Bears offseason

[jersey cubs fan]

My top option would be get Trubisky.

 

I kind of like the concept of Trubisky, but the lack of playing time is a real concern, especially as it pertains to this NFL readiness. A QB can get ruined with bad coaching and being thrown into a bad situation.

 

I also hate bringing in any other rumored veteran QB, with the possible exception of Taylor.

[Guest]

I don't really know if the development thing is really a thing.

 

You put him behind a line that will protect him, like Dak Prescott, and you let him develop on the job.

Dak played twice as much in college, has a better offensive line, better receivers and better running back than Trubisky would theoretically have with the Bears.

 

The Bears were better pass protectors this year, they have comparable receivers, except at TE, and a very very very comparable running back. You can attribute Howard's success to the line, but then you'd have to give the line credit.

 

The Bears suffered from bad QBs, a horrible defensive secondary, and lots and lots of injuries.

[Thrilho]

This is a ridiculous assertion.

 

This isn't at all like a public company where you look quarter to quarter, if it were this front office would have been ousted long ago.

 

You are blinded by the Cubs situation. Football isn't baseball. It doesn't take 6 years to build a team.

I'm not saying they're doing that, I'm saying you're doing that. Focus on next year, be cool with keeping Jay around and not finding that great QB. You'll be stuck in the mud forever.

 

This is year 3 you goober. This isn't the third quarter of them having control. You are acting as if they just stepped into the job and should be given a lot of leeway. They've been around for a long time, the results have gotten worse under their watch and they need to show improvement now.

Pace had a draft this year that was better than probably any year of Angelo and definitely better than Emery. They sucked this year, but had a lot of great offensive improvement. The record was heavily driven by injuries, bad backup QB play, and losing close games. Pace has drafted legit building blocks on both sides of the ball right now and in my opinion are in a way better spot than 3 years ago.

 

Who cares if this is the third quarter or whatever. My quarter by quarter corporate thing was an analogy to illustrate that when you look for short term improvement you often give up long term sustainable success. You may think football is nothing like baseball, but I'd disagree. FA is not the way to build a good team, rookies take time to develop, and if you've got zero building blocks you can't create a super bowl contender in 2 years.

 

Maybe you can sell out to get to the playoffs by keeping a long term loser like Cutler and building up the defense, but in my opinion you do everything you can to try and be a super bowl contender down the road. That might mean drafting a QB this year, maybe playing him, and maybe not winning more than 7 games this year. This is a QB league, and if you're going to develop a guy then eventually you're going to lose some games with him. I'd be good with starting that process now. Especially if Pace is putting other quality players in place.

[jersey cubs fan]

While I agree with you in general, I would agree with Thrillo's hypothetical that a 6 win season where it looks like we ID'd a franchise QB would be a better overall position than winning 9-10 games with some stop gap and still no long term answer at QB. And under that scenario I'd give Pace the opportunity to get one more HC hire even though 15-33 is usually enough to get a GM fired.

 

But what are the chances they draft a 1st round QB who plays and looks good but still put out a 6 win team? How and why would that happen?

 

Now take that scenario, where this hypothetical 1st round QB plays well but the team does poorly and Pace gets the opportunity to overhaul the coaching staff one last time. You got yourself a QB that somehow played well but the team stunk and he has to start all over with a new system, a new head coach who may not be enamored with the guy and that coach will be given time to make the team better along with the freedom to decide who the starting QB will be in 2018. You are asking for a mess.

 

I'm not saying they have to win 9. I am saying there is no good reason why they can't.

[David]

If Pace is able to finally hit on a legit QB I don't really care what the record is next year. What I don't want though is just a wasted mid-round (or even 2nd round) pick on some guy they're lukewarm on just to say they've got a developmental QB. In this draft, where the second round pick could be a very good player, it seems a lot smarter to get the QB you're sold on in the first and fill in the secondary in the second.

 

I really couldn't disagree more.

 

Well, not entirely...of course we'd all be happy if you told us we'd hit on a QB with a QB pick in the 1st. But the whole reason people are against it is because of how risky 1st round QBs are and how often teams talk themselves into guys who bust. It's kind of the "horsefeathers pitchers" equivalent of the NFL draft. If you take the risk out of the equation, that makes it a really easy decision.

 

I'm fine with a mid-round lottery ticket on a QB because I think a big part of the finding QB thing is lucky sorcery. Yeah, scouting definitely plays a role, but I think your best shot is taking as many shots at them as you can until something sticks on the wall. You can find much more likely/"safe" impact at other positions with the #3 pick.

[Thrilho]

My top option would be get Trubisky.

 

I kind of like the concept of Trubisky, but the lack of playing time is a real concern, especially as it pertains to this NFL readiness. A QB can get ruined with bad coaching and being thrown into a bad situation.

 

I also hate bringing in any other rumored veteran QB, with the possible exception of Taylor.

Yeah, I think they could ruin Trubisky if they bring him in and have this coaching staff try and develop him, but it might be a necessity based on timing. Ideal might be to draft the QB next year and let a new staff work with him, but I doubt they'll be drafting high enough next year to grab the QB they want. So I'd just take the QB now and hope for the best on the development piece.

[David]

Pace had a draft this year that was better than probably any year of Angelo and definitely better than Emery.

 

 

This is tangential to the conversation but Angelo's 2003 (which is amazing because of how bad - or meh if you want to give some bonus points for Rex's 2006 contribution - the first round was) and 2004 drafts say hello. I feel great about the 2016 draft but those were some really good drafts that led to some long careers here and/or played a big role in a conference championship (almost two of them).

[jersey cubs fan]

Who cares if this is the third quarter or whatever. My quarter by quarter corporate thing was an analogy to illustrate that when you look for short term improvement you often give up long term sustainable success. You may think football is nothing like baseball, but I'd disagree. FA is not the way to build a good team, rookies take time to develop, and if you've got zero building blocks you can't create a super bowl contender in 2 years.

You can disagree all you want, you're wrong.

 

Baseball draftees aren't expected to contribute for 2-6 years. 1st and 2nd round NFL draftees should be starting their first year and significant contributors by years 2 and 3. Building a football team is nothing like building a baseball team. Nothing. Baseball is a collection of individual performers. Football requires coaching and players playing together all over the field.

 

We've heard the cliche about building through the draft a million times, and while it is true, it is also the case that there is nothing wrong with building through free agency at the same time. Good teams fill spots with free agents. Not everybody drafts their QB, RB, WR, OL, DE, LB, DB across the board. Barely any of them do. Realistically you need to draft well and sign good free agents if you want to succeed in the NFL, and there is no reason why it would take a good front office more than 3 years to build a good team with a combination of those things.

 

Pace did have a good 2016 draft, but 2015 also counts. You can't just point out the good he's done and say all is well. If they can't show real progress in 2017 what is supposed to lead us to have faith that Pace is doing a good job?

[Thrilho]

If Pace is able to finally hit on a legit QB I don't really care what the record is next year. What I don't want though is just a wasted mid-round (or even 2nd round) pick on some guy they're lukewarm on just to say they've got a developmental QB. In this draft, where the second round pick could be a very good player, it seems a lot smarter to get the QB you're sold on in the first and fill in the secondary in the second.

 

I really couldn't disagree more.

 

Well, not entirely...of course we'd all be happy if you told us we'd hit on a QB with a QB pick in the 1st. But the whole reason people are against it is because of how risky 1st round QBs are and how often teams talk themselves into guys who bust. It's kind of the "horsefeathers pitchers" equivalent of the NFL draft. If you take the risk out of the equation, that makes it a really easy decision.

 

I'm fine with a mid-round lottery ticket on a QB because I think a big part of the finding QB thing is lucky sorcery. Yeah, scouting definitely plays a role, but I think your best shot is taking as many shots at them as you can until something sticks on the wall. You can find much more likely/"safe" impact at other positions with the #3 pick.

Sure, if the concept is that you're talking yourself into a QB in the top 5 then it's not a good idea. But I like Trubisky and I think he's not a reach. The analysis that was put out last week was on QBs taken after the top 2 picks. Like Raw was pushing, a lot of those guys that failed were the 3rd or 4th QBs taken. The ones taken at the very top have a decent hit rate. If the Bears can get their top guy or are sold on their number 2 guy then this is probably the best shot they're going to get.

 

If they go mid-round guy it's almost a hope and a prayer. It's the most important position in sports and the quicker they find it the better. Taking one guy you're not fully sold on each year seems like a great way to stack mediocre players and still not have anything at the position 3-4 years from now.

[jersey cubs fan]

Pace had a draft this year that was better than probably any year of Angelo and definitely better than Emery.

 

 

This is tangential to the conversation but Angelo's 2003 (which is amazing because of how bad - or meh if you want to give some bonus points for Rex's 2006 contribution - the first round was) and 2004 drafts say hello. I feel great about the 2016 draft but those were some really good drafts that led to some long careers here and/or played a big role in a conference championship (almost two of them).

Oh yeah, Angelo had some homeruns that built that 2005/2006 team. The drafting went to crap once they started winning and Lovie got more input, which is pretty much the inevitable conclusion to most situations where head coaches have success.

[David]

If Pace is able to finally hit on a legit QB I don't really care what the record is next year. What I don't want though is just a wasted mid-round (or even 2nd round) pick on some guy they're lukewarm on just to say they've got a developmental QB. In this draft, where the second round pick could be a very good player, it seems a lot smarter to get the QB you're sold on in the first and fill in the secondary in the second.

 

I really couldn't disagree more.

 

Well, not entirely...of course we'd all be happy if you told us we'd hit on a QB with a QB pick in the 1st. But the whole reason people are against it is because of how risky 1st round QBs are and how often teams talk themselves into guys who bust. It's kind of the "horsefeathers pitchers" equivalent of the NFL draft. If you take the risk out of the equation, that makes it a really easy decision.

 

I'm fine with a mid-round lottery ticket on a QB because I think a big part of the finding QB thing is lucky sorcery. Yeah, scouting definitely plays a role, but I think your best shot is taking as many shots at them as you can until something sticks on the wall. You can find much more likely/"safe" impact at other positions with the #3 pick.

Sure, if the concept is that you're talking yourself into a QB in the top 5 then it's not a good idea. But I like Trubisky and I think he's not a reach. The analysis that was put out last week was on QBs taken after the top 2 picks. Like Raw was pushing, a lot of those guys that failed were the 3rd or 4th QBs taken. The ones taken at the very top have a decent hit rate. If the Bears can get their top guy or are sold on their number 2 guy then this is probably the best shot they're going to get.

 

If they go mid-round guy it's almost a hope and a prayer. It's the most important position in sports and the quicker they find it the better. Taking one guy you're not fully sold on each year seems like a great way to stack mediocre players and still not have anything at the position 3-4 years from now.

 

Outside of a Luck/Manning/Leaf/RG3 situation where there's a clear consensus, there's not enough certainty in it for me when you can much more easily find a certain and instant/near-instant level of impact at another position.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wait you need to find out more about AJ McCarrons chest tattoo before endorsing?

 

:-k

 

Bad ordering of my words there. I mean I don't know a ton about McCarron, so want to learn more before offering a full opinion. But character/leadership is big for QBs and having a big dumb chest tattoo could speak to the kind of guy he is. I slipped that line in there at the end as sort of a joke though, and it really doesn't play huge into my evaluation.

 

But I typed a lot of stuff there. Was there anything else that jumped out?

 

ridiculous

 

Mainly because a big dumb chest tattoo is positively quaint these days. That's like something someone's old timey, WW2-era grandpa would have.

[WrigleyField 22]

While I agree with you in general, I would agree with Thrillo's hypothetical that a 6 win season where it looks like we ID'd a franchise QB would be a better overall position than winning 9-10 games with some stop gap and still no long term answer at QB. And under that scenario I'd give Pace the opportunity to get one more HC hire even though 15-33 is usually enough to get a GM fired.

 

But what are the chances they draft a 1st round QB who plays and looks good but still put out a 6 win team? How and why would that happen?

 

Now take that scenario, where this hypothetical 1st round QB plays well but the team does poorly and Pace gets the opportunity to overhaul the coaching staff one last time. You got yourself a QB that somehow played well but the team stunk and he has to start all over with a new system, a new head coach who may not be enamored with the guy and that coach will be given time to make the team better along with the freedom to decide who the starting QB will be in 2018. You are asking for a mess.

 

I'm not saying they have to win 9. I am saying there is no good reason why they can't.

It would probably take another year of 19 IR and falling on the short end of 1 score games. Maybe even a late collapse where said star rookie QB is leading us into WC playoff contention and then gets hurt like week 13 and we lose out. I don't think that all is likely, but if that somehow was the scenario laid out, I'd feel pretty good still about sticking with Pace.

[David]

let's not jump all over thrillho for that. i mean, yadi molina's neck tattoo...

[Sammy Sofa]

It's like being worried that someone with a big "MOM" tattoo is some kind of street ruffian.

[Thrilho]

You can disagree all you want, you're wrong.

 

Baseball draftees aren't expected to contribute for 2-6 years. 1st and 2nd round NFL draftees should be starting their first year and significant contributors by years 2 and 3. Building a football team is nothing like building a baseball team. Nothing. Baseball is a collection of individual performers. Football requires coaching and players playing together all over the field.

 

We've heard the cliche about building through the draft a million times, and while it is true, it is also the case that there is nothing wrong with building through free agency at the same time. Good teams fill spots with free agents. Not everybody drafts their QB, RB, WR, OL, DE, LB, DB across the board. Barely any of them do. Realistically you need to draft well and sign good free agents if you want to succeed in the NFL, and there is no reason why it would take a good front office more than 3 years to build a good team with a combination of those things.

 

Pace did have a good 2016 draft, but 2015 also counts. You can't just point out the good he's done and say all is well. If they can't show real progress in 2017 what is supposed to lead us to have faith that Pace is doing a good job?

1st and 2nd round picks should be starting year 1 and significant contributors by year 2 and 3. I'm good with that. So by year 3 you've got 4 players who should be significant contributors and 2 decent starters. Then you've got 16 other positions that need to be filled and a QB that is by far the most important player.

 

The cupboard was bare when Pace started and he wanted to build a 3-4 defense. He's drafted Goldman, Whitehair, Howard, and Floyd who all look like significant contributors and White who was a top 5 prospect on most boards who could still be good. Kwitkowski could still be decent, Grasu maybe once he comes back from injury, and not sure we know what the secondary players were from last draft. There's not much in FA any year in the NFL, but he got some decent starters there last year (Hicks, Sitton, Trevathan, Freeman). Then he found Meredith. That's not bad.

 

Given that there was next to nothing that anyone would have wanted to keep from the 2014 team I think Pace has done a lot to rebuild this team. Put a healthy mediocre Cutler on the team all year and they're not close to a 3 win team. With relative health and a decent QB (Cutler level) they're probably at least .500 next year. But if you take a QB top 3 and play him for a significant portion of the season they're not going to take a big step forward wins-wise. If that specific scenario plays out, and Pace has another good draft I'm going to be aboard keeping him.

 

*edit to put Freeman into my good FAs list

Edited January 5, 2017 by Thrilho

[WrigleyField 22]

 

I really couldn't disagree more.

 

Well, not entirely...of course we'd all be happy if you told us we'd hit on a QB with a QB pick in the 1st. But the whole reason people are against it is because of how risky 1st round QBs are and how often teams talk themselves into guys who bust. It's kind of the "horsefeathers pitchers" equivalent of the NFL draft. If you take the risk out of the equation, that makes it a really easy decision.

 

I'm fine with a mid-round lottery ticket on a QB because I think a big part of the finding QB thing is lucky sorcery. Yeah, scouting definitely plays a role, but I think your best shot is taking as many shots at them as you can until something sticks on the wall. You can find much more likely/"safe" impact at other positions with the #3 pick.

Sure, if the concept is that you're talking yourself into a QB in the top 5 then it's not a good idea. But I like Trubisky and I think he's not a reach. The analysis that was put out last week was on QBs taken after the top 2 picks. Like Raw was pushing, a lot of those guys that failed were the 3rd or 4th QBs taken. The ones taken at the very top have a decent hit rate. If the Bears can get their top guy or are sold on their number 2 guy then this is probably the best shot they're going to get.

 

If they go mid-round guy it's almost a hope and a prayer. It's the most important position in sports and the quicker they find it the better. Taking one guy you're not fully sold on each year seems like a great way to stack mediocre players and still not have anything at the position 3-4 years from now.

 

Outside of a Luck/Manning/Leaf/RG3 situation where there's a clear consensus, there's not enough certainty in it for me when you can much more easily find a certain and instant/near-instant level of impact at another position.

Your aversion to first round QBs is as weird as raws insistance that the Bears draft one this year. There's a pretty strong correlation still with draft spot and success across the board. Yea, QB has a higher fail rate across the board (mainly because its hard to fall in the middle ground), and pure quantity is not a bad strategy to get a hit. But the top of the draft is still your best bet. And after roughly pick 100 the number of good starters is basically zilch except for the biggest exception ever.

[Thrilho]

It's like being worried that someone with a big "MOM" tattoo is some kind of street ruffian.

Yeah I've got a couple tattoos and I'm not a prude when it comes to them. But QB is about making decisions. This is like wearing a pick 6 across your chest.

 

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/002/086/039/McCarron-Tats_crop_north.jpg?w=630&h=420&q=75

[jersey cubs fan]

The cupboard was bare

 

Stop pretending this is baseball and akin to the Cubs situation.

 

 

 

I'm not asking for Pace's head. I'm fine with what he's done so far. I see signs of improvement. But it's time to move beyond signs and actually see some results.

 

If you call expecting improvement by year 3 short-term thinking I can't wait to hear what you'd like to see out of the Trump administration.

[WrigleyField 22]

Rofl, I thought you were dropping this tattoo bit?

[Sammy Sofa]

I stand by my "that's your grandpa" comment.

 

He's also rocking Eli's dad-bod:

 

http://cbssports4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/05/20/b53fbcdf-1b5b-429d-94ee-b6008974a79a/resize/600x465/elimanning.jpg?hash=704233503243f94a3c4cfc9d7ee81c7a

[jersey cubs fan]

don't get me wrong, everybody with a tattoo is a moron and probably a terrible person, but I don't have a problem with my QB being both of those things if he's good

[David]

Sure, if the concept is that you're talking yourself into a QB in the top 5 then it's not a good idea. But I like Trubisky and I think he's not a reach. The analysis that was put out last week was on QBs taken after the top 2 picks. Like Raw was pushing, a lot of those guys that failed were the 3rd or 4th QBs taken. The ones taken at the very top have a decent hit rate. If the Bears can get their top guy or are sold on their number 2 guy then this is probably the best shot they're going to get.

 

If they go mid-round guy it's almost a hope and a prayer. It's the most important position in sports and the quicker they find it the better. Taking one guy you're not fully sold on each year seems like a great way to stack mediocre players and still not have anything at the position 3-4 years from now.

 

Outside of a Luck/Manning/Leaf/RG3 situation where there's a clear consensus, there's not enough certainty in it for me when you can much more easily find a certain and instant/near-instant level of impact at another position.

Your aversion to first round QBs is as weird as raws insistance that the Bears draft one this year. There's a pretty strong correlation still with draft spot and success across the board. Yea, QB has a higher fail rate across the board (mainly because its hard to fall in the middle ground), and pure quantity is not a bad strategy to get a hit. But the top of the draft is still your best bet. And after roughly pick 100 the number of good starters is basically zilch except for the biggest exception ever.

 

It's less an aversion to 1st round QBs than it is thinking the risk/reward on other positions, including some pretty easy ones to get impact at, is much a much better and safer use of such a valuable high pick.

[WrigleyField 22]

Eh, I dont think theres any position overall safer than any other. Plenty of busts at every spot. And none, except possibly edge rusher carry any type of reward close to hitting on even an above average QB.

[Thrilho]

The cupboard was bare

 

Stop pretending this is baseball and akin to the Cubs situation.

 

 

 

I'm not asking for Pace's head. I'm fine with what he's done so far. I see signs of improvement. But it's time to move beyond signs and actually see some results.

 

If you call expecting improvement by year 3 short-term thinking I can't wait to hear what you'd like to see out of the Trump administration.

Yeah, I'm not saying 3 years is short term. I mean we're at where we're at, so looking ahead they can think short term or long term with QB spot in particular. I'm sure Fox wants to go with Cutler or trade or something to get wins next year. If they do that and draft D in the first round then I agree they need to be over .500 next year. But if they draft a QB and play him for more than couple games then I wouldn't barbeque them for missing the playoffs.