How secure is Bagent as the backup?

I'm not as solid on Bagent as some are. I saw a young QB who made plenty of mistakes when he played. Ultimately he did what a backup QB is supposed to do, not be terrible. IMO with one year of experience under his belt Bagent would have a slight edge. I'm also not sold on the idea of Rypien being handed the #2 spot simply because he knows Waldron.

Frankly, neither Bagent or Rypien excite me, and Reed...well...who knows.

I would say it goes Williams, Bagent/Rypien, Reed.

And since I'm cranky with the heat here: (seriously I'm cranky so you read at your own risk)


(1) Too many "it" and "may" statements in that article.
(2) The conjecture is thick in that article. While reading between the lines is important, making things up while you read between the lines shows a mighty high level MSU degree.
(3) This sentence, which I think the writer wants as his final point makes no sense what so ever:

"It is more likely than not that Bagent holds down the backup job, but there is not any chatter about the idea that he could be unseated by the two quarterbacks brought in this offseason."

Does it mean there is no chatter about Bagent being unseated, meaning he will be the #2? The whole point of the article is that reading between the lines of the activity in the offseason (signing Rypien, firing Getsy, hiring Waldron, signing Reed--who is assumed to be a Waldron guy because...Waldron is here and not Getsy) points to maybe/if/possibility Bagent losing the #2 spot.

I seriously can't understand the how phasing after the "but there" is connected to the rest of the article. Are editors suddenly not permitted anymore?

+1
On top of all of that, it is a pretty slow time for Bears news anyway right now.  LOL, Caleb throws 2 incomplete passes and a "near int" and we get multiple clickbait articles about how he may not be any good.  SMH.  

Never got the impression any of them said he was not any good. It was just pointing out some observations. I am behind Williams and I don't see any issue.