JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, WindyCity said: With this regime. Some of us were around for Grossman and McNown. Do I REALLY need to tell you the difference between those guys and now? And McCown isa bad example. We were not ever going to build around him. Edited January 23, 2021 by JAF-N72EX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, WindyCity said: This team has to be open to a Hail Mary approach like Watson. They simply cannot find a QB on their own. You trade for Watson and then hope that Pace can build the team out on day 3 of the draft. 2 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said: Yes, they all have to pay their QBs eventually. But that's not the same as paying them AND giving up 3 or 4 FRPs + more. Deals like those have a bad history of back-firing which is why they're not done very often. Especially now since the rookie contracts were introduced. If you don't pay the core players on defense, or anywhere else for that matter, just to get Watson then you're looking at rebuilding the defense. But how are you going to rebuild a defense, the OL, and WR with no capital or cap space to work with? We already saw what the Texans looked like with Watson and no defense. A team should never spend that much on 1 player unless they are only a QB away from contending for a SB. And even then it's risky. The smart way to build in 2021 is to draft a QB and use his 4 year rookie contract to build around him. I know this approach doesn't instill a lot of hope in these parts given our history but we still have to keep trying until we get right. The general consensus seems to be that Pace is a bad GM and he almost made it work so if he's fired next year then a better GM shouldn't have a problem, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said: Do I REALLY need to tell you the difference between those guys and now? And McCown isa bad example. We were not ever going to build around him. McNown is different than McCown. The point is that we have tried in the past to build around drafted QBs and it has been a failure. Mitch is the the highest pick failure that we have had. But I am not sure what the key differences are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 I would agree that dumping that many resources into a QB is way too big a risk. But the Bears are in a unique situation. 1. Decades of QB failure 2. Super desperate coach and GM 3. Defensive window that is closing quickly 4. This regimes QB failures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just now, WindyCity said: McNown is different than McCown. The point is that we have tried in the past to build around drafted QBs and it has been a failure. Mitch is the the highest pick failure that we have had. But I am not sure what the key differences are? Mitch is the only time we have tried to build a SB team around a QB since rookie contracts were introduced in 2011. It's the new way. The Rams did it Goff, the Eagles did it with Wentz/Foles, the Chiefs did it Mahomes, and the Bills are TRYING to do it with Allen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, WindyCity said: I would agree that dumping that many resources into a QB is way too big a risk. But the Bears are in a unique situation. 1. Decades of QB failure 2. Super desperate coach and GM 3. Defensive window that is closing quickly 4. This regimes QB failures I get that. As I pointed out, I understand the lack of confidence in the rookie QB approach because of our history but we have to keep trying it. It's the most efficient way to build a team nowadays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just now, JAF-N72EX said: Mitch is the only time we have tried to build a SB team around a QB since rookie contracts were introduced in 2011. It's the new way. The Rams did it Goff, the Eagles did it with Wentz/Foles, the Chiefs did it Mahomes, and the Bills are TRYING to do it with Allen. That is a great plan. It is the correct way to build a team. I have no faith in this regime to execute that plan. By the time they get a QB of that level in here we will have had a funeral for the defense. The Bears need to be open to all possibilities at QB because of the timing and their previous incompetence. If you go to build a play structure and you screw it up, you should probably explore a pre built one before the summer ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, JAF-N72EX said: I get that. As I pointed out, I understand the lack of confidence in the rookie QB approach because of our history but we have to keep trying it. It's the most efficient way to build a team nowadays. We should be open to all possibilities for adding a QB. The Bears have been more successful with the massive trade for a QB than they have with the draft and develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, WindyCity said: That is a great plan. It is the correct way to build a team. I have no faith in this regime to execute that plan. By the time they get a QB of that level in here we will have had a funeral for the defense. The Bears need to be open to all possibilities at QB because of the timing and their previous incompetence. If you go to build a play structure and you screw it up, you should probably explore a pre built one before the summer ends. The benefit of building around a QB on a rookie contract is that you can literally build an entire team in a matter of 2 years and become a SB contender. If they stay put in this draft (or move up only a few spots ahead to take their guy (my prediction)) and the Bears fail to make the playoffs then Pace/Nagy are gone and the next regime can decide what to do with the Pace QB and pick his own QB in next years draft. If the new HC/OC doesn't like Pace's QB then ship him like the Cardinals GM Kiem did with Josh Rosen and get a 2nd or 3rd round pick out of him. 1 minute ago, WindyCity said: We should be open to all possibilities for adding a QB. The Bears have been more successful with the massive trade for a QB than they have with the draft and develop. Cmon Windy. Are you of all people going to pull the "better QB" card when talking Bears? Cmon dude lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 (edited) 34 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said: The benefit of building around a QB on a rookie contract is that you can literally build an entire team in a matter of 2 years and become a SB contender. If they stay put in this draft (or move up only a few spots ahead to take their guy (my prediction)) and the Bears fail to make the playoffs then Pace/Nagy are gone and the next regime can decide what to do with the Pace QB and pick his own QB in next years draft. If the new HC/OC doesn't like Pace's QB then ship him like the Cardinals GM Kiem did with Josh Rosen and get a 2nd or 3rd round pick out of him. Cmon Windy. Are you of all people going to pull the "better QB" card when talking Bears? Cmon dude lol. Jay was by a wide margin our most successful QB. That is how bad our drafting at the position has been. We are going to be trading picks to get a rookie QB. If they miss the next GM is not going to have those picks. They aren’t getting a good QB at 20 or close to 20. Watson is a guarantee for those picks. Picks for a coin flop (Rookie) Picks and money for a guarantee (Watson) Based on our history give me the guarantee. I will figure out the other positions after. Edited January 23, 2021 by WindyCity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Watson is a guaranteed star at the most important position in the game that this franchise has been a mess at for 60 years. I am willing to figure out how to build the rest out after that. I have more faith in Pace finding value DTs and WRs than I do a QB. Will we have to team build differently 100%. But we will be doing so with the our Achilles heel fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 35 minutes ago, WindyCity said: Jay was by a wide margin our most successful QB. That is how bad our drafting at the position has been. We are going to be trading picks to get a rookie QB. If they miss the next GM is not going to have those picks. They aren’t getting a good QB at 20 or close to 20. Watson is a guarantee for those picks. Picks for a coin flop (Rookie) Picks and money for a guarantee (Watson) Based on our history give me the guarantee. I will figure out the other positions after. If Mitch would've worked out then you and everyone else is singing a different tune. The only time we tried to build around a QB while he was still under his rookie contract we were close to being a SB contender. But now since that ONE TIME didn't work out your ready to abandon the current modern philosophy that has worked for so many other teams just because Grossman didn't worked out 15 years ago when rookies were getting paid like stars right out the gate, and are willing to give up 3 YEARS of first round picks and more? Windy (or anyone) can you tell me the last time a team gave up that much capital and cap space and it worked out in their favor? I'll wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugashane Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 hour ago, JAF-N72EX said: Cmon Windy. Are you of all people going to pull the "better QB" card when talking Bears? Cmon dude lol. I think the card would be correctly stated to be the "less terrible QB" card rather than "better QB" card. Lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Sugashane said: I think the card would be correctly stated to be the "less terrible QB" card rather than "better QB" card. Lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abstract_thought Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 (edited) . Edited January 23, 2021 by abstract_thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.