Christmas Eve: Washington Football Team @ Bears

[raw]

 

But then you're forcing a fit in a QB class that's less than awe-inspiring too. Personally, I could see a trade for a Taylor and still take a QB in the 3rd or 4th.

 

No. Forcing a fit is what the Bears have done for years. Forcing a fit is watching Couch, McNabb, Smith, and Culpepper go off the board and settling for McNown. The Bears pick 3rd, they can take any QB they want in this draft. They don't HAVE to take a QB. I've made a point in saying that they shouldn't draft a QB for the sake of drafting a QB. But if they do draft a QB (and all signs point to they will), they HAVE to draft the best one. The best way to draft the best one, is to draft the best one. Not wait to see who falls to you in the 2nd round.

 

1) There are 2 QB's supposedly even thought of as top 10 worthy. There's no guarantee EITHER will be there for us to take when we pick. Nor do we know IF we value them at that level. Drafting one of them could be the epitomy of forcing a fit.

 

2) If one isn't take at that point, all we can do is take one later as a developmental type. That leaves us having to fill our starters role in the immediate. A guy like Taylor, with upside and not a huge cost involved, seems like a good idea to me. Its not forcing a fit, because it doesn't set us back if he's a stopgap. You're still able to develop your guy and/or still use your 1st at a later time on a QB you truly want.

 

Well obviously in this thread I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation where every top QB is gone (which would also require the Bears winning Sunday or result in the Bears getting the best player in the draft in Myles Garrett, which I would not complain about). I've repeatedly said taking the 1st or 2nd QB in the draft.

 

And who cares about setting the team back? What's to set it back from? They already stink. If you draft a QB and he fails, you've lost nothing but a couple years. If you don't draft a QB and tread water, you've lost a couple years and still likely lose a couple more years when you do finally find this magical QB you've been waiting to fall in your lap.

[davell]

You're acting like its a certainty the Bears are 100% sold on Kizer or Trubisky. What if they aren't? What if they're sold on Watson, but know he's not getting taken before 25? Are you actually advocating taking him at 3-6 because he's the guy we like?

 

There's no reason to take a guy just to take him. And I know that's not you're saying. But you ARE implying it, by saying who cares if it sets us back a few more years. Pace has a coaching hire and a 1st round QB left to play, before he's dismissed, at this stage, if they tank. All I'm saying is its definitely plausible we stopgap it and use our 1st on a QB at a later time.

 

And even if you DO stopgap it, you still take one to develop in the 3-5 round area.

 

I almost always agree with your football analysis, but its not the end of the world if we don't take Kizer or Trubisky. And there's a CHANCE a guy like Taylor has upside left. Its easier to turn your record around year to year in football than baseball or basketball.

 

A good draft, that contains a developmental QB in 3-5, and a solid FA showing(tons of cap room) and this team could be a playoff team in 2017 and going forward.....

 

I HATE being in the middle as much as anyone. I was all for the tear down with Theo obviously. But not in football. Nor do I think its necessary to shoehorn a QB into our top 5ish pick, just because we may not have another pick this high.

 

Basically, I'm not going to rush it. If we like Kizer or Trubisky, I'll be excited if we get them. But if we grab Taylor or whoever, with a developmental guy, I'm quite OK with that too.

[UMFan83]

Obviously unlikely to happen but if Howard can get 170 rushing yards on Sunday he will have the most rushing yards in a season by a Bear since Walter Payron in 1985. Not bad considering he didn't play in week 1 and didn't have 10 carries in a game until week 4

[raw]

You're acting like its a certainty the Bears are 100% sold on Kizer or Trubisky. What if they aren't? What if they're sold on Watson, but know he's not getting taken before 25? Are you actually advocating taking him at 3-6 because he's the guy we like?.

 

I am taking more offense to the sentiment that the Bears aren't sold on any QB, or shouldn't be sold on any at #3. If they aren't sold on a QB, then they suck at evaluating football. If they do like Watson best, but know he won't go at 25, then yes they should take him 3-6, because they don't have a pick between 3-6 and 25 where he will likely go. Not getting a good QB is not acceptable. You can't just chalk it up as "oh, the guy we wanted didn't last til our 2nd pick". And trading up to get him requires 2 to tango and the loss of more resources. You can't argue getting value by waiting on a QB and then also advocate losing value by trading up.

 

There's no reason to take a guy just to take him. And I know that's not you're saying. But you ARE implying it, by saying who cares if it sets us back a few more years. Pace has a coaching hire and a 1st round QB left to play, before he's dismissed, at this stage, if they tank. All I'm saying is its definitely plausible we stopgap it and use our 1st on a QB at a later time.

 

And even if you DO stopgap it, you still take one to develop in the 3-5 round area.

 

I almost always agree with your football analysis, but its not the end of the world if we don't take Kizer or Trubisky. And there's a CHANCE a guy like Taylor has upside left. Its easier to turn your record around year to year in football than baseball or basketball.

 

A good draft, that contains a developmental QB in 3-5, and a solid FA showing(tons of cap room) and this team could be a playoff team in 2017 and going forward.....

 

I HATE being in the middle as much as anyone. I was all for the tear down with Theo obviously. But not in football. Nor do I think its necessary to shoehorn a QB into our top 5ish pick, just because we may not have another pick this high.

 

Basically, I'm not going to rush it. If we like Kizer or Trubisky, I'll be excited if we get them. But if we grab Taylor or whoever, with a developmental guy, I'm quite OK with that too.

 

I don't see the point of stopgapping. Cutler is a stopgap. Pace's Bears gave him a legit shot to be the guy, but basically he would've been gone 2 years ago if not for the money owed to him. And developmental QBs in the 3rd-5th rounds don't exist. Those are the Matt Barkleys and Brian Hoyers of the world. Every once in a while you luck up and get a Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott or a Kirk Cousins (and Wilson and Prescott didn't develop they were just thrown in there and immediately delivered), but those are clearly the exceptions.

 

I actually am not a huge fan of Kizer. I have him as the 3rd QB after Watson and Trubisky. I want Watson (and would take him 3-6), I'd be OK with Trubisky (and be ok with taking him 3-6), and I'd hope for the best with Kizer if the Bears do take him 3-6, but I wouldn't personally take him that high. I know it's not the end of the world if the Bears don't get any of the 3, but it sure as hell seems like a continuation of the current world where the QB is simply not good enough.

[jersey cubs fan]

If they aren't sold on a qb then they suck at evaluating football is a statement that makes no sense to me.

[Guest]

The truly great thing is that Pace is drafting at a VERY high level and the Bears still have a shot at the third overall pick.

 

That's excellent. I don't think Pace is in any trouble. Sure, White has been a bust, but only due to injury. Again, in his second draft, he nabbed Whitehair, Howard, Floyd, Bullard (whom many draft experts thought was the best pick of any team in 2016), Kwiatkowsi, and Bush.

 

He's gonna be around for a while, he's already successful, we just haven't seen his influence fully, yet.

 

Even with the lack of a truly viable QB, he's made the team very attractive to head coaching candidates.

[raw]

If they aren't sold on a qb then they suck at evaluating football is a statement that makes no sense to me.

 

Basically means, there's at least 1 solid starting QB in every draft. Other than 2007 and 2013 (and there's rumors of Mike Glennon getting double digit millions in free agency this offseason), every draft this century has had at least 1 long-term starter. Odds are, there's going to be at least 1 in this draft. Pace's job is to find that one. If he doesn't think any of these QBs are going to be a long-term starter, then to me, that is a cop out. That's basically telling me he's waiting on the next "can't miss" QB to fall in his lap. Which also tells me he plans on either having another really bad team (to get another top 5 pick where those guys tend to go) or he plans or using a ton of resources to either pay for someone else's developed QB or to trade multiple picks to get said QB.

[jersey cubs fan]

If they aren't sold on a qb then they suck at evaluating football is a statement that makes no sense to me.

 

Basically means, there's at least 1 solid starting QB in every draft. Other than 2007 and 2013 (and there's rumors of Mike Glennon getting double digit millions in free agency this offseason), every draft this century has had at least 1 long-term starter. Odds are, there's going to be at least 1 in this draft. Pace's job is to find that one. If he doesn't think any of these QBs are going to be a long-term starter, then to me, that is a cop out. That's basically telling me he's waiting on the next "can't miss" QB to fall in his lap. Which also tells me he plans on either having another really bad team (to get another top 5 pick where those guys tend to go) or he plans or using a ton of resources to either pay for someone else's developed QB or to trade multiple picks to get said QB.

even if there has been one in most drafts, that doesn't mean they were identifiable as the best prior to the draft, and now we're just back into the take a qb in the top 5 just because you should take a qb in the top 5 portion of the discussion.

 

If they don't think a qb is worthy of a top 5 pick they shouldn't take one, plain and simple. This team isn't a solid qb away from being great. To build a great team you need to take great players early in the draft. And there's no point building a team to be anything less than great.

[David]

 

I don't see the point of stopgapping. Cutler is a stopgap. Pace's Bears gave him a legit shot to be the guy, but basically he would've been gone 2 years ago if not for the money owed to him.

 

 

So Cutler at less money (or without the guarantees) would've been less attractive to keep around? I just don't see it. Despite what the narrative was, he wasn't overpaid and there wasn't a better option. But that's kind of irrelevant to this whole conversation anyway (aside from the fact that I still think they'd be better off keeping him but that's neither here nor there, I guess).

 

And developmental QBs in the 3rd-5th rounds don't exist. Those are the Matt Barkleys and Brian Hoyers of the world. Every once in a while you luck up and get a Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott or a Kirk Cousins (and Wilson and Prescott didn't develop they were just thrown in there and immediately delivered), but those are clearly the exceptions.

 

I'd actually be pretty interested in seeing a round by round breakdown of the guys you listed and how they came into the league. There's just so many first round busts that it all seems like a big ass crapshoot to me (and maybe a lot of that is, you know, teams reaching for guys who probably didn't deserve to be taken in the 1st because of the importance of the position).

[David]

If they aren't sold on a qb then they suck at evaluating football is a statement that makes no sense to me.

 

Basically means, there's at least 1 solid starting QB in every draft. Other than 2007 and 2013 (and there's rumors of Mike Glennon getting double digit millions in free agency this offseason), every draft this century has had at least 1 long-term starter. Odds are, there's going to be at least 1 in this draft. Pace's job is to find that one. If he doesn't think any of these QBs are going to be a long-term starter, then to me, that is a cop out. That's basically telling me he's waiting on the next "can't miss" QB to fall in his lap. Which also tells me he plans on either having another really bad team (to get another top 5 pick where those guys tend to go) or he plans or using a ton of resources to either pay for someone else's developed QB or to trade multiple picks to get said QB.

even if there has been one in most drafts, that doesn't mean they were identifiable as the best prior to the draft, and now we're just back into the take a qb in the top 5 just because you should take a qb in the top 5 portion of the discussion.

 

If they don't think a qb is worthy of a top 5 pick they shouldn't take one, plain and simple. This team isn't a solid qb away from being great. To build a great team you need to take great players early in the draft. And there's no point building a team to be anything less than great.

 

Yeah that seems like a crazy standard to set. "Every year, out of x amount of QBs in the draft, there's at least one, so if they don't find that one, they aren't good at their jobs. And if they do, they should definitely take him with a top 5 pick."

[WrigleyField 22]

You're acting like its a certainty the Bears are 100% sold on Kizer or Trubisky. What if they aren't? What if they're sold on Watson, but know he's not getting taken before 25? Are you actually advocating taking him at 3-6 because he's the guy we like?.

 

I am taking more offense to the sentiment that the Bears aren't sold on any QB, or shouldn't be sold on any at #3. If they aren't sold on a QB, then they suck at evaluating football. If they do like Watson best, but know he won't go at 25, then yes they should take him 3-6, because they don't have a pick between 3-6 and 25 where he will likely go. Not getting a good QB is not acceptable. You can't just chalk it up as "oh, the guy we wanted didn't last til our 2nd pick". And trading up to get him requires 2 to tango and the loss of more resources. You can't argue getting value by waiting on a QB and then also advocate losing value by trading up.

 

There's no reason to take a guy just to take him. And I know that's not you're saying. But you ARE implying it, by saying who cares if it sets us back a few more years. Pace has a coaching hire and a 1st round QB left to play, before he's dismissed, at this stage, if they tank. All I'm saying is its definitely plausible we stopgap it and use our 1st on a QB at a later time.

 

And even if you DO stopgap it, you still take one to develop in the 3-5 round area.

 

I almost always agree with your football analysis, but its not the end of the world if we don't take Kizer or Trubisky. And there's a CHANCE a guy like Taylor has upside left. Its easier to turn your record around year to year in football than baseball or basketball.

 

A good draft, that contains a developmental QB in 3-5, and a solid FA showing(tons of cap room) and this team could be a playoff team in 2017 and going forward.....

 

I HATE being in the middle as much as anyone. I was all for the tear down with Theo obviously. But not in football. Nor do I think its necessary to shoehorn a QB into our top 5ish pick, just because we may not have another pick this high.

 

Basically, I'm not going to rush it. If we like Kizer or Trubisky, I'll be excited if we get them. But if we grab Taylor or whoever, with a developmental guy, I'm quite OK with that too.

 

I don't see the point of stopgapping. Cutler is a stopgap. Pace's Bears gave him a legit shot to be the guy, but basically he would've been gone 2 years ago if not for the money owed to him. And developmental QBs in the 3rd-5th rounds don't exist. Those are the Matt Barkleys and Brian Hoyers of the world. Every once in a while you luck up and get a Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott or a Kirk Cousins (and Wilson and Prescott didn't develop they were just thrown in there and immediately delivered), but those are clearly the exceptions.

 

I actually am not a huge fan of Kizer. I have him as the 3rd QB after Watson and Trubisky. I want Watson (and would take him 3-6), I'd be OK with Trubisky (and be ok with taking him 3-6), and I'd hope for the best with Kizer if the Bears do take him 3-6, but I wouldn't personally take him that high. I know it's not the end of the world if the Bears don't get any of the 3, but it sure as hell seems like a continuation of the current world where the QB is simply not good enough.

I agree I dont see the point of giving up resources (other than money) for a stopgap. I'll understand if they decide to just walk away from Cutler, but not to turn around and give up picks for another stopgap.

 

Re: the draft. The rate of failure is awful up and down the draft, but it does pretty much fizzle out completely after the 4th. The bottom line is they have to start putting themselves in the game. I am not dismissing a first round QB and/or a 3rd/4th round development guy. So they do have to maintain some truth to their board, but I do agree that waiting around for the perfect QB prospect is not a viable option either.

 

If I had to guess a QB the Bears would take its Kizer. Seems like he has the biggest ceiling and thats been Paces MO. That said, his high picks have also graded out pretty strong in the football character department. So I think the combine process will be important (not for the athletic testing), and if he has Kizer and Watson graded with a similar ceiling, but sees more drive out of one, that may make the determination. And while I'm fine with them grading Watson as top 10 and taking him there (even if signs point to him being available later) I'd be annoyed if they had the same grade as everyone else and jumped that early. Not that we'd ever really know if that was the case.

[raw]

even if there has been one in most drafts, that doesn't mean they were identifiable as the best prior to the draft, and now we're just back into the take a qb in the top 5 just because you should take a qb in the top 5 portion of the discussion.

 

Now THIS makes no sense. The GMs job is to identify the best prior to the draft. It's literally the most important job a GM has for an NFL team as far as player acquisition goes.

 

And you're the one that keeps saying I'm saying take a QB in the top 5 just to take a QB in the top 5. I've repeatedly said the Bears need to identify the best one and find a way to get him. If they determine the best one will be there in the 2nd round, fine. But they'd better be right about it. After all, jobs are at stake if they aren't. If they determine there's only 1 and he goes with the 1st pick, then that's another issue. But there better be a plan B.

[raw]

 

I don't see the point of stopgapping. Cutler is a stopgap. Pace's Bears gave him a legit shot to be the guy, but basically he would've been gone 2 years ago if not for the money owed to him.

 

 

So Cutler at less money (or without the guarantees) would've been less attractive to keep around? I just don't see it. Despite what the narrative was, he wasn't overpaid and there wasn't a better option. But that's kind of irrelevant to this whole conversation anyway (aside from the fact that I still think they'd be better off keeping him but that's neither here nor there, I guess).

 

And developmental QBs in the 3rd-5th rounds don't exist. Those are the Matt Barkleys and Brian Hoyers of the world. Every once in a while you luck up and get a Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott or a Kirk Cousins (and Wilson and Prescott didn't develop they were just thrown in there and immediately delivered), but those are clearly the exceptions.

 

I'd actually be pretty interested in seeing a round by round breakdown of the guys you listed and how they came into the league. There's just so many first round busts that it all seems like a big ass crapshoot to me (and maybe a lot of that is, you know, teams reaching for guys who probably didn't deserve to be taken in the 1st because of the importance of the position).

 

1st paragraph, I've never said anything close to any of that.

 

It's not a crapshoot, though. It's a skill. A skill to identify, draft, and develop a good QB. The busts have clearly been severely flawed going into the draft (Manziel, Manuel, Weeden, Ponder, etc) and have been reaches based on physical tools and/or desperation. The successful QBs after the 1st have been players the NFL clearly overthought due to nitpicking (Wilson, Cousins, Carr, etc.).

 

The reason I've pointed out McNown and Grossman is because they were the 4th and 5th QBs drafted in the 1st round when the Bears picked them. Pretty clear case of settling on NOT the best and taking a QB just because you have the need. But the Bears have a chance to pick whoever they determine as the best, which they haven't done almost ever. Again, if QBs go 1-2 and the Bears can't trade up...that's a different situation. But if the Bears have a choice to pick the #1 QB on their board and they end up getting the 3rd or 4th QB in the 2nd round because they don't feel their guy is worth the 3rd overall pick....then that is an issue.

[David]

Something really depressing just occurred to me.

 

Obviously, there's a whole lot of other butterfly effect at play here, but since GB was choosing 24th in 2005 anyway...

 

If the Packers had gotten Grossman in 03 like everyone said at the time that they wanted to, do they even draft Rodgers in 05?

[David]

 

I don't see the point of stopgapping. Cutler is a stopgap. Pace's Bears gave him a legit shot to be the guy, but basically he would've been gone 2 years ago if not for the money owed to him.

 

 

So Cutler at less money (or without the guarantees) would've been less attractive to keep around? I just don't see it. Despite what the narrative was, he wasn't overpaid and there wasn't a better option. But that's kind of irrelevant to this whole conversation anyway (aside from the fact that I still think they'd be better off keeping him but that's neither here nor there, I guess).

 

And developmental QBs in the 3rd-5th rounds don't exist. Those are the Matt Barkleys and Brian Hoyers of the world. Every once in a while you luck up and get a Russell Wilson, Dak Prescott or a Kirk Cousins (and Wilson and Prescott didn't develop they were just thrown in there and immediately delivered), but those are clearly the exceptions.

 

I'd actually be pretty interested in seeing a round by round breakdown of the guys you listed and how they came into the league. There's just so many first round busts that it all seems like a big ass crapshoot to me (and maybe a lot of that is, you know, teams reaching for guys who probably didn't deserve to be taken in the 1st because of the importance of the position).

 

1st paragraph, I've never said anything close to any of that.

 

It's not a crapshoot, though. It's a skill. A skill to identify, draft, and develop a good QB. The busts have clearly been severely flawed going into the draft (Manziel, Manuel, Weeden, Ponder, etc) and have been reaches based on physical tools and/or desperation. The successful QBs after the 1st have been players the NFL clearly overthought due to nitpicking (Wilson, Cousins, Carr, etc.).

 

The reason I've pointed out McNown and Grossman is because they were the 4th and 5th QBs drafted in the 1st round when the Bears picked them. Pretty clear case of settling on NOT the best and taking a QB just because you have the need. But the Bears have a chance to pick whoever they determine as the best, which they haven't done almost ever. Again, if QBs go 1-2 and the Bears can't trade up...that's a different situation. But if the Bears have a choice to pick the #1 QB on their board and they end up getting the 3rd or 4th QB in the 2nd round because they don't feel their guy is worth the 3rd overall pick....then that is an issue.

 

I don't really think it's that much of a skill. Sure, some teams are better at talent evaluation in general than others, but I really think the only way to attack that position in particular is to do it with numbers. Draft one every year until something sticks.

 

Was Prescott a genius drafting move or just some decent evaluation and a lot of luck? Do the Cowboys take him in the first if they hear some team right behind them is going to take him?

 

If the Seahawks had the #2 pick in 2012, don't they still take RG3? Or do they pass because they identified Wilson as their guy and they expect him to be available later on?

 

I just think it's a stretch to think that the teams that got the good ones got them because they are/were that much better at finding good QBs rather than them just being the ones who rolled the dice just right.

[CubColtPacer]

even if there has been one in most drafts, that doesn't mean they were identifiable as the best prior to the draft, and now we're just back into the take a qb in the top 5 just because you should take a qb in the top 5 portion of the discussion.

 

Now THIS makes no sense. The GMs job is to identify the best prior to the draft. It's literally the most important job a GM has for an NFL team as far as player acquisition goes.

 

And you're the one that keeps saying I'm saying take a QB in the top 5 just to take a QB in the top 5. I've repeatedly said the Bears need to identify the best one and find a way to get him. If they determine the best one will be there in the 2nd round, fine. But they'd better be right about it. After all, jobs are at stake if they aren't. If they determine there's only 1 and he goes with the 1st pick, then that's another issue. But there better be a plan B.

 

I think the argument is that evaluating QB's is really, really hard. You have to go back to 2008 to find a QB that was A) drafted in the first round and B) not drafted #1 or #2 behind another QB that was drafted #1.

 

Here's the list since then of other first round QB's: Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Tim Tebow, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, Ryan Tannehill, Brandon Weeden, EJ Manuel, Blake Bortles, Johnny Manziel, Teddy Bridgewater, Paxton Lynch

 

And just for comparison's sake, here is the list of 2nd-4th round QB's during that time period: Pat White, Stephen McGee, Jimmy Clausen, Colt McCoy, Mike Kafka, Andy Dalton, Colin Kapernick, Ryan Mallet, Brock Osweiler, Russell Wilson, Terrelle Pryor, Nick Foles, Kirk Cousins, Geno Smith, Mike Glennon, Matt Barkley, Ryan Nassib, Tyler Wilson, Landry Jones, Derek Carr, Jimmy Garoppolo, Logan Thomas, Tom Savage, Garrett Grayson, Sean Mannion, Bryce Petty, Christian Hackenburg, Jacoby Brissett, Cody Kessler, Connor Cook, Dak Prescott, Cardale Jones

 

So that's 13 QB's in the first list and 32 in the second list. But if I was picking QB careers right now, it would be Wilson, Dalton, Carr, Cousins, Prescott, and probably Kapernick before I got to anybody on the first list.

 

Obviously that's a self-selected sample and if we went back just one more year we would have players like Ryan and Flacco added to the first list. But even if we add them, the first list isn't any better than the second. And if it isn't, why use the draft capital?

[raw]

 

I don't really think it's that much of a skill. Sure, some teams are better at talent evaluation in general than others, but I really think the only way to attack that position in particular is to do it with numbers. Draft one every year until something sticks.

 

Was Prescott a genius drafting move or just some decent evaluation and a lot of luck? Do the Cowboys take him in the first if they hear some team right behind them is going to take him?

 

If the Seahawks had the #2 pick in 2012, don't they still take RG3? Or do they pass because they identified Wilson as their guy and they expect him to be available later on?

 

I just think it's a stretch to think that the teams that got the good ones got them because they are/were that much better at finding good QBs rather than them just being the ones who rolled the dice just right.

 

Prescott was clearly decent evaluation and a lot of luck. As was Wilson. But that's the nature of mid round QBs. You draft one hoping to get lucky. The Bears aren't in a position to hope they get lucky.

 

Also of note, the Cowboys had Romo. They didn't "need" a QB, so they thought. The Seahawks just got rid of their franchise QB, Hasselbeck, and paid a decent amount of money to get Matt Flynn, who they thought would be their starter. I guess the equivalent is getting a Mike Glennon or (as was mentioned) Tyrod Taylor, and then drafting a guy in the middle rounds. But then you're intentionally missing out on the top QB for stopgaps and longshots. Your examples include drafts that had QBs go 1-2. Seattle would have certainly picked Luck or RG3 if they could have. Dallas would have probably picked Goff or Wentz if they could have and had the knowledge that Romo would miss 1/2 the season. The Bears can't get guys at 1-2, but there isn't a Luck in this draft. But QBs went 1-2 last year and I personally think Watson, Kizer and Trubisky are better than the 3 1st rounders from last year.

[Guest]

Holy crap, Morrisey's column is the worst piece of garbage I've ever read about Bears' QB issues in the history of QB issues.

 

First, he presents the idea that Barkley isn't the QB of the future as some sort of profundity, in truly bum fashion.

 

Next, he tells people not to caution him about the necessity of finding suitable starting-caliber QB to replace the status quo, that it needs to be blown up without a plan. After that, he talks about how good QBs are hard to find, lol.

 

Then, he implies Pace is a bad GM for drafting Kwiatkowski over Prescott in the 4th round.

 

He finishes with a flourish, insinuating Jimmy Garropolo is going to be a great one because the Bears took Edinger over Tom Brady in 2000.

 

Is he trying to get fired or something?

Edited December 27, 2016 by Stannis

[BigbadB]

Here's the list since then of other first round QB's: Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Tim Tebow, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, Ryan Tannehill, Brandon Weeden, EJ Manuel, Blake Bortles, Johnny Manziel, Teddy Bridgewater, Paxton Lynch

 

Ugh.

[davell]

Raw, if you're willing to take a guy at 3-6, that you've got valued outside the top 25, I'm just in total disagreement. That makes zero sense to me.

 

I brought up Taylor specifically because he's 27, still has a bit of upside, and likely costs a late round pick, IF he's not released altogether. To me, he's the best non-franchise 1st round pick option out there. Stopgapping isn't an awful thing when there's nothing else out there.

 

I've seen some reports that there isn't a top 30ish true talent QB in this draft. Obviously they'll get over drafted. But I'm not staying at 3-6, to take a guy that's not a stud. And I can't believe you don't see that its conceivable that Pace may not see one of these guys being worth that type of pick.

[WrigleyField 22]

Raw, if you're willing to take a guy at 3-6, that you've got valued outside the top 25, I'm just in total disagreement. That makes zero sense to me.

 

I brought up Taylor specifically because he's 27, still has a bit of upside, and likely costs a late round pick, IF he's not released altogether. To me, he's the best non-franchise 1st round pick option out there. Stopgapping isn't an awful thing when there's nothing else out there.

 

I've seen some reports that there isn't a top 30ish true talent QB in this draft. Obviously they'll get over drafted. But I'm not staying at 3-6, to take a guy that's not a stud. And I can't believe you don't see that its conceivable that Pace may not see one of these guys being worth that type of pick.

Why do you think Tyrod Taylor has this untapped potential? Hes been in the league a while and will have accrued 30 starts by next week. Not saying he can't improve some, or that hes a bad QB as is, but not one I'd give up assets for. And whether its this year or next, he wont be cheap on the open market.

[Guest]

Yeah, Taylor? Not a terrible idea, but he's declining already.

[davell]

Raw, if you're willing to take a guy at 3-6, that you've got valued outside the top 25, I'm just in total disagreement. That makes zero sense to me.

 

I brought up Taylor specifically because he's 27, still has a bit of upside, and likely costs a late round pick, IF he's not released altogether. To me, he's the best non-franchise 1st round pick option out there. Stopgapping isn't an awful thing when there's nothing else out there.

 

I've seen some reports that there isn't a top 30ish true talent QB in this draft. Obviously they'll get over drafted. But I'm not staying at 3-6, to take a guy that's not a stud. And I can't believe you don't see that its conceivable that Pace may not see one of these guys being worth that type of pick.

Why do you think Tyrod Taylor has this untapped potential? Hes been in the league a while and will have accrued 30 starts by next week. Not saying he can't improve some, or that hes a bad QB as is, but not one I'd give up assets for. And whether its this year or next, he wont be cheap on the open market.

 

I just figure at 27, he's possibly not maxed out yet. Its a change from what we have now, I'm a Cutler fan, but he's done here, I think. The cap is going up again, he WILL cost money, if he's a FA. I'd be surprised if he'd cost more than a late round pick, if we had to trade for him.

 

I'm not saying he's a longterm answer. But if there's enough pieces around him, I'd say there's at least a small chance. But, he seems like a slightly better fit for our current roster(that really needs O-Tackles), than a Room, or Cutler. That would allow me to be OK with giving up a late pick for him. If he's more expensive than that in trade though? I'd pass on him and maybe just keep Jay around.

 

I'm just not sure if Kizer or Trubisky is a franchise guy. I'll be completely fine if we don't take a QB in the 1st, because we can take a guy later and still use a 1st on a QB at a later point. Its a huge decision. So, I wouldn't rush it, if you don't see those guys as franchise types.

 

It'll be much easier discussing this once we know who's coming out for sure and how their workouts go.....But, at this EXACT point, I think my preference is this.....

 

Trade a 6th for Taylor or sign him as a FA. Trade down to 7-10 and take Cam Robinson or McGlinchey. You could get a future 1st and a 2nd, or comparable value, depending on if you've got a market for that pick.(3 to 10). I'd like that, with plenty of ability to trade back towards the late 1st, have a guy fall to us in the 2nd, like Watson, or to use the picks and take a guy in the 3rd or 4th.

 

We're not winning a Super Bowl in 2017 obviously. But maybe Taylor, with the addition of a young O-Tackle, hitting on some other picks we've acquired by trading down, could put us in the playoffs. See how the developmental guy comes along, if he fails.....You've got Taylor, with a more complete roster around him, and the ability to take a QB in the 1st in 2018, possibly with 2 1sts that year......

[JonJayCutler]

I hate to derail the QB talk, but horsefeathers has Jordan Howard been good. 2nd in the NFL in YPC, 3rd in runs of 20+. I could be wrong but I don't think a Bear RB has averaged 5 YPC with a full season's worth of carries since Payton's '77.

 

Either way, what a ridiculous steal this guy was.

[raw]

I hate to derail the QB talk, but horsefeathers has Jordan Howard been good. 2nd in the NFL in YPC, 3rd in runs of 20+. I could be wrong but I don't think a Bear RB has averaged 5 YPC with a full season's worth of carries since Payton's '77.

 

Either way, what a ridiculous steal this guy was.

 

Hoosier! Gotta give some credit to the OL, especially with Long missing a ton and Sitton also missing time. But none of the other backs have close to the same numbers. So, Howard is clearly making the biggest difference.

 

Also, shoutout to Cameron Meredith who has solidified his spot in the WR corps when the Bears really needed someone to step up due to White's lack of development. 62 catches, 800+ yards. An outside shot at 70/1,000. I think he's shown upside of a (very) low end #1 WR, which he may hit if he can cure the drops and fumbling. Not enough to make me want to let Jeffery leave, but if the Bears could get Eric Berry and a Kenny Stills for basically the same amount as Jeffery will cost....I'd take that option.