Glennon Is A Week-To-Week Starting QB

[didshereallysaythat]

What historical data are you basing this 'absolutism' on?

What historical data would say otherwise?

LOGICALLY speaking... if a player was drafted where they were valued at sits for 1-2 years and plays well in the preseason, where would they essentially be redrafted at? Now you could say that they are 1-2 years older and thus would hold less value. But keep in mind that the players ORIGINAL value was set lower due to the fact that they were not ready to start right away. Essentially you are passing the time in the exact same way it was planned.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

For one thing his contract. If rookie that sits for 2 years and then is traded to a new team. His new team only has 2 years to evaluate him before they have to offer a big contract. If you figure it takes 2 years on the field before a QB to get comfortable with the NFL speed, playbooks, different looks, and NFL defenses. then those 2 years really are a lot more valuable then you seem to realize. Even though he was in a system for 2 years once he goes to a new team he has to start all over with new coaches, philosophes, playbooks, system, and training plans. I really think sitting on the bench is not nearly as valuable as a lot of people think it is.

Also your Luck / Manning example is crazy! A more realistic example would of been ... Do you think if the Colts drafted Luck and Painter stayed with the team, he wouldn't be worth a 1st round pick 2 years later?
You are suggesting the trade value of Trubisky if he can not win a job from a backup QB and not the trade value of Trubisky if he can not win the job from a HOF QB who played his entire career with the team that drafted him.

But you are looking at Painter as a shitty QB and then determining that Luck must suck if he gets beat out by Painter.

I am saying that in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EVENT that "Painter" (Glennon) plays like Aaron Rodgers that you would have to trade "Luck" (Trubisky). And if this is coupled with the assumed fact that he lights it up in the preseason that his value would hold.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

If Glennon has an MVP season, then that would almost ensure Trubisky replacing him. When his contract expires Glennon will be deemed "too expensive" by Ryan Pace, sign with the Packers to replace a retiring Aaron Rodgers, and beat the Bears 20 times in a row while Ryan Pace has used the "Glennon money" to get Danny Trevathan that $52M contract extension.

Wish in one hand and shit in the other.

 

[gpphat]

What historical data would say otherwise?

LOGICALLY speaking... if a player was drafted where they were valued at sits for 1-2 years and plays well in the preseason, where would they essentially be redrafted at? Now you could say that they are 1-2 years older and thus would hold less value. But keep in mind that the players ORIGINAL value was set lower due to the fact that they were not ready to start right away. Essentially you are passing the time in the exact same way it was planned.

What you keep leaving out is if the player is sitting for 1-2 years and a team is willing to trade him away then he doesn't have much value to the team. That's why it is not common to see that happen.

 

[iueyedoc]

the hypothetical is A. Trubisky not playing(Bradford and Jimmy G both have) and B. Trubisky not playing because he can't beat out Mike Glennon(not Tom Brady)

Who are these guys? I am more concerned with M.Trubisky. Stay on topic please.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

I remember when the Bucs drafted Steve Young #1 overall in the 1984 supplemental draft. Much like Andrew Luck, Steve Young was thought to be a WAY better pro prospect than Mitchell Trubisky. Young actually played for two years, then the Niners acquired him from the Bucs for a 2nd round and a 4th round draft pick.

So you have one of the top QB prospects of his generation playing in the NFL for two years, and getting swapped for a 2nd/4th package. Didshe insists in absolute terms that Mitch Trubisky can sit on the bench for two years behind Mike Glennon, and command something greater than the #2 overall pick on the open market.

Speechless would be an understatement here.

Except Steve Young was HORRIBLE on the Bucs. Playing HURT his value.

3-16 record. 51% completions. 11 TDs and 21 INTs. Rate+ of 77 and 88.

Horrible example by you.

 

[FirstTimer]

But you are looking at Painter as a shitty QB and then determining that Luck must suck if he gets beat out by Painter.

I am saying that in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EVENT that "Painter" (Glennon) plays like Aaron Rodgers that you would have to trade "Luck" (Trubisky). And if this is coupled with the assumed fact that he lights it up in the preseason that his value would hold.

Based on what precedent?!

 

[FirstTimer]

LOGICALLY speaking... if a player was drafted where they were valued at sits for 1-2 years and plays well in the preseason, where would they essentially be redrafted at? Now you could say that they are 1-2 years older and thus would hold less value. But keep in mind that the players ORIGINAL value was set lower due to the fact that they were not ready to start right away. Essentially you are passing the time in the exact same way it was planned.

Logically, if this player couldn't beat out Mike Glennon in two years is value would not hold. Not being able to beat out Mike Glennon>>>playing well in the pre-season in terms of evaluating value.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

What you keep leaving out is if the player is sitting for 1-2 years and a team is willing to trade him away then he doesn't have much value to the team. That's why it is not common to see that happen.

Because the other QB on the roster is proven and all pro.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Logically, if this player couldn't beat out Mike Glennon in two years is value would not hold. Not being able to beat out Mike Glennon>>>playing well in the pre-season in terms of evaluating value.

But who would beat out Mike Glennon if he played like Aaron Rodgers?

 

[didshereallysaythat]

There is no examples of this. I already said that it is next to impossible to happening.

Why argue?

 

[iueyedoc]

Back in 1991 Ken Herock (Ryan Pace) took Brett Favre (Mitch Trubisky) with the 33rd (rnd2) pick of the draft. After sitting behind Chris Miller and Billy Joe Tolliver ( Mike Glennon and Mark Sancheeze) and throwing a total of 4 passes as a rookie, much maligned by his HC Jerry Glanville ( John Fox) he was traded to Green Bay ( team to fleece Bears TBD) for the 19th pick of the 1992 NFL draft (Tony Smith).

So while a similar situation has occurred, who the fuck wants to trade away Brett Farve for Tony " who da fuck" Smith and have Chris Miller and Billy Joe Toliver QB your team ?

 

[FirstTimer]

So you based your absolute on nothing.

A top 5 pick on a QB that hasn't played absolutely would net a 1st round pick a mere 2 years later.

No history.
No logic.
No nothing.

Great.

 

[gpphat]

Because the other QB on the roster is proven and all pro.

Which makes the player being traded even less valuable to the team that has him, especially with the player having 0 starts or playing time.

you can safely say from year to year about 3/4ths of the teams in the NFL are set at QB whether it be they have a top 10-15 QB or have recently drafted a QB and are not in the market to trade draft picks for a QB. so that leaves potentially 8 teams that would be in the market for a QB change. we can probably expect half of those team to be drafting somewhat early in the draft and could potentially have a shot at drafting their own QB versus trading for one. So in the end there is probably 3-4 teams that in a given year that could realistically be in the market to make a trade. now you have to take into account the free agent market and what QB's will be in there and if it would be worth trading or just getting the veteran.

Basically for a team to be willing to pay a premium for a player in terms of draft picks, there has to be a perfect storm for that to happen. which is why either teams just unload players for whatever pick they can get or they end up not making a deal. So this whole "if Glennon gets replaced by Trubisky, then Pace can trade him for a couple picks and if Glennon plays lights out we could trade Trubisky for a 1st" is just ridiculous because not only is it unlikely, but most GM's would look at that situation and know they don't have to give much to get that player.

 

[FirstTimer]

And for the Bears to trade Trubisky they'd have to get a king's ransom back just to make it worth it or have it make sense or you'd basically be trading the #2 pick, that you traded up to get, for pennies on the dollar. Unless didshe really believes that if Trubisky doesn't play for two years he's still as valuable as the #2 pick in the draft..and that's based on how the Bears had him valued. How many other teams had him valued there? ...and are those teams still in need of a QB?..and do they have the draft capital to make the deal?

 

[gpphat]

And for the Bears to trade Trubisky they'd have to get a king's ransom back just to make it worth it or have it make sense or you'd basically be trading the #2 pick, that you traded up to get, for pennies on the dollar. Unless didshe really believes that if Trubisky doesn't play for two years he's still as valuable as the #2 pick in the draft..and that's based on how the Bears had him valued. How many other teams had him valued there? ...and are those teams still in need of a QB?..and do they have the draft capital to make the deal?

but don't worry, in the unlikely situation that Glennon plays light out for 2 years...Pace will simply trade Trubisky

 

[FirstTimer]

but don't worry, in the unlikely situation that Glennon plays light out for 2 years...Pace will simply trade Trubisky

and he'll absolutely get a 1st round pick for him......

That's what I don't think didshe gets either. it's not simply getting a 1st rounder back, you'd want to have it be a high first rounder. didshe equating Pace possibly trading his once top 2 pick for the 32nd pick in the draft as an equal trade is football insanity.

Why would any fan or front office be happy about that ROI?

 

[didshereallysaythat]

So you based your absolute on nothing.



No history.
No logic.
No nothing.

Great.

So why are you arguing against what I am saying?

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Which makes the player being traded even less valuable to the team that has him, especially with the player having 0 starts or playing time.

you can safely say from year to year about 3/4ths of the teams in the NFL are set at QB whether it be they have a top 10-15 QB or have recently drafted a QB and are not in the market to trade draft picks for a QB. so that leaves potentially 8 teams that would be in the market for a QB change. we can probably expect half of those team to be drafting somewhat early in the draft and could potentially have a shot at drafting their own QB versus trading for one. So in the end there is probably 3-4 teams that in a given year that could realistically be in the market to make a trade. now you have to take into account the free agent market and what QB's will be in there and if it would be worth trading or just getting the veteran.

Basically for a team to be willing to pay a premium for a player in terms of draft picks, there has to be a perfect storm for that to happen. which is why either teams just unload players for whatever pick they can get or they end up not making a deal. So this whole "if Glennon gets replaced by Trubisky, then Pace can trade him for a couple picks and if Glennon plays lights out we could trade Trubisky for a 1st" is just ridiculous because not only is it unlikely, but most GM's would look at that situation and know they don't have to give much to get that player.

Well, Cleveland reportedly offered their 1st for Goroppolo. Perfect storm?

 

[didshereallysaythat]

but don't worry, in the unlikely situation that Glennon plays light out for 2 years...Pace will simply trade Trubisky

In that unlikely event, what other alternative is there? Keep him on the bench and lose him to free agency after 4 years?