Bears sign QB Case Keenum to 1yr $3M deal

[RichH55]

No not at all. We just value different things. You think it's important for a backup to have experience in an attempt to keep a team afloat. I'm not sure if it's you but some of you think a vet back up is valuable for the off the field mentorship they can provide young QBs.

I don't think a back up keeps a team afloat unless the stars align and that can happen for any back up from a rookie to a 15 year vet.

I think mentorship is highly overrated and very dependent on the people involved. For example, how much mentoring did Justin Fields receive from two vet QBs in Andy Dalton and Nick Foles? From reports it sounds like they didn't get along. And even if they do get along, I just feel you can get the same value from coaching staff. Theres also the whole too many voices in the QBs head thing to worry about. I honestly want our QB talking to Johnson and his OC and his QB coach and that's it.

Then there's the salary cap. Yes he makes hardly anything, but that's just a little less money for someone else vs having a rookie contract backup. You may not care about that but for me that's an issue.

So no, he is not what I want in a primary backup. Tyson Bagent is. Austin Reed could fill that roll too. Drafting a late round rookie can fill that roll. That's what I want in my backup QB. None of you have to agree, but can you stop saying things like "you aren't living in reality" or being condescending like @Bearfacts please? I'm not being insulting to any of you and I am quiet clear headed in my beliefs of backup QBs. I've felt this way for many years. It's ok to have different opinions.

Agreed. The bears have almost always had a veteran backup, many better than keenum. I can’t remember a single time it mattered.

I do remember a rookie Kyle orton keeping the boat afloat for a young Rex grossman.

Worst Case Caleb Hanie says hello

[RichH55]

I would say Bagent is more the unknown, like Caleb Hanie was, but has a chance of potential even though he didn’t turn out.

It’s not like having backups like Nick Foles, Andy Dalton, Mike Glennon, chase Daniel, jimmy Clausen, Jason Campbell or Todd Collins or even Josh McCown ever did anything but prove you are basically hosed when your starting QB goes down. Even mccown was only 2-3 as QB of record in games he started.

Might as well swing at the next Brock Purdy, Aaron Brooks, Matt Flynn that you could flop for a pick if they were young and performed well enough in spot duty vs a washed, neverhasbeen or overdrafted veteran.

Caleb Hainie is the name that always comes to mind when people talk about Tyson. I am not down on him, but I am very realistic about him. He is a great story and is, as you stated, an unknown. Unknowns are always intriguing to contemplate. But pretending that getting a high pick for him some day is just not reasonable. He is an inexpensive game day #2 QB. We know he can play in a pinch, but I do not want him to ever be the starter. Fans get caught up in the player hype and mystique. If a better QB2 comes along, I am okay with them letting him go. I am also good with him staying as a cheap insurance policy.

He's got way more in common with Brock Purdy than Caleb Hanie.....Caleb Hanie's college resume is pretty blah (like His Career College numbers leave him with Less TD TOTAL than Tyson had in multiple single seasons)

The hate on Bagent is basically just residual Justin Fields stuff because he was better than Fields and people really, really, really went all in on Fields and it hurts to be that wrong

Keenum is a career backup and hasn't been in the starter discussion for the better part of a decade - But he was good in the Room with CJ Stroud (by all accounts)...and more importantly Stroud looked good.....So he's here now

[Shadow]

I place Tyson in the Hainie category because, Bears fans always have a percentage that feel the number 2 QB is an NFL starter if he could only get a chance. This is not knock Bagent but more an appreciation of Bears fans fanaticism. It goes back to the day of Orton Grossman debates. I even remember the Miller / Mathews debates too.

[wab]

I place Tyson in the Hainie category because, Bears fans always have a percentage that feel the number 2 QB is an NFL starter if he could only get a chance.

This really is true

[Moriarty]

I place Tyson in the Hainie category because, Bears fans always have a percentage that feel the number 2 QB is an NFL starter if he could only get a chance.

This really is true

Yep.

I mean, the possibility is certainly nonzero, but it gets so wildly overestimated.

[dplank]

Caleb Hainie is the name that always comes to mind when people talk about Tyson. I am not down on him, but I am very realistic about him. He is a great story and is, as you stated, an unknown. Unknowns are always intriguing to contemplate. But pretending that getting a high pick for him some day is just not reasonable. He is an inexpensive game day #2 QB. We know he can play in a pinch, but I do not want him to ever be the starter. Fans get caught up in the player hype and mystique. If a better QB2 comes along, I am okay with them letting him go. I am also good with him staying as a cheap insurance policy.

He's got way more in common with Brock Purdy than Caleb Hanie.....Caleb Hanie's college resume is pretty blah (like His Career College numbers leave him with Less TD TOTAL than Tyson had in multiple single seasons)

The hate on Bagent is basically just residual Justin Fields stuff because he was better than Fields and people really, really, really went all in on Fields and it hurts to be that wrong

Keenum is a career backup and hasn't been in the starter discussion for the better part of a decade - But he was good in the Room with CJ Stroud (by all accounts)...and more importantly Stroud looked good.....So he's here now

We don’t need to manufacture arguments out of thin air. I haven’t heard a single person hate Bagent, just reality checking the Bagent stans which is entirely different. As for the Fields dig, get back to me when Bagent signs with another NFL team as a starter like Justin just did - until then he is not the player Justin is per your own standard that you used when we traded Fields which was “The NFL GMs have spoken on his value”. Bagent hasn’t done anything yet, full stop, it’s all projection. He's Caleb Hanie until he isn't. As for Justin, I thought he looked good in Pittsburgh and the Jets seemed to agree, they chose him over Aaron Rodgers - I'm really curious to see how he performs this year.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

He's Caleb Hanie until he isn't.

To be fair..

After attempting just 14 passes in his first two seasons Hanie started 4 games in his third season and won none of them. His career stats were:

• 51 of 102 (50.0%) for 613 yards (6.0 ypa), 3 TD, 10 INT and a 41.8 passer rating

• A passing success rate of 29.2%

• 14 carries for 97 yards (6.9 ypa) with 4 first downs and 0 TD

• 15.33% sack rate

• A QBR of 19.0 in the year of his 4 starts

Bagent started 4 games as a rookie and won 2. His stats so far are:

• 96 of 145 (66.2%) for 870 yards (6.0 ypa), 3 TD, 6 INT and a 71.9 passer rating

• A passing success rate of 52.0%

• 23 carries for 109 yards (4.7 ypc) with 11 first downs and 2 TD*

• 3.38% sack rate

• A QBR of 51.8 in the year of his 4 starts
  
  *Not counting last season's 6 kneel downs

Bagent is very clearly much better than Caleb Hanie was.

[dplank]

Well it would look a lot different if you counted those 6 kneel downs. Anyways, a 4 game sample size is meaningless for the most part. Point is both guys look like career backups, and until something changes for Bagent that just is what it is. Maybe Bagent is a better backup than Hanie.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Well it would look a lot different if you counted those 6 kneel downs. Anyways, a 4 game sample size is meaningless for the most part. Point is both guys look like career backups, and until something changes for Bagent that just is what it is. Maybe Bagent is a better backup than Hanie.

Well those kneel downs knocked 7 yards off his total and reduced his ypc from 4.7 to just 3.5!

And isn't this discussion about backup QBs? I mean we're hardly discussing the possibility of Keenum or Bagent beating out Williams!

Yes it's a small sample size, but everyone has to start somewhere. Keenum started 8 games as a rookie and lost every one. Since then he's 30-28 as a starter.

Bagent has shown potential to be a good backup, certainly much better than Hanie ever was, and the team has shown it can win with him.

We'll never find out if he might amount to more than that unless he gets a chance to start. Others, including Keenum, have had that opportunity. Most proved themselves to be nothing more than backups if that. Some went on to become starters and even win Super Bowls.

[dplank]

Well it would look a lot different if you counted those 6 kneel downs. Anyways, a 4 game sample size is meaningless for the most part. Point is both guys look like career backups, and until something changes for Bagent that just is what it is. Maybe Bagent is a better backup than Hanie.

Well those kneel downs knocked 7 yards off his total and reduced his ypc from 4.7 to just 3.5!

And isn't this discussion about backup QBs? I mean we're hardly discussing the possibility of Keenum or Bagent beating out Williams!

Yes it's a small sample size, but everyone has to start somewhere. Keenum started 8 games as a rookie and lost every one. Since then he's 30-28 as a starter.

Bagent has shown potential to be a good backup, certainly much better than Hanie ever was, and the team has shown it can win with him.

We'll never find out if he might amount to more than that unless he gets a chance to start. Others, including Keenum, have had that opportunity. Most proved themselves to be nothing more than backups if that. Some went on to become starters and even win Super Bowls.

Being serious, for a backup turnovers are a major consideration. You want that steady/safe hand back there in that backup/spot start role, you don't want a turnover machine. Give me the guy who won't lose you games vs swinging for a guy that has more upside but also more risk. JMO.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Being serious, for a backup turnovers are a major consideration. You want that steady/safe hand back there in that backup/spot start role, you don't want a turnover machine. Give me the guy who won't lose you games vs swinging for a guy that has more upside but also more risk. JMO.

You mentioned Bagent's play being a very small sample size, which is true. He was an undrafted rookie. Rookies make mistakes and can learn from them. Just because Bagent threw too many INTs two seasons ago doesn't mean he'll continue to do so. We won't know unless he plays.

Peyton Manning famously threw 29 INTs as a rookie. His 4.9% INT rate was higher than Bagent's 4.2% and he was the first overall pick who was the focus of all the offseason work. Manning reduced his rate to 2.8% and 2.6% the next two seasons but then it spiked again to 4.2% in his fourth year. Obviously I'm not comparing Bagent to one of the all-time greats, just illustrating that QBs can improve and INT rate is not always consistent from one season to another.

Bagent's INT% was bad but it wasn't the worst in the league in 2023. For QBs who attempted over 100 passes Nick Mullens (5.4%), Jimmy Garoppolo (5.3%), Mitch Trubisky (4.7%), PJ Walker (4.5%) and Baily Zappe (4.2%) all had worse rates.

Including QBs who attempted over 50 passes top of the list was... Case Keenum (5.7%). He threw 3 INTs in just 53 pass attempts.

[dplank]

You mentioned Bagent's play being a very small sample size, which is true. He was an undrafted rookie. Rookies make mistakes and can learn from them. Just because Bagent threw too many INTs two seasons ago doesn't mean he'll continue to do so. We won't know unless he plays.

Somehow you keep missing my point here, so I'll just try one last time then move on. First off, it's not just INT's he also managed to turn the ball over 3 times on fumbles. So let's just be accurate here and not try to massage or manipulate stats for some predetermined outcome. He turned the ball over a ton in just a few games, period. There's no stat view that can save you from this core truth and attempts to try and do so are frankly disingenuous as the core truth is obvious and clear as day. He turned the ball over 9 times in 4 starts, end of discussion.

As to your Manning point, of course that's correct and I would even bet that he would improve on this as he plays more - I'd believe that about any player. But this is 100% not the point I'm making. My point was clear so try and just take it at face value - I value the known vs the unknown. Bagent might correct the issue, he might not - it's the unknown that I don't like when you are looking for a backup QB to a young starter. So any claims that he might correct these issues miss the point I'm making entirely. With Keenum, you have a more known quantity to work with, you have a much better sense for what he can and can't do, how to manage a game if he has to step in and play, etc. So my entire point is this - planning for the known vs the unknown - and I'm fine with the fact that Keenum offers no upside and Bagent may turn into the next Joe Montana. Given our specific circumstance I'll make that trade off if I have to. (and we don't even have to, we're talking about QB2/3 here, we will keep both)

Lastly, trust Ben Johnson. He asked for this for a reason. Most teams operate this way for a reason. And as we know, most Bears fans value their backup QB far too much, so layer those core truths into the thinking here also.

[Shadow]

Best case is Tyson lights up the Pre-Season and a QB needy team offers Poles a Godfather deal for him. I would like to see Tyson get that kind of opportunity. Because in the Bears world, if all goes to plan, he never will.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

You mentioned Bagent's play being a very small sample size, which is true. He was an undrafted rookie. Rookies make mistakes and can learn from them. Just because Bagent threw too many INTs two seasons ago doesn't mean he'll continue to do so. We won't know unless he plays.

Somehow you keep missing my point here, so I'll just try one last time then move on. First off, it's not just INT's he also managed to turn the ball over 3 times on fumbles. So let's just be accurate here and not try to massage or manipulate stats for some predetermined outcome. He turned the ball over a ton in just a few games, period. There's no stat view that can save you from this core truth and attempts to try and do so are frankly disingenuous as the core truth is obvious and clear as day. He turned the ball over 9 times in 4 starts, end of discussion.

As to your Manning point, of course that's correct and I would even bet that he would improve on this as he plays more - I'd believe that about any player. But this is 100% not the point I'm making. My point was clear so try and just take it at face value - I value the known vs the unknown. Bagent might correct the issue, he might not - it's the unknown that I don't like when you are looking for a backup QB to a young starter. So any claims that he might correct these issues miss the point I'm making entirely. With Keenum, you have a more known quantity to work with, you have a much better sense for what he can and can't do, how to manage a game if he has to step in and play, etc. So my entire point is this - planning for the known vs the unknown - and I'm fine with the fact that Keenum offers no upside and Bagent may turn into the next Joe Montana. Given our specific circumstance I'll make that trade off if I have to. (and we don't even have to, we're talking about QB2/3 here, we will keep both)

Lastly, trust Ben Johnson. He asked for this for a reason. Most teams operate this way for a reason. And as we know, most Bears fans value their backup QB far too much, so layer those core truths into the thinking here also.

There was no attempt to manipulate stats on my part. You mentioned INTs more than once. It's only now you've brought up fumbles too. And to be accurate it was 3 fumbles, but 2 lost so he turned the ball over 8 times, but point taken. I'm not defending that. I just don't see making mistakes as a rookie a dealbreaker or any reason to consider Keenum as a better option based on what he's done in recent seasons. I don't care about Keenum having a decent season 8 years ago. His recent performances haven't been good. He is what he is; a journeyman. I don't particularly value his "known" as a player at this point in his career.

I prefer the younger, more athletic, much more mobile QB who had turnover issues as a rookie but will now be entering his third season in the league. I don't see there is any more risk with him than with Keenum based on what we've seen from both in recent years.

And it's not like there is no tape on Bagent. It may be a small sample size but he has played, and won, in the NFL. He's not a complete unknown. He's demonstrated a lot of good things when he's played. He's shown admirable calmness and confidence; the situation isn't too big for him. His pocket awareness is excellent. He gets the ball out quickly and decisively. He makes plays with his legs when necessary or the opportunity arises.

Frankly, aside from the big negative with turnovers, he was pretty impressive for a rookie backup thrown in at the deep end. The fact he won that role ahead of more experienced options and retained it last year also says something about his acumen.

Also looking at the advanced metrics, including EPA which Ben Johnson has cited as being the most important, Bagent outperformed Keenum in almost every one in 2023, which was the last time either had any meaningful snaps.

Total EPA: Bagent -20.3 (55th) vs Keenum -22.3 (59th)
EPA/Play: Bagent -012 (47th) vs Keenum -0.37 (68th)
Pass EPA: Bagent -31.3 (60th) vs Keenum -20.7 (55th)
Rush EPA: Bagent 11.0 (11th) vs Keenum -1.70 (47th)
QB Sack %: Bagent 3.1% (7th) vs Keenum 10.2% (64th)
Success %: Bagent 48.5% (10th) vs Keenum 36.1% (58th)

(The rankings include all QBs, even those that saw little action. https://sumersports.com/players/quarter ... eason=2023)

So, even though the sample size is much smaller, all things considered I value what we know of Bagent over what we know of Keenum.

[Bearfacts]

IMO, the signing of Keenum is predominately about Caleb. There appears to be a school of thought in NFL circles that first and second year QBs can benefit greatly from having a veteran backup in the room and on the sideline. There are some who surmise that Caleb would have benefited greatly from having a mentor on the roster a year ago. IMO, Bagent is a fairly serviceable backup, but there's not a lot he can offer #18 vis-a-vis experience/wisdom/advice etc.

Ben Johnson likely identified this as a gap and the Bears filled it with Case Keenum.

This is really the perfect understanding of why Keenum was signed. He has a dual role of being being a vet mentor for both Caleb and Tyson Bagent and being another set of eyes on the sideline during games where he can communicate what he's seeing while the offense is off the field.

While I doubt that he takes a snap during the regular season he's still there and ready to play if needed and during the week as they game plan he can also run the scout team offense if called upon to do that. There are many layers of things happening each week we as fans don't always know about.

[dplank]

Somehow you keep missing my point here, so I'll just try one last time then move on. First off, it's not just INT's he also managed to turn the ball over 3 times on fumbles. So let's just be accurate here and not try to massage or manipulate stats for some predetermined outcome. He turned the ball over a ton in just a few games, period. There's no stat view that can save you from this core truth and attempts to try and do so are frankly disingenuous as the core truth is obvious and clear as day. He turned the ball over 9 times in 4 starts, end of discussion.

As to your Manning point, of course that's correct and I would even bet that he would improve on this as he plays more - I'd believe that about any player. But this is 100% not the point I'm making. My point was clear so try and just take it at face value - I value the known vs the unknown. Bagent might correct the issue, he might not - it's the unknown that I don't like when you are looking for a backup QB to a young starter. So any claims that he might correct these issues miss the point I'm making entirely. With Keenum, you have a more known quantity to work with, you have a much better sense for what he can and can't do, how to manage a game if he has to step in and play, etc. So my entire point is this - planning for the known vs the unknown - and I'm fine with the fact that Keenum offers no upside and Bagent may turn into the next Joe Montana. Given our specific circumstance I'll make that trade off if I have to. (and we don't even have to, we're talking about QB2/3 here, we will keep both)

Lastly, trust Ben Johnson. He asked for this for a reason. Most teams operate this way for a reason. And as we know, most Bears fans value their backup QB far too much, so layer those core truths into the thinking here also.

There was no attempt to manipulate stats on my part. You mentioned INTs more than once. It's only now you've brought up fumbles too. And to be accurate it was 3 fumbles, but 2 lost so he turned the ball over 8 times, but point taken. I'm not defending that. I just don't see making mistakes as a rookie a dealbreaker or any reason to consider Keenum as a better option based on what he's done in recent seasons. I don't care about Keenum having a decent season 8 years ago. His recent performances haven't been good. He is what he is; a journeyman. I don't particularly value his "known" as a player at this point in his career.

I prefer the younger, more athletic, much more mobile QB who had turnover issues as a rookie but will now be entering his third season in the league. I don't see there is any more risk with him than with Keenum based on what we've seen from both in recent years.

And it's not like there is no tape on Bagent. It may be a small sample size but he has played, and won, in the NFL. He's not a complete unknown. He's demonstrated a lot of good things when he's played. He's shown admirable calmness and confidence; the situation isn't too big for him. His pocket awareness is excellent. He gets the ball out quickly and decisively. He makes plays with his legs when necessary or the opportunity arises.

Frankly, aside from the big negative with turnovers, he was pretty impressive for a rookie backup thrown in at the deep end. The fact he won that role ahead of more experienced options and retained it last year also says something about his acumen.

Also looking at the advanced metrics, including EPA which Ben Johnson has cited as being the most important, Bagent outperformed Keenum in almost every one in 2023, which was the last time either had any meaningful snaps.

Total EPA: Bagent -20.3 (55th) vs Keenum -22.3 (59th)
EPA/Play: Bagent -012 (47th) vs Keenum -0.37 (68th)
Pass EPA: Bagent -31.3 (60th) vs Keenum -20.7 (55th)
Rush EPA: Bagent 11.0 (11th) vs Keenum -1.70 (47th)
QB Sack %: Bagent 3.1% (7th) vs Keenum 10.2% (64th)
Success %: Bagent 48.5% (10th) vs Keenum 36.1% (58th)

(The rankings include all QBs, even those that saw little action. https://sumersports.com/players/quarter ... eason=2023)

So, even though the sample size is much smaller, all things considered I value what we know of Bagent over what we know of Keenum.

Fair on 8 turnovers, only fumbles lost matters. But I think you like numbers too much (PFF ratings annd advanced metrics and such). And extending a 4 game sample size from 2 years ago just doesn’t do anything for me. Agree to disagree and I’ll just say again, I’m good with whatever Ben Johnson decides after seeing them in camp. Bagent may very well be the better option, I like Johnson having a vet choice if he feels differently.

[Bearfacts]

Well he currently has four choice including Caleb. Caleb is the one who matters the most. After that we're looking for a #2 who can come in and potentially win games. Bagent currently has the inside track until he doesn't. The rest will get settled beginning in July. Or we offer Bagent to NOLA since they're hurting at QB? LOL

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Fair on 8 turnovers, only fumbles lost matters. But I think you like numbers too much (PFF ratings annd advanced metrics and such). And extending a 4 game sample size from 2 years ago just doesn’t do anything for me. Agree to disagree and I’ll just say again, I’m good with whatever Ben Johnson decides after seeing them in camp. Bagent may very well be the better option, I like Johnson having a vet choice if he feels differently.

Happy to agree to disagree. I don't have an issue with a vet on the roster either.

On a tangent, I do find the term "vet" in NFL parlance to be somewhat odd. By definition a veteran is "a person that has given long service in some capacity" or "a soldier who has seen considerable active service". Yet in the NFL a player seems to be considered a veteran the moment he's no longer a rookie.

The other day one of the reporters at his presser referred to Darnell Wright as being a veteran now and he looked a bit uncomfortable. It's not surprising really given he's only been in the league two years and is the least experienced of the Bears starting O-linemen.

By that definition Bagent is also now a vet, although I would say he doesn't fit the bill either as someone that has "given long service" or as someone with "considerable active service".

I always think of an NFL vet as one who at the very least is on his second contract.

[RichH55]

He's got way more in common with Brock Purdy than Caleb Hanie.....Caleb Hanie's college resume is pretty blah (like His Career College numbers leave him with Less TD TOTAL than Tyson had in multiple single seasons)

The hate on Bagent is basically just residual Justin Fields stuff because he was better than Fields and people really, really, really went all in on Fields and it hurts to be that wrong

Keenum is a career backup and hasn't been in the starter discussion for the better part of a decade - But he was good in the Room with CJ Stroud (by all accounts)...and more importantly Stroud looked good.....So he's here now

We don’t need to manufacture arguments out of thin air. I haven’t heard a single person hate Bagent, just reality checking the Bagent stans which is entirely different. As for the Fields dig, get back to me when Bagent signs with another NFL team as a starter like Justin just did - until then he is not the player Justin is per your own standard that you used when we traded Fields which was “The NFL GMs have spoken on his value”. Bagent hasn’t done anything yet, full stop, it’s all projection. He's Caleb Hanie until he isn't. As for Justin, I thought he looked good in Pittsburgh and the Jets seemed to agree, they chose him over Aaron Rodgers - I'm really curious to see how he performs this year.

One Person comped him to Ryan Nall. (And someone said he's Caleb Hanie until he isn't ....though Fields apparently never has to prove anything, ever. Odd.)

That's bad. Terrible in fact. And not based on fact...

Justin Fields is following the Marcus Mariotta playbook to a T. Get some money (*) for the last starting hurrah that won't work out, then get a bunch of money as "Premium" backup after that.

(*) For 2025 Fields Cap Hit is Actually LOWER than Mariottas and is 30th for NFL QBs for 2025....behind the likes of Derek Carr, Marcus Mariotta, Russell Wilson, multiple guys on Rookie Contracts.....and the IMMORTAL Daniel Jones!
(**) Since I know you only care about Year OF Cap Hits and not AAV. But even AAV it's not a top flight NFL QB contract...and then even put in some fun void years.... MY guess is that it will be a 1 year 30 million deal when all is said and done because they won't think he's worth the extra 10 million in 2026....

Which is to say ......Jets gonna Jet



Jets didn't pick him over Aaron Rodgers- that's not really a true take. They did move on from Rodgers...that much is true

But obviously - Jets one of the Smartest teams in the NFL. No Team has a more advanced teenager playing GM after all! I do like the fact that they heard that "We don't practice fucked" story and thought....We will see about that!

I know you thought Fields looked good in Pitt (right until they replaced him in season - NFL speaking mind you)...You thought he looked good here and was a Robert Tunyan drop away from being THE GUY and that it was 50-50 that they were debating between him and Caleb - When in reality they told him right after the season at the exit interview that they were moving on (somehow, someway)

So it hasn't been a particularly fair take on him 5 Years in if you think it's been like a good run For the Fields is a Hero contingent

[RichH55]

There was no attempt to manipulate stats on my part. You mentioned INTs more than once. It's only now you've brought up fumbles too. And to be accurate it was 3 fumbles, but 2 lost so he turned the ball over 8 times, but point taken. I'm not defending that. I just don't see making mistakes as a rookie a dealbreaker or any reason to consider Keenum as a better option based on what he's done in recent seasons. I don't care about Keenum having a decent season 8 years ago. His recent performances haven't been good. He is what he is; a journeyman. I don't particularly value his "known" as a player at this point in his career.

I prefer the younger, more athletic, much more mobile QB who had turnover issues as a rookie but will now be entering his third season in the league. I don't see there is any more risk with him than with Keenum based on what we've seen from both in recent years.

And it's not like there is no tape on Bagent. It may be a small sample size but he has played, and won, in the NFL. He's not a complete unknown. He's demonstrated a lot of good things when he's played. He's shown admirable calmness and confidence; the situation isn't too big for him. His pocket awareness is excellent. He gets the ball out quickly and decisively. He makes plays with his legs when necessary or the opportunity arises.

Frankly, aside from the big negative with turnovers, he was pretty impressive for a rookie backup thrown in at the deep end. The fact he won that role ahead of more experienced options and retained it last year also says something about his acumen.

Also looking at the advanced metrics, including EPA which Ben Johnson has cited as being the most important, Bagent outperformed Keenum in almost every one in 2023, which was the last time either had any meaningful snaps.

Total EPA: Bagent -20.3 (55th) vs Keenum -22.3 (59th)
EPA/Play: Bagent -012 (47th) vs Keenum -0.37 (68th)
Pass EPA: Bagent -31.3 (60th) vs Keenum -20.7 (55th)
Rush EPA: Bagent 11.0 (11th) vs Keenum -1.70 (47th)
QB Sack %: Bagent 3.1% (7th) vs Keenum 10.2% (64th)
Success %: Bagent 48.5% (10th) vs Keenum 36.1% (58th)

(The rankings include all QBs, even those that saw little action. https://sumersports.com/players/quarter ... eason=2023)

So, even though the sample size is much smaller, all things considered I value what we know of Bagent over what we know of Keenum.

Fair on 8 turnovers, only fumbles lost matters. But I think you like numbers too much (PFF ratings annd advanced metrics and such). And extending a 4 game sample size from 2 years ago just doesn’t do anything for me. Agree to disagree and I’ll just say again, I’m good with whatever Ben Johnson decides after seeing them in camp. Bagent may very well be the better option, I like Johnson having a vet choice if he feels differently.

This is not a true statement as to Fumbles Lost and absolutely NOT how NFL teams nor Analytics folks look at it.

[RichH55]

You mentioned Bagent's play being a very small sample size, which is true. He was an undrafted rookie. Rookies make mistakes and can learn from them. Just because Bagent threw too many INTs two seasons ago doesn't mean he'll continue to do so. We won't know unless he plays.

Somehow you keep missing my point here, so I'll just try one last time then move on. First off, it's not just INT's he also managed to turn the ball over 3 times on fumbles. So let's just be accurate here and not try to massage or manipulate stats for some predetermined outcome. He turned the ball over a ton in just a few games, period. There's no stat view that can save you from this core truth and attempts to try and do so are frankly disingenuous as the core truth is obvious and clear as day. He turned the ball over 9 times in 4 starts, end of discussion.

As to your Manning point, of course that's correct and I would even bet that he would improve on this as he plays more - I'd believe that about any player. But this is 100% not the point I'm making. My point was clear so try and just take it at face value - I value the known vs the unknown. Bagent might correct the issue, he might not - it's the unknown that I don't like when you are looking for a backup QB to a young starter. So any claims that he might correct these issues miss the point I'm making entirely. With Keenum, you have a more known quantity to work with, you have a much better sense for what he can and can't do, how to manage a game if he has to step in and play, etc. So my entire point is this - planning for the known vs the unknown - and I'm fine with the fact that Keenum offers no upside and Bagent may turn into the next Joe Montana. Given our specific circumstance I'll make that trade off if I have to. (and we don't even have to, we're talking about QB2/3 here, we will keep both)

Lastly, trust Ben Johnson. He asked for this for a reason. Most teams operate this way for a reason. And as we know, most Bears fans value their backup QB far too much, so layer those core truths into the thinking here also.

The problem is you say stuff like I value the known over the unknown.....and it's somehow a case......for Case Keenum? Or do we have to say stuff like you know he threw for 3800 Yards in 2018! And ignore that its mainly just a product of playing a full season and that 18 TD to 15 INT and that Denver team and Offense was BAD probably should ....you know...be mentioned?

Also - as to the Ben Johnson point ...as we will see and you can admit you made a mistake later......they DID bring in Case Keenum for a reason (and ultimately pretty cheaply).......It was NOT to be the primary backup or the failsafe

It was to be a good Vet in the room. There are reasons that legions of these guys who aren't good at QB at the NFL level are still playing


No one...not even me....is saying Dumb Stuff (at least as to Bagent) like he's the Next Joe Montana (FOOLISH HYPERBOLE ALERT)......You don't even have to be the next Colt McCoy to be a better option (to actually PLAY) than Case Keenum these days though.

[RichH55]

Well those kneel downs knocked 7 yards off his total and reduced his ypc from 4.7 to just 3.5!

And isn't this discussion about backup QBs? I mean we're hardly discussing the possibility of Keenum or Bagent beating out Williams!

Yes it's a small sample size, but everyone has to start somewhere. Keenum started 8 games as a rookie and lost every one. Since then he's 30-28 as a starter.

Bagent has shown potential to be a good backup, certainly much better than Hanie ever was, and the team has shown it can win with him.

We'll never find out if he might amount to more than that unless he gets a chance to start. Others, including Keenum, have had that opportunity. Most proved themselves to be nothing more than backups if that. Some went on to become starters and even win Super Bowls.

Being serious, for a backup turnovers are a major consideration. You want that steady/safe hand back there in that backup/spot start role, you don't want a turnover machine. Give me the guy who won't lose you games vs swinging for a guy that has more upside but also more risk. JMO.

Case Keenum.....Veteran SAVANT.....had 3 INT in 2 games last year. (Even had a Fumble as well)

The Highest INT percentage of his career- playing for a good Texans team, not a poor team as a Rookie.

I feel like maybe you are missing the point that we are talking about Case Keenum?

[wab]

5 pages on Case Keenum.

[LacertineForest]

5 pages on Case Keenum.

Lmao, I had to look at the page count earlier, too, because reading through it feels like 30 pages...

[HurricaneBear]

5 pages on Case Keenum.

I mean, I much prefer our most pressing QB issues to be about our 3rd QB. Id like to never see the equivalent of the Justin Fields wars or Grossman vs Orton again.

[dplank]

This is what happens when you dare question Tyson Bagent's greatness lol....

[Z Bear]

The most popular player on the Bears has always been the backup QB, why stop now?

[Bearfacts]

5 pages on Case Keenum.

It's roster building season. Posting fever reigns.

[Yogi da Bear]

He's got way more in common with Brock Purdy than Caleb Hanie.....Caleb Hanie's college resume is pretty blah (like His Career College numbers leave him with Less TD TOTAL than Tyson had in multiple single seasons)

The hate on Bagent is basically just residual Justin Fields stuff because he was better than Fields and people really, really, really went all in on Fields and it hurts to be that wrong

Keenum is a career backup and hasn't been in the starter discussion for the better part of a decade - But he was good in the Room with CJ Stroud (by all accounts)...and more importantly Stroud looked good.....So he's here now

We don’t need to manufacture arguments out of thin air. I haven’t heard a single person hate Bagent, just reality checking the Bagent stans which is entirely different. As for the Fields dig, get back to me when Bagent signs with another NFL team as a starter like Justin just did - until then he is not the player Justin is per your own standard that you used when we traded Fields which was “The NFL GMs have spoken on his value”. Bagent hasn’t done anything yet, full stop, it’s all projection. He's Caleb Hanie until he isn't. As for Justin, I thought he looked good in Pittsburgh and the Jets seemed to agree, they chose him over Aaron Rodgers - I'm really curious to see how he performs this year.

Saying Bagent is better than Fields is just as ridiculous as comparing him to Hanie. Hanie had one decent game and everybody thought that he could handle. He couldn't. Bagent is far more accurate and can process far quicker than Hanie ever could. Personally, I think that Bagent could be better than Purdy if given the shot. But I don't think that he's better than Fields either. I'm really excited to see Fields get a legitimate shot this year.

[dplank]

We don’t need to manufacture arguments out of thin air. I haven’t heard a single person hate Bagent, just reality checking the Bagent stans which is entirely different. As for the Fields dig, get back to me when Bagent signs with another NFL team as a starter like Justin just did - until then he is not the player Justin is per your own standard that you used when we traded Fields which was “The NFL GMs have spoken on his value”. Bagent hasn’t done anything yet, full stop, it’s all projection. He's Caleb Hanie until he isn't. As for Justin, I thought he looked good in Pittsburgh and the Jets seemed to agree, they chose him over Aaron Rodgers - I'm really curious to see how he performs this year.

Saying Bagent is better than Fields is just as ridiculous as comparing him to Hanie. Hanie had one decent game and everybody thought that he could handle. He couldn't. Bagent is far more accurate and can process far quicker than Hanie ever could. Personally, I think that Bagent could be better than Purdy if given the shot. But I don't think that he's better than Fields either. I'm really excited to see Fields get a legitimate shot this year.

Same...my Hanie comment isn't a specific player comp - I don't really have any opinion on Hanie I barely remember him. My position is more "he's a career backup until he isn't". He's a backup, and he's probably always going to be a backup. Just like Hanie and a thousand other guys, which is why I lumped them together very broadly. Bears fans always seem to think their backup QB would be some great starter elsewhere, but that never seems to actually happen and I suspect the same here with Bagent.