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

24 Days Out Mock Draft
Goto page Previous  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
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 796
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

G08 wrote:
A lot, actually. Watson is your de facto QB 3 and is used to a system completely different from what Glennon and Sanchez have run in their careers. Do you expect Loggains/the offensive staff to have two separate offenses being taught at once? It's just not realistic, at all. And then to do that and leave top tier talent that could help your defense immediately is just bad business man. Fox is trying to win now and Pace is trying to build us into a strong defensive and running team.

It sucks. I hate it. But that's reality for this franchise right now.


You also create an immediate QB controversy and put the coaching staff and both QBs under a ton of pressure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sugashane


Joined: 06 Jan 2013
Posts: 3246
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
G08 wrote:
A lot, actually. Watson is your de facto QB 3 and is used to a system completely different from what Glennon and Sanchez have run in their careers. Do you expect Loggains/the offensive staff to have two separate offenses being taught at once? It's just not realistic, at all. And then to do that and leave top tier talent that could help your defense immediately is just bad business man. Fox is trying to win now and Pace is trying to build us into a strong defensive and running team.

It sucks. I hate it. But that's reality for this franchise right now.


You also create an immediate QB controversy and put the coaching staff and both QBs under a ton of pressure.


Coach - He is 9-23 in two seasons. For someone who was supposed to help turn around the team and install a winning culture, we had 7 losses by double digits. He should be under pressure, he should have higher expectations.

QB - The systems are definitely an issue, but learning two would not be something they would do. Just like with Wilson, Kaep taking over for Smith, etc you implement things to play to the QB's strengths, and simplify the decision making for them. Glennon isn't out there running McDaniel's offense, and he won't be throwing it at the ridiculous rate Barkley was asked to (unless we are tanking for the number one pick, which no way they do that). He is not talented enough to do so and will be learning the whole system fresh as well.

Either way it is a run-first offense, with Watson you now have an athlete and would incorporate more rollouts from play action and some designed runs. Glennon has the stronger arm but has been atrocious on 3rd down as well, I'm not sure sitting for the last two years will have changed that.

If a QB can't handle the stress of competition, they will never be worth a damn come playoff time. Neither is optimal, and I'd likely jump at Thomas before looking at Watson, but there are 4 QBs with potential to me, after that it is a prayer or gimmick player.
_________________
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
GOGRIESE


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 25902
Location: Austin Texas
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah it's far too late to talk about the pressure on Fox. It's all up to him on whether he stays or not.

Picking Watson would make me extremely happy. Pace should do what he thinks is best for the team no matter what's going on with the coaching staff.
_________________

^^ props to LBC on the sig Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RunningVaccs


Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Posts: 105
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What odds do you put on there being any of the top 4 QBs available at pick #36?

I am more pessimistic than usual about this, and feel Kizer is the most likely to remain. I would be shocked if any of the "3rd round grades" on Watson are anything but a lie.

SF, Cleveland and Texans all seem like locks to pick a QB to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6761
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RunningVaccs wrote:
What odds do you put on there being any of the top 4 QBs available at pick #36?

I am more pessimistic than usual about this, and feel Kizer is the most likely to remain. I would be shocked if any of the "3rd round grades" on Watson are anything but a lie.

SF, Cleveland and Texans all seem like locks to pick a QB to me.


I'm of the opinion that Trubisky, Watson, and Mahomes will be gone before pick #36.

I think Kizer could potentially be there.
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft

jrry32 wrote:
apples

When the defense allowed 20 pts or fewer, the Cutler-led Bears were 36-7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RunningVaccs


Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Posts: 105
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a roundabout way to look at this draft:

With all the DB and TE talent deeper in the draft, if the Bears go Jamal Adams (my fav non QB pick) in the first, and then Kizer is still there in the second, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do you take him or get a 1st round dropper?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6761
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RunningVaccs wrote:
Here is a roundabout way to look at this draft:

With all the DB and TE talent deeper in the draft, if the Bears go Jamal Adams (my fav non QB pick) in the first, and then Kizer is still there in the second, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do you take him or get a 1st round dropper?


Bargain shopping, baby! Always take the stud who falls in round 2 Very Happy
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft

jrry32 wrote:
apples

When the defense allowed 20 pts or fewer, the Cutler-led Bears were 36-7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HuskieBear


Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 1803
Location: Milwaukee
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

G08 wrote:
RunningVaccs wrote:
Here is a roundabout way to look at this draft:

With all the DB and TE talent deeper in the draft, if the Bears go Jamal Adams (my fav non QB pick) in the first, and then Kizer is still there in the second, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do you take him or get a 1st round dropper?


Bargain shopping, baby! Always take the stud who falls in round 2 Very Happy


ALA Eddie Goldman
_________________
Madmike90 wrote:
Hurting after today tho is Denzel Washington...5-10 1/2" is a concern...Chris Borland helps him but the 1st round is out of reach now if it wasn't already.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16322
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RunningVaccs wrote:
Here is a roundabout way to look at this draft:

With all the DB and TE talent deeper in the draft, if the Bears go Jamal Adams (my fav non QB pick) in the first, and then Kizer is still there in the second, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do you take him or get a 1st round dropper?


You take Kizer.

That TE that falls won't mean much if the Bears do not get a top 10 QB at some point in my lifetime.

I understand not wanting to gamble pick 3 on what you consider too much of a risk, but if you are not willing to gamble pick 36 than you are a pansy.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6761
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WindyCity wrote:
RunningVaccs wrote:
Here is a roundabout way to look at this draft:

With all the DB and TE talent deeper in the draft, if the Bears go Jamal Adams (my fav non QB pick) in the first, and then Kizer is still there in the second, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do you take him or get a 1st round dropper?


You take Kizer.

That TE that falls won't mean much if the Bears do not get a top 10 QB at some point in my lifetime.

I understand not wanting to gamble pick 3 on what you consider too much of a risk, but if you are not willing to gamble pick 36 than you are a pansy.


I think if you "gamble" on Kizer just because he's a QB but leave a much higher evaluated player on the board, you're not a pansy, you're a [inappropriate/removed] idiot.
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft

jrry32 wrote:
apples

When the defense allowed 20 pts or fewer, the Cutler-led Bears were 36-7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16322
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

G08 wrote:
WindyCity wrote:
RunningVaccs wrote:
Here is a roundabout way to look at this draft:

With all the DB and TE talent deeper in the draft, if the Bears go Jamal Adams (my fav non QB pick) in the first, and then Kizer is still there in the second, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do you take him or get a 1st round dropper?


You take Kizer.

That TE that falls won't mean much if the Bears do not get a top 10 QB at some point in my lifetime.

I understand not wanting to gamble pick 3 on what you consider too much of a risk, but if you are not willing to gamble pick 36 than you are a pansy.


I think if you "gamble" on Kizer just because he's a QB but leave a much higher evaluated player on the board, you're not a pansy, you're a [inappropriate/removed] idiot.


That is the nature of the position. At some point you have to pull the trigger and start the development process.

QB is a position unique in sports.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G08


Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 6761
Location: World Championsville
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WindyCity wrote:
G08 wrote:
WindyCity wrote:
RunningVaccs wrote:
Here is a roundabout way to look at this draft:

With all the DB and TE talent deeper in the draft, if the Bears go Jamal Adams (my fav non QB pick) in the first, and then Kizer is still there in the second, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do you take him or get a 1st round dropper?


You take Kizer.

That TE that falls won't mean much if the Bears do not get a top 10 QB at some point in my lifetime.

I understand not wanting to gamble pick 3 on what you consider too much of a risk, but if you are not willing to gamble pick 36 than you are a pansy.


I think if you "gamble" on Kizer just because he's a QB but leave a much higher evaluated player on the board, you're not a pansy, you're a [inappropriate/removed] idiot.


That is the nature of the position. At some point you have to pull the trigger and start the development process.

QB is a position unique in sports.


You take a QB you like, you don't ever gamble on a QB that you have ranked below other prospects. If Pace loves Kizer, then great. If he has Kizer at a 6.5 and another player at an 8, you always take the 8. Always.
_________________
topwop1 wrote:
My point is you can find a franchise guy like [Derek] Carr in every draft

jrry32 wrote:
apples

When the defense allowed 20 pts or fewer, the Cutler-led Bears were 36-7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronMike84


Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 8194
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
G08 wrote:
A lot, actually. Watson is your de facto QB 3 and is used to a system completely different from what Glennon and Sanchez have run in their careers. Do you expect Loggains/the offensive staff to have two separate offenses being taught at once? It's just not realistic, at all. And then to do that and leave top tier talent that could help your defense immediately is just bad business man. Fox is trying to win now and Pace is trying to build us into a strong defensive and running team.

It sucks. I hate it. But that's reality for this franchise right now.


You also create an immediate QB controversy and put the coaching staff and both QBs under a ton of pressure.

Like I've said: whichever QB is drafted will be the perfect franchise savior... until he has one bad series, at which point he will be written off forever.
_________________
Rotoworld.com wrote:
...internet mock drafts, which have ridiculously become the measuring stick for where players are "supposed" to go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16322
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not sure that Watson and Glennon need to run seperate systems.

The Bears are not going to call designed runs for Watson.

They may alter a little of the passing game, but that will be more of a game plan/play calling situation.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Epyon


Joined: 02 Jan 2013
Posts: 423
PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RunningVaccs wrote:
What odds do you put on there being any of the top 4 QBs available at pick #36?

I am more pessimistic than usual about this, and feel Kizer is the most likely to remain. I would be shocked if any of the "3rd round grades" on Watson are anything but a lie.

SF, Cleveland and Texans all seem like locks to pick a QB to me.


Chiefs are in that running too..... Arizona, N.O. , Chargers, Giants, Bills could all also be in the mix.

I can easily envision there being a QB run of sorts, that has 5 QBs off the board by our 2nd rounder (with San Fran taking the 5th just before us). The QB class may not have any "sure fire" prospects, but I also think that if you where to poll various teams that there would probably be pretty sizable variation over who their top 3 where..... so many teams could end up drafting the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th QB and think they still landed the #1 guy. Which is going to help contribute to that "run"

There's also the factor that frankly..... it doesn't matter if it's a "weaker" class for QBs on paper..(the same stuff was also literally said last year fwiw).... You have to play the hand you are dealt, and there are vastly more QB hungry teams than there are QBs to fill those roster spots. I don't think we can afford to sit on our hands and risk getting stuck with Peterman or Kaaya as our future.... we need someone with at least a real chance of being the guy.... and those are all going in the first, imo.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 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