I can't really name any to answer your question, there have been tons of 6'4 and 6'5 guys that have been fantastic. Brady, Manning, Roethlesberger, Newton, Warner and Ryan just to name a few. If Glennon isn't great, I highly doubt that it will have anything to do with an inch or two.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Gruden sees Joe Flacco as a reasonable comp to Glennon both in terms of body type (6'6") and style (stationary downfield pocket passer). Passer ratings are similar as well.

I've never been a big Flacco fan and when he got the biggest contract ever I thought that was kinda crazy, but I'll take Flacco-like production.
Until the actual truth is more important to you than what you believe, you will never recognize the truth.

- Blatantly stolen from truebluefan
Betta Bulleavit
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,845
And1: 1,000
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#95 » by Betta Bulleavit » Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:57 pm

transplant wrote:
Betta Bulleavit wrote:
fleet wrote:Who was the last good QB 6' 6 or over? IDK.

The 6'6 benchmark is rather arbitrary if you ask me. While I can't really name any to answer your question, there have been tons of 6'4 and 6'5 guys that have been fantastic. Brady, Manning, Roethlesberger, Newton, Warner and Ryan just to name a few. If Glennon isn't great, I highly doubt that it will have anything to do with an inch or two.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Gruden sees Joe Flacco as a reasonable comp to Glennon both in terms of body type (6'6") and style (stationary downfield pocket passer). Passer ratings are similar as well.

I've never been a big Flacco fan and when he got the biggest contract ever I thought that was kinda crazy, but I'll take Flacco-like production.

Good call on Flacco. Good physical comparison but I do think that Glennon does have a little more natural arm strength.
User avatar
chitownsports4ever
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 18,650
And1: 506
Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Location: southside of chicago
       

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#96 » by chitownsports4ever » Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:24 pm

heir_jordan22 wrote:[
And what was his strategy? Overpay on two or three guys so they can't address the other 7 or 8 needs?

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app



How would paying Gilmore stop him from picking up any of these other guys ?

He couldve picked up Gilmore and still had space to grab everyone else hes grabbing now.

the excuse you are trying to make for him does not really apply so this situation

If he grabbed jefferson and Gilmore they are 25 years old and he fills two major holes for the next 5 years instead he has Demps and Price who both may not be here next year and we are right back in the situation again ?

Going into the draft if you take a DB in the first rd then WR and OT are very much open to you in that scenario.

but even if you believe that Glennon has upside the question comes well why didnt Pace put any money besides helping him bring that talent to fruition .

You sign a starting tackle

You sign Alshon

If you dont want Alshon fine you grab another starting quality receiver for the guy to throw the ball too. Heck GO GET Pryor but this risk adverse philosophy has backfired right now .
Got a Gold Name Plate that says "I wish you would"
Betta Bulleavit
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,845
And1: 1,000
Joined: Oct 29, 2004
       

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#97 » by Betta Bulleavit » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:05 pm

chitownsports4ever wrote:
heir_jordan22 wrote:[
And what was his strategy? Overpay on two or three guys so they can't address the other 7 or 8 needs?

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app



How would paying Gilmore stop him from picking up any of these other guys ?

He couldve picked up Gilmore and still had space to grab everyone else hes grabbing now.

the excuse you are trying to make for him does not really apply so this situation

If he grabbed jefferson and Gilmore they are 25 years old and he fills two major holes for the next 5 years instead he has Demps and Price who both may not be here next year and we are right back in the situation again ?

Going into the draft if you take a DB in the first rd then WR and OT are very much open to you in that scenario.

but even if you believe that Glennon has upside the question comes well why didnt Pace put any money besides helping him bring that talent to fruition .

You sign a starting tackle

You sign Alshon

If you dont want Alshon fine you grab another starting quality receiver for the guy to throw the ball too. Heck GO GET Pryor but this risk adverse philosophy has backfired right now .

I see what you are saying Chitown and I don't want to dismiss your view. Having said that, "missing out" on the top guys from a weak class on day 1 doesn't equate to a failed off-season. To start, I wouldn't count us out just yet on Pryor. Obtaining him along with Wheaton could actually give us an even stronger receiving core than what we've had considering the number of games that Jeffery was bound to miss.

Secondly, there is a ton of wheeling and dealing that could happen at the draft. For example, I've got my eye really close on the Titans and seeing what they want to do at the top of the draft. If they really like someone, they may be inclined to deal 5 and 18 to us for 3 and our third rounder. Not saying it WILL happen. But there are things like that out there that could still give us an opportunity to fill actual needs without shelling out a bunch of money that we may regret later on down the road.
User avatar
RedBulls83
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 27,673
And1: 10,788
Joined: Jan 19, 2009
Location: Waiting in Grant Park
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#98 » by RedBulls83 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:15 pm

fleet wrote:Who was the last good QB 6' 6 or over? IDK.

Flacco is 6'6
Straight Buckets!

Follow me on twitter: https://twitter.com/NinetiesDynasty
User avatar
City of Trees
General Manager
Posts: 9,406
And1: 1,502
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Sacramento, CA
   

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#99 » by City of Trees » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:15 pm

Every Bucs fan or even player I've heard talk about Glennon has nothing but positive things to say. All say he has potential. So, in my mind, this is no worse than signing Hoyer.

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
mlitney01
Pro Prospect
Posts: 876
And1: 32
Joined: Jan 30, 2008
Location: Portland
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#100 » by mlitney01 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:18 pm

Ryan Pace is doing exactly what he said he would do. He's using FA is build depth so we're in a position to take the BPA in the draft. He's said over and over that success is built through the draft so that's what he's preparing for.

Did we sign a bunch of big name free agents? No. Have we added quality depth in positions of need? So far, yes.

My only gripe is not keeping Alshon, although I could see the need for hesitantcy.

Return to Chicago Bears