McCown not a sure thing

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by BSBEARS, Mar 2, 2014.

  1. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,949
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Ratings:
    +1,917 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    713ß
    Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
    Cassell got $7.4 mil for two years with $2 mil guaranteed so he's been paid $3.7 so but I doubt he'll be around for year two of it if they draft a QB. Daniels got $10 mil over three with $4.8 mil guaranteed including $1 mil in 2014 but he's eight years younger than McCown too. I believe all Campbell got was $3.75 for two years. Let me check.

    Yep, $3.75 for two years with zero guaranteed and if the Browns draft Manziel he's gone and only collects $1.875 mil for 2013.

    I believe that if the Bears can give him a 2 year deal for around $4 mil and guarantee him $2 mil of it this year that they'll at least be in the ballpark. Anymore than that and it should be predicated on his starts being greater than 2013 and if that's the case it's an ULTBE bonus and goes against the 2015 if it's earned. With what they gave Cutler and a younger guy like Palmer on the roster they probably can sign for a vet minimum it's hard to see them going more than that. What they can't to is lowball him or refuse to give him a two year deal with some security because if someone else out east or down south nearer his home does he make take it to be closer to his family. He's very big on that right now.
     
    #21
  2. weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +505 / 0 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    255ß
    Age is only important at QB if you are planning to build around the player or they are showing signs of age related problems like injury or David Carr like symptoms of shell shock in the pocket.

    McCown had a better year than Cassell, Daniel, or Campbell. He's in the 3-4 million club as a backup. There is a team out there that can afford that kind of money and will for McCown. He's not coming back.
     
    #22
  3. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,949
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Ratings:
    +1,917 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    713ß
    I'm more optimistic than that because I don't think any team is gonna spend that on a backup QB unless they believe he may start for them if their young QB fails. At any rate if it goes beyond a $2 mil base with incentives my guess is the Bears are out of it and they'll work with Palmer or another free agent they may find. Trestman's offense is very QB friendly so finding a backup won't be impossible and if it's Palmer for around $750k we have the cap space to sign another player.
     
    #23
  4. riczaj01

    riczaj01 DaBears Ditka
    DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    23,080
    Likes Received:
    3,339
    Ratings:
    +4,053 / 10 / -8
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,313ß
    at no time has a SAM had 100+(85 solo) tackles w/4 sacks and had it been called a bad year in a Lovie Cover 2 system especially w/a DL that was softer then a used kleenex. HH only had 7 sacks in his career, and never racked anywhere near 100 tackles, let alone 80+ solo. Nich Roach in the Lovie cover 2 had very similar #'s to Hunter, and his #'s w/the Raiders were very similar to Andersons and he signed a 4yr 13mil contract and Anderson got a 1yr 1.25 mil contract. Bears got the better deal by far.
     
    #24
  5. CaptainHookShot

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    Yeah, beginning with the quarterback position. A lasso becomes a noose in the nfl pretty quickly. It only takes a year or two, and sometimes less than that.

    Let's face it, this defense is shaping up to be another laughingstock-I'm not sure what additions could be made that wouldn't make me think otherwise. Usually when you go to rebuilding a defense it starts from day one with the new coach. That didn't happen and it's starting to feel all bungled up.

    So now we just have to sit back and wonder if our Cutler lead offense can overcome our defense. I am dubious, and frankly had wished we let Cutler walk for McCown and whoever wasn't going to cost big $. It just doesn't make sense to me. You hire the qb guru, then dump absurd money on a relatively unproven 30 year old with a track record of injury. You hire the qb guru so you don't have to spend the money on the qb, so you can spend it all on making a badass defense because your head coach is so busy scheming on offense. Now we get to pick through the FA pile of defensive has beens with little to no certainty about what we're gonna get, because we don't really know how to coach them anyways.

    Back to that Cutler run offense. Here is what it has to do, anything less is unacceptable: It has to drive the ball for extended periods of time, we're talking 10 minute drives that finish with 7, it has to have way fewer turnovers so that we score every time we get the ball, so that we put up monster points even with those long drives. If it can do that, then our defense will be fine. But if our O comes out like Cutler has for his entire career and posts an int and 6 points in the first two quarters with the defense on the field for 22 of those minutes then even Tebow and Jesus Christ crucified to each post of the end zone won't help us. Oh, and it has to crush on the packers and the lions.

    I was excited for McCown when he did what he did this past season. Anybody who watched knows that our season was over without him. I was also excited that it might have meant the Cutler experiment was over, in that we would use McCown and draft a qb and keep the position on the cheap. Looking at our aging d and how much work and money it's gonna need I thought it was a logical direction to head. To my dismay the Cutler era was only beginning.

    Before I bring out the Cutler fanboys from beneath their covers just hear out my last point on him and why I would have been happy to move on. Although they are different sports they are still sports, but if you follow Chicago sports then you know what the great ones feel like, what it is like to watch them play, how unselfishly they play, and why you need them to win.
    This is Chicago. I know the Bears qb has pretty much sucked forever, but that's no reason to lower the standards. And here are the standards, Payton, Toews, and Michael Jordan. Now, does Cutler fit in there? Just say those names to yourself and then add Cutler to the end of them. It's like a child's puzzle, which one of these does not belong? Why does it matter? Because our defense sucks cocks at shitty motel rooms for streaming porn vids whenever they are out of town, and when they are back in town,...Lord have mercy.

    I was thinking with Trestman we had a shot at getting a Tom Bradylike draft pick in here and establishing ourselves for the next 3-4 years before the big contract. But my GOD, we're stuck with smoking Jay.
     
    #25
  6. weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +505 / 0 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    255ß
    I don't know about looking at just the numbers like that. For Anderson to have the stats he did is because the defense was broken. In this case, don't look at the stats. Look at how the team played, and who is supposed to make the tackles in a Tampa 2 defense scheme. No one was in position because the MLB position was inexperienced and flawed, and our WIL was either a very heavy Briggs or another inexperienced rookie. The SAM is supposed to be on the field about 50% of the time and take on the TE and hold his ground at the point of attack for the WLB to make the tackle. Anderson was out on the field way more out so he got more tackles than the position should and his teammates weren't making the plays from the first opportunity resulting in huge run gains. It should be our WLB having the plays funneled to him to make the stop. We were awful in defending the run last year, and it was a result of poor front 7 play, not just front 4.

    Roach got the contract he did because he can play MLB for the Raiders. On a bad Raiders team, from what I have read, Roach was one of the bright spot on that team. Anderson was not the better deal, because he could not play MLB or we would have lined him up there once D J Williams went down. Our D would have looked a lot better if we had a capable linebacker in the middle who was experienced in Lovie's system, because our DC was not but was being asked to run his system with Lovie's terminology. That had to have felt like being forced to teach Algebra in German when you don't speak German and you suck at math.

    There's a reason why Anderson could be had for 1.25 million for one year, and why he was cut from the Panthers. He's bad at run defense and limited to where you can play him. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see him in a functioning defense, but with Emery moving Shea to SLB, I'm gonna guess nepotism will win out and Anderson is out unless if he is not making very much money. I don't know where else he can line up in this defense if he's not the SLB.
     
    #26
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2014
  7. weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +505 / 0 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    255ß
    When part of your argument is listing names of great players who don't play quarterback or football in general, then asking whose name doesn't belong, you have a poor argument. Once you added Payton's name to your list, no other Bear player belonged in that list. Who the hell is playing that can measure up to Payton in a Chicagoan's heart? If your standard is that Cutler is supposed to be as great at QB as Payton was at RB, that's fucking impossible by any standard.
     
    #27
  8. riczaj01

    riczaj01 DaBears Ditka
    DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    23,080
    Likes Received:
    3,339
    Ratings:
    +4,053 / 10 / -8
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,313ß
    WNML, I'm fully aware of what the SAM is supposed to be in the tampa 2, my point was that Anderson did well MORE then he was expected to, and racked up similar #'s to a guy playing at least part time MLB on a similarly bad D who was getting 4x's the amount of pay.

    Anderson was a lone bright spot on a bad team D most of the year, and when the D was merely average(before the inj's racked up) he was still playing well. Nothing about him this year was bad, except for the non fumble recovery which was just a stupid mistake, a mistake that everyone on the field made except for the best player in the game(Aaron Rogers).
     
    #28
  9. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,605
    Likes Received:
    1,155
    Ratings:
    +1,586 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,756ß
    I'm not quite sure why Anderson was available in the first place to be quite honest with you. If not for the Panthers cap problems he would probably still be there. This is a guy who has racked up 130 and then 145 tackles, before totaling 75 in an injury shortened 2012. So to say that the only reason he got the number of tackles he did because the line sucked is disingenuous and untrue. Briggs and Williams going down certainly hurt him though. The reason why he didn't slide to the Mike is because he is not familiar with the position in the system we were running. Unlike Roach and Williams he never played it before so why would we want to take a guy who has never played a position and put him there? That makes zero sense. It is obvious by their comments and moves thus far that the coaching staff and front office want players who are flexible and can play multiple positions, which is why they prefer Williams over Anderson at this juncture. Was he a stud against the run? No, but he wasn't terrible.
     
    #29
    • Like Like x 1
  10. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,605
    Likes Received:
    1,155
    Ratings:
    +1,586 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,756ß
    Historically speaking our SAM was only on the field 50% of the time because it would make zero sense to take a guy like Urlacher or Briggs off the field in nickel situations. That obviously wasn't an issue this year.
     
    #30
    • Like Like x 1

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.