BearFan PHX Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 Glennon is reportedly on a team friendly deal. There is nothing about his signing to prevent Pace from taking a QB with the #3 pick if he thinks someone is worth the value. Having a vet at the helm that you can jettison while seeing if a rookie has the goods is a fine plan, especially given how hit or miss rookie QBs are. I cant say that Pace WILL take a QB at #3, but I can say that if he thinks one of them is worth it, there is no cap problem with paying Glennon this year and developing a young QB under a rookie contract. Since picking QBs isnt easy, it makes sense to take a shotgun approach and see what develops. And of course these arguments work equally well for a QB taken in the 2nd or 3rd rounds too. Pace can take the BPA at #3 regardless of position, QB or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 Pace also preaches BPA. I just don't see any of the 3 QBs being considered best pick available in the 1st. 2nd round I can certainly see it, but I have a feeling we see either Peterman or Webb drafted in the 3rd by our Bears. What defines BPA? Being best to contibute right away or best for the team long term? If going by right away, then you will never have a QB as BPA. I think both Trubisky or Watson can be long term starters in this league and that will weigh in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 I think Pace evaluated the top QBs in the draft against the Glennon's tape in college. In that lens Glennon fits right in the mix with the top four. Of course he has some tape of Glennon in the pro's to evaluate so that's a big evaluation step ahead of the draft class (good or bad). After all that he decided this was his man and I think that means none of the QBs in the draft grade out as worthy of the #3 pick. Doesn't mean he won't take one of them in Rd 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 15, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 Not arguing if it was the right move or the wrong move just that it has been done. Also the Seahawks gave Flynn starter money and drafted Wilson in the 3rd. Now drafting Wilson in the 3rd is not the same as the 3rd overall, Ill give you that. Either way, has anyone complained or bitched about the Seahawks giving Flynn too much money????? I dont remember anyone......why???? because they were too busy winning with Wilson to worry about how much money they gave Flynn. The Bears have not gotten the QB situation correct since McMahon.......I honestly dont care what round they draft one, they better start drafting QB's and get this fixed as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawhizz Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 I find myself torn between two trains of thought here. On one hand, I think Pace wants to give Glennon every chance to be a successful starting QB and this team's franchise QB. But Pace knows this team needs a franchise QB to be a good team, and the later you draft a QB, the less likely you are to land one of those. So I wonder if he might take his favorite QB at #3 (I assume that's Watson) to give himself two chances at finding a solution at the position they desperately need to solve, knowing Glennon is on a pretty reasonable contract going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 15, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 What defines BPA? Being best to contibute right away or best for the team long term? If going by right away, then you will never have a QB as BPA. I think both Trubisky or Watson can be long term starters in this league and that will weigh in. Basically the same concept I've argued for a while. BPA has to be balanced against need to a certain extent. Say the Bears' big board has the following: 1. Fournette (Talent gap) 2. Garrett 3. Allen When #3 rolls around, the do not go with Fournette unless the talent gap between him and the next player is considered much, much worse than the BPA. Why? Howard. Easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GakMan23 Posted March 15, 2017 Report Share Posted March 15, 2017 http://www.espn.com/blog/chicago-bears/pos...ears-to-pass-up I have no problem with them grabbing him with their pick. (Jamal Adams) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 What defines BPA? Being best to contibute right away or best for the team long term? If going by right away, then you will never have a QB as BPA. I think both Trubisky or Watson can be long term starters in this league and that will weigh in. At #3 you need to identify an elite talent who will play at a pro-bowl level. While Trubisky and Watson could be long term starters in the league, they are not elite talents for their position. Good enough to play but not good enough to win. It's been since 2012, but Andrew Luck was easily the BPA. It happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 Good points. You mentioned the Rams were butchered for Jason Goff. Don't forget Carson Wentz looked like Matt Barkley the 2nd half of the season. Just 3-4 years ago, RG3, Nick Foles, and Kapernick all look ed to be franchise QB's. I understand why the Bears would rather pay Glennon then draft a QB at #3. No. Glennon is the starter. He'll have to be atrocious not to get the start. And unless Shaw spent the offseason getting cybernetic implants, he doesn't have the chops to really amaze. That pretty much leaves it to Glennon to do no more than avoid looking terrible. For the future I don't really know much about next year's draft class. So that's difficult to say. But it can't be independent of this year's picks. If the Bears draft a QB at #3 and they're: -Horrible, I hope that means they started the QB all year and he learned. Of course, that also means the Glennon contract was stupid. -Other, I hope that means they started the QB and he turned into Dak Prescott 2.0. Again, Glennon is bad money. If the Bears don't draft a QB at #3 and they're: -Horrible, then it means the Glennon pickup was bad, but at least they're in a spot for a QB. -Other, then I hope it means Glennon showed promise and might be the guy, then the team can fill other needs. As for Goff, the Rams have been butchered far and wide for that decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChileBear Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 Good points. You mentioned the Rams were butchered for Jason Goff. Don't forget Carson Wentz looked like Matt Barkley the 2nd half of the season. Just 3-4 years ago, RG3, Nick Foles, and Kapernick all look ed to be franchise QB's. I understand why the Bears would rather pay Glennon then draft a QB at #3. Agree with both of you. At no 3 we need a player that can start now and contribute big time. A QB at 3 scares me in this draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 The reason for taking a QB in the first as a long term solution is because of the contract structure which gives teams the opportunity to sign the 1st rounder to an extra year(5?) which is the situation that presented itself to the Seahawks and Russell Wilson when his original contract expired. That should be the only reason why they would take a QB in round 1. That is why I'm on board with trading back into the first for a QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.