If the Bears are targeting a QB -

[bearmick]

A couple of months before the draft Wentz was mocked at #22. Ended up shooting up the boards and going #2.

A couple of months ago Watson and Trubisky were mocked as mid-to-late first rounders. Now they're shooting up the board and are expected to go in the first few picks. There's even talk of Cleveland passing on Garrett for Trubisky.

This idea that last year had two can't miss blue chip prospects while this year teams are just trying to make the most of a bag of shit, is complete nonsense.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Why in the world would they want to get their "Non-their guy"...

Use your logic.

My logic is that they do not have 1 QB rated head and shoulders above the rest, thus all of them are equally their non-their guy.

So who do you pick when they are all about the same? What is your logic on picking one of them?

The funny thing is that the message board is basically the same as the Bears draft room in that respect.

If we can't come up with one QB that is head and shoulders better than the other QB, it is probably true that different scouts in the Bears draft room have different QBs that they prefer.

Let's make this simple. I will allow you (Polarbear) and Bearmick (because I respect his passion for his QB) decide for me which QB I want the Bears to draft at #3. Decide between yourselves who is the best QB for the Bears to draft at #3 and I will wholeheartedly root for the chosen QB to be the Bears pick above any other player in the draft. But you have to passionately try to convince your opponent who deserves to be chosen and why the other QBs do not deserve to be chosen.


You and Bearmick are on the clock.

 

[gallagher]

This "whatever it takes" attitude is fine when you have the personnel on roster needed for the QB to be successful, but good quarterbacks on shitty teams wont bring you a whole lot of success. Trading valuable draft picks when we still have many parts of the roster to fix doesnt seem like a recipe for success to me.

Get a #1 receiving target, get our defensive backfield ready to challenge Aaron Rodgers, put some depth at RB so we dont need to feed Howard 400 carries a year, find a better RT than Massie, get deeper at DL and then yeah we are in a good situation to trade up. I am not against a QB in the first round, far from it (though I am not in the Trubs camp), but we need to maximize the QBs chances of success or he will be another in a long line of wasted picks. And that will not happen if we give up the resources needed to put a good team around him.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

The assumption is made because at the QB position, you need to have A guy. It's not like all these guys are exactly the same QB. They aren't all 6'5", 230 with the same arm strength, experience, and intangibles. If the Bears have all of Watson, Trubisky and Kizer all rated equally, then they aren't doing enough homework. This is the QB position we're talking about. You can't say, "Hey, we really want Trubisky at 3, but we will be fine with Kizer at 36". That's non-committal. You can't be non-committal about the QB position. That's how you end up settling. Settling for Rex Grossman and Cade McNown in a picked over class of QBs.

See my post below ... well, above this one and below your post that I quoted.

 

[bearmick]

My logic is that they do not have 1 QB rated head and shoulders above the rest, thus all of them are equally their non-their guy.

So who do you pick when they are all about the same? What is your logic on picking one of them?

The funny thing is that the message board is basically the same as the Bears draft room in that respect.

If we can't come up with one QB that is head and shoulders better than the other QB, it is probably true that different scouts in the Bears draft room have different QBs that they prefer.

Let's make this simple. I will allow you (Polarbear) and Bearmick (because I respect his passion for his QB) decide for me which QB I want the Bears to draft at #3. Decide between yourselves who is the best QB for the Bears to draft at #3 and I will wholeheartedly root for the chosen QB to be the Bears pick above any other player in the draft. But you have to passionately try to convince your opponent who deserves to be chosen and why the other QBs do not deserve to be chosen.


You and Bearmick are on the clock.

I think you know that Polar is a Trubisky guy who would understand if Pace preferred Watson, while I am the other way around. Not dissimilar to how nobody really knew whether Goff or Wentz would go first last year. Mayock had Wentz, others had Goff, I even had a bet with a buddy over it. It was Goff. Why is this year with Watson and Trubisky different? While Polar and I may prefer different guys, we're both ok with Pace picking the other, and in all probability the Bears do have one they prefer.

but if you're right and they like both or neither, that's fine too, and we won't have to worry about anyone being taken.

 

[bearmick]

Another thing to remember, for those who look at the fact that the QBs were #1 and #2 last year, is that there was no Myles Garrett last year. Joey Bosa, who went 3rd, was nowhere in the same universe as Garrett as a prospect. It was actually quite a surprise that he went 3rd; he was being mocked between 5 and 8 mostly.

If Garrett was out last year, they would have been talking about which teams would take the QBs after the Rams took Garrett, much like is happening this year.

 

[onebud34]

A couple of months before the draft Wentz was mocked at #22. Ended up shooting up the boards and going #2.

A couple of months ago Watson and Trubisky were mocked as mid-to-late first rounders. Now they're shooting up the board and are expected to go in the first few picks. There's even talk of Cleveland passing on Garrett for Trubisky.

This idea that last year had two can't miss blue chip prospects while this year teams are just trying to make the most of a bag of shit, is complete nonsense.

Wasn't the talk last year that the next years prospects at QB are better than this years crop?

Sans 2013...it's pretty much...wash...rinse...repeat. There is always going to be 1 or 2 blue chip QBs in the draft. The Bears picking at 3 would be stoopid not to grab one.

 

[PolarBear]

My logic is that they do not have 1 QB rated head and shoulders above the rest, thus all of them are equally their non-their guy.

So who do you pick when they are all about the same? What is your logic on picking one of them?

The funny thing is that the message board is basically the same as the Bears draft room in that respect.

If we can't come up with one QB that is head and shoulders better than the other QB, it is probably true that different scouts in the Bears draft room have different QBs that they prefer.

Let's make this simple. I will allow you (Polarbear) and Bearmick (because I respect his passion for his QB) decide for me which QB I want the Bears to draft at #3. Decide between yourselves who is the best QB for the Bears to draft at #3 and I will wholeheartedly root for the chosen QB to be the Bears pick above any other player in the draft. But you have to passionately try to convince your opponent who deserves to be chosen and why the other QBs do not deserve to be chosen.


You and Bearmick are on the clock.

Pointless. Bearmick and I have been back and forth Watson and Trubisky before. We both understand each others points but value different things more in our QB's. We will never come to a consensus.

Trubisky has the great arm talent, accuracy and so on while Watson brings great intangibles and poise.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

I think you know that Polar is a Trubisky guy who would understand if Pace preferred Watson, while I am the other way around. Not dissimilar to how nobody really knew whether Goff or Wentz would go first last year. Mayock had Wentz, others had Goff, I even had a bet with a buddy over it. It was Goff. Why is this year with Watson and Trubisky different? While Polar and I may prefer different guys, we're both ok with Pace picking the other, and in all probability the Bears do have one they prefer.

but if you're right and they like both or neither, that's fine too, and we won't have to worry about anyone being taken.

But it is my point.

If two respected members of this board can have a favorite but not be against the other QB being chosen, why can't multiple scouts in the Bears war room have the same split?

And that is called "there is no QB that is head and shoulders better than the other".

In this situation, you don't trade up to #2 to get one of two basically equal QBs. You draft who was left over, if one was chosen. If not, you have a chance of trading down and still getting one.

 

[Adipost]

But it is my point.

If two respected members of this board can have a favorite but not be against the other QB being chosen, why can't multiple scouts in the Bears war room have the same split?

And that is called "there is no QB that is head and shoulders better than the other".

In this situation, you don't trade up to #2 to get one of two basically equal QBs. You draft who was left over, if one was chosen. If not, you have a chance of trading down and still getting one.

Yes, but each of the posters still have a preference.

 

[bearmick]

But it is my point.

If two respected members of this board can have a favorite but not be against the other QB being chosen, why can't multiple scouts in the Bears war room have the same split?

And that is called "there is no QB that is head and shoulders better than the other".

In this situation, you don't trade up to #2 to get one of two basically equal QBs. You draft who was left over, if one was chosen. If not, you have a chance of trading down and still getting one.

I don't think we're going to convince each other on this one. Different scouts will prefer one or the other, as will different GMs, but Pace has the final decision, and I think he probably has a preference, as we all do for the most part.

To make it even messier, Trubisky isn't actually my 2nd choice. That would be Kizer, who I think will be the better pro.

 

[rawdawg]

Another thing to remember, for those who look at the fact that the QBs were #1 and #2 last year, is that there was no Myles Garrett last year. Joey Bosa, who went 3rd, was nowhere in the same universe as Garrett as a prospect. It was actually quite a surprise that he went 3rd; he was being mocked between 5 and 8 mostly.

If Garrett was out last year, they would have been talking about which teams would take the QBs after the Rams took Garrett, much like is happening this year.

Eh. I think Bosa is closer to Garrett than Garrett is to Clowney, Mack, and Mario Williams type of prospects. And the main reason it was a surprise Bosa went 3 was because the Chargers scheme didn't seem like the best fit for him. Bosa was my #3 overall after Tunsil and Ramsey.

 

[bearmick]

Eh. I think Bosa is closer to Garrett than Garrett is to Clowney, Mack, and Mario Williams type of prospects.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Garrett, Clowney and Williams were all consensus blue chip first overall prospects. Mack and Bosa were never considered as highly as Garrett or Clowney.

And the main reason it was a surprise Bosa went 3 was because the Chargers scheme didn't seem like the best fit for him. Bosa was my #3 overall after Tunsil and Ramsey.

Most mocks had him several spots later.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Pointless. Bearmick and I have been back and forth Watson and Trubisky before. We both understand each others points but value different things more in our QB's. We will never come to a consensus.

Trubisky has the great arm talent, accuracy and so on while Watson brings great intangibles and poise.

OMFG!!!!!!

So if you two can't come up with a QB who is head and shoulders above the rest, why do you assume that the Bears have, with 20 plus personnel in the war room?

When Pace has 10 scouts saying Watson is best, another 10 saying that Trubs is best and a head coach who wants to draft a RB at #3, do you really think that him ending up with one QB head and shoulders above the other is a 100% certainty?

Do you think it is worth giving up a future 3rd round pick to draft a QB who is not head and shoulders preferred over the other QB when you can probably have your pick of the litter at #3 and, at worst, have one of the two remaining QBs who on an equal level in the minds of your scouts?

Trading up in a draft which is considered weak (be it weak or no) to draft a QB who is not considered head and shoulders better than another QB prospect(even by your own scouts) would be the way the Bears would be the laughing stock of the NFL during the draft and also the way Pace would get fired before Fox without having a chance of ever being a GM again.

 

[Bearly]

One spot apart trades don't happen often for a number of reasons. Team moving up doesn't want to give up much. Team moving down might like same player. Team moving up might feel they can get same player anyway. Team moving down has better offers from teams lower down.

If there was a team out there that would most likely be the highest on Trubisky, it would probably be San Francisco anyway given their situation. If that is the case, obviously this whole thing is mute.

The ONLY way I could see this happening is if say Buffalo and Chicago both love the same QB and SF loves a different QB. Then you could justify SF wanting to sacrifice 1st round pick offers to move back only 1 spot so they could guarantee they get that other QB. But if they just really like a non-QB player, then they probably don't like him THAT MUCH to sacrifice the multiple 1st round selections. Atleast they shouldn't.

SF can move down twice if they want and keep accumulating picks. Or, they may not want to go QB there because they are waiting for Cousins as we all know they might, start to get offers and go with Chicago to get some booty and still have the player they covet. There's plenty of scenarios where it makes a lot of sense for both participants. We all know it's unlikely to happen but it is not unprecedented and there is not rule that says you can't tell the trading partner who you're going to take.

 

[Adipost]

Eh. I think Bosa is closer to Garrett than Garrett is to Clowney, Mack, and Mario Williams type of prospects. And the main reason it was a surprise Bosa went 3 was because the Chargers scheme didn't seem like the best fit for him. Bosa was my #3 overall after Tunsil and Ramsey.

Myles Garrett has a 9.98 RAS score.

 

[CHICAGOMIDWAYMONSTERS]

San Fran wants Darnold next year...not Watson or Trubisky

 

[bearmick]

OMFG!!!!!!

So if you two can't come up with a QB who is head and shoulders above the rest, why do you assume that the Bears have, with 20 plus personnel in the war room?

When Pace has 10 scouts saying Watson is best, another 10 saying that Trubs is best and a head coach who wants to draft a RB at #3, do you really think that him ending up with one QB head and shoulders above the other is a 100% certainty?

Do you think it is worth giving up a future 3rd round pick to draft a QB who is not head and shoulders preferred over the other QB when you can probably have your pick of the litter at #3 and, at worst, have one of the two remaining QBs who on an equal level in the minds of your scouts?

Trading up in a draft which is considered weak (be it weak or no) to draft a QB who is not considered head and shoulders better than another QB prospect(even by your own scouts) would be the way the Bears would be the laughing stock of the NFL during the draft and also the way Pace would get fired before Fox without having a chance of ever being a GM again.

It's not about the scouts. They all give their input. Pace makes the decision. All that matters is who he wants. I know they always talk about "consensus between our guys" but that's all "yay team" bullshit. The GM decides.

 

[rawdawg]

Myles Garrett has a 9.98 RAS score.

That just shows Garrett was a better athlete. Bosa's a completely different type of pass rusher, but he was always very highly regarded for what he does on the field.

 

[bearmick]

That just shows Garrett was a better athlete. Bosa's a completely different type of pass rusher, but he was always very highly regarded for what he does on the field.

Highly regarded, sure, but again, mostly mocked between 5 and 8 before the draft. Certainly never #1, far less a no-brainer consensus #1.

I'm not taking away from Bosa, I'm just saying if Garrett was out last year, the QBs would have been being discussed in terms of which teams will take them after the Rams got Garrett, similar to what's going on now.