Future QB Discussion

[abstract_thought]

5 minutes ago, G08 said:

If that is indeed the case, wouldn't have Nick Foles done markedly better rather than markedly worse?

No, because Nick Foles is also a bad QB.

[beardown3231]

32 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

I don't think Easterby has that kind of pull as to which players the GM Caserio will target at QB. The guy is more or less a preacher and not a talent evaluator

I think it's been pretty well documented that Easterby has a ton of power there even with the Caserio hire

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, beardown3231 said:

My point was you have no idea how the next first rounders will fall after this draft. Maybe Easterby doesn't like Wilson, Fields or Lance. Chances are Miami will be picking in the 20's in 2022 and 2023. Chances are far worse that the Bears will be picking in the 20's in those years

If the Bears trade for Watson, they're almost assuredly not going to be bad.  So the future pick argument goes out the window unless you think the Bears are going to be bad with Watson.

[Heinz D.]

6 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Fans always seem to believe we can trade our underperforming expensive assets for gold.   

I want to trade our good young talent for a good young quarterback. 

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

If Pace correctly evaluated the QBs, he walks away with Mahomes or Watson.  Instead, he chose Trubisky.  For that, he should fall on the sword so to speak.  

I can forgive him for the Trubisky pick. A lot of people were high on Trubisky. I can't forgive him for basically going all in on Mitch for four straight years. I thought the trade for Foles was good...but that doesn't mean it wasn't a desperation move, or that Foles would ever be more than okay.

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Don't remember the Bears' needs at the time, but passing on Laremy Tunsil for Leonard Floyd is/was unexcusable even with the late character concerns popping up.

Yup. If I'm remembering things correctly, there were a couple of other players in that range that would also have been better Bears than Floyd. Floyd was a reach, and I think most of us knew that at the time. 

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

If the Jets/Dolphins are willing to dangle a top 3 pick, I think that trumps anything the Bears can offer.  I'd rather have a top 3 pick this year than the Bears pick this year and next year.  If the Bears are willing to dangle a 3rd FRP, then the discussion gets close.  

I think if the Bears include players, they could probably get the third pick from Miami for two firsts. Maybe include something a little extra. Watson is a proven quarterback. Unless for some weird reason Watson suddenly decides he really wants to play in Chicago, I think the Bears trading directly for Watson is pretty much out of the question. 

1 hour ago, G08 said:

If that is indeed the case, wouldn't have Nick Foles done markedly better rather than markedly worse?

Foles is immobile. He needs a better line. He won a shoot-out Super Bowl vs. Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by Heinz D.

[beardown3231]

7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

If the Bears trade for Watson, they're almost assuredly not going to be bad.  So the future pick argument goes out the window unless you think the Bears are going to be bad with Watson.

With the way the GM drafts and attacks FA, with the way the D is getting worse and worse and with the way the playcaller calls plays, they could be bad still.

And plus, neither would Miami. Miami's roster is currently twice as good as the Bears' is. Watson makes them a top 3 team in the AFC

Edited January 18, 2021 by beardown3231

[Heinz D.]

1 minute ago, beardown3231 said:

And neither would Miami. Miami's roster is currently twice as good as the Bears' is. 

I keep saying it. The Miami move might be golden for the Bears. The Bears could get that pick, or maybe Tua. 

[CWood21]

13 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

I can forgive him for the Trubisky pick. A lot of people were high on Trubisky. I can't forgive him for basically going all in on Mitch for four straight years. I thought the trade for Foles was good...but that doesn't mean it wasn't a desperation move, or that Foles would ever be more than okay.

I don't really see where that upside was with Trubisky.  Best case scenario, he was what Goff was early on with McVay.  A guy who if he was put in the right offensive scheme would be an above-average QB, but never someone who was going to transcend the system.  I think it's worse to reach for the wrong QB then to pass on all together.  Because if you invest that QB, you're stuck with him for at minimum 3 years.  To me, Rosen was the exception and not the rule.  Most teams don't give up on their young QB that they drafted that high.  Mahomes was only a QB that I thought you could take if you trust your QB coach.  There's a ton of raw talent there, but there's also a LOT of the nuances of the position that never were developed at Tech.  I didn't think Watson was going to be as good in the NFL as he was in college.  I believe I had 3 DBs atop my board in Marshon Lattimore, Malik Hooker, and Jamal Adams.  Foles is the bridge guy until you get to your next QB.  If they would have fired Nagy/Pace, you roll with Foles as your QB for next year.  But the problem was they essentially doubled-down on Trubisky when they traded for Mack.

18 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

Yup. If I'm remembering things correctly, there were a couple of other players in that range that would also have been better Bears than Floyd. Floyd was a reach, and I think most of us knew that at the time. 

I'd be lying if I said I didn't get the appeal of Floyd.  His best days were supposed to be ahead of him.  But when a top 5 player in the draft falls, you take them.  Once you get past Tunsil and the injury LBs (Myles Jack and Jaylon Smith), I had Ronnie Stanley, Vernon Hargreaves III, and Sheldon Rankins as BPA.  Stanley or Tunsil should have been the picks.

20 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

I think if the Bears include players, they could probably get the third pick from Miami for two firsts. Maybe include something a little extra. Watson is a proven quarterback. Unless for some weird reason Watson suddenly decides he really wants to play in Chicago, I think the Bears trading directly for Watson is pretty much out of the question. 

The Texans are going to want young, cheap players.  Who exactly do the Bears have to offer besides Roquan Smith?  And I'm not sure adding Watson at the expense of young talent is the solution either.

[CWood21]

17 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

And neither would Miami. Miami's roster is currently twice as good as the Bears' is. 

For being "twice as good", they only won 2 more games than the Bears.

[dll2000]

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

  Don't remember the Bears' needs at the time, but passing on Laremy Tunsil for Leonard Floyd is/was unexcusable even with the late character concerns popping up.

dll2000 Joined: 04 Apr 2016 Posts: 517

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/templates/FF/images/icon_minipost.gifPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:41 pm    Post subject: http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/templates/FF/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif Tunsil is falling just like Warren Sapp did. Bears should have took Tunsil. I was hoping they would get Conklin. Tunsil was bonus. I thoght they traded up for Tunsil. I would have been okay with that. Floyd isn't even top 5 pass rusher in this draft

[beardown3231]

13 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

For being "twice as good", they only won 2 more games than the Bears.

32 GM's would take their roster over the Bears' roster. The Bears were 1-6 or 1-7 against playoff teams. They blow

 

15 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I don't really see where that upside was with Trubisky.  Best case scenario, he was what Goff was early on with McVay.  A guy who if he was put in the right offensive scheme would be an above-average QB, but never someone who was going to transcend the system.  I think it's worse to reach for the wrong QB then to pass on all together.  Because if you invest that QB, you're stuck with him for at minimum 3 years.  To me, Rosen was the exception and not the rule.  Most teams don't give up on their young QB that they drafted that high.  Mahomes was only a QB that I thought you could take if you trust your QB coach.  There's a ton of raw talent there, but there's also a LOT of the nuances of the position that never were developed at Tech.  I didn't think Watson was going to be as good in the NFL as he was in college.  I believe I had 3 DBs atop my board in Marshon Lattimore, Malik Hooker, and Jamal Adams.  Foles is the bridge guy until you get to your next QB.  If they would have fired Nagy/Pace, you roll with Foles as your QB for next year.  But the problem was they essentially doubled-down on Trubisky when they traded for Mack.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't get the appeal of Floyd.  His best days were supposed to be ahead of him.  But when a top 5 player in the draft falls, you take them.  Once you get past Tunsil and the injury LBs (Myles Jack and Jaylon Smith), I had Ronnie Stanley, Vernon Hargreaves III, and Sheldon Rankins as BPA.  Stanley or Tunsil should have been the picks.

The Texans are going to want young, cheap players.  Who exactly do the Bears have to offer besides Roquan Smith?  And I'm not sure adding Watson at the expense of young talent is the solution either.

Smith, Nichols, Mooney, Montgomery, Kmet, Daniels, and Johnson all come to mind in terms of good, young, cheap Bears

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, beardown3231 said:

Smith, Nichols, Mooney, Montgomery, Kmet, Daniels, and Johnson all come to mind in terms of good, young, cheap Bears

But how many of those players change the Texans' fortune?

[beardown3231]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

But how many of those players change the Texans' fortune?

As long as they keep bible thumping racists in charge I'm not sure anyone is turning their fortunes around

[Uncle Buck]

Deshaun Watson would be amazing with the Bears if they could get him without it becoming "Herschel-Walker-esque).

Another QB I thought I'd mention to you guys is Gardner Minshew.  I've been watching some of the Jaguars games from this season, and although he has work to do before being a superstar, he does have some potential.  The nice thing about him is that he probably wouldn't cost much to acquire.  Maybe a 3rd, 4th, or 5th round pick?  I'd actually like to see them keep Minshew as a backup and get rid of the giraffe (Glennon), but he might be available.  Just throwing it out there.

[Heinz D.]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

The Texans are going to want young, cheap players.  Who exactly do the Bears have to offer besides Roquan Smith?  And I'm not sure adding Watson at the expense of young talent is the solution either.

Watson isn't all that old. I highly doubt the Bears would include Smith in any deal, but if they did, that would pretty much seal it, right there. 

Johnson, Mooney, Kmet, Daniels, and Whitehair would probably all be appealing to somebody. Doubt any of those folks move the needle in a direct, for Watson trade, though. Maybe they would?

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

But how many of those players change the Texans' fortune?

Any of those players would. The Texans need talent. But, again, the prospects of the Bears trading directly for Watson are very slim. 

[Uncle Buck]

6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

That's a bit of a dishonest question, since you're asking in a "worst case" scenario.  With the exception of Khalil Mack and Roquan Smith, those picks were busts for where they were selected.  If those picks were hits instead of misses, do you still feel that way?  Pace's player evaluation is the one that takes a hit, not the concept.  If Pace correctly evaluated the QBs, he walks away with Mahomes or Watson.  Instead, he chose Trubisky.  For that, he should fall on the sword so to speak.  The fact that he's whiffed on so many FRPs and still has his job is mystifying to me as a Packers' fan.  Those are the picks you're not supposed to miss on, especially picking inside the top 10.  You're probably not getting a star with the pick used for White, but should have gotten at least a quality starter.  Don't remember the Bears' needs at the time, but passing on Laremy Tunsil for Leonard Floyd is/was unexcusable even with the late character concerns popping up.

That gas mask video probably scared a few teams off I bet.