Image Image Image Image

Mike Glennon

Moderators: chitownsports4ever, emperorjones

User avatar
Dominater
Head Coach
Posts: 6,591
And1: 3,311
Joined: Jan 16, 2005
Location: Cuba

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#41 » by Dominater » Wed Mar 8, 2017 11:31 pm

patryk7754 wrote:
Dominater wrote:
patryk7754 wrote:
The price for Garoppolo has reportedly increased to at least two 1st. I'd rather just be bad another season and draft one of the very good to great QBs in next years draft.

The only problem with that plan is the Bears can very easily pull a Bulls: Be good enough to be just mediocre and not get a pick high enough for these QBs

The NFL is very different than the NBA. You can win a SB with a game manager at QB but in the NBA you need a Lebron or curry.

It's also a lot easier to draft a superstar.

While i agree it can be done, you would need an all-time elite defense like the 85 bears, 2000 Ravens, and to a lessor extent the 2015 Broncos (playoffs they were just as dominant). Look at all those years the bears had a top notch defense AND special teams. They never won anything because they couldn't shore up the QB position.

If you want sustained, long term success in the NFL, it starts and ends with the Quarterback. How many players on this years Pats were on the same Pats 16-0 team in 07? Not many, if any, besides Brady. How about the Steelers, how many guys this year were on the 2 SB teams besides Roethlisburger? Colts had a great run that lasted nearly a decade with Manning, will likely have another great decade soon with Andrew Luck. Packers will always be contenders as long as Rodgers is breathing, the list goes on. Quarterback should be priority #1, 2, and 3
KC: Do you still think your a championship caliber team?
Gar: I never said that and correct me if i'm wrong
KC: You were asked that question at the news conference announcing Thibodeau's dismissal and you answered yes
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,302
And1: 482
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#42 » by patryk7754 » Thu Mar 9, 2017 12:10 am

RedBulls83 wrote:
Chi town wrote:
patryk7754 wrote:Apparently we signed him to 3 year/14 mil deal.


Link? How much guaranteed?

Don't see it either.

hopefully i just had a stroke
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,302
And1: 482
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#43 » by patryk7754 » Thu Mar 9, 2017 12:12 am

I went back to the app but can't find anything. Maybe it was deleted because it was a premature report
fleet
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 43,051
And1: 9,978
Joined: Dec 23, 2002
     

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#44 » by fleet » Thu Mar 9, 2017 12:18 am

RedBulls83 wrote:Tyrod Taylor signed for 8.5 million, yet bears are going to give Glennon 14 a year???

God dammit. :banghead:

What was wrong with Hoyer? Goodness :nonono:
JackFinn wrote:I see you're back from a trip at the smarty pants store.
Axxo
Starter
Posts: 2,422
And1: 394
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#45 » by Axxo » Thu Mar 9, 2017 12:28 am

RedBulls83 wrote:
Axxo wrote:Why don't we just get Kirk Cousins, pay him what he is worth then we won't need to develop another QB or overpay a bridge guy.

When another team decides they aren't in a hurry to keep their own QB, then that should give anyone red flags.

Edit: actually, I change my mind. I'd much rather have him than Glennon.

Yeah those would be the choices

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
User avatar
RedBulls23
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 29,441
And1: 11,997
Joined: Jan 19, 2009
Location: Waiting in Grant Park
       

Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#46 » by RedBulls23 » Thu Mar 9, 2017 12:36 am

Axxo wrote:
RedBulls83 wrote:
Axxo wrote:Why don't we just get Kirk Cousins, pay him what he is worth then we won't need to develop another QB or overpay a bridge guy.

When another team decides they aren't in a hurry to keep their own QB, then that should give anyone red flags.

Edit: actually, I change my mind. I'd much rather have him than Glennon.

Yeah those would be the choices

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

I also didn't realize how much Cousins had improved either. He's probably a top 10 QB right now.

Not sure what the deal is though with the Redskins not looking to lock him up.
Follow me on twitter: https://twitter.com/NinetiesDynasty
#FireGarPax
fleet
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 43,051
And1: 9,978
Joined: Dec 23, 2002
     

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#47 » by fleet » Thu Mar 9, 2017 12:41 am

chitownsports4ever wrote:
fleet wrote:Most young QBs drafted high end up starting very quickly. What the hell is the problem with that? Oh yeah, Pace doesnt want to be fired, so he reaches for a caretaker. And he probably will be fired anyway...


Pretty much and now you have to go into the season having to wait on a new caretaker qb to learn the offense . This is not a good start for the Bears .


I don't get this "bridge" stuff. I've never even heard this term until Mike Glennon, and all of the sudden people use the term like it's been a thing their whole lives. I've never heard of anything like this kind of talk in modern times, after the old era when they used to think they needed young number one picks to sit for 2 or 3 years (or more) before stepping in. This is 2017. Young QBs learn on the ******* field. Why does a rookie QB need the pressure off? Pressure comes with this job. I swear this is like politics, when everybody starts singing off the party sheet music, or reciting talking points out of convenience. This is a F****** stupid plan.

This is nothing short of Ryan Pace not wanting to be fired watching a young QB take the reigns and losing learning on the job this season. So Pace overpays a mediocre guy seat holder in order for Pace to hold his job. It's selfish and weak.
JackFinn wrote:I see you're back from a trip at the smarty pants store.
User avatar
Bulls69
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,954
And1: 215
Joined: Jul 13, 2002
Location: LA via Chicago

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#48 » by Bulls69 » Thu Mar 9, 2017 12:51 am

RedBulls83 wrote:I'd be okay with giving him 7/8 mil. Anything more would be awful.

If he proves himself, then you can always renegotiate a new deal.

Still need to draft a QB.


I say sign Mike to a 3 year deal then draft a QB next year which has a better crop of QB's coming out.
Knicksgod wrote: I know LeBron won't go to Chicago. There could be another surprise team, but if he leaves Cleveland, then teaming with Bosh and Gallo in NYC is a likely scenario.
Axxo
Starter
Posts: 2,422
And1: 394
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#49 » by Axxo » Thu Mar 9, 2017 1:20 am

RedBulls83 wrote:
Axxo wrote:
RedBulls83 wrote:When another team decides they aren't in a hurry to keep their own QB, then that should give anyone red flags.

Edit: actually, I change my mind. I'd much rather have him than Glennon.

Yeah those would be the choices

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

I also didn't realize how much Cousins had improved either. He's probably a top 10 QB right now.

Not sure what the deal is though with the Redskins not looking to lock him up.

Lots of dysfunction over there. Bears should swoop in and take advantage.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Axxo
Starter
Posts: 2,422
And1: 394
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#50 » by Axxo » Thu Mar 9, 2017 1:21 am

Bulls69 wrote:
RedBulls83 wrote:I'd be okay with giving him 7/8 mil. Anything more would be awful.

If he proves himself, then you can always renegotiate a new deal.

Still need to draft a QB.


I say sign Mike to a 3 year deal then draft a QB next year which has a better crop of QB's coming out.

We can do both. Take one this draft , cut shaw next offseason and draft another QB.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
User avatar
chitownsports4ever
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 18,931
And1: 698
Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Location: southside of chicago
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#51 » by chitownsports4ever » Thu Mar 9, 2017 2:50 am

Chi town wrote:
I'm not so sure.

If Pats really think he is legit they won't give him away for less than two 1sts and I dont' see anyone giving him that. That includes the Browns.

I could see Brady declining as well. I know he's superhuman and eats like a caveman but he will eventually decline and if they think Jimmy G is the next big time star they won't let him go.



So you think the Patriots are gonna pay Brady and Jimmy G over 20+ million dollars each ? They are working on a extension for Brady now . Now they have leverage if they wait and try and franchise him and trade him they lose all the leverage .
Got a Gold Name Plate that says "I wish you would"
User avatar
chitownsports4ever
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 18,931
And1: 698
Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Location: southside of chicago
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#52 » by chitownsports4ever » Thu Mar 9, 2017 3:05 am

fleet wrote:
chitownsports4ever wrote:
fleet wrote:Most young QBs drafted high end up starting very quickly. What the hell is the problem with that? Oh yeah, Pace doesnt want to be fired, so he reaches for a caretaker. And he probably will be fired anyway...


Pretty much and now you have to go into the season having to wait on a new caretaker qb to learn the offense . This is not a good start for the Bears .


I don't get this "bridge" stuff. I've never even heard this term until Mike Glennon, and all of the sudden people use the term like it's been a thing their whole lives. I've never heard of anything like this kind of talk in modern times, after the old era when they used to think they needed young number one picks to sit for 2 or 3 years (or more) before stepping in. This is 2017. Young QBs learn on the ******* field. Why does a rookie QB need the pressure off? Pressure comes with this job. I swear this is like politics, when everybody starts singing off the party sheet music, or reciting talking points out of convenience. This is a F****** stupid plan.

This is nothing short of Ryan Pace not wanting to be fired watching a young QB take the reigns and losing learning on the job this season. So Pace overpays a mediocre guy seat holder in order for Pace to hold his job. It's selfish and weak.


Even if you dont like any of the rookies why not sign Kaepernick ...thats right I said Id rather have Kaep than Glennon as a 2-3 year rental .
Got a Gold Name Plate that says "I wish you would"
fleet
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 43,051
And1: 9,978
Joined: Dec 23, 2002
     

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#53 » by fleet » Thu Mar 9, 2017 3:25 am

chitownsports4ever wrote:
fleet wrote:
chitownsports4ever wrote:
Pretty much and now you have to go into the season having to wait on a new caretaker qb to learn the offense . This is not a good start for the Bears .


I don't get this "bridge" stuff. I've never even heard this term until Mike Glennon, and all of the sudden people use the term like it's been a thing their whole lives. I've never heard of anything like this kind of talk in modern times, after the old era when they used to think they needed young number one picks to sit for 2 or 3 years (or more) before stepping in. This is 2017. Young QBs learn on the ******* field. Why does a rookie QB need the pressure off? Pressure comes with this job. I swear this is like politics, when everybody starts singing off the party sheet music, or reciting talking points out of convenience. This is a F****** stupid plan.

This is nothing short of Ryan Pace not wanting to be fired watching a young QB take the reigns and losing learning on the job this season. So Pace overpays a mediocre guy seat holder in order for Pace to hold his job. It's selfish and weak.


Even if you dont like any of the rookies why not sign Kaepernick ...thats right I said Id rather have Kaep than Glennon as a 2-3 year rental .

When you think about it, the Bears will not be sitting 14 million dollars a year on the bench for any young draft picks. He is your starter for 3 years unless the deal is extremely front loaded. But yes, I would take any qb on a 1 and done deal because I dont value next season, it is another talent building year from ruins. And I want to find a qb in this draft, there has to be one, and I want him ready to play soon.

Ill choose it like this. The guy wins, good. The guy loses, good, because I dont like Pace so far.
JackFinn wrote:I see you're back from a trip at the smarty pants store.
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,302
And1: 482
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#54 » by patryk7754 » Thu Mar 9, 2017 3:31 am

Where did this bridge term come from? Pace? I highly doubt Pace is making this move because he's afraid of being fired. He's done a great job thus far and has no reason to reach. If he's signing Glennon it's most likely because he views him as a guy who can win. Even though we really disagree with this move we have to give Pace the benefit of the doubt because his evaluation of players has been as close to flawless as GMs get, and that's without signing big name free agents.

Pace was with the Saints when Glennon was starting for the Bucs (I think) so he probably has a lot of scouting on Glennon.
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,302
And1: 482
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#55 » by patryk7754 » Thu Mar 9, 2017 3:32 am

fleet wrote:
chitownsports4ever wrote:
fleet wrote:
I don't get this "bridge" stuff. I've never even heard this term until Mike Glennon, and all of the sudden people use the term like it's been a thing their whole lives. I've never heard of anything like this kind of talk in modern times, after the old era when they used to think they needed young number one picks to sit for 2 or 3 years (or more) before stepping in. This is 2017. Young QBs learn on the ******* field. Why does a rookie QB need the pressure off? Pressure comes with this job. I swear this is like politics, when everybody starts singing off the party sheet music, or reciting talking points out of convenience. This is a F****** stupid plan.

This is nothing short of Ryan Pace not wanting to be fired watching a young QB take the reigns and losing learning on the job this season. So Pace overpays a mediocre guy seat holder in order for Pace to hold his job. It's selfish and weak.


Even if you dont like any of the rookies why not sign Kaepernick ...thats right I said Id rather have Kaep than Glennon as a 2-3 year rental .

When you think about it, the Bears will not be sitting 14 million dollars a year on the bench for any young draft picks. He is your starter for 3 years unless the deal is extremely front loaded. But yes, I would take any qb on a 1 and done deal because I dont value next season, it is another talent building year from ruins. And I want to find a qb in this draft, there has to be one, and I want him ready to play soon.


Ill choose it like this. The guy wins, good. The guy loses, good, because I dont like Pace so far.


I don't understand how you can not like Pace. What has he done poorly?
Chi town
RealGM
Posts: 11,916
And1: 1,320
Joined: Aug 10, 2004

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#56 » by Chi town » Thu Mar 9, 2017 4:49 am

chitownsports4ever wrote:
Chi town wrote:
I'm not so sure.

If Pats really think he is legit they won't give him away for less than two 1sts and I dont' see anyone giving him that. That includes the Browns.

I could see Brady declining as well. I know he's superhuman and eats like a caveman but he will eventually decline and if they think Jimmy G is the next big time star they won't let him go.



So you think the Patriots are gonna pay Brady and Jimmy G over 20+ million dollars each ? They are working on a extension for Brady now . Now they have leverage if they wait and try and franchise him and trade him they lose all the leverage .


No. I think they trade him in season if they don't find a deal for him at the draft.

Bradford sucks and he got a late 1st. Someone will go down and that team will cough up a 1st.
User avatar
chitownsports4ever
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 18,931
And1: 698
Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Location: southside of chicago
       

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#57 » by chitownsports4ever » Thu Mar 9, 2017 4:53 am

Chi town wrote:
chitownsports4ever wrote:
Chi town wrote:
I'm not so sure.

If Pats really think he is legit they won't give him away for less than two 1sts and I dont' see anyone giving him that. That includes the Browns.

I could see Brady declining as well. I know he's superhuman and eats like a caveman but he will eventually decline and if they think Jimmy G is the next big time star they won't let him go.



So you think the Patriots are gonna pay Brady and Jimmy G over 20+ million dollars each ? They are working on a extension for Brady now . Now they have leverage if they wait and try and franchise him and trade him they lose all the leverage .


No. I think they trade him in season if they don't find a deal for him at the draft.

Bradford sucks and he got a late 1st. Someone will go down and that team will cough up a 1st.


Bradford already was on a deal no team is going to want to give up a 1st and then risk Jimmy G getting hurt mid season while waiting for the season to end to franchise him or sign him long term .
Got a Gold Name Plate that says "I wish you would"
Axxo
Starter
Posts: 2,422
And1: 394
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#58 » by Axxo » Thu Mar 9, 2017 1:44 pm

Patryk7754 was right. Glennon deal is for 14.5M for 3 years.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Axxo
Starter
Posts: 2,422
And1: 394
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#59 » by Axxo » Thu Mar 9, 2017 2:05 pm

patryk7754 wrote:
fleet wrote:
chitownsports4ever wrote:
Even if you dont like any of the rookies why not sign Kaepernick ...thats right I said Id rather have Kaep than Glennon as a 2-3 year rental .

When you think about it, the Bears will not be sitting 14 million dollars a year on the bench for any young draft picks. He is your starter for 3 years unless the deal is extremely front loaded. But yes, I would take any qb on a 1 and done deal because I dont value next season, it is another talent building year from ruins. And I want to find a qb in this draft, there has to be one, and I want him ready to play soon.


Ill choose it like this. The guy wins, good. The guy loses, good, because I dont like Pace so far.


I don't understand how you can not like Pace. What has he done poorly?

He is focusing on Glennon too much. Other key position FAs are signing elsewhere

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,302
And1: 482
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: RE: Re: Mike Glennon 

Post#60 » by patryk7754 » Thu Mar 9, 2017 2:39 pm

Axxo wrote:
patryk7754 wrote:
fleet wrote:When you think about it, the Bears will not be sitting 14 million dollars a year on the bench for any young draft picks. He is your starter for 3 years unless the deal is extremely front loaded. But yes, I would take any qb on a 1 and done deal because I dont value next season, it is another talent building year from ruins. And I want to find a qb in this draft, there has to be one, and I want him ready to play soon.


Ill choose it like this. The guy wins, good. The guy loses, good, because I dont like Pace so far.


I don't understand how you can not like Pace. What has he done poorly?

He is focusing on Glennon too much. Other key position FAs are signing elsewhere

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

True but this would he his first blemish on his resume. Since he's become the GM he's been one of the best, if not the best, at drafting and adding good to great free agents. That can't be ignored. Plus, he brought in a very god coaching staff in Fangio and Gase.

Return to Chicago Bears