I’m not super paying attention to draft prospects anymore,
but I think I would rather draft whoever the best QB available is at our pick for
each of the next 3 years than spend 3 firsts to get the 3rd best QB
in this draft.
Quote: @medaille said:
I’m not super paying attention to draft prospects anymore,
but I think I would rather draft whoever the best QB available is at our pick for
each of the next 3 years than spend 3 firsts to get the 3rd best QB
in this draft.
Interesting if impractical strategy. I’d be fascinated to see a team try this someday. More likely by year 3 the GM who’s drafted two QBs deemed worthy of being upgraded in back to back years, would be looking for a job and not a third quarterback.
EDIT: Draft Day 2 with Costner, anyone?
Quote: @pattersaur said:
@ medaille said:
I’m not super paying attention to draft prospects anymore,
but I think I would rather draft whoever the best QB available is at our pick for
each of the next 3 years than spend 3 firsts to get the 3rd best QB
in this draft.
Interesting if impractical strategy. I’d be fascinated to see a team try this someday. More likely by year 3 the GM who’s drafted two QBs deemed worthy of being upgraded in back to back years, would be looking for a job and not a third quarterback.
EDIT: Draft Day 2 with Costner, anyone?
The point of my statement was that spending 3 first round
draft picks to get the 3rd best QB in the draft was more dumb than
spending 3 consecutive first round picks on QBs. That said, I strongly believe that your
chance of quality QB play is higher with more “good” prospects than it is with
one “better” swing, but 3 QBs back to back to back is probably excessive. That said, I think the strategy wouldn’t be “replacing
failed QBs” as much as it would be “Take 3 and keep the best and trade the rest”
Looking at the Bears. Assuming they take Williams or another QB, are
we thinking it’s because “Fields is a failed QB” and that the GM that took him
is a failure or are we thinking that “Williams is a potentially game changing
option and they can still get value out of Fields” and the GM is smart?
Quote: @medaille said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ medaille said:
I’m not super paying attention to draft prospects anymore,
but I think I would rather draft whoever the best QB available is at our pick for
each of the next 3 years than spend 3 firsts to get the 3rd best QB
in this draft.
Interesting if impractical strategy. I’d be fascinated to see a team try this someday. More likely by year 3 the GM who’s drafted two QBs deemed worthy of being upgraded in back to back years, would be looking for a job and not a third quarterback.
EDIT: Draft Day 2 with Costner, anyone?
The point of my statement was that spending 3 first round
draft picks to get the 3rd best QB in the draft was more dumb than
spending 3 consecutive first round picks on QBs. That said, I strongly believe that your
chance of quality QB play is higher with more “good” prospects than it is with
one “better” swing, but 3 QBs back to back to back is probably excessive. That said, I think the strategy wouldn’t be “replacing
failed QBs” as much as it would be “Take 3 and keep the best and trade the rest”
Looking at the Bears. Assuming they take Williams or another QB, are
we thinking it’s because “Fields is a failed QB” and that the GM that took him
is a failure or are we thinking that “Williams is a potentially game changing
option and they can still get value out of Fields” and the GM is smart?
The Bears have worked their rebuild into the absolute best case scenario. I think they draft Williams, flip Fields to Vegas or Pittsburgh for more picks, and take either Rome Odunze or Brock Bowers at #9. They are going to put young weapons around Williams that he can grow with and use free agency to address defense. If that team isn't much better next season, I'd be shocked
Quote: @medaille said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ medaille said:
I’m not super paying attention to draft prospects anymore,
but I think I would rather draft whoever the best QB available is at our pick for
each of the next 3 years than spend 3 firsts to get the 3rd best QB
in this draft.
Interesting if impractical strategy. I’d be fascinated to see a team try this someday. More likely by year 3 the GM who’s drafted two QBs deemed worthy of being upgraded in back to back years, would be looking for a job and not a third quarterback.
EDIT: Draft Day 2 with Costner, anyone?
The point of my statement was that spending 3 first round
draft picks to get the 3rd best QB in the draft was more dumb than
spending 3 consecutive first round picks on QBs. That said, I strongly believe that your
chance of quality QB play is higher with more “good” prospects than it is with
one “better” swing, but 3 QBs back to back to back is probably excessive. That said, I think the strategy wouldn’t be “replacing
failed QBs” as much as it would be “Take 3 and keep the best and trade the rest”
Looking at the Bears. Assuming they take Williams or another QB, are
we thinking it’s because “Fields is a failed QB” and that the GM that took him
is a failure or are we thinking that “Williams is a potentially game changing
option and they can still get value out of Fields” and the GM is smart?
I'm game! Get KAM on the phone and make it happen.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ medaille said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ medaille said:
I’m not super paying attention to draft prospects anymore,
but I think I would rather draft whoever the best QB available is at our pick for
each of the next 3 years than spend 3 firsts to get the 3rd best QB
in this draft.
Interesting if impractical strategy. I’d be fascinated to see a team try this someday. More likely by year 3 the GM who’s drafted two QBs deemed worthy of being upgraded in back to back years, would be looking for a job and not a third quarterback.
EDIT: Draft Day 2 with Costner, anyone?
The point of my statement was that spending 3 first round
draft picks to get the 3rd best QB in the draft was more dumb than
spending 3 consecutive first round picks on QBs. That said, I strongly believe that your
chance of quality QB play is higher with more “good” prospects than it is with
one “better” swing, but 3 QBs back to back to back is probably excessive. That said, I think the strategy wouldn’t be “replacing
failed QBs” as much as it would be “Take 3 and keep the best and trade the rest”
Looking at the Bears. Assuming they take Williams or another QB, are
we thinking it’s because “Fields is a failed QB” and that the GM that took him
is a failure or are we thinking that “Williams is a potentially game changing
option and they can still get value out of Fields” and the GM is smart?
I'm game! Get KAM on the phone and make it happen.
KAM is tied up on line 1 seeing if he can get Brad Holmes to move up to #11 for a whopper with cheese and a fancy new purple tie
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ medaille said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ medaille said:
I’m not super paying attention to draft prospects anymore,
but I think I would rather draft whoever the best QB available is at our pick for
each of the next 3 years than spend 3 firsts to get the 3rd best QB
in this draft.
Interesting if impractical strategy. I’d be fascinated to see a team try this someday. More likely by year 3 the GM who’s drafted two QBs deemed worthy of being upgraded in back to back years, would be looking for a job and not a third quarterback.
EDIT: Draft Day 2 with Costner, anyone?
The point of my statement was that spending 3 first round
draft picks to get the 3rd best QB in the draft was more dumb than
spending 3 consecutive first round picks on QBs. That said, I strongly believe that your
chance of quality QB play is higher with more “good” prospects than it is with
one “better” swing, but 3 QBs back to back to back is probably excessive. That said, I think the strategy wouldn’t be “replacing
failed QBs” as much as it would be “Take 3 and keep the best and trade the rest”
Looking at the Bears. Assuming they take Williams or another QB, are
we thinking it’s because “Fields is a failed QB” and that the GM that took him
is a failure or are we thinking that “Williams is a potentially game changing
option and they can still get value out of Fields” and the GM is smart?
I'm game! Get KAM on the phone and make it happen.
KAM is tied up on line 1 seeing if he can get Brad Holmes to move up to #11 for a whopper with cheese and a fancy new purple tie
I do like the concept though, basically what I've been saying for a while now, keep drafting QBs until every year you got a room full of decent guys and then keep drafting QBs anyway and trade away quality prospects for more draft picks.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ medaille said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ medaille said:
I’m not super paying attention to draft prospects anymore,
but I think I would rather draft whoever the best QB available is at our pick for
each of the next 3 years than spend 3 firsts to get the 3rd best QB
in this draft.
Interesting if impractical strategy. I’d be fascinated to see a team try this someday. More likely by year 3 the GM who’s drafted two QBs deemed worthy of being upgraded in back to back years, would be looking for a job and not a third quarterback.
EDIT: Draft Day 2 with Costner, anyone?
The point of my statement was that spending 3 first round
draft picks to get the 3rd best QB in the draft was more dumb than
spending 3 consecutive first round picks on QBs. That said, I strongly believe that your
chance of quality QB play is higher with more “good” prospects than it is with
one “better” swing, but 3 QBs back to back to back is probably excessive. That said, I think the strategy wouldn’t be “replacing
failed QBs” as much as it would be “Take 3 and keep the best and trade the rest”
Looking at the Bears. Assuming they take Williams or another QB, are
we thinking it’s because “Fields is a failed QB” and that the GM that took him
is a failure or are we thinking that “Williams is a potentially game changing
option and they can still get value out of Fields” and the GM is smart?
The Bears have worked their rebuild into the absolute best case scenario. I think they draft Williams, flip Fields to Vegas or Pittsburgh for more picks, and take either Rome Odunze or Brock Bowers at #9. They are going to put young weapons around Williams that he can grow with and use free agency to address defense. If that team isn't much better next season, I'd be shocked
The Bears are going to get better. As Poles says, they are making progress. There's no doubt about that.
But it's all about the QB. And they still don't have that. I liken it to building a car, where Poles has added some nice features...a great suspension, frame and tires, but there's no engine.
They'll probably draft Caleb Williams, who looks like a generational talent, and if he is, look out for the Bears. But we've seen players like this fail before. The last five QBs taken #1 overall have been Baker Mayfield, Kyler Murray, Joe Burrow, Trevor Lawrence and Bryce Young. Lawrence and Burrow are both hits, but many are now questioning Lawrence, and Burrow has had his season end due to injury twice in four seasons.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ medaille said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ medaille said:
I’m not super paying attention to draft prospects anymore,
but I think I would rather draft whoever the best QB available is at our pick for
each of the next 3 years than spend 3 firsts to get the 3rd best QB
in this draft.
Interesting if impractical strategy. I’d be fascinated to see a team try this someday. More likely by year 3 the GM who’s drafted two QBs deemed worthy of being upgraded in back to back years, would be looking for a job and not a third quarterback.
EDIT: Draft Day 2 with Costner, anyone?
The point of my statement was that spending 3 first round
draft picks to get the 3rd best QB in the draft was more dumb than
spending 3 consecutive first round picks on QBs. That said, I strongly believe that your
chance of quality QB play is higher with more “good” prospects than it is with
one “better” swing, but 3 QBs back to back to back is probably excessive. That said, I think the strategy wouldn’t be “replacing
failed QBs” as much as it would be “Take 3 and keep the best and trade the rest”
Looking at the Bears. Assuming they take Williams or another QB, are
we thinking it’s because “Fields is a failed QB” and that the GM that took him
is a failure or are we thinking that “Williams is a potentially game changing
option and they can still get value out of Fields” and the GM is smart?
The Bears have worked their rebuild into the absolute best case scenario. I think they draft Williams, flip Fields to Vegas or Pittsburgh for more picks, and take either Rome Odunze or Brock Bowers at #9. They are going to put young weapons around Williams that he can grow with and use free agency to address defense. If that team isn't much better next season, I'd be shocked
The Bears are going to get better. As Poles says, they are making progress. There's no doubt about that.
But it's all about the QB. And they still don't have that. I liken it to building a car, where Poles has added some nice features...a great suspension, frame and tires, but there's no engine.
They'll probably draft Caleb Williams, who looks like a generational talent, and if he is, look out for the Bears. But we've seen players like this fail before. The last five QBs taken #1 overall have been Baker Mayfield, Kyler Murray, Joe Burrow, Trevor Lawrence and Bryce Young. Lawrence and Burrow are both hits, but many are now questioning Lawrence, and Burrow has had his season end due to injury twice in four seasons.
I agree with you in that hitting on these picks will be everything for them, but I'd rather have those options and decisions to make than not (Vikings). If Williams is the real deal and they surround him with a good young supporting cast, it's not going to be good for us...for, oh say, the next dozen years or so while we "competitively rebuild." The north is becoming one of the better young divisions in all of football, and if we don't do something to keep pace THIS offseason, then I hope we enjoy the cellar view the next few years
|
