I am thoroughly and honestly shocked by the love for Shaw. I mean, I liked how he looked in preseason, but like many others have already said it was against third and fourth stringers. Apparently the coaching staffs of two NFL teams (I know, I know, it's the Browns and Bears, but still) have decided they don't see him continuing his limited preseason success against higher level talent and have decided to cut him (saved this last only by a Sanchez injury). So, it seems to me like the guy has had enough opportunity to stand out and he hasn't.
What also makes me chuckle is how a good majority of us were dying for the Bears to have just one young, developmental QB on the roster. Some even saying they'd be happy with a third round pick or even lower. Pace goes out and gets TWO in Glennon and Trubisky (1st rounder btw), but folks are now upset that we don't have THREE on the roster! What?! lol I'm so confused. I know some probably don't consider Glennon developmental, but he's played few enough games that he still likely has some growing and developing to do. And many people around the league think he could actually be pretty good. Then there's Trubisky whose ceiling is sky high. So, why all the heartache over Shaw? Baffled. Absolutely baffled.
Glennon isn't a developmental QB. He gets at most one season and at least 8 games to show he can be a starting NFL QB. If he can't, he's gone in the next off-season. Glennon is Fox's vet QB. The QB job in Chicago is Mitch's plain and simple. Glennon is not going to get 'time to develop.' I'm willing to bet that Mitch is starting by season's end and Glennon is gone by the time the 2018 season starts in March/April.
Glennon=bridge QB Mitch=2018 starter at bare mininum Sanchez= vet backup Shaw=odd man out
And as much as I hate to admit it posters above are right. The Cutler comparison doesn't work with Sanchez because he has a different role. Cutler had to go because you knew what he was, Sanchez gets the job because we know exactly what he is. Sanchez is McCown 2.0. If he's forced to play it doesn't matter if he goes 500 or not. Sanchez is only there to absorb playing time if Glennon goes down before Mitch is ready. If Glennon goes down in weeks 1-bye week, Sanchez is our Chicago Bears starting QB. If Glennon goes down after the bye week, we might see Mitch. In that case Sanchez is still the #2. Sanchez has no reservations about his role whatsoever. And its because we know exactly what he is. Besides, if Glennon goes down, Howard is getting the ball 30+ times a game anyway. Only thing the QB has to do is take the snap pivot and hand the ball to Howard without running into his OL-men.....wait a minute I see the problem.
Those are good points. If Trubisky was our seasoned starter, and Glennon gone, then I'd hope we would always have a young QB being developed. Ideally it would be a guy with better raw talent than guys like Fales or Shaw. You are right, the bar was set pretty low a year ago. Hopefully we never see that happen here again.
Regarding Sanchez as our backup guy I can see the reasoning for having him as our backup this year, instead of a guy like Shaw.
1. Sanchez is a vet who won't need development time - so Glennon (as our starter) and Trubisky get the time needed. 2. Sanchez may not be a starter, but he has the experience that can help us win (like McCown). 3. Sanchez has the experience of starting 77 NFL games, with a winning record. 4. Sanches has winning experience at the playoff level. He's had 6 starts winning 4 of them (9 touchdowns, 3 ints).
If we have to go to a backup this year, do you trot out this guy - or Shaw? I go with Sanchez if I want the best shot at winning. Again, he's not great, but like McCown, he gives us a shot at .500 ball as a backup (actually better than .500 according to his career stats). And if you can get .500 ball out of your backup - that's pretty decent - for a backup QB - as far as I'm concerned. Shaw? No. I don't see see him doing that.
I get what you are saying. The difference is in our opinion of Sanchez. I think he is bad. I do not think the same about Shaw. He may not be good (or he might be), but he is not proven bad.
Isn't that the reason that was trotted out for Cutler? We KNOW he is bad, let's at least get someone with potential?
I see that different sides of an argument is used depending on whether or not the Bears have done it. If the Bears have done it, then it must be the right thing and so use the argument to justify it. Not saying you JABF, but it's just kind of what I see. Justify as being right what the Bears have done.
I don't care who has done what. If I can't be right on everything I do, I'm certainly not going to give that free pass to the Bears or anyone else. I try to look at it as whether it makes sense or not. And maybe you are doing the very same and we just are looking out the same windows and you see a fountain and I see trees.
So, in the end, no biggie. I would rather have Shaw than Sanchez, and you would rather have Sanchez than Shaw. We have Sanchez and I think that if Sanchez gets healthy, that is who we will have. You will have the ability to change your vote once Sanchez takes the field
You could be 100% right. I'm just trying to see the logic for the move to signing Sanchez as the backup for this season. I believe I can follow the logic, and even agree with it. We (me included) are writing off this season as not being good at all. But what if we do end up being pretty decent (maybe even playoff decent... yes we don't see that happening but anything can happen in the NFL) and Glennon goes down to injury for a few games and Trubisky isn't really ready to start yet? Wouldn't it be best to have a veteran who has not only won multiple games at the playoff level, but also a guy who has started 77 games with a winning record - versus a guy who hasn't been much more of a journeyman training camp arm? It could end up being a season-saver - even if the backup can win .500 of the games. I can see the Bears logic here. A guy like Sanchez may be able to keep the season going... rather than tanking the season.
Understand that we are talking backup QB here. It is pretty nice to have a backup who has proven he can win playoff games. We're not going to make him our franchise QB. Just have him as the guy who can keep a season going if needed.
Glennon isn't a developmental QB. He gets at most one season and at least 8 games to show he can be a starting NFL QB. If he can't, he's gone in the next off-season. Glennon is Fox's vet QB. The QB job in Chicago is Mitch's plain and simple. Glennon is not going to get 'time to develop.' I'm willing to bet that Mitch is starting by season's end and Glennon is gone by the time the 2018 season starts in March/April.
Glennon=bridge QB Mitch=2018 starter at bare mininum Sanchez= vet backup Shaw=odd man out
And as much as I hate to admit it posters above are right. The Cutler comparison doesn't work with Sanchez because he has a different role. Cutler had to go because you knew what he was, Sanchez gets the job because we know exactly what he is. Sanchez is McCown 2.0. If he's forced to play it doesn't matter if he goes 500 or not. Sanchez is only there to absorb playing time if Glennon goes down before Mitch is ready. If Glennon goes down in weeks 1-bye week, Sanchez is our Chicago Bears starting QB. If Glennon goes down after the bye week, we might see Mitch. In that case Sanchez is still the #2. Sanchez has no reservations about his role whatsoever. And its because we know exactly what he is. Besides, if Glennon goes down, Howard is getting the ball 30+ times a game anyway. Only thing the QB has to do is take the snap pivot and hand the ball to Howard without running into his OL-men.....wait a minute I see the problem.
"Developmental QB" probably is a poor term for Glennon. But, I guess what I was trying to say is that we now have two young QB's on the team with a LOT of potential to be very good. Why worry now about some UDFA QB with a very limited ceiling who has already had 3 years to prove something but hasn't? We keep Sanchez (and I'm not saying I'm a fan of his, I'm not) who, according to folks directly mentored by him, is extremely valuable in the film/class room. We can grab another mid-round developmental guy in next year's draft if we decide to get rid of Sanchez or Glennon next off season.
Glennon isn't a developmental QB. He gets at most one season and at least 8 games to show he can be a starting NFL QB. If he can't, he's gone in the next off-season. Glennon is Fox's vet QB. The QB job in Chicago is Mitch's plain and simple. Glennon is not going to get 'time to develop.' I'm willing to bet that Mitch is starting by season's end and Glennon is gone by the time the 2018 season starts in March/April.
Glennon=bridge QB Mitch=2018 starter at bare mininum Sanchez= vet backup Shaw=odd man out
Glennon really isn't developmental, but he is young and has a shot to reach his ceiling still, bridge qb but has the potential to be a very high quality one. If Glennon is healthy and playing well, I don't see why they would start Trubs. Also they don't need to cut Glennon, they have him tied up to a very friendly deal, if he's playing well, why cut him? Mitch agreed Sanchez agreed Shaw yep.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Right now for 2017-2018 the job is Glennon's. If he starts poorly (think Brock in Houston last season) he'll be holding the clip board for either Sanchez (definitely if its during the first 1/2 of the season) or Mitch (depends on how fast it takes for Mitch to absorb NFL everything) before seasons end. IMO, if Glennon doesn't work out, he's gone. He can be cut for little or nothing and you bring in another QB either to be the #3 behind Sanchez (if he sticks around) or to replace Sanchez as the #2. Sure they could keep him but why bother? If he's up-tight enough to freak out because they drafted Mitch, how is he going to react if Mitch replaces him during the season. Usually (I can't think of a single case) if a starting QB is replaced during the season, he's not on the team the next season. Very few starting QBs remain as a backup on the same team the following year.
If Glennon plays well (which I think/hope he is capable of) than next off season becomes fun. They would have a hard time pushing Mitch (if he's ready) into the drivers seat. Imagine Glennon with say...stats putting him at the number 9-10-11-12th ranked QB and the Bears go 7-9. Hate to be Pace in that situation.
"Developmental QB" probably is a poor term for Glennon. But, I guess what I was trying to say is that we now have two young QB's on the team with a LOT of potential to be very good. Why worry now about some UDFA QB with a very limited ceiling who has already had 3 years to prove something but hasn't? We keep Sanchez (and I'm not saying I'm a fan of his, I'm not) who, according to folks directly mentored by him, is extremely valuable in the film/class room. We can grab another mid-round developmental guy in next year's draft if we decide to get rid of Sanchez or Glennon next off season.
Glennon really isn't developmental, but he is young and has a shot to reach his ceiling still, bridge qb but has the potential to be a very high quality one. If Glennon is healthy and playing well, I don't see why they would start Trubs. Also they don't need to cut Glennon, they have him tied up to a very friendly deal, if he's playing well, why cut him? Mitch agreed Sanchez agreed Shaw yep.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Right now for 2017-2018 the job is Glennon's. If he starts poorly (think Brock in Houston last season) he'll be holding the clip board for either Sanchez (definitely if its during the first 1/2 of the season) or Mitch (depends on how fast it takes for Mitch to absorb NFL everything) before seasons end. IMO, if Glennon doesn't work out, he's gone. He can be cut for little or nothing and you bring in another QB either to be the #3 behind Sanchez (if he sticks around) or to replace Sanchez as the #2. Sure they could keep him but why bother? If he's up-tight enough to freak out because they drafted Mitch, how is he going to react if Mitch replaces him during the season. Usually (I can't think of a single case) if a starting QB is replaced during the season, he's not on the team the next season. Very few starting QBs remain as a backup on the same team the following year.
If Glennon plays well (which I think/hope he is capable of) than next off season becomes fun. They would have a hard time pushing Mitch (if he's ready) into the drivers seat. Imagine Glennon with say...stats putting him at the number 9-10-11-12th ranked QB and the Bears go 7-9. Hate to be Pace in that situation.
It will be a tough situation for Pace, but it would be a good situation all the same.
Regarding Shaw....he's going to require snaps to develop. How exactly is he going to get those snaps when Glennon and Trubisky need all the snaps they can get? Sanchez doesn't require snaps. He's not developing. Do you all see the issue now? There are only so many practice snaps to go around.
That's true.
But we have Loggains. Maybe he can do it without reps
I get what you are saying. The difference is in our opinion of Sanchez. I think he is bad. I do not think the same about Shaw. He may not be good (or he might be), but he is not proven bad.
Isn't that the reason that was trotted out for Cutler? We KNOW he is bad, let's at least get someone with potential?
I see that different sides of an argument is used depending on whether or not the Bears have done it. If the Bears have done it, then it must be the right thing and so use the argument to justify it. Not saying you JABF, but it's just kind of what I see. Justify as being right what the Bears have done.
I don't care who has done what. If I can't be right on everything I do, I'm certainly not going to give that free pass to the Bears or anyone else. I try to look at it as whether it makes sense or not. And maybe you are doing the very same and we just are looking out the same windows and you see a fountain and I see trees.
So, in the end, no biggie. I would rather have Shaw than Sanchez, and you would rather have Sanchez than Shaw. We have Sanchez and I think that if Sanchez gets healthy, that is who we will have. You will have the ability to change your vote once Sanchez takes the field
You could be 100% right. I'm just trying to see the logic for the move to signing Sanchez as the backup for this season. I believe I can follow the logic, and even agree with it. We (me included) are writing off this season as not being good at all. But what if we do end up being pretty decent (maybe even playoff decent... yes we don't see that happening but anything can happen in the NFL) and Glennon goes down to injury for a few games and Trubisky isn't really ready to start yet? Wouldn't it be best to have a veteran who has not only won multiple games at the playoff level, but also a guy who has started 77 games with a winning record - versus a guy who hasn't been much more of a journeyman training camp arm? It could end up being a season-saver - even if the backup can win .500 of the games. I can see the Bears logic here. A guy like Sanchez may be able to keep the season going... rather than tanking the season.
Understand that we are talking backup QB here. It is pretty nice to have a backup who has proven he can win playoff games. We're not going to make him our franchise QB. Just have him as the guy who can keep a season going if needed.
Wow... that was a flashback. I swear I saw that same argument for Cutler. Theoreticals are great, but then they get on the field. I know I don't want Sanchez. I may not want Shaw before it's over, but as of now, I am more open to Shaw than Sanchez. But that's just me
I am thoroughly and honestly shocked by the love for Shaw. I mean, I liked how he looked in preseason, but like many others have already said it was against third and fourth stringers. Apparently the coaching staffs of two NFL teams (I know, I know, it's the Browns and Bears, but still) have decided they don't see him continuing his limited preseason success against higher level talent and have decided to cut him (saved this last only by a Sanchez injury). So, it seems to me like the guy has had enough opportunity to stand out and he hasn't.
What also makes me chuckle is how a good majority of us were dying for the Bears to have just one young, developmental QB on the roster. Some even saying they'd be happy with a third round pick or even lower. Pace goes out and gets TWO in Glennon and Trubisky (1st rounder btw), but folks are now upset that we don't have THREE on the roster! What?! lol I'm so confused. I know some probably don't consider Glennon developmental, but he's played few enough games that he still likely has some growing and developing to do. And many people around the league think he could actually be pretty good. Then there's Trubisky whose ceiling is sky high. So, why all the heartache over Shaw? Baffled. Absolutely baffled.
I have no love for Shaw, but based on his performance last year - against 3rd and 4th stringers - I would like to see what he has going against the big boys. That's all. Why cut a guy when you don't know what he can give? Not saying he'll be the next Rodgers, or the next Tebow, but I thought he deserved a shot. More so than butt fumble.