Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Bears agree to terms with QB Mike Glennon
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16526
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glennon truly is a win/win for the Bears.

1. He plays like a franchise guy and elevates this bad roster and we win 6 games.

Or

2. He plays meh/poorly and the Bears suck again, Fox is fired and they are in the derby for the 2018 top QBs.


The Bears can't lose this situation.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TankWilliams


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 17074
Location: Chicago
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WindyCity wrote:
Glennon truly is a win/win for the Bears.

1. He plays like a franchise guy and elevates this bad roster and we win 6 games.

Or

2. He plays meh/poorly and the Bears suck again, Fox is fired and they are in the derby for the 2018 top QBs.


The Bears can't lose this situation.


The Fans lose either way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CBears019


Moderator
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 18004
Location: Darien, IL
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glennons going to wear #8....how dare he!
_________________
👮


AZBearsFan wrote:

He's a playmaker though, and we can use more of those in the Devin.Fart
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TankWilliams


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 17074
Location: Chicago
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CBears019 wrote:
Glennons going to wear #8....how dare he!


Thats actually going to be weird, but mostly because I'm used to seeing #6 out there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaMike


Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 7270
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the signing and blah blah insert positive BS here.

I don't like that signing him at least imo took up a lot of the money were given for FAs and I d prefer we just straight pay a min contract whoever QB and 1% admit more were tanking. We could've spread his contract $ out to get the good FAs we really needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16526
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaMike wrote:
I like the signing and blah blah insert positive BS here.

I don't like that signing him at least imo took up a lot of the money were given for FAs and I d prefer we just straight pay a min contract whoever QB and 1% admit more were tanking. We could've spread his contract $ out to get the good FAs we really needed.


I don't think that the top free agents wanted to come here.

We spent money and still have 25 million to spend, it is not like he impacted our ability to sign others.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69128
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FWIW, I like the move, but I would have structured the deal differently. The Bears have a ton of cap room in 2017. I would have front-loaded it more. I would have done something like:
2017: $10 million base salary (guaranteed) + $10 million roster bonus (guaranteed)
2018: $7 million base salary + $3 million roster bonus
2019: $12 million base salary + $3 million roster

Why I'd like that structure more is because the Bears would get the best of both worlds. They could cut him after 2017 with no dead money if he totally flops. If he plays well enough to stick around but not be a franchise guy, they could pay him slightly above high-end backup money in 2018 to be a bridge for the QB they draft. If he plays like a franchise QB, they get him at 2 years $25 million in 2018 and 2019 (which is a windfall).

You gotta spend the money due to the cap floor. I'd take the chance on Glennon that y'all are if you don't like any of the QBs in this class or don't feel that they are able to start in 2017. Glennon has shown that he can provide Kyle Orton (with the Bills/Broncos) esque play in the past, and most QBs hit their prime between 27 and 29 years old. So there's a chance he proves to be a solid starting QB.

Plus, it buys you time to find your next QB if Glennon isn't the guy without tanking. The only real risk here is that you'd Osweiler yourselves, and you didn't do that.(you have an easy out after 2017)
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaMike


Joined: 21 Nov 2010
Posts: 7270
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WindyCity wrote:
DaMike wrote:
I like the signing and blah blah insert positive BS here.

I don't like that signing him at least imo took up a lot of the money were given for FAs and I d prefer we just straight pay a min contract whoever QB and 1% admit more were tanking. We could've spread his contract $ out to get the good FAs we really needed.


I don't think that the top free agents wanted to come here.

We spent money and still have 25 million to spend, it is not like he impacted our ability to sign others.
$25 in cap space or in money given from our owners to spend? Our owners are cheap at times. Can't say I believe they gave Pace a blank check and said spend every penny.

Gilmore himself said he was disappointed in our offer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IotaNet


Joined: 27 Jan 2013
Posts: 216
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaMike wrote:
WindyCity wrote:
DaMike wrote:
I like the signing and blah blah insert positive BS here.

I don't like that signing him at least imo took up a lot of the money were given for FAs and I d prefer we just straight pay a min contract whoever QB and 1% admit more were tanking. We could've spread his contract $ out to get the good FAs we really needed.


I don't think that the top free agents wanted to come here.

We spent money and still have 25 million to spend, it is not like he impacted our ability to sign others.
$25 in cap space or in money given from our owners to spend? Our owners are cheap at times. Can't say I believe they gave Pace a blank check and said spend every penny.

Gilmore himself said he was disappointed in our offer.

I think the "cheap McCaskeys" is a tired trope. Pace was not going to overpay for Gilmore. Dude was a good FA but he wasn't Revis in his prime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Madmike90


Moderator
Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 26827
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IotaNet wrote:
DaMike wrote:
WindyCity wrote:
DaMike wrote:
I like the signing and blah blah insert positive BS here.

I don't like that signing him at least imo took up a lot of the money were given for FAs and I d prefer we just straight pay a min contract whoever QB and 1% admit more were tanking. We could've spread his contract $ out to get the good FAs we really needed.


I don't think that the top free agents wanted to come here.

We spent money and still have 25 million to spend, it is not like he impacted our ability to sign others.
$25 in cap space or in money given from our owners to spend? Our owners are cheap at times. Can't say I believe they gave Pace a blank check and said spend every penny.

Gilmore himself said he was disappointed in our offer.

I think the "cheap McCaskeys" is a tired trope. Pace was not going to overpay for Gilmore. Dude was a good FA but he wasn't Revis in his prime.


That argument might stand up if he hadn't then turned round and overpaid several guys...that said I don't think this is ownership being cheap...I think this is players and agents seeing there is no future here for the current coaching staff.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear...Adrian Amos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16526
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
IotaNet wrote:
DaMike wrote:
WindyCity wrote:
DaMike wrote:
I like the signing and blah blah insert positive BS here.

I don't like that signing him at least imo took up a lot of the money were given for FAs and I d prefer we just straight pay a min contract whoever QB and 1% admit more were tanking. We could've spread his contract $ out to get the good FAs we really needed.


I don't think that the top free agents wanted to come here.

We spent money and still have 25 million to spend, it is not like he impacted our ability to sign others.
$25 in cap space or in money given from our owners to spend? Our owners are cheap at times. Can't say I believe they gave Pace a blank check and said spend every penny.

Gilmore himself said he was disappointed in our offer.

I think the "cheap McCaskeys" is a tired trope. Pace was not going to overpay for Gilmore. Dude was a good FA but he wasn't Revis in his prime.


That argument might stand up if he hadn't then turned round and overpaid several guys...that said I don't think this is ownership being cheap...I think this is players and agents seeing there is no future here for the current coaching staff.


I think your point is pretty accurate about a lame duck situation, which is even more reason Fox should have been fired.


I also think that while Pace may have over paid for a couple 2nd tier guys he brought in a ton of young guys with interesting upside or pedigree. If 1/2 of them turn into something we would have had a great free agency period.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RunningVaccs


Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Posts: 119
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Windy, you have been ragging on Fox for a while now-I feel rightly so-and I think we've just seen more evidence that there is not a lot of confidence in him both in and oustide the Bears.

First the exodus of up and coming coordinators, now the bizarre lack of top tier free agents. One of those would be easy to ignore, but so many in each category seems telling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
51to54


Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 1809
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RunningVaccs wrote:
Windy, you have been ragging on Fox for a while now-I feel rightly so-and I think we've just seen more evidence that there is not a lot of confidence in him both in and oustide the Bears.

First the exodus of up and coming coordinators, now the bizarre lack of top tier free agents. One of those would be easy to ignore, but so many in each category seems telling.

Yeah, that whole 6-10 to 3-13 trend probably looks worse to the rest of the NFL than is does Pace.

The wrong coach was sent to Miami.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IotaNet


Joined: 27 Jan 2013
Posts: 216
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
IotaNet wrote:
DaMike wrote:
WindyCity wrote:
DaMike wrote:
I like the signing and blah blah insert positive BS here.

I don't like that signing him at least imo took up a lot of the money were given for FAs and I d prefer we just straight pay a min contract whoever QB and 1% admit more were tanking. We could've spread his contract $ out to get the good FAs we really needed.


I don't think that the top free agents wanted to come here.

We spent money and still have 25 million to spend, it is not like he impacted our ability to sign others.
$25 in cap space or in money given from our owners to spend? Our owners are cheap at times. Can't say I believe they gave Pace a blank check and said spend every penny.

Gilmore himself said he was disappointed in our offer.

I think the "cheap McCaskeys" is a tired trope. Pace was not going to overpay for Gilmore. Dude was a good FA but he wasn't Revis in his prime.


That argument might stand up if he hadn't then turned round and overpaid several guys...

There's overpaying and there's "back up the Brink's truck for Gilmore." Gilmore got top-tier cornerback money and I don't think he was worth it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
topwop1


Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 7791
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IotaNet wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
IotaNet wrote:
DaMike wrote:
WindyCity wrote:
DaMike wrote:
I like the signing and blah blah insert positive BS here.

I don't like that signing him at least imo took up a lot of the money were given for FAs and I d prefer we just straight pay a min contract whoever QB and 1% admit more were tanking. We could've spread his contract $ out to get the good FAs we really needed.


I don't think that the top free agents wanted to come here.

We spent money and still have 25 million to spend, it is not like he impacted our ability to sign others.
$25 in cap space or in money given from our owners to spend? Our owners are cheap at times. Can't say I believe they gave Pace a blank check and said spend every penny.

Gilmore himself said he was disappointed in our offer.

I think the "cheap McCaskeys" is a tired trope. Pace was not going to overpay for Gilmore. Dude was a good FA but he wasn't Revis in his prime.


That argument might stand up if he hadn't then turned round and overpaid several guys...

There's overpaying and there's "back up the Brink's truck for Gilmore." Gilmore got top-tier cornerback money and I don't think he was worth it.


There's also a huge difference between overpaying on short term deals over overpaying and guaranteeing more money on longer term ones.

With Fox being on the hot seat it really doesn't make sense to invest heavily in multi year contracts for any FA's and conversely I'm sure a lot of the higher tiered FA's noted this as well when viewing Chicago as a potential destination.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group