Bears to sign QB Mike Glennon: 3 yr, $14.5M per

[Mikefive]

Competition is good.

[wab]

Our starting QB:

[thunderspirit]

Our starting QB:

Qualilty.

[Rusty Trombagent]

lollll

[Rusty Trombagent]

Our starting QB:

as soon as glennon throws his first interception i'm photoshopping dicks in his hands.
[video][/video]

[ramentaschen]

This guy is going to get such a beating as soon as he hits the field.

This upcoming season is going to be a long one.

[Funkster]

This guy is going to get such a beating as soon as he hits the field.

This upcoming season is going to be a long one.

Only way that changes is if he comes out guns a blazin' and lights it up. We'll definitely see how thick Glennon's skin is. At least the QB position is moving in a new direction. If we as fans could predict the outcome of that position, just think what DC's and opposing defenses were thinking! It was time for a change and Pace totally changed the QB room. I'm excited, anxious and a bit nervous but at least they took steps to address what was a glaring problem.

[wab]

I've admittedly been undeservingly hard on Glennon. Of course I want him to succeed, but at the time he represented everything the at was wrong with the way the Bears had handled the QB situation for a generation.

It wasn't really him, it was what he represented. Now that Trubisky is in the fold, I'm a little less upset. I still don't think he will do well (I want him to), I just don't think he's a starting caliber player. I love his approach and preparation and all that... but talent wise, he's marginal.

[Boris13c]

why?

why is it groups are saying Glennon is an upgrade over Barkley / Hoyer, yet then at the same time saying the team will do worse / as bad as last year?

forget Trubisky as even being part of the equation ... look at Glennon / Sanchez, acquired for the "veteran presence" they offer, and who the Bears will march into 2017 with ... how is that duo better than Barkley / Connor? on paper, I say they aren't, but they damn well better be

[HurricaneBear]

why?

why is it groups are saying Glennon is an upgrade over Barkley / Hoyer, yet then at the same time saying the team will do worse / as bad as last year?

forget Trubisky as even being part of the equation ... look at Glennon / Sanchez, acquired for the "veteran presence" they offer, and who the Bears will march into 2017 with ... how is that duo better than Barkley / Connor? on paper, I say they aren't, but they damn well better be

Which QB would you rather have as your starter? I got these stats from ESPN.com

59.4% on 630 attempts, 4,100 yards, 30 TD, 19 turnovers(15int, 4 fum) 84.6 rating.

or

59.8% on 266 attempts, 1911 yards, 8 TD, 23 turnovers(18 int, 5 fum) 63.7 rating.

[Boris13c]

that's not really comparing apples to apples though is it? Barkley has a much smaller sample size

guess we'll wait for the big showdown Dec 3rd .... Mike "Napolean Dynamite" Glennon vs Matt "Surfer Dude" Barkley

[wab]

guess we'll wait for the big showdown Dec 3rd .... Mike "Napolean Dynamite" Glennon vs Matt "Surfer Dude" Barkley

Where neither of them will probably be playing. Although that game does look like it could be the fight for the first overall pick.

[Boris13c]

guess we'll wait for the big showdown Dec 3rd .... Mike "Napolean Dynamite" Glennon vs Matt "Surfer Dude" Barkley

Where neither of them will probably be playing. Although that game does look like it could be the fight for the first overall pick.

[malk]

why?

why is it groups are saying Glennon is an upgrade over Barkley / Hoyer, yet then at the same time saying the team will do worse / as bad as last year?

forget Trubisky as even being part of the equation ... look at Glennon / Sanchez, acquired for the "veteran presence" they offer, and who the Bears will march into 2017 with ... how is that duo better than Barkley / Connor? on paper, I say they aren't, but they damn well better be

Which QB would you rather have as your starter? I got these stats from ESPN.com

59.4% on 630 attempts, 4,100 yards, 30 TD, 19 turnovers(15int, 4 fum) 84.6 rating.

or

59.8% on 266 attempts, 1911 yards, 8 TD, 23 turnovers(18 int, 5 fum) 63.7 rating.

Can I have the one that costs $2m in a placeholder season we likely won't make the playoffs?

[Boris13c]

why?

why is it groups are saying Glennon is an upgrade over Barkley / Hoyer, yet then at the same time saying the team will do worse / as bad as last year?

forget Trubisky as even being part of the equation ... look at Glennon / Sanchez, acquired for the "veteran presence" they offer, and who the Bears will march into 2017 with ... how is that duo better than Barkley / Connor? on paper, I say they aren't, but they damn well better be

Which QB would you rather have as your starter? I got these stats from ESPN.com

59.4% on 630 attempts, 4,100 yards, 30 TD, 19 turnovers(15int, 4 fum) 84.6 rating.

or

59.8% on 266 attempts, 1911 yards, 8 TD, 23 turnovers(18 int, 5 fum) 63.7 rating.

Can I have the one that costs $2m in a placeholder season we likely won't make the playoffs?

yes to the underlined bit

when Glennon was first signed, I figured he was "the guy", hand picked by Pace to be the answer to the Bears QB woes ... most of us were less than enthusiastic, but left with an "ok ... let's see what he can do" attitude ... hoping for the best, not expecting much, and pissed the Bears weren't even going to try to draft a QB

ah, but then things changed

and then there are questions

when Pace signed Glennon, was he also already planning to draft a QB? and was he doing so in utmost secrecy to avoid anyone else spoiling his scheme? if so, he sure kept that secret well, and I applaud him for that

or if after signing Glennon did he have a "what have I done?" moment, and THEN started planning to draft a QB?

we'll never know and Pace ain't telling

so from what I see right now, Glennon is the present, not the future ... and I think the only thing that can change that is if the Bears ride him deep into the playoffs ... since that is not likely, he will most probably be playing to audition for his next team ... he does well, but the Bears go nowhere, no big deal but it improves what the Bears might get for him

so regardless of the stats being posted, yes, I would have rather kept Barkley as the 1 year placeholder and spent the additional $$$ saved from not signing Glennon on a quality Safety or OT

[thunderspirit]

FWIW, I think Glennon was a) to throw off the Bears' interest in Trubisky and b) to basically reallocate the same money they had already earmarked for the QB position via Cutler's contract onto a QB with some perceived upside, however slight, in Glennon. Whatever we think of him, the Bears' opinion of Barkley is self-evident in that decision.

And Hoyer is, well, Hoyer. No upside whatsoever.

[wab]

FWIW, I think Glennon was a) to throw off the Bears' interest in Trubisky and b) to basically reallocate the same money they had already earmarked for the QB position via Cutler's contract onto a QB with some perceived upside, however slight, in Glennon. Whatever we think of him, the Bears' opinion of Barkley is self-evident in that decision.

And Hoyer is, well, Hoyer. No upside whatsoever.

Hoyer and Barkley have nearly zero trade value. The Bears can get something for Glennon should he play well. That to them, was worth the price they paid.

And I don't think signing Glennon was to cover up any interest in Trubisky...it was more a plan B in the event that the Browns took him at 1 or some other team traded up to #2.

[malk]

FWIW, I think Glennon was a) to throw off the Bears' interest in Trubisky and b) to basically reallocate the same money they had already earmarked for the QB position via Cutler's contract onto a QB with some perceived upside, however slight, in Glennon. Whatever we think of him, the Bears' opinion of Barkley is self-evident in that decision.

And Hoyer is, well, Hoyer. No upside whatsoever.

Hoyer and Barkley have nearly zero trade value. The Bears can get something for Glennon should he play well. That to them, was worth the price they paid.

And I don't think signing Glennon was to cover up any interest in Trubisky...it was more a plan B in the event that the Browns took him at 1 or some other team traded up to #2.

Outside of critiquing Pace I know this is flogging a dead horse, a horse that is now mostly soup, but hey, it's the off season...

Hoyer has zero trade value, at this point in his career his is what he is.

Barkley and Glennon are both different. Glennon had trade value on a rookie contract, now, as you rightly state, he has trade value if he plays well. The same could be said for Barkley and my argument is that he has a stronger case to become tradeable, or at least would have been if he had been signed to a cheap multi year deal. At Glennon's "starter" level contract he needs to at least play like a mid level starter to be tradeable and really needs to exceed that to get a worthwhile pick. Imagine the furore if we traded a 2nd round pick for a mid level guy.

Barkley on the other hand, if he cuts down on turnovers but otherwise plays like last season (massive if admittedly) and has two further years on vet min (three year deal at vet min plus whatever signing bonus you think it'd take for him to sign) then he'd be hugely valuable. Perhaps as a bridge, perhaps to a contender without cap space.

The risk/reward differential between the two scenarios is night and day and that's what frustrates me. Pace is so conservative, it's infuriating.

[wab]

I think it just boils down to, they must have really really not liked Barkley. And Pace had Glennon ranked as a low first, mid second round prospect at one point.

[G08]

I think it just boils down to, they must have really really not liked Barkley. And Pace had Glennon ranked as a low first, mid second round prospect at one point.

It's two bites at the apple, I really do like his approach to trying to address the situation.

Glennon plays well? Great! Let the kid sit and flip Glennon for some high draft picks.

Glennon sucks? Great! Cut him or keep him as a backup/mentor and trot the kid out there.


It's win-win from a developmental standpoint... as a fan, though? I think I honestly won't care if I miss Opening Kickoff, which is insane for me to say.

[wab]

I'll watch, but it really will be with total indifference. I won't have a vested interest until it's Trubisky's team. I'll just be treading water as a fan until then.

[Boris13c]

so, figured now would be a good time to bring this thread back to the front

$14.5 million ... not a small amount of money ... in the ying and yang of this discussion, that was an amount generally agreed as the going rate for an average to good NFL QB ... but this is what the Bears are paying Glennon, a second string QB, to give him the opportunity to be a starter

$9.6 million (salary and bonus) is what Brian Hoyer is being paid by the 49ers ... Hoyer has been a starter off and on for years

Glennon has yet to show he is an average NFL QB ... Hoyer is certainly no better than average

so who got the better deal? Bears or 49ers?

my vote is the 49ers ... the apparent sole purpose of signing Glennon and overpaying to do so was to be the smokescreen for the drafting of Trubisky

I have accepted Glennon is what we are stuck with for most of this season, and he especially deserves the abuse sure to come against the Steelers, Packers, Vikings and Ravens ... he did in fact divert attention away from the draft and what the Bears were up to ... but at the end of this season, he should not be on the team ... his efforts, and team results, over the next several weeks should be enough to confirm that with even the most dug-in-like-a-tick last ditch supporters he may have left

2 weeks into the season, and we have a mess ... week 7 against Carolina is when I now think the Trubisky era should begin

[LacertineForest]

I never understand why people care about the contract amounts. Unless those contracts prevented you from going out and getting other players or re-signing your own, then it makes zero difference to me who the McCaskeys are paying and how much - especially when the argument is "Glennon sucks. Hoyer sucks too, but at least we would have saved $5m over three years."

[Boris13c]

the dollar amount is valid for comparison purposes

the amount Glennon is being paid is an amount for an average to perhaps good NFL QB ... Glennon is proving to be neither which makes one wonder why the Bears seemed to be bidding against themselves for him

[LacertineForest]

the dollar amount is valid for comparison purposes

the amount Glennon is being paid is an amount for an average to perhaps good NFL QB ... Glennon is proving to be neither which makes one wonder why the Bears seemed to be bidding against themselves for him

I really think it was all part of the smokescreen to draft a QB high. Glennon was average in the first game and horrible yesterday. Hoyer and the 49ers haven't scored a TD. Plus, it's pretty early to make a comparison - it's only been two games.

[BR0D1E86]

I never understand why people care about the contract amounts. Unless those contracts prevented you from going out and getting other players or re-signing your own, then it makes zero difference to me who the McCaskeys are paying and how much - especially when the argument is "Glennon sucks. Hoyer sucks too, but at least we would have saved $5m over three years."

It only matters in that if Hoyer was shitting the bed like this it would be easier to replace him. Sadly, I don't think he would be. Because from what I've seen he is a better quarterback.

[LacertineForest]

I never understand why people care about the contract amounts. Unless those contracts prevented you from going out and getting other players or re-signing your own, then it makes zero difference to me who the McCaskeys are paying and how much - especially when the argument is "Glennon sucks. Hoyer sucks too, but at least we would have saved $5m over three years."

It only matters in that if Hoyer was shitting the bed like this it would be easier to replace him. Sadly, I don't think he would be. Because from what I've seen he is a better quarterback.

I don't think you'd see any difference in terms of getting the hook. Trubisky is in the long term future regardless. Fox is not if he doesn't win.

As for the QB comparison...

Mike Glennon, QB CHI - 57 / 85, 67.1 COMP %, 514 YDS, 6.05 YPA, 22 LONG, 2 TD, 2 INT, 5 SACK, 81.2 RTG
Brian Hoyer, QB SF - 39 / 62, 62.9 COMP %, 292 YDS, 4.71 YPA, 22 LONG, 0 TD, 2 INT, 6 SACK, 60.7 RTG

Yuck.

[Boris13c]

ok, so they both seem to suck

the original argument when the Bears signed Glennon was why pay so much for a taller version of Hoyer when they could have just kept Hoyer (and probably kept him for less than the 49ers ponied up)?

that original argument is still valid ... the only thing working in Glennon's favor was the smokescreen effect for the Bears draft moves ... if they had re-signed Hoyer, everyone else would have taken it to mean the Bears would be looking for a QB in the draft ... the signing of Glennon to his deal had the opposite effect

[BR0D1E86]

ok, so they both seem to suck

the original argument when the Bears signed Glennon was why pay so much for a taller version of Hoyer when they could have just kept Hoyer (and probably kept him for less than the 49ers ponied up)?

that original argument is still valid ... the only thing working in Glennon's favor was the smokescreen effect for the Bears draft moves ... if they had re-signed Hoyer, everyone else would have taken it to mean the Bears would be looking for a QB in the draft ... the signing of Glennon to his deal had the opposite effect

And 10 years from now, after 9 Trubisky Super Bowl MVP's I probably won't be upset about it any more. But for right now, fuck Mike Glennon and his money.

[KOP_Snake]

Why are some surprised at this? With "everything on the table" any available QB will be looked at!

IMO, Glennon is not the answer.

It's funny how some use Hoyer's name as if it's a bad thing. He fits exactly what the bears say they want in a QB.
He systematically fits.
He's efficient.
He protects the football.
He takes what the defense gives him.
He spreads the ball around.
He's said he has no problem mentoring a rookie.

Resigning Hoyer should be the start of filling the QB position holes.

Hoyer has lost all confidence in his abilities and now refuses to throw the ball downfield, especially on 3rd down. He is incapable of running an offense, and pads his stats on uncontested check down passes on 3rd down.

You could easily swap Glennon's name right into this quote.