Update: Bears re-sign QB Nathan Peterman

[Moriarty]

And he's back, lol

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2023 ... ryan-poles

That's very weird.

I guess it probably was a timing thing involving Braxton/Collins? I have no idea how/why, though.

With this madhouse of a franchise, you can never totally discount something insane, however.

[The Grizzly One]

Maybe after the dust settled and the tank is now on. You couldn't have a better tank commander than Peterman.

[Otis Day]

And the point of all that was?

It is the Bears, there is no point.

[Arkansasbear]

And he's back, lol

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2023 ... ryan-poles

That's very weird.

I guess it probably was a timing thing involving Braxton/Collins? I have no idea how/why, though.

With this madhouse of a franchise, you can never totally discount something insane, however.

This IS 2013 all over again. Keep telling myself it can't get stranger and yet every day it still does.

[Richie]

And he's back, lol

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2023 ... ryan-poles

That's very weird.

I guess it probably was a timing thing involving Braxton/Collins? I have no idea how/why, though.

With this madhouse of a franchise, you can never totally discount something insane, however.

I have no idea why people think any of this Bagent/Peterman stuff is weird. It's very cut and dry.

They wanted to elevate Bagent and make him the backup. They want to keep Peterman because he's widely considered to be a good veteran mentor/teacher. However, they can't put Peterman on practice squad without letting him pass through waivers.

They did that and here he is. Back on practice squad.

They wanted to swap places with their #2 and #3 QB's. This was the only way. Pretty simple.

[Richie]

That's very weird.

I guess it probably was a timing thing involving Braxton/Collins? I have no idea how/why, though.

With this madhouse of a franchise, you can never totally discount something insane, however.

This IS 2013 all over again. Keep telling myself it can't get stranger and yet every day it still does.

You mean 2014. But yes... this is 2014 all over again, except it's a nightmare WAY faster.

I didn't think it could get worse than that AWFUL 2014 season, but here we are.

[Moriarty]

That's very weird.

I guess it probably was a timing thing involving Braxton/Collins? I have no idea how/why, though.

With this madhouse of a franchise, you can never totally discount something insane, however.

I have no idea why people think any of this Bagent/Peterman stuff is weird. It's very cut and dry.

They wanted to elevate Bagent and make him the backup. They want to keep Peterman because he's widely considered to be a good veteran mentor/teacher. However, they can't put Peterman on practice squad without letting him pass through waivers.

They did that and here he is. Back on practice squad.

They wanted to swap places with their #2 and #3 QB's. This was the only way. Pretty simple.

Well, there's a problem with that theory

A source confirmed Thursday morning that Peterman was signed to the 53-man roster one day after he was released from it.

[Moriarty]

Here's an actual explanation:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2023 ... ryan-poles

The Bears cut him Wednesday, a source said, because they needed to first create a 53-man roster opening to try to poach a player from another team’s practice squad. The Bears were unsuccessful in doing so.

Can't read the whole thing, so I don't know who they tried to get and how they failed at it.

[UOK]

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

Boomerang Peterman

[Arkansasbear]

That's very weird.

I guess it probably was a timing thing involving Braxton/Collins? I have no idea how/why, though.

With this madhouse of a franchise, you can never totally discount something insane, however.

I have no idea why people think any of this Bagent/Peterman stuff is weird. It's very cut and dry.

They wanted to elevate Bagent and make him the backup. They want to keep Peterman because he's widely considered to be a good veteran mentor/teacher. However, they can't put Peterman on practice squad without letting him pass through waivers.

They did that and here he is. Back on practice squad.

They wanted to swap places with their #2 and #3 QB's. This was the only way. Pretty simple.

But it's not. If they wanted Bagent to be #2 and Peterman #3, all they had to do was label Peterman as the emergency QB on Sundays. No need to cut him to do that.

The theory about poaching a player makes some since.

[Arkansasbear]

I looked the the transition wire and I didn't see where any OL on another team got signed to an active roster. Did anyone else find that?

If not, I think that means we offered the guy on our 53-man roster and he said "no I'm good here. I'd rather be on their PS making less money having to go play for your dysfunctional organization."

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

I looked the the transition wire and I didn't see where any OL on another team got signed to an active roster. Did anyone else find that?

If not, I think that means we offered the guy on our 53-man roster and he said "no I'm good here. I'd rather be on their PS making less money having to go play for your dysfunctional organization."

I think you’re right

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Here's an actual explanation:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2023 ... ryan-poles

The Bears cut him Wednesday, a source said, because they needed to first create a 53-man roster opening to try to poach a player from another team’s practice squad. The Bears were unsuccessful in doing so.

Well that at least makes sense.

[Moriarty]

I looked the the transition wire and I didn't see where any OL on another team got signed to an active roster. Did anyone else find that?

If not, I think that means we offered the guy on our 53-man roster and he said "no I'm good here. I'd rather be on their PS making less money having to go play for your dysfunctional organization."

I wondered about that.

I see:

G/T Kayode Awosika
C/G Sam Mustipher
G Arlington Hambright

as signed from the PS 9/19-20

[Yogi da Bear]

I looked the the transition wire and I didn't see where any OL on another team got signed to an active roster. Did anyone else find that?

If not, I think that means we offered the guy on our 53-man roster and he said "no I'm good here. I'd rather be on their PS making less money having to go play for your dysfunctional organization."

I think you’re right

They could have called him up to their own roster. When somebody is trying to poach a PS player and is unsuccessful, this is the typical approach that is used.

...Or the player could have just wanted to stay as you say. It happens.

[Arkansasbear]

I think you’re right

They could have called him up to their own roster. When somebody is trying to poach a PS player and is unsuccessful, this is the typical approach that is used.

...Or the player could have just wanted to stay as you say. It happens.

But I didn't see any such moves. That's why I think they basically gave us the finger ( ) and said "no thanks."

[Rusty Trombagent]

our long national nightmare is finally over

[The Cooler King]

I looked the the transition wire and I didn't see where any OL on another team got signed to an active roster. Did anyone else find that?

If not, I think that means we offered the guy on our 53-man roster and he said "no I'm good here. I'd rather be on their PS making less money having to go play for your dysfunctional organization."

Possible we'll see the activity today, if it went down to wire. May also be that he got a raise for the PS which basically makes it comparable. Bears did this with Bars a few years back when Pats were gonna smatch him. Kept him on PS but maxed his salary.

[RichH55]

Can't let Peterman get complacent!

[The Cooler King]

I looked the the transition wire and I didn't see where any OL on another team got signed to an active roster. Did anyone else find that?

If not, I think that means we offered the guy on our 53-man roster and he said "no I'm good here. I'd rather be on their PS making less money having to go play for your dysfunctional organization."

Possible we'll see the activity today, if it went down to wire. May also be that he got a raise for the PS which basically makes it comparable. Bears did this with Bars a few years back when Pats were gonna smatch him. Kept him on PS but maxed his salary.

And he has Ian Cunningham ties. Seems like he was the likely target.

[Xee]

And the point of all that was?

I think the explanation was they wanted to sign an OL off another team's practice squad and if they wanted that player to practice the next day, they needed to clear a roster spot for them by 3:00pm due to league rules. They cut Peterman but then apparently the signing fell through so they resigned Peterman. Apparently even if they had been able to snag the other play, the plan was always to resign Peterman to the practice squad before Sunday and have him be the back up against the Chiefs.

[Rusty Trombagent]

Nathan Peterman getting a text from the bears that's just "your paycheck's gonna be fucked up this week, but all good."

[south pacific]

Sign him, cut him, then sign him again.