Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Rebuilding and QB's and the Draft
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
51to54


Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 1809
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:27 pm    Post subject: Rebuilding and QB's and the Draft Reply with quote

Part of my resistance to picking up Garoppolo or journeyman QB's costing us draft picks is that I think that the Bears are still in full out rebuilding mode. No need to try and do a 'reach' trade and overpay for a QB who will maybe give us one more win and that win is HIGHLY unlikely to move us into a home field game in the playoffs or even the playoffs. If anything, it will cost us a few draft positions in 2018 and nothing else.

Now if you think that 2016's 3-13 record was mostly due to injuries and poor QB play and you think the 2016 Bears were an 8-8 team with bad luck then it might make sense to try and get a viable NFL starter in here to make a push for the playoffs.

I don't think we are close to that.

Injuries hurt the Bears, but mostly because it exposed how little quality depth we have. You fix depth with more draft picks, not fewer. Aside from the depth issue, we don't even have NFL level starters at every position with the secondary alone probably being 2 decent starters short.

I don't think that FA will solve all of these issues and I basically think that the Bears need to think 2018 is their target and to treat 2017 as a full on rebuild and don't sacrifice the 2018 goal for what is most likely a meaningless extra win.

This also allows us to draft a QB that we don't expect to play until 2018.
I'm fine with crawling through 2017 with Hoyer and Barkley and keeping our picks than blowing yet another cheap cost draft pick to grab a Hoyer version 1.0001. Version 2.0 maybe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only problem I have with this logic is that the Qb is almost universally step 1 of the rebuild process. Out of all of the positions, they seem to take the longest to develop and they seem to have the longest "window" in which they can be starters on a contender, so it makes sense to get that piece in place early (if you start with a Rb, for instance, they are more likely to be "good" early and flame out sooner, which means that they likely won't match the rest of your contending window.)

So if you REALLY hate all of the options in this draft, sure I get it. But you have to be willing to put off filling the Qb position with both of these qualifiers in place:

1.) Delaying the Qb position undoubtedly sets your rebuild back a full year. Coaches and GMs have to be ok with that. I question whether fox and Pace can be.

2.) A lot had to go wrong to end up with only 3 wins, and even in that situation we only ended up with the #3 pick. So even being bad in a "good Qb year" can leave you on the outside if the top prospects go 1-2, etc.

Personally, if you are in a position to gamble on a Winning Qb with all of the measurables and a track record that is on par with Watson's, I think you have to do it. The last several years have all been "bad Qb years" and it seems as though the guys who get taken early are mostly all thriving early. My take is that College is better preparing prospects and our 24-7 media is picking at the Qb's too much. I think in the public perception they actually end up being underrated (not by the NFL, though - guys like wentz still go in the top 3 on draft day even though they are "flawed").

With the iron clad lock that Garrett is now #1, and with the news that Allen has got a bum shoulder and maybe not much of an athelete, and with the fact that Watson looked to be as good or better than the rest of the Qb class, my inclination would be to go that way at #3.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6907
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
The only problem I have with this logic is that the Qb is almost universally step 1 of the rebuild process. Out of all of the positions, they seem to take the longest to develop and they seem to have the longest "window" in which they can be starters on a contender, so it makes sense to get that piece in place early (if you start with a Rb, for instance, they are more likely to be "good" early and flame out sooner, which means that they likely won't match the rest of your contending window.)

So if you REALLY hate all of the options in this draft, sure I get it. But you have to be willing to put off filling the Qb position with both of these qualifiers in place:

1.) Delaying the Qb position undoubtedly sets your rebuild back a full year. Coaches and GMs have to be ok with that. I question whether fox and Pace can be.

2.) A lot had to go wrong to end up with only 3 wins, and even in that situation we only ended up with the #3 pick. So even being bad in a "good Qb year" can leave you on the outside if the top prospects go 1-2, etc.

Personally, if you are in a position to gamble on a Winning Qb with all of the measurables and a track record that is on par with Watson's, I think you have to do it. The last several years have all been "bad Qb years" and it seems as though the guys who get taken early are mostly all thriving early. My take is that College is better preparing prospects and our 24-7 media is picking at the Qb's too much. I think in the public perception they actually end up being underrated (not by the NFL, though - guys like wentz still go in the top 3 on draft day even though they are "flawed").

With the iron clad lock that Garrett is now #1, and with the news that Allen has got a bum shoulder and maybe not much of an athelete, and with the fact that Watson looked to be as good or better than the rest of the Qb class, my inclination would be to go that way at #3.


Solid first post -- welcome!

I have to take Pace at his word when he says he wants a QB that elevates his program like Drew Brees did at Purdue. Well, that's Deshaun Watson and that can't even be debated.

Then when he was asked if you can "reach" for a QB at #3, Pace said you need to find value at that pick. So who is the value? Do you value Jamal Adams at #3 overall? I don't. Jonathan Allen? I would if his shoulders checked out.

This class is SO-DEEP at corner and safety, two of our biggest needs, that I think we would be foolish to draft one early.
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft


"I thought it was a stroke of genius. You give [Pace] an A++++ for the move to get Trubisky. That was magnificient." - Bill Polian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CBears019


Moderator
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 18004
Location: Darien, IL
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I gotta agree with chewtoy on this. IF Pace thinks one of these QBs can lead us to the promised land, then they gotta taken him at 3. I would love to have Adams, hooker, etc back there, but more often than not when you think about super bowl winning teams the first person you think about is the quarterback. The only way I would stray from that approach is if garret miraculously becomes available, but I feel pretty confident that we won't have to face that dilemma.
_________________
👮


AZBearsFan wrote:

He's a playmaker though, and we can use more of those in the Devin.Fart
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6907
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CBears019 wrote:
I gotta agree with chewtoy on this. IF Pace thinks one of these QBs can lead us to the promised land, then they gotta taken him at 3. I would love to have Adams, hooker, etc back there, but more often than not when you think about super bowl winning teams the first person you think about is the quarterback. The only way I would stray from that approach is if garret miraculously becomes available, but I feel pretty confident that we won't have to face that dilemma.


I'll gladly take a top tier pass rusher if he's there at #3, they change games. Safeties don't change games unless you have Earl Thomas and his legit 4.37 speed.

4.56 doesn't get you off the hashes and slam passing windows shut.
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft


"I thought it was a stroke of genius. You give [Pace] an A++++ for the move to get Trubisky. That was magnificient." - Bill Polian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CBears019


Moderator
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 18004
Location: Darien, IL
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

G08 wrote:
CBears019 wrote:
I gotta agree with chewtoy on this. IF Pace thinks one of these QBs can lead us to the promised land, then they gotta taken him at 3. I would love to have Adams, hooker, etc back there, but more often than not when you think about super bowl winning teams the first person you think about is the quarterback. The only way I would stray from that approach is if garret miraculously becomes available, but I feel pretty confident that we won't have to face that dilemma.


I'll gladly take a top tier pass rusher if he's there at #3, they change games. Safeties don't change games unless you have Earl Thomas and his legit 4.37 speed.

4.56 doesn't get you off the hashes and slam passing windows shut.


Yeah Garrett is the only one I'd do that for in this draft.
_________________
👮


AZBearsFan wrote:

He's a playmaker though, and we can use more of those in the Devin.Fart
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
51to54


Joined: 29 Jun 2008
Posts: 1809
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
The only problem I have with this logic is that the Qb is almost universally step 1 of the rebuild process. Out of all of the positions, they seem to take the longest to develop and they seem to have the longest "window" in which they can be starters on a contender, so it makes sense to get that piece in place early (if you start with a Rb, for instance, they are more likely to be "good" early and flame out sooner, which means that they likely won't match the rest of your contending window.)

So if you REALLY hate all of the options in this draft, sure I get it. But you have to be willing to put off filling the Qb position with both of these qualifiers in place:

1.) Delaying the Qb position undoubtedly sets your rebuild back a full year. Coaches and GMs have to be ok with that. I question whether fox and Pace can be.

2.) A lot had to go wrong to end up with only 3 wins, and even in that situation we only ended up with the #3 pick. So even being bad in a "good Qb year" can leave you on the outside if the top prospects go 1-2, etc.

Personally, if you are in a position to gamble on a Winning Qb with all of the measurables and a track record that is on par with Watson's, I think you have to do it. The last several years have all been "bad Qb years" and it seems as though the guys who get taken early are mostly all thriving early. My take is that College is better preparing prospects and our 24-7 media is picking at the Qb's too much. I think in the public perception they actually end up being underrated (not by the NFL, though - guys like wentz still go in the top 3 on draft day even though they are "flawed").

With the iron clad lock that Garrett is now #1, and with the news that Allen has got a bum shoulder and maybe not much of an athelete, and with the fact that Watson looked to be as good or better than the rest of the Qb class, my inclination would be to go that way at #3.

Good post. I'm fully on-board with drafting a QB at 3. I have no problem with drafting one that we assume won't be NFL ready until 2018. My issue is trading away draft picks for Hoyer 1.01 and/or adding a FA QB for 15 million a year to baby sit the position until the rookie QB gets his shot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

51to54 wrote:
Good post. I'm fully on-board with drafting a QB at 3. I have no problem with drafting one that we assume won't be NFL ready until 2018. My issue is trading away draft picks for Hoyer 1.01 and/or adding a FA QB for 15 million a year to baby sit the position until the rookie QB gets his shot.


That is a fair complaint. The flip side to consider is that we really need quarterbacks, plural. At least twice in the last decade teams have taken a Qb early and a Qb late in the same draft (Washington Took Schueler and Ferrotte in the same draft and later took RG3 and Cousins in the same draft). In both instances, the move paid off because the late rounder far exceeded the production of the early rounder.

Lets be honest, even a top rated, top 10 Qb is a coin flip at best. If we take Watson or Kizer or Trubinsky at 3, we have a ~50-50 shot that he will perform and a ~50-50 chance that he will flop. Personally, when you have been as bad at finding Qb's as the Bears have historically been, I have NO problem hedging our bets and acquiring two Qb's with upside this offseason. Whether that means taking two in the draft or trading picks for someone who might still have room for growth, I'd be ok with that.

So, if the idea in question is trading for an older Qb on the downside of their career, I have to agree. If instead we are talking about a younger player who PROBABLY is just a place holder but who MIGHT have a future.... I'm ok with that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6907
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
51to54 wrote:
Good post. I'm fully on-board with drafting a QB at 3. I have no problem with drafting one that we assume won't be NFL ready until 2018. My issue is trading away draft picks for Hoyer 1.01 and/or adding a FA QB for 15 million a year to baby sit the position until the rookie QB gets his shot.


That is a fair complaint. The flip side to consider is that we really need quarterbacks, plural. At least twice in the last decade teams have taken a Qb early and a Qb late in the same draft (Washington Took Schueler and Ferrotte in the same draft and later took RG3 and Cousins in the same draft). In both instances, the move paid off because the late rounder far exceeded the production of the early rounder.

Lets be honest, even a top rated, top 10 Qb is a coin flip at best. If we take Watson or Kizer or Trubinsky at 3, we have a ~50-50 shot that he will perform and a ~50-50 chance that he will flop. Personally, when you have been as bad at finding Qb's as the Bears have historically been, I have NO problem hedging our bets and acquiring two Qb's with upside this offseason. Whether that means taking two in the draft or trading picks for someone who might still have room for growth, I'd be ok with that.

So, if the idea in question is trading for an older Qb on the downside of their career, I have to agree. If instead we are talking about a younger player who PROBABLY is just a place holder but who MIGHT have a future.... I'm ok with that.


Don't forget Matt Flynn being signed in FA and then Russell Wilson drafted in round 3.
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft


"I thought it was a stroke of genius. You give [Pace] an A++++ for the move to get Trubisky. That was magnificient." - Bill Polian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wiscbearsfan


Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 6571
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
The only problem I have with this logic is that the Qb is almost universally step 1 of the rebuild process. Out of all of the positions, they seem to take the longest to develop and they seem to have the longest "window" in which they can be starters on a contender, so it makes sense to get that piece in place early (if you start with a Rb, for instance, they are more likely to be "good" early and flame out sooner, which means that they likely won't match the rest of your contending window.)

So if you REALLY hate all of the options in this draft, sure I get it. But you have to be willing to put off filling the Qb position with both of these qualifiers in place:

1.) Delaying the Qb position undoubtedly sets your rebuild back a full year.


Great first post. Welcome.

To play devils advocate, let's say you take Watson or Trubisky at #3 and they don't pan out. How many years are you set back now?

I desperately want the Bears to get the QB situation fixed. I want a franchise signal caller. I just get skeptical when so many people are putting mid to late first round grades on these guys. It might not mean anything. Those people could be wrong. But it causes some concern.
_________________
Quote:
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that.........he is gone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wiscbearsfan wrote:

Great first post. Welcome.

To play devils advocate, let's say you take Watson or Trubisky at #3 and they don't pan out. How many years are you set back now?

I desperately want the Bears to get the QB situation fixed. I want a franchise signal caller. I just get skeptical when so many people are putting mid to late first round grades on these guys. It might not mean anything. Those people could be wrong. But it causes some concern.


You aren't wrong. Making the wrong call at Qb DOES set you back a long time - look no further than Cade McNown. The question to ask is, are we going to be in a better situation to draft a Qb in the near future? Because Pace has 1-2 years to show a pulse, and if he fails to do so he might never get this opportunity again.

If I'm Pace, I do take a long look at Qb at #3. I think most of the other quality options are now either out of reach (Garrett) or have similar question marks (Allen). And I think that the "late first" grade is going to improve - it has on qb classes almost every year I've been paying attention.

I don't think he waits. I think he either goes with a Qb at 3 or trades for Garaopolo, but I don't think he has the time or stones to wait a full year to pull the trigger.

We all want to be the worst team in the league the year Andrew Luck is available. Andrew Lucks come around once a decade and there are 32 teams, so you have a 1:320 chance of pulling that off. Far more often you have to settle for being one of the worst few teams the year Carson Wentz is available. It isn't ideal and it isn't a slam dunk, but your rebuild doesn't start until you pull the trigger (for better or for worse).

For what it is worth, Cade McNown only played two years in the NFL. So I guess the answer to your question is 2 years (we could have tried again in year 3 but David Terrell fell into our lap. If we would have reached for the Qb with a late first, early second round grade that year, we'd have been stuck with Drew Brees.....)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16526
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Take anyone at 3 and they do not work out you are set back big time. Kevin White has been the biggest set back of the Pace era so far.


QBs take years to develop.

You have to start the clock at some point.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sugashane


Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 3298
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WindyCity wrote:
Take anyone at 3 and they do not work out you are set back big time. Kevin White has been the biggest set back of the Pace era so far.


QBs take years to develop.

You have to start the clock at some point.


I'm not opposed to drafting more than one QB.

Green Bay drafted Harrell in the 2nd after having Rodgers waiting in wrong. They also drafted numerous QBs behind Favre to increase depth, protect themselves in case he was injured, and as motivation for him to keep working.

Pace can spend two high picks our whatever. Just get one to hit.
_________________
2013 Kyle Long Rookie of the Year Award

Adopt a Bear - Kyle Long (Two Season Streak)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
topwop1


Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 7791
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WindyCity wrote:
Take anyone at 3 and they do not work out you are set back big time. Kevin White has been the biggest set back of the Pace era so far.


QBs take years to develop.

You have to start the clock at some point.


I keep going back to the fact that there are no guarantees with any pick at any given point in any single draft.

If you take a QB and it doesn't work out then oh well but to use a Windy analogy, you can't win the lottery if you don't play.

Bears can keep trying to plod along at the QB position with guys like Glennon and Hoyer but that won't get them any where in the long run.

You have to take risks sometimes, especially when you are sitting with the highest pick you've had in over a decade with a glaring need to get better and younger at the QB position. This is of course all provided that they don't trade for Jimmy G.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16526
PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If the Bears tell me Solomon Thomas or Malik Hooker are going to be All Pros and were too good to pass on, I am okay with that.

But,

1. They better be All Pro players

2. You better have some sort of answer at QB that doesn't suck.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group