History shows you must fix your long-term QB position via the draft..

[Sculpt]

What matters is building a quality team, and there are many ways to do that. With the way the QB market is getting, I think the most viable way is to build the team, and then add the QB to it. Right now, QBs are so outrageously expensive, unless you have that generational talent (Brady, Rogers, maybe Mahomes) that can carry a lesser team to victory, you will never be able to build the team they need to succeed and fit under the cap.

So build the team, and add the best QB you can to that.

I disagree wit that!

Especially if you DRAFT a QB, you have to develop him. While developing you find out if they are any good. If you don't have a franchise QB currently, you must ALWAYS be looking and developing a QB. You can never afford to waste a year.

Plus, if you build a good team without a good QB (for some reason), you're at least an 8-8 record team or better, and you WON'T be drafting in the top 7. A highly built team only needing a QB isn't a 1-15 team.

If you're talking getting a franchise QB via free agency... good luck! These Brady trades are extremely rare! You can't count on them. Usually by the time you'd "add the QB", your built team is getting too old and falling apart.

 

[TheWinman]

History shows that you have to draft your way into QB success. Look no further than the Watson rumors, which at this point haven't materialized, because nobody wants to trade away a true top 10 QB talent.

Its possibly to catch a talented QB at the end of their career. The Bucs lucked into Brady this year, Rivers took Indy to a playoff game, Peyton even won one with Denver at the very end (although he wasn't very potent) but you need long term stability, not a 1 or 2 year rental, and those are for teams with an offense and a coaching system in place that invites QBs. Rule Chicago out.

The best modern examples of long term stability via free agency or trade is Drew Brees, followed by Kirk Cousins and Ryan Tannehill. You can find them but the odds are heavily against you. We are talking 3 players versus the vast majority of the league dominating with home grown talent.

I agree that trying to find a QB with the 20th pick is very difficult, but it might be easier than trying to find long term stability with a free agent or trade. Just look at the very few QBs that had any success outside of the team that drafted them... that's a short list. Free agent trash just for the sake of a new face may be exciting up until the moment we actually have to watch them play.

Buckle up boys and join the Jones/Trask train. It will probably come crashing into the station. But historically, its our best chance.

excellent post.

 

[Sculpt]

...
So, if your a GM, would you rather take a QB in the early first round in which history shows us has a 30-50% chance of success (depending on how you wish to define success), or a Qb later that has a 5-15% chance of success? So unless you plan on drafting 3-6 of these later round Qb's the answer is quite obvious.

I've looked at the CHANCE OF SUCCESS odds many times.

TWO things arise:

1. When your team tanks (bad record, high draft pick) that's your golden opportunity to draft that QB.

2. If you don't have a franchise QB, then draft a QB every year until you do.

While we had Cutler, Bears should have been drafting QBs. After we drafted Trubisky, we should have been drafting QBs. They weren't franchise QBs, and Bears could have scored on one 'every-year' picks.

It's obvious Pace doesn't place enough value in drafting QBa, nor high OL picks.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I've looked at the CHANCE OF SUCCESS odds many times.

TWO things arise:

1. When your team tanks (bad record, high draft pick) that's your golden opportunity to draft that QB.

2. If you don't have a franchise QB, then draft a QB every year until you do.

While we had Cutler, Bears should have been drafting QBs. After we drafted Trubisky, we should have been drafting QBs. They weren't franchise QBs, and Bears could have scored on one 'every-year' picks.

It's obvious Pace doesn't place enough value in drafting QBa, nor high OL picks.

2) Yes, that would be one way to do it, but, if your team needs a QB NOW! then it might be a lot of pain for 6 years. With a small sample size over recent drafts, it looks like the rough average for QB's taken each draft is about 15 +/- 2. So, obviously every team isn't following the "draft a QB every year" concept.

1) I think the dynamics of the league are changing, and we will see more top end QB's moving around, and the tank scenario will become much more common. I would like to see the NFL implement a separate cap for QB's, kind of like what the NBA does with the max contract.

 

[Chicago Staleys]

 

[napo55]

Having failed to find the QB in the draft, and having mortgaged the team's drafts with disastrous trades, and needing short term success to save his job, I expect Pace to trade for a free agent QB, which will, of course be a negative for the team in the long run.

 

[bearsfan1977]

Since we are talking about the Bears, I don’t give a shit if they find a franchise QB via the trade or the draft. It would just be nice for them to find one once in my lifetime.

 

[sevvy]

I don't disagree, but I don't think Pace and Nagy are going to be given another 3 years to draft and develop a QB. They're going to look at every QB that's available, and pull the trigger on one more than likely in attempt to prolong their Bears tenure.

We should have probably fired both of them, then traded up and drafted our next GM's guy. But you know... Bears.

 

[Visionman]

I disagree wit that!

Especially if you DRAFT a QB, you have to develop him. While developing you find out if they are any good. If you don't have a franchise QB currently, you must ALWAYS be looking and developing a QB. You can never afford to waste a year.

Plus, if you build a good team without a good QB (for some reason), you're at least an 8-8 record team or better, and you WON'T be drafting in the top 7. A highly built team only needing a QB isn't a 1-15 team.

If you're talking getting a franchise QB via free agency... good luck! These Brady trades are extremely rare! You can't count on them. Usually by the time you'd "add the QB", your built team is getting too old and falling apart.

If you build a quality team, you don’t need a Brady to have success.

You can disagree, but if you do happen to draft and develop a good QB, you will quickly have to pay that QB. And once you do, you will be greatly limited in the team you can put around him.

Can you do it either way? Yes, but since top QB contracts take up a monstrous portion of the cap, it makes it that much harder to do...even IF you get lucky and are able to draft that QB.