Post by paytonisgod on Mar 3, 2017 12:37:36 GMT -6
Talent rich teams can draft on need and since that isn't us we should be going BPA. You have to think long term for this team.
There is no must have QB in this draft. That means if Garrett is available you take him. I like McPhee a lot but if his knee is a permanent thing we are going to be in real need of playmakers on the edge.
The QB talent in this draft also seems to be relatively flat. There is no obvious 1,2,3, ranking of them. So it's likely someone is going to slip into the high first/low second round despite being just as talented as the guys taken first. This happened to both Bridgewater and Rogers.
That way we could walk away with a possible defensive pro bowler and a QB who could possibly be developed into a future franchise QB, or at the least a cheap placeholder until we find one.
Talent rich teams can draft on need and since that isn't us we should be going BPA. You have to think long term for this team.
There is no must have QB in this draft. That means if Garrett is available you take him. I like McPhee a lot but if his knee is a permanent thing we are going to be in real need of playmakers on the edge.
The QB talent in this draft also seems to be relatively flat. There is no obvious 1,2,3, ranking of them. So it's likely someone is going to slip into the high first/low second round despite being just as talented as the guys taken first. This happened to both Bridgewater and Rogers.
That way we could walk away with a possible defensive pro bowler and a QB who could possibly be developed into a future franchise QB, or at the least a cheap placeholder until we find one.
I disagree somewhat with this. To me there is an obvious ranking of them, with only 1 and 2 being debatable. And as I've said...I don't think Garrett is the sure thing difference maker everyone seems to point him out to be. Look at the film...it doesn't lie. His best game this season came against Texas-San Antonio. He was a virtual non-factor against Ole Miss, LSU, Kansas State, and Arkansas. I like the physical abilities...but I just don't see it on film with the guy.
Draft a hopefully franchise QB at #3? sounds reasonable, but do we have any confidence in the abilities of Johnny the Fox or Logjam and Crew to actually coach him up? I still think BPA is the way to go at #3. We NEED an impact player. If that guy happens to be a QB that's great, but we can't afford to reach for a QB this year.
Draft a hopefully franchise QB at #3? sounds reasonable, but do we have any confidence in the abilities of Johnny the Fox or Logjam and Crew to actually coach him up? I still think BPA is the way to go at #3. We NEED an impact player. If that guy happens to be a QB that's great, but we can't afford to reach for a QB this year.
This idea that "we don't have the coaches" or that "we've never been able to draft a qb" needs to go out the friggen window. If Pace doesn't think these coaches can develop a QB than these coaches should be fired. And truthfully it doesn't matter what you or I or Joe Blow at the bar think about these coaches skills because we aren't Pace and we aren't employed by NFL teams. I mean do we have any confidence a receiver can be developed, or a lineman, or a OLB, or a corner? Maybe we should just skip the draft all together and just trade away our picks.
Draft a hopefully franchise QB at #3? sounds reasonable, but do we have any confidence in the abilities of Johnny the Fox or Logjam and Crew to actually coach him up? I still think BPA is the way to go at #3. We NEED an impact player. If that guy happens to be a QB that's great, but we can't afford to reach for a QB this year.
This idea that "we don't have the coaches" or that "we've never been able to draft a qb" needs to go out the friggen window. If Pace doesn't think these coaches can develop a QB than these coaches should be fired. And truthfully it doesn't matter what you or I or Joe Blow at the bar think about these coaches skills because we aren't Pace and we aren't employed by NFL teams. I mean do we have any confidence a receiver can be developed, or a lineman, or a OLB, or a corner? Maybe we should just skip the draft all together and just trade away our picks.
I think that it's been a long road for Bears fans and it's getting harder and harder to believe in the franchise. We want to believe that this time, with this present group (George McCaskey, Ted Phillips, Ryan Pace, John Fox & the other coaches) things will be different. That somehow, someway, we will draft a great QB and we will see a great team here. But I do understand the doubts. Yes, this is a new crew in charge and the past history is past. But we've cycled through a lot of new crews over the decades here.
I remain hopeful that THIS time it will be different. But I also understand how hard it is to continue to believe in the franchise. I've been a fan for about 55 years now. I am out on the ledge and getting closer to jumping with each new GM/HC failure. It helped me to see the Cubs finally win a World Series though. Seriously, that made me think that someday it will be better with the Bears. LOL, the 3-win season last year was a kick in the nuts though.
Draft a hopefully franchise QB at #3? sounds reasonable, but do we have any confidence in the abilities of Johnny the Fox or Logjam and Crew to actually coach him up? I still think BPA is the way to go at #3. We NEED an impact player. If that guy happens to be a QB that's great, but we can't afford to reach for a QB this year.
This idea that "we don't have the coaches" or that "we've never been able to draft a qb" needs to go out the friggen window. If Pace doesn't think these coaches can develop a QB than these coaches should be fired. And truthfully it doesn't matter what you or I or Joe Blow at the bar think about these coaches skills because we aren't Pace and we aren't employed by NFL teams. I mean do we have any confidence a receiver can be developed, or a lineman, or a OLB, or a corner? Maybe we should just skip the draft all together and just trade away our picks.
WE kinda do that, except we pick them anyway. Then we develop them. If they get to be good, we release them. This way, it gives the coaches something to develop in the meantime
Talent rich teams can draft on need and since that isn't us we should be going BPA. You have to think long term for this team.
There is no must have QB in this draft. That means if Garrett is available you take him. I like McPhee a lot but if his knee is a permanent thing we are going to be in real need of playmakers on the edge.
The QB talent in this draft also seems to be relatively flat. There is no obvious 1,2,3, ranking of them. So it's likely someone is going to slip into the high first/low second round despite being just as talented as the guys taken first. This happened to both Bridgewater and Rogers.
That way we could walk away with a possible defensive pro bowler and a QB who could possibly be developed into a future franchise QB, or at the least a cheap placeholder until we find one.
I disagree somewhat with this. To me there is an obvious ranking of them, with only 1 and 2 being debatable. And as I've said...I don't think Garrett is the sure thing difference maker everyone seems to point him out to be. Look at the film...it doesn't lie. His best game this season came against Texas-San Antonio. He was a virtual non-factor against Ole Miss, LSU, Kansas State, and Arkansas. I like the physical abilities...but I just don't see it on film with the guy.
I'm not really making a claim on Garrett's talent (I've only seen a little of his play). I was just using him to make a point about not drafting for need especially in that this QB class is far from spectacular. Even if you think the difference between them is much larger, given their upsides and downsides, the overall evident talent isn't there to push aside players who are more likely to make significant contributions to the team.
QBs are very feast or famine. They usually either work out and add significantly to the team or they flame out and become a drag on it. Other player positions usually have less variance. For instance a first round lineman may not ever become a pro bowler but he plays well enough to start. The team is getting something for him. A QB who doesn't work out as a starter isn't providing anything and likely just becomes a back up on someone else's team after being released. We may as well have just thrown the team's first pick in the garbage in that case.
I disagree somewhat with this. To me there is an obvious ranking of them, with only 1 and 2 being debatable. And as I've said...I don't think Garrett is the sure thing difference maker everyone seems to point him out to be. Look at the film...it doesn't lie. His best game this season came against Texas-San Antonio. He was a virtual non-factor against Ole Miss, LSU, Kansas State, and Arkansas. I like the physical abilities...but I just don't see it on film with the guy.
I'm not really making a claim on Garrett's talent (I've only seen a little of his play). I was just using him to make a point about not drafting for need especially in that this QB class is far from spectacular. Even if you think the difference between them is much larger, given their upsides and downsides, the overall evident talent isn't there to push aside players who are more likely to make significant contributions to the team.
QBs are very feast or famine. They usually either work out and add significantly to the team or they flame out and become a drag on it. Other player positions usually have less variance. For instance a first round lineman may not ever become a pro bowler but he plays well enough to start. The team is getting something for him. A QB who doesn't work out as a starter isn't providing anything and likely just becomes a back up on someone else's team after being released. We may as well have just thrown the team's first pick in the garbage in that case.
Yeah, again...why is it one measurement of success for QB's and something totally different for every other position? A QB is no different than any other position when it comes to contribution. If you draft a QB and he ends up being a mid line starter...they aren't contributing? The team isn't getting something from them?
And I disagree about the QB's in this draft. If Watson comes out last year he's the #1 player taken...hands down. So all of a sudden drafting him at 3 is a question and a reach? Please.
I'm not really making a claim on Garrett's talent (I've only seen a little of his play). I was just using him to make a point about not drafting for need especially in that this QB class is far from spectacular. Even if you think the difference between them is much larger, given their upsides and downsides, the overall evident talent isn't there to push aside players who are more likely to make significant contributions to the team.
QBs are very feast or famine. They usually either work out and add significantly to the team or they flame out and become a drag on it. Other player positions usually have less variance. For instance a first round lineman may not ever become a pro bowler but he plays well enough to start. The team is getting something for him. A QB who doesn't work out as a starter isn't providing anything and likely just becomes a back up on someone else's team after being released. We may as well have just thrown the team's first pick in the garbage in that case.
Yeah, again...why is it one measurement of success for QB's and something totally different for every other position? A QB is no different than any other position when it comes to contribution. If you draft a QB and he ends up being a mid line starter...they aren't contributing? The team isn't getting something from them?
And I disagree about the QB's in this draft. If Watson comes out last year he's the #1 player taken...hands down. So all of a sudden drafting him at 3 is a question and a reach? Please.
Watson has problems like every other QB in this. So what if he would have been picked no. 1 last year. Further games have shown he has some real concerns.
Goff was picked no. 1 last draft. How's he helped his team so far? Bosa would have been a far better pick but they "needed a QB." The Bears even got more contribution from Floyd despite missing a number of games. Goff might turn into a good QB but he certainly wasn't a contributor last year and from what I saw could very well end up being a bust. Even if Floyd only becomes a solid starter his value will be much greater than Goff if he flames out.
What many of us are trying to say is that if you don't solve the QB issue, nothing else you do matters. Nothing. So when you have the third pick you take the QB. Browns have 2 first round picks, they can afford to take a defender and then reach with 12 for a QB. I'd take either Watson or Kizer and not even thing twice about it.