3 of the 4 remaining QBs

[gpphat]

Locker was effectively benched his first year. He seemed to show improvements this year, his third year.

Don't forget he has also been injured pretty much every year of his career

 

[Bones40]

Like who?

It's hard to prove, which is why I said, "to me". But guys like Carr, Harrington, Sanchez, Boller, Losman, VY, Leinart, Russel, Quinn, possibly Alex Smith etc. etc.


Sure, some of them failed because they just sucked. I think some of them might have been decent if given some time behind a quality starter for a year or two before taking the reigns. Like I said, purely subjective, hard to argue. Just my opinion.

 

[Bones40]

It would sort of be impossible to say either way. But I agree that the Bones was mistaken to make that claim unless he could back it up.

I didn't make a claim. I stated an opinion. There's a pretty big difference.

 

[DMelt36]

I agree that the Bears have put all their faith in Cutler this year and regardless if they draft a QB in this years draft, the only way that rookie sees the field in the regular season is either during a blow out or during Cutler's annual injury. The only thing I disagree is that a QB needs to be drafted relatively early this year, I understand why they wouldn't and that chances are they probably won't draft a QB this year...but the McCown insurance policy won't be there for much longer and if Trestman wants to start grooming a QB the earlier the better.

I just think you've got so much work to do with the defense that you can't afford to use a pick on a QB this year. You've got to replenish multiple starting positions as well as adding some depth. Picking a few more guys that can be special teamers is going to be crucial as well. There's a LOT to be done there. I think you let Cutler use the upcoming season with all the weapons, 2nd year in the same system, etc., and see if he can put together the season we all hope he can. Doing that can give you a better idea of how soon you'll need to draft a QB in 2015 as well as how high in the draft you should look for said QB.

I won't pretend to have any knowledge on how well the QB draft classes are from 2014 to 2015, but that could be something that makes me change my mind on this.

 

[gpphat]

I just think you've got so much work to do with the defense that you can't afford to use a pick on a QB this year. You've got to replenish multiple starting positions as well as adding some depth. Picking a few more guys that can be special teamers is going to be crucial as well. There's a LOT to be done there. I think you let Cutler use the upcoming season with all the weapons, 2nd year in the same system, etc., and see if he can put together the season we all hope he can. Doing that can give you a better idea of how soon you'll need to draft a QB in 2015 as well as how high in the draft you should look for said QB.

I won't pretend to have any knowledge on how well the QB draft classes are from 2014 to 2015, but that could be something that makes me change my mind on this.

Defense needs plenty of work, but it will come down to what they do in FA. If they can get a couple of guys who will be starters, then I think they will have a little more wiggle room in the draft where they could draft a QB. But if they can't bring in at least a d-lineman or a safety then they won't have much of a choice but to grab defense early and maybe even trade down to pick up another 1 or 2 picks.

 

[onebud34]

Flynn's contract makes it seem like Wilson won that job far earlier than they expected. Even so, what Seattle did (pay for a high priced QB in the same year they draft a guy they hope to develop) is exactly what the Bears seem to be doing.

While that may all be true, they didn't draft Kaep with the trust he would be the next franchise guy. They had their starter in place to allow Kaep to develop as the back up or in case Kaep didn't end up being what they thought he was.


I disagree. It seems more young QBs are ruined by being thrown to the wolves than benefit from it. The guys that can handle it are generally in the group that goes in the top 10 of a draft.

It's always better to have more options. Having Cutler on the roster gives more options. You could argue that McCown does as well, but then what? What if McCown can't continue being the third best QB in the league and the rookie we draft does not pan out? Then we are in no man's land again. Retaining Cutler keeps us out of no man's land. And that, to me, is very valuable.

*edit - I think I misunderstood that last quoted portion. I read it the first time as "If we draft Cutlers replacement, it would be in his best interest to start this year." Meaning, if we draft a dude, that dude should start this year. Which, I don't think you meant anymore.

Wilsons big knock was his size...I watched him when he was playing at WI...and thought he was a really solid QB.

And Harbaugh...whether you like him or hate him has the same "quarterback whisperer" qualities that Trestman is touted for. So I'm under the impression Kaep was drafted to be that guy. You don't take a WAC QB that high in the draft unless you are confident he's going to be someone besides the clipboard holder.

And I think QB like pass rushers or quality O-linemen....you can never have enough of. This draft seems to be pretty QB heavy.

 

[FirstTimer]

It's hard to prove, which is why I said, "to me". But guys like Carr, Harrington, Sanchez, Boller, Losman, VY, Leinart, Russel, Quinn, possibly Alex Smith etc. etc.


Sure, some of them failed because they just sucked. I think some of them might have been decent if given some time behind a quality starter for a year or two before taking the reigns. Like I said, purely subjective, hard to argue. Just my opinion.

That's kind of the deal. I can start throwing out names of guys that started from very early on that have turned into long term starters etc.

 

[Bearin' Down]

I didn't make a claim. I stated an opinion. There's a pretty big difference.

While absolutely pointless to discuss, I'd still like to know the "big difference" between the "opinion" you provided and a claim that someone makes. Additionally, how would you convert your opinion into a claim, if there is such a big difference in what you said and what a claim is? To be clear, this is the line we are taking about, not some retroactive interpretation that you come up with:

I disagree. It seems more young QBs are ruined by being thrown to the wolves than benefit from it. The guys that can handle it are generally in the group that goes in the top 10 of a draft.

Seems to me, you've disagreed and then affirmatively stated that more young qbs are ruined by being thrown to the wolves with no proof to back it up. Since we are debating this, here is the definition of the word "claim"

state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

How is what you did any different?

 

[onebud34]

I get that Cutler is 30 years old and isn't going to play forever. But, to me, if you're going to throw a 7-year deal worth, potentially, well over $100 million, I have to believe that you're going all-in as an organization on that QB. Which means that just about the entire focus for the Bears next draft should be on the defensive side of the ball.

Whether or not you agree with the decision to keep Cutler, in this argument, is irrelevant, IMO. I don't know if you can afford to throw that much money at a QB and then draft the guy that's ultimately going to replace him in the same offseason.

I think you have to put all of your faith in Cutler, at least for this season. Spend every available penny you've got on that defense. Then if there are signs that Cutler isn't going to live up to that contract he just signed (please discount the previous years of Cutler's tenure in Chicago when processing that sentence), you go after that next young QB in the 2015 offseason.

Here's the problem I have with that...the offense was relatively healthy this year and if you don't pay attention to the that side of the ball you could put yourself in a very shit situation. Ironically...the only major injury we had last year was to the QB and were fortunate enough that the backup came in and was able to outplay him. And that was their big contract. Cutler's durability is a big red flag for me...but that's a totally different subject.

I think the marquee money (outside of the Cutler contract) will go towards the defensive side of the ball. But shouldn't be where we spend all of our dollars. The really good teams are able to be competitive with injuries. We really weren't...and haven't been for a long time

 

[DMelt36]

Defense needs plenty of work, but it will come down to what they do in FA. If they can get a couple of guys who will be starters, then I think they will have a little more wiggle room in the draft where they could draft a QB. But if they can't bring in at least a d-lineman or a safety then they won't have much of a choice but to grab defense early and maybe even trade down to pick up another 1 or 2 picks.

Yeah that's a good point. I guess this is something that would need to be revisited around draft time, once the Bears have had some time to make moves in the FA market.

I have heard the statement that onebud referenced, that this is a pretty heavy QB draft class. If they can fix a lot of holes through FA, I wouldn't be completely opposed to the idea of picking up a QB (preferably in the later rounds, though) in this year's draft. I just think defense has to be the No. 1 focus in all player acquisition avenues right now.

 

[onebud34]

While absolutely pointless to discuss, I'd still like to know the "big difference" between the "opinion" you provided and a claim that someone makes. Additionally, how would you convert your opinion into a claim, if there is such a big difference in what you said and what a claim is? To be clear, this is the line we are taking about, not some retroactive interpretation that you come up with:

Claim needs a few more posts before it gets any credibility round here

 

[FirstTimer]

Here's the problem I have with that...the offense was relatively healthy this year and if you don't pay attention to the that side of the ball you could put yourself in a very shit situation. Ironically...the only major injury we had last year was to the QB and were fortunate enough that the backup came in and was able to outplay him. And that was their big contract. Cutler's durability is a big red flag for me...but that's a totally different subject.

I think the marquee money (outside of the Cutler contract) will go towards the defensive side of the ball. But shouldn't be where we spend all of our dollars. The really good teams are able to be competitive with injuries. We really weren't...and haven't been for a long time

Understand your worry and I get what you are saying but the good organizations build depth through the draft. If the depth issue is what people are talking about here then that's 90% drafting IMO.

 

[onebud34]

Understand your worry and I get what you are saying but the good organizations build depth through the draft. If the depth issue is what people are talking about here then that's 90% drafting IMO.

Very true...I mean didn't we all think Dan Bauzin was going to be the next Trace Armstrong?

 

[FirstTimer]

Very true...I mean didn't we all think Dan Bauzin was going to be the next Trace Armstrong?

Jarron Gilbert is the next Alonzo Spellman right?

 

[Bones40]

That's kind of the deal. I can start throwing out names of guys that started from very early on that have turned into long term starters etc.

Yeah. I haven't done any extensive research on it. It's just my general opinion on the matter. My mind could easily be changed by compelling evidence. I just don't really think that evidence exists without a time machine.

All the QBs drafted in the first round have a good deal of physical talent. That's why they were drafted in the first round. Playing football, especially QB, has a great deal to do with confidence. Some guys are just born with it, some guys need it developed, some guys will never have it. On one end of the spectrum you have guys that clearly have it (P. Manning, Luck, Wilson etc.) These guys are going to rise above and be great at some point no matter what. But if you start with a guy who doesn't naturally have it, it's just going to keep going downhill when they are thrown to the fire and have very limited success. It will get to the point of them being ruined, especially once the fans turn on them.

I think most rookie QBs fall into that latter group. Like I said, just a general opinion I have. No way to prove it.

 

[DMelt36]

Here's the problem I have with that...the offense was relatively healthy this year and if you don't pay attention to the that side of the ball you could put yourself in a very shit situation. Ironically...the only major injury we had last year was to the QB and were fortunate enough that the backup came in and was able to outplay him. And that was their big contract. Cutler's durability is a big red flag for me...but that's a totally different subject.

I think the marquee money (outside of the Cutler contract) will go towards the defensive side of the ball. But shouldn't be where we spend all of our dollars. The really good teams are able to be competitive with injuries. We really weren't...and haven't been for a long time

I guess I should also mentioned that I'm a huge advocate for a re-signing of McCown, for the very reasons you mentioned. I'm just worried that he's going to cost a bit more than is financially feasible for the Bears due to his success last year.

If McCown isn't brought back, then depth at the QB position is definitely an issue, and then I'd be more inclined to look for a QB pickup in the draft. Although, this brings up the argument that you could sign any decent backup QB off the street and Trestman can somehow get another McCown-like performance out of him.

I think the rest of the offense's depth is OK. Not good, but okay. Thought Britton was a serviceable backup on the line. It'd be nice to have another back who's at least competent behind Forte. Michael Ford hasn't really had a chance to confirm/deny that he's the player to do that. TEs and WRs are good enough, I'd say, because I don't think it's possible to have perfect depth at every single position when your roster is limited to 53 players.

 

[gpphat]

Yeah that's a good point. I guess this is something that would need to be revisited around draft time, once the Bears have had some time to make moves in the FA market.

I have heard the statement that onebud referenced, that this is a pretty heavy QB draft class. If they can fix a lot of holes through FA, I wouldn't be completely opposed to the idea of picking up a QB (preferably in the later rounds, though) in this year's draft. I just think defense has to be the No. 1 focus in all player acquisition avenues right now.

Right now all we can do is speculate until we see what the Bears do in FA...I do hope that the Bears target a center and maybe a TE later in the draft. Although the season ended in a way none of us wanted to see, this offseason will be interesting. I think Emery will be very busy and active in both FA and the draft.

 

[DMelt36]

Right now all we can do is speculate until we see what the Bears do in FA...I do hope that the Bears target a center and maybe a TE later in the draft. Although the season ended in a way none of us wanted to see, this offseason will be interesting. I think Emery will be very busy and active in both FA and the draft.

Forgot about C. That is a need, for sure. Garza isn't getting any younger. I think they may need a C more than they need a QB.

 

[Bones40]

While absolutely pointless to discuss, I'd still like to know the "big difference" between the "opinion" you provided and a claim that someone makes. Additionally, how would you convert your opinion into a claim, if there is such a big difference in what you said and what a claim is? To be clear, this is the line we are taking about, not some retroactive interpretation that you come up with:



Seems to me, you've disagreed and then affirmatively stated that more young qbs are ruined by being thrown to the wolves with no proof to back it up. Since we are debating this, here is the definition of the word "claim"



How is what you did any different?

Really?

Short answer. I said "seems". That clearly identifies that I am not asserting something to be the case but rather, saying how it looks to me. Doesn't it?

 

[onebud34]

Jarron Gilbert is the next Alonzo Spellman right?

Didn't you notice on the pool jump his head was cocked to the side?