Thread: The Jason Campbell Quandry.............

Originally Posted by GermansbombedPH

don't sign any QB as of now. Go with Cutler & Blanchard up until the draft. There will be plenty of cheap options available if we don't draft a QB ;)

Well one way or another we're gonna need another QB and I think with the other needs we have drafting one is only likely if there's a guy there who represents one hell of a good deal around the 5th or 6th round.

And even if we do draft a QB it's Blanchard he'd be competing with for a #3 spot as the developmental guy. We won't go into the season with a backup whose never played a single down of regular season NFL football. Not for a team with SB aspirations.

• Yesterday, 07:56 AM
  
  Riczaj01
  
  
  

  • Do not bring back a high priced "vet qb" that will cost valuable cap space and not win games. Dumbest thing pro football teams do is spend on qbs proven to not be able to play and win.

Originally Posted by kevperro

It is a luxury we don't have to spend money on a back-up QB. Let's face it... we don't have the talent on the team to win with Campbell playing. If Cutler goes down any chance we have of winning in the post season is pretty much zilch. So the only role for the back-up is to not lose a couple regular season games if Cutler is injured.

In my experience if you plan on "not losing" you end up losing and the backup QB posn is a "not losing" gamble. Ditch him and find a cheap QB to develop and spend the $$ on known areas of need.

Might as well get this out of the way with one post to both of you. No team with SB aspirations is gonna go into it's season with a developmental QB whose never taken a snap in a regular season NFL game as their #2 QB.

So if we don't find ANYONE else then either Campbell or McCown will be asked to stick around. It seems to me that the coaching staff likes what they see in Campbell or he'd have been sent packing by now. Any experienced vet with the exception of McCown will cost us at least a couple of mil and if Campbell is willing to sign a deal for $2 mil I'd say it's likely they'll keep him.

It's NOT a luxury for a contender. It's a necessity. To a great degree the last two seasons were lost because we didn't have a #2 who was able to step in and win. I don't think Trestman and Emery are gonna go for three. If we were a second division team in the process of rebuilding then yeah maybe you take your chances but that's not their attitude as I see it. They're up for winning now and restocking on the fly.

It's insurance and you have to pay the premium to get the coverage. There's only one kind of insurance that's never a complete waste and that's life insurance. Eventually we all die and the insurer pays off. This is casualty coverage and you hope you don't have to file a claim but IF you do you're damn glad you have it. I'm not rooting for or against Campbell but what I'm saying is that the Bears will have an experienced #2 when the season starts.

I don't really have a problem with Blanchard as the bears developmental QB. Why?

First, He dominated in his, admittedly lower, division. This would indicate that he would have the talent to play at a top division school. So why didn't he? Blanchard played for the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (UW-Ww). The starting QB for the top division team, University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Mad)? Russell Wilson. Yes, THAT Russell Wilson, the 3rd round pick that beat out the highly paid Matt Flynn to be the Seahawks starting QB, who went on to beat the Bears in Chicago, and to play in the wildcard round of the playoffs. There are probably 40 (or more) QBs in the NFL right now (figure starters and backups) who would not have been able to make that jump either.

Last year, as an UDFA, Blanchard came to the bears training camp and competed for a roster spot. He made it all the way to the final cuts, competing against N. Enderle for the developmental QB spot and winning it. Enderle was a 5th round pick. Beating out a 5th round pick would indicate that Blanchard is worth at least as much as that, and maybe more.

I'm not saying that Blanchard is the next Tom Brady, or Kurt Warner. However, if you are going to advocate spending a late round draft pick on a QB to develop, why would you not consider a player who has proven through competition that he is worth (at least) a late round pick?

The Bears (currently) have 5 (1st,2nd,4th,5th,6th rounds) picks in the draft. The Bears are roughly 5-7 starting quality offensive players away from being an average offense, there is also a real need to get younger players on defense (CB and LB). This means that the Bears are 7-9 players away from filling holes, not counting the QB position. With only 5 picks, the Bears may well not be able to afford the luxury of drafting a developmental QB this year. Given the weak QB draft class this year, I question whether a QB prospect available in the late rounds will ever be better than backup quality anyway. We know Blanchard is better than Enderle, but not as good as R. Wilson, making him (roughly) as good as any late round prospect the Bears could draft this year. Except that the Bears don't have to spend a draft pick to get him.

Given the needs of the team, along with available talent (or lack thereof), it is likely that Blanchard will be the Bears "developmental" QB for at least the next season.

Again, I'm not saying that Blanchard will be the next overlooked HoF QB. But, he could be an Alex Smith, or a Shaun Hill. Which, for a guy that wasn't even drafted, isn't a bad deal.

The real question is what Trestman thinks of Blanchard. THAT will have more to do with how things play out for Blanchard than anything else.

As to the Original Post, I don't think the Bears got what they paid for out of Campbell last year. I didn't see anything to make me jump up and say, "We need this guy to be our backup!" either. Barring substantial improvements to the O-Line, I am not confident that Campbell would don any better next year. Add in teams that NEED a QB, Campbell (likely) wanting to be a starter, and the Bears money crunch... I think Campbell will be playing somewhere else next season.

I realize this is a debate with valid points on both sides. Classic cost-benefit trade off. I was definitely a fan of the move to bring Campbell here last year after the Hanie/Collins debacles. I thought to myself: "having a second quasi-starter vet QB is good insurance". Ive changed my mind on this and two things have soured me on the idea of retaining him.

A) He was TERRIBLE. I know the O as a whole and the O-coaching staff in particular were epic fails, but Campbell simply sucked too. No excuses for a highly experienced vet who'd started dozens of games in his career. Even letting the "burn the tape" SF game go, the one thing we really needed of him was for him to lead us to a win vs. Houston in the second half. It was a close game and at home and Campbell did no better than Hanie would have. Why pay "extra" for a former-starter backup QB if he can't get you 10 points at home?

B) Our cap situation isn't nearly as generous as last year. As of now anyway. Spending another $3.5 million seems excessive and wasteful. Campbell will stay for way less? We will see. Matt Moore just got $4 million and he's been pretty much a career backup. Campbell could also look at places like Jacksonville and Arizona where he'd have a shot at winning the starting job outright or at least taking it away if/when the starter inevitably flops (yet again, in Kolb's case). Why would he want to take a large pay cut to stay in Chicago where he has zero chance of playing beyond as an emergency stopgap?

That all being said, it wouldn't surprise me if Emery did pursue him since he saw what happened to JA post-2011/2012. I wouldn't pay a penny over $2 million though. If Campbell gets no other offers and is willing to take a 50% cut, then fine. Otherwise, I have no problem letting him walk. Is he better than McCown? Sure he is. Is he 3 times better? No. JM would cost what? $900k? And if Trestman/Cavanaugh are the "QB developers extraordinaire" we have been told, can't they get Blanchard ready to the point of being a serviceable #2 by 2014 at the very latest?

BTW, a team that was a legit Super Bowl contender and division winning playoff team last year went the entire season with a completely inexperienced cheap udfa as their #2 behind an OL that wasn't all that much better than ours. They're in Wisconsin.

Originally Posted by soulman

• Yesterday, 07:56 AM
  
  Riczaj01
  
  
  

  • Do not bring back a high priced "vet qb" that will cost valuable cap space and not win games. Dumbest thing pro football teams do is spend on qbs proven to not be able to play and win.

Might as well get this out of the way with one post to both of you. No team with SB aspirations is gonna go into it's season with a developmental QB whose never taken a snap in a regular season NFL game as their #2 QB.

So if we don't find ANYONE else then either Campbell or McCown will be asked to stick around. It seems to me that the coaching staff likes what they see in Campbell or he'd have been sent packing by now. Any experienced vet with the exception of McCown will cost us at least a couple of mil and if Campbell is willing to sign a deal for $2 mil I'd say it's likely they'll keep him.

It's NOT a luxury for a contender. It's a necessity. To a great degree the last two seasons were lost because we didn't have a #2 who was able to step in and win. I don't think Trestman and Emery are gonna go for three. If we were a second division team in the process of rebuilding then yeah maybe you take your chances but that's not their attitude as I see it. They're up for winning now and restocking on the fly.

It's insurance and you have to pay the premium to get the coverage. There's only one kind of insurance that's never a complete waste and that's life insurance. Eventually we all die and the insurer pays off. This is casualty coverage and you hope you don't have to file a claim but IF you do you're damn glad you have it. I'm not rooting for or against Campbell but what I'm saying is that the Bears will have an experienced #2 when the season starts.

You're right, no superbowl contending team would ever enter a season without a vet backup qb.... Well, other than pretty much every damn superbowl playing team in recent history

I'd give you stats, but we all know how you handle that.

It's a damn good thing that Baltimore had the veteran Tyrod Taylor backing upflacco. buacco.nd San Fran really fucked up by having a developing qb backing up alex smith.

Originally Posted by MPBears68

BTW, a team that was a legit Super Bowl contender and division winning playoff team last year went the entire season with a completely inexperienced cheap udfa as their #2 behind an OL that wasn't all that much better than ours. They're in Wisconsin.

But........."by the way", Harrell was also a top NCAA Div I QB who set college passing records at Texas Tech, spent a year in the CFL and then two years with the Packers as their #3 QB behind Matt Flynn BEFORE he became their #2 QB last year in his 3rd year with the team. So he was not completely inexperienced as far as that offense is concerned. That kind of trumps our NCAA Div III kid from UW-Whitwater who doesn't even have a full year on the PS doesn't it?
But I'll give you the part of about him being cheap.

And when the Packers actually went to and won their SB in 2011 Matt Flynn was the #2 and he was in his 3rd season with them. He also was able to step in and win a key game for them that year which is what we'd actually like our to do as well. So the Packers have NEVER had a completely inexperienced QB as their #2 since 2009 when Flynn was in his second year.

I stand by what I said and even more so on the basis of my observations of Phil Emery. He is not gonna play the 2013 season with Matt Blanchard as the Bears #2 QB. If they don't bring Campbell back then it will be another experienced QB or McCown.