4 Options to Back Up Cutler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4DaBERS

I picked #4, NOT because I like McCown, but because I like Blanchard. I really can't even give you a reason except that he's a winner and even our poor previous coaching staff saw something good in him. I think Campbell is overpriced at this point. He looked terribly gun-shy when he played this year. I know he was just trying to be careful with the ball, but that can go overboard as well.

---

Blanchard needs to be developed.

He has everything to be a solid NFL starting QB, but needs a coach like Trestman to help him take that last step. Blanchard has all of the physical attributes to run a Trestman offense. He certainly is a winner. As a starting QB at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater they were unbeaten during his three seasons there (45-0).

He helped those teams win three National Championships.


He was a machine there. He took apart opposing defenses with surgical precision. His senior year alone, he completed 72% of his passes, and passed for 21 TD's and only 2 ints. He is a very smart, accurate passer who takes care of the ball.

I think he may end up being a better NFL quarterback than Cutler, if Trestman will develop the kid.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...a0dd707470.JPG

For the BR this is a decent article that talks about legit options. Don't care how you slice it, you need a plausible #2 QB. It's not optional. Especially with our OL woes and Cutler's injury/concussion history. The Packers were extremely lucky to get through this year with only a completely inexperienced sucky udfa backing up Rodgers. The guy was so unreliable that he fumbled a snap trying to hand off one of the few plays he was in there and was instantly re-benched. I don't want to see the Bears repeat the Collins-Hanie fiasco. Doesn't matter who it is, but the backup QB has to be decent enough to win a game or two if he is called upon to start (beat mediocre competition anyway).

Jason Campbell SUCKED this year. Part of it was coaching, part of it was a terrible OL, yada yada. But he was also just plain bad and way overpaid. I don't see keeping him without a major pay cut. The only vet FA not on the team I would consider is Matt Moore. He's a decent #2 man and has won games. If.....the price is right though. Frankly, if the vet FA market is too pricey and no young guy is "ready" yet, I'd rather just keep McCown. He's vet min cheap and he's been here.

So much of this depends upon Blanchard. After a year on the PS and an offseason working with MT, can he be ready by September to be a #2??? Maybe. If not, then he's a #3 (and prob back on the PS). Back to square one.

Don't kid yourself that any QB we draft (5th at the earliest given so many other needs we have) or sign as a udfa is going to be anything but a long range project. At best that guy might stick as a #3 but more likely he'll be battling for a PS position. The last QB we drafted in the 5th was so non-NFL-material that he was passed over for a guy who was out of the league and coaching high school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

Blanchard needs to be developed.

He has everything to be a solid NFL starting QB, but needs a coach like Trestman to help him take that last step. Blanchard has all of the physical attributes to run a Trestman offense. He certainly is a winner. As a starting QB at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater they were unbeaten during his three seasons there (45-0).

He helped those teams win three National Championships.


He was a machine there. He took apart opposing defenses with surgical precision. His senior year alone, he completed 72% of his passes, and passed for 21 TD's and only 2 ints. He is a very smart, accurate passer who takes care of the ball.

I think he may end up being a better NFL quarterback than Cutler, if Trestman will develop the kid.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...a0dd707470.JPG

---

I saw a couple of Blanchard's games and was impressed. He's the kind of QB that Trestman can develop into a really good player. Now this all depends on how Trestman sees him though.
:18_1_205:

Cut Campbell, he just plain blew chunks (ha! that's my new nickname for Campbell - Chunky Soup!) keep McCown, move Matt to #3 and develop him. MAYBE draft a QB if we can get a steal late, but we have too many holes to fill to waste a pick. I don't think there are any FA QBs for a #2 at a reasonable price so I see the only option as the last one on the poll list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shark86x

Cut Campbell, he just plain blew chunks (ha! that's my new nickname for Campbell - Chunky Soup!) keep McCown, move Matt to #3 and develop him. MAYBE draft a QB if we can get a steal late, but we have too many holes to fill to waste a pick. I don't think there are any FA QBs for a #2 at a reasonable price so I see the only option as the last one on the poll list.

---

Thats what I voted for too. It's also the cheapest option for us. I hope Blanchard can become something because I'd rather use our draft picks elsewhere.

At some point, the franchise HAS to be able to develop its own talent on offense. If Blanchard isn't the guy to begin with, then pick somebody who CAN be developed. But the Chicago Bears franchise needs to be able to develop player talent. We've been an absolute abortion on offense in our failure to develop young players. Not just at QB, but at all of the positions on offense, other than at RB.

In fact, many times, players have regressed on offense once they come here from other teams. It was arguably the #1 indictment of the Lovie Smith years. Critical failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

At some point, the franchise HAS to be able to develop its own talent on offense. If Blanchard isn't the guy to begin with, then pick somebody who CAN be developed. But the Chicago Bears franchise needs to be able to develop player talent. We've been an absolute abortion on offense in our failure to develop young players. Not just at QB, but at all of the positions on offense, other than at RB.

In fact, many times, players have regressed on offense once they come here from other teams. It was arguably the #1 indictment of the Lovie Smith years. Critical failure.

---

100% true and accurate, BUT those days are over. At least, I choose to believe that. All our crappy offensive offense coaches are gone. There is no reason we can't now develop the talent we have. Including Blanchard, who looks to me like he has real potential. Of course, I thought the same about Hanie - until it really mattered.

At this point, and with so many needs in FA and the draft, I just can't see using a pick on another prospect QB when we have one on the roster. I want to see what Trest and his crew can do with Blanchard. And our WRs. And our O-line.

no Tebow option?

#5 - let Campbell and McCown go, keep Blanchard, pick up an experienced backup ala Matt Moore (though he isn't the only option).

Bearstuff, agreed. I'm stunned w/how many people would be okay w/McCown back. He's worse then Campbell, cost should be no option for the backup qb, in cap or draft pick. It's the most imporant position on the field and if Cutler goes down it should not cost the Bears their season.

That being said, vet backsups cost to much for their actual value(next to none) since they all have proven to be not good enough anyways. Only real option is to move Blanchard up(if camp has shown he has talent then move him up and develop him), or get a guy like Moore who might not cost that much in hopes that Blanchard can outplay him if necessary...or draft a guy in the 4th-5th round.