Pace on MG/MT

[Connorbear]

Pace had said at the end of the season that he was going to work to fix the QB situation. Tonight, he doubled down.

 

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/04/28/bea...chell-trubisky/

 

Peace

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Pace had said at the end of the season that he was going to work to fix the QB situation. Tonight, he doubled down.

 

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/04/28/bea...chell-trubisky/

 

Peace

 

I sure hope this works out in the long run. Right now it seems weird to think our guy was bested by Cleveland (3 firsts yesterday; Garrett, Peppers, Njouku and an extra one next year) and a rookie GM in San Francisco (with two firsts this year - Thomas and Foster).

 

And for a team that had a decent set of picks going in needing to address multiple positions, we now have less to address less...for now.

[adam]

Pace had said at the end of the season that he was going to work to fix the QB situation. Tonight, he doubled down.

 

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/04/28/bea...chell-trubisky/

 

Peace

He also said he was going BPA and had 3 player's names ready at #3, so I would take what he says with a grain of salt at this point. We just need to win.

[adam]

I sure hope this works out in the long run. Right now it seems weird to think our guy was bested by Cleveland (3 firsts yesterday; Garrett, Peppers, Njouku and an extra one next year) and a rookie GM in San Francisco (with two firsts this year - Thomas and Foster).

 

And for a team that had a decent set of picks going in needing to address multiple positions, we now have less to address less...for now.

 

Who plays QB for those teams? Remember both of those teams passed on Trubisky, Watson, and Mahomes. So we will see what strategy works.

 

Cleveland deserves zero credit, when you have multiple firsts and second every year and continually draft in the top 5, eventually you will get it right.

 

SF had zero risk in that move, literally a no-brainer.

 

 

[Mongo3451]

Who plays QB for those teams? Remember both of those teams passed on Trubisky, Watson, and Mahomes. So we will see what strategy works.

 

Cleveland deserves zero credit, when you have multiple firsts and second every year and continually draft in the top 5, eventually you will get it right.

 

SF had zero risk in that move, literally a no-brainer.

Yeah, it definitely was a strategic thing. Pace obviously wanted Trubisky, while Lynch had Thomas in his sights. Lynch definitely won big in netting extra picks. Time will tell if Paces determination will pay off or stagnate our development as a franchise.

 

I was a Trubisky guy all the way, so my rep is tied to Pace now. Pace got it right last year. Let's hope he stays on a roll.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Who plays QB for those teams? Remember both of those teams passed on Trubisky, Watson, and Mahomes. So we will see what strategy works.

 

Cleveland deserves zero credit, when you have multiple firsts and second every year and continually draft in the top 5, eventually you will get it right.

 

SF had zero risk in that move, literally a no-brainer.

 

Kizer is still on the board. He was considered by many here as a starter worthy QB. If Cleveland really thinks Osweiler worthy then maybe they give him one last shot(?). Not as much pressure as when he was in Houston. And Cody Kessler (third round last year from USC) isn't the worst QB out there. Had a decent career in college. In SF I'll point out again that Kizer is still available. But you have a decent starter in Hoyer (did ok for us) and wunderkid Kyle Shanahan at the helm, so again QB may have not been as much a need.

 

To me, Cleveland and SF addressed multiple needs with relatively little risk whereas as Chicago addressed one need with a huge mortgage. Chicago was (still is) in that 'multiple need' category and now has less quality picks to address those needs. I might point out a quote from you on another thread: "Also, this is almost reverse to how you build a team. You need a good core in place before bringing in the franchise QB so you maximize the years of the rookie deal (see Seattle). Going the other way, QB first, has proven not to work, see Carr in Houston, Cleveland, etc. They had crappy teams, went QB instead of filling out their core, and never went anywhere because the QB got killed." It appears st least Cleveland did exactly what you suggested and wished Chicago would've done.

 

And as far as QBs go, I'm officially now a fan of Glennon and hope he remains our starter for years to come. Still not sold on Trubisky.

[Connorbear]

Kizer is still on the board. He was considered by many here as a starter worthy QB. If Cleveland really thinks Osweiler worthy then maybe they give him one last shot(?). Not as much pressure as when he was in Houston. And Cody Kessler (third round last year from USC) isn't the worst QB out there. Had a decent career in college. In SF I'll point out again that Kizer is still available. But you have a decent starter in Hoyer (did ok for us) and wunderkid Kyle Shanahan at the helm, so again QB may have not been as much a need.

 

To me, Cleveland and SF addressed multiple needs with relatively little risk whereas as Chicago addressed one need with a huge mortgage. Chicago was (still is) in that 'multiple need' category and now has less quality picks to address those needs. I might point out a quote from you on another thread: "Also, this is almost reverse to how you build a team. You need a good core in place before bringing in the franchise QB so you maximize the years of the rookie deal (see Seattle). Going the other way, QB first, has proven not to work, see Carr in Houston, Cleveland, etc. They had crappy teams, went QB instead of filling out their core, and never went anywhere because the QB got killed." It appears st least Cleveland did exactly what you suggested and wished Chicago would've done.

 

And as far as QBs go, I'm officially now a fan of Glennon and hope he remains our starter for years to come. Still not sold on Trubisky.

 

I would love to see Glennon succeed. I don't care if Trubisky doesn't play for the next few years. Having Glennon succeed only benefits the team.

 

Pace doubled down to fix this issue that we have had forever. I may not necessarily agree with how he did it but I understand why he did it.

 

Peace

[adam]

Kizer is still on the board. He was considered by many here as a starter worthy QB. If Cleveland really thinks Osweiler worthy then maybe they give him one last shot(?). Not as much pressure as when he was in Houston. And Cody Kessler (third round last year from USC) isn't the worst QB out there. Had a decent career in college. In SF I'll point out again that Kizer is still available. But you have a decent starter in Hoyer (did ok for us) and wunderkid Kyle Shanahan at the helm, so again QB may have not been as much a need.

 

To me, Cleveland and SF addressed multiple needs with relatively little risk whereas as Chicago addressed one need with a huge mortgage. Chicago was (still is) in that 'multiple need' category and now has less quality picks to address those needs. I might point out a quote from you on another thread: "Also, this is almost reverse to how you build a team. You need a good core in place before bringing in the franchise QB so you maximize the years of the rookie deal (see Seattle). Going the other way, QB first, has proven not to work, see Carr in Houston, Cleveland, etc. They had crappy teams, went QB instead of filling out their core, and never went anywhere because the QB got killed." It appears st least Cleveland did exactly what you suggested and wished Chicago would've done.

 

And as far as QBs go, I'm officially now a fan of Glennon and hope he remains our starter for years to come. Still not sold on Trubisky.

Trust me, I am confused. I am just saying this has become a polar opposite draft. Either Pace and the Bears look brilliant and Lynch is ripped for passing on Trubisky, or Trubisky becomes a bust, Pace is fired, and Lynch looks like a genius for fleecing us for literally nothing.

[jason]

I would love to see Glennon succeed. I don't care if Trubisky doesn't play for the next few years. Having Glennon succeed only benefits the team.

 

Pace doubled down to fix this issue that we have had forever. I may not necessarily agree with how he did it but I understand why he did it.

 

Peace

 

I also understand "why" he did it.

 

However, the "hope Glennon succeeds"-line of thought just doesn't make sense at all to me.

 

I really, really wanted Glennon to be the man. To succeed. To be an all pro. But wishing that now only means the Bears have a #2 pick that never sees the field. Sure, it's great to have that type of insurance, but typically your insurance doesn't cost as much as your house. It means a #2 pick that is essentially wasted. That's not what #2 picks are for. That's what you use mid-round picks on. Picks selected in the first round are for guys who can come in and help immediately. Start immediately. If Glennon ends up being great, then we'll all have a million what if scenarios about the defensive player that could be currently helping the Bears.

[AZ54]

Kizer is still on the board. He was considered by many here as a starter worthy QB. If Cleveland really thinks Osweiler worthy then maybe they give him one last shot(?). Not as much pressure as when he was in Houston. And Cody Kessler (third round last year from USC) isn't the worst QB out there. Had a decent career in college. In SF I'll point out again that Kizer is still available. But you have a decent starter in Hoyer (did ok for us) and wunderkid Kyle Shanahan at the helm, so again QB may have not been as much a need.

 

To me, Cleveland and SF addressed multiple needs with relatively little risk whereas as Chicago addressed one need with a huge mortgage. Chicago was (still is) in that 'multiple need' category and now has less quality picks to address those needs. I might point out a quote from you on another thread: "Also, this is almost reverse to how you build a team. You need a good core in place before bringing in the franchise QB so you maximize the years of the rookie deal (see Seattle). Going the other way, QB first, has proven not to work, see Carr in Houston, Cleveland, etc. They had crappy teams, went QB instead of filling out their core, and never went anywhere because the QB got killed." It appears st least Cleveland did exactly what you suggested and wished Chicago would've done.

 

And as far as QBs go, I'm officially now a fan of Glennon and hope he remains our starter for years to come. Still not sold on Trubisky.

 

It's interesting that everyone always cites the David Carr situation for why teams shouldn't take a QB before the team is rebuilt. I lived in Dallas when Aikman was taken and enjoyed watching them lose 15 games that year. Yes, I enjoyed that.

 

What was in place when Indianapolis selected Peyton Manning 1st overall?