Who do we draft as a QB?

[Pixote]

So who do we draft as a QB to develop if Rex and Kyle fall short of expectations?

 

Everyone seems concerned about QBs in the draft who have problems with mechanics, speed, agility, athleticism, quick release, Big School competition, etc...

 

There have been many QBs drafted who had all of these attributes that flopped as NFL QBs.

 

Ryan Leaf, drafted #2 in round 1 of the 1998 draft.

Cade McNown drafted #12 in round 1 of the 1999 draft.

How can we forget Rick Mirer drafted #2 of the 1993 draft.

 

All of these QBs had all the qualities we have discussed necessary to become an NFL Star QB.

 

But there have been QBs who lacked these attributes that succeeded. QBs who were too small, too inexperienced, had poor mechanics, etc... and therefore were not well thought of when they were drafted.

 

Johnny Unitas drafted in the 9th rd of 1955 by Pittsburgh and then cut, playing for $3 per game for a semi pro team before Baltimore picked him up for $7,000 in 1956.

 

Joe Montana selected in the 3rd round in 1979 by SF0.

 

Tom Brady selected in the 6th rd of the 2000 draft by NEP.

 

These three were passed over because they did not have these "required attributes" to make a successful NFL QB.

 

Well, it seems to me we worry too much about mechanics, footwork, quick release, Big Game competition, etc... I could care less if the QB runs a 4.0 or a 4.7 40 yd dash. I could care less if the QB comes from a run and shoot college system or a "Pro" system. I could care less if he throws over the top, 3 quarters, side arm, hell, he can throw underarm as far as I am concerned. I could care less if he dances the mash potato, fox trot, 2 step, or waltz, hell, he can have 2 left feet as far as I am concerned.

 

To me there are few things you look for in an NFL QB that are important when deciding if he is worth a risk to draft. These characteristics do not guarantee he will be successful but in my opinion are the most important things to be evaluated before drafting him.

 

1 - Intelligence. Can he learn the playbook. Can he study film and learn to read the defenses he will face. Can he pick up where the blitz will come from, the coverage the defense will use, etc... Will he know when to gamble and when to cut his losses? Will he do what it takes to prepare for the game?

 

2 - Attitude / character - Is he a team player more concerned with the teams success than his own statistics. Will he throw himself under the bus when the team struggles or will he blame everyone but himself? Will he share the credit with his team mates when the team succeeds or try to take all the credit himself. Will he be able to shake off a mistake, learn from it and keep a clear head or will he let it dwell on him and cause him to regress as a QB.

 

3 - The only physical attribute I worry about is arm strength, something that can seldom be developed, unlike many of the other attributes we seem to use as measuring sticks of a prospect. Most mechanics can be taught, arm strength, even with a good strength and conditioning coach, is more of a gift than an attribute that can be developed.

 

4 - If you want to throw in a 4th item, although it certainly is not a requirement, but could be argued as a big plus for a QB in todays game, is height. It does help to be able to see the field.

 

So if you ask me, we are looking for a player who has football intelligence, a great "team" attitude and personal confidence, a strong arm, and tall enough to see the field.

 

I do not know this years draft well enough to know which QBs fit this mold. You tell me, if I am correct and these are the attributes we are looking for in a QB, who do we draft?

[flea]

Nice post Pix

[nfoligno]

First, let me first just say that I do not believe Cade was ever considered a technically sound QB. He was lacking in numerous "attributes". W/ Cade, it was more his cocky demeanor and what some felt was that "it" factor that drove him. How wrong they were.

 

Anyway, while I agree w/ some of what you say, I do think many of the so called "attributes" are important. No one attribute makes or breaks a QB (maybe intelligence), but when talking about your big investment positions, you need to look at it all. Some things can be learned, but at the same time, most QBs who have "bad habbits" have also had numerous coaches try to alter those bad habbits, and were obviously not successful. So if a QB has a 3/4 throwing motion and you draft him thinking you will "teach" him to thrown over, I question the logic of that.

 

I do think some of the things you somewhat write off are important, but not ultimately important. If a guy has a 3/4 throwing motion, does that kill his prospect? No. But can it alter his prospect? One of the biggest things about a release point is ability to get the ball over the LOS. If you have a tall QB w/ a 3/4 release, it is not as big of a deal as having a 6' QB w/ a 3/4 release.

 

I also think what system a QB comes from can be a factor. You mention a QBs intelligence, but what system that QB comes from might indicate just that intelligence. There are systems in college that are very QB friendly, which make reads, routes, and the like far easier. Ability to master this offense does not mean the QB has enough intelligence for the next level. On the other hand, ability to master the USC offense does indicate a particular level of intelligence. So while I agree that intelligence is a major key, I would argue the system from which a player is also a potential sub factor in this equation.

 

A QB's speed, agility, athleticism matter more if they are of the Vick, McNabb, Young mold. Personally, I am not a huge fan of the running QB, and thus those attributes are not as important to me. On the other hand, for these "athletic QBs" these attributes are important. If they win by a large amount w/ their legs, it needs to be known how their speed matches w/ the NFL, compared to college.

 

Intelligence - Agree w/ you on this. This is not book smarts, but field smarts. I want a QB that doesn't simply memorize the playbook, but understands it enough to make adjustments on the fly. Further, he should be smart enough to look at the defense, and have an idea what is going on there too.

 

Height - I didn't always see the need here, but have come to believe it is quite important. Have their been QBs that lacked the height? Sure. But those are usually the exception and not the norm. Nice when you fall into the exceptions, but I do not know that you want to jump into them.

 

Arm Strength - One of those oft talked about attributes. I don't think you have to have an Elway cannon, but at the same time, I would argue watching Griese shows a QB needs a good enough arm to get a spiral downfield. Otherwise, defenses can play a smaller field, and life just got tougher for your offense.

 

Pocket Awareness - May be one of the most difficult things to "grade", but also one of the most important areas for me. Some QBs seem to have that 6th sense. They feel the pocket collapsing and begin to roll or move around. Most important, they do this w/o taking their eyes off the field. Here in Dallas, I have seen quite a bit of Romo. This is one thing he is awesome at. He has made the OL look good. He feels the pressure, and rolls away from it, but does so w/o taking his eyes off the field. He turns what looked like a sack into a downfield pass. Rex is the opposite of this, at least for me. He doesn't feel the pressure, and often doesn't seem to see it when it is directly in front of him. When he does spot the rusher, and begins to move to avoid, he takes his eyes off the field and focuses on the rusher.

 

Overall, I think the combine is fairly funny. I do not particularly care about the vertical of a QB, or the 40 yard dash time for an OG. While I think many "attributes" are over-blown (none more than the 40) I also think most have value. The level of value though can be widely argued.

[Pixote]

I did not mean to say all these attributes are not important. I just think many can be developed but some can not, such as football intelligence, character, arm strength, and height. If you have those 4 attributes, there is no reason you can not learn to refine other mechanics necessary to be a top NFL QB. If you lack those 4 attributes, those 4 critical points can not be taught and will be necessary to develop other mechanics needed to succeed.

[nfoligno]

Not to be argumentative (yea right) but I would argue football intelligence and character can change in the NFL.

 

A person's character can change. I am not the same person I was at 20, and I am sure many here are not either. That doesn't mean a person's character will change, or that you do not factor character, but I disagree w/ the idea that character is an area that can not change. I view character of a veteran in FA a greater issue than for a kid about 20 or 21 years old who has yet to step foot into the real world.

 

I agree w/ the other three. Intelligence, while it may not be fully seen in college, is something an individual either has or doesn't. Ditto w/ height and arm strength.

 

At the same time, my earlier point was that, while we all talk about this or that being "teachable", I am not sure it is always thus. Look at Rex. A tendency to throw off his backfoot was a problem in college, but believed teachable. After what, 5 years, it is still an issue.

 

QBs, particularly from major programs, have likely had many coaches working w/ him on many areas. If they have technical problems w/ their game, I am not sure how much you should expect to change. If you are fine w/ a kids 3/4 release point, fine. But I do not like the idea of drafting a kid on the belief you can change his release point, which I would bet previous coaches already tried.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I'm starting to cool down on my man love for Flacco, and I'd rather go S, either Quinten Demps, or Marcus Griffin in round 2. Our big board in the 3rd for QBs should look like this...

1. Flacco

2. Henne

3. Johnson

4. Woodson

5. Brennan

[Mongo3451]

I like Henne and looking at the list of attributes you have listed, he meets your criteria. The thing I like as well is his experience as a 4 year starter in a major program. Also, Michigan seems to churn out pro QB's. I know I'll forget some but...

Brady, Harbaugh, Griese, Grbak, Navarre, Collins and Henson. That's seven I can remember in the last 20 years. Back to the 3 year starter thing; IMO he's the most ready to step in and get it done. I wouldn't mind seeing him come to us in the 2nd round or early 3rd.

[madlithuanian]

Goo board... I'm pretty much in agreement, although I'd probably flip flop Johnson and Woodson. But honestly, all those guys are a risk and also I wouldn't mind seeing any of them in a Bears uni. Here's hoping that the one this is in a Bears uni is the right one!

 

I'm starting to cool down on my man love for Flacco, and I'd rather go S, either Quinten Demps, or Marcus Griffin in round 2. Our big board in the 3rd for QBs should look like this...

1. Flacco

2. Henne

3. Johnson

4. Woodson

5. Brennan

[Connorbear]

I'm starting to cool down on my man love for Flacco, and I'd rather go S, either Quinten Demps, or Marcus Griffin in round 2. Our big board in the 3rd for QBs should look like this...

1. Flacco

2. Henne

3. Johnson

4. Woodson

5. Brennan

Drop Woodson and Brennan from this list. No way in hell do I want either of these players.

 

Peace

[AZ54]

I'll add one more thing I really want in a QB and that is accuracy in hitting a WR in stride.

 

The QB needs intelligence enough (at least football smarts) to understand what a defense is doing but no matter what, passing windows in the NFL are often small even 30 yards downfield and the QB has to be able to get the ball in there. It's a big reason I'm no fan of QBs who come from systems that run a lot of hooks or sit-down routes. I'll name one guy, Akili Smith, who in college could only hit a WR when he stopped. He still got a big contract because of his measurables but couldn't do anything in the NFL. I'll also add that a QB who can't consistently complete passes to a WR in stride might not be that good at reading what a defense is doing.

[Lucky Luciano]

Everyone seems concerned about QBs in the draft who have problems with mechanics, speed, agility, athleticism, quick release, Big School competition, etc..."

 

mechanics: to a degree it can be important. although if you have someone who really knows how to coach and/or evaluate qb talent this may not be a serious problem. this should be evaluated by the coaching staff when a draftee is interviewed and observed on film and in tryouts as to whether they believe any problems this player may have could be fixed by coaching or NOT.

 

speed: is not a serious concern for me. physical quickness would be more what i would look for. i don't especially need a qb as a running threat but would prefer one who has enough quickness to pickup at least short yardage when needed and avoid sacks by moving in and out of the pocket.

 

agility: to me this relates to footwork and IS important. especially when moving in and out of the pocket and setting to make his throws, agility is a real consideration.

 

athleticism: only to a degree. i don't particularly need a triathalon type of athlete.

 

quick release: this can be a mental/taught aspect unless there is something physically or mentally wrong with him.

 

big shcool: not a total concern but taken into consideration as to when you really want your qb to start. a smaller school qb 'may' take a bit longer (and maybe not in some instances) to adjust to the speed and complexity of the nfl. again this is an individual mental aspect of each player.

 

as stated.. the physical aspects are important and can't be denied. in my estimation the absolute minimum size for an nfl qb is 6'1". even at 6'1" is pushing it for me in todays nfl. i just would not go for a player that size in the draft unless he was very, very special. the optimum size to me is 6'3" - 6'6". hand size is also an important physical consideration and i agree, arm strength is a very important consideration to determine if a qb can make all the types of throws needed in the nfl and not become physically one dimentional. i have argued this point multiple times.

 

"here have been many QBs drafted who had all of these attributes that flopped as NFL QBs.

 

Ryan Leaf, drafted #2 in round 1 of the 1998 draft.

Cade McNown drafted #12 in round 1 of the 1999 draft.

How can we forget Rick Mirer drafted #2 of the 1993 draft."

 

each of these and hundreds more over the years have had the physical requirements but lacked the most important trait of a pro qb, the mental aspect of the pro game.

 

"To me there are few things you look for in an NFL QB that are important when deciding if he is worth a risk to draft. These characteristics do not guarantee he will be successful but in my opinion are the most important things to be evaluated before drafting him.

 

1 - Intelligence. Can he learn the playbook. Can he study film and learn to read the defenses he will face. Can he pick up where the blitz will come from, the coverage the defense will use, etc... Will he know when to gamble and when to cut his losses? Will he do what it takes to prepare for the game?

 

2 - Attitude / character - Is he a team player more concerned with the teams success than his own statistics. Will he throw himself under the bus when the team struggles or will he blame everyone but himself? Will he share the credit with his team mates when the team succeeds or try to take all the credit himself. Will he be able to shake off a mistake, learn from it and keep a clear head or will he let it dwell on him and cause him to regress as a QB."

 

attitude: certainly you don't want some arrogant thug or hostile player that will not fit into your lockerroom. you also want someone who has leadership qualities.

 

intelligence: yes a good qb needs to be able to relate the playbook to game situations but in my estimation the important things any qb that succeeds in the nfl has is the ability dissimilate information quickly and MOST important be able to function in a 3D mental environment. he has to be able to put together in his head in a split second what defense he is seeing and where the defenders will likely be, where to put the ball which relates to where the receiver will be at a given time, the speed of the ball and the height to throw it. THIS is the foundation of touch and accuracy.

 

this is something that can't be determined in an interview or written test and can't be determined in college game film to a finite degree, as to how this player will react to the speed and complexity of the nfl. all you can do is try to determine how mentally nimble a player is in relation to these football aspects and hope.

 

and finally, another very important aspect is coaching. if you have coaches that can teach the pro game and really evaluate what that player is or is not capable of and build a game plan that fits his skill and talent that is a HUGE plus in the developement of quarterbacks.

 

this in MY opinion has been one of the worst attributes of the chicago bears for decades and doesn't appear to have changed.

 

leaf - 6'5"

mcnown - 6'1"

mirer - 6'3"

 

unitas - 6'1"

montana - 6'2"

brady - 6'4"

[Da Bears 88]

Why does size matter?

[Controlled Chaos]

A position Bears really need to fill

By Mike Imrem | Daily Herald Columnist

 

Bears quarterbacks are like the weather: Everybody owns an umbrella but nobody stops it from raining.

 

This franchise is back where it started a half-century ago, patching and taping and wishing and hoping against hope that what they have is better than what they could have.

 

Clearly it's time to do something about it by implementing a concept I have pondered for a while.

 

It starts with the fact that NFL teams have quarterbacks, quarterback coaches and quarterback camps.

 

So why don't they have quarterback scouts? Or directors of quarterback acquisition? Or even vice presidents of quarterbacks?

 

If the NFL isn't quarterback-centric, it's specialist-centric.

 

Offensive-line coaches have assistant offensive-line coaches in charge of teaching holding with the left hand instead of the right.

 

Special-teams coaches have assistant special-teams coaches, and the one who taught Devin Hester how to return kicks deserves a promotion.

 

This isn't just a football thing. Even Wal-Mart, which sells everything from medicine to medicine balls, has a chief toy officer.

 

So isn't it curious that NFL scouting departments, responsible for evaluating everybody from fat nose tackles to skinny wide receivers, don't have people whose sole responsibility is quarterbacks?

 

Bears general manager Jerry Angelo and his scouts are respected talent evaluators. But not even the best evaluators can be equally adept at judging players at every football position.

 

Some scouts have to be better at linemen, others at skill-position players … and one special guy has to be better at quarterbacks.

 

That's all the guy should do. He would compile a filing cabinet full of reports on everybody who ever played quarterback on any level.

 

He would sit in the basement in his pajamas and stare at big flow charts that constantly monitor quarterbacks. Then when he drives along and spots a youth game in a park, his car automatically would stop to see how the kid QBs throw.

 

He would travel the country to watch quarterbacks in NFL, college, junior college, high school and beer-league games.

 

Quiz him on the position and you'll never get the wrong answer.

 

"Who throws left-handed, stands 6-feet-3, weighs 225 pounds, has limited mobility and delivers slightly side-arm?"

 

"That would be Eddie St. Pierre, never went to college, works the fields in Louisiana, mother is a seamstress, father is serving life for murdering a clarinetist."

 

Correct.

 

"Who throws right-handed, stands 6-1, weighs 210 pounds, attends a Lutheran college in the Midwest and runs the 40 in 4.7?"

 

"That would be … no, it has to be … er, he must be … wait, no such quarterback exists."

 

Correct again.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems teams don't employ one guy -- a quarterback nerd, if you will -- to fill the role I'm describing.

 

And what team would need him more than the team that hasn't had a great quarterback since Sid Luckman back in the 1940s?

 

Apparently nobody was around to tell Bears management that Gary Huff, Mike Phipps, Bob Avellini and Peter Tom Willis … right through Cade McNown, Henry Burris, Chad Hutchinson and Kordell Stewart … and up to Rex Grossman, Brian Griese and Kyle Orton … that all were little more than throwaway throwers.

 

Seriously, somebody at Halas Hall has to scout the scouts to find that one guy who knows quarterbacks better than anyone else on the planet.

[nfoligno]

Are you serious?

[Lucky Luciano]

Clearly it's time to do something about it by implementing a concept I have pondered for a while.

 

It starts with the fact that NFL teams have quarterbacks, quarterback coaches and quarterback camps.

 

So why don't they have quarterback scouts? Or directors of quarterback acquisition? Or even vice presidents of quarterbacks?

 

this is something i have been asking myself since the 70's... why does the chicago bears field such poor qb's year after year at the most important position in the game?

 

1. they adhered to the wrong philosophy that defense wins championships.

 

2) every head coach by the bears, post halas, has been defensively minded. they have NEVER even had an offensive coordinator that was top notch in his field let alone a head coach. if anyone doesn't believe that, name a single offensive coordinator that has gone from the bears to the same position or better on another team . EDIT - i deleted the "not counting ditka". even ditka's hiring of coaches in new orleans didn't take our OC but special teams coach.

 

3) they were/are cheap.

 

A) the cost of good qb's salaries compared to other players in the nfl was/is huge and they weren't willing to pay it.

 

the philosophy of bear management in the 70's to present (pre-finks and post finks) thinks they can sell enough tickets or fill their coffers by fielding a good defense and rarely worried about the offensive side of the ball or it's consequences.

 

C) the cost of personel including specialized scouts and coaching was more than they were/are willing to pay. if you don't know what you are looking at is it surprising you don't pick one who is any good? any other business in the world would hire specialists to find out what is wrong and CORRECT IT if they failed for over 40 years. not us though.

 

this is something gakman, myself and a few others have been yelling for, for years on these boards, that needs to be addressed.

[madlithuanian]

I think you're right.

 

If you remove Ditka, who was a TE's coach with Landry in Dallas before getting the Bears gig, it's been all D to my knowledge.

 

But, yeah, all your points seem to lead to some diysfunction on offense. Maybe Angelo's pick for Grossman and the earlier McNown could be stated as a positives in that direction. But, there didn't seem to be any coaching set in place to help those picks (bad or not).

 

It could just be dumb luck,etc...

 

But, in the grand scheme, what can we do? Other than boycott...but I know personally I just can't stop watching. I might stop buying product, but I'll always watch.

 

this is something i have been asking myself since the 70's... why does the chicago bears field such poor qb's year after year at the most important position in the game?

 

1. they adhered to the wrong philosophy that defense wins championships.

 

2) every head coach by the bears, post halas, has been defensively minded. they have NEVER even had an offensive coordinator that was top notch in his field let alone a head coach. if anyone doesn't believe that, name a single offensive coordinator that has gone from the bears to the same position or better on another team (ditka staff doesn't count).

 

3) they were/are cheap.

 

A) the cost of good qb's salaries compared to other players in the nfl was/is huge and they weren't willing to pay it.

 

the philosophy of bear management in the 70's to present (pre-finks and post finks) thinks they can sell enough tickets or fill their coffers by fielding a good defense and rarely worried about the offensive side of the ball or it's consequences.

 

C) the cost of personel including specialized scouts and coaching was more than they were/are willing to pay. if you don't know what you are looking at is it surprising you don't pick one who is any good? any other business in the world would hire specialists to find out what is wrong and CORRECT IT if they failed for over 40 years. not us though.

 

this is something gakman, myself and a few others have been yelling for, for years on these boards, that needs to be addressed.

[nfoligno]

When it comes to the bears, I think too many try to rationalize all problems stem from being cheap. I think it goes way beyond that.

 

For the last ten years or so, the team has been spending a lot of money. Prior to that, I far better understand the cheap label, but I do not believe it applies now, nor has it for about a decade.

 

And yet our QB situation still sucks, so I just do not believe it is so much about money. It isn't about strategy either, as we have tried just about every avenue.

 

We have spent 1st round picks on QB - Cade/Rex

 

We have traded a 1st round pick for a veteran - Mirer

 

We have spent later round picks looking for the next Brady - Orton/Krenzel

 

We have sign unproven backups sitting behind solid starters - Quinn/Hutch

 

We have signed veterans - Griese/Kordell/Chandler

 

I mean, we have tried pretty much every avenue. We have simply bombed out every direction we go. Still, we have to continue to seek that QB.

 

I do not buy that it is a money issue. The one argument I saw listed that does have the most merit (IMHO) is how we have so often employed defensive background staff. Wanny was both our coach and personnel man, and was a defensive backgrounded guy. Then we had Jauron, another defensive guy. Then we hire a GM, who is a former defensive scout, and he hired a defensive backgrounded coach.

 

This is a huge aspect of the problem, IMHO. Scouts can provide all the info needed, but ultimately, it is still the GM making the calls, and our GM has shown an inability to draft offense, not just QB, but offense in general.

[madlithuanian]

So is the translation...?

 

"Dumb luck and non-offensive minded GM's"

 

 

 

When it comes to the bears, I think too many try to rationalize all problems stem from being cheap. I think it goes way beyond that.

 

For the last ten years or so, the team has been spending a lot of money. Prior to that, I far better understand the cheap label, but I do not believe it applies now, nor has it for about a decade.

 

And yet our QB situation still sucks, so I just do not believe it is so much about money. It isn't about strategy either, as we have tried just about every avenue.

 

We have spent 1st round picks on QB - Cade/Rex

 

We have traded a 1st round pick for a veteran - Mirer

 

We have spent later round picks looking for the next Brady - Orton/Krenzel

 

We have sign unproven backups sitting behind solid starters - Quinn/Hutch

 

We have signed veterans - Griese/Kordell/Chandler

 

I mean, we have tried pretty much every avenue. We have simply bombed out every direction we go. Still, we have to continue to seek that QB.

 

I do not buy that it is a money issue. The one argument I saw listed that does have the most merit (IMHO) is how we have so often employed defensive background staff. Wanny was both our coach and personnel man, and was a defensive backgrounded guy. Then we had Jauron, another defensive guy. Then we hire a GM, who is a former defensive scout, and he hired a defensive backgrounded coach.

 

This is a huge aspect of the problem, IMHO. Scouts can provide all the info needed, but ultimately, it is still the GM making the calls, and our GM has shown an inability to draft offense, not just QB, but offense in general.

[nfoligno]

Honestly, I do not have the answer. I think it is a combo of a lot of things, and plain bad luck may be part of it.

 

Some of the best RBs in NFL history are Bears. Ditto at the LB position. I am not sure there common thing between some of those. When we hit on Sayers, and later Payton, what would be the common link. Ditka, Singletary, Urlacher. Is there a common link? I don't think so.

 

I really prefer to avoid going to far back in historical terms. Recently though, I think it has to do w/ both those who made personnel decisions, combined w/ having a coaching staff to develop a QB.

 

Cade McNown is a good example for me.

 

You can easily blame Hatley for making the choice (I believe it was his) to draft Cade McNown. At the same time, might we also look at how our coaches handled Cade? I will simply never forget throwing an inexperienced QB into a very complicated system which many veteran QBs would struggle under. Cade McNown in an empty backfield should have never happened.

 

So I do not really think it is one thing, but a combo of many. Scary part for me is, I have little faith moving forward. I see little chance for a QB to do that well for us this year. Time will tell, but I question whether or not our team will see the immedate improvements at OL, RB and WR for a QB to also improve. Further, I look at Angelo's record drafting offense, and I am FAR from impressed. So my faith in our offense improving much is not very high.

[Lucky Luciano]

For the last ten years or so, the team has been spending a lot of money. Prior to that, I far better understand the cheap label, but I do not believe it applies now, nor has it for about a decade.

 

well... i have to ask. over the last 10 years you don't think this franchise has gone cheap on their coaching staff?

 

in 1997-98 we kept wanny way past was was even reasonable as our HC. he was a complete failure yet we kept him 2 years longer than was sane. why? because he still had a big hit $ wise if we replaced him. THAT'S cheap. moving on.........

 

in 1999 we lowballed our first choice as HC in mcginnis and lost him as a prospect. THAT'S cheap. phillips then hired jauron after mikey was canned by his own mother.

 

jauron - after one good season, with an anemic offense, and a playoff in-and-out we not only renegotiate jauron's contract but his pitiful OC as well. was this done as an atta-boy or in regards to cheapness? if jauron really turned out to be a perennial contender when his contract DID come due, two seasons from then, it would have cost this franchise a LOT more money than it did re-upping his contract than when it did. the smart move was to wait and see how the next season fared. moving on......................

 

in 2004, one year longer than we should have kept jauron (again so we don't pay a coach who isn't here) we shop around for that clown sabin at LSU, who everyone is drooling over, but decide we don't want to pay him as much as he wants. again we settle for 2nd or 3rd best when we hire smith.

 

hmmm, not cheap?

 

other than building the new training facilities what has the ownership spent money on? the stadium is not theirs plus they have greatly increased their seating income. the gm replaced mikey so the salary is probably comperable. so where are they spending loads of money that makes you think they are not cheap?

 

We have spent 1st round picks on QB - Cade/Rex

 

We have traded a 1st round pick for a veteran - Mirer

 

We have spent later round picks looking for the next Brady - Orton/Krenzel

 

We have sign unproven backups sitting behind solid starters - Quinn/Hutch

 

We have signed veterans - Griese/Kordell/Chandler

 

I mean, we have tried pretty much every avenue. We have simply bombed out every direction we go. Still, we have to continue to seek that QB.

 

we got both mcnown AND grossman after trading down while the most logical first choices were still on the board in culpepper and leftwich. why do you suppose that is? 1st, we traded down in hopes that pepper would still fall to us but we would not have to pay him as a top ten pick (#7) in the lower spot (#12). so we ended up picking mcnuthing because our first choice was gone.

 

i also have to ask.... if we had a real management system in place, including gm, scouts and talent evaluators, who knew jack about offense and especially about qb's, would we have chosen this "most ready to start" qb in the first place?

 

to top this off, which of our coaches would you have chosen for ANY input on drafting a qb? crowton? jauron? shoop-a-doop? none of them had ANY nfl offensive experience worth mentioning. also, who in this entire organization was qualified to not only evaluate mcnown, but actually coach him?

 

a dick jauron quote: "Kordell (Stewart) could be our quarterback for a very long time, but the value in Rex Grossman was there and we couldn't pass it up," Bears coach Dick Jauron said.

 

then our defensive minded gm decides to garner more picks in 2003 and pass up leftwich to get haynes, a total bust, and grossman. the pick was leftwich with the #4 pick but it would have been cheaper to get grossman in the bottom of the draft and a less chance to bust with 2 picks.

 

does this say anything about the ability to evaluate qb talent? in all honesty, THIS was the year to trade up for the #1 spot if possible and get palmer. we instead traded down. costs too much for a #1 overall pick? moving on.........

 

another miscue: we SHOULD have gotten 29 year old FA drew bledsoe the previous year, 2002, when he was a free agent but instead we went with a B.U. in the cheaper miller.

 

mirer? this was one of the stupidest decisions in this entire franchises history. again this came about by not having any personel with any clue about offensive talent. we relied exclusively on a DC turned HC in wanny. to trade that high of a draft pick for mirer who was NOT even a starter on his own team was ludicrous. if we had any offensive evaluation personel besides mikey, they would have certainly put the brakes on that trade. but then personel cost money.

 

i think to cut this short, all the instances you mention are perfect examples of what you do when you don't have anyone in the entire organization that knows anything about offense and especially about quarterback talent. if you have failed this miserably for 45 of the last 50 years don't you think SOMEONE in management could figure out some changes need to be made in the way we evaluate and choose our qb's?

 

This is a huge aspect of the problem, IMHO. Scouts can provide all the info needed, but ultimately, it is still the GM making the calls, and our GM has shown an inability to draft offense, not just QB, but offense in general.

 

i just can't believe that to be true.... if our scouts are telling our GM to pick certain players and he keeps picking others that bust, he needs to be fired.

 

so that leaves us with we don't have a large enough staff to scout offensive players, we don't have the RIGHT scouts to evaluate offensive talent, we don't have the key personel to evaluate what the scouts are saying, plus our coaching staff must be inept or they have no input on draft evaluation, AND we don't have quality personel including specialty coaches to evaluate and train the players CORRECTLY we do get.

[Connorbear]

well... i have to ask. over the last 10 years you don't think this franchise has gone cheap on their coaching staff?

 

in 1997-98 we kept wanny way past was was even reasonable as our HC. he was a complete failure yet we kept him 2 years longer than was sane. why? because he still had a big hit $ wise if we replaced him. THAT'S cheap. moving on.........

 

in 1999 we lowballed our first choice as HC in mcginnis and lost him as a prospect. THAT'S cheap. phillips then hired jauron after mikey was canned by his own mother.

 

jauron - after one good season, with an anemic offense, and a playoff in-and-out we not only renegotiate jauron's contract but his pitiful OC as well. was this done as an atta-boy or in regards to cheapness? if jauron really turned out to be a perennial contender when his contract DID come due, two seasons from then, it would have cost this franchise a LOT more money than it did re-upping his contract than when it did. the smart move was to wait and see how the next season fared. moving on......................

 

in 2004, one year longer than we should have kept jauron (again so we don't pay a coach who isn't here) we shop around for that clown sabin at LSU, who everyone is drooling over, but decide we don't want to pay him as much as he wants. again we settle for 2nd or 3rd best when we hire smith.

 

hmmm, not cheap?

Two points:

 

First on McGinnis - The reason why he did not take the job is Mikey wanted McGinnis to agree that his coaching staff should have voidable contracts but that they would not tell them. Mikey is a friggin turd and this is just one of the many reasons he is no longer President of the Bears.

 

2nd on coaching salaries - I noticed you didn't mention the 21 million over 4 yrs that Lovie received in extension. Kind of doesn't support your argument, does it.

 

Peace:bears

[madlithuanian]

nfo,

 

I hear ya. I also have the same scary feeling with the future. I don't think I've been shy stating I don not like our coaching staff top to bottom barring Toub. I follow your take on Angelo as well. I'll give him defensive credit, but his offensive mind leaves a bit to be desired. I have some small faith that Angelo can make some breakthroughs, he's tried. I just don't have any of that faith in the coaches.

 

Honestly, I do not have the answer. I think it is a combo of a lot of things, and plain bad luck may be part of it.

 

Some of the best RBs in NFL history are Bears. Ditto at the LB position. I am not sure there common thing between some of those. When we hit on Sayers, and later Payton, what would be the common link. Ditka, Singletary, Urlacher. Is there a common link? I don't think so.

 

I really prefer to avoid going to far back in historical terms. Recently though, I think it has to do w/ both those who made personnel decisions, combined w/ having a coaching staff to develop a QB.

 

Cade McNown is a good example for me.

 

You can easily blame Hatley for making the choice (I believe it was his) to draft Cade McNown. At the same time, might we also look at how our coaches handled Cade? I will simply never forget throwing an inexperienced QB into a very complicated system which many veteran QBs would struggle under. Cade McNown in an empty backfield should have never happened.

 

So I do not really think it is one thing, but a combo of many. Scary part for me is, I have little faith moving forward. I see little chance for a QB to do that well for us this year. Time will tell, but I question whether or not our team will see the immedate improvements at OL, RB and WR for a QB to also improve. Further, I look at Angelo's record drafting offense, and I am FAR from impressed. So my faith in our offense improving much is not very high.

[Lucky Luciano]

Two points:

 

First on McGinnis - The reason why he did not take the job is Mikey wanted McGinnis to agree that his coaching staff should have voidable contracts but that they would not tell them. Mikey is a friggin turd and this is just one of the many reasons he is no longer President of the Bears.

 

this ALL relates to CHEAP. what other reason would you want to void a contract? i could be wrong, but it still seems to me it was also a matter of money for mcginnis's contract.

 

2nd on coaching salaries - I noticed you didn't mention the 21 million over 4 yrs that Lovie received in extension. Kind of doesn't support your argument, does it.

 

you could look at it like we got him CHEAP for the first 2 years (as an initial low tender for a 2nd choice unknown) and now even it out with an extension that pays him what he supposedly is worth. how much more would we have had to pay if we had gone to a superbowl this last year and his contract came up? just for curiosities sake, what do other nfl coaches get paid in comparison to his old contract?

 

but.... in all truth the reason why he was not mentioned is that there is not enough time expired to decide if we eat any of his contract IF he fails here and the consequences.

 

one other item... why in the history of the bears have we NEVER hired a head coach with prior head coaching experience? could it be they would want more money than someone who has NO record of experience as a coach in the nfl? it's not like we have a record of winning with these coaches. so why offer a large contract to a tuna or gibbs type coaches when you can hire non-experienced coaches for a pittance? if they don't work out... oh well, try it again.

 

i would be interested to know what other winning franchises have never hired an experienced head coach in their entire history.

[balta1701-A]

one other item... why in the history of the bears have we NEVER hired a head coach with prior head coaching experience? could it be they would want more money than someone who has NO record of experience as a coach in the nfl? it's not like we have a record of winning with these coaches. so why offer a large contract to a tuna or gibbs type coaches when you can hire non-experienced coaches for a pittance? if they don't work out... oh well, try it again.

 

i would be interested to know what other winning franchises have never hired an experienced head coach in their entire history.

I do find this interesting but not for the reason you suggest. In recent years, teams have strongly shied away from hiring guys who are head coaching retreads in favor of the guy getting his first shot at the HC position. Some people have even been surprised how head coaches who put up decent records out there have struggled to find jobs lately.

[nfoligno]

well... i have to ask. over the last 10 years you don't think this franchise has gone cheap on their coaching staff?

 

Cheap. No. I think it is FAR more a matter of strategy. Is Jerry Jones a cheap owner? Few would say that, yet until Parcells, he was well known for refusing to spend massive coin on coaches, and hated the idea of going after NFL has-beens and trash. He always wanted to grab the hot coordinators or college coaches on the rise, as opposed to grabbing a coach who had already failed. I see no difference in how we have done things. Wanny was a freaking hot commodity as I recall. He is so hated today, I think few remember how in demand he was then. He was the DC for a very good defense, and was one of the coordinators many sought after. Then there was Jauron, who was not as "hot" but a well liked and regarded assistant w/ long creds. Then there was Lovie, who was pretty hot himself, and from the Dungy tree so many have been stealing from. So you say cheap, but I say it is far more a matter of getting the young guys w/ upside rather than the ones who were already tried and failed.

 

in 1997-98 we kept wanny way past was was even reasonable as our HC. he was a complete failure yet we kept him 2 years longer than was sane. why? because he still had a big hit $ wise if we replaced him. THAT'S cheap. moving on.........

 

Funny thing about selective memory. It is hard to have such and win many arguments. Wanny was a the young stud DC, and we got him. Prior to the end of his deal, he was given more money. Not the sign of a cheap team. You say if we were not so cheap, we would have fired him sooner. I argue the issue was not money, but poor management. Do you believe he EVER should have received the new deal in the first place? I didn't. But giving him the new deal showed a total lack of management.

 

As for later, I would argue many, if not most teams, have carried a coach longer than they should have because of the contract left. It is not unusual. What I think would have been unusual would be to fire a coach so soon after giving him a new deal.

 

in 1999 we lowballed our first choice as HC in mcginnis and lost him as a prospect. THAT'S cheap. phillips then hired jauron after mikey was canned by his own mother.

 

As I recall, there was a hell of a lot more to that whole thing than just money, and yet, you pretend that money was the whole thing. As I recall, it was also a big deal when Mikey went public and said we had signed McGinnis, when we were still in negotiations. I do not recall it being a matter of lowballing him, but a matter of Mikey being a dumbass, and McGinnis realizing what it would be like to work for him.

 

jauron - after one good season, with an anemic offense, and a playoff in-and-out we not only renegotiate jauron's contract but his pitiful OC as well. was this done as an atta-boy or in regards to cheapness? if jauron really turned out to be a perennial contender when his contract DID come due, two seasons from then, it would have cost this franchise a LOT more money than it did re-upping his contract than when it did. the smart move was to wait and see how the next season fared. moving on......................

 

Are you serious? So your argument is that it is better for a team to wait and pay a premium rather than try to get a deal done early? I think every manager in america would disagree. I suppose you wait until a stock hits a high before you buy too. Don't want to get a bargain. You call it being cheap. The 32 teams in the NFL call it good business.

 

in 2004, one year longer than we should have kept jauron (again so we don't pay a coach who isn't here) we shop around for that clown sabin at LSU, who everyone is drooling over, but decide we don't want to pay him as much as he wants. again we settle for 2nd or 3rd best when we hire smith.

 

Again w/ the selective memory. Pretty much every report I recall said Saban was looking for a boat load of personnel power, power usually the GM employs. I recall the sort of money we were talking about, and it was FAR from cheap. I remember that deal dying mainly due to Saban making the power play, and Angelo not wanting to give up the power he had. He dealt w/ the power struggles w/ Jauron, and didn't want to go through it again.

 

hmmm, not cheap?

 

No, it wasn't cheap. It was about so much more then money, but because you have it in your head the team is cheap, that is the only way you know how to look at things. That is about the only way to explain how a team can fork over a big extension, and you rationalize it by saying it would cost more later.

 

other than building the new training facilities what has the ownership spent money on? the stadium is not theirs plus they have greatly increased their seating income. the gm replaced mikey so the salary is probably comperable. so where are they spending loads of money that makes you think they are not cheap?

 

First, I would point to the scouting department. Prior to Hatley/Phillips, we had the smallest scouting department in the league. Those two men built up the largest.

 

Second, I would point to signing bonus money. I know your arguments. You believe signing bonuses do not matter because a team can not spend more than the cap, but the simple fact is, you are wrong. In fact, you can and teams do every year. Under Hatley, we began spending bonus dollars like never before. Now, you can easily argue against who we spent it on, but the reality is we began to shell out the coin for bonuses unlike in the past.

 

"we got both mcnown AND grossman after trading down while the most logical first choices were still on the board in culpepper and leftwich. why do you suppose that is? 1st, we traded down in hopes that pepper would still fall to us but we would not have to pay him as a top ten pick (#7) in the lower spot (#12). so we ended up picking mcnuthing because our first choice was gone. "

 

I'm sorry, but do you watch the draft, or follow other teams. How many teams do you think take a player 5 or 10 spots higher than where they think they will be drafted? If a team thinks a player will fall in the draft, they trade down. You argue it is about money, and that is all, but it is also about getting extra picks, and still getting the guy you want. I remember that year Pepper was drafted. It shocked everyone Minny took him when they had Brad Johnson coming off a very good year. By your logic, we should have stayed at #4 and taken Rex if that is who we liked, right?

 

"i also have to ask.... if we had a real management system in place, including gm, scouts and talent evaluators, who knew jack about offense and especially about qb's, would we have chosen this "most ready to start" qb in the first place?"

 

But this is not about money. We do have a GM and large scouting department. You can argue, and I will do so w/ you, they suck, but that is not a money issue.

 

"to top this off, which of our coaches would you have chosen for ANY input on drafting a qb? crowton? jauron? shoop-a-doop? none of them had ANY nfl offensive experience worth mentioning. also, who in this entire organization was qualified to not only evaluate mcnown, but actually coach him?"

 

First, I would point out that Shoop was a QB coach. Second, w/o trying to get into each and every assistant coach on the team, how does this help your argument we are cheap. I do not like the coaches we have hired, but that is not a 'cheap' issue, but a decision making one.

 

"then our defensive minded gm decides to garner more picks in 2003 and pass up leftwich to get haynes, a total bust, and grossman. the pick was leftwich with the #4 pick but it would have been cheaper to get grossman in the bottom of the draft and a less chance to bust with 2 picks."

 

One, most believed our draft pick at #4 would have been the DT Robertson, not Leftwhich, who many fans wanted but I recall little to indicate our staff was high on him.

 

Two, as I recall, it was Rex all along our staff liked, and thus we traded down rather take him at #4. I do not get your argument. If our staff liked Rex over Leftwhich, is it your argument we should have taken Rex at #4 just to prove we are not cheap. Yea, that would have made our team look so much better.

 

"does this say anything about the ability to evaluate qb talent? in all honesty, THIS was the year to trade up for the #1 spot if possible and get palmer. we instead traded down. costs too much for a #1 overall pick? moving on........."

 

Again, evaluating and decision making is not always about money. The staff liked Rex over Leftwhich. Even in hindsight, and myself not being a Rex fan, I am not sure I can disagree.

 

As for moving up to get Palmer being too expensive, yes, it is. Not so much due to money but picks. Cincy was asking for the moon to move down, and for a struggling team w/ so many needs, it just didn't make sense to give up so many picks.

 

"another miscue: we SHOULD have gotten 29 year old FA drew bledsoe the previous year, 2002, when he was a free agent but instead we went with a B.U. in the cheaper miller."

 

Yea, and the 2001 season Miller had for us had NOTHING to do w/ it.

 

"mirer? this was one of the stupidest decisions in this entire franchises history. again this came about by not having any personel with any clue about offensive talent. we relied exclusively on a DC turned HC in wanny. to trade that high of a draft pick for mirer who was NOT even a starter on his own team was ludicrous. if we had any offensive evaluation personel besides mikey, they would have certainly put the brakes on that trade. but then personel cost money."

 

Sorry, but you are killing me. We have had a full compliment on the staff. I agree w/ the idea we have needed more offensive backgrounded coaches, but that simply has NOTHING to do w/ being cheap. Is it your argument that an OC costs more than a DC? I don't think so. We spent money, but didn't spend it well. Fine. But it does NOT help your cheap argument at all.

 

"i think to cut this short, all the instances you mention are perfect examples of what you do when you don't have anyone in the entire organization that knows anything about offense and especially about quarterback talent. if you have failed this miserably for 45 of the last 50 years don't you think SOMEONE in management could figure out some changes need to be made in the way we evaluate and choose our qb's?"

 

You act like we have not had OCs or QB coaching on the team. We have had offensive coaches, just not as head coaches. Again, that simply has nothing to do w/ money or being cheap.

 

"i just can't believe that to be true.... if our scouts are telling our GM to pick certain players and he keeps picking others that bust, he needs to be fired."

 

This was your response from my comment that scouts can tell Angelo everything, but it is still Angelo's call. A scout does not tell Angelo who do draft. They give reports on prospects, and Angelo takes it from there.

 

"so that leaves us with we don't have a large enough staff to scout offensive players,"

 

According to what are you basing this on. Bad decision making does not mean a lack of resources. It may question the ability of those resources, but does not mean resources are lacking. The article talking about the need for QB specializing scouts also flat out says no one in the league has one. So unless your argument is every team is cheap, I do not think this is a money issue

 

"we don't have the RIGHT scouts to evaluate offensive talent, we don't have the key personel to evaluate what the scouts are saying, plus our coaching staff must be inept or they have no input on draft evaluation, AND we don't have quality personel including specialty coaches to evaluate and train the players CORRECTLY we do get."

 

And once again, I am not so much arguing this point, but I am arguing it being a money matter. You act like our scouts and staff work for free, or that scouts w/ more offensive background cost more, but you offer no evidence to show as much. Further, you do not even have a clue what our scouts background is. For all you know, we employ numerous former QBs as scouts. You don't know. We have not made good offensive choices in the draft, but again, I simply do not see how this is a money issue.

 

I know full well I have wasted my time. Some people have ingrained a belief, and there is no changing that. If we made a trade for McNabb, and gave him $20m guaranteed, you would find a way to say we were cheap. Or if we got Anderson and paid him a ton, you would again find a way to say we were cheap.

 

I swear that if a report came out showing how, as an organization, we spent more than any other (including staff and other personnel) but in that report it also said we pay our janiter $1/hr less than the average, you would scream, "I told you we were cheap".