You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 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

Overall Draft Thoughts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bearsfan323


Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 2707
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

shruj wrote:
I'm torn on this draft class. On one hand, I see why they picked Trubisky 2nd, though a big part of me thinks he was going to be available anyways at 3. Hopefully he pans out, I liked him throughout the draft process - he is accurate, good arm strength, and mobile. But he does scream Sanchez to me too when he was picked by the Jets.

In a draft widely regarded for its defensive depth, we picked 1 defensive player. And we didn't add any depth to the D-line or snag a corner. Eddie Jackson is a good pick but can he be healthy?

I don't know how anyone can say MT would have been there at 3. Behind multiple reports, the Niners were trading that pick, whether it was to Houston, KC, or Cleveland. Due to Pace reaching out to Lynch a week prior, Lynch allowed Pace to have the final offer. Trubisky was going at 2.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16531
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If there was a 1% chance that someone was going to take Mitch Trubisky at 2, then you make the deal.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bearsfan323 wrote:
I don't know how anyone can say MT would have been there at 3. Behind multiple reports, the Niners were trading that pick, whether it was to Houston, KC, or Cleveland. Due to Pace reaching out to Lynch a week prior, Lynch allowed Pace to have the final offer. Trubisky was going at 2.


Read Peter King's piece on John Lynch and the 49ers' draft room. There may have been another team in play but Lynch had Ryan Pace bidding against himself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16531
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
bearsfan323 wrote:
I don't know how anyone can say MT would have been there at 3. Behind multiple reports, the Niners were trading that pick, whether it was to Houston, KC, or Cleveland. Due to Pace reaching out to Lynch a week prior, Lynch allowed Pace to have the final offer. Trubisky was going at 2.


Read Peter King's piece on John Lynch and the 49ers' draft room. There may have been another team in play but Lynch had Ryan Pace bidding against himself.


Doesn't matter. There is not way for Ryan Pace to know what other teams are calling the 49ers about.

Everyone acts like Pace should no exactly what is going on in other teams buildings.

The 49ers had leverage and they played it well.

The Bears got their guy and did not sell the farm.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
bearsfan323 wrote:
I don't know how anyone can say MT would have been there at 3. Behind multiple reports, the Niners were trading that pick, whether it was to Houston, KC, or Cleveland. Due to Pace reaching out to Lynch a week prior, Lynch allowed Pace to have the final offer. Trubisky was going at 2.


Read Peter King's piece on John Lynch and the 49ers' draft room. There may have been another team in play but Lynch had Ryan Pace bidding against himself.


The other team being in play is the critical aspect here. That means the move WAS necessary. Maybe Ryan gave up a 4th he didn't have to in order to be SURE he got his guy, but the two thirds were just the cost of the pick.

That is a fine point, but it is important. If Pace wanted Trubisky, he had to give up #3 and two 3rds. Maybe he got "taken" for a 4th, but that is small enough value to hardly swing the trade from success to failure (or vice versa).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
[The other team being in play is the critical aspect here. That means the move WAS necessary. Maybe Ryan gave up a 4th he didn't have to in order to be SURE he got his guy, but the two thirds were just the cost of the pick.

That is a fine point, but it is important. If Pace wanted Trubisky, he had to give up #3 and two 3rds. Maybe he got "taken" for a 4th, but that is small enough value to hardly swing the trade from success to failure (or vice versa).


There was another team rumored to be involved. We have no idea how serious their interest was or what price they were willing to pay. It was well-known that SF wanted to trade out of their spot. The other involved team could have been offering something like a 4th round pick.

In the end it won't matter much. Pace made a gamble on Trubisky. The trade was just him throwing in a few extra chips. If Trubisky doesn't work out, this franchise will suck for 4-5 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dll2000


Joined: 04 Apr 2016
Posts: 517
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not that my opinion is anything special, but I said before the draft that Trubisky was best QB in the draft and only one I really liked.

I was more in favor of trading down and/or drafting known studs and building, because while I thought MT was good I also thought Joe Montana couldn't win with the holes on this team.

But if we took a QB in this years draft I am glad we got MT.

The trade wasn't bad. We payed far less than trades last year by any measure and less than KC and Houston did - both of them gave up another 1.

Yeah we did it to move up one slot, but so what? We still didn't give up an extra first round pick which everyone else has always had to do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
Chewtoy wrote:
[The other team being in play is the critical aspect here. That means the move WAS necessary. Maybe Ryan gave up a 4th he didn't have to in order to be SURE he got his guy, but the two thirds were just the cost of the pick.

That is a fine point, but it is important. If Pace wanted Trubisky, he had to give up #3 and two 3rds. Maybe he got "taken" for a 4th, but that is small enough value to hardly swing the trade from success to failure (or vice versa).


There was another team rumored to be involved. We have no idea how serious their interest was or what price they were willing to pay. It was well-known that SF wanted to trade out of their spot. The other involved team could have been offering something like a 4th round pick.

In the end it won't matter much. Pace made a gamble on Trubisky. The trade was just him throwing in a few extra chips. If Trubisky doesn't work out, this franchise will suck for 4-5 years.


Now, thats just silly. Nobody tried to trade up from the 4th spot or lower offering only a 4th round pick. There is no historical basis for any sort of trade of that magnitude for so little cost. Anything even approximating that type of offer would likely cost a GM their job simply because of the damage it would do to the reputation of the offering franchise. Simply put, it is pretty fair to assume that the other offer was probably a "fair" offer. It probably just wasn't as good as Pace's.

So what does that mean? It means that any other offers were probably pretty bad. According to some experts, Chicago UNDERPAID by about a 3rd rounder:

http://www.csnchicago.com/chicago-bears/numbers-bears-won-mitch-trubisky-trade

According to more traditional analysis, the Bears overpaid by about a 5th rounder:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

Bottom line, between these two estimates, it is reasonable to believe Chicago paid ABOUT the right price for the pick, not a king's ransom. Its also reasonable to expect that another team trying to trade up might have tried to under pay, anticipating a lack of demand. But the reasonable amount to expect is closer to what Pace apparently tried - underpaying by a future 5th rounder.

For the record, that is probably also why Pace caved - he knew he had slightly lowballed them and was willing to slightly overpay. The 4th rounder they asked for was enough to move from a lowball to a relatively painless overpay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dll2000


Joined: 04 Apr 2016
Posts: 517
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mon morning trades alt/history:

Bears could have traded down it looks like.

In another world, Browns trade for no. 2 and take MT.

Bears could have hypothetically, possibly (its for fun people) traded with KC for this years 1 and 2 and next years 1 and 4.

Or Houston for this years 1,3 and 4 and next years 1 and 2.

But who would Bears have taken with KC's pick?

I am thinking they didn't like Watson. So most likely Lattimore who has injury and bust potential.. Possibly Allen since he fell. Also injury and bust potential.

I am going to say Lattimore.

In 2nd having just missed on Malik McDowell and Cam Robinson (story of Bears) they take S Obi Melifonwue or Marcus Williams. Lets say Obi.

With Chiefs 2nd they consider Chidobe Awuzie or JuJu Smith, but decide to take Tim Williams OLB AL.

In 3rd round Bears take Chris Wormley DE MI.

In 4th Bears take Mack Hollins WR NC

So in possible alt history of trade with KC its (thru 4 rounds):

Lattimore CB
Obi Safety
Williams Rush LB
Wormley 5 tech
Hollins WR or Cohen RB (I would take Hollins - Bears obviously would take Cohen).

Plus an extra 1 and a 4 next year.

vs

Trubisky QB
Shaheen TE
Jackson S
Cohen situational back and possible returner

Alt reality trade with Houston:

1. David Njoku TE (most talent of any TE in class IMO - only 20)
2. Obi Safety CT
3. Just missed on Witherspoon at CB so they go Williams OLB also consider Wormley here as a positional need.
3a. Cordea Tankersly CB Clemson - a talent.
4. Cohen - because they obviously liked him and I bet he would still be here. I wouldn't have taken him.
4a. Zach Banner G USC

Plus another 1 and 2 next year.

So if you could wait a year on your QB of future you could have filled some holes and added some nice talent this year.

BUT

Who knows who gets what pick next year and if you would have a shot at your preferred guy at all. You know you can get your preferred guy this year.

AND while all uber talented all of the players above in alt reality have significant bust potential - but you have to think at least 2 or 3 will pan out and be real good. Tough call.

I like the Houston trade draft result much better even though they were the lower team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dll2000 wrote:
Mon morning trades alt/history:

Bears could have traded down it looks like.

In another world, Browns trade for no. 2 and take MT.

Bears could have hypothetically, possibly (its for fun people) traded with KC for this years 1 and 2 and next years 1 and 4.

Or Houston for this years 1,3 and 4 and next years 1 and 2.

But who would Bears have taken with KC's pick?

I am thinking they didn't like Watson. So most likely Lattimore who has injury and bust potential.. Possibly Allen since he fell. Also injury and bust potential.

I am going to say Lattimore.

In 2nd having just missed on Malik McDowell and Cam Robinson (story of Bears) they take S Obi Melifonwue or Marcus Williams. Lets say Obi.

With Chiefs 2nd they consider Chidobe Awuzie or JuJu Smith, but decide to take Tim Williams OLB AL.

In 3rd round Bears take Chris Wormley DE MI.

In 4th Bears take Mack Hollins WR NC

So in possible alt history of trade with KC its (thru 4 rounds):

Lattimore CB
Obi Safety
Williams Rush LB
Wormley 5 tech
Hollins WR or Cohen RB (I would take Hollins - Bears obviously would take Cohen).

Plus an extra 1 and a 4 next year.

vs

Trubisky QB
Shaheen TE
Jackson S
Cohen situational back and possible returner

Alt reality trade with Houston:

1. David Njoku TE (most talent of any TE in class IMO - only 20)
2. Obi Safety CT
3. Just missed on Witherspoon at CB so they go Williams OLB also consider Wormley here as a positional need.
3a. Cordea Tankersly CB Clemson - a talent.
4. Cohen - because they obviously liked him and I bet he would still be here. I wouldn't have taken him.
4a. Zach Banner G USC

Plus another 1 and 2 next year.

So if you could wait a year on your QB of future you could have filled some holes and added some nice talent this year.

BUT

Who knows who gets what pick next year and if you would have a shot at your preferred guy at all. You know you can get your preferred guy this year.

AND while all uber talented all of the players above in alt reality have significant bust potential - but you have to think at least 2 or 3 will pan out and be real good. Tough call.

I like the Houston trade draft result much better even though they were the lower team.


KC originally had the 27th pick so the Bears would have been picking from DBs like White, King, Baker, and Wilson. I suppose they could have also looked at Reuben Foster, TJ Watt, or Ryan Ramczyk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 1148
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
My thoughts:

1.) This is the right way to build a team. I don't mean that Pace picked the right players (he may or may not have, we will see). I do mean that he is assembling the pieces in the right order.

The single most important position in all of sports is the NFL Qb. No other position consistently defines the success and failures of a team like the Qb does. No other position defines the strengths and limitations of a team like the Qb does. And no other position is as hard to acquire as a Qb is. And finally, no other position in the NFL has the learning curve and career expectancy of the NFL Qb (mostly due to measures put in place to protect them - see this link for data: https://www.statista.com/statistics/240102/average-player-career-length-in-the-national-football-league/ )

What that means (in corresponding order from above) is that you won't win without a Qb, until you have a Qb you don't REALLY know what types of players to build around the Qb to play to their strengths and hide their weaknesses, you almost have to overpay for a Qb when the team is bad and has other gaping holes, and the Qb SHOULD be the first position acquired in a rebuild in order to make sure all the pieces are fully mature at the same time.

That last point is somewhat key: IF Trubisky is the right pick, he will really be good starting in ~2-3 years, peaking in ~8-10 years (NFL Qb's have been shown to peak ~30ish), and maintaining competitiveness for 5-7 years after that. Which means the Bear's championship window OPENS in 2-3 years. That means our focus NOW should be on making sure we do everything we can to make sure Trubisky is the right pick. He needs protection (OL, TE's), he needs safety valves (TE, pass catching Rbs), he needs Targets (Wr's).... He needs to immediately get help so that he isn't forced to try to succeed without help.

Now, EVENTUALLY he will need a defense to win. But the idea behind drafting a Qb is not that you will immediately improve and compete. The rams drafted a Qb #1 overall and were still a top 10 pick this year. The Buccaneers got Winston and were still picking 11 the next year. The Titans got Marriota and still picked #8 the next year. This is not Chicago's last opportunity to draft a top DE. The bears have a few years to build a defense - remember they need that defense to start peaking in 3-5 years. Having a top tier Defense that tails off just as Trubisky matures into a real threat would be unfortunate. Timing matters.

TL;DR - The strategy was right. Get the Qb first. Focus on weapons and protection that will help that Qb succeed.

2.) The number of upside picks were a bit staggering to me. It felt a bit like a fantasy draft where one of my friends got a hold of a "sleeper" magazine and went for ALL sleepers instead of focusing on the easy doubles before swinging for home runs. The DII guys in the mid rounds of a deep draft COULD be genius. I feel like it is more likely that they will eventually be viewed as mistakes. I understand Pace wanted to be great, not good. But I feel like part of being great is knowing when to take a double, and not just swinging for the fence.

3.) I'm happy Chicago has a bonified nfl qb prospect, really for the first time since I've been a fan (~1989). The only first round Qb's we've drafted in my lifetime were Jim McMahon (#5), Jim Harbaugh (#26), Cade McNown (#12), Rex Grossman (#22), and now Mitch Trubisky (#2).

I'm not thrilled that Trubisky is the guy. One of the biggest predictors of NFL success is college games started, and 13 games is awful by that standard. The measurables are all there and he seems talented, but I worry there is some "flash in the pan" potential here. I liked Watson, but honestly all these Qb's made me nervous.

That said, I'm no scout.

I will say this: Based on the history of first round Qb busts and the success rate of the top Qb's taken in a given draft when that player is taken between picks 2-10, there is probably a 33-50% chance we have a true franchise Qb on the team. Only about half the league has a franchise Qb and you have no real shot at a superbowl championship without one. With one you probably have a 1/16 chance to win it all in a given year.

In other words, that pick elevated the odds that Chicago wins a championship in the 2020's from 0% to somewhere in the 17-25% range (assuming 10 chances at 6% with a 50-66% bust rate). That is 17-25% better than we had a week ago.

Sure, you can pick the guy apart, but guys take a breath here. That weird, unfamiliar, moderately uncomfortable feeling you have right now? That is what hope feels like. You've just forgotten because its been 30 years.....

You make a lot of claims in this post, some of which are prescient and objective (the time preference of players who will peak in 3-5 years) and many of which are your opinion, which is fine, but there is one point I think is fair to dispute.
I don't believe it follows that getting your QB first is the only valid rebuilding strategy. Seattle, SF with Harbaugh, Dallas all had good teams in place when they handed it over to a new QB, and that greatly limited the expectations for the young QB, and made it easier to learn on the job while still fielding a competitive team. Then as the QB develops and becomes a more integral part of the team, you shift to building around them. See Seattle (SF never really got the chance because Harbaugh was run out of town and Kaep lost his mind).

Cleveland *clearly* favors this approach. They have chosen not to pursue any of the top QB prospects for two years in a row now, and have accumulated a boatload of high picks, while taking some low risk shots here and there on mid round QBs (Cook, Kizer).

SF *appears* to favor this approach, although it's possible they just didn't like this years QB prospects, hard to draw a conclusion after one year.

I think comparing the rebuilding efforts of these 3 teams over the next few years will answer whether 'getting the QB first' is the only viable strategy. At this point, I'm putting my money on Cleveland.

Side anecdote: after the initial blitz of FA this year, I went around to all my friends with any degree of football knowledge giving 2:1 against the Bears making the playoffs before the Browns. No takers.

Talk is cheap. I find people much more likely to reveal their true thoughts on a matter if they are asked to put some money on it, even some minor amount like $20.
Haven't had a chance to re-offer since the draft, but I doubt there has been any change in sentiment for the Bears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19907
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The more i think about it the more i have to agree with the thought that pace is trying to recreate the saints offense. Accurate qb, strong interior ol, athletic basketball te, bell cow rb, tall possession wr. Speedster take the top off a defense wr. Waterbug cop back. Idk if we have the right pieces, but the plan is pretty clear
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForteOz wrote:

You make a lot of claims in this post, some of which are prescient and objective (the time preference of players who will peak in 3-5 years) and many of which are your opinion, which is fine, but there is one point I think is fair to dispute.
I don't believe it follows that getting your QB first is the only valid rebuilding strategy. Seattle, SF with Harbaugh, Dallas all had good teams in place when they handed it over to a new QB, and that greatly limited the expectations for the young QB, and made it easier to learn on the job while still fielding a competitive team. Then as the QB develops and becomes a more integral part of the team, you shift to building around them. See Seattle (SF never really got the chance because Harbaugh was run out of town and Kaep lost his mind).

Cleveland *clearly* favors this approach. They have chosen not to pursue any of the top QB prospects for two years in a row now, and have accumulated a boatload of high picks, while taking some low risk shots here and there on mid round QBs (Cook, Kizer).

SF *appears* to favor this approach, although it's possible they just didn't like this years QB prospects, hard to draw a conclusion after one year.

I think comparing the rebuilding efforts of these 3 teams over the next few years will answer whether 'getting the QB first' is the only viable strategy. At this point, I'm putting my money on Cleveland.

Side anecdote: after the initial blitz of FA this year, I went around to all my friends with any degree of football knowledge giving 2:1 against the Bears making the playoffs before the Browns. No takers.

Talk is cheap. I find people much more likely to reveal their true thoughts on a matter if they are asked to put some money on it, even some minor amount like $20.
Haven't had a chance to re-offer since the draft, but I doubt there has been any change in sentiment for the Bears.


My apologies - I didn't mean to claim that is the ONLY way to build a team. Just that it is the best way. And it is indisputably the best way for a simple reason: Math.

Studies have shown that Qb's taken at the top of the draft (top 5) succeed at a much higher rate than those taken later (first round), who in turn succeed at a higher rate than 2nd rounders, and so on. Its been a while since I looked at the numbers, but it is something like 50%, 25%, 20%, and then decreasing by 5-10% per round - anything later than a 5th tends to mostly be a waste of time (Tom Brady excluded).

In addition to the rate of success, there are roster limitations. For that reason, drafting two late first rounders (or 5 4th rounders, etc) are not the equivalent of drafting one top 5 Qb because it uses up roster spots and training reps. The roster constraints make it more valuable to have one big bet than multiple little ones. Ultimately it is best to get a top 5 pick at Qb, and that is easiest to do when you are bad. If you have already developed a good defense, you tend to be at least passable, probably drafting in the teens to early 20's, and out of range of the highest return rate Qb's. The odds are pretty good using this method that you will end up the mid 2000's bears, bouncing between Rex Grossman and a variety of similar caliber Qb's, never quite finding the Qb you need to REALLY compete (at least not on a sustainable level)

Finally, it comes back to the timelines - you can build the defense first, but that means you have to maintain an entire unit (11 players with no glaring holes long enough for the Qb to develop to being at least passable and preferably dominant. Most great defenses only stay "great" for 3-4 years because it is hard to maintain the skill, youth, health, and coaching required to keep an entire unit elite. The maintenance cost of keeping up the defense coupled with the narrow window AND the learning curve of a Qb prospect means that USUALLY you want the Qb first.


Again, I'm basing this all on odds. You can get lucky using any strategy. People win the lotto, too, but that doesn't make it a wise retirement investment. The goal should be to maximize your chance to rise, and THAT goal is best served by finding your Qb first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 1148
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:

My apologies - I didn't mean to claim that is the ONLY way to build a team. Just that it is the best way. And it is indisputably the best way for a simple reason: Math.

Studies have shown that Qb's taken at the top of the draft (top 5) succeed at a much higher rate than those taken later (first round), who in turn succeed at a higher rate than 2nd rounders, and so on. Its been a while since I looked at the numbers, but it is something like 50%, 25%, 20%, and then decreasing by 5-10% per round - anything later than a 5th tends to mostly be a waste of time (Tom Brady excluded).

In addition to the rate of success, there are roster limitations. For that reason, drafting two late first rounders (or 5 4th rounders, etc) are not the equivalent of drafting one top 5 Qb because it uses up roster spots and training reps. The roster constraints make it more valuable to have one big bet than multiple little ones. Ultimately it is best to get a top 5 pick at Qb, and that is easiest to do when you are bad. If you have already developed a good defense, you tend to be at least passable, probably drafting in the teens to early 20's, and out of range of the highest return rate Qb's. The odds are pretty good using this method that you will end up the mid 2000's bears, bouncing between Rex Grossman and a variety of similar caliber Qb's, never quite finding the Qb you need to REALLY compete (at least not on a sustainable level)

Finally, it comes back to the timelines - you can build the defense first, but that means you have to maintain an entire unit (11 players with no glaring holes long enough for the Qb to develop to being at least passable and preferably dominant. Most great defenses only stay "great" for 3-4 years because it is hard to maintain the skill, youth, health, and coaching required to keep an entire unit elite. The maintenance cost of keeping up the defense coupled with the narrow window AND the learning curve of a Qb prospect means that USUALLY you want the Qb first.


Again, I'm basing this all on odds. You can get lucky using any strategy. People win the lotto, too, but that doesn't make it a wise retirement investment. The goal should be to maximize your chance to rise, and THAT goal is best served by finding your Qb first.

Again, you make a lot of claims, I'll try to address them in order.

Re: the diminishing returns of late round picks on QB's. I would argue that this effect is true of all positions, although it may be more pronounced for QB's in the sense that it is focused in the top 5 overall picks, where you are not as likely to see as many safeties (for instance) chosen. If there is a numerical metric for this effect, how does it compare with other positions?

Re: roster limitations. If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is it is better to come away from the draft with one or two major impact players than a handful of merely 'good' players, because the net benefit of those picks is the relative upgrade over the players whose roster spot they have taken.
This is only a problem for talent laden rosters. This doesn't apply to us. In fact my argument on the draft day thread was the exact OPPOSITE of your position, in that teams like Houston and KC can much more easily afford to invest in a single impact position like QB, because they have a much deeper and more robust roster than we do. In other words, they are much closer to being one player away than we are.


And finally, regarding timelines, I agree with much of your assessment. But I would point out that the 3-4 year window of an 'elite' defense exactly coincides with the window you have with a rookie QB's initial, cheap contract. And the bar for success within that timeframe is lower, because you are really just looking for a competent game manager who can occasionally flash signs of greatness.

Outside of a few sublime talents (Rodgers, Brady, Peyton), all of those other 'franchise QBs' need competent, at a minimum, supporting casts, both on offense and defense, to truly compete. It is fun to pretend we just got the next Brady, who can throw it to UDFA's and former water boys and still get 4000 yards, but if we are LUCKY and we end up with one of those second tier of franchise QBs (the Rivers', Big Ben's, Eli's, Flacco's, Ryan's, Netwon's of the world) then we will need a full roster of talent to succeed, and that process starts now, not 5 years from now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That doesn't really add up. There are about 10 "Franchise QBs" currently playing who were drafted outside the top 15.

Not only that, but the timelines make it difficult to build a good defense with a QB in his prime. A recent pattern among Super Bowl winners (aside from the Patriots Super Bowls) has been an elite defense and a cheap QB. The Giants, Seahawks, and Ravens haven't had the same level of success after they paid their QBs. Once a QB hits his prime, he typically becomes a salary cap albatross that makes building a quality team difficult.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
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