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
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 1148
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
Would it be considered a failure if Trubisky becomes an average QB who's consistently outside the top 8 of the NFL?

Let's say he becomes an Andy Dalton level QB. Does that result justify the cost?
No, because Andy Dalton needs a talent laden roster surrounding him to have any kind of success. He's also had AJ Green his entire career.

If your team is stocked with talent, then maybe all it takes is an Andy Dalton to have a shot at the Super Bowl. Trading up in the first two years in a row is not a recipe for stocking your roster with talent, though the next couple of drafts will be even more important in terms of the timing of Trubisky's development.

Top 8 is actually about right for where I would easily consider it worth it.

9-12 is borderline but probably worth it.
12-20 is what we got out of Cutler, which wasn't good enough for him so why should it be good enough for Trubisky.
20+ and Pace will be forever laughed at as the next in a long line of idiot Bears GMs.

Whatever Solomon Thomas does will also be closely considered and may move some of those ranges. (If he busts, then getting the 15th best QB in the NFL becomes a lot more palatable).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On mobile again. Apologies for the brevity.

Roster limits apply everywhere, but not equally. You can carry 6-7 wr's, but only 1-2 presently need to be elite. That leaves 4-5 spots that can afford to be mediocre or developmental. Additionally, teams have had so.e success stashing picks on the practice squad at some positions, but no starting qb has come from a practice squad since Warner (or maybe tyrod). It happens at other positions all the time. Further, qbs typically don't play special teams, so it is harder to justify an extra spot spent there.

Further, while you can get a developmental lb time by rotating them in during games, qbs don't rotate. One guy does the job until he is hurt or fails. They also. The sheer # of snaps available make it less practical to develop multi qbs.

Summarizing:

1. Steeper draft curve. Top 5 success instead of first round.
2. Higher bar to clear. The #15 qb is BARELY passable. The #32 wr is a DARN good #2 we.
3. Fewer snaps - the job is not a time share
4. Less developmental slots (teams carry 2-3, start 1. Other positions have up to 5 non starters.
5. More critical position - qbs influence game outcomes far more
6. Longer window - qbs are protected and have longer careers.
7. Longer development cycle - getting other players first risks them peaking and declining before the qb rises.
8. Qbs dictate offenses - more than any other position the ability of a qb determines what type of players you should surround the. With.

All of these things combine to indicate that your best odds of success will occur if you can land a qb first.

That doesn't mean this qb was the right call this year. It just means that generically qb first is your highest odds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
On mobile again. Apologies for the brevity.

Roster limits apply everywhere, but not equally. You can carry 6-7 wr's, but only 1-2 presently need to be elite. That leaves 4-5 spots that can afford to be mediocre or developmental. Additionally, teams have had so.e success stashing picks on the practice squad at some positions, but no starting qb has come from a practice squad since Warner (or maybe tyrod). It happens at other positions all the time. Further, qbs typically don't play special teams, so it is harder to justify an extra spot spent there.

Further, while you can get a developmental lb time by rotating them in during games, qbs don't rotate. One guy does the job until he is hurt or fails. They also. The sheer # of snaps available make it less practical to develop multi qbs.

Summarizing:

1. Steeper draft curve. Top 5 success instead of first round.
2. Higher bar to clear. The #15 qb is BARELY passable. The #32 wr is a DARN good #2 we.
3. Fewer snaps - the job is not a time share
4. Less developmental slots (teams carry 2-3, start 1. Other positions have up to 5 non starters.
5. More critical position - qbs influence game outcomes far more
6. Longer window - qbs are protected and have longer careers.
7. Longer development cycle - getting other players first risks them peaking and declining before the qb rises.
8. Qbs dictate offenses - more than any other position the ability of a qb determines what type of players you should surround the. With.

All of these things combine to indicate that your best odds of success will occur if you can land a qb first.

That doesn't mean this qb was the right call this year. It just means that generically qb first is your highest odds.


Since 2011 only 1 team has won a Super Bowl while paying its QB top 5 money (2011 Giants).

It's safe to say that once your QB hits his "prime" and you have to pay him, there aren't enough resources left over to build a Super Bowl team. The recipe for a SB champion is a great team with a QB on his rookie contract.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
Chewtoy wrote:
On mobile again. Apologies for the brevity.

Roster limits apply everywhere, but not equally. You can carry 6-7 wr's, but only 1-2 presently need to be elite. That leaves 4-5 spots that can afford to be mediocre or developmental. Additionally, teams have had so.e success stashing picks on the practice squad at some positions, but no starting qb has come from a practice squad since Warner (or maybe tyrod). It happens at other positions all the time. Further, qbs typically don't play special teams, so it is harder to justify an extra spot spent there.

Further, while you can get a developmental lb time by rotating them in during games, qbs don't rotate. One guy does the job until he is hurt or fails. They also. The sheer # of snaps available make it less practical to develop multi qbs.

Summarizing:

1. Steeper draft curve. Top 5 success instead of first round.
2. Higher bar to clear. The #15 qb is BARELY passable. The #32 wr is a DARN good #2 we.
3. Fewer snaps - the job is not a time share
4. Less developmental slots (teams carry 2-3, start 1. Other positions have up to 5 non starters.
5. More critical position - qbs influence game outcomes far more
6. Longer window - qbs are protected and have longer careers.
7. Longer development cycle - getting other players first risks them peaking and declining before the qb rises.
8. Qbs dictate offenses - more than any other position the ability of a qb determines what type of players you should surround the. With.

All of these things combine to indicate that your best odds of success will occur if you can land a qb first.

That doesn't mean this qb was the right call this year. It just means that generically qb first is your highest odds.


Since 2011 only 1 team has won a Super Bowl while paying its QB top 5 money (2011 Giants).

It's safe to say that once your QB hits his "prime" and you have to pay him, there aren't enough resources left over to build a Super Bowl team. The recipe for a SB champion is a great team with a QB on his rookie contract.


That is a terrible conclusion from a flawed metric with an arbitrary cutoff line not supported by your conclusion.

LI: Brady vs Ryan ( two well paid qbs)
L: Manning vs Newton (two well paid Qbs)
XLIX: Brady vs Wilson ( one well paid qb)
XLVIII: Wilson vs Manning ( one well paid qb)
XLVII: Flacco vs Kaepernick ( no well paid qbs)
XLVI: Brady vs Eli ( two well paid qbs)
XLV: Rodgers vs Big Ben ( two well paid qbs)
XLIV: Brees vs Peyton ( two well paid qbs)
XLIII: Warner vs Big Ben (two well paid qbs)
XLII: Eli vs Brady (two well paid qbs)

Your "top five" metric is poor because that is mostly a matter of timing - the highest paid qbs are just the good ones with the most recent deal. Further, your conclusion - that your window of opportunity is BEFORE a big qb contract - is patently false. Of the qbs from the last 10 Super Bowls, 16 have been post big contract.

Further, the loan exceptions were the 1 year Ravens, the one year 49ers, and the dynastic Seahawks. Which brings me back to what I was saying earlier - in most instances, sustainable greatness depends on a great qb, and it works best to get the qb first. Sf and Balt got the d first and swung and missed on qbs. They had one good year, then the door slammed shut (just like the Bears window when they swung and missed with Grossman)

The data is clear: 80% of the recent sb participants had already paid a qb. That comes first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brady is not well-paid. His cap hit ranked 18th among QBs last season. His 2017 cap hit is the same as Mike Glennon's. The Pats are able to win because he restructured his contract to allow them to keep more of their quality players.

None of the Seahawks, 49ers, Ravens, or Giants have won Super Bowls after paying their QBs. Their championship windows didn't slam shut because of their approach to team building. It slammed shut because they lost quality players to other teams. They weren't able to afford a Super Bowl caliber roster because they invested so much into the QB position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
Brady is not well-paid. His cap hit ranked 18th among QBs last season. His 2017 cap hit is the same as Mike Glennon's. The Pats are able to win because he restructured his contract to allow them to keep more of their quality players.

None of the Seahawks, 49ers, Ravens, or Giants have won Super Bowls after paying their QBs. Their championship windows didn't slam shut because of their approach to team building. It slammed shut because they lost quality players to other teams. They weren't able to afford a Super Bowl caliber roster because they invested so much into the QB position.


There is literally three examples (Wilson, Flacco, Brady championship #1) of teams building a defense and then winning a championship with a qb on a rookie deal in recent memory. EVERYONE else in contention paid a qb their 2nd deal first. What you are advocating for is to make an outlier into a blueprint. Qb 2nd is what you do as a recovery plan if your qb doesn't pan out or gets injured.

Look, there are more than one way to skin a cat. You can win championships in any order, and I've always said that. All I am saying now ( and it should be a really obvious, non confrontational statement of fact) is that the highest success rates for rebuilding a team is when you start with a qb. There are too many advantages to that approach for any other to be as consistent. Others are possible, they just fail more often and more spectacularly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForteOz


Joined: 03 Sep 2013
Posts: 1148
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
On mobile again. Apologies for the brevity.

Roster limits apply everywhere, but not equally. You can carry 6-7 wr's, but only 1-2 presently need to be elite. That leaves 4-5 spots that can afford to be mediocre or developmental. Additionally, teams have had so.e success stashing picks on the practice squad at some positions, but no starting qb has come from a practice squad since Warner (or maybe tyrod). It happens at other positions all the time. Further, qbs typically don't play special teams, so it is harder to justify an extra spot spent there.

Further, while you can get a developmental lb time by rotating them in during games, qbs don't rotate. One guy does the job until he is hurt or fails. They also. The sheer # of snaps available make it less practical to develop multi qbs.

Summarizing:

1. Steeper draft curve. Top 5 success instead of first round.
2. Higher bar to clear. The #15 qb is BARELY passable. The #32 wr is a DARN good #2 we.
3. Fewer snaps - the job is not a time share
4. Less developmental slots (teams carry 2-3, start 1. Other positions have up to 5 non starters.
5. More critical position - qbs influence game outcomes far more
6. Longer window - qbs are protected and have longer careers.
7. Longer development cycle - getting other players first risks them peaking and declining before the qb rises.
8. Qbs dictate offenses - more than any other position the ability of a qb determines what type of players you should surround the. With.

All of these things combine to indicate that your best odds of success will occur if you can land a qb first.

That doesn't mean this qb was the right call this year. It just means that generically qb first is your highest odds.

You keep picking examples of positions where teams field multiples of them at the same time. If you consistently line up 3 WR's, it is silly to only keep 4 on the roster. That is probably the most lopsided position to compare to QB which often times sees one fielded per team the entire game.

A fairer comparison would be FS or MLB. Usually you keep 3, and if that third spot dresses they are playing special teams first and foremost. Or Center, usually you only bring 2, and the third string is some Guard who gets a few practice reps snapping.

Many of your points above are true, and I don't dispute them, but I think the main argument is around the roster limitations being unique to QB and that being a primary reason you are better off addressing QB before other areas.

Again, I think the general formula is, you keep a MAX of 2x non starters per starting position. Then maybe +1 for WR/CB since they can be fielded 3 at a time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gah112


Joined: 30 Jan 2015
Posts: 817
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chewtoy wrote:
There is literally three examples (Wilson, Flacco, Brady championship #1) of teams building a defense and then winning a championship with a qb on a rookie deal in recent memory. EVERYONE else in contention paid a qb their 2nd deal first. What you are advocating for is to make an outlier into a blueprint. Qb 2nd is what you do as a recovery plan if your qb doesn't pan out or gets injured.


Only if you ignore Roethlisberger's 1st SB and Eli Manning's 1st SB. That's 4 of the last 10 champions. It's hardly an outlier.

The point is not about rookie contracts. It's about the portion of your resources you devote to keeping a prime QB. The Patriots have won several Super Bowls with Brady because he agreed to a cheap contract which allows them to spend on other players. Aaron Rodgers was not highly paid until 2013. He hasn't come close to winning a Super Bowl since being given that massive contract extension.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bearsfan323


Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 2707
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What do the Bears have next year? No third but 2 fourths?

1
2
4
4
5
6
7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Madmike90


Moderator
Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 26828
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bearsfan323 wrote:
What do the Bears have next year? No third but 2 fourths?

1
2
4
4
5
6
7


Yeah.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear...Adrian Amos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16531
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
Chewtoy wrote:
On mobile again. Apologies for the brevity.

Roster limits apply everywhere, but not equally. You can carry 6-7 wr's, but only 1-2 presently need to be elite. That leaves 4-5 spots that can afford to be mediocre or developmental. Additionally, teams have had so.e success stashing picks on the practice squad at some positions, but no starting qb has come from a practice squad since Warner (or maybe tyrod). It happens at other positions all the time. Further, qbs typically don't play special teams, so it is harder to justify an extra spot spent there.

Further, while you can get a developmental lb time by rotating them in during games, qbs don't rotate. One guy does the job until he is hurt or fails. They also. The sheer # of snaps available make it less practical to develop multi qbs.

Summarizing:

1. Steeper draft curve. Top 5 success instead of first round.
2. Higher bar to clear. The #15 qb is BARELY passable. The #32 wr is a DARN good #2 we.
3. Fewer snaps - the job is not a time share
4. Less developmental slots (teams carry 2-3, start 1. Other positions have up to 5 non starters.
5. More critical position - qbs influence game outcomes far more
6. Longer window - qbs are protected and have longer careers.
7. Longer development cycle - getting other players first risks them peaking and declining before the qb rises.
8. Qbs dictate offenses - more than any other position the ability of a qb determines what type of players you should surround the. With.

All of these things combine to indicate that your best odds of success will occur if you can land a qb first.

That doesn't mean this qb was the right call this year. It just means that generically qb first is your highest odds.


Since 2011 only 1 team has won a Super Bowl while paying its QB top 5 money (2011 Giants).

It's safe to say that once your QB hits his "prime" and you have to pay him, there aren't enough resources left over to build a Super Bowl team. The recipe for a SB champion is a great team with a QB on his rookie contract.


2015 Broncos
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WindyCity


Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 16531
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bearsfan323 wrote:
What do the Bears have next year? No third but 2 fourths?

1
2
4
4
5
6
7


My guess is Ryan Pace is already working the phones to trade down.
_________________
John Fox
3-13 this season, 9-23 overall, 4-12 at home
Pathetic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bearsfan323


Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 2707
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WindyCity wrote:
bearsfan323 wrote:
What do the Bears have next year? No third but 2 fourths?

1
2
4
4
5
6
7


My guess is Ryan Pace is already working the phones to trade down.

Or up Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heinz D.


Joined: 26 Apr 2017
Posts: 52
Location: Tri-State Area
PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
The point is not about rookie contracts. It's about the portion of your resources you devote to keeping a prime QB. The Patriots have won several Super Bowls with Brady because he agreed to a cheap contract which allows them to spend on other players. Aaron Rodgers was not highly paid until 2013. He hasn't come close to winning a Super Bowl since being given that massive contract extension.

Are you certain that Ted Thompson's ineptitude has absolutely nothing to do with that, though? Just felt the need to ask on that one.

As to the rest of that, Brady's contract isn't that tiny, for what it's worth. I do agree that franchise QB money does become an issue with the cap, but it's obvious that teams contend working under those restrictions all the time, and the cap keeps going up, as well. How the contracts are structured is about as big of a deal as their size, anyway. And, if your GM is smart, they can turn over other bits of the roster to accommodate. Heck, the Vikings figured out a way to make things work with a RB making near QB money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chewtoy


Joined: 16 Aug 2014
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah112 wrote:
Chewtoy wrote:
There is literally three examples (Wilson, Flacco, Brady championship #1) of teams building a defense and then winning a championship with a qb on a rookie deal in recent memory. EVERYONE else in contention paid a qb their 2nd deal first. What you are advocating for is to make an outlier into a blueprint. Qb 2nd is what you do as a recovery plan if your qb doesn't pan out or gets injured.


Only if you ignore Roethlisberger's 1st SB and Eli Manning's 1st SB. That's 4 of the last 10 champions. It's hardly an outlier.

The point is not about rookie contracts. It's about the portion of your resources you devote to keeping a prime QB. The Patriots have won several Super Bowls with Brady because he agreed to a cheap contract which allows them to spend on other players. Aaron Rodgers was not highly paid until 2013. He hasn't come close to winning a Super Bowl since being given that massive contract extension.


The point sort of is about rookie contracts. The argument I was having was that you need the Qb first, and that you should then build the team after. Teams that win with Qb's on their 2nd or 3rd NFL deal do not fit the description of a "great team who drafted a Qb and then won." The Qb they won with is already 4-5 years into their NFL career. Given that rosters turn over ~25% every year, 4-5 years in the roster is almost entirely different than the one they were drafted to.

Look, I get what you are saying. having any one player taking up a huge chunk of resources is a handicap in that it makes it harder to fill other holes. And if the player who you chose to invest in (cutler, flacco, etc) isn't capable of elevating the team, it IS a handicap. That said, almost nobody wins superbowls with rookie deal Qb's. Almost universally the true contenders are teams with established Qb's on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th deal. It is a huge advantage if you can pull it off the other way (get a rookie Qb ready to win a superbowl) but those players are prohibitively rare (10-15 Qb's drafted per year, and only 3 - Wilson, Brady, and Flacco - were drafted into established teams AND lead that team to a superbowl championship. We are talking about 3/200+ Qb's.)

It can be done that way. 1.5% success rate isn't zero. But most teams (including the giants and steelers in your example with eli and ben) took a Qb high (basically #1 overall in eli's case) while they were a bad team as the first step in a rebuild.

Meanwhile, this is the COMPLETE list of DE's and S's drafted in the top 3 since 1989:

Myles Garrett
Jadeveon Clowney
Mario Williams
Courtney Brown
Chris Long
Julius Peppers
Solomon Thomas
Joey Bosa
Dion Jordan
Tyson Jackson
Andre Wadsworth
Simeon Rice
Eric Turner
Shawn Springs
Bruce Pickens

Some good players, sure. And a lot of busts. And not a lot of superbowls in this list. Chris Long won one on his second team, and Simeon Rice won one.

Regardless of how you feel about drafting a Qb in the top 3, drafting defense up there seems to be far less successful.....
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 5 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