McNabb To Chicago?

by Adam T on May 21, 2007 12:06 PM CDT in News Comment 20 comments

I wasn't originally going to run with this one, but it could make for good debate, so why not.

This article talks about the possibility that Eagles QB Donovan McNabb could be traded prior to the 2007 season or perhaps before September and of course Chicago's name came up.

The Chicago Bears are ready to win the Super Bowl. They might have won it last year except for a glaring weakness at quarterback. Before the ever-popular "window" closes, the Bears need a quality QB to kick them over the hump.

This scenario obviously depends on two things. One, that McNabb is physically ready to play on Week 1 of the 2007 season. Two, that Chicago is convinced McNabb is their best available QB option.

(The fact that McNabb is from Chicago is, in my mind, irrelevant. The Bears would be just as interested in an available quality veteran if he were from Portland, Tucson or Montreal.)

But the key to this scenario is Bears linebacker Lance Briggs, who has said publicly that he will never play for Chicago again and who refused to report to minicamp on Friday.

Briggs is, arguably, the best weakside linebacker in the game and is only 26.

So now the question is, say this were a possibility are you interested?

Credit: popeflick (I saw the email before the story that was posted in the comments)

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think it would be great.

But it won't happen.

by tyger1147 on May 21, 2007 1:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I see little

chance as well.

by Adam T on May 21, 2007 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would say

the Bears would have the best chance to land him if he did leave Philly.

The Bears are a SB contender that has the biggest question mark at QB compared to SEA, NO, IND, SD, NE, BAL, etc. Dallas is out of the question because of the Division rivalry.

Still a long shot.

by RME JICO on May 21, 2007 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

DO IT!

I like Grossman, but i love McNabb. He's a top-10 QB every year, and his only weakness is injuries. We have a great backup QB situation and a solid O-line, so we can compensate for that lone weakness. He's led a team to a Super Bowl without any other big offensive weapons (remember, TO was out for the playoffs the year the Eagles went), and is a hometown favorite. McNabb would make the Bears a strong favorite for NFC champs - perhaps the favorite to win it all. DO IT!

by shawndgoldman on May 21, 2007 2:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

By the way, i totaled and averaged...

FO's QB stats and McNabb is easily a top-10 QB out of the guys currently playing. I'm going to write this up sometime soon, but suffice it to say that despite all his injuries McNabb has been the 6th most productive QB this decade and two of the guys ahead of him (Culpepper and Green) have had significant falloffs the last couple years.

by shawndgoldman on May 21, 2007 2:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, WCG

No credit at all? I get NO Dap for posting it even though you got it earlier. I'm taking you out of my Five.

by SouthernSlam on May 21, 2007 2:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Dude, what do you want

like 1/2 a credit? How about my eternal gratitude and made some twizzlers?

by Adam T on May 21, 2007 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

But the red twizzlers of course, none of that black licorice.

by SouthernSlam on May 22, 2007 8:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Briggs

would suck in Philly's system. He cannot blitz at all. Briggs is a pure cover 2 guy.

by Devin47 on May 21, 2007 3:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hmm..

Is there a "meh" category?

I'm fine with McNabb coming over, but it doesn't have me flipping cartwheels in my living room. He's probably better than Grossman will ever be, but... I dunno. Meh.

by Floyd on May 21, 2007 3:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't get what's "meh" about it...

McNabb is one of the best QB's in the game - probably the best in the NFC over the last 5 years. The Bears would turn their greatest weakness in '06 into a strength in '07.

The only reasons to be "meh" about this is an expectation for Grossman to make a huge improvement going into 2007 (possible, given reports of his improved fundamentals), or a fear of McNabb getting hurt.

by shawndgoldman on May 21, 2007 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the way...

this would work out, contracts-wise. Briggs is currently slated to make $7.206M in 2007, and McNabb has an $8.835M salary cap mark in 2006. McNabb's contract adds up to ~$37.6M towards the cap over the next 4 years (2007-2010), through his age-34 season. That's probably less than the hit The Bears would take to the cap if they re-signed Briggs to the contract he wants.

I don't think the Eagles will do this, but if they do, JERRY PLEASE DO THIS!

by shawndgoldman on May 21, 2007 3:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

er...

McNabb has an $8.835M salary cap mark in 2007.

by shawndgoldman on May 21, 2007 3:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

time to make the donuts

this would make me happy, but i am also one of the people very skeptical of grossman improving on weaknesses he's had his entire life to overcome.

by mike b on May 21, 2007 7:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No Thanks

I'll take Rex's future over Donovan's past any day.

Remember he has Our Ron Turner calling plays.

McNabb cannot stop the Indy run and cannot cover and cannot sack a quarterback. How many rings does he have? Our quarterback will be fine. Our offense will be fine(no injuries)

hit him in his earhole

by draftday on May 21, 2007 11:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe...

Rex's future of Donovan's FUTURE...but over Donovan's past? C'mon...if we could get Donovan McNabb and then morph him back into early 2000 McNabb everyone would be wetting themselves.

by lopey986 on May 22, 2007 7:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

although he can

actually lead a drive, hold on to a snap and accurately hit a receiver. will run the ball when necessary, throws off his front foot, steps up into the pocket, can see over the line...

you know, things that help to make sure a defense isn't on the field for 40 minutes.

by mike b on May 22, 2007 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs