La Canfora’s Gut Says Josh McCown Lands With Vikings

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by JustAnotherBearsFan99, Mar 7, 2014.

  1. soulman

    soulman Hall of Famer
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,032
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    ßearz ßuckz:
    798ß
    Ratings:
    +1,962 / 7 / -3
    Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
    But recently he was quoted as saying that he has to be prepared to move on if it comes to that. Now whether that was just a move to improve his bargaining position or he was serious we won't know until he's either signed by Emery or someone else. We shouldn't have long to wait though. On Tuesday teams will start to announce who their new "toys" are.
     
    #11
  2. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,605
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,762ß
    Ratings:
    +2,183 / 1 / -0
    Why should I give you another reason when you already gave it. Cap room. As for whether he wants to keep him or not, I'm not getting into a bidding war for Josh McCown...sorry...just isn't happening. As for bad habits...I see no bad habits that need to be broken when it comes to the way we handle our cap. Your letting that axe you have to grind get the best of you here I think.
     
    #12
    • Like Like x 1
  3. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,605
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,762ß
    Ratings:
    +2,183 / 1 / -0
    As an aside...I wouldn't be throwing our GM under the bus for not signing a guy to a 2 year deal who before last year threw more INT's than TD's in his career.
     
    #13
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz George Halas
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    37,240
    Likes Received:
    919
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,133ß
    Ratings:
    +1,244 / 1 / -2
    hmmm... So whatever happened to being on the ropes of even returning to the NFL this coming season? lol I guess money trumps family?
     
    #14
  5. soulman

    soulman Hall of Famer
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,032
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    ßearz ßuckz:
    798ß
    Ratings:
    +1,962 / 7 / -3
    Bother I make NO secret at all of the fact that I don't like the way Phil Emery does business but then he probably wouldn't like the way I do mine either so on that score I figure were even. I get to criticize him whenever I think he's screwing up and he's more than welcome to do the same. I have thick skin, can you tell? LOL

    He was penny wise and pound foolish a year ago when he didn't need to be. It cost him then and it's costing him now. Maybe he wanted it that way, I don't know, but if so then it's time to pay the piper for those errors in judgment. When he starts putting a team on the field that matches his promises about one that will compete for a championship every year maybe I'll back off but so far from where I sit he's a very long way from it.

    The Packers are still whipping our ass. :pisson:
     
    #15
  6. soulman

    soulman Hall of Famer
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,032
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    ßearz ßuckz:
    798ß
    Ratings:
    +1,962 / 7 / -3
    I'd guess the family discussion now centers around the fact that if he can get a multi-year deal he'd have the option of moving him family to wherever that is and if not TB and NY are both closer to home. Minny no, which is why I don't see that happening. I think it's more than just money Ski. I think it's getting a little security and a little monetary appreciation for what he accomplished. I don't ever recall him saying money wasn't involved in the decision process but I do think that's not his only concern and maybe not even his prime concern.
     
    #16
  7. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,605
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,762ß
    Ratings:
    +2,183 / 1 / -0
    LOL...yeah, you got thick skin alright. The problem is you still haven't addressed why it wasn't wise at the time to give a guy who to be KIND has had a mediocre career and had thrown more INT's than TD's in his career more than 1 year. We were up against the cap last year and I think we were all amazed when we were able to land a stud TE and a stud LT when free agency opened. It cost him nothing last year. Based on the injuries this defense was going to struggle regardless(I know you think having Urlacher back there behind a decimated d-line would have helped somehow).

    As for the Pack...if you call beating them, and then losing by a blown coverage whipping our ass...then you and I have two different definitions of ass whipping.
     
    #17
    • Like Like x 1
  8. weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    521
    ßearz ßuckz:
    446ß
    Ratings:
    +654 / 0 / -1
    McCown did not have much interest in him when we signed him to a vet minimum deal. Why would Emery go out of his way to lock him in for two years? Doesn't a two year deal negate the vet minimum one year deal towards the cap?

    I guess you could say he should have known that McCown was a good backup, but if Cutler stays healthy last year no one knows if McCown can play and he's got few options other than returning here for league minimum.

    I've been saying he's not returning since the end of the season. McCown is as good as gone. The money is too good elsewhere at the twilight of his career. He's not going to Minesota though. There will be better destinations that pay the same.
     
    #18
    • Like Like x 1
  9. JustAnotherBearsFan99

    JustAnotherBearsFan99 Assistant Head Coach
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    12,227
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    ßearz ßuckz:
    4,246ß
    Ratings:
    +4,566 / 4 / -1
    I'm still in an "observer status" mode with Phil Emery. I'm not willing to "crown him" yet, even though he's done some very good things on the offense side of the team. But, I'm not willing to hold him accountable for the defense yet either. I'm just watching these first few years and then I figure I'll make up my mind on him (and Trestman too for that matter). I'm neutral at this point. I've said in a number of threads that we've been through this thing many times before with new GMs/Coaches. Almost everybody loves them during the honeymoon period and goes overboard making excuses for them........and then on the flip side, they can go overboard the other way once the honeymoon is over. They want to crucify the same guy they loved initially.

    I do expect him to make mistakes and not be perfect. I just hope he can learn from his mistakes, and overall build a winner here in Chicago. That's all I want. I just want the team to become relevant in the NFL again. It's a shame a once great team with 90+ years of storied history, is now looking up at Green Bay's backside each year in our division, & we haven't won a championship in over a quarter of a century. I hate that. I'm just hunkered down and watching the parade go by. Hope a championship float comes by soon :)
     
    #19
    • Like Like x 2
  10. soulman

    soulman Hall of Famer
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,032
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    ßearz ßuckz:
    798ß
    Ratings:
    +1,962 / 7 / -3
    OK I will address just that one issue. I'm not going into the Urlacher thing. No matter whether I would have been right or wrong it was still handled very poorly. That much many people agree on and it seems to be continuing. That's one of the reasons I don't like the way Emery does business and I don't buy into his lousy reasoning.

    Until Emery came along we generally signed backup QBs for two years. Most do and some teams even do three as a matter of habit if they need to spread out a guaranteed amount. IF he had signed him for two years, both for the vet minimums, ($940k and $955k) he wouldn't have this problem now would he? Can we at least agree on that much? The second year would not have been guaranteed anyway unless he made the team so there was no risk there and right now he'd have him for another year for at least a mil less than he'll probably cost him IF he stays. (it may even be more). Can we agree on that too?

    OK, now the cap consequences of such a move. The difference in what he was paid ($940k) and his cap cost ($555k) saved just $385k against the cap. That's $20k less than a rookie minimum and those salaries don't even count against the cap unless they're one of the top 51 and most of the time they aren't. So that $385k saved wasn't even enough to cover the minimum salary of one rookie whose salary has no affect on the cap at all. The deal is this. Individually McCown saved the Bears almost nothing in cap costs. But even if I count it as having an effect of $385k it takes a number of deals just like it to make any meaningful difference. To gain just $2 mil in additional cap space you'd need 5 players under that kind of contract. It's the cumulative gain of all of them not any one player. Can we agree on this?

    Now the last. MOST backups who would agree to terms like that ALL have career records like McCown's. Some a little better and some far worse. It's why they come cheap. The year before Emery signed a guy with a similar career record and he cost him $3.5 mil against the cap. Campbell ended of sucking the big one when he played although at least part of that I attribute to Tice. He did a little better in Cleveland this past year on the two year deal worth $3.75 mil they signed him for. In 2012 the Cowgirls gave our old QB Kyle Orton $10.5 mil/3yrs and guaranteed half of it. How good was his record? Yesterday Matt Cassel got a new deal for $10 mil/2 yrs. when they restructured his 2013 deal which was $7.4 mil/2 yrs. He's not much different than Orton. Chase Daniel got $10 mil/3yrs last March. What kind of career has he had. Shoot he's barely played at all so I'm not even gonna count him as an experienced vet. That was a real leap of faith by KC.

    Here's the QB ratings and yrs exp. of Campbell 81.8/9yrs, Cassel 80.5/9yrs, Orton 79.9/10yrs..........McCown 77.5/11yrs.

    Not much difference huh, and we couldn't have afforded any of those guys but we could afford McCown and that's about all we could afford after Bushrod and Bennett and a few others who didn't get vet mini deals. But we could also have afforded to sign him for two years for the lousy $385k more in cap space we gained IF we even gained that. Those guys were all signed for 2 or 3 year deals as a #2 to teams who had #1 QBs for a lot more money than we paid Josh McCown. In fact had we signed him for two years we'd be paying him half of what the Browns will pay our former #2, Jason Campbell. McCown was a good deal for an experienced vet and he turned out to be a great deal and now we may lose him because Emery wanted to save $385k or less. That's the way it worked out.

    OK, I addressed what you asked me to and I backed it up with FACTS that support it and that's what I offer against your opinions. I did the exact same thing with Hester and Weems if you looked and the FACTS won't support your opinion there either. I'm not trying to start a war here but you keep tossing out opinions with little if any CORRECT FACTS to back them up. I took the time to post the FACTS. If you're opinions are still the same that's fine. You're entitled to those opinions but I'm done debating this stuff with you until you begin to show me some FACTS that support those opinions. When you do I usually agree with you, and a few other too, but not when the facts don't support the contentions.

    As for the GB thing that's over and done and McCown wasn't involved in that game. They stole the NFCN from us again for the umpteenth time. That's my definition of getting kicked in the ass again by those Cheesy Bastards and I stand by my opinion. Nuff said. :cheers:
     
    #20

Share This Page

Copyright © DaBears.com. This site is a news, entertainment and information site covering the Chicago Bears and their fans.
DaBears.com is an independent fan site and not associated with the Chicago Bears, National Football League, or any other media site.
All content is provided by, and for, Bear fans. We invite your participation and suggestions.