I know we do not have a lot of picks now. I meant more in the future is trubs is manageable for a few years. We start getting our picks up again then look long term.
IIRC, we have 2 4th round picks next year. I wouldn't mind Pace using one of those on a QB if there's someone there that he and Nagy like. Pace can likely recoup that pick by trading down a little in the 2nd as he's done before.
That would be interesting for sure. It would probably be better than having Daniels as the backup. I can't imagine he'd be any worse than Daniels. Why not roll the dice on a "project" QB who may have some upside?
IIRC, we have 2 4th round picks next year. I wouldn't mind Pace using one of those on a QB if there's someone there that he and Nagy like. Pace can likely recoup that pick by trading down a little in the 2nd as he's done before.
That would be interesting for sure. It would probably be better than having Daniels as the backup. I can't imagine he'd be any worse than Daniels. Why not roll the dice on a "project" QB who may have some upside?
Why not. Dare I say, it worked for the Pats oh so many years ago LMAO!! It could happen again, after all lightning does strike the same place twice Sometimes......lol
IIRC, we have 2 4th round picks next year. I wouldn't mind Pace using one of those on a QB if there's someone there that he and Nagy like. Pace can likely recoup that pick by trading down a little in the 2nd as he's done before.
That would be interesting for sure. It would probably be better than having Daniels as the backup. I can't imagine he'd be any worse than Daniels. Why not roll the dice on a "project" QB who may have some upside?
Just depends on if there is a QB available to Pace in next year's mid-draft that they like as a prospect. Obviously there's no point to drafting a QB just to draft a QB. Having Nathan Enderle on your team doesn't add anything.
I would think a offensively-savvy HC like Nagy (a former QB himself) would have some pretty good scouting eyes when it comes to evaluation of college QBs. If there's someone still on the board in the 4th that they like and see potential in, I think its an investment worth the risk.
Just depends on if there is a QB available to Pace in next year's mid-draft that they like as a prospect. Obviously there's no point to drafting a QB just to draft a QB. Having Nathan Enderle on your team doesn't add anything.
I would think a offensively-savvy HC like Nagy (a former QB himself) would have some pretty good scouting eyes when it comes to evaluation of college QBs. If there's someone still on the board in the 4th that they like and see potential in, I think its an investment worth the risk.
Aw come on. Don't you remember Dan LeFevour and all the stuff he did for us? Or David Fales?
Assuming you have your starter, I think you should aim to draft a ~ mid-round QB roughly every other year. Two reasons:
1) You maintain a pipeline of QBs on rookie contracts to compete for the backup spot rather than having to pay a crappy, no-upside-left vet $5-10 million a year. After this season, MT will have 3 years under his belt. Time for the training wheels to come off...in other words, he shouldn't need a "vet mentor" anymore. We all know what Chase Daniel is--he's a typical mediocre vet backup, with no future growth potential left.
2) If you happen to get lucky and find and/or develop a plausible starter talent, you now have a valuable trade commodity. At worst, he leaves when his rookie deal is up and you get a comp pick. Yes, its uncommon but it does happen. Garrapolo was a late 2nd rounder and both Cousins and Dak Prescott were 4th rounders. A backup QB on your roster that is seen as a potential starter by other teams (and there are QB-needy teams every single year) can net you a 2nd, maybe even a 1st, round pick in trade.
I agree with #1. They should always within reason try to upgrade any position when they think they can get a better player. They know what Daniels can do, and maybe right now that is a good thing while mitch is still figuring things out, but at some point you want a better backup QB. I for one don't believe the myth that good backup QBs are out there. Good backup QBs tend to leave and become starters. But by drafting one ONCE MITCH IS ESTALISHED, you create the potential for a better backup.
#2 is a complete myth as far as I know. Trading a drafted late round QB for a high draft pick has only happened a few times as far as I know, and that includes the most recent which makes everyone think it happens often: JimmyG to San Fran (for a second by the way, same round he was picked in). Looking through this list at pro-footballreference you see that:
McCarron was a 5th round pick traded for a 4th. Ryan Mallett was a 3rd rounders traded for a 7th by B.Belchik San Fran did trade Alex Smith for two 2nds, but he was a first pick in the draft Kevin Knob was a 2nd rounder traded for a 2nd rounder Cassell (+ Vrabel) for a 2nd. Cassell was a 7th round pick. AJ Feely was a 5th traded for a 2nd
Everyone else on the list was either a former starter, a failed high pick, not on their original team or was traded for a low round pickl
Personally I think the Bears are better off signing a different failed starter than Daniel and hoping to flip him to a QB needy team than taking a chance on trading a late round pick for a higher one. I'd much rather draft a Joel Iyiegbuniwe with his potential than a Dan LeFevour.
Assuming you have your starter, I think you should aim to draft a ~ mid-round QB roughly every other year. Two reasons:
1) You maintain a pipeline of QBs on rookie contracts to compete for the backup spot rather than having to pay a crappy, no-upside-left vet $5-10 million a year. After this season, MT will have 3 years under his belt. Time for the training wheels to come off...in other words, he shouldn't need a "vet mentor" anymore. We all know what Chase Daniel is--he's a typical mediocre vet backup, with no future growth potential left.
2) If you happen to get lucky and find and/or develop a plausible starter talent, you now have a valuable trade commodity. At worst, he leaves when his rookie deal is up and you get a comp pick. Yes, its uncommon but it does happen. Garrapolo was a late 2nd rounder and both Cousins and Dak Prescott were 4th rounders. A backup QB on your roster that is seen as a potential starter by other teams (and there are QB-needy teams every single year) can net you a 2nd, maybe even a 1st, round pick in trade.
I agree with #1. They should always within reason try to upgrade any position when they think they can get a better player. They know what Daniels can do, and maybe right now that is a good thing while mitch is still figuring things out, but at some point you want a better backup QB. I for one don't believe the myth that good backup QBs are out there. Good backup QBs tend to leave and become starters. But by drafting one ONCE MITCH IS ESTALISHED, you create the potential for a better backup.
#2 is a complete myth as far as I know. Trading a drafted late round QB for a high draft pick has only happened a few times as far as I know, and that includes the most recent which makes everyone think it happens often: JimmyG to San Fran (for a second by the way, same round he was picked in). Looking through this list at pro-footballreference you see that:
McCarron was a 5th round pick traded for a 4th. Ryan Mallett was a 3rd rounders traded for a 7th by B.Belchik San Fran did trade Alex Smith for two 2nds, but he was a first pick in the draft Kevin Knob was a 2nd rounder traded for a 2nd rounder Cassell (+ Vrabel) for a 2nd. Cassell was a 7th round pick. AJ Feely was a 5th traded for a 2nd
Everyone else on the list was either a former starter, a failed high pick, not on their original team or was traded for a low round pickl
Personally I think the Bears are better off signing a different failed starter than Daniel and hoping to flip him to a QB needy team than taking a chance on trading a late round pick for a higher one. I'd much rather draft a Joel Iyiegbuniwe with his potential than a Dan LeFevour.
id rather have Orton then JoelI both 4ths and a far better value as he was a quality backup and decent starter that helped upgrade and put the bears over on den trade for Cutler.
I agree with #1. They should always within reason try to upgrade any position when they think they can get a better player. They know what Daniels can do, and maybe right now that is a good thing while mitch is still figuring things out, but at some point you want a better backup QB. I for one don't believe the myth that good backup QBs are out there. Good backup QBs tend to leave and become starters. But by drafting one ONCE MITCH IS ESTALISHED, you create the potential for a better backup.
#2 is a complete myth as far as I know. Trading a drafted late round QB for a high draft pick has only happened a few times as far as I know, and that includes the most recent which makes everyone think it happens often: JimmyG to San Fran (for a second by the way, same round he was picked in). Looking through this list at pro-footballreference you see that:
McCarron was a 5th round pick traded for a 4th. Ryan Mallett was a 3rd rounders traded for a 7th by B.Belchik San Fran did trade Alex Smith for two 2nds, but he was a first pick in the draft Kevin Knob was a 2nd rounder traded for a 2nd rounder Cassell (+ Vrabel) for a 2nd. Cassell was a 7th round pick. AJ Feely was a 5th traded for a 2nd
Everyone else on the list was either a former starter, a failed high pick, not on their original team or was traded for a low round pickl
Personally I think the Bears are better off signing a different failed starter than Daniel and hoping to flip him to a QB needy team than taking a chance on trading a late round pick for a higher one. I'd much rather draft a Joel Iyiegbuniwe with his potential than a Dan LeFevour.
id rather have Orton then JoelI both 4ths and a far better value as he was a quality backup and decent starter that helped upgrade and put the bears over on den trade for Cutler.
True for Orton. Comes back to drafting and where the team is at doesn't it. I still think you are more likely to get a non-factor than an Orton. I'm just more comfortable taking a non-QB over a QB late in the draft. But I see your Orton point.
id rather have Orton then JoelI both 4ths and a far better value as he was a quality backup and decent starter that helped upgrade and put the bears over on den trade for Cutler.
True for Orton. Comes back to drafting and where the team is at doesn't it. I still think you are more likely to get a non-factor than an Orton. I'm just more comfortable taking a non-QB over a QB late in the draft. But I see your Orton point.
depends on the gm, the hq/oc and if any qbs in thar rd match the skillset needed.
it's unfair to say x position is less likely to be a hit then all other positions. qb is going to be more depleated then all other positions that is true, but chances of finding an OT OLB CB and FS are also harder to find. but the gm has done well there so you just have to be advantageous.
Just depends on if there is a QB available to Pace in next year's mid-draft that they like as a prospect. Obviously there's no point to drafting a QB just to draft a QB. Having Nathan Enderle on your team doesn't add anything.
I would think a offensively-savvy HC like Nagy (a former QB himself) would have some pretty good scouting eyes when it comes to evaluation of college QBs. If there's someone still on the board in the 4th that they like and see potential in, I think its an investment worth the risk.
Aw come on. Don't you remember Dan LeFevour and all the stuff he did for us? Or David Fales?
Assuming you have your starter, I think you should aim to draft a ~ mid-round QB roughly every other year. Two reasons:
1) You maintain a pipeline of QBs on rookie contracts to compete for the backup spot rather than having to pay a crappy, no-upside-left vet $5-10 million a year. After this season, MT will have 3 years under his belt. Time for the training wheels to come off...in other words, he shouldn't need a "vet mentor" anymore. We all know what Chase Daniel is--he's a typical mediocre vet backup, with no future growth potential left.
2) If you happen to get lucky and find and/or develop a plausible starter talent, you now have a valuable trade commodity. At worst, he leaves when his rookie deal is up and you get a comp pick. Yes, its uncommon but it does happen. Garrapolo was a late 2nd rounder and both Cousins and Dak Prescott were 4th rounders. A backup QB on your roster that is seen as a potential starter by other teams (and there are QB-needy teams every single year) can net you a 2nd, maybe even a 1st, round pick in trade.
I agree with #1. They should always within reason try to upgrade any position when they think they can get a better player. They know what Daniels can do, and maybe right now that is a good thing while mitch is still figuring things out, but at some point you want a better backup QB. I for one don't believe the myth that good backup QBs are out there. Good backup QBs tend to leave and become starters. But by drafting one ONCE MITCH IS ESTALISHED, you create the potential for a better backup.
#2 is a complete myth as far as I know. Trading a drafted late round QB for a high draft pick has only happened a few times as far as I know, and that includes the most recent which makes everyone think it happens often: JimmyG to San Fran (for a second by the way, same round he was picked in). Looking through this list at pro-footballreference you see that:
McCarron was a 5th round pick traded for a 4th. Ryan Mallett was a 3rd rounders traded for a 7th by B.Belchik San Fran did trade Alex Smith for two 2nds, but he was a first pick in the draft Kevin Knob was a 2nd rounder traded for a 2nd rounder Cassell (+ Vrabel) for a 2nd. Cassell was a 7th round pick. AJ Feely was a 5th traded for a 2nd
Everyone else on the list was either a former starter, a failed high pick, not on their original team or was traded for a low round pickl
Personally I think the Bears are better off signing a different failed starter than Daniel and hoping to flip him to a QB needy team than taking a chance on trading a late round pick for a higher one. I'd much rather draft a Joel Iyiegbuniwe with his potential than a Dan LeFevour.
I try to point this out whenever the subject comes up. The recent example of Nick Foles was a very rare exception in that he was a backup QB (who sucked in St. Louis BTW) who was actually pretty damn good. The vast majority of the time however, the vet backup QBs available on the market are a pick-your-poison collection of dumpster dives. Chase Daniel, Brian Hoyer, whatever....does it really matter that much?
Your point about the trade bait thing was well-taken. I thought the trade history there was more favorable than it actually has been recently.