4 Options to Back Up Cutler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

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.

---

Ric, you're kind of contradicting yourself here. First you are saying that "cost shouldn't matter for the most important position on the field" and then you are saying that "vet backups cost too much". Well, which is it?

If Campbell had won us the Houston and SF games (and I'm not blaming the losses exclusively on him), he would have been worth the $3+ million. But he didn't and he was bad. Frankly, I doubt he outperformed what McCown would have done if he had been with the team all year in his place.

When we are talking about a #2 QB, very few teams have a truly "good and proven" one (or they would likely be starting). There are basically two options: go with a young guy if you think he's come along enough to actually play OR rent a journeyman/washed-up vet until you don't need him anymore. The first option is cheaper but more risky, the second option is more expensive but a bit safer.

Is Blanchard gonna be ready to step into a #2 role by Labor Day?

it's a purposeful contridiction. You cannot put to much into the QB position, money or draftpick. But it can be poorly spent. IE "top vet backups" like Jason Campbell or Orton or Rex or whoever, they take up to much cap space, while also providing you next to no actual benefit. If you can get a low cost young qb that is getting dropped that showed some potential then go for it, b/c it won't cost you in cap, still not optimal but I get it.

If Campbell had won x or y or got the team to the SB he would have been worth it...but he didn't b/c he couldn't b/c he's not that good. You won't have good/proven backups, b/c the proven aren't good, and the good aren't proven. But I'll take cheap w/potential to be good over expensive and known to be bad.

The bigger point is that a 3rd-5th rounder(not just this year but any) is not "wasted" on a backup qb b/c it's that imporant, there is no cost to high for getting the qb position solidified. Again look at how people laughed at the Skins for taking 2 qb, 2nd overall and in the 3rd round. But it worked for them, and will continue to do so for the next 4 years. Ecspeically b/c you can get DB's/WR's/RB's in the late rounds(5th-UDFA), so the qb position is really only competing w/OL/DL/LB. You can find some solid C's/G's in those late rounds too, not starters right off the bat necessarily, but still project to potential starters.

If Blach is viable for development then yes he'll be ready; if Trestman's as good as people claim.

I defer to the QB guru and play caller, Coach Trestman. He knows more about QBs than me.

It would be irresponsible of Trestman to enter into the season with anyone who has not played an NFL snap in the NFL as the backup QB. He has his work cut out for getting Cutler up to speed. Now people are considering making him develop the backup too with Blanchard? There just aren't enough snaps in practice.

Trestman can make anybody the #3 QB. He thinks Blanchard is that guy, great for him. You get that far into the pecking order, we aren't winning the game. We are just trying to get out of it with some shred of dignity. But Blanchard for me is not an option at #2. Neither is a drafted QB. I'll tell you what, we draft a QB, and Blanchard is as good as gone. Don't care either way. I'll care next year when Cutler has either picked up this offense and we are negotiating a deal, or he fails and we are considering a replacement. Right now I don't want to spend time developing the backup when the starter is struggling and we have a vested interest in his success.

For the #2 QB, I'd think Trestman would like to go with someone who is familiar with his coaching style. But due to his long absense form the NFL, that's not going to happen. I'll start throwing red flags in my mind if he brings along a CFL QB ala Terry Shea with Quinn. "He knows my offense" did not end well for the 2004 Bears.

But I think he'll just look at the list of available backup QB's, pick a midpriced one that seems best suited for his offense, and go with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weneedmorelinemen

It would be irresponsible of Trestman to enter into the season with anyone who has not played an NFL snap in the NFL as the backup QB. He has his work cut out for getting Cutler up to speed. Now people are considering making him develop the backup too with Blanchard? There just aren't enough snaps in practice.

Trestman can make anybody the #3 QB. He thinks Blanchard is that guy, great for him. You get that far into the pecking order, we aren't winning the game. We are just trying to get out of it with some shred of dignity. But Blanchard for me is not an option at #2. Neither is a drafted QB. I'll tell you what, we draft a QB, and Blanchard is as good as gone. Don't care either way. I'll care next year when Cutler has either picked up this offense and we are negotiating a deal, or he fails and we are considering a replacement. Right now I don't want to spend time developing the backup when the starter is struggling and we have a vested interest in his success.

For the #2 QB, I'd think Trestman would like to go with someone who is familiar with his coaching style. But due to his long absense form the NFL, that's not going to happen. I'll start throwing red flags in my mind if he brings along a CFL QB ala Terry Shea with Quinn. "He knows my offense" did not end well for the 2004 Bears.

But I think he'll just look at the list of available backup QB's, pick a midpriced one that seems best suited for his offense, and go with that.

---

Matt Moore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weneedmorelinemen

It would be irresponsible of Trestman to enter into the season with anyone who has not played an NFL snap in the NFL as the backup QB. He has his work cut out for getting Cutler up to speed. Now people are considering making him develop the backup too with Blanchard? There just aren't enough snaps in practice.

Trestman can make anybody the #3 QB. He thinks Blanchard is that guy, great for him. You get that far into the pecking order, we aren't winning the game. We are just trying to get out of it with some shred of dignity. But Blanchard for me is not an option at #2. Neither is a drafted QB. I'll tell you what, we draft a QB, and Blanchard is as good as gone. Don't care either way. I'll care next year when Cutler has either picked up this offense and we are negotiating a deal, or he fails and we are considering a replacement. Right now I don't want to spend time developing the backup when the starter is struggling and we have a vested interest in his success.

For the #2 QB, I'd think Trestman would like to go with someone who is familiar with his coaching style. But due to his long absense form the NFL, that's not going to happen. I'll start throwing red flags in my mind if he brings along a CFL QB ala Terry Shea with Quinn. "He knows my offense" did not end well for the 2004 Bears.

But I think he'll just look at the list of available backup QB's, pick a midpriced one that seems best suited for his offense, and go with that.

---

As was proven last year, a vet backup isn't any better than a rookie that needs developed. I can tell you one thing based on NFL history. You don't ever have a vet qb as your starter with a vet qb as your backup. It just doesn't work... ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

As was proven last year, a vet backup isn't any better than a rookie that needs developed. I can tell you one thing based on NFL history. You don't ever have a vet qb as your starter with a vet qb as your backup. It just doesn't work... ever.

---

I'm with you here gime a young guy who can develop and has potential, Campbell showed us a "vet backup" isn't always a lock for production

What makes it tough is the fact that a 3rd string QB gets pretty much ignored. So if you have a veteran backup at #2, then a young project at #3 basically gets no attention after summer training camp. And if he's on the practice squad, then any team can sign him. If he's a decent young prospect you can lose him at any time to another team.

Here's a good article on the dilemma with 3rd string QB's:

Quote:

---

LINK to the article

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...hdown_main.png

Quirks of the Game: The Third-String Quarterback

By STUART MILLER

And down they go. A rash of injuries to big-name quarterbacks — Ben Roethlisberger, Jay Cutler, Michael Vick and Alex Smith — thrust a bunch of backups to the fore last week, with very mixed results. But while Byron Leftwich, Jason Campbell, Nick Foles and Colin Kaepernick were all in the spotlight, the shifting situation also meant new roles for football’s least glamorous players, third-string quarterbacks.

Suddenly these forgotten players — who until recently existed under restrictive rules and who don’t even practice with the starters during the season — found themselves one injury away from being under center. In Pittsburgh’s case that one injury happened and now Charlie Batch will be under center.

Until 1991, most teams didn’t have the luxury of carrying a third quarterback on the 45-man active roster. That year, the N.F.L. implemented a third-string quarterback rule that allowed teams to have a 46th player available in case of emergency. In 1995, the rule changed to allow a coach to play that player even if it was only because the other two quarterbacks were ineffective.

But if that third-string quarterback came in before the fourth quarter, the other two quarterbacks were ineligible for the rest of the game. In 2011, the N.F.L. dropped the restrictions, allowing teams to simply carry 46 players.

Not every team carries a third quarterback — the Houston Texans cut theirs (John Beck) in October to add another safety because of injuries in the secondary. At least Houston has another quarterback on its practice squad; the Giants have Eli Manning and David Carr and that’s it.

The Chicago Bears released the third-stringer Josh McCown after training camp only to re-sign him when Cutler went down, and the San Francisco 49ers had the third-stringer Scott Tolzien on the inactive list until this weekend. When Smith was hurt the previous week, receiver Kyle Williams was nominally the backup.

“Teams are rolling the dice by not carrying a third-string quarterback, especially since quarterback is the most critical position for an organization,” said Rich Gannon, now an analyst on “NFL Monday QB” on CBS Sports Network, who did plenty of time as a backup before emerging as a starter (and Pro Bowler) late in his career.

Steve Beuerlein, who like Gannon was a long-term backup who became a Pro Bowler and is now on “NFL Monday QB,” said the new safety rules for concussions — while a vast improvement “over the days when we’d walk around in a fog for three weeks but keep playing” — underscored the likelihood that teams would need to use third-stringers more.

He said he supported a suggestion he heard recently by the former Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian that teams be allowed a 47th player, reserved for an emergency quarterback.

Gannon does, however, acknowledge that coaches view those quarterbacks as a last resort and don’t want to play them. “They are third-string for a reason,” he said.

The Jets are a glorious exception in this situation. Even without injuries they have the beginnings of a third-string quarterback controversy. With Mark Sanchez struggling and Tim Tebow unable to earn the confidence of his teammates or coaches, there have been calls for Greg McElroy, who was Sanchez’s No. 2 last year. Sports Illustrated wrote that when the Jets fall out of contention, “they need to start the most accurate passer on their roster: third-stringer Greg McElroy.”

Staying ready as a backup is challenging enough, ex-quarterbacks say, but for the third-stringer, it is nearly impossible. “Most starting quarterbacks have no idea what it’s like,” Beuerlein said.

“The third-string quarterback gets absolutely no reps with the starters during practice and only some with the scout team,” Beuerlein said. “They’re just watching, going over plays in their mind.”

Gannon said that there was no way around that because there just aren’t enough reps in practice but that he thought coaches should pull their starters more often in blowouts. “It not only keeps them safe, it gets the backups out there,” he said.

That would help the backups — Campbell, in particular, looked rusty — but might not do much for the third-stringers. “That’s the challenge,” Gannon said. “You’ve got to work with the receivers on your own.”

Beuerlein said backups and especially third-stringers had to accept their roles yet remain confident, and if they find themselves in the game they can’t be intimidated by the defense or by the fact that they haven’t practiced with their teammates. “It can be a make-or-break moment for your career,” he said, even though it is a wildly unfair situation, especially because most teams carry young players looking to gain experience in that role.

Not all teams fit that pattern, however. McCown, who started warming up when Campbell looked shaken after a third-quarter hit, is 33. Given that Campbell was intercepted twice, sacked six times, pressured 11 more and lost one of his two fumbles while throwing for just 107 yards, there were probably Bears fans who thought McCown should have gotten a chance. (Campbell’s performance looked even worse because it came against San Francisco and Kaepernick shined.)

Meanwhile, during Pittsburgh’s game against Baltimore, with Leftwich clutching his side and badly underthrowing receivers, the NBC analyst Cris Collinsworth began calling for Coach Mike Tomlin to insert Charlie Batch, who is nearly 38. Beuerlein felt the same way. “I don’t know the reason they didn’t play him,” Beuerlein said. “He knows the offense there so well. He may be old and not able to do things he physically used to do, but he can read defense and make the plays.”

This weekend, because Leftwich has multiple rib fractures, Batch is likely to be the first of these third-stringers to take the helm, with Pittsburgh’s season in the balance.

---

Honestly, if the right guy (EJ Manuel) is there at 4...I'd be okay with trusting Trestman to have him ready in case of disaster

Problem with a vet backup is its costly for someone that may not
Play a down...and that money could be used for a LT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grizzblue

Honestly, if the right guy (EJ Manuel) is there at 4...I'd be okay with trusting Trestman to have him ready in case of disaster

Problem with a vet backup is its costly for someone that may not
Play a down...and that money could be used for a LT

---

You really think any QB we draft late (assuming we dont want to use that pick on something else) is really going to ready to be a legit #2 in a few months? I doubt it. Blanchard may not even be ready but at least theres a possibility since he will have 2 preseasons and a PS year under his belt by then.

Some people are saying that its "irresponsible" to not have a plausible, half-decent backup. And others are saying its "too expensive" to sign a vet for that so wing it with a cheap udfa. How about a very simple compromise that's the best of both worlds? Don't care what depth chart numbers you put where but keep McCown as a cheap, vet-min option who's familiar with the surroundings AND have Blanchard compete with a draftee/udfa for the third spot. I don't care who's the #2 and who's the #3. Whichever one is "ready" to be the backup is fine by me.