3 of the 4 remaining QBs

[Bearly]

Personally, I hate the whole, "They're in the NFL! They know more than you!" shit.

Josh McDaniels is in the NFL. When he thought it was a good move to draft Tim Tebow in the first round, should no fan have questioned that move or called it stupid? I mean, McDaniels was an offensive genius in New England. Clearly he knew more than any fan.

Or how about when the Jets gave Mark Sanchez an extension and a bunch of fans laughed at them. Who are fans to laugh? Their GM and Rex Ryan knew what they had in Sanchez. Wtf does anyone else know?

Of course they know more than you do. No one said they were infallible which also weakens the absolutes form the other side of the argument as well. Using a couple poor choices over the years as an example of all GMs not getting it isn't really that strong of an indictment. They get a lot more wrong than that but on average, they'd kick our ass in a draft room, even without a QB whisperer.

It's a draft. Guys think they can fix players. Tebow actually looked like he may amount to something just before the draft in private workouts after working with.....Trestman. Fortunately, Trestman has a clue and had no interest in the guy when he became available. A problem with QBs is that teams reach early because they are really hard to find and they don't want one that might work out to get away.

 

[Guitarman]

Is that of interest to you, or are you just desperately trying to cover up the fact that the Bears just blew their next three years by signing your favorite player instead of getting a young guy to compete with the better teams?

I'm pleased that the Bears were smarter than "fans" like you. They realize Cutler is the best QB we've had in like, FOREVER and that the defense is the real issue.

 

[Sculpt]

McCown has already said he is not retiring. Franchise QBs usually start right away and many have had immediate success so no cause for 3 years of developing. packers didn't get Rodgers to sit on the bench that long, Favre was just going into that I'm retiring/I'm not retiring mode. And you can't keep drafting QBs until you find your franchise QB when they're not being given playing time. It doesn't work like that.

Seriously, Spartan, I thought you knew NFL history better than this. Starting rookie QBs has NEVER been considered wise or best, and is very rare. The conventional wisdom, in 100 years plus of the pro football, is that a year or two of waiting and watching on the sidelines will be a huge benefit to even the greatest potential pro quarterbacks. Rookie QBs with any success, is a very recent occurrance, is no where close to the norm, and has happened when teams are forced in to it. As always, there have been successful rookie QBs, but it's a rare exception, not the rule. Are you debating this?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...acked-against-rookie-quarterbacks-in-playoffs 2011
Dan Marino, Bernie Kosar, Jim Everett, Todd Marinovich, Shaun King, Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan and Mark Sanchez are the only rookie quarterbacks since the NFL-AFL merger to take their teams to the playoffs.

As of 2011, that's 9 rookie QBs in 41 years; 9 out of some 1230 teams. Does 0.007% success rate sound like a good plan to you?

 

[Warrior Spirit]

I'm pleased that the Bears were smarter than "fans" like you. They realize Cutler is the best QB we've had in like, FOREVER and that the defense is the real issue.

Before that defense was the issue, that QB still couldn't get it done.

 

[BNB]

Of course they know more than you do. No one said they were infallible which also weakens the absolutes form the other side of the argument as well. Using a couple poor choices over the years as an example of all GMs not getting it isn't really that strong of an indictment. They get a lot more wrong than that but on average, they'd kick our ass in a draft room, even without a QB whisperer.

It's a draft. Guys think they can fix players. Tebow actually looked like he may amount to something just before the draft in private workouts after working with.....Trestman. Fortunately, Trestman has a clue and had no interest in the guy when he became available. A problem with QBs is that teams reach early because they are really hard to find and they don't want one that might work out to get away.

I didn't say I know more than a coach or a GM. I said I hate when people use that, mostly in an argument. "Well they know more than you so I trust them and that's that."

Well, that isn't that because GM's and coaches make terrible decisions all the time.

I used those two examples because they were the first two that came in mind. I can think of a shit ton more examples of terrible moves GM's made that seemed awful at the time they were made.... and wound up being awful moves.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

Seriously, Spartan, I thought you knew NFL history better than this. Starting rookie QBs has NEVER been considered wise or best, and is very rare. The conventional wisdom, in 100 years plus of the pro football, is that a year or two of waiting and watching on the sidelines will be a huge benefit to even the greatest potential pro quarterbacks. Rookie QBs with any success, is a very recent occurrance, is no where close to the norm, and has happened when teams are forced in to it. As always, there have been successful rookie QBs, but it's a rare exception, not the rule. Are you debating this?

I know history very well but if you look at the current trend over the last several years, it's been sign and go. Just looking back from 2008,

2008 Ryan and Flacco drafted and start right away
2009 Matt Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, - all drafted and all starters that same season.
2010 Bradford drafted and started and the Tebow thing.
2011 Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, Dalton all drafted and started same season
2012 Luck, Tannehill, RG3, Weeden, Wilson all drafted and started same season
2013 manuel, Smith, Glennon, all drafted and started same season.

Hey, I remember the old days too when QB's sat for 1 year or so but it just doesn't happen like that anymore. You'd be hard pressed to name QBs in the past 5 years or so who actually were sat for a year or 2 with the intent of being starters further down the line.

 

[Broc]

Yes, I have several QBs in mind. We've discussed this year's rookie class at length on many occasions.

Yup and each time I asked for specifics you hid behind the "I will defer to Emery and Trestman judgement" excuse... and what a shock, you still can't give a straight answer to a simple question. But I suppose it suits the agenda better to not give a specific answer so you can maximize your whining.

But truthfully we should all thank you Mick as you've truly set us all free from the burden of actually having to care about what happens in NFL football for the next 7 years. Thanks to your prediction that Kaepernick is going to be the leagues best player for the next 7 years no one has to stress anymore over what the Bears do or how they play... Who gives a shit who they draft of if they lose every game.. it's not like they have a chance with Cutler anyways am I right?! Everyone know football isn't a team sport, it's QB vs QB and the 49er's are going to have the best player the NFL has ever seen dominate every game for the next 7 years!!! We're doomed!!!

Our only hope is if Phil and Trest somehow get in touch with you before April so they can find out what QB they should be drafting from a true expert of the game. They are really going to need your eye for talent if they're going to draft someone that can beat Kaepernick in QB to QB battle. LOL! I would LOVE to listen in on that phone conversation when you tell them they should "just draft any of the first 6-8 QB because any of them is guaranteed to be better than Cutler" and they proceed to call you a meatball and hang up laughing hysterically.

 

[ijustposthere]

I know history very well but if you look at the current trend over the last several years, it's been sign and go. Just looking back from 2008,

2008 Ryan and Flacco drafted and start right away
2009 Matt Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, - all drafted and all starters that same season.
2010 Bradford drafted and started and the Tebow thing.
2011 Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, Dalton all drafted and started same season
2012 Luck, Tannehill, RG3, Weeden, Wilson all drafted and started same season
2013 manuel, Smith, Glennon, all drafted and started same season.

Hey, I remember the old days too when QB's sat for 1 year or so but it just doesn't happen like that anymore. You'd be hard pressed to name QBs in the past 5 years or so who actually were sat for a year or 2 with the intent of being starters further down the line.

Not counting this years 3, but 38% of those QBs have been replaced, or the teams are looking for, a replacement. Also not sure Glennon & Smith will make it either which means 8 of the 19 would fail. They start, but not necessarily succeed. It's not a good sample for the argument.

 

[Broc]

Before that defense was the issue, that QB still couldn't get it done.

True, Grossman did suck.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

Not counting this years 3, but 38% of those QBs have been, or the teams are looking for, a replacement. Also not sure Glennon & Smith will make it either which means 8 of the 19 would fail. They start, but not necessarily succeed. It's not a good sample for the argument.

Name 8 or 9 that were recently developed over a year or 2 before starting

 

[ijustposthere]

I would like the Bears to use their top picks on defense, but if McCarron is available in the 3rd/4th, I think he'd be worth it. To me, he seems like a great fit for this offense. Anything earlier than a 3rd/4th developmental pick, is a waste in my opinion. I also wouldn't be opposed to not drafting a QB at all and using everything on defense, with one being used on a center. I think they should look to draft a developmental QB by year 3 of Cutler's deal in case he doesn't pan out too well.

 

[ijustposthere]

Name 8 or 9 that were recently developed over a year or 2 before starting

You're missing the point. The NFL may be following this model, but the fact that many are failing aren't a good sample for the model. Unless you have a top pick a la Luck or RG3, I think it does the QB more benefit to sit for one year before being thrown into the fire.

 

[KPBears]

And since 1990, 14 Super Bowl winning QB's have been 1st round picks, and 10 have been drafted in subsequent rounds (or in the case of Warner, undrafted) giving 1st rounders a total of 14 to 10. And or course Brees was the 1st pick in the second round and Fav-Re was also a 2nd round pick (not exactly under the radar guys). Congratulations, all you are doing is opening up yourself to the point that 1st round QB's are more likely than every other fucking round combined to win SB's. Go jerk off to your homemade Josh-Luke McCown fathead.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

You're missing the point. The NFL may be following this model, but the fact that many are failing aren't a good sample for the model. Unless you have a top pick a la Luck or RG3, I think it does the QB more benefit to sit for one year before being thrown into the fire.

Many who were brought along more slowly failed too. The point is it's not something teams do anymore and is no more a sure thing for success. Only recent QB held back for a year or more that I can think of is Kaepernick and that was just cause Harbaugh had a vision beyond Smith when he first took the HC position. Look at all the starters in the NFL today and the overwhelming majority became starters in their first year.

 

[ijustposthere]

Many who were brought along more slowly failed too. The point is it's not something teams do anymore and is no more a sure thing for success. Only recent QB held back for a year or more that I can think of is Kaepernick and that was just cause Harbaugh had a vision beyond Smith when he first took the HC position. Look at all the starters in the NFL today and the overwhelming majority became starters in their first year.

The overwhelming majority were also fairly high picks, first rounders at the very least.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

The overwhelming majority were also fairly high picks, first rounders at the very least.

Not that overwhelming. I'd say half the starters in the NFL are 1st rounders. 3 of the final 4 this year are not.

 

[Bearly]

I know history very well but if you look at the current trend over the last several years, it's been sign and go. Just looking back from 2008,

2008 Ryan and Flacco drafted and start right away
2009 Matt Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, - all drafted and all starters that same season.
2010 Bradford drafted and started and the Tebow thing.
2011 Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, Dalton all drafted and started same season
2012 Luck, Tannehill, RG3, Weeden, Wilson all drafted and started same season
2013 manuel, Smith, Glennon, all drafted and started same season.

Hey, I remember the old days too when QB's sat for 1 year or so but it just doesn't happen like that anymore. You'd be hard pressed to name QBs in the past 5 years or so who actually were sat for a year or 2 with the intent of being starters further down the line.

Not counting this years 3, but 38% of those QBs have been replaced, or the teams are looking for, a replacement. Also not sure Glennon & Smith will make it either which means 8 of the 19 would fail. They start, but not necessarily succeed. It's not a good sample for the argument.

That's also not all the early QB selections. The others have been easily forgotten. Locker, Osweiler, Clauson, McCoy, White, Brohm, Henne, O'Connell. Take it back 2 more years and you've got Russell, Quinn, Kolb, Beck, Stanton, Edwards, Young, Leinart, Clemens, Jackson, Whitehurst and Croyle. Many of these were promoted as needs by Bear fans.

 

[DrGonzo]

LOL you talk like it's some guaranteed lock the Bears would wind up drafting the leagues next QB superstar...

Yes it's hypothetically possible they could draft the next Brady in the 6th or the next Wilson or Kap in the 2nd or 3rd but there's no guarantee. They could just as likely draft someone completely average, another Rex Grossman or Kyle Orton who never lives up to your lofty expectations and becomes another NFL journeyman and wastes the next 3 years anyways...

You can cry about the extension all you want and call the people who defend it "short sighted" but I'd argue that putting all your eggs in the rookie QB basket as you seem to advocate and praying that you hit the jackpot on the draft slot machine because your jealous of the other teams that got lucky is equally as short sighted an laughably moronic.

I don't blame Phil at all for covering his ass with Cutler. He bought himself 3 more years to draft and develop a new QB to take over. I'm sure he'll probably end up drafting one this year to develop so I don't know why you feel the need to continually cry about it. It might not be in the first round but again, does it really matter since we can simply draft the next Tom Brady in the 6th right?

Obviously you don't get it, cause Mick said can't win with Cutler/rookie pick = winner. Duh.

 

[gpphat]

You're missing the point. The NFL may be following this model, but the fact that many are failing aren't a good sample for the model. Unless you have a top pick a la Luck or RG3, I think it does the QB more benefit to sit for one year before being thrown into the fire.

How many of those QB's came into a situation similar to what the Bears have now? Some were lucky enough to have either 1 top WR or RB, but the Bears have 2 top WR's, a top RB, a good TE, a good OL, and coaches that are good at developing QB talent. Now I'm not saying any QB brought in can step in and be amazing from the get go. But the cards are stacked in the rookie QB's favor. Obviously now if the Bears draft a QB, it will be to develop them and groom them to be Cutler's replacement...but the point is, most QB's when they are drafted and are on a team that needs them to start right away, the team tends to have other problems on the offensive side of the ball.

That has been my argument the whole time and my reasoning why I felt Cutler was expendable...yes drafting a QB can be a crap shoot, but its usually that way because QB's that are drafted to start right away don't normally come into a situation like the Bears.

 

[Jester]

How many of those QB's came into a situation similar to what the Bears have now? Some were lucky enough to have either 1 top WR or RB, but the Bears have 2 top WR's, a top RB, a good TE, a good OL, and coaches that are good at developing QB talent. Now I'm not saying any QB brought in can step in and be amazing from the get go. But the cards are stacked in the rookie QB's favor. Obviously now if the Bears draft a QB, it will be to develop them and groom them to be Cutler's replacement...but the point is, most QB's when they are drafted and are on a team that needs them to start right away, the team tends to have other problems on the offensive side of the ball.

That has been my argument the whole time and my reasoning why I felt Cutler was expendable...yes drafting a QB can be a crap shoot, but its usually that way because QB's that are drafted to start right away don't normally come into a situation like the Bears.

I agree with your post, not just the bold. I don't have an unhealthy hatred for Cutler as a few around here, but I do believe we could have been ok not signing him due to the solid offense we have right now. We have A LOT of weapons on offense now, and most important, a serviceable Oline. McCown being successful proved to me that we can have a solid offense with a smart QB making good decisions, even if that QB has lesser physical ability/ceiling than Cutler. However, I don't feel like a Superbowl is impossible with Cutler starting for the Bears either.

A few years ago our offense and line was so bad that it would have been suicide for any new QB, it simply would have ruined him. Cutler did a lot with almost ZERO talent on offense besides a very talented Forte. Now we have the type of team that a rookie QB could have flourished in.