So, for the third time, IN YOUR OWN SCENARIO it makes the most 'sense' to sign Glennon and use the #3 overall pick on a QB. And, for the third time, I think that is a terrible plan. Do you have any response to this?
No it does not. In my scenario, you sign Glennon and take the QB that you prefer whenever that is. I don't know how Pace has the QBs ranked so if his 1st round QB is gone by the time he picks at 3 then it doesn't make sense for him to pick a QB at 3. Why is this hard to understand?
But your scenario has no parallel with the Redskins. RG3 didn't 'suck balls', he got hurt. Cousins was a mid-round draft pick. Neither RG3 nor Cousins was a pricey FA signing like Glennon. They were both drafted. Even with RG3 being a high draft pick, his contract was 4yr/$21M...I'm guessing Glennon will make much more than that.
The parallel with the skins is that they acquired 2 QBs they thought had the potential to be good. And yes RG3 ended up sucking. And yes injuries happen. Hence why it's not a bad idea to acquire 2 QBs that you think have the potential to be good.
Sorry, but its like you have no brain. Do you really think the Bears (or any NFL team) would pick a QB at #3, have him sit for a couple years behind Mike Glennon, then at the end of his rookie contract simply let him go to FA? If you don't think this, then please explain the rationale for picking a QB at #3 AND signing Mike Glennon.
The rational for picking Glennon is that the Bears don't know which QBs will be gone by the time they pick at 3. You keep acting like the Bears have their choice of QB at 3. They do not. Once again, maybe they only have 1 QB with a grade deserving of the 3 pick. So they sign Glennon because in the event that QB is gone, they can draft who they consider to be more of a project in the 2nd or 3rd round and roll with Glennon. If their favorite QB happens to be there at 3 then they draft him and then start him when he is ready and then just have a pricey backup for 1 year. Oh well. You keep pretending like signing Glennon is some huge financial sinkhole. It is not.
So much wrong here. First, in response to the bold, Flynn's deal was 3yr/$19M with $9M guaranteed. At the time, it was bargain basement salary for an NFL starter. Second, Wilson was a mid round choice. It worked out for the Seahawks because Wilson proved to be a really good QB...what the Seahawks 'did' was pretty stupid and by no means should serve as a 'blueprint'. The financials worked out because of Wilson's tiny rookie contract...Flynn's contract was inconsequential. It could have been for $9M or $49M. This goes back again (yawn) to what I have already said...if your 'plan' is to sign Glennon and draft a QB in the 3rd round, then you are proactively choosing to make Glennon as your starting QB. If you actually think that Glennon is NO BETTER than a mid-round rookie, then its a terrible idea to enter a season with Glennon and a mid-round rookie as your top QB options.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...qb-matt-flynn-agree-to-threeyear-26m-contract
Flynn's contract was worth up to 26 million. He simply didn't earn all of it because his sucked. a 3 year 26 million contract represents a higher percent of salary cap than what Glennon's contract is likely to represent in 2017 because the cap went up. So once again signing Glennon to a reasonable deal is not going to prevent the Bears from competing if he sucks. What the Seahawks did was smart because they signed a guy in FA and then drafted a guy they thought had potential. Wilson just delivered on that potential earlier than what they had anticipated but there is nothing stupid about acquiring two QBs you think have potential.
Again, that doesn't answer anything. Do the Bears view Glennon as their starting QB for 2017? If so, then I would agree with your logic...the Bears would be less likely to reach for a QB because they already have their starter in place. If not, then what you are saying makes no sense. If the Bears sign Glennon and still feel like they need to find a starting QB, then Glennon's signing has no effect on the Bears drafting a QB. They won't 'draft better' simply because Mike Glennon is on the roster...the two things aren't related.
The Bears view Glennon as a QB that can start and do a good job in 2017. They also like most good teams will draft a QB that they think has potential even if they already have a starter. The Packers did this even when they had Favre. The Pats did this even when they had Brady. The Seahawks did this even when they had Flynn so there is no reason for the Bears not to do this even if they have Glennon.
So the plan is to make Mike Glennon the most expensive backup in the NFL, and draft a QB at #3? Yeah, I get that Glennon has more upside than Hoyer/Cutler. Thanks. How does Glennon fit into your 'plan'? It makes no sense.
No the plan would be to sign Glennon and then potentially take a QB at a point in the draft that makes sense based on how they have the QBs and other prospects graded. Since they nor I can predict how the draft will unfold, we don't know if that QB will be taken in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounds. Glennon fits into the plan because he's a guy Pace may think could be a good starting QB. Separate from that, if a QB is the BPA at any point during the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounds based on Pace and Fox's board then having Glennon should not prevent them from grabbing said QB because Glennon's not a slam dunk stud.
