We'll see. He hasn't played for a few years. After he does, I think we will all be in a better position to say what he is good and bad at.
Well that's been my point from the start of the rumors. There is no way of knowing what he is b/c he's got little more then 1 year of nfl play in him. Generally you want 3 years worth to decide on a guy. Could he be a backup or dud, ya, could he be a really good qb ya. You just don't know; and that makes him a better option then the known bad that is Cutler and Hoyer.
So I want to be sure I understand this. He goes 5-13, but that is not considered to be known bad. It is unknown even though there are actual stats. And so since it is unknown (even with the stats), it is a better gamble than Hoyer or Cutler. Hoyer is 16-16 and Cutler is 69-72, but I am a little confused if those records are known or unknown.
Well that's been my point from the start of the rumors. There is no way of knowing what he is b/c he's got little more then 1 year of nfl play in him. Generally you want 3 years worth to decide on a guy. Could he be a backup or dud, ya, could he be a really good qb ya. You just don't know; and that makes him a better option then the known bad that is Cutler and Hoyer.
So I want to be sure I understand this. He goes 5-13, but that is not considered to be known bad. It is unknown even though there are actual stats. And so since it is unknown (even with the stats), it is a better gamble than Hoyer or Cutler. Hoyer is 16-16 and Cutler is 69-72, but I am a little confused if those records are known or unknown.
Again, since when don't you need 3 years to judge an nfl player? You are at this point just trying to miss the point. 5-13=18<48 starts, is a n/a ie not enough to judge someone on that is just over 1 season(only in the league 3 years). 16-16=36<48 starts, is only 2 years, not 3, but he's also been in the league 8 years on what his 5th team, at some point he is what he is. 69-72>>>then 48 starts, well more then 3 years and you know what he is.
So I want to be sure I understand this. He goes 5-13, but that is not considered to be known bad. It is unknown even though there are actual stats. And so since it is unknown (even with the stats), it is a better gamble than Hoyer or Cutler. Hoyer is 16-16 and Cutler is 69-72, but I am a little confused if those records are known or unknown.
Again, since when don't you need 3 years to judge an nfl player? You are at this point just trying to miss the point. 5-13=18<48 starts, is a n/a ie not enough to judge someone on that is just over 1 season(only in the league 3 years). 16-16=36<48 starts, is only 2 years, not 3, but he's also been in the league 8 years on what his 5th team, at some point he is what he is. 69-72>>>then 48 starts, well more then 3 years and you know what he is.
Exactly. So how did he become a better option than Cutler? If you say because we know Cutler is not going to win games (and I agree) and we don't know if Glennon will, I'm going to go right back to their records and say that while we don't know, the record does not support wild enthusiasm. Then you can come back and say the record means nothing and tell me he is still a better choice and I can come back and say I don't know but then point to the record once again and say that it does not support what you are saying, and we can keep doing this, or we can just admit that neither one of us really knows how he will perform.
That's the point BiH, an unkown is better then a known bad.
Who's widly enthusiastic about him??!?!?!?! Saying he's better then Hoyer and Cutler isn't showing wild enthusism. Saying he's likely a 2 year bridge for a rookie qb isn't wild enthusiasm!
That's the point BiH, an unkown is better then a known bad.
Who's widly enthusiastic about him??!?!?!?! Saying he's better then Hoyer and Cutler isn't showing wild enthusism. Saying he's likely a 2 year bridge for a rookie qb isn't wild enthusiasm!
I get what you are saying. And I'm not saying I disagree. I think the part where we diverge is the unknown part. I do not agree that his past record is meaningless (thus unknown). He has played ball. It is on tape. To me it means something. To say it means nothing because it was for a bad team or to say that what we saw before is going to translate exactly to the Bears are both wrong. We don't know. But yeah, to me the film IS a valid data point (or 18 data points to be exact) and they ARE relevant. And they don't get me too excited.
So, yeah, I've been devils advocate on purpose and, I don't think he is going to be any better than Cutler, but that's just my opinion. It means pretty close to nothing. And if we get him, I'm going to be hoping I was wrong because we for sure need a winning QB. I just think ignoring a body of data just because it does not support what you want to happen is just setting yourself up. I want him to be good like every other Bears fan, but he is still 3-15 and for me anyway, it means something.
I'm not against Glennon, it's just not what we all want and expect.
Honestly, I'm not against any QB because at least we are trying something new and we have to do that. And you never know how a guy is going to play in your organization. I just like to take our best shots. I'm not sure Glennon is it, but I'm still glad to see we are doing something and just because we get Glennon, that does not mean we won't do something else. And just because I don;t think Glennon is the answer, that doesn't mean I am right.