If it's a QB

[dabears584]

I know I will be calling for him to be dismissed. IMO if he doesn't draft a qb his leash gets very short...a mediocre year by Glennon meaning less than 8-8 and I don't want him back because he didn't do what he said he'd do about the qb position.

We can't hold Glennon responsible simply based on a record. He could play great and the rest of the team could stink it up. I just don't want the Bears to put all their eggs in one basket. Odds are against them that they've actually landed a franchise QB in free agency. I see Glennon more as a stop gap. The Bears need to draft their guy or else Pace will lose all credibility especially when Glennon fails to live up to their hype and these guys in this draft they'll pass on end up being franchise studs.

 

[Myk]

Dak Prescott was a 2nd tier QB who took his team to the playoffs as a rookie and was named NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year. Shouldn't a QB taken with the #3 overall pick be able to exceed the play of a 4th round pick?

Well if that's how it works we should trade all our picks for the #1 pick so we could draft Peyton Manning.

 

[iffybiz]

Watson very well may be good down the road, but he won't be that good his rookie year. That's a pipe dream.

While a whole lot of things would have to fall right, it's not impossible.
Both Barkley and Hoyer were able to move the ball in this offense. I could see Watson doing better and unlike Hoyer get the ball in the end zone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AussieBear]

Year 1: hopefully he sits the whole year which means Glennon is good and we now have trade bait.

Year 2: Solid starter with flashes of greatness

Year 3: improve and make pro bowl

Year 4: peak and be a top 5 qb.

If you take a qb at 3, and he isn't top 5 by year 4 it's not what you wanted. If he is top 10-15 it's still a successful pick. Lower then that cut bait and start over.

whos the trade bait?

so if glennon is good, you trade glennon?? or do you trade the qb you used the #3 pick on? for what... a number 32?

 

[ZOMBIE@CTESPN]

whos the trade bait?

so if glennon is good, you trade glennon?? or do you trade the qb you used the #3 pick on? for what... a number 32?

The way first rounders get paid now there wouldn't be urgency to trade anyone. They pretty much make back up money.

 

[satchice]

I like Adams so i'm not shedding a tear if they draft him. But he better be one of the top S in the league by your own standard, or he's a wasted pick. Good safeties play 7-8 years at a high level, drop off, and then retire. We have QBs meanwhile who are playing until they're 40.

That is pretty unrealistic to think Adams will be a top 5 safety.

 

[ZOMBIE@CTESPN]

Then how can you justify a safety with third over all pick? I'm expecting to get Sean Taylor from the dead not Daniel manning

 

[satchice]

whos the trade bait?

so if glennon is good, you trade glennon?? or do you trade the qb you used the #3 pick on? for what... a number 32?

If Glennon plays well enough that a team would actually give a pick for him you trade him. It is unlikely that happens, but hope for the best. Now if you have some delusion that Glennon plays like a top 5 QB and leads us to a wildcard game, then you keep him and the rookie. The rookie would be the new back up until Glennon falls off.

BTW you realize Mike Glennon sucks right? Orton was better then he is. He is the worst day 1 starter for the Bears since Kordell fucking Stewart, so I wouldn't worry about what kinda compensation we are going to get for him after the 2017 season.

 

[Bearly]

20 full games. That's what I give.

Seems about right to have a feel for it.

Here's the thing, the # of games is meaningless to most posters. They will hitch their wagons and ride it out with irrational arguments to support or hate on the guy they did or didn't want. I guess I shouldn't say most posters or more importantly members here but those unrelenting squeaky wheels drive discussions.

 

[botfly10]

America would benefit if California fell off into the sea.

As for the QB question I think 2 years is enough to show a glimmer of hope if there is any in the kid.

Yeah, it would be good for the US to shed the 6th largest economy in the world. Dumbfuck.

 

[Mdbearz]

For years we have struggled with building a team through the Offensive and Defensive Lines.

Our O-line is decent and our D-line has some pieces but is not a dominant unit on either side of the ball. A Pick like Thomas or Allen may not be sexy as a QB but it is the way team contend for a championship.

 

[anotheridiot]

Dak Prescott was a 2nd tier QB who took his team to the playoffs as a rookie and was named NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year. Shouldn't a QB taken with the #3 overall pick be able to exceed the play of a 4th round pick?

I think that only proves that it is not necessary to take a QB that high. Put Prescott on a team without a great offensive line and without a running back and its a different story. If Romo survived the season, he would not have even played, maybe a few snaps. Prescott got a perfect storm, Wilson got a perfect storm with the most dominant defense this centruy

Isn't the jury still out on Prescott and even Russell Wilson? Would either of them be good enough on the bears? That would point to Peternan being the guy to do that this year.

 

[DrGonzo]

If he trades back into the late first or gets one of the top rated QBs in a later round he will be worshipped for at least a year, no matter what happens.

If he swings for the fences by taking a QB with the 3d overall pick and that kid isn't good enough to supplant Glennon by week 12, I will boo Pace until my throat is sore.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[onebud34]

For years we have struggled with building a team through the Offensive and Defensive Lines.

Our O-line is decent and our D-line has some pieces but is not a dominant unit on either side of the ball. A Pick like Thomas or Allen may not be sexy as a QB but it is the way team contend for a championship.

You may contend for a championship 1 year, then have a few injuries and be a sub .500 team.

See Dallas Cowboys 2014 to 2016 for how much a difference a QB can do for a team.

 

[onebud34]

I like Adams so i'm not shedding a tear if they draft him. But he better be one of the top S in the league by your own standard, or he's a wasted pick. Good safeties play 7-8 years at a high level, drop off, and then retire. We have QBs meanwhile who are playing until they're 40.

Considering a S has never been taken that high in the draft...he should be an annual 1st team all-pro

 

[onebud34]

Dak Prescott was a 2nd tier QB who took his team to the playoffs as a rookie and was named NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year. Shouldn't a QB taken with the #3 overall pick be able to exceed the play of a 4th round pick?

Dak wasn't a 2nd tier QB

 

[bearmick]

I'd rather take Adams than some QB who might be good in 3 years. The learning curve for quarterbacks isn't what it used to be. Many of these guys are running pro-style offenses. If Dak, a 4th round pick, can do it with a solid team, the #3 overall pick should be able to easily come in and kill it.

The talent on the Cowboys' offense is light years ahead of what we have.

But still, yes, Watson will come in and be better than Dak, regardless of which team he's on.

 

[CHICAGOMIDWAYMONSTERS]

Year 1- Sit him behind Glennon so he can learn & develop. Sanchez will be on tthe sidelines helping mentor. By week 11-12, Watson takes over.

Year 2- Watson becomes the starter.

IMO, I think Watson could beat Glennon out in camp but I dont want to rush him. I rather Watson learn that 1st year before throwing him into the action.