Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by JustAnotherBearsFan99, Apr 25, 2014.
Also, in that NFC championship game, Collins didn't get hurt, he was pulled.
McCow nwas WAY overhyped by fans in Chicago; some thought he should have been resigned for whatever, others thought he should have had a chance to compete w/Cutler to start, he played a weak schedule last year and was surrounded by pro bowl talent all over the field, and struggled to put up more then 24 pts a game. He played well at times, but never put together a great game, tons of 3 and outs, and tons of missed oppertunities to get points on the board.
I don't think most teams keep 3 active qb's on the roster, I know there is something called the "emergancy qb" that I don't think is allowed to play unless the starter and backup get hurt, but isn't actually part of the game day roster either.
I just did a quick check of week 1 inactives last year. In week 1, 15 teams had their 3rd QB inactive, and the Bears were not one of them. In week 2, 18 teams had their 3rd QB inactive, and the Bears were not one of them.
I'm going to go through the rest of the season and see what I find.
Alright I lied...I'm not going through the rest of the season. I went up to week 9, and there are some obvious trends. Each week anywhere between 15 to 18 teams inactivate a 3rd QB. In each of those weeks the Bears did not have a QB inactive(All 3 dressed). Most teams were very consistent in either dressing all 3 QB's(Patriots, Seahawks, Saints, Rams, among others), or not dressing 3 qb's(Chiefs, 49ers, Broncos, Dolphins, among others). However, after week 9 I chose just to look at the Bears. In week 10 and beyond the Bears only dressed 2 QB's. Obviously when Cutler was hurt, Palmer was active, when he came back Palmer was inactive. There could be a bunch of reasons for the philosophy change, and my guess would be that because of the injuries incurred at other areas we just needed the extra roster spot. I don't think it had much to do with a lack of faith in Palmer.
What stuck me was how McCown looked while playing. He made me want to give him a chance at the #2 to see what he could do at the spot. And yes, he could have turned out like Caleb Hanie. Where it looked like we had found something in the guy based on the NFC Championship game, but actually anytime Caleb touched a ball in a Bears uniform in regular season or the playoffs we lost the game. But I knew McCown was a better option than Blanchard would be.
The way I saw it, because Trestman saw what McCown was doing in OTA's, practice, and the little game tape the Bears had on the guy and kept him on the team with no #3, that was a big selling point for me. He is one of the top guys in the game for evaluating veteran QB ability. What he did with the Raiders and Gannon, and with Calvillo in the CFL made me trust his judgement to keep McCown because Trestman knows what skills he needs in a QB in his system. It's why I think Palmer is going to be the #2. I think he sees the qualities he needs in Palmer to succeed in his system.
The emergency QB rule has been dropped by the NFL. It used to be that the active roster size was 45 players, but you could keep an "emergency QB" and if that emergency QB played before the 4th quarter, then you could not bring the other two QBs back on the field.
Now the roster size is 46 players, and it is the team's discretion whether to dress 3 QB's or not.
Clayton has a great rule of thumb for backup QB's. They typically are of the ability to be able to win you three games, but lose the next three. If your backup is playing, the best you should hope for is that he keeps you at a .500 win loss ratio. That's what McCown did for the Bears. It's what Hanie could not do.
I know you dislike the guy, but all McCown should expected to do this next season is to keep the Bucs this year at .500, which would be an improvement, and help develop the new guy, be it Glennon or a rookie from this year's draft.
So your confidence was more in Trestman and not so much in McCown is what I'm reading. As for my use of stats..unless you can pull up game tape from 2 years ago thats all I have to go on. I don't remember much from that Vikings game aside from it being sloppy in my opinion.
Maybe I am not understanding what you are looking at, but the Bears did not have three QB's on the 53 man roster in week 1. It is impossible for them to have dressed three QB's. The Bears did not have Palmer on the roster until October 28th, so his first time being able to play would have been week 9.
It was both. If McCown had looked like Todd Collins did in Carolina, then no, Trestman keeping him on the roster would not have influenced my decision. I would have been right alongside the rest of you guys calling for his removal from the team.
If Trestman had cut him, then I would have been "Aw, man. I liked that guy. Guess he must have sucked." But because of what my eyes told me in 2011, and because Trestman kept him, I figured he was a good choice at #2. And I am not one of the boneheads that were calling for the Bears to keep McCown over Cutler. We have the pieces on offense to succeed right now. McCown is a nice stopgap in Tampa to help them get over their Schiano funk and help develop whoever they draft, but he's not leading any team into the playoffs.
Right, they only had 2 on the 53 man roster if I remember correctly. Some are saying that Trestman may not have had faith in Palmer and thats why he didn't dress. In that post I was just looking at the amount of teams who either dress or don't dress a 3rd QB. Someone said most teams do.
Okay, then that makes sense. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Trestman rolled with 2 QBs the entire season. I agree that I don't think that's anything against Palmer, just roster moves and dealing with injury. I wonder who he would use if they both got hurt? I hope it would not be Forte.
I think I heard somewhere that Earl Bennett would have been the stand in QB. Not positive but I remember hearing there was an emergency QB to prolly just take snaps and hand to Forte.
Hah...well Walter played QB for a game in 84 didn't he?
Yeah, he was the #3 back then. I just remember that one time Forte tried to throw a pass. No desire to see that again :).
QB depth may be the best reason to get a strong back up RB to Forte. May have to return to smash mouth football if Cutler gets hurt. In 2 yrs Forte is a FA so getting a replacement on board to learn the offense for a year may not be a bad idea.
That or draft and develop a quality backup instead of relying on retreds that make you want to cry if Cutler goes down; hell maybe both?
I thought I was alone in arguing that point. I agree, backup RB is a concern that needs to be addressed. Also, Forte has a ton of miles on him and we have been fortunate not to lose him long term. I hope that doesn't change but ya never know.