3 of the 4 remaining QBs

[Daa Bearrs]

Do you any statistical evidence to back this up or is it one of those fanboy "eye test" arguments?

Did you even read the rest of my post ya shithead? I said that you were enjoyable when you trolled nutty Cutler fanboys because I myself am not a big fan of Jay Cutler. All I said was that you have become really bitter and less entertaining since the extension. I'm more on your side than not, so don't look at me as the enemy dude.

 

[bearmick]

Did you even read the rest of my post ya shithead? I said that you were enjoyable when you trolled nutty Cutler fanboys because I myself am not a big fan of Jay Cutler. All I said was that you have become really bitter and less entertaining since the extension. I'm more on your side than not, so don't look at me as the enemy dude.

I don't like to use the green font because I feel sarcasm loses its humor when it's blatant about its intention, but that post was 100% kidding.

 

[Jester]

Did you even read the rest of my post ya shithead? I said that you were enjoyable when you trolled nutty Cutler fanboys because I myself am not a big fan of Jay Cutler. All I said was that you have become really bitter and less entertaining since the extension. I'm more on your side than not, so don't look at me as the enemy dude.

The fact that people consider each other "allies or enemies" over where they stand on Cutler is both sad and laughable. An even more sad, yet laughable, conversation are those making assumptions that a poster hates Forte if they like Cutler.

This really is a perfect example of how pathetic the internet and sports forums can be.

 

[Daa Bearrs]

I don't like to use the green font because I feel sarcasm loses its humor when it's blatant about its intention, but that post was 100% kidding.

Actually I agree with you on the green font thing, but for some reason the sarcasm went right over my head:tiptoe:

 

[onebud34]

The fact that people consider each other "allies or enemies" over where they stand on Cutler is both sad and laughable. An even more sad, yet laughable, conversation are those making assumptions that a poster hates Forte if they like Cutler.

This really is a perfect example of how pathetic the internet and sports forums can be.

Can it fanboy!

 

[Bearin' Down]

The fact that people consider each other "allies or enemies" over where they stand on Cutler is both sad and laughable. An even more sad, yet laughable, conversation are those making assumptions that a poster hates Forte if they like Cutler.

This really is a perfect example of how pathetic the internet and sports forums can be.

Your signature is too distracting

 

[Bones40]

are not first round picks. They are 2nd, 3rd and 6th round picks. And outside of Peyton, look at all the highest drafted QBs this weekend ...

Every one of those QBs were drafted to teams that already had a starter in place. All of them were plan B's. Why? Because the draft is a crapshoot. It worked out for NE, SF and Seattle in these three cases but didn't work out for 95% of the other QB picks (I pulled that percentage directly from my ass) . The guy they drafted ended up beating out the guy that was the starter. Brady and Kap only got in there because of injuries.

None of those guys were drafted to be the next franchise QB. They had obvious talent which merited being drafted in the first place, but none of them were drafted to start. It just further proves the point that the draft is a crap shoot. Yes, every team should be drafting a QB every year but very few of those picks ever amount to anything.

So those three teams had their starter in place, and then drafted a QB to develop behind them. That's exactly what the Bears are doing. You are pointing to those three franchises saying they did it right, the Bears are doing it wrong, yet the Bears are following the same plan.

When you go into the draft desperate to land your next franchise QB because you don't even have a starter on the roster, you are far more likely to end up with Jason Locker, Christian Ponder, David Carr, Blaine Gabbert etc. than you are with Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck.

I don't think anyone is against getting the next franchise QB on the roster as soon as possible, but it would be dumb to not have a quality starter in place when you begin that search if it's at all possible.

 

[bearmick]

So Bones, I take it you would be ok if they drafted a mid to late round developmental QB this year? Especially when you consider that Cutler doesn't usually play the full season.

 

[Scoot26]

So Bones, I take it you would be ok if they drafted a mid to late round developmental QB this year? Especially when you consider that Cutler doesn't usually play the full season.

Wait, who is against that?

 

[onebud34]

Wait, who is against that?

The "Jay just signed a 7 year deal, he's here for a while" crowd

 

[Scoot26]

The "Jay just signed a 7 year deal, he's here for a while" crowd

But why would anyone be against using a late pick on a developmental QB? I mean Josh McCown may not even resign. They'll need something there.

 

[Warrior Spirit]

Every one of those QBs were drafted to teams that already had a starter in place. All of them were plan B's. Why? Because the draft is a crapshoot. It worked out for NE, SF and Seattle in these three cases but didn't work out for 95% of the other QB picks (I pulled that percentage directly from my ass) . The guy they drafted ended up beating out the guy that was the starter. Brady and Kap only got in there because of injuries.

None of those guys were drafted to be the next franchise QB. They had obvious talent which merited being drafted in the first place, but none of them were drafted to start. It just further proves the point that the draft is a crap shoot. Yes, every team should be drafting a QB every year but very few of those picks ever amount to anything.

So those three teams had their starter in place, and then drafted a QB to develop behind them. That's exactly what the Bears are doing. You are pointing to those three franchises saying they did it right, the Bears are doing it wrong, yet the Bears are following the same plan.

When you go into the draft desperate to land your next franchise QB because you don't even have a starter on the roster, you are far more likely to end up with Jason Locker, Christian Ponder, David Carr, Blaine Gabbert etc. than you are with Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck.

I don't think anyone is against getting the next franchise QB on the roster as soon as possible, but it would be dumb to not have a quality starter in place when you begin that search if it's at all possible.

In truth, only 1 was a plan B and that would be Brady. Wilson was brought in to compete for the starting job with the new FA they had signed (Not already in place as starter). Kaepernick didn't just get in due to injury, he was already being worked in, slowly. Harbaugh was just looking for the right time to make the switch complete and had every intent of making Kaepernick his franchise QB at some point when he drafted him.

When you talk about guys like Locker, Ponder and Gabbert, they were desperate reaches and were seen as reaches by every expert and analyst covering the draft at the time. And I don't think Locker would be bad at all if he could stay healthy and you put a little bit more of talent around him. The fact that the great majority of starters in the NFL today were the starters for their teams from day 1 kind of kills your whole argument.

 

[hyatt151]

For a good steak all you should need is a knife and a fork

throw in a 2lb lobster tail and I'll use my hands!!!!!!!

 

[Bones40]

So Bones, I take it you would be ok if they drafted a mid to late round developmental QB this year? Especially when you consider that Cutler doesn't usually play the full season.

Yes I would be ok with that. I would even be ok with them using the #14 pick on a QB if Trestman was in love with a guy that fell or something. I'm not in love with Cutler but I do believe it was the right thing to bring him back and I think they shrewdly signed him to a deal that gives them a lot of flexibility going forward. I don't care where they get the next franchise guy, I just want them to always be looking for him just like the well run franchises do even though they have Rogers, Brady etc., while at the same time, not running the current franchise QB out of town before you have a replacement on the roster.


Sorry, that is some poor sentence structure. Hopefully I was clear enough.

 

[Bones40]

In truth, only 1 was a plan B and that would be Brady. Wilson was brought in to compete for the starting job with the new FA they had signed (Not already in place as starter). Kaepernick didn't just get in due to injury, he was already being worked in, slowly. Harbaugh was just looking for the right time to make the switch complete and had every intent of making Kaepernick his franchise QB at some point when he drafted him.

When you talk about guys like Locker, Ponder and Gabbert, they were desperate reaches and were seen as reaches by every expert and analyst covering the draft at the time. And I don't think Locker would be bad at all if he could stay healthy and you put a little bit more of talent around him. The fact that the great majority of starters in the NFL today were the starters for their teams from day 1 kind of kills your whole argument.

How many of them are "quality" starters, though? I don't think it kills my argument at all, and I think you're smart enough to know that.

edit: Oh, I agree on Locker.

 

[Broc]

Wait, who is against that?

Nobody.

Mick, onebud, etc just like to pretend like there's this huge portion of posters against it so that they can justify their anti-Cutler agenda and never ending whining.

 

[onebud34]

Nobody.

Mick, onebud, etc just like to pretend like there's this huge portion of posters against it so that they can justify their anti-Cutler agenda and never ending whining.

I think it's more a vocal minority

 

[Broc]

I think it's more a vocal minority

Ok and who exactly is this vocal minority? Can you even name anyone? Are these any posters of significance or just random no-name lurkers with ~5 total posts?

I'm serious... Can you guys name even name a single poster who shares the opinion that has your jimmies so rustled?

 

[onebud34]

You spend a majority of your time defending them while concocting your hyperbole

 

[Broc]

You spend a majority of your time defending them while concocting your hyperbole

LOL just as I thought you can't even name one person. But by all means don't let that stop you.. please carry on with your valiant quest to rid the message board of this imaginary "vocal minority" that exists solely in your and Mick's delusional minds.