Dan Pompei's Mailbag: Q&A with Bears Fans

**JustAnotherBearsFan99** · 01-28-2013, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by MPBears68

This may be over-optimistic and wishful thinking but...with some OL upgrades, better scheme/coaching, and running a quick pass WCO, I am hoping that will make Cutler much less vulnerable this coming year and reduce his likelihood of injury. It's a risk, yes, but something to consider. I know you can never eliminate the possibility of your QB getting hurt and missing some time. But maybe just maybe if the above scenario is realistic, Emery can gamble a bit more by not having to invest so much $ in the second string QB.

Blanchard is not going to be ready to be a viable #2 (yet anyway). It's also not likely that we will draft a QB this year high enough to be anything but a multi-season project. There's a compromise here between risking a "Caleb Hanie fiasco" with an unready udfa and over-paying for a "vet backup" (both of which we have done recently). Basically three possibilities to secure the #2 spot with a guy who could plausibly "take snaps and manage a win" w/o being overly wasteful money-wise:

A) Campbell is willing to come back at a substantial pay cut (maybe could happen)
B) Another vet FA of half-decent caliber is willing to sign similarly (not much there I agree, so this seems unlikely)

OR

C) Why not just keep McC for a measly $900k and meanwhile task him and Cavanaugh to work big time with Blanch? We all know that MT is going to devote most of his time to Cutler as pretty much his personal coach. I know McCown is no star, no kidding. But he's an experienced game manager vet who's cheap and has been with the team for a year and a half. Yeah, it's a risk but less so than relying upon an udfa or late rounder to be your #2. And a lot cheaper than paying Campbell $3 million+. Meanwhile, see if Blanchard has anything and could be a viable 2nd stringer by 2014.

Just a thought and a middle ground compromise.

In addition to the above, I'd add that if we have a solid offensive line, solid play-calling, and at least one decent receiving TE, then it's going to be much easier for a #2 QB to perform at an acceptable level. Our running game will be much better/consistent too (with better blocking), and this also takes some heat off of a #2 quarterback. More time to throw and a solid running game can make a marginal QB look more solid.

The converse is true also. If the blocking is really bad, then few NFL quarterbacks can do well - even starters. And for sure, no backup is going to do worth squat with a rotten oline.

Investing in a great offensive line, has so many side-benefits, in addition to helping Cutler. That's why it's utter madness to not invest solid resourced in an OL.

**soulman** · 01-28-2013, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Yates didn't loook all pro, but did lead that team to the playoffs, what part of all pro did you see out of Campbell or McCown the last few years, wait they didn't, they looked worse then a 3rd string rookie. Wanna know the difference between vets and backups? cap space that's it. (LMFAO!!! What else could you say trying to prove the point your trying to prove. If the facts don't fit just say they do anyway huh? Sorry not buying.)
Neither is taking you far. It wasn't about 1 year or 2 years, it was about young verse vet, was Brady a seasoned vet? Or Kapernick? No, neither was Yates, but all were as good or better then the best vet backup former starters at the time, and cheaper.
Vet backups are as logical starters is a myth, they suck it's why they are no longer starters, and if you have no potential to be a starter, you have no real potential to be a backup to the starter.

Ric, as usual your facts AND your logic don't even come close to reality. Case closed. You have your usual hard headed Texan hat on today and you're gonna be right no matter how much you need to twist it to fit. You win. I don't give a crap who plays #2 for the Bears because I'm not making that call.

So if it's Campbell bitch all you want. Call Emery and Trestman and tell them what fools they are because you have all the FACTS that say they blew and when it's all over and done what will be will be. You'll still be crabbing about in down in Texas and they'll have whoever the want as a #2 but in all likelihood it'll be someone whose taken a few snaps in an NFL game before.

This is a complete waste of time. Sayonara.

**MPBears68** · 01-28-2013, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Yates didn't loook all pro, but did lead that team to the playoffs, what part of all pro did you see out of Campbell or McCown the last few years, wait they didn't, they looked worse then a 3rd string rookie. Wanna know the difference between vets and backups? cap space that's it.
Neither is taking you far. It wasn't about 1 year or 2 years, it was about young verse vet, was Brady a seasoned vet? Or Kapernick? No, neither was Yates, but all were as good or better then the best vet backup former starters at the time, and cheaper.
Vet backups are as logical starters is a myth, they suck it's why they are no longer starters, and if you have no potential to be a starter, you have no real potential to be a backup to the starter.

In all fairness, Yates was NOT Houston's primary backup last year as a rookie. He's was their 3rd stringer and only played/started because both Schaub and Leinart were knocked out for the rest of the year.

ColinK was a 2nd year 2nd rounder (I believe), not a late draft selection or udfa, when he got the nod after Smith was concussed. No one seriously believes we are going QB in this years 2nd round.

Brady obviously turned out to be the steal of steals draft value wise. A bit of a straw man though, since this is the rare exception. The 6th round's history is about 100:1 in QBs who amount to nothing at all as opposed to franchise starters and future HOFers.

Lots of teams employ vet journeymen QBs as their primary backup on short term deals (GB being a notable exception recently). Most of the 2013 QB FA list is composed of exactly these. It's hardly unprecedented or unusual. Especially if they don't have a mid rounder on their roster that they've been grooming a while. Of course, these guys are a substantial "step down" from the starters...otherwise the roles would be reversed and the earnings would too. No big surprise there.

If the ONLY difference between a vet vs a young QB was cap cost alone, then pretty much every team would cast aside their vet backups and sign a new rookie udfa or use a late round draftee every year as their #2. Since that doesn't happen, there must be a reason in various GM's minds why spending a little extra on a vet backup holds some value in their judgment. That appears to be how Emery sees it at this point too.

**Riczaj01** · 01-28-2013, 05:25 PM

Soul, per usual facts are nothing you have any interest in. There is no stat you will find that says the vet backup wins more then the young backup. None, nadda, zip, zilch. All the Vet does is suck up valuable cap space.

I like tthe texans about as much as you like Denver, it's not a hard hat, it's a reality that these qb's coming out of college are more prepared then ever to step into a role early; IF they fit the system and are given an oppertunity to learn/grow which 3rd string qb's rarely are. Put them in that backup role and they'll thrive.

What vet qb saved their teams season last year? Not the great and powerfull, Jason Campbell, sure to hell wouldn't have been McCown; so what did they do for the Bears? Nothing but take up cap space and make all the fans feel good that haine wasn't the answer if Cutler got hurt. Hurray for warm fuzzy's.

MP, but Hou is the key example, vet backup wasn't any good AND got hurt, went to a ROOKIE 3rd stringer who outplayed him, and took the team to the playoffs, and he was cheaper, nor an early round draft pick.
It doesn't matter when they are drafted if they fit the system and the team allocates resources to prepare them from the get go. What you need in your backup qb is a guy w/the potential to start. And tell me what you have ever seen out of McCown or Campbell that says they have potential starting quality talent? I have never seen anything out of either that said that. And if either had that talent, w/the huge gaping hole that is the qb position in the NFL, they would have starting jobs one of the many teams that need an nfl starting qb.

I'll ask you, name the last vet backup that stepped in and saved a teams season? I can think of one, Charlie Batch, and that was after Leftwhich failed/got hurt. It's as rare as the young qb coming in and saving the season. It's why top qb's rarely have vet backups behind them; Eli/Ben are the notable exceptions. You won't find one behind Manning, Brees, Brady, Rogers.

The reason they do it is it feels better and it's an easier sell to their customers. Again it's a myth, a lie, and it's a poor judgement. It's why these same GM's typically have always gone after the same HC's/coordinators over and over again even though they continously fail at their jobs(cough cough tice, cough cough, martz, and the list goes on), b/c a big name sells better to the fans.

Thread: Dan Pompei's Mailbag: Q&A with Bears Fans

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions