Long Term Solution at QB-Thread

[DanTown]

genius. Pick up a guy who you don't know will ever play football to be the answer for a superbowl caliber defense.

Smart.

There are risks with every move; the risk with keeping Mitch is he simply isn't good or consistent enough to make enough plays to win games (case in point - the Philly game where the offense had 17 first downs and even if Parkey makes that kick would have been 18 points). I'd much rather take the risk that EITHER Smith is able to play or Hurts is ready day 1 THAN the risk of hoping Mitch takes a major leap in year three/four.

 

[WindyCity]

By 2021 the window on this defense is closed, guy.

This, just like the rams with goff, is on mitch.

If you draft a QB next year(Which we won't, because there are way too many fucking holes on the oline), he won't be ready in 2020. Thats all im saying.

Like I said, thread was started WAY too early. But such is life in a shitty sports town. 3 weeks in and you start a thread about replacing a QB you just drafted 2.5 years ago, who hasn't been horrible.

You need the rest of the season to evaluate mitch. If he plays decent, he isn't getting replaced. They aren't wasting high draft capital on a replacement. This isn't the cutler effect, this is the effect that a decent QB can win you a playoff game or two and get you into the superbowl. Mitch nearly did it last year, fuckboys seem to forget.

Being ready and being better than Mitch are 2 different things.

The Rams are tied to Goff because they gave him an idiotic contract and have trade away all their picks.

If Mitch plays well the rest of the year then you do not draft a QB high, but where we sit right now he has not played well. In fact he looks like he has regressed.

 

[WindyCity]

What I would do if Mitch does not take a step forward and at least get back to last season.

Keep MItch

Re-sign Daniel for less money

Draft a guy in round 2


Let the best man win in 2020. In 2021 you dump Mitch because I am not paying him 29 million/year unless he takes a massive step.

 

[DanTown]

I would make an argument that considering cost, what we do and do not know about both, ability, stats in college, viewing similar players at similar points of their career, and overall scouting of the two that you should take Jalen Hurts 100 times out of 100 compared to Mitch.

You want to pass on Smith, spend money else where (which can be done by not trading for Smith and signing a host of QB in that Mariotta/Fitzpatrick/Tannehill/etc level for less money/commitment) then go ahead. Arguing about whether or not you want to commit to Alex Smith is kind of missing the major question as to whether the Bears should commit to finding a long-term solution at QB or waiting out Mitch. The name of the short-term QB can be a host of guys and I don't really think is that valuable in the discussion because of how much value you need to get long-term from the QB.

 

[WindyCity]

Tua
Herbert
Burrows
Eason
Fromm
Love
Hurts

Hard for me to see none of those guys as worthy of development and competition with Mitch.

 

[DanTown]

What I would do if Mitch does not take a step forward and at least get back to last season.

Keep MItch

Re-sign Daniel for less money

Draft a guy in round 2


Let the best man win in 2020. In 2021 you dump Mitch because I am not paying him 29 million/year unless he takes a massive step.

What's the point of drafting a developmental guy but then spending the time giving reps and coaching to Mitch in his first year? The point with getting Smith (or a similar veteran, could even be Daniel) and pairing them with Hurts is that you can be more aggressive in giving Hurts reps both in the pre-season and throughout the year. If you have Mitch here, you're kind of stuck giving him the development time/effort that could be better spent if you want to go a different route.

In team sports, the decision to either commit or move on from a player has higher value the sooner you make it. If you want to want until you're absolutely sure on a player or situation, you lose much value in any regard. In Mitch's case for example, if you keep him for next year then the value of how good he has to get to be worth keeping is much higher than even his play this year needs/needed to be.

 

[WindyCity]

What's the point of drafting a developmental guy but then spending the time giving reps and coaching to Mitch in his first year? The point with getting Smith (or a similar veteran, could even be Daniel) and pairing them with Hurts is that you can be more aggressive in giving Hurts reps both in the pre-season and throughout the year. If you have Mitch here, you're kind of stuck giving him the development time/effort that could be better spent if you want to go a different route.

In team sports, the decision to either commit or move on from a player has higher value the sooner you make it. If you want to want until you're absolutely sure on a player or situation, you lose much value in any regard. In Mitch's case for example, if you keep him for next year then the value of how good he has to get to be worth keeping is much higher than even his play this year needs/needed to be.

Because Smith or a veteran are expensive.

I want a cheap competition at QB that allows us to pay the defense and to play the best option at QB.

I am not willing to give up on Mitch for a day 3 pick, but I do not want a legit insurance policy.

 

[DanTown]

Because Smith or a veteran are expensive.

I want a cheap competition at QB that allows us to pay the defense and to play the best option at QB.

I am not willing to give up on Mitch for a day 3 pick, but I do not want a legit insurance policy.

The cost is actually fairly similar even if you think Smith is expensive. Let's review:

If you keep Mitch
- Mitch is $9.3 million next year
- You'd be signing a backup at some cost of likely at least $4 million

That total cost is ~$14M (could be more, could be less) next year but then has the looming issue of Mitch's 2021 bonus - either $29M or the start of a long-term deal

If you added Smith (as an example)
- Mitch's trade would cost you $4.3 M in dead cap
- Smith would be $16M

Total cost is about $20.3M. So yes, it's an extra $6.3M but assuming the health on Smith checks out (it's a pre-req that almost goes without saying because you wouldn't trade anything for a guy who can't play), you're getting a far better situation at QB in 2020 and saving yourself the issue of 2021 and having to decide between a large 5th year option or trying to find a starting level QB in FA.

 

[DanTown]

There is no cheap, easy, talented solution to the QB spot unless you take the highly aggressive route of saying a QB taken in the draft is the guy who's your starter. If you want to do anything other than that, the costs are

- Mitch's cost is high in terms of unknown 2021 salary and how the team should be building going forward
- A veteran via trade (Smith, Foles, etc) would be a high cost in terms of salary + health risk
- You sign a stopgap type for less money (Fitzpatrick, Marriota, etc) for less money but have little guarantee to the level of play you get (which is the entire issue with Mitch)

 

[Wild_x_Card]

Tua
Herbert
Burrows
Eason
Fromm
Love
Hurts

Hard for me to see none of those guys as worthy of development and competition with Mitch.

Don't sleep Gordon. He's a better pro prospect than the Minchew.

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

I fucking love how msadows keeps saying the defense will be done in 2021 (which has no basis in reality it’s just speculation on his part) as if that’s some sort of reason we shouldn’t look for a QB. You ALWAYS should be looking for a QB. Just because the defense may not be elite in 2 years anymore we shouldn’t bother looking for a franchise QB. Truly amazing.

 

[Anytime23]

I fucking love how msadows keeps saying the defense will be done in 2021 (which has no basis in reality it’s just speculation on his part) as if that’s some sort of reason we shouldn’t look for a QB. You ALWAYS should be looking for a QB. Just because the defense may not be elite in 2 years anymore we shouldn’t bother looking for a franchise QB. Truly amazing.

I half agree with him. NFL defenses have a pretty short lifespan at championship levels. I have absolutely no numbers to back this up, just going by what i've seen/remember in recent memory. BUT that is exactly why they have to find a better QB. The window is currently open and you cannot waste it with Mitch. There is zero time to waste. Say the window closes in '21, that means they already wasted 50% of it on Mitch, assuming he doesn't turn competent this season.

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

I half agree with him. NFL defenses have a pretty short lifespan at championship levels. I have absolutely no numbers to back this up, just going by what i've seen/remember in recent memory. BUT that is exactly why they have to find a better QB. The window is currently open and you cannot waste it with Mitch. There is zero time to waste. Say the window closes in '21, that means they already wasted 50% of it on Mitch, assuming he doesn't turn competent this season.

It’s almost like a QB you don’t need this dominant all time great defense to win Super Bowls. What a fucking concept.

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

If anything the “fact” that the defense won’t be elite in 2021 is all the more reason we SHOULD be doing everything we can to get a QB.

 

[WindyCity]

If anything the “fact” that the defense won’t be elite in 2021 is all the more reason we SHOULD be doing everything we can to get a QB.

 

[Anytime23]

If anything the “fact” that the defense won’t be elite in 2021 is all the more reason we SHOULD be doing everything we can to get a QB.

Right, that's what i said.

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

Right, that's what i said.

I don’t get it. It’s like he enjoys watching every team in the NFL find a QB but his favorite one. Seriously what NFL teams are still “looking” for a QB? Tampa Bay, Miami, Tennessee, and Cincinnati and obviously Chicago. Maybe you can throw Pittsburgh and Indy there but they had HOF QBs recently (or at least Pittsburgh did Luck is more debatable)

 

[Anytime23]

I don’t get it. It’s like he enjoys watching every team in the NFL find a QB but his favorite one. Seriously what NFL teams are still “looking” for a QB? Tampa Bay, Miami, Tennessee, and Cincinnati and obviously Chicago. Maybe you can throw Pittsburgh and Indy there but they had HOF QBs recently (or at least Pittsburgh did Luck is more debatable)

There's just something off with a lot of Bears fans when it comes to QBs. It's been so terrible for so long that they hold onto the slightest sliver of hope. You want to keep hoping for Cutler or Trubisky because they're better than Hutch, Quinn, Mcnown, etc. They're obsessed with Bears passing records. Their biggest issue is that they compare Bears QBs to the trash of the past, rather than their current peers who are considered adequate starters.

The pro-Mitch talking point that i really love is how he would start for this team and that team. Teams with garbage QBs themselves.

 

[fx1718]

I half agree with him. NFL defenses have a pretty short lifespan at championship levels. I have absolutely no numbers to back this up, just going by what i've seen/remember in recent memory. BUT that is exactly why they have to find a better QB. The window is currently open and you cannot waste it with Mitch. There is zero time to waste. Say the window closes in '21, that means they already wasted 50% of it on Mitch, assuming he doesn't turn competent this season.

Yeah I mean normally the coach gets a head coaching gig and not all the players can get paid.

Our real hope above all should be that our team turns into a competent great drafting team that can constantly find and develop young players. There are only a handful of these teams in the league and they are almost always in the playoffs.

 

[DanTown]

One reason the Mack trade made sense was that it wasn't just a win-now move it also is one of the rare times you're signing a six year contract and you have a lot of flexibility with it. Even assuming the Bears restructure the next two years, you're still in a fairly decent position to have flexibility to get away from the last year (Mack's 10th year, age 32 season). You likely will keep Fuller (age 27) and Jackson (turns 26 in December) through the life of that deal. With those three, assuming just normal talent around them and you're fine defensively.

The Bears should be spending every waking moment trying to find a long-term QB capable of winning because THEY HAVE THE LONG TERM D capable of winning right now. All this team needs is a solid QB and they're set the next five years. Obviously every resource should go to finding and securing that.