Peter King comments on us not going QB...

[madlithuanian]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...qb.draft/1.html

 

 

The three teams I didn't like:

 

1. Chicago. The Bears had 12 draft choices this year. No quarterback picked. Chicago had nine draft choices in 2007. No quarterback picked. Chicago had seven draft choices in 2006. Three years with a quarterback need, 28 draft choices, and never a passer picked. This isn't odd. It's negligent.

 

The thing that drives me craziest about the draft is when you see a team with talent not doing enough to bolster the most important position on the field, over and over and over again. With Chad Henne, who absolutely should have been a first-rounder, and solid guy Brian Brohm on the board, the Bears passed on both and picked a very productive running back from Tulane, Matt Forte.

 

There's a slight chance -- maybe 20 or 25 percent, I'd say -- that the Bears have their quarterback of the future on the roster in either Rex Grossman or Kyle Orton. Maybe. But whether you believe it or not, you have to admit it's silly not to backstop the most important position in sports. What is it about the undying love of Grossman that makes Chicago unable or unwilling to turn the page?

 

2. Cincinnati. For one reason: The Bengals stubbornly turned down Washington's offer of first- and third-round picks for Chad Johnson (and the ransom could have gone higher, to a second-rounder with decent production by Johnson and a first-rounder if he starred in Washington). I am in full agreement that what Johnson is doing is selfish and the team should not stand for it. But I guess this would be my question -- if Johnson were a decent, quiet, all-team guy at age 30, wouldn't you think it wise to deal him for first- and second-round picks. I sure would.

 

3. Tennessee. I should call this the Matt Millen Memorial Wide Receiver Stat of the Week, in honor of the Detroit executive who picked wide receivers in the top 10 of the draft in three consecutive years: The Tennessee Titans have taken a running back in the top 50 picks of the draft three years in a row -- Chris Johnson in 2008 (24th overall), Chris Henry in 2007 (50th), and LenDale White in 2006 (45th). I'm not really interested in hearing an explanation on that. It's just wrong.

[nfoligno]

King takes the words out of my mouth. Look at some of the great teams, and even w/ established QBs on the roster, they regardless draft QBs in order to (a) develop them w/o pressure and ( provide an in-house backup.

 

NE has one of the best QBs in the league, and yet they just spent a 3rd on a QB. Oh yea, and that veteran QB on their roster. They drafted him when they had a (considered at the time) established veteran in Bledsoe.

 

GB has had Favre for ever. Regardless, they drafted numerous QBs over the years. They drafted Hasselbeck, who they were able to trade later for pick(s). They drafted Rogers, who has been Favre's backup for the last couple years, and will likely be his replacement this year. Even though they have Rogers, they went ahead and drafted not one, but two QBs. If Rogers does not pan out, they have a solid backup plan in place. If he does pan out, well, they have a far better dilimna than we have. Better two have two good QBs than none.

 

Indy has a guy names Payton Manning, and yet a few years ago, they drafted Sorgi who is their primary backup. No clue if he is good or not, but (a) they have an in-house QB they have been able to develop and ( do not have to worry about going out every year looking for a backup in FA.

 

Phily has McNabb, and yet took Kolb, who they can develop to take over when McNabb is done.

 

Notice the trend? These are teams that win year in and year out. They have stud QBs on the roster, but they regardless draft QBs because they know the value of the position. They do not put all their eggs in one basket. We do not even have an egg in our basket, and blowoff the egg hunt yearly.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I still think the Bears got two undrafted free agents who have similar odds as any of the guys that we could have drafted in the 5th to 7th round (maybe not Henne/Brohm as those guys clearly have better odds of success). Now neither of them may even make the roster but Hill has a big arm and the Colorado State kid is someone Mel Kiper was continually talking highly about during the 2nd day of the draft.

 

The Bears other two QB's, Rex & Kyle, are both what I'd consider fairly young (Rex a bit older obviously, but still, both are not even close to being on the downside of there careers). I also believe it was fairly obvious that neither QB got any help from the play-calling, offensive line, running game last season. I think Angelo believes one of these two guys may have what it takes to be the starter and he was more concerned with surrounding each QB with enough weapons to where you can truly evaluate them (because whether it was Rex or Kyle or Henne/Brohm, without making some early round offensive selections, pretty much anyone was destined to have trouble running this offense).

 

Obviously the Bears will still need some pretty quick impacts out of there early offensive draft picks to be super successful next year (and that may be unrealistic), but if Kyle/Rex don't show anything, Angelo can address the position next year (knowing he hopefully has found a QB an improved receiving threat...Hester develops, Bradley, Bennet, Olsen, Clark and an improved rushing game (Forte/Benson/PetersoN) and a better line.

[LT2_3]

I think the key issue that King and anyone else that brings this up forgets (or didn't know in the first place), is that ANYONE drafted this year will get zero reps with the 1st unit in TC due to the upcooming QB competition.

 

From a national level, everyone still sees our starting QB as Grossman and haven't even heard (or forgot) about the upcoming QB competition. The teams mentioned that have taken QBs relatively high are teams with an established starter in an established system. They can give those starters probably as little as 60% of the snaps in TC and as much as 40% to their new draftees. With a QB competition, our top 2 QBs will bogart every meaningful snap. That means that a drafted guy wouldn't be prepared to do ANYTHING during the season.

 

On the positive side, we can probably put both of our UDFA QBs on the practice squad for the whole year (unless there is a serious injury) and free up an extra spot for 4 RBs, 5 DTs, 5 Ss, or whatever we need.

[Da Bears 88]

King takes the words out of my mouth. Look at some of the great teams, and even w/ established QBs on the roster, they regardless draft QBs in order to (a) develop them w/o pressure and ( provide an in-house backup.

 

NE has one of the best QBs in the league, and yet they just spent a 3rd on a QB. Oh yea, and that veteran QB on their roster. They drafted him when they had a (considered at the time) established veteran in Bledsoe.

 

GB has had Favre for ever. Regardless, they drafted numerous QBs over the years. They drafted Hasselbeck, who they were able to trade later for pick(s). They drafted Rogers, who has been Favre's backup for the last couple years, and will likely be his replacement this year. Even though they have Rogers, they went ahead and drafted not one, but two QBs. If Rogers does not pan out, they have a solid backup plan in place. If he does pan out, well, they have a far better dilimna than we have. Better two have two good QBs than none.

 

Indy has a guy names Payton Manning, and yet a few years ago, they drafted Sorgi who is their primary backup. No clue if he is good or not, but (a) they have an in-house QB they have been able to develop and ( do not have to worry about going out every year looking for a backup in FA.

 

Phily has McNabb, and yet took Kolb, who they can develop to take over when McNabb is done.

 

Notice the trend? These are teams that win year in and year out. They have stud QBs on the roster, but they regardless draft QBs because they know the value of the position. They do not put all their eggs in one basket. We do not even have an egg in our basket, and blowoff the egg hunt yearly.

What did you expect from JA?

 

The man thinks some undrafted QB is better than guys like Brohm or Woodson.

 

This shows you exactly why this man sucks as a GM.

[DrunkBomber]

I would have liked to get Brohm but everyone is going way overboard with this. Anybody that thought we would address QB early in this draft must have been delusional. Whether WE agree with it or not it is very obvious the front office is content with the QB position. Every time someone was predicting us getting a QB early on here I tried to point out the reasons why we wouldnt and everyone thought it was insane to think that. To save anyone the effort, Im not saying I dont think we should have gotten a QB, Im saying it was obvious we wouldnt draft one.

[adam]

I am also a bit shocked/perplexed that we did not draft a QB, but how strong was this class of QB's?

 

Before the combine, Ryan was a mid-1st round pick, and now he goes at #3. Many analysts said that this was a 1 QB draft. Baltimore reached big time on Flacco at #18, and he was not even on the QB radar until April. There is probably good reason why Brohm and Henne fell to the late 2nd round. If they were so good, why did teams wait so long to pick them? Miami traded up to get Henne after GB came out of nowhere and picked Brohm. If GB passes on Brohm, they would've fell even further. CAR and KC, both in need of a QB, did not draft one either. There are a bunch of teams that completely passed on QB this year, even with a need.

 

Could this just have been a bad year to draft QB's?

 

Hell, just comparing numbers, Orton looked pretty damn good coming out of Purdue with 3,000 yards and a 31 TD to 5 INT ratio for a 4th round pick. How much different would any of these QB's have been compared to Orton and his neckbeard?

[DrunkBomber]

I am also a bit shocked/perplexed that we did not draft a QB, but how strong was this class of QB's?

 

Before the combine, Ryan was a mid-1st round pick, and now he goes at #3. Many analysts said that this was a 1 QB draft. Baltimore reached big time on Flacco at #18, and he was not even on the QB radar until April. There is probably good reason why Brohm and Henne fell to the late 2nd round. If they were so good, why did teams wait so long to pick them? Miami traded up to get Henne after GB came out of nowhere and picked Brohm. If GB passes on Brohm, they would've fell even further. CAR and KC, both in need of a QB, did not draft one either. There are a bunch of teams that completely passed on QB this year, even with a need.

 

Could this just have been a bad year to draft QB's?

 

Hell, just comparing numbers, Orton looked pretty damn good coming out of Purdue with 3,000 yards and a 31 TD to 5 INT ratio for a 4th round pick. How much different would any of these QB's have been compared to Orton and his neckbeard?

If he didnt have that neckbeard he would be a 6th or 7th rounder if he was drafted at all.

[madlithuanian]

Your well written comments really make my heart heavy! It rings too true...

 

King takes the words out of my mouth. Look at some of the great teams, and even w/ established QBs on the roster, they regardless draft QBs in order to (a) develop them w/o pressure and ( provide an in-house backup.

 

NE has one of the best QBs in the league, and yet they just spent a 3rd on a QB. Oh yea, and that veteran QB on their roster. They drafted him when they had a (considered at the time) established veteran in Bledsoe.

 

GB has had Favre for ever. Regardless, they drafted numerous QBs over the years. They drafted Hasselbeck, who they were able to trade later for pick(s). They drafted Rogers, who has been Favre's backup for the last couple years, and will likely be his replacement this year. Even though they have Rogers, they went ahead and drafted not one, but two QBs. If Rogers does not pan out, they have a solid backup plan in place. If he does pan out, well, they have a far better dilimna than we have. Better two have two good QBs than none.

 

Indy has a guy names Payton Manning, and yet a few years ago, they drafted Sorgi who is their primary backup. No clue if he is good or not, but (a) they have an in-house QB they have been able to develop and ( do not have to worry about going out every year looking for a backup in FA.

 

Phily has McNabb, and yet took Kolb, who they can develop to take over when McNabb is done.

 

Notice the trend? These are teams that win year in and year out. They have stud QBs on the roster, but they regardless draft QBs because they know the value of the position. They do not put all their eggs in one basket. We do not even have an egg in our basket, and blowoff the egg hunt yearly.

[adam]

If he didnt have that neckbeard he would be a 6th or 7th rounder if he was drafted at all.

YES! It is amazing the influence a neckbeard has on the draft these days. You basically have to knock 0.5 off their 40 time, and add 10 reps to their bench if they possess a neckbeard at the combine. Pretty crazy stuff.

[nfoligno]

Come on LT. How ignorant do you think King is. It isn't that they have forgotten orton. They simply do not think enough of him to believe he is enough reason to not draft a QB. Ditto on Rex.

 

As for the training camp reps, again, come on. If we draft a rookie, will he get loaded up w/ reps? Maybe not. But do not think for a moment he wouldn't get more than a nice share. Consider this. Teams often bring in an extra QB or two for extra arms so as to not wear out the top tier QBs. More than enough throwing to go around. Would a rookie QB get many reps w/ the 1st or even 2nd string. No. So what. His development would still have begun.

 

Final point. So you think we are only going to carry 2 QBs? Once again, come on LT. You know we are going to carry a 3rd QB.

[nfoligno]

I would have liked to get Brohm but everyone is going way overboard with this. Anybody that thought we would address QB early in this draft must have been delusional. Whether WE agree with it or not it is very obvious the front office is content with the QB position. Every time someone was predicting us getting a QB early on here I tried to point out the reasons why we wouldnt and everyone thought it was insane to think that. To save anyone the effort, Im not saying I dont think we should have gotten a QB, Im saying it was obvious we wouldnt draft one.

 

Heading into the draft, I would have agreed we would not take a QB in the first. Further, I argued it was wrong to trade down in the 1st in order to draft Brohm or Henne, or whoever, later for better value. My argument was that if we do not upgrade the OL, how can we develop a QB.

 

But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. We got our LT, and guess what. The QBs began to fell. At that point, I see no reason why we could not have taken a QB. Still could add a RB in the 3rd (or trade up from the 3rd to get Forte).

 

So I understand the rationale for not taking an early round QB prior to the draft. Hell, I argued the same. But circumstanced changed IMHO. The LT we wanted fell to us, and then the QB fell too. IMHO, all argument made prior t the draft against taking a QB early (Brohm in the 2nd) went by wayside once the draft unfolded.

[nfoligno]

One, the argument "if they were so good, why did they fall" is sort of weak as history has shown us plenty of QBs who did not go high and were successful. I have seen many who would still today trade for Brady Quinn, but hey, if he is so good. And by that rationale, would Brady have been drafted.

 

As for the argument, which I read more and more, about how maybe this was just not a good QB class and all that. Hey, I don't know. But as King pointed out, we have not drafted a QB for the last three drafts. Were those all bad QB drafts?

[DrunkBomber]

Heading into the draft, I would have agreed we would not take a QB in the first. Further, I argued it was wrong to trade down in the 1st in order to draft Brohm or Henne, or whoever, later for better value. My argument was that if we do not upgrade the OL, how can we develop a QB.

 

But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. We got our LT, and guess what. The QBs began to fell. At that point, I see no reason why we could not have taken a QB. Still could add a RB in the 3rd (or trade up from the 3rd to get Forte).

 

So I understand the rationale for not taking an early round QB prior to the draft. Hell, I argued the same. But circumstanced changed IMHO. The LT we wanted fell to us, and then the QB fell too. IMHO, all argument made prior t the draft against taking a QB early (Brohm in the 2nd) went by wayside once the draft unfolded.

I agree about the o line. It is going to be very hard to develop any offensive skill positions if the line doesnt play much better this year. With all those late picks we had I honestly would have liked us to grab 3 or 4 offensive lineman and simply let them duke it out in training camp instead of drafting positions we absolutely dont need.

[Connorbear]

Heading into the draft, I would have agreed we would not take a QB in the first. Further, I argued it was wrong to trade down in the 1st in order to draft Brohm or Henne, or whoever, later for better value. My argument was that if we do not upgrade the OL, how can we develop a QB.

 

But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. We got our LT, and guess what. The QBs began to fell. At that point, I see no reason why we could not have taken a QB. Still could add a RB in the 3rd (or trade up from the 3rd to get Forte).

 

So I understand the rationale for not taking an early round QB prior to the draft. Hell, I argued the same. But circumstanced changed IMHO. The LT we wanted fell to us, and then the QB fell too. IMHO, all argument made prior t the draft against taking a QB early (Brohm in the 2nd) went by wayside once the draft unfolded.

I'm sorry. I simply could not see us taking a QB in the top 3 rounds. We had too many other needs to address to allow for that. The only QB I was upset we did not draft (after the top 4 were gone) was Johnson. I would have taken him in the 5th instead of Bowman. Obviously, the Bears staff felt that Johnson wasn't much better than Hanie or Hill. BTW - both Jaws and Kiper feel Hanie can be a starter in the league.

 

I agree that this organization needs to start drafting/signing a QB prospect every 1 or 2 yrs. That has been one of my concerns for sometime.

 

Peace

[Connorbear]

Come on LT. How ignorant do you think King is. It isn't that they have forgotten orton. They simply do not think enough of him to believe he is enough reason to not draft a QB. Ditto on Rex.

 

As for the training camp reps, again, come on. If we draft a rookie, will he get loaded up w/ reps? Maybe not. But do not think for a moment he wouldn't get more than a nice share. Consider this. Teams often bring in an extra QB or two for extra arms so as to not wear out the top tier QBs. More than enough throwing to go around. Would a rookie QB get many reps w/ the 1st or even 2nd string. No. So what. His development would still have begun.

 

Final point. So you think we are only going to carry 2 QBs? Once again, come on LT. You know we are going to carry a 3rd QB.

We absolutely could carry 2 QBs with 2 on the practice squad. If one gets nabbed by another team, you pull the onto the 53 man roster immediately. Although, I don't see that happening. Maybe once a yr you lose a player of your practice squad to another team.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

I didn't say we "can't" carry two QBs on the roster. I said we would not. And we won't.

 

Just like we wouldn't carry a 3rd kicker when fans wanted a kickoff specialist.

 

Just like we didn't carry a 7th WR when fans liked the guy about to get cut.

 

Just like we will not carry 4 RBs.

 

We will not carry only two QBs on the roster. Cracks me up how fans try to tweak the roster this way and that, and at the end of the day, nothing changes.

[Mongo3451]

Here's my thoughts for what they are worth. We fixed every aspect on the team via the draft, except QB. So, my thinking is that JA and Co think that we are still in the window of opportunity. They saw Tom Brady look like anything but Tom Brady in the Super Bowl. Why? Because Tom Brady was on his back. Similarities exist with any QB we threw out there last year. What I'm saying is, any QB looks normal if his support is not there. They drafted an LT that essentially strengthens 2 OL spots. They draft the best blocking RB in the entire draft, thus protecting the QB more. The added bonus is that Forte is rated as a complete 3 down package and we don't know what's going on with Benson. They drafted WR in the 3rd because we lost Moose and Berrian. Berrian really hurt, but I agree with not paying him that much to be a pussy and not fight for the ball. So, they addressed every support function to Rex/Kyle and are hoping they inprove. Then the experiment will finally be over if it fails, thus the one and two year deals respectively. Screw Peter King, he's really said some jackass things the last couple of years.

[nfoligno]

Screw Peter King, he's really said some jackass things the last couple of years.

 

The bears need a QB and have ignored the position in the last three drafts. What is "jackass" about that?

[madlithuanian]

Mongo,

 

As much as I've disagreed with King over the years, not everything he says is bunk. Not drafting a QB for 3 staright years given our situation is just foolishness. It really gives credibility ot the conspiracy theory that Rex has nude pictures of Jerry and Lovie somewhere...

 

But really, to address you Brady statement. Yeah, he had a bad game. But look at his carrer! It's good game after good game. Not flashes a good games, marred by endless turnovers and snal fumbles. And yes, he has had a better line, but still even when getting mauled by the Giants, he still exuded some pocket presence and actually led his team down for the win if it weren't for Eli's amazing backatcha.

 

I think there is some hope with Kyle. He could turn into a great game manager. And later, he could turn into something more. I'd be more than OK with that. But I think Rex is done.

 

Here's my thoughts for what they are worth. We fixed every aspect on the team via the draft, except QB. So, my thinking is that JA and Co think that we are still in the window of opportunity. They saw Tom Brady look like anything but Tom Brady in the Super Bowl. Why? Because Tom Brady was on his back. Similarities exist with any QB we threw out there last year. What I'm saying is, any QB looks normal if his support is not there. They drafted an LT that essentially strengthens 2 OL spots. They draft the best blocking RB in the entire draft, thus protecting the QB more. The added bonus is that Forte is rated as a complete 3 down package and we don't know what's going on with Benson. They drafted WR in the 3rd because we lost Moose and Berrian. Berrian really hurt, but I agree with not paying him that much to be a pussy and not fight for the ball. So, they addressed every support function to Rex/Kyle and are hoping they inprove. Then the experiment will finally be over if it fails, thus the one and two year deals respectively. Screw Peter King, he's really said some jackass things the last couple of years.

[Da Bears 88]

Mongo,

 

As much as I've disagreed with King over the years, not everything he says is bunk. Not drafting a QB for 3 staright years given our situation is just foolishness. It really gives credibility ot the conspiracy theory that Rex has nude pictures of Jerry and Lovie somewhere...

 

But really, to address you Brady statement. Yeah, he had a bad game. But look at his carrer! It's good game after good game. Not flashes a good games, marred by endless turnovers and snal fumbles. And yes, he has had a better line, but still even when getting mauled by the Giants, he still exuded some pocket presence and actually led his team down for the win if it weren't for Eli's amazing backatcha.

 

I think there is some hope with Kyle. He could turn into a great game manager. And later, he could turn into something more. I'd be more than OK with that. But I think Rex is done.

You think Rex is done and yet you think Orton is some kind of stud?

[nfoligno]

You think Rex is done and yet you think Orton is some kind of stud?

 

I think he is saying we have seen mor of Rex to make a judgment, while Orton is still more of an unknown, and therefor, could be more than what some believe.

 

I don't believe he ever said Orton was a stud. Only that he believes Rex is a dud, and Orton may not be.

[Da Bears 88]

I think he is saying we have seen mor of Rex to make a judgment, while Orton is still more of an unknown, and therefor, could be more than what some believe.

 

I don't believe he ever said Orton was a stud. Only that he believes Rex is a dud, and Orton may not be.

Ok, but the starts i've seen from Orton, he doesn't impress me at all.

 

I think he sucks. Then again, what QB hasn't, here?

[nfoligno]

For the record, my position.

 

Rex is not a starting QB in the NFL.

 

Orton? I have my doubt (to say the least) but would like to give him a chance. That does not necessarily mean a chance like Rex got where he is the unquestioned starter w/o competition. But I would like to allow Orton a chance to go into camp and see what he can do. Further, I would not dumb down the system any. And this is key for me.

 

Orton played as a rookie, and it was a safe offense he was running. Hey, he was a rookie, so fine. When he took over last year, Turner seemed to do it again. Does Orton needs this dumbed down, conservative version? Maybe. But I would like to throw him into a normal system, which utilizes both the short and deep field and let him sink or swim.

 

I see no reason not to allow this. Understand, I am among the loudest in screaming it was wrong to pass on Brohm, or any QB in the draft. At the same time, I want to give Orton a legit chance, which I simply do not believe he has had yet, but that he has in fact earned.

[Da Bears 88]

No offense, but Orton wouldn't even be a starter on most teams.

 

People talk smack about Rex. Yet, think Orton is so damn good.

 

I swear the hate Rex gets and all the drooling for the great Kyle Orton is a joke.

 

Orton= The most overrated Bears player on this board!