Campbell Settling for Second...............

**Riczaj01** · 06-02-2012, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by soulman

Who cares what Houston did. Maybe they were lucky. How did the Colts do with their inexperienced backup playing? We can play this game all day and we'll still have different opinions so I'll tell it the way I see it.

The Bears play in Chicago and when the cold weather comes and the winds with it. We need a strong armed QB. McCown doesn't fit that description and we have no idea at all what Enderle is capable of but we know he lacks mobility so he's not a very good fit for this offense. He was drafted to fit Martz's concept of a QB in his offense and Martz isn't here anymore and it's possible Enderle won't be either.

What I highlighted is exactly what they did. They found a guy who could run Tice's offense if Cutler gets hurt. It may not happen but if it does we'll have a competent vet running the show not an inexperienced unprepared rookie. Campbell may not be a franchise QB but he is a good QB with size and mobility who's an accurate passer and we can win with him.

I'm not gonna debate whether we should have signed Campbell or not. We'll just disagree anyway. But I will tell you why we signed him.

If Lovie has a mandate to win big you can bet that he didn't want to entrust the backup role to anyone but a vet. McCown is no better than a #3 guy who might win against lesser teams but not against the big boys. So Lovies tells Emery we better find ourselves an experienced vet because not having one cost us the playoffs last year and if Cutler goes down and we don't have adequate backup I shouldn't be held responsible for that. We did that last year and look where it got us. We need some insurance at QB.

Emery believes that a fair request and I'd guess the rest of the front office and Georgie M figured it was a good idea too. Tough to fire Lovie when he loses if doesn't have the guys he needs. If we're gonna hold him accountable for getting us to a SB then we can't afford having happen what happened last year. We need a good backup we can still win with. Campbell was the best choice available.

That why they signed Campbell. Whether they should have or not makes no difference. They did sign him and I just gave the reason why. If anyone thinks there was another reason I'd love to hear it.

They didn't have an inexperienced qb, they had a shitty qb...and they should have known also b/c he had been there for a few years. Houston and NE, hell even GB(not that the hillbilly ever got hurt) of getting your backup through the draft, and not overpaying for a backup. Hell even when you have a vet backup(pitt) you don't pay a ton of money for them. It's wasted cap.

Again, look at the SB winning teams over the last 10 years, hell go 20, how many backup qb's that were experienced backup's have won the SB? How many were inexperienced young qb's? The backup qb is not going to make your season, or save it, it could break it though; but you don't waste precious cap space on it.

Quick, don't look it up, who is Rogers backup, what about Mannings(NY's), how about Brees's? Rothesliberger? Peyton when he won his sb? Who's Brady's? Any of these guy's have "experience" well paid vets sitting behind them? Big Ben has Batch, but I doubt his contract is atop of the backup qb scale.

**soulman** · 06-02-2012, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

They didn't have an inexperienced qb, they had a shitty qb...and they should have known also b/c he had been there for a few years. Houston and NE, hell even GB(not that the hillbilly ever got hurt) of getting your backup through the draft, and not overpaying for a backup. Hell even when you have a vet backup(pitt) you don't pay a ton of money for them. It's wasted cap.

Again, look at the SB winning teams over the last 10 years, hell go 20, how many backup qb's that were experienced backup's have won the SB? How many were inexperienced young qb's? The backup qb is not going to make your season, or save it, it could break it though; but you don't waste precious cap space on it.

Quick, don't look it up, who is Rogers backup, what about Mannings(NY's), how about Brees's? Rothesliberger? Peyton when he won his sb? Who's Brady's? Any of these guy's have "experience" well paid vets sitting behind them? Big Ben has Batch, but I doubt his contract is atop of the backup qb scale.

Ric I'm not debating you over whether or not they should have or shouldn't have. We'll never agree so we'll agree to disagree.

But I did give the reason they did it and I invite you or anyone else who thinks there was a different motive to post it.

It's over and done. We signed him and I think they had a valid reason for doing it and you don't. Difference of opinion. I'm just getting tired of debating all these shoulda done this or shoulda done that's. We did or we didn't for a reason. Some of that was explained by Emery himself and other stuff like this is pretty obvious.

Let's look forward and stop looking back. There'll be plenty of time to celebrate these decisions or do a post mortem on them next January.

**Riczaj01** · 06-02-2012, 01:39 PM

Soul, I know their reason, it was just a stupid one and a waste of cap money. I never disputed their was a reason. There reasons for everything done right or wrong in any and all situations, the difference is wheather it's a good decision or a poor one.

Bringing in Campbell was a poor decision b/c that is not what SB contending teams do, they do not put money into the backup qb position b/c regardless of how good or bad they are, they are not going to be the reason you win the SB.

**The Benjamin** · 06-02-2012, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Bringing in Campbell was a poor decision b/c that is not what SB contending teams do, they do not put money into the backup qb position b/c regardless of how good or bad they are, they are not going to be the reason you win the SB.

Roger Staubach backed up Craig Morton for the first few games of the 1971 season and the Cowboys won Super Bowl VI with Staubach.
Terry Bradshaw was in and out of the starting role his first few years. He lost the job to Joe Gilliam in the 1974 preseason but after re-taking it led the Steelers to victory in Super Bowl IX.
Jim Plunkett started out 1980 backing up Dan Pastorini and went on to win Super Bowl XV with the Raiders.
Doug Williams only started two games in 1987 and lost them both. Joe Gibbs made him the starter for the playoffs over Jay Schroeder anyway and he won Super Bowl XXII.
Jeff Hostetler took over for Phil Simms on the 1990 Giants after an injury (thanks Ben Rosenberg) and started each playoff game and Super Bowl XXV.
Trent Dilfer backed up (yikes) Tony Banks to start off 2000, but took over halfway through the season and rode Ray Lewis to victory in Super Bowl XXXV (thanks Kevin Gailey).
Tom Brady was the second-stringer for Drew Bledsoe in early 2001 but after Mo Lewis knocked Bledsoe out for the season Brady came back to win Super Bowl XXXVI (thanks Vivek Ponnaiyan).

**motownbear** · 06-02-2012, 02:08 PM

brady was a sixth round pick thanks for making ric point lol. plus focus on the salary cap era that changes the landscape

so we take the 3.5 for a backup qb and 3.5 for a bum like spencer and imagine the player on oline we can have...............but instead a backup 3.5 mil qb and a bum c/g or whatever they use him on next season maybe db for 3.5 and wait for the kicker to this scenario........rachal!!!!! at a minimum. Which scenario would you guys rather have

**The Benjamin** · 06-02-2012, 02:11 PM

it makes both points. Backups can be very important.

**Riczaj01** · 06-02-2012, 02:20 PM

Tom Brady was not a vet backup so he was definately not getting paid like an experienced backup, but thanks for helping prove the point I was making. Dilfer is a valid point. all the rest ARE WAY to old to bring up, the game was completely different then, and the qb has never been more important then it is now. It's why I brought up last 10 years, you don't see one. Last 20 there are 2. There are 7 in the last 40. It's not a necessry position, what is is the starting qb; and keeping him healthy via a great OL is far more important then his backup. That was 3.5 mil we could have used to address other positions, specifically OL(or DL to knock out the other starting qb's.)

**BigBadPapaBear** · 06-02-2012, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by motownbear

if we didnt settle for bums on the oline we could have spent that 3.5 mil elsewhere

Really? Those same bums paved the way for over 2000yds rushing and those same bums were blocking when Cutler and company were cruising at 8-3. But of course, they get no credit whatsoever for all that.

**soulman** · 06-03-2012, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Soul, I know their reason, it was just a stupid one and a waste of cap money. I never disputed their was a reason. There reasons for everything done right or wrong in any and all situations, the difference is wheather it's a good decision or a poor one.

Bringing in Campbell was a poor decision b/c that is not what SB contending teams do, they do not put money into the backup qb position b/c regardless of how good or bad they are, they are not going to be the reason you win the SB.

To you it was a waste of cap space but based on their reasoning it wasn't. That what I was trying to point out. We lost out on a shot at the playoffs last year due to not having an adequate backup for Cutler and they were not about to let that happen again. No way Jose'.

You could possibly win a SB with a backup but that's not the real reason for having the guy. The main purpose is so your season doesn't fall apart so badly that you have no chance of even being in the hunt.

With an adequate backup QB last year we make the playoffs, Cutler returns, and you have a shot. That's what may have happened last year if we had a backup as good as Campbell. We didn't and McCown isn't that guy either.

If you've as much as told your HC that it's the playoffs and SB contention this year or a change may be due then you can bet your ass he'll be asking for adequate backup and not entrusting the season to an inexperienced guy like Hanie. Like I said. Campbell is an insurance policy with a $3.5 mil premium.

That's really not a God awful amount to pay. Hanie got $1.2 mil last year and was nowhere near capable. Any decent vet with even a few years experience and some starts elsewhere would cost at least $2 mil or more anyway. So in your opinion how much did we overspend by? I'd say about $1-$1.5 mil that's all.

Some of that cap money had to be spent on a backup anyway so the only thing you could criticize was the difference between someone as good as Campbell or a lesser guy who may have been a little cheaper. Campbell's pay deal had far less of an effect on the cap than the explosion of Forte's pay going from $550k to nearly $8 mil.

That's where the cap damage was done which is why I've been saying all along that the Bears would have preferred NOT to tag him. Those tags are cap killers.

**JustAnotherBearsFan99** · 06-03-2012, 03:37 PM

I believe the Bears see THIS year as our window of opportunity before some of our great/key players begin to fade. They want to win THIS year. They've given Lovie all the toys to make it happen. Campbell makes sense if you have this mindset (no more "Hanies" taking our season out at the knees THIS year).

Campbell could be a nice bridge for us. Solid backup as we get good young kid in place for 2013 and beyond.

I believe a backup QB can be "good enough" so that an otherwise great team, can win without their starter. He won't carry a team on his shoulders to a win, but he won't crap out like Hanie did last year, killing our entire season when ONE man goes down injured.

I have no problem with bringing Campbell on board this year.

Thread: Campbell Settling for Second...............

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions