Brady, Rodgers and Manning have given us a false premise.

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
Don't you two get confused. I want a QB at #3. That wasn't the point. I didn't say you could win with a scrub.

The point is to ensure you don't throw this guy out there, spend a high pick on a TE and WR, make him the focal point of the attack and expect him to carry your team.

There isn't a QB out there right now not named Brady or Rodgers that can do that for you consistently without an effective running game and defense

I don't think anyone is advocating that a QB doesn't need a supporting cast though? And the QB is always going to be the focal point of the offense, that's part of the job description.

Speaking for myself, I have zero expectation that Watson will turn into an elite QB if your definition of elite is Rodgers, Manning et al. I think he could turn into the next tier down that give you a great shot to win with a great supporting cast. Which is what you are saying anyway.

So we agree!?
 

MrOuija

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
1,691
Liked Posts:
1,123
I wouldn't be upset with a QB at #3 who produces like those guys. Like it's been said you can win with talent like that, just need some supporting cast. I still feel drafting Adams and securing the QB of the defense is more important right now. Glennon is not a fan favorite on these boards but I'm in the boat of still giving him a shot. I'll take the experience with him and drafting Adams over Watson or Trubisky. This might mean that Pace will have to go all in on a QB in the 18 draft.

If going "all in" in '18 means giving up multiple 1st round draft picks and a handful of 2's and 3's in order to draft one of the top 2 guys who could still bust, then count me out. It makes more sense to draft one of the top 2 this year for 1 pick and grab a safety in round 2, or with next years round 1 if you like.
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
Some of you really need to re-read the first two lines of the post.


This isn't about ignoring the QB position, it's about treating it the right way. I think that too many people are buying into this "passing league" thing and are thinking that an all-time great QB is needed to win a chip.

What we have experienced over the past 15 years is not the norm. I think we are unlikely to get QB's of this caliber ever again in one decade.

I don't see anyone on here saying that though?
 

dabears70

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 31, 2013
Posts:
33,790
Liked Posts:
-1,056
Location:
Orlando
My favorite teams
  1. New York Mets
  1. New York Knicks
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. New York Rangers
  1. Syracuse Orange
If going "all in" in '18 means giving up multiple 1st round draft picks and a handful of 2's and 3's in order to draft one of the top 2 guys who could still bust, then count me out. It makes more sense to draft one of the top 2 this year for 1 pick and grab a safety in round 2, or with next years round 1 if you like.

How do you know we won't be drafting in the top 5 next year? We're a team in the middle of a rebuild and we just got hit with what's looking to be a hell of a schedule and if M.Glennon and J.Fox are as bad as most on here already have them being then how would we not be drafting in the top 5??
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
How do you know we won't be drafting in the top 5 next year? We're a team in the middle of a rebuild and we just got hit with what's looking to be a hell of a schedule and if M.Glennon and J.Fox are as bad as most on here already have them being then how would we not be drafting in the top 5??

We could end up with a top 5 pick. We could also end up in the 10-15 range.

There are drawbacks in every plan...what if you take Watson and he sucks, you've wasted the pick. What if you take Peterman in the second or third round and he hits his ceiling early as a low level starter?

I guess my question for the wait until 2018 crew is this.

If you have a pick in the 10-15 range and the top QBs are scheduled to go 1 and 2 as usual, what is your plan?
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
I find myself asking this question quite a lot on here and mainly the response is, we'll be picking in the top 10 for sure. But I feel you should have a plan that at least acknowledges the likely scenarios.

To me, there are three possible options if it goes that way:

1) Give up a boatload of picks to move up and hope that teams are open to a trade.
2) Hope you really like QB 3 and 4
3 If Glennon does well, hitch your cart to him long term.

There is inherent risk in all of these options of course.
 

bearmick

Captain Objectivity
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
37,895
Liked Posts:
43,086
the quarterback at 3 crowd is going to be in for a rude awakening

Why do you always want the Bears to be bad at QB? You worshiped a shitty one for 8 years, and now that he's gone you're not interested in trying to find a new better one.
 

tgmxd

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2010
Posts:
1,253
Liked Posts:
892
It's not a guarantee, but it's the closest thing to a guarantee that exists in the NFL. Elite QB play is the best predictor of consistent success.

The better your QB, the more margin of error you have as a team. The perennial playoff teams do it because they have the biggest margin of error.

Which is why Pace has to take a QB at 3 if he loves them. Not because he might be wrong, but because he might be right and set the Bears up with a franchise QB and a high margin of error over the next decade.

Everybody loves to talk about value. You don't get that kind of value with any other position.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 24, 2013
Posts:
32,295
Liked Posts:
18,795
Why do you always want the Bears to be bad at QB? You worshiped a shitty one for 8 years, and now that he's gone you're not interested in trying to find a new better one.

I, for one, want the Bears to have a great QB.

Drafting one of the options at #3 will not make that happen.
 

run and shoot

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
15,983
Liked Posts:
3,255
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
Quote Originally Posted by bearmick View Post
Why do you always want the Bears to be bad at QB? You worshiped a shitty one for 8 years, and now that he's gone you're not interested in trying to find a new better one.


I, for one, want the Bears to have a great QB.

Drafting one of the options at #3 will not make that happen.

We just need a competent Qb that helps us win games vs. being a T.O. king
 

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,542
Every year, we talk about how important QB's are and how they can single handily get your team to the playoffs each and every year and we source Brady, Rodgers and Manning as our evidence. There is no doubt that QB is the most important position in all of football, and to be a good team, history shows you need to have a good QB.

What Brady, Manning and Rodgers have done now however, is make people believe that QB's can do it all on their own. No they can't. These 3 QB's are the exception to the rule. These 3 players are very likely the 3 most talented QB's we have ever seen grace the field in NFL history and we have been spoilt getting to watch these 3 guys over the years.

Think about all the QB's before these 3 and think about all the QB's that will come after in the league right now. Is there a QB out there who you can truly say, carried their team to the playoffs year in and year out like those 3? Maybe Dan Marino. Joe Montana, Jim Kelly, John Elway, Troy Aikman all had a GREAT supporting casts at the height of their careers and I don't think any one of those guys could carry a team on their own like we have seen Brady, Rodgers and Manning do at times.

Think about the QB's of the future that we have - Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson, Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota. Do any of you guys see any of these QB's having the same sort of impact on their teams as those 3? Derek Carr might be close but haven't seen enough yet.

My point is that, while it's extremely important that we find a good QB, a team can win without building solely around an all-time great QB and passing attack. Build around your running game, build up your defense and have a good QB to compliment them. Forget about trying to give your average-above average QB uber talented weapons and build around a passing attack.

I think you are going to see the running game and running backs come back into style shortly as we see the all-time greats like Brady/Rodgers leave the game and we have less of the cerebral, pocket passing QB's in the league.

I agree with the premise, but disagree with the point. QBs can't single-handedly get your team in the playoffs, but they can nearly single-handedly win championships. And most importantly, a QB that's less than really good can't win championships. You obviously, have to have the team around the QB to get to the playoffs. But most times it doesn't matter how good the rest of the team is if the QB isn't up to par.

The last 10-15 years, the AFC has been represented in the Superbowl every year by Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or Roethlisberger....all probably HoF QBs. The NFC SB teams have had many different names, but all of them had either MVP caliber seasons or played like MVPs in the playoffs (Rodgers, Wilson, Newton, Brees, Eli, Ryan, Warner, etc). Not all of those teams had good defenses. Not all of those teams had a ton of offensive weapons. The 1 common denominator they all had is behind center.

And I agree, you won't see QBs having that much impact on their teams because the league is more scheme based than player based at this point (though I'd argue Cam Newton impacts as much as Brady/Manning, MVP season = Superbowl, bad season = top 10 pick). The players that transcend scheme are getting old and going away, as are straight pocket passers. Now it's about putting QBs in the best position to succeed. I completely disagree that RBs will come back into style when those QBs retire. All you have to do is look at the college game. They're running spread offenses. RBs aren't winning Heismans anymore. This isn't going to change anytime soon.

All that being said, my point all offseason remains. While it would be nice to add the top S, CB, or DL in this draft and build an elite defense to go with what looks like a potential elite run game. You can build a defense with players outside the top 5. You can't build offenses without a QB. The later in the draft you take a QB, the lower chance you have of getting a good one. This is the earliest the Bears better be picking in the forseeable future. Not saying if they pick a QB at #3 he will definitely be good. But if they pick a QB anywhere after #3, he will most likely not be good, because he won't be the first.....typically where you find the best QB, if you know what you're doing as a GM.
 

airtime143

This place is dead and buried.
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
14,954
Liked Posts:
16,589
So a thread is made about not needing an elite qb, because Brady, manning and Rodgers have everyone blinded.

News flash- nobody is saying an elite player does it himself.
Brady won 3 championships in he first 4 years as a game manager. He had a great run game and spectacular defense that really carried the load.
From 05 to 13, Brady became the prolific, elite style qb with amazing stats... And a decade without a super bowl.
When the pats clamp back down on defense... Surprise... Brady and the pats are back on top.

Manning got 2 championships.. One with a spectacular, crushing defense.
The other was a gift from smith and Grossman.

Rodgers, one of the best players at the position you could ever hope to find... Was given his sole championship by 2 choke jobs from Chicago.

Seems like any reasonable nfl fan would see that even the top dogs need help to win.

Nobody says an elite player can win it all alone. But it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that you need to try and get a very good guy at the position... One who locks it down for a decade and a half... So the rest of the team can be built around him and strike when the team gels.

Situations like Wilson being the final piece of a stacked Seahawks team are few and far between.
The teams with sustained success have the qb situation handled and build around that without worry...
See the pats, giants, Steelers, Seahawks, colts, and even the ravens. All had long term guys holding down the fort while the team shapes around them.

Aside from Arizona (scoring warner) new Orleans (scoring brees) Denver (scoring manning) who are the teams that are noncommittal about their qbs that make it to the big game.

Look around the league the past 20 years.. What is the ratio of good qbs getting teams built around them and having success as opposed to any other formula for building a team?

You find a guy to play at a reasonably good level long term and go from there. Anything else and you are the mid 2000 bears... A wasted defense and run game behind a complete asshat under center.
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
So a thread is made about not needing an elite qb, because Brady, manning and Rodgers have everyone blinded.

News flash- nobody is saying an elite player does it himself.
Brady won 3 championships in he first 4 years as a game manager. He had a great run game and spectacular defense that really carried the load.
From 05 to 13, Brady became the prolific, elite style qb with amazing stats... And a decade without a super bowl.
When the pats clamp back down on defense... Surprise... Brady and the pats are back on top.

Manning got 2 championships.. One with a spectacular, crushing defense.
The other was a gift from smith and Grossman.

Rodgers, one of the best players at the position you could ever hope to find... Was given his sole championship by 2 choke jobs from Chicago.

Seems like any reasonable nfl fan would see that even the top dogs need help to win.

Nobody says an elite player can win it all alone. But it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that you need to try and get a very good guy at the position... One who locks it down for a decade and a half... So the rest of the team can be built around him and strike when the team gels.

Situations like Wilson being the final piece of a stacked Seahawks team are few and far between.
The teams with sustained success have the qb situation handled and build around that without worry...
See the pats, giants, Steelers, Seahawks, colts, and even the ravens. All had long term guys holding down the fort while the team shapes around them.

Aside from Arizona (scoring warner) new Orleans (scoring brees) Denver (scoring manning) who are the teams that are noncommittal about their qbs that make it to the big game.

Look around the league the past 20 years.. What is the ratio of good qbs getting teams built around them and having success as opposed to any other formula for building a team?

You find a guy to play at a reasonably good level long term and go from there. Anything else and you are the mid 2000 bears... A wasted defense and run game behind a complete asshat under center.

Thank God for the last two posts. We need a very good QB at a minimum to become relevant. I don't know what is so hard for people to understand.

We don't have a very QB on the roster that can win us a Championship, with all due respect to Mike Glennon. We should go and get one. The end.

No-one. Not one person has said we need Manning 2.0 or that these guys will reach that level. That would be crazy.
 

Camden Cutler

Black Boy Fly
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
6,101
Liked Posts:
4,449
Why do you always want the Bears to be bad at QB? You worshiped a shitty one for 8 years, and now that he's gone you're not interested in trying to find a new better one.

you gathered all of that from my post?
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
17,388
Liked Posts:
3,617
I agree with the premise, but disagree with the point. QBs can't single-handedly get your team in the playoffs, but they can nearly single-handedly win championships. And most importantly, a QB that's less than really good can't win championships. You obviously, have to have the team around the QB to get to the playoffs. But most times it doesn't matter how good the rest of the team is if the QB isn't up to par.

The last 10-15 years, the AFC has been represented in the Superbowl every year by Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or Roethlisberger....all probably HoF QBs. The NFC SB teams have had many different names, but all of them had either MVP caliber seasons or played like MVPs in the playoffs (Rodgers, Wilson, Newton, Brees, Eli, Ryan, Warner, etc). Not all of those teams had good defenses. Not all of those teams had a ton of offensive weapons. The 1 common denominator they all had is behind center.

And I agree, you won't see QBs having that much impact on their teams because the league is more scheme based than player based at this point (though I'd argue Cam Newton impacts as much as Brady/Manning, MVP season = Superbowl, bad season = top 10 pick). The players that transcend scheme are getting old and going away, as are straight pocket passers. Now it's about putting QBs in the best position to succeed. I completely disagree that RBs will come back into style when those QBs retire. All you have to do is look at the college game. They're running spread offenses. RBs aren't winning Heismans anymore. This isn't going to change anytime soon.

All that being said, my point all offseason remains. While it would be nice to add the top S, CB, or DL in this draft and build an elite defense to go with what looks like a potential elite run game. You can build a defense with players outside the top 5. You can't build offenses without a QB. The later in the draft you take a QB, the lower chance you have of getting a good one. This is the earliest the Bears better be picking in the forseeable future. Not saying if they pick a QB at #3 he will definitely be good. But if they pick a QB anywhere after #3, he will most likely not be good, because he won't be the first.....typically where you find the best QB, if you know what you're doing as a GM.

This. Rules changes have all but insured that QB/WR will remain much more important than RB. That's not to say a good RB won't help you, but you just need them to respect the run.
 

MrOuija

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
1,691
Liked Posts:
1,123
How do you know we won't be drafting in the top 5 next year? We're a team in the middle of a rebuild and we just got hit with what's looking to be a hell of a schedule and if M.Glennon and J.Fox are as bad as most on here already have them being then how would we not be drafting in the top 5??

Because top 5 probably isn't good enough. If the top 2 next year are all that they're cracked up to be they'll go 1-2. If they came out this year instead of '18 we would've missed them at 3.

If we win even a game or two more then it'll be out of the question without multiple firsts to trade up. So instead of hoping we're the worst or second worst team next year, and that next years favorites come out, aren't hurt, and don't regress, I rather forego all that uncertainty and just take this years best QB.
 

dabears70

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 31, 2013
Posts:
33,790
Liked Posts:
-1,056
Location:
Orlando
My favorite teams
  1. New York Mets
  1. New York Knicks
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. New York Rangers
  1. Syracuse Orange
We could end up with a top 5 pick. We could also end up in the 10-15 range.

There are drawbacks in every plan...what if you take Watson and he sucks, you've wasted the pick. What if you take Peterman in the second or third round and he hits his ceiling early as a low level starter?

I guess my question for the wait until 2018 crew is this.

If you have a pick in the 10-15 range and the top QBs are scheduled to go 1 and 2 as usual, what is your plan?

Well if this happens and there's only 2 legit QB's coming out, which is another big if cause it seems like there could be 4 or 5 legit QB's coming out, but i would definitely do my best to trade up to get one of the top QB's and with a good draft this year and if some of the free agents we brought in work out then we should be in a better position to trade some picks to move up. This is all a lot of If's though.
 

r1terrell23

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
3,009
Liked Posts:
1,622
I'm not sure anyone has actuzlly disagreed with your premise. To win in this league you better have a good qb. Ideally you'd have a good D, O line, and WR's as well. But finding a good qb is 75 percent of the battle. That is why such a premium is placed on it. If the Bears had a good QB over the last 17 years we'd have 3 Super Bowl Titles. At the minimum we would have won in 2007 and 2011.
 

Top