Cassel tagged....

[madlithuanian]

News on the Score was that the Pats have placed the franchise tag on Cassell. So, one potential option is off the board.

[BearSox]

I don't think he was ever a potential option except for the armchair GM's here (myself included).

[bradjock]

Good for Cassel. It's weird when you think how fate touched him. He's been in the league for 4 years making the minimum. So that's a little over a million altogether? Tom Brady gets hurt, he has the luxury of passing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker, so he's set to make close to 15 million. If Tom Brady gets hurt, he'd never have made that much in his life-time.

 

Either way, he would suck with the Bears and it would have been a mistake for us to go after him. Our group of WR's aren't exactly the same caliber.

[Connorbear]

I believe they only tagged him because they are looking for someone to trade for him. I believe they can remove the tag at any time (the Bears did this to Raymont Harris a long time ago). IMHO he will not be making $15 million next yr. Someone will trade for him and he will probably get a contract similar to Romo.

 

Peace

[brletich]

I believe they only tagged him because they are looking for someone to trade for him. I believe they can remove the tag at any time (the Bears did this to Raymont Harris a long time ago). IMHO he will not be making $15 million next yr. Someone will trade for him and he will probably get a contract similar to Romo.

 

Peace

 

I hear they tagged him (or will tag him, not sure if it is official yet because his contract doesn't expire until the offseason I think) because they are not sure if Brady will be healthy come training camp. So they are going to need him, not trade him.

[BigDaddy]

It's a safe bet for them. They have an assurance that if Brady does not come back next year and I heard the other day that there may be another surgery required, that they have continuity at the QB position. If Brady comes back strong, they can trade Cassel for a premium so they win either way. Besides, if the Surgeon screwed up, there will be a hefty malpractice suit from both the pats and brady so they won't lose alot of money. Obviously, they will eat the cap space but when has that ever been an issue for new England?

[BearsFan]

I hear they tagged him (or will tag him, not sure if it is official yet because his contract doesn't expire until the offseason I think) because they are not sure if Brady will be healthy come training camp. So they are going to need him, not trade him.

 

They can't officially tag him until the '09 league year begins, which is around Feb 10th.

 

.

[Boston Boxer]

the Bears would have no interest in him...we have gone this long without a good QB, why start looking for one now.

 

when was the last time we had a good QB, i mean really good QB. Jimmy Mac??? was he good or was it our WRs? It is kind of strange if you think about it.

[madlithuanian]

Jimmy Mac was good... He was just injury prone. He wasn't great like Montana or anything. But he was darn good. A fierce competitor, a winner, and a leader...someone that his teammates would follow into battle.

 

Our WR's were basically Gault and McKinnon with a little Gentry mixed in... None of those guys were upper echelon in the least. But, having Payton and Suey made a HUGE difference... Also, Moorehead, while not great, was a good big target as TE.

 

when was the last time we had a good QB, i mean really good QB. Jimmy Mac??? was he good or was it our WRs? It is kind of strange if you think about it.

[nfoligno]

i mean really good QB. Jimmy Mac??? was he good or was it our WRs?

 

Could the same question not be asked about the great Cassel? At least Mac had more than one season of evidence to go off. Cassel didn't start a game in college. He is a near after thought entering the NFL, and due to injury, gets his chance.

 

But as well as he has looked this year, might it not be fair to ask how much is him and how much is the following:

 

- He has one of the best, if not the best, coaching staff in the NFL calling the shots.

 

- You question Mac's WRs, but how about what he has to work w/ in NE? In Moss and Welker, Cassel has the benefit of two of the top WRs in the game.

 

- OL may not be in the elite tier, but it is light years better than the bears.

 

- No one great RB, but overall? NE had nearly 2,300 rushing yards on a 4.4 ypc average, and 21 TDs this year, compared to Chicago's 1,700, 3.9 ypc avg and 15 TDs.

 

Cassel may be a good, or even great, QB, but (a) one good season in an ideal environment makes it hard to tell and ( those questions would become even greater going from a best case scenario to Chicago, a scenario I do not even want to define.

[Mongo3451]

Jimmy Mac was good... He was just injury prone. He wasn't great like Montana or anything. But he was darn good. A fierce competitor, a winner, and a leader...someone that his teammates would follow into battle.

 

Our WR's were basically Gault and McKinnon with a little Gentry mixed in... None of those guys were upper echelon in the least. But, having Payton and Suey made a HUGE difference... Also, Moorehead, while not great, was a good big target as TE.

The thing that killed me about Mac was that he didn't need to be injury prone. I remember everyone from Ditka to the broadcast announcers trying to get him to be less reckless. Hell, he had the best OL in the NFL with Covert, Bortz, Hillgenberg, Thayer and Van Horn. There was absolutely no reason for him to be geyying killed like he was. But, that is what made him great to me. There was never any doubt he was going to leave it on the field.

[madlithuanian]

Yeah... In actuality, I really blame that POS Packer, Charles Martin, that cheap shotted him after a play was long over. That really killed him...

 

Yeah, part of what made him successful was that he did leave it all on the field... including his drawers in NO!

 

The thing that killed me about Mac was that he didn't need to be injury prone. I remember everyone from Ditka to the broadcast announcers trying to get him to be less reckless. Hell, he had the best OL in the NFL with Covert, Bortz, Hillgenberg, Thayer and Van Horn. There was absolutely no reason for him to be geyying killed like he was. But, that is what made him great to me. There was never any doubt he was going to leave it on the field.

[Boston Boxer]

i mean really good QB. Jimmy Mac??? was he good or was it our WRs?

 

Could the same question not be asked about the great Cassel? At least Mac had more than one season of evidence to go off. Cassel didn't start a game in college. He is a near after thought entering the NFL, and due to injury, gets his chance.

 

But as well as he has looked this year, might it not be fair to ask how much is him and how much is the following:

 

- He has one of the best, if not the best, coaching staff in the NFL calling the shots.

 

- You question Mac's WRs, but how about what he has to work w/ in NE? In Moss and Welker, Cassel has the benefit of two of the top WRs in the game.

 

- OL may not be in the elite tier, but it is light years better than the bears.

 

- No one great RB, but overall? NE had nearly 2,300 rushing yards on a 4.4 ypc average, and 21 TDs this year, compared to Chicago's 1,700, 3.9 ypc avg and 15 TDs.

 

Cassel may be a good, or even great, QB, but (a) one good season in an ideal environment makes it hard to tell and ( those questions would become even greater going from a best case scenario to Chicago, a scenario I do not even want to define.

 

lets put Cassel aside for a minute. Why does this organization refuse to address the poor QB play by getting someone of some quality? I mean, i guess they tried...bad luck with Rick Mier and Rex Grossman. But they never really go after a quality QB

[akshaz]

lets put Cassel aside for a minute. Why does this organization refuse to address the poor QB play by getting someone of some quality? I mean, i guess they tried...bad luck with Rick Mier and Rex Grossman. But they never really go after a quality QB

 

I just don't think that the Bears focus on the position enough. We always focus on the defense and running game; which of course is very crucial.

 

But, I don't think that we'll ever be a consistently good team until we get a franchise quarterback. Man, if you watch some of the balls that Phillip Rivers, Manning and even Matt Ryan and some of college qbs threw over the weekend, it's clear as day. It's easy to see that until we have a guy that can make those difficult throws on a consistent basis. Get first downs and continue drives; we'll always sputter. A real quarterback can make throws that are impossible to defend in crucial moments.

 

We may have a good season here and there. But, until we get a real quarterback, our success will be sporatic at best.

[balta1701-A]

I just don't think that the Bears focus on the position enough. We always focus on the defense and running game; which of course is very crucial.

 

But, I don't think that we'll ever be a consistently good team until we get a franchise quarterback. Man, if you watch some of the balls that Phillip Rivers, Manning and even Matt Ryan and some of college qbs threw over the weekend, it's clear as day. It's easy to see that until we have a guy that can make those difficult throws on a consistent basis. Get first downs and continue drives; we'll always sputter. A real quarterback can make throws that are impossible to defend in crucial moments.

 

We may have a good season here and there. But, until we get a real quarterback, our success will be sporatic at best.

Another side of the token though...the Bears have tried and failed as well. McNown and Grossman are the 2 1st round QB busts they've had in the past decade. At some level, they may just not be the place for a QB to go to develop. If the Bears had grabbed Aaron Rogers in 05 instead of Benson, do you think Rogers would have developed for the Bears as he has for the Packers, for example?

 

Aside from getting a top 5 pick, like all of the guys you cited there, I'm just not sure what the solution is.

[ParkerBear7]

lets put Cassel aside for a minute. Why does this organization refuse to address the poor QB play by getting someone of some quality? I mean, i guess they tried...bad luck with Rick Mier and Rex Grossman. But they never really go after a quality QB

 

 

Because the Bears live in 1985! They historically overbuild the foundation with DEF and base their offense on the running game thus having an unbalanced team. Another problem is while the 85 Bears arguably had one of the most talented (athletically and fast) def of that era the modern game has made continued to advance to the point DEF players today who could put those players to shame. So until this organization understand you need to be able to have a QB who can take over a game when needed we will be stuck watching a mediorce offenses / team. Additonally, it is because of this philosphy the team has no idea how to evaluate this position nor do they make it a priorty. Infact they seem to allocate a lot more resources to the DEF vs. the OFF which also plays a major factor.

[akshaz]

Another side of the token though...the Bears have tried and failed as well. McNown and Grossman are the 2 1st round QB busts they've had in the past decade. At some level, they may just not be the place for a QB to go to develop. If the Bears had grabbed Aaron Rogers in 05 instead of Benson, do you think Rogers would have developed for the Bears as he has for the Packers, for example?

 

Aside from getting a top 5 pick, like all of the guys you cited there, I'm just not sure what the solution is.

 

Give it some priority. Both of the times you mention, the Bears had an opportunity to pick a better QB with a higher pick. But, they chose to trade down and get a cheaper "second tier" guy. Don't forget that Rex was our SECOND pick that year. We picked Michael Haynes first.

 

Again, I say make the position a priority. Don't trade down. Use our highest draft pick to select the best QB on the board. In fact, I'd be okay with trading UP for a change instead of trying to corner the 5-6 rounds.

 

To answer your question about Rodgers, there is no way he'd be as good as he is if he played for the Bears. We also put little stock in QB development. If we draft a QB with a high pick, we need to supplement that with a premier QBs coach.

[nfoligno]

Honestly, I think it is far more about bad scouting/luck than simply about not caring about the QB position. IMHO, they have tried, and tried nearly every path. But regardless the path, it just has not worked. The ways they have tried:

 

Use a 1st round pick - They drafted Cade McNown top 15, and Rex Grossman just outside that range. Neither worked out, but they have spent two 1st round picks on QBs in the last decade.

 

Trade a 1st round pick for a veteran - Rick Mirer. Talk about a bad move. But again, they went in a direction that worked for other teams, but simply didn't work for us.

 

Draft QBs w/ 2nd day picks hoping they would pan out like Brady or Romo did for NE and Dallas - Orton, Kretzel, Moreno. Add to the list numerous undrafted rookies brought in. Orton looks the best of the bunch, but w/o question, no Brady's here.

 

Sign starting experience veterans - Griese, Jeff Blake, Stewart, Chandler, Miller, Mathews. Griese was likely the best of the bunch, but none ever really panned out.

 

Sign a veteran who was a backup in a good system/ behind a good starter - Quinn was the backup in a good KC system, developed by a great OC, and who backed up a very solid veteran. Other teams have struck gold doing this, but Quinn didn't come close to panning out. Hutchinson might also be included in this category.

 

So, while I would have liked to do more, I would make the argument the team has tried for a long time, and in many different ways, to add a QB, but regardless the path they take, no QB has ever worked out. IMHO, at some point, you have to look at more than just our making QB a priority. For example, would it not be more than fair to question our scouts ability to scout QBs? Also, while we have attempted to add a QB in many different ways, I would point out how bad the surrounding talent usually was the QB would play w/. When have we made OL a priority? How well can you expect to develop a QB if he doesn't have a solid or better OL protecting him. When have we had an upper tier WR for the QB to work w/? What sort of run game has our offense seen over the last decade? Adding a quality QB is part of it, but if you don't build the offense around him, I question how much we can expect from the QB position.

 

lets put Cassel aside for a minute. Why does this organization refuse to address the poor QB play by getting someone of some quality? I mean, i guess they tried...bad luck with Rick Mier and Rex Grossman. But they never really go after a quality QB

[Lucky Luciano]

Honestly, I think it is far more about bad scouting/luck than simply about not caring about the QB position. IMHO, they have tried, and tried nearly every path. But regardless the path, it just has not worked. The ways they have tried:

 

Use a 1st round pick - They drafted Cade McNown top 15, and Rex Grossman just outside that range. Neither worked out, but they have spent two 1st round picks on QBs in the last decade.

 

Trade a 1st round pick for a veteran - Rick Mirer. Talk about a bad move. But again, they went in a direction that worked for other teams, but simply didn't work for us.

 

Draft QBs w/ 2nd day picks hoping they would pan out like Brady or Romo did for NE and Dallas - Orton, Kretzel, Moreno. Add to the list numerous undrafted rookies brought in. Orton looks the best of the bunch, but w/o question, no Brady's here.

 

agree and disagree.

 

before jim finks '74-'82/jerry vanisi, along with muggs halas, it was not a top priority to draft one that high or simply PAY one the money good ones were getting. between 1960 and 1973 the bears drafted 3 qb's in rounds 2-3 (not a SINGLE 1st round pick). 1960 round 3 don meredith; 1969 round 2 bobby douglas; 1973 gary huff round 3. is it any wonder we were never in the running for a title in that superbowl era?

 

the only priority put on this position was by finks drafting mcmahon, a top 5 pick, in 1982 after building his offensive line, with 3 offensive tackles picked in the first round, d. lick, t. albrecht and k. van horne. jerry vanisi, 83-86, continued drafting offensive line talent by drafting jim covert T first round in '83 along with guards thayer 4th rd, and bortz 8th rd.

 

after vanisi's stint in chicago mikey 1987-98 (also wanny took control of the gm position in his first go and worked with the boy genius in regards to our drafts) took over the reins. this imbecile drafted ONE first day qb, harbaugh rd. 1 '87, in 12 years, and the likes of b. snyder rd. 7 '89, p. justin rd. 7 '91, w. furrer rd. 4 '92, m. moreno rd. 7 '98. the only redeeming factor was bringing in free agent eric kramer who was the 2nd best free agent at the that position at that time '94. this move was completely offset by bringing in rick mirer in one of the most stupid trades in modern football to replace HIM in '97.

 

now we can get to our recent dilema... we traded down, instead of UP, to get mcnown in '99, we traded down to get grossman in 2003, instead of UP in the first round AGAIN. then we draft a head scratching pick in craig krenzel, 5th rd., and finally we get a decent 4th round pick in orton.

 

so i agree the scouting has been bad for over the last 20 years. but in my opinion it also comes from cheap owners, poor management, and poor coaching. the unwillingness to pay for more scouts, or better ones, BAD gm's whose mindset appeared to be that qb's are not as important as defense and a running game which is exactly what we got. add to this we never hired top offensive minded coaches to go along with it.

 

Sign starting experience veterans - Griese, Jeff Blake, Stewart, Chandler, Miller, Mathews. Griese was likely the best of the bunch, but none ever really panned out.

 

each and every one of these "veterans" were either OLD and on the last leg of a career or came with serious baggage and spotty careers. it can be said we passed on drew brees and we also passed on bledsoe in his first round free agency from the pats. these were top of the line qb's who were free agents and carried no compensation to their former teams yet we never even gave them a look.

 

Sign a veteran who was a backup in a good system/ behind a good starter - Quinn was the backup in a good KC system, developed by a great OC, and who backed up a very solid veteran. Other teams have struck gold doing this, but Quinn didn't come close to panning out. Hutchinson might also be included in this category.

 

you have to put miller, who was a backup, whose injury MAY have been the deciding factor in his career.

 

So, while I would have liked to do more, I would make the argument the team has tried for a long time, and in many different ways, to add a QB, but regardless the path they take, no QB has ever worked out. IMHO, at some point, you have to look at more than just our making QB a priority. For example, would it not be more than fair to question our scouts ability to scout QBs? Also, while we have attempted to add a QB in many different ways, I would point out how bad the surrounding talent usually was the QB would play w/. When have we made OL a priority? How well can you expect to develop a QB if he doesn't have a solid or better OL protecting him. When have we had an upper tier WR for the QB to work w/? What sort of run game has our offense seen over the last decade? Adding a quality QB is part of it, but if you don't build the offense around him, I question how much we can expect from the QB position.

 

this i don't agree with:

 

you mention our offensive line and not drafting at these positions. this is only true when our very own jerry angelo takes over the position of gm. prior to this we have drafted many linemen and a portion of them first day picks. the problem was that either our scouts were terrible/not enough or whoever was making the decisions to draft them was horrendous in the later decades.

 

finally, the half hearted tries and bad football decisions we have made in this franchise for 40+ years are simply nowhere near enough. to think that any corporation/business can go 40+ years and fail to obtain one obvious piece of the puzzle that would make them successful is beyond comprehension.

 

so no, i don't believe "luck" has a damned thing to do with it.

[Lucky Luciano]

sorry for double post

[Lucky Luciano]

Honestly, I think it is far more about bad scouting/luck than simply about not caring about the QB position. IMHO, they have tried, and tried nearly every path. But regardless the path, it just has not worked. The ways they have tried:

 

Use a 1st round pick - They drafted Cade McNown top 15, and Rex Grossman just outside that range. Neither worked out, but they have spent two 1st round picks on QBs in the last decade.

 

Trade a 1st round pick for a veteran - Rick Mirer. Talk about a bad move. But again, they went in a direction that worked for other teams, but simply didn't work for us.

 

Draft QBs w/ 2nd day picks hoping they would pan out like Brady or Romo did for NE and Dallas - Orton, Kretzel, Moreno. Add to the list numerous undrafted rookies brought in. Orton looks the best of the bunch, but w/o question, no Brady's here.

 

agree and disagree.

 

before jim finks '74-'82/jerry vanisi, along with muggs halas, it was not a top priority to draft one that high or simply PAY one the money good ones were getting. between 1960 and 1973 the bears drafted 3 qb's in rounds 2-3 (not a SINGLE 1st round pick). 1960 round 3 don meredith; 1969 round 2 bobby douglas; 1973 gary huff round 3. is it any wonder we were never in the running for a title in that superbowl era?

 

the only priority put on this position was by finks drafting mcmahon, a top 5 pick, in 1982 after building his offensive line, with 3 offensive tackles picked in the first round, d. lick, t. albrecht and k. van horne. jerry vanisi, 83-86, continued drafting offensive line talent by drafting jim covert T first round in '83 along with guards thayer 4th rd, and bortz 8th rd.

 

after vanisi's stint in chicago mikey 1987-98 (also wanny took control of the gm position in his first stint and worked with the boy genius in regards to our drafts) took over the reins. this imbecile drafted ONE first day qb, harbaugh rd. 1 '87, in 12 years, and the likes of b. snyder rd. 7 '89, p. justin rd. 7 '91, w. furrer rd. 4 '92, m. moreno rd. 7 '98. the only redeeming factor was bringing in free agent eric kramer who was the 2nd best free agent at the that position at that time '94. this move was completely offset by bringing in rick mirer in one of the most stupid trades in modern football to replace HIM in '97.

 

now we can get to our recent dilema... we traded down, instead of UP, to get mcnown in '99, we traded down to get grossman in 2003, instead of UP in the first round AGAIN. then we draft a head scratching pick in craig krenzel, 5th rd., and finally we get a decent 4th round pick in orton.

 

so i agree the scouting has been bad for over the last 20 years. but in my opinion it also comes from cheap owners, poor management, and poor coaching. the unwillingness to pay for more scouts, or better ones, BAD gm's whose mindset appeared to be that qb's are not as important as defense and a running game which is exactly what we got. add to this we never hired top offensive minded coaches to go along with it.

 

Sign starting experience veterans - Griese, Jeff Blake, Stewart, Chandler, Miller, Mathews. Griese was likely the best of the bunch, but none ever really panned out.

 

each and every one of these "veterans" were either OLD and on the last leg of a career or came with serious baggage and spotty careers. it can be said we passed on drew brees and we also passed on bledsoe in his first round free agency from the pats. these were top of the line qb's who were free agents and carried no compensation to their former teams yet we never even gave them a look.

 

Sign a veteran who was a backup in a good system/ behind a good starter - Quinn was the backup in a good KC system, developed by a great OC, and who backed up a very solid veteran. Other teams have struck gold doing this, but Quinn didn't come close to panning out. Hutchinson might also be included in this category.

 

you have to put miller, who was a backup, whose injury MAY have been the deciding factor in his career.

 

So, while I would have liked to do more, I would make the argument the team has tried for a long time, and in many different ways, to add a QB, but regardless the path they take, no QB has ever worked out. IMHO, at some point, you have to look at more than just our making QB a priority. For example, would it not be more than fair to question our scouts ability to scout QBs? Also, while we have attempted to add a QB in many different ways, I would point out how bad the surrounding talent usually was the QB would play w/. When have we made OL a priority? How well can you expect to develop a QB if he doesn't have a solid or better OL protecting him. When have we had an upper tier WR for the QB to work w/? What sort of run game has our offense seen over the last decade? Adding a quality QB is part of it, but if you don't build the offense around him, I question how much we can expect from the QB position.

 

this i don't agree with:

 

you mention our offensive line and not drafting at these positions. this is only true when our very own jerry angelo takes over the position of gm. prior to this we have drafted many linemen and a portion of them first day picks. the problem was that either our scouts were terrible/not enough or whoever was making the decisions to draft them was horrendous in the later decades.

 

finally, the half hearted tries and bad football decisions we have made in this franchise for 40+ years are simply nowhere near enough. to think that any corporation/business can go 40+ years and fail to obtain one obvious piece of the puzzle that would make them successful is beyond comprehension.

 

so no, i don't believe "luck" has a damned thing to do with it.

[nfoligno]

the only priority put on this position was by finks drafting mcmahon, a top 5 pick, in 1982 after building his offensive line, with 3 offensive tackles picked in the first round, d. lick, t. albrecht and k. van horne. jerry vanisi, 83-86, continued drafting offensive line talent by drafting jim covert T first round in '83 along with guards thayer 4th rd, and bortz 8th rd.

 

This statement would seem to more go along w/ my opinion. Just drafting a QB isn't going to matter unless you can build around that QB. If we drafted Ryan or Flacco, does anyone honestly believe they would have matched their solid seasons if they were bears? W/ our OL and WRs, how well would they have fared? My point was, we have tried to get a QB, and tried many ways, but none worked out and further, w/ the surrounding talent, even if we had better scouted the QBs, I wonder if it would have mattered.

 

now we can get to our recent dilema... we traded down, instead of UP, to get mcnown in '99, we traded down to get grossman in 2003, instead of UP in the first round AGAIN. then we draft a head scratching pick in craig krenzel, 5th rd., and finally we get a decent 4th round pick in orton.

 

so i agree the scouting has been bad for over the last 20 years. but in my opinion it also comes from cheap owners, poor management, and poor coaching. the unwillingness to pay for more scouts, or better ones, BAD gm's whose mindset appeared to be that qb's are not as important as defense and a running game which is exactly what we got. add to this we never hired top offensive minded coaches to go along with it.

 

We have gone back on forth on this, but I just do not believe money is the issue so much as (a) poor scouting/ talent evaluation of QBs and ( frankly, never prioritizing offense as much as defense as a whole.

 

each and every one of these "veterans" were either OLD and on the last leg of a career or came with serious baggage and spotty careers. it can be said we passed on drew brees and we also passed on bledsoe in his first round free agency from the pats. these were top of the line qb's who were free agents and carried no compensation to their former teams yet we never even gave them a look.

 

Brees I agree w/. Unfortunately, we (Angelo) still thought Rex was the man. As for Bledsoe, I am not so sure about that one. I don't recall him doing much after NE, unless I am missing something. Bledsoe was a very good QB when surrounded by great weapons and protected by an elite OL, neither of which we had. Was Mirer old when we traded for him? I didn't think he was. Quinn was not old either, but just bad. How do you feel about McNabb? If we don't make a play for him, would you say we were cheap? If we do, and it doesn't pan out, would you then just talk about his age?

 

you mention our offensive line and not drafting at these positions. this is only true when our very own jerry angelo takes over the position of gm. prior to this we have drafted many linemen and a portion of them first day picks. the problem was that either our scouts were terrible/not enough or whoever was making the decisions to draft them was horrendous in the later decades.

 

One, I think you have go back only so far. I am not talking about the entire history of the team, which is simply too great to look at.

 

Two, prior to Angelo, we had Hatley and Co. At the time, which I can not tell you how much they made, nor can you, I can say we had (per articles written then) the largest scouting dept in the league. I would also add that we actually did have talent on the OL. Hatley drafted Kreutz. We had Big Cat for a long time at RT. We had Weigman at center too, until Kreutz took over, and he is STILL playing. Hatley also spent big (relative for the time) to get Brockemeyer, who was considered an elite LT, and while never a great run blocker, was an elite pass protector. But when Angelo took over, it was another story. He said himself he felt it took longer to develop on the OL than any other position, and preferred veterans. But even w/ that, he did a poor job of adding veteran talent. I believe Angelo just never valued OL, or offense in general, and I believe that likely goes back to his experience being that of a defensive scout.

 

finally, the half hearted tries and bad football decisions we have made in this franchise for 40+ years are simply nowhere near enough. to think that any corporation/business can go 40+ years and fail to obtain one obvious piece of the puzzle that would make them successful is beyond comprehension.

 

No huge argument, but again, I do not think it serves much good to go back 40 years. There is simply too much change over the years to do so. W/ that said, I think a huge problem is that we have always been a franchise build on defense and running, and feel the team as a whole got caught up into that thinking and never made QB the priority it should have been.

 

so no, i don't believe "luck" has a damned thing to do with it.

 

I agree that luck isn't the key. I would say scouting and management are the keys. I do believe we have tried to find a QB, at least in the last decade, more than you believe, and tried it many different ways, but simply put, none panned out. Am I saying that is all about luck? No. But I do not believe it is a simple lack of caring. It is more a matter of (a) poor scouting ( poor coaching and © average to simply bad surrounding talent.

[nfoligno]

Give it some priority. Both of the times you mention, the Bears had an opportunity to pick a better QB with a higher pick. But, they chose to trade down and get a cheaper "second tier" guy. Don't forget that Rex was our SECOND pick that year. We picked Michael Haynes first.

 

In 2003, we did trade down, and took Rex w/ our 2nd pick, but would it have mattered. If we didn't trade down, the QB would have been Leftwhich. If, after the trade, we used our 1st pick on QB, and didn't take Rex, it would have been Boller. Were either better than Rex?

 

In 1999, we traded down, but the only QB we missed on was Culpepper, who to this day is who I think we wanted, but didn't expect Minny to take. Regardless, Culpepper looked great w/ Moss, Carter and Smith, not to mention a great OL, but after a couple years of looking great w/ Minny, has looked like garbage, so I am not sure we actually missed out on anything.

 

Again, I say make the position a priority. Don't trade down. Use our highest draft pick to select the best QB on the board. In fact, I'd be okay with trading UP for a change instead of trying to corner the 5-6 rounds.

 

It is easy to say take the top QB available, but if we did that in '99 or '03, would it have really mattered.

 

To answer your question about Rodgers, there is no way he'd be as good as he is if he played for the Bears. We also put little stock in QB development. If we draft a QB with a high pick, we need to supplement that with a premier QBs coach.

 

I agree w/ this, but would add you also need to surround that QB w/ talent. I never understand what Houston did. They drafted Carr, but every year Carr was there, they also had one of the worst OLs in the game, and did little to improve that. Now, I am NOT saying it would have mattered in Carr's case, but my point is, if you draft a QB, you also need to build an OL and give him weapons to work w/. Just as I feel we need to help Forte by building an OL.

[akshaz]

In 2003, we did trade down, and took Rex w/ our 2nd pick, but would it have mattered. If we didn't trade down, the QB would have been Leftwhich. If, after the trade, we used our 1st pick on QB, and didn't take Rex, it would have been Boller. Were either better than Rex?

 

In 1999, we traded down, but the only QB we missed on was Culpepper, who to this day is who I think we wanted, but didn't expect Minny to take. Regardless, Culpepper looked great w/ Moss, Carter and Smith, not to mention a great OL, but after a couple years of looking great w/ Minny, has looked like garbage, so I am not sure we actually missed out on anything.

 

The fact that we're really only talking about two drafts is the problem itself. Some teams pick a quarterback almost every year for competition. If we emphasize the quarterback position like we do the DL, we should have better luck finding better guys. Of course it doesn't have to be first round. Even if we don't hit a solid starter every draft, it raises the competition/expectations/production.

 

Now, I'm not saying that our focus on defense isn't good. I just think that we need to expect more from the QB position. We fall in love with mediocre guys and give them 4-5 years to suck before we bring in a single replacement. Usually, the replacement will have a couple years to suck and the cycle continues.

 

I like Angelo's newly found high expectations from the position. We shouldn't be happy enough with Kyle's play. Bring in a guy. Give Hanie a real shot. Make them all compete. Next year draft a guy or bring in another FA.

[akshaz]

In 2003, we did trade down, and took Rex w/ our 2nd pick, but would it have mattered. If we didn't trade down, the QB would have been Leftwhich. If, after the trade, we used our 1st pick on QB, and didn't take Rex, it would have been Boller. Were either better than Rex?

 

In 1999, we traded down, but the only QB we missed on was Culpepper, who to this day is who I think we wanted, but didn't expect Minny to take. Regardless, Culpepper looked great w/ Moss, Carter and Smith, not to mention a great OL, but after a couple years of looking great w/ Minny, has looked like garbage, so I am not sure we actually missed out on anything.

 

The fact that we're really only talking about two drafts is the problem itself. Some teams pick a quarterback almost every year for competition. If we emphasize the quarterback position like we do the DL, we should have better luck finding better guys. Of course it doesn't have to be first round. Even if we don't hit a solid starter every draft, it raises the competition/expectations/production.

 

Now, I'm not saying that our focus on defense isn't good. I just think that we need to expect more from the QB position. We fall in love with mediocre guys and give them 4-5 years to suck before we bring in a single replacement. Usually, the replacement will have a couple years to suck and the cycle continues.

 

I like Angelo's newly found high expectations from the position. We shouldn't be happy enough with Kyle's play. Bring in a guy. Give Hanie a real shot. Make them all compete. Next year draft a guy or bring in another FA.