Bears offseason

[davell]

Its a very common viewpoint that a veteran coaching staff isn't going to want to hinge their prospects on a rookie signal caller. Do you REALLY think Pace is going to turn Fox into a lame duck coach BEFORE the season begins? I do not see that happening.(even if I'm OK with it)

 

Pace very likely DOES get a new coaching hire and a top pick on a QB to spend as well, before he's shown the door. I'm just being realistic. Is it more likely he uses them in unison and he let's this coaching staff have that QB and then likely having to put his own job on the line by throwing that same high pick into another offense, coaching staff, and everything.....

 

Or to let his next coach get the guy HE likes and give the kid the best chance to succeed, by not pulling therug out from under him immediately.

 

Sorry man, but they're not giving Fox a QB at 3, when its definitely not his desired pick. And you're not hamstringing yourself either, if you're Pace, by having a young QB you HAVE to build around......Knowing your next coach has to inherit that guy, whether he likes him or not. You're going to let THAT guy collaborate and make that pick with you.

[raw]

Its a very common viewpoint that a veteran coaching staff isn't going to want to hinge their prospects on a rookie signal caller. Do you REALLY think Pace is going to turn Fox into a lame duck coach BEFORE the season begins? I do not see that happening.(even if I'm OK with it)

 

Pace very likely DOES get a new coaching hire and a top pick on a QB to spend as well, before he's shown the door. I'm just being realistic. Is it more likely he uses them in unison and he let's this coaching staff have that QB and then likely having to put his own job on the line by throwing that same high pick into another offense, coaching staff, and everything.....

 

Or to let his next coach get the guy HE likes and give the kid the best chance to succeed, by not pulling therug out from under him immediately.

 

Sorry man, but they're not giving Fox a QB at 3, when its definitely not his desired pick. And you're not hamstringing yourself either, if you're Pace, by having a young QB you HAVE to build around......Knowing your next coach has to inherit that guy, whether he likes him or not. You're going to let THAT guy collaborate and make that pick with you.

 

Can you point me to where Fox has said this?

 

Also, there's nothing saying the Bears have to take a guy at 3 and absolutely have to play him. I think they do get into the Romo talks or the Taylor negotiations and even if they bring one of those guys in, they could very well still take a QB at #3. You play the vet QB as long as the team has a shot at competing, then if things go south, let the kid play. Coaches inherit young QBs all the time. Rams, Broncos (granted, odd situation), and likely the Jags have hired coaches inheriting young QBs just this month.

[davell]

I mean, you can think Fox wants a QB at 3, if you want. I seriously doubt he does, when he's here to win immediately. We obviously disagree on the value of these QB's. And you are completely fine with taking a guy at 3, even if he's barely projected as a 1st rounder, which I also disagree with, due to us not being hamstrung into HAVING to take one this year.

 

The Broncos and Jags are in the QB market now or next year, if Bottles falls on his face again. So those coaches STILL will get THEIR guy anyway. The Rams are so bad and Goff is too, that it wouldn't shock me to see them scrap everything too next year.

 

However, if you take a QB now and he doesn't work out, you're stuck hiring a head coach and still allowing him another QB too.....Which sets you back again. And is a pitiful use of resources too.

 

Pace knows its better for HIM, to wait for his next coach and use them in tandem. In the meantime, he can give Fox all the ammo he can, to win now too. And a QB at 3, isn't part of that, since its an extremely valuable asset that you're not likely to get immediate production from.

 

I'm not a fan of this group of QB's. If one of Watson, Kizer, Trubisky, or Mahomes is around at 36? horsefeathers yeah, take him. Trade down to a spot you can still get your guy? I'll even buy that. But I'm not of the mindset that ANY of this group is worth pick 3. And I'm not ready to reach, just to fill the need, THIS draft. You can address it in FA, you can still take a guy during the draft, AND you can address it AGAIN the following year, if its still a need. In what shapes up currently to be a much better group anyway.

 

I do respect your football views. I know you know your stuff. But we aren't going to agree on this one. In the end, it'll be interesting to see who winds up being right.

[raw]

I mean, you can think Fox wants a QB at 3, if you want. I seriously doubt he does, when he's here to win immediately. We obviously disagree on the value of these QB's. And you are completely fine with taking a guy at 3, even if he's barely projected as a 1st rounder, which I also disagree with, due to us not being hamstrung into HAVING to take one this year.

 

The Broncos and Jags are in the QB market now or next year, if Bottles falls on his face again. So those coaches STILL will get THEIR guy anyway. The Rams are so bad and Goff is too, that it wouldn't shock me to see them scrap everything too next year.

 

However, if you take a QB now and he doesn't work out, you're stuck hiring a head coach and still allowing him another QB too.....Which sets you back again. And is a pitiful use of resources too.

 

Pace knows its better for HIM, to wait for his next coach and use them in tandem. In the meantime, he can give Fox all the ammo he can, to win now too. And a QB at 3, isn't part of that, since its an extremely valuable asset that you're not likely to get immediate production from.

 

I'm not a fan of this group of QB's. If one of Watson, Kizer, Trubisky, or Mahomes is around at 36? horsefeathers yeah, take him. Trade down to a spot you can still get your guy? I'll even buy that. But I'm not of the mindset that ANY of this group is worth pick 3. And I'm not ready to reach, just to fill the need, THIS draft. You can address it in FA, you can still take a guy during the draft, AND you can address it AGAIN the following year, if its still a need. In what shapes up currently to be a much better group anyway.

 

I do respect your football views. I know you know your stuff. But we aren't going to agree on this one. In the end, it'll be interesting to see who winds up being right.

 

Yeah, the projections you're going off of are random internet sites that have no bearing on NFL teams' draft boards. I'm not claiming I'm worthy of being a super scout or an NFL GM, but I have 2 QBs in my personal top 15 prospects (Watson 4-5, IIRC and Trubisky at like 13-14). Either of them would be worthy of the #3 pick over a 3rd DL (for a 3-4 team that runs 60% nickel) who has a bum shoulder, or a safety, or a 4th pass rusher.

 

And I think you're grossly overestimating the "setback" from drafting a QB. They don't get paid very much on rookie deals anymore. And if the guy you draft can't play, you can tell pretty early. Buffalo didn't get set back by using the 16th pick on EJ Manuel. They've been better since Manuel (granted not with him playing). Same goes for the Skins w/ RG3 and Dolphins w/ Tannehill, Jets w/ Smith. Those QBs have mostly failed (not quite Tannehill yet), but their teams have competed for or been in playoff spots with them not being very good.

 

Plus, there's the whole fact of what are the Bears being set back from? Cant' get any worse than 3-13. Pussyfooting around with the QB position for another year also means it probably won't get much better, or at least not good enough for it to matter. Tyrod Taylor or Tony Romo probably makes this a 9-win 1st round elimination team at best for 2 years at most. Then you go into 2019 still with no QB and nothing worthwhile to show for it anyway. Might as well throw away 2 years on the #3 overall pick and at least have a chance of a long-term solution.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

And I think you're grossly overestimating the "setback" from drafting a QB. They don't get paid very much on rookie deals anymore. And if the guy you draft can't play, you can tell pretty early. Buffalo didn't get set back by using the 16th pick on EJ Manuel.

 

The number 3 pick gets a hell of a lot more than the 16th, like a difference of $11m guaranteed and $15m in total value.

 

If your pick at number 3 doesn't work out, it's going to hurt.

[WrigleyField 22]

I mean, you can think Fox wants a QB at 3, if you want. I seriously doubt he does, when he's here to win immediately. We obviously disagree on the value of these QB's. And you are completely fine with taking a guy at 3, even if he's barely projected as a 1st rounder, which I also disagree with, due to us not being hamstrung into HAVING to take one this year.

 

The Broncos and Jags are in the QB market now or next year, if Bottles falls on his face again. So those coaches STILL will get THEIR guy anyway. The Rams are so bad and Goff is too, that it wouldn't shock me to see them scrap everything too next year.

 

However, if you take a QB now and he doesn't work out, you're stuck hiring a head coach and still allowing him another QB too.....Which sets you back again. And is a pitiful use of resources too.

 

Pace knows its better for HIM, to wait for his next coach and use them in tandem. In the meantime, he can give Fox all the ammo he can, to win now too. And a QB at 3, isn't part of that, since its an extremely valuable asset that you're not likely to get immediate production from.

 

I'm not a fan of this group of QB's. If one of Watson, Kizer, Trubisky, or Mahomes is around at 36? horsefeathers yeah, take him. Trade down to a spot you can still get your guy? I'll even buy that. But I'm not of the mindset that ANY of this group is worth pick 3. And I'm not ready to reach, just to fill the need, THIS draft. You can address it in FA, you can still take a guy during the draft, AND you can address it AGAIN the following year, if its still a need. In what shapes up currently to be a much better group anyway.

 

I do respect your football views. I know you know your stuff. But we aren't going to agree on this one. In the end, it'll be interesting to see who winds up being right.

 

Yeah, the projections you're going off of are random internet sites that have no bearing on NFL teams' draft boards. I'm not claiming I'm worthy of being a super scout or an NFL GM, but I have 2 QBs in my personal top 15 prospects (Watson 4-5, IIRC and Trubisky at like 13-14). Either of them would be worthy of the #3 pick over a 3rd DL (for a 3-4 team that runs 60% nickel) who has a bum shoulder, or a safety, or a 4th pass rusher.

 

And I think you're grossly overestimating the "setback" from drafting a QB. They don't get paid very much on rookie deals anymore. And if the guy you draft can't play, you can tell pretty early. Buffalo didn't get set back by using the 16th pick on EJ Manuel. They've been better since Manuel (granted not with him playing). Same goes for the Skins w/ RG3 and Dolphins w/ Tannehill, Jets w/ Smith. Those QBs have mostly failed (not quite Tannehill yet), but their teams have competed for or been in playoff spots with them not being very good.

 

Plus, there's the whole fact of what are the Bears being set back from? Cant' get any worse than 3-13. [expletive] around with the QB position for another year also means it probably won't get much better, or at least not good enough for it to matter. Tyrod Taylor or Tony Romo probably makes this a 9-win 1st round elimination team at best for 2 years at most. Then you go into 2019 still with no QB and nothing worthwhile to show for it anyway. Might as well throw away 2 years on the #3 overall pick and at least have a chance of a long-term solution.

If Watson is that high for you, I can obviously appreciate the desire for that to be the pick. But youve in many ways talked yourself into logic that QB is the only acceptable pick.

 

Right now, I would be pumped with Watson as the pick, but my opinion is pretty casually formed. At the end of the day, as much as whiffing on the 3rd is not going to set them back totally as you suggest, neither would delaying it if the value proposition doesn't make sense at #3 (or even 36). Yea, at some point, soon hopefully, they need to dedicate a high pick to a QB (and I'd really like to see one by pick 106 this draft if not in rounds 1 or 2). But there should be several options in play for the short term answer.

[raw]

 

And I think you're grossly overestimating the "setback" from drafting a QB. They don't get paid very much on rookie deals anymore. And if the guy you draft can't play, you can tell pretty early. Buffalo didn't get set back by using the 16th pick on EJ Manuel.

 

The number 3 pick gets a hell of a lot more than the 16th, like a difference of $11m guaranteed and $15m in total value.

 

If your pick at number 3 doesn't work out, it's going to hurt.

 

Nice way to frame 11M over 4 years. Less than 3M per year. It's not going to hurt financially at all.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I wouldn't consider drafting a QB at #3 a bad choice as long as we get to chose from all who are available. To me, that means Cle and SF both pass on qb

[WrigleyField 22]

I wouldn't consider drafting a QB at #3 a bad choice as long as we get to chose from all who are available. To me, that means Cle and SF both pass on qb

I think I get your point, but SF could pick a QB and the Bears still get their #1 target.

[jersey cubs fan]

[davell]

QB's taken at 3 since 1980

 

Blake Bortles, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Joey Harrington, Akili Smith, Steve McNair, Heath Shuler, Jim Everett

 

QB's taken in 1st round since 2000

 

2016-Goff-1, Wentz-2, Lynch-26

2015- Winston-1, Mariota-2

2014- Bortles-3, Manziel-22, Bridgewater-32

2013- Manuel-16

2012-Luck-1, Griffin-2, Tannehill-8, Weeden-22

2011-Newton-1, Locker-8, Gabbert-10, Ponder-12

2010-Bradford-1, Tebow-25

2009-Stafford-1, Sanchez-5, Freeman-17

2008-Ryan-3, Flacco-18

2007-Russell-1, Quinn-22

2006-Young-3, Leinart-10, Cutler-11

2005-Alex Smith-1, Rodgers-24, Campbell-25

2004- Eli Manning-1, Rivers-4, Roethlisberger-11, Losman-22

2003-Palmer-1, Leftwich-7, Boller-19, Grossman-22

2002- Carr-1, Harrington-3, Ramsey-32

2001-Vick-1

2000-Pennington-18

 

That's 45 guys. I give 19 of them passes, after the fact. Wentz, Winston, Mariota, Bridgewater, Tannehill, Luck, Newton, Bradford, Stafford, Ryan, Flacco, Cutler, Rodgers, Alex Smith, Roethlisberger, Manning, Rivers, Palmer, and Vick.

 

And some of them are obviously questionable, especially based on where in the 1st they were picked.

 

Other notable QB's

 

2016-Prescott-135(maybe more)

2015-Semian-250(maybe more)

2014-Carr-36, Garappolo-62

2013-Glennon-73

2012-Osweiler-57, Wilson-75, Cousins-102

2011-Dalton-35, Kaepernick-36, Taylor-180

2010-None

2009-None

2008-Henne-57, Flynn-209

2007-Kolb-36

2006-None

2005-Orton-106, Anderson-213, Cassel-230, Fitzpatrick-250

2004-Schaub-90, L.McCown-106

2003-None

2002-J.McCown-81, Garrard-108

2001-Brees-32, Weinke-106

2000-Bulger-168, Brady-199

 

Obviously, I listed some guys here that weren't much. But, they all at least had some starts, maybe produced for a period of time. A pretty decent amount of franchise types from that group too.

 

I'm far from the only guy that's not a fan of this QB group. Looking at how much of a crap shoot drafting a QB early is, I'm absolutely not thinking picking 1 at 3 is a good idea.

 

Draft one every damn year. Its better to throw away a 3rd day pick, than it is to pass up what likely has much better odds of turning into an impact player, inside the top 5. Hell, take one at 36. But, this horsefeathers looks like its not much better odds than drafting a pitcher high in the draft. I'd just never truly looked before.

[WrigleyField 22]

I dont know how you could research that whole list and come to the conclusion that the strategy is "pick a day 3 pick every year"

[davell]

I dont know how you could research that whole list and come to the conclusion that the strategy is "pick a day 3 pick every year"

 

Yeah......That's not what I said, especially when literally mentioning taking one at 36, right behind that. The point is its a crapshoot. Using the 3rd overall pick on a QB? Looking at these numbers? Not smart. Much better use of a pick.

 

I do think you should take a guy every year though.

[WrigleyField 22]

But its way less of crapshoot high. Even with the second list, the best of the bunch is still at the top of round 2.

[davell]

But its way less of crapshoot high. Even with the second list, the best of the bunch is still at the top of round 2.

 

Yeah, the picks in the 30's are pretty solid. In the end, its going to come down to who we like and how many of this group do we feel can eventually be our guy.

 

If its ANY of Kizer, Trubisky, Watson, and Mahomes......A decent scenario may be trading down a few spots from 3. Then, using the extra picks, to move back into the 1st(if we need to), to secure getting one of the 4.

 

But, I'm OK missing out on this group completely. Not a scout obviously. I think I go Watson, Mahomes, Kizer, and Trubisky, in that order, for now.....So, I may be skewed a bit as it is, thinking there's at least a decent shot one of my top 2 falls to us(or close) at 36.

[Guest]

If the Pats offer you Garoppolo straight up for pick 36, do you take it?

 

There's differing opinions on what his value is, but I think I'd take this and be happy.

 

Wouldn't think twice about saying yes.

 

I would, but i'd try to get 6 and 39 from the jets for 3. If the Bears could get a QB, Lattimore and King without any FA signings, it gives them flexibility to spend big on a S.

[Guest]

It's actually a good thing that the Bears are in the market for a QB, as they have that leverage with the Jets, now, or the Browns. You want a QB? Ok, we're going to take the top QB on the board if you don't trade up.

[Guest]

Personally, i think Pace's sense of urgency dictates the acquisition of a veteran QB immediately, and the drafting of a development project in this draft.

 

He's got to win now, so Romo seems a natural fit. But he's got to have someone in the works, as well.

 

But CB is the second biggest need, so he's got to grab a couple, and talented ones.

[WrigleyField 22]

If the Pats offer you Garoppolo straight up for pick 36, do you take it?

 

There's differing opinions on what his value is, but I think I'd take this and be happy.

 

Wouldn't think twice about saying yes.

 

I would, but i'd try to get 6 and 39 from the jets for 3. If the Bears could get a QB, Lattimore and King without any FA signings, it gives them flexibility to spend big on a S.

3 top 40 picks would be huge, but the Bears really dont need additional flexibility to go spend big on a S. And that trade would probably be a draft day trade, so you really can't use such a scenario to dictate FA decisions anyways.

 

Sign a S and a CB in FA.

[jersey cubs fan]

Personally, i think Pace's sense of urgency dictates the acquisition of a veteran QB immediately, and the drafting of a development project in this draft.

 

He's got to win now, so Romo seems a natural fit. But he's got to have someone in the works, as well.

 

But CB is the second biggest need, so he's got to grab a couple, and talented ones.

 

I don't get the sense that Pace needs to have a sense of urgency. I think Bears ownership is loathe to start over again. They want to be more like the Giants and Steelers with stability and the willingness to stick with their guys through tough times. And I bet dollars to donuts they looked at the Cubs giving Theo all the time he needed to turn things around (even though it's a horrible comparison). The Angelo/Lovie years are what this team strives for right now. Pace only needs to show the path forward. If the younger guys look good but the old coach just isn't bringing in results, he will get a chance at a second hire.

[Guest]

Personally, i think Pace's sense of urgency dictates the acquisition of a veteran QB immediately, and the drafting of a development project in this draft.

 

He's got to win now, so Romo seems a natural fit. But he's got to have someone in the works, as well.

 

But CB is the second biggest need, so he's got to grab a couple, and talented ones.

 

I don't get the sense that Pace needs to have a sense of urgency. I think Bears ownership is loathe to start over again. They want to be more like the Giants and Steelers with stability and the willingness to stick with their guys through tough times. And I bet dollars to donuts they looked at the Cubs giving Theo all the time he needed to turn things around (even though it's a horrible comparison). The Angelo/Lovie years are what this team strives for right now. Pace only needs to show the path forward. If the younger guys look good but the old coach just isn't bringing in results, he will get a chance at a second hire.

 

Matter of opinion, but i think he's feeling the heat due to the 3-13 year. Another similar year and people will start to think Emery was a better option.

[jersey cubs fan]

Personally, i think Pace's sense of urgency dictates the acquisition of a veteran QB immediately, and the drafting of a development project in this draft.

 

He's got to win now, so Romo seems a natural fit. But he's got to have someone in the works, as well.

 

But CB is the second biggest need, so he's got to grab a couple, and talented ones.

 

I don't get the sense that Pace needs to have a sense of urgency. I think Bears ownership is loathe to start over again. They want to be more like the Giants and Steelers with stability and the willingness to stick with their guys through tough times. And I bet dollars to donuts they looked at the Cubs giving Theo all the time he needed to turn things around (even though it's a horrible comparison). The Angelo/Lovie years are what this team strives for right now. Pace only needs to show the path forward. If the younger guys look good but the old coach just isn't bringing in results, he will get a chance at a second hire.

 

Matter of opinion, but i think he's feeling the heat due to the 3-13 year. Another similar year and people will start to think Emery was a better option.

Maybe another 3-13, sure. But it doesn't take much to get past that hurdle. And I don't think anybody at the team is going to regret letting Emery go.

[SpongeWorthy]

Heard on the radio yday that PFF thinks alshon is going to hit the open market but I can't find the article

 

Thatd create a huge hole at WR

[raw]

Heard on the radio yday that PFF thinks alshon is going to hit the open market but I can't find the article

 

Thatd create a huge hole at WR

 

A small part of me wouldn't be super upset at Jeffery walking. With Meredith (who looks like a keeper at this point) and Jeffery on the outside, that's a couple of big targets, but neither of which creates great separation. Throw in White, and if he gives this team anything, he's another big target. While he's faster than those other 2, he's not a big separation type of WR either. I'd be intrigued by adding a couple of really fast/shifty WRs to run around in the middle of the field and deep (ala Edelman, Hilton, Brown and the like). FA wise, Kenny Stills is out there. While not a great WR, always been a big play guy who had a good year this season and is still just 25 years old. Also, you could add a guy in the draft with some speed while still having the outside size with Meredith and White, and also having a ton of money to do whatever at CB.

 

But unfortunately, the Bears aren't in the position to let talented young players walk away for nothing.

[UMFan83]

The Chicago Bears will make a strong, concerted effort to acquire quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo from the Patriots, according to sources with knowledge of the situation. The Illinois native is far and away their top offseason priority.

 

Terrible idea