Cassel tagged....

[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.

[AZ54]

I don't think New England will keep him tagged until the season starts. They are hedging their bets to 1) keep him there until they get a look at Brady and his knee and 2) get something in exchange for trading Cassell. One of these QBs is going to be available but it might end up Brady with a bum knee.

[nfoligno]

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.

 

For the record, it is two drafts we took QB in the 1st. How many teams draft a QB in the 1st, then draft another QB high the following year, or w/in a couple years? Most teams that invest in a QB in the 1st round go a few years before investing another high pick in a QB.

 

Look, I am not saying QB has EVER been our top priority. But I am not sure it has been as low as many believe. The problem, IMHO, has more to do w/ who we did take rather than simply believing in the importance of the position. If Rex turned out to be the stud the team expected when he was drafted, would you care if that we didn't spend another high pick on a QB soon after? The problem was not passing on QBs in the drafts after, but simply taking Rex in the first place.

 

To me, Angelo's statement that it is all about QB is just baffling. He sounds stupid for the comment. Everyone knows its all about the QB, and for him to say it like he did made it sound like he just realized it. Also baffling is, while I am NOT saying we should be 100% sold on Orton, its is maddening that we NOW believe QB should be a priority, when we previously feared even providing Rex competition.

 

One thing I wonder is, does this maybe provide evidence how soft the staff felt Rex' confidence level was, compared to Orton? By action, it always appeared our staff felt the need to coddle Rex and avoid any words or actions that could potentially hurt his confidence. That is a stark contrast to the way we treat Orton, which simply makes me wonder if our staff doesn't simply believe Orton can handle it, where as Rex couldn't.

[Lucky Luciano]

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.

 

here's the deal... any time you get a chance to draft a qb with potential to be a franchise qb (unless you have one in his prime) you do it. then you build your offense around HIM, not the other way around.

 

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 (cool.gif frankly, never prioritizing offense as much as defense as a whole.

 

if you don't have the expertise to find good/great scouts as an owner or gm you hire someone competent who does, and hire these key personnel. you just don't sit there for years on your hands.

 

in truth, i seriously just can't believe that even the mccaskey family is too stupid to figure this out. it just comes down to are you willing to spend extra money for a quality product that doesn't give you any more financial returns. the answer is obvious.

 

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?

 

who did we have at the helm in 2002-2006? 2002 jim miller and jeff chandler combined for 3316 yards; 2003 kordel stuart, jeff chandler and rex grossman combined for 2905 yards; 2004 chad hutchinson, craig krenzel, j. quinn and rex grossman combined for 2641 yards; 2005 orton, grossman, jeff blake combined for 2201 yards. what a freaking joke.

 

BLEDSOE:

 

"The slide continued into 2000's 5-11 season. While Bledsoe threw a career low 13 interceptions that year, he was sacked 45 times."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Bledsoe

 

1. not so sure you could say in 2000 that the pats had an "elite" offensive line. in fact bledsoe took a beating in new england.

 

2. he was traded to the bills in 2002 (pre-grossman) at the age of 30 and passed for over 4000 yards and made the pro-bowl. he followed that with 3 more years of solid football until 2006 when he fell off the charts. would the pats have been receptive to a trade with a team outside of their own division in 2002? absolutely if we had made an offer. could we still have drafted a qb in the first round to groom behind bledsoe? absolutely.

 

even picking up FA bledsoe after his tenure in buffalo would have been a good stop gap move especially when you look at the talent on our squad in 2005. an always injured grossman who had proved nothing and we could have groomed him to replace bledsoe if he was good enough.

 

 

MIRIER:

 

mirer was not old when we traded for him. he was about 27 years old and in his 4th year in seattle. he was sitting on the freakin bench the year before we traded for him with a personal record that year, 1996, of 2 and 7!!! we traded a top 5 pick for a qb who was benched with a total of 20 wins in FOUR YEARS!! this guy had ONE season where he even played in 16 games (his rookie season 6-10) AND one partial season where he was above 500 and that was in 1995 with a record of 7-6-0!!!

 

the bear personnel who figured that trade out should have been fired, rehired, and fired again. then made to permanently disappear.

 

MCNABB:

 

i feel the same about mcnabb as i did about bledsoe. hire him and let the best qb play on sunday. if it's not orton (who i do like and think he may turn into a good qb) then draft another talented qb high in the draft and let orton compete. if we got 4 years out of mcnabb, that is four years we have a real chance to win a superbowl and time to groom his replacement.

 

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.

 

what ever hatley was, he chose to ignore the most important position in football. he traded down to get cade mcnown instead of up to get mcnabb or couch. in FACT he could have picked pepper at #7 but didn't have the guts to pick that high. just curious... what could the scouts and hately been looking at on game film of mcnown? the guy was a PR pick and not picked on the quality of his play in my opinion.

 

as far as angie goes, he should have been sat down and if he couldn't figure out offensive drafting then hire someone who could to help him. if he wouldn't go along with that then it was time to move on.

 

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.

 

it was a propaganda sell to the fans for 40 years. it is/was cheaper to build a defense than pay for a good offense, qb's or wr's. the difference is you don't win championships with defense alone, but you make more money.

[Lucky Luciano]

dam double posts

[nfoligno]

Warning. Long post. Longer than my usual that is:)

 

here's the deal... any time you get a chance to draft a qb with potential to be a franchise qb (unless you have one in his prime) you do it. then you build your offense around HIM, not the other way around.

 

Sorry, but I disagree, at least when you say "any time". When you invest a 1st round pick on a QB, you do NOT follow that up by taking another QB the following year. Sorry, but you simply do not do that. No team does. When you draft a QB in the 1st round, you have to allow time for that QB to develop. Now, I will agree we allow too much time, and wait too long, but I do not agree w/ the idea that you draft a QB anytime you do not have one in his prime. QBs take time to develop. Matt Ryan aside, few look pro bowl their first season.

 

In 1998, Indy drafted Manning, and he went on to have a year in which he threw for more picks than TDs, and had a QB rating that would more resemble Rex or Orton. By your theory, they should have drafted Culpepper the following season, rather than Edgerrin James.

 

if you don't have the expertise to find good/great scouts as an owner or gm you hire someone competent who does, and hire these key personnel. you just don't sit there for years on your hands.

 

No argument here. I would argue the issue is not about money though. Look at our current coaching situation. We have stunk on D for the last two years, both under Babich. Do you believe it is because we are too cheap to fire him that we don't, or is it just because he is Lovie's boy? Point is, you always want to believe money is the reason behind everything, but I simply disagree.

 

in truth, i seriously just can't believe that even the mccaskey family is too stupid to figure this out. it just comes down to are you willing to spend extra money for a quality product that doesn't give you any more financial returns. the answer is obvious.

 

One, yes, I think the McCaskey's are too stupid. W/ that said, I just don't think it is about money. We have owners who are not very good football people, and who hired a man who I believe is not a very good GM. It isn't that Angelo is too cheap, or isn't allowed to spend, so much that he simply doesn't have the knowledge. He was an excellent defensive scout, but I think the evidence shows his knowledge is limited to that side of the ball.

 

who did we have at the helm in 2002-2006? 2002 jim miller and jeff chandler combined for 3316 yards; 2003 kordel stuart, jeff chandler and rex grossman combined for 2905 yards; 2004 chad hutchinson, craig krenzel, j. quinn and rex grossman combined for 2641 yards; 2005 orton, grossman, jeff blake combined for 2201 yards. what a freaking joke.

 

You are not going to get me to argue. At the same time, I think you are just throwing out stats w/o considering the entire story.

 

In 2002, we were coming off a 13 win season led by Jim Miller. I think there was reason enough to go w/ him in 2002, but it didn't work.

 

In 2003, it was obvious we were going backward and not forward after that 13 win season, and needed to move in another direction. So instead of relying on journeymen QBs, we drafted a QB in the 1st round. Now, you can argue we should not have traded down, but trading down only passed on Leftwhich, who was FAR from a sure fire franchise QB. We took Rex Grossman, who I NEVER wanted, but would point out Ron Wolfe (considered by many a QB guru) was a huge fan of and supposedly was pressing GB to draft, though he was only a consultant at the time. So while it didn't work out, I am not sure we can sit back and say that (a) better options were there or ( we didin't make QB a priority.

 

2004 - We just drafted our "franchise QB" the prior year. I guess you would argue that we should have taken Loseman that year instead of Tommie Harris, but I would argue not a team in the NFL would have done such a thing. We believed we had our franchise QB in Rex, and were going to allow him the time to develop, and were not going to make a decision after his rookie year.

 

2005 - Basically, see above. It was believed Rex was going to be our QB. Also, I would add that w/ the 4th pick in the draft, there was not a QB worth considering. Alex Smith was the #1 pick, and no other QB went until the late 1st round. Not a good year for QBs.

 

2006 - This was the year where I really wanted a QB, and I loved the top tier coming out. Problem was, we were drafting at the end of the 1st round, and the top tier (3 QBs) were taken in the top 12 picks. You can talk all you want about how we should have traded up, but that is a near impossible trade w/o multiple (same year) 1st round picks. I can't think of a single team that made that great of a leap. So this was a year I would agree passing on a franchise QB would have been a mistake. At the same time, we just were not in a position to do it. You can argue we should have taken one later, but wow was that just a bad year for QBs.

 

2007 - We were coming off a SB (loss). While inconsistent, Rex led the team to the SB, stayed healthy all year and seemed to take steps forward. While I still didn't like him, I can understand the team believing in him. AND, we were picking 31st, so it isn't like we were in position to draft a franchise QB here.

 

2008 - Time will tell who is right, but I would agree w/ you here. Man did I want a QB. I loved Ryan, but there was no way to get him. I really liked Flacco, but Baltimore was ripped for taking him as high as they did. We would have had to take him even higher. What made me sick was passing on Brohm in the 2nd. Well, Forte looks like a total stud, and Brohm thus far looks like a dud, but I would still tend to agree that walking away from this draft w/o a QB was just wrong.

 

Point is, you can toss out stats, but they do not always tell the whole story. IMHO, the problem was not nearly as much that we didn't care about the QB position, but instead the level of faith we put into the "franchise QB" we drafted. Not only did we wait too long to lose faith, but we refused to even allow competition, which I have always railed against.

 

BLEDSOE:

 

I can see the argument that we should have traded for Bledsoe in 2002, or at least that we should have more seriously looked at upgrading QB, but (a) I simply would argue there were more questions about Bledsoe than what you are recalling and ( we were coming off a 13 win season w/ Miller. Frankly, I think there is a FAR greater argument that we should have been looking at a QB in the draft that year than adding a veteran.

 

MIRIER:

 

You are NOT going to get me to say this was anything but an awful move. I never liked it. The original point was that we did something providing evidence how much we valued the QB position, and that we tried yet another avenue to get one. It was an awful move, but the point all along was simply that we did try.

 

MCNABB:

 

i feel the same about mcnabb as i did about bledsoe. hire him and let the best qb play on sunday. if it's not orton (who i do like and think he may turn into a good qb) then draft another talented qb high in the draft and let orton compete. if we got 4 years out of mcnabb, that is four years we have a real chance to win a superbowl and time to groom his replacement.

 

But doesn't McNabb fall into the category of players you knock of for going after in the past? McNabb is an older veteran, and one w/ red flags. His play has been inconsistent in recent years, and he has had several injuries taking him out of the seasons. I would love to get McNabb, but (a) I doubt he will be available after leading his team to the postseason as he has and ( your nuts if you think you can get McNabb w/o guaranteeing him the starting job. You talk about adding him and letting him compete w/ Orton, but that is a joke. No way he leaves Phily for a team that doesn't offer guarantees. Further, If the reason we didn't get him was due to not making guarantees, you would blast the team for that too.

 

what ever hatley was, he chose to ignore the most important position in football. he traded down to get cade mcnown instead of up to get mcnabb or couch. in FACT he could have picked pepper at #7 but didn't have the guts to pick that high. just curious... what could the scouts and hately been looking at on game film of mcnown? the guy was a PR pick and not picked on the quality of his play in my opinion.

 

One. It is just SOOO easy to say we should have traded up, but hindsight always looks easy. Sorry, but look at the absolutely insane deals made in that time period to move up. Remember Ditka giving up an entire draft, and most of the following years draft, for Ricky Williams? As opposed to now when teams beg others to take the #1 pick off their hands, the #1 pick then was like gold. I am sure you will argue we should give up whatever it took, but that is simply not living in reality. Not to mention, the #1 pick that year was Couch. Wanna consider how bad it would have been to give up say two #1 picks (2nd would have likely been a top 5 if we did that) for Couch?

 

Two. I really think you try to pick at this to prove your point. The reality is, we did value the QB, and spent a top 15 pick on a QB. If Cade turned out to be more like McNabb, are you going to tell me you would be reflecting how we should have moved up in the draft to get couch rather than down to get the QB we wanted for better value? Come on man. It has nothing to do w/ trading up or down, but simply who we took.

 

Three. To continue that point, you say we should have just taking Pepper at #7, but do you really think Pepper would have been even a good QB if we did? Pepper went to an ideal system, and looked great for a while. Soon after, he busted, but do you think we had a system to match Minny's? In Minny, they would max protect to keep Pepper free. And he had a pair of absolute studs to throw to, not to mention Robert Smith in the backfield. The bears had the razzle dazzle offense where we often went w/ an empty backfield, putting unbelievalbe pressure on a rookie QB, and did so w/ a bad OL and weak surrounding talent. James Freaking Allen was our best RB then. So even if we stayed put and took Pepper, or traded up and took Couch, we would have stunk just the same. Oh yea, and throw in trading for Akili Smith. The reality is, there was one great QB in that draft (McNabb) but it is TOTAL and PURE hindsight to say we should have done whatever possible to take him.

 

as far as angie goes, he should have been sat down and if he couldn't figure out offensive drafting then hire someone who could to help him. if he wouldn't go along with that then it was time to move on.

 

Hey, I agree w/ this. I said several years ago we should hire an offensive consultant, but where you and I disagree is in the reason we don't. I think it has ZERO to do w/ money.

[Lucky Luciano]

Sorry, but I disagree, at least when you say "any time". When you invest a 1st round pick on a QB, you do NOT follow that up by taking another QB the following year. Sorry, but you simply do not do that. No team does. When you draft a QB in the 1st round, you have to allow time for that QB to develop. Now, I will agree we allow too much time, and wait too long, but I do not agree w/ the idea that you draft a QB anytime you do not have one in his prime. QBs take time to develop. Matt Ryan aside, few look pro bowl their first season.

 

come on... you are purposely taking that statement way to literally. of course you are not going to take back to back qb's with a high first round pick. but if you have a average/decent+ qb on the roster (like orton with POTENTIAL or a miller quality qb with POTENTIAL) this does NOT stop you from drafting one who has a real chance at becoming a franchise qb in the first. in this vein it is the same thing that the chargers did with rivers and brees. if both turn out to be special you have a very valuable trade in your future. if not you have the best of the two to run your offense.

 

i will state this, if you draft one 'high', i repeat, 'high' in the first round to me this does NOT stop you from drafting someone with real potential in the 2nd round down in following years until you actually HAVE that franchise qb on your squad.

 

In 1998, Indy drafted Manning, and he went on to have a year in which he threw for more picks than TDs, and had a QB rating that would more resemble Rex or Orton. By your theory, they should have drafted Culpepper the following season, rather than Edgerrin James.

 

first read above. then understand that watching manning PLAY you could tell he had real talent as the season went on. would i have drafted someone in the following rounds who i thought could be a real franchise qb the following year? the answer is yes, until manning proved he was the real deal. then trade the player if he had talent, keep manning and do it all over again.

 

if you think this is some kind of crazy thought process, look at what our division rivals did with brett favre as their franchise qb. they drafted and traded some pretty good qb's during his tenure who had real trade value. why? because they had the brains to look ahead.

 

No argument here. I would argue the issue is not about money though. Look at our current coaching situation. We have stunk on D for the last two years, both under Babich. Do you believe it is because we are too cheap to fire him that we don't, or is it just because he is Lovie's boy? Point is, you always want to believe money is the reason behind everything, but I simply disagree.

 

hmmmmmmm.... haven't i, others, AND you discussed this in detail on WHY lovie smith and jerry angelo will NOT be fired for 1-3 years? so no matter how bad we have been coached (ultimately it all comes down to the head coach) over the last 2+ years, no matter how bad angelo has drafted over the last 7 years, are their jobs in serious jeopardy this offseason? now why do you think that is?

 

One, yes, I think the McCaskey's are too stupid. W/ that said, I just don't think it is about money. We have owners who are not very good football people, and who hired a man who I believe is not a very good GM. It isn't that Angelo is too cheap, or isn't allowed to spend, so much that he simply doesn't have the knowledge. He was an excellent defensive scout, but I think the evidence shows his knowledge is limited to that side of the ball.

 

wow. the entire mccaskey family would have to be freakin mental vegetables to have watched, been involved running and owning in this franchise for decades, to not even get it when any fan off the street could tell them the answer. if this is correct, they should be institutionalized for their own safety and ours.

 

on to angelo... how do you think we GOT him? HE was hired CHEAP!!! the old addum that you get what you pay for and holds true in this instance in spades. i am not even sure you could say he WAS an excellent defensive scout. he was in charge of player personnel in tampa since 1987 yet the bucs drafted HORRIBLY until mccay showed up. actually very similar to US!!!

 

You are not going to get me to argue. At the same time, I think you are just throwing out stats w/o considering the entire story.

 

In 2002, we were coming off a 13 win season led by Jim Miller. I think there was reason enough to go w/ him in 2002, but it didn't work.

 

let me get this straight... are you telling me because we won 13 games in 2001 and got our asses handed to us like a hat in the playoffs that you would have passed on a pro-bowl qb like bledsoe for jim miller? are you serious? he never even started a complete season in chicago since we got him in 1999. here is some more stats i want to "throw out":

 

in 2001 we ranked 24th in passing yards; 12th in TD's; 13th in INT's. he passed for 2299 yards and averaged 164.2 yds per game that year. this is surely enough justification to reach out for a proven pro-bowl qb in my opinion.

 

we needed 2 things coming out of the 2001 season:

 

1. a pass rushing defensive end

2. a quarterback who was more than just average.

 

In 2003, it was obvious we were going backward and not forward after that 13 win season, and needed to move in another direction. So instead of relying on journeymen QBs, we drafted a QB in the 1st round. Now, you can argue we should not have traded down, but trading down only passed on Leftwhich, who was FAR from a sure fire franchise QB. We took Rex Grossman, who I NEVER wanted, but would point out Ron Wolfe (considered by many a QB guru) was a huge fan of and supposedly was pressing GB to draft, though he was only a consultant at the time. So while it didn't work out, I am not sure we can sit back and say that (a) better options were there or make QB a priority.

 

i have said this before and i will say it again... this is the year we should have traded UP, not down. whether the bengles would have done it or not is another story but i WOULD have given up 2 firsts to get carson palmer or at least tried (after all we are not talking of trading out of the top 5 with them). this is not from hindsight but because this guy was the best prospect for a franchise qb since p. manning.

 

there is no way anyone can tell me that angelo considered grossman a franchise qb, or even better than leftwich, and yet traded down and picked a DE before him. it was a cheap and safe pick for angelo. as far as wolf pressing gb to pick him? sure why not? you have favre in his PRIME at that time and it fits the plan of gb drafting qb's and trading them or at the least having good ones to back up favre. if not that then what better way to screw chicago than wolf saying that?

 

2004 - We just drafted our "franchise QB" the prior year. I guess you would argue that we should have taken Loseman that year instead of Tommie Harris, but I would argue not a team in the NFL would have done such a thing. We believed we had our franchise QB in Rex, and were going to allow him the time to develop, and were not going to make a decision after his rookie year.

 

what ever.

 

2005 - Basically, see above. It was believed Rex was going to be our QB. Also, I would add that w/ the 4th pick in the draft, there was not a QB worth considering. Alex Smith was the #1 pick, and no other QB went until the late 1st round. Not a good year for QBs.

 

i do have to ask... WHO thought we had our franchise qb in chicago? jerry angelo? for what accomplishments? in 2003 he wanted to groom grossman behind a guy that was a complete bust in pit. finally grossman played in 3 games (after the bears were eliminated from playoff contention) and was injured his rookie year. he followed this giant accomplishment by being seriously injured in his 3rd start (1-3) in the 2004 season. all that grossman had at that time was potential and nothing more. we went into the 2005 season with hutchinson, orton and grossman ending up with blake replacing hutch and another seriously injured grossman in preseason.

 

2006 - This was the year where I really wanted a QB, and I loved the top tier coming out. Problem was, we were drafting at the end of the 1st round, and the top tier (3 QBs) were taken in the top 12 picks. You can talk all you want about how we should have traded up, but that is a near impossible trade w/o multiple (same year) 1st round picks. I can't think of a single team that made that great of a leap. So this was a year I would agree passing on a franchise QB would have been a mistake. At the same time, we just were not in a position to do it. You can argue we should have taken one later, but wow was that just a bad year for QBs.

 

how about if i talk about bringing in free agent drew brees? but then we wouldn't have wanted to damage our sure thing franchise qb, grossman's, ego considering how much he had done for us and get a pro-bowl calibre free agent in his prime.

 

Point is, you can toss out stats, but they do not always tell the whole story. IMHO, the problem was not nearly as much that we didn't care about the QB position, but instead the level of faith we put into the "franchise QB" we drafted. Not only did we wait too long to lose faith, but we refused to even allow competition, which I have always railed against.

 

which stats are those? the ones that proved bledsoe was better than anything we had on our team during those 4 years that we didn't get him? or the stats that any competent nfl gm or president could see as plain as the nose on your face that we needed stability at this position with real talent and passed it by in the draft and free agency time and time again?

 

BLEDSOE:

 

I can see the argument that we should have traded for Bledsoe in 2002, or at least that we should have more seriously looked at upgrading QB, but (a) I simply would argue there were more questions about Bledsoe than what you are recalling and we were coming off a 13 win season w/ Miller. Frankly, I think there is a FAR greater argument that we should have been looking at a QB in the draft that year than adding a veteran.

 

such as?

 

MCNABB:

 

But doesn't McNabb fall into the category of players you knock of for going after in the past? McNabb is an older veteran, and one w/ red flags. His play has been inconsistent in recent years, and he has had several injuries taking him out of the seasons. I would love to get McNabb, but (a) I doubt he will be available after leading his team to the postseason as he has and your nuts if you think you can get McNabb w/o guaranteeing him the starting job. You talk about adding him and letting him compete w/ Orton, but that is a joke. No way he leaves Phily for a team that doesn't offer guarantees. Further, If the reason we didn't get him was due to not making guarantees, you would blast the team for that too.

 

chandler? he was way past his time in the nfl. stewart? he was terrible and designated as a backup before coming here behind another bad qb. so which players are you talking about? i already stated that bledsoe at 30 was a great choice.

 

mcnabb? he is still playing at a very high level and most if not all his injuries are not throwing related. he has 2-4 good years left to play which is plenty of time in the nfl to turn a team around if you are committed. as far as getting him? i never said he was a good possibility and can't believe the eagles will part with him next season or the one after.

 

as far as being nuts? with the stable of qb's in chicago if mcnabb didn't have enough confidence in himself to believe he is better and would win the starting job then i wouldn't want him here. so in reality THAT is a joke.

 

One. It is just SOOO easy to say we should have traded up, but hindsight always looks easy. Sorry, but look at the absolutely insane deals made in that time period to move up. Remember Ditka giving up an entire draft, and most of the following years draft, for Ricky Williams? As opposed to now when teams beg others to take the #1 pick off their hands, the #1 pick then was like gold. I am sure you will argue we should give up whatever it took, but that is simply not living in reality. Not to mention, the #1 pick that year was Couch. Wanna consider how bad it would have been to give up say two #1 picks (2nd would have likely been a top 5 if we did that) for Couch?

 

Two. I really think you try to pick at this to prove your point. The reality is, we did value the QB, and spent a top 15 pick on a QB. If Cade turned out to be more like McNabb, are you going to tell me you would be reflecting how we should have moved up in the draft to get couch rather than down to get the QB we wanted for better value? Come on man. It has nothing to do w/ trading up or down, but simply who we took.

 

Three. To continue that point, you say we should have just taking Pepper at #7, but do you really think Pepper would have been even a good QB if we did? Pepper went to an ideal system, and looked great for a while. Soon after, he busted, but do you think we had a system to match Minny's? In Minny, they would max protect to keep Pepper free. And he had a pair of absolute studs to throw to, not to mention Robert Smith in the backfield. The bears had the razzle dazzle offense where we often went w/ an empty backfield, putting unbelievalbe pressure on a rookie QB, and did so w/ a bad OL and weak surrounding talent. James Freaking Allen was our best RB then. So even if we stayed put and took Pepper, or traded up and took Couch, we would have stunk just the same. Oh yea, and throw in trading for Akili Smith. The reality is, there was one great QB in that draft (McNabb) but it is TOTAL and PURE hindsight to say we should have done whatever possible to take him.

1. no that is not hindsight. THAT is why you hire COMPETENT staff including coaches, gm's and scouts. so they can give you a real educated evaluation of not only what you are getting but what you can mold him into. you stay away from the combine escelator production prospects like the akili smith's and boller's but when you do get the p. manning's and the c. palmer type players you pull the freakin trigger. does that mean you hit every time? no. maybe you get a couch or a leaf, but if you NEVER make those gambles you end up being exactly what we are today and have been for longer than anyone wants to remember!!! and most important you do like the bengles do. if you don't succeed getting one drafting high you keep trying until you do.

 

2. first of all don't say we did value the qb by spending a top 15 pick on one. that is plain ridiculous. we put so MUCH value on both first round qb picks we traded DOWN to get them!!! if you think the qb you picked is a franchise quality qb, and you sure as hell should, then isn't that enough for you to draft him in the spot allotted to you or even trade UP to get him????? otherwise that means that these qb's were valued less by the entire nfl than 15-22 other players INCLUDING yourself.

 

3. now do i get out the quiji board? hell, do you think under ditka joe montana would have been a HOF qb? does that mean you don't draft him? how about p. manning? because mora is an idiot do you pass on him too? i think the point you and this entire franchise is missing is you FIRST find the talent then build your franchise around him.

 

Hey, I agree w/ this. I said several years ago we should hire an offensive consultant, but where you and I disagree is in the reason we don't. I think it has ZERO to do w/ money.

really? then just what is the reason you don't hire even one expert or a consortium to fill a position you have failed to find in 40 years?

 

you think guys like the walsh's or the tuna's (don't much like him but have to throw it in) or the holmgrens or anyfreakinbody that knows how to look at college talent and see the potential and groom it to be successful in the nfl will do it for nothing?

 

so if not money then what exactly is it?

[Lucky Luciano]

another double

[Lucky Luciano]

triple post

[Lucky Luciano]

more yet

[Lucky Luciano]

is there something wrong with the site? i keep getting errors when trying to post and then later they show up after i try and resubmit them.

 

in any case sorry everyone for all these multiple posts.

[AZ54]

Is this a battle to see who's post is "bigger"?

[azbearsfan]

Is this a battle to see who's post is "bigger"?

 

 

With those two, it always is....

[nfoligno]

Well, we have ourselves a bit of a war and peace novel, and I would advice all others to pass, but I don't want you to feel your work went to waste, so....

 

come on... you are purposely taking that statement way to literally. of course you are not going to take back to back qb's with a high first round pick. but if you have a average/decent+ qb on the roster (like orton with POTENTIAL or a miller quality qb with POTENTIAL) this does NOT stop you from drafting one who has a real chance at becoming a franchise qb in the first. in this vein it is the same thing that the chargers did with rivers and brees. if both turn out to be special you have a very valuable trade in your future. if not you have the best of the two to run your offense.

 

i will state this, if you draft one 'high', i repeat, 'high' in the first round to me this does NOT stop you from drafting someone with real potential in the 2nd round down in following years until you actually HAVE that franchise qb on your squad.

 

Okay, got it. I think we do come very close to agreement. Having a good (not great) QB on the roster, I agree, should not prevent you from seeking an upgrade. If you have a "good" QB on the roster, I would not use more than a 2nd though. Understand, I am saying and established, good QB.

 

But I think the point is, if you do not have a franchise QB, you should always be looking for one. Now, I would disagree that if you spend a 1st on a QB one year, you could/should use as high (but no higher) as a 2nd on a QB the following year. If you spend a 1st one year, I would spend no higher than a 4th the following. The year after that, I would consider as high as a 2nd based on what that QB had shown over his first two years. But this is arguing small stuff, and I think by and large we agree on the overall idea.

 

first read above. then understand that watching manning PLAY you could tell he had real talent as the season went on. would i have drafted someone in the following rounds who i thought could be a real franchise qb the following year? the answer is yes, until manning proved he was the real deal. then trade the player if he had talent, keep manning and do it all over again.

 

if you think this is some kind of crazy thought process, look at what our division rivals did with brett favre as their franchise qb. they drafted and traded some pretty good qb's during his tenure who had real trade value. why? because they had the brains to look ahead.

 

But how many QBs did they draft high, or even relatively high, during Favre's time? I have no problem drafting QBs, even when you have a stud, but where I have an issue w/ is drafting a QB on day one in that scenario. Day one picks should be starters, and if you are a stud, then your pick will not be a starter. I disagree w/ the idea of drafting a player w/ the intent to trade him.

 

hmmmmmmm.... haven't i, others, AND you discussed this in detail on WHY lovie smith and jerry angelo will NOT be fired for 1-3 years? so no matter how bad we have been coached (ultimately it all comes down to the head coach) over the last 2+ years, no matter how bad angelo has drafted over the last 7 years, are their jobs in serious jeopardy this offseason? now why do you think that is?

 

Sorry, but you can scream about your financial conspiracy theories till your blue in the face, but I think you ignore too much. Why is Lovie not more on the hot seat? Maybe because he is the 2nd winningist coach in the NFC over the last four years. Only the Giants have a better record (by one) than the Bears over the last 4 seasons. Because, while we didn't make the playoffs, we finished w/ a winning record, our 3rd in 4 seasons. Because Lovie took us to the SB a couple years ago, which is a big leap for an organization that hadn't been to the SB since '85, and frankly, hasn't seen many post seasons since either.

 

While I flat out do not like Lovie, at the same time, I think it is VERY understandable why he is not on the hot seat w/ the owners as much as he may be w/ you or I. The flat out fact and reality is, Lovie has had more success w/ this team than any coach since Ditka.

 

on to angelo... how do you think we GOT him? HE was hired CHEAP!!! the old addum that you get what you pay for and holds true in this instance in spades. i am not even sure you could say he WAS an excellent defensive scout. he was in charge of player personnel in tampa since 1987 yet the bucs drafted HORRIBLY until mccay showed up. actually very similar to US!!!

 

First, I don't recall our hiring Angelo cheap. No, I am sure his deal was not top tier, but I don't recall there being a big deal made about how we nickel and dimed him either, unless you are simply making that statement because we hired an unproven GM. As for Angie, I began to argue for him, but I stopped and deleted. I don't like him, and you are not going to force me into a position of defending him:) Seriously though, we went w/o a GM for many years, and after Mikey was kicked out, we hired one.

 

let me get this straight... are you telling me because we won 13 games in 2001 and got our asses handed to us like a hat in the playoffs that you would have passed on a pro-bowl qb like bledsoe for jim miller? are you serious? he never even started a complete season in chicago since we got him in 1999. here is some more stats i want to "throw out":

 

Two things.

 

One. I am not talking about what I would have done so much as understanding the reasoning for why we did as we did. It is a copy cat league, a statement most in the NFL would agree w/. At the time, we were copying the Ravens, who went to and won the SB w/ a very similar team. Great D, solid to great run game, and journeymen QB.

 

Two. I think you are making Bledsoe out to be some incredible player everyone had a shot at, but I just don't recall it that way. I don't recall there being massive interest in him at the time, and frankly, he wasn't a FA. I don't know. While there are times I think I would more tend to agree w/ you, in this situation, I just think there is reason to understand why we didn't make a big play for Drew.

 

in 2001 we ranked 24th in passing yards; 12th in TD's; 13th in INT's. he passed for 2299 yards and averaged 164.2 yds per game that year. this is surely enough justification to reach out for a proven pro-bowl qb in my opinion.

 

Stats do not tell the whole story. Our not having big passing totals was not all about QB play. (a) Our system was based on running the ball, which is going to create lower passing numbers. ( Our D shut down opponents so much, the need to pass for big numbers was less. © Our D often created great field position, which I would argue is relfected in our offense not putting up great yardage totals, but ranking near top 10 in TDs. That means our offense was scoring, but simply not needing to move the ball as far to do it.

 

I really think you are forgetting something. Who was our HC and OC at the time? We had coaches who wanted a conservative running offense. If that is your system, you don't go out and make a big spash at QB.

 

we needed 2 things coming out of the 2001 season:

 

1. a pass rushing defensive end

2. a quarterback who was more than just average.

 

i have said this before and i will say it again... this is the year we should have traded UP, not down. whether the bengles would have done it or not is another story but i WOULD have given up 2 firsts to get carson palmer or at least tried (after all we are not talking of trading out of the top 5 with them). this is not from hindsight but because this guy was the best prospect for a franchise qb since p. manning.

 

there is no way anyone can tell me that angelo considered grossman a franchise qb, or even better than leftwich, and yet traded down and picked a DE before him. it was a cheap and safe pick for angelo. as far as wolf pressing gb to pick him? sure why not? you have favre in his PRIME at that time and it fits the plan of gb drafting qb's and trading them or at the least having good ones to back up favre. if not that then what better way to screw chicago than wolf saying that?

 

One. You have absolutely no way of knowing if we did call Cincy or not. Teams make tons of phone calls behind the scenes, and we hear only a bit of that. For all you know, Cincy made it clear they were not trading the pick, and everyone else backed off. You just do not know.

 

Two. There is no way Angelo considered Rex a franchise QB, or even better than Leftwhich? Why not. As far as trading down, that is simply about being a good GM in the draft and not reaching for players, but getting them w/ better value. Take this year for example. If we felt Forte was a better RB prospect than McFadden and others taken ahead, and knew we could get him in the 2nd, what is the problem w/ drafting as we did. I guess you would argue we should have taken Forte in the 1st if we felt he were that good, but again, that is all about knowing/feeling the draft and players values. There is no reason to believe we didn't in fact believe Rex would be a franchise QB. I didn't, but we are talking about Angie. As for Wolfe, the news really didn't come out until after the draft how high he was on Rex, and how much he wanted GB to draft him, so saying it was to make us take him is a stretch. And regardless of what GB's situation was, if Wolfe felt he was worth a 1st round pick, then he isn't looking at Rex as just being a good long term backup. He is looking at Rex as having greater potential than that.

 

i do have to ask... WHO thought we had our franchise qb in chicago? jerry angelo? for what accomplishments? in 2003 he wanted to groom grossman behind a guy that was a complete bust in pit. finally grossman played in 3 games (after the bears were eliminated from playoff contention) and was injured his rookie year. he followed this giant accomplishment by being seriously injured in his 3rd start (1-3) in the 2004 season. all that grossman had at that time was potential and nothing more. we went into the 2005 season with hutchinson, orton and grossman ending up with blake replacing hutch and another seriously injured grossman in preseason.

 

Now you are preaching to the choir. Our GM and staff felt Rex was still our franchise QB. I didn't.

 

how about if i talk about bringing in free agent drew brees? but then we wouldn't have wanted to damage our sure thing franchise qb, grossman's, ego considering how much he had done for us and get a pro-bowl calibre free agent in his prime.

 

Again, you are preaching to the choir here. One, I felt we waited too long to replace Rex. Two. I never understood the idea of not wanting to give Rex competition, fearing it would hurt him mentally. If your QB is that weak mentally that he can't deal w/ competition, then he is not a franchise QB.

 

1. no that is not hindsight. THAT is why you hire COMPETENT staff including coaches, gm's and scouts. so they can give you a real educated evaluation of not only what you are getting but what you can mold him into. you stay away from the combine escelator production prospects like the akili smith's and boller's but when you do get the p. manning's and the c. palmer type players you pull the freakin trigger. does that mean you hit every time? no. maybe you get a couch or a leaf, but if you NEVER make those gambles you end up being exactly what we are today and have been for longer than anyone wants to remember!!! and most important you do like the bengles do. if you don't succeed getting one drafting high you keep trying until you do.

 

Again, nice thought, but I question the reality of it. You really make it sound so easy, but I think if you look at the league (not just us) and history, you will find it is anything but. Finding that franchise QB is no easy or simple thing to do. You say, you should give up whatever it takes to move up in the draft to get that sure thing, but history has shown there is no sure thing. You say you might get burned by taking a Couch or Leaf, but the problem is, if you gave up future #1s as well, you just kill yourself.

 

I agree w/ the idea of going after a QB, but I do not agree it is so easy to move up in the draft to get one. I am rarely in favor of giving up a future #1 pick. To bust potential is too great, not just for the player, but what the long term effects on the team can be.

 

2. first of all don't say we did value the qb by spending a top 15 pick on one. that is plain ridiculous. we put so MUCH value on both first round qb picks we traded DOWN to get them!!! if you think the qb you picked is a franchise quality qb, and you sure as hell should, then isn't that enough for you to draft him in the spot allotted to you or even trade UP to get him????? otherwise that means that these qb's were valued less by the entire nfl than 15-22 other players INCLUDING yourself.

 

Sorry, but this is simply ridiculous. In the draft, you have to factor the value of a player, as well as other team needs and such. You very well may look at a player and view him as a franchise player, even if the rest of the league doesn't. Your board is not going to match everyone elses. I mean, come on. By your argument, players outside the first couple picks can't be considered frachise because you would say other teams passed.

 

I disagree that a team can't view a player not expected to go in the top 10 as being a franchise player. Further, I disagree it is best to move up to get a player if they believe they can get that player later. If I write out my board, and Grossman is my 2nd rated QB, and I know he is likely to be available in the middle of the 1st round, and I have a high pick, there is no reason for me to simply reach for him. It is simply smarter to trade down and get him.

 

3. now do i get out the quiji board? hell, do you think under ditka joe montana would have been a HOF qb? does that mean you don't draft him? how about p. manning? because mora is an idiot do you pass on him too? i think the point you and this entire franchise is missing is you FIRST find the talent then build your franchise around him.

 

I just think there is more to it than that. Sure, you mention Manning and Montana, and those two are so good the rest doesn't matter, but they come around how often? I agree you should always seek out a franchise QB, but at the same time, I disagree that is all that matters. I swear you act like you should ignore everything else until you find that franchise QB, but I would argue you will never find that franchise QB until other parts of the puzzle are in place.

 

really? then just what is the reason you don't hire even one expert or a consortium to fill a position you have failed to find in 40 years?

 

Ego. I don't think the owners having anything to do w/ this. If Angelo hired an offensive consultant, he would first have to really swallow some pride. Few GMs can handle as much. Seriuosly, while we as fans talk about this all the time, how often do you actually see it happen in real life?

 

you think guys like the walsh's or the tuna's (don't much like him but have to throw it in) or the holmgrens or anyfreakinbody that knows how to look at college talent and see the potential and groom it to be successful in the nfl will do it for nothing?

 

Holmgren? I am not sure he has looked like such a genius since leaving GB. And you mention Tuna. Didn't jerry spend the money to bring in Tuna? How did that workout.

 

You seem to think it is always about money, but I would argue that often enough, it has been proven that simply throwing money at the problem just does not always spell victories. Danny Snyder has got to be your favorite owner in the league. He goes out and gets a hall of fame HC, and offers enough to get him out of retirement. He then spends so much on his coordinators as position coaches you would think they were all headcoaches. And yet, how well has Wash done? You think any team that doesn't spend like this is cheap, but I would argue it is simply a difference of philosophies. Jerry Jones for example is an owner few would call cheap, but he has never been willing to pay for his coaches. He hired coaches on the cheap, often going to the college ranks to get them. When they want too much control, he says good bye. He finally broke w/ his ways in hiring Parcells, but that didn't work out, and now most believe he will be worse than ever. Further, Jones is the GM in Dallas. By your rationale, that would make him too cheap to hire a GM, right?

 

The point is, you always believe that when a team doesn't spend, it is because they are cheap, but I think there is ample evidence that it is often simply a difference in philosophies. Snyder has a philosophy that you must love, and yet how well has it worked for them. Jones is considered cheap by few, yet runs his team in such a way you would have to consider cheap by your reasoning.

 

I agree we have problems on our team. I simply disagree it is all about money.

so if not money then what exactly is it?

[nfoligno]

When he and I start to go at it, my suggestion is to simply avoid our posts. Unless it is late, your tired and finding it difficult to fall asleep. Then, by all means, read away

 

With those two, it always is....

[Lucky Luciano]

DOUBLE POST SORRY

[Lucky Luciano]

But how many QBs did they draft high, or even relatively high, during Favre's time? I have no problem drafting QBs, even when you have a stud, but where I have an issue w/ is drafting a QB on day one in that scenario. Day one picks should be starters, and if you are a stud, then your pick will not be a starter. I disagree w/ the idea of drafting a player w/ the intent to trade him.

 

first i never stated if i already had a franchise qb in his prime i would draft another first day qb (although if the quality was there in my pick i WOULD consider it). i did state i would continue to draft qb's even if i had my franchise qb in his prime like the packers did with favre.

 

during favre’s career in gb the packers drafted:

 

92 – detmer rd 9 nfl starter; 93 – brunell rd 5 franchise qb; 95 – barker rd 5; 96 – wachholtz rd 7; 98 – hasselbeck rd 6 franchise qb; 99 – brooks rd 4 starter 2002 – nall rd 5; 2005 rogers rd 1 franchise qb picked to replace favre in future; 2006 martin rd 5; POST FAVRE - 2008 brohm rd 2

 

as far as your unwillingness to draft a player with any intent to trade him... there are exceptions to this rule and the most prominent one is the qb position.

 

if you draft any qb, you do so because he has to ‘potential’ to at the very least become a starter in the nfl and preferably a franchise player. you DON’T do like this ignorant franchise does, and has done in the past, of drafting a qb whose greatest potential is to become a BACKUP to an existing player or just depth. this has a two-fold advantage

 

1. if your franchise qb has a career ending injury you have hopefully a quality, possible franchise, qb to replace him on your team who has been groomed behind an excellent player.

 

2. when he does show some promise as a qb, you can TRADE him for some lucrative draft picks if your franchise player is better, in his prime and healthy. then keep doing it over and over.

 

Sorry, but you can scream about your financial conspiracy theories till your blue in the face, but I think you ignore too much. Why is Lovie not more on the hot seat? Maybe because he is the 2nd winningist coach in the NFC over the last four years. Only the Giants have a better record (by one) than the Bears over the last 4 seasons. Because, while we didn't make the playoffs, we finished w/ a winning record, our 3rd in 4 seasons. Because Lovie took us to the SB a couple years ago, which is a big leap for an organization that hadn't been to the SB since '85, and frankly, hasn't seen many post seasons since either.

 

While I flat out do not like Lovie, at the same time, I think it is VERY understandable why he is not on the hot seat w/ the owners as much as he may be w/ you or I. The flat out fact and reality is, Lovie has had more success w/ this team than any coach since Ditka.

 

i am screaming about a financial conspiracy? from that statement it appears you don’t believe, as i do, the decision to keep or release lovie AND angelo has anything to do with money. here are some previous posts of yours:

 

"Even after 2009, Lovie will still have something like $10m still owed on his contract. Don't be so quick to assume we will eat the money. If we have a bomb season, I can see it. But I am not sure 7-9 (for example) gets ownership to eat $10m.”

http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry56040

 

"Regarding Lovie, I said he will likely be kept on for another year. I also said the decision would be based largely on money. At the same time, my point was this is little different from what I think most owners would do. Its one thing to talk about eating a few million, but another when you are talking $15m, or whatever the amount is. I think it is a small numbers of owners who would choke that down. I think the majory would try other moves (lower level coaches and personnel) to fix things and hope the HC worked out w/ different surrounding personnel."

http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry53299

 

so who you crappin?

 

First, I don't recall our hiring Angelo cheap. No, I am sure his deal was not top tier, but I don't recall there being a big deal made about how we nickel and dimed him either, unless you are simply making that statement because we hired an unproven GM. As for Angie, I began to argue for him, but I stopped and deleted. I don't like him, and you are not going to force me into a position of defending him:) Seriously though, we went w/o a GM for many years, and after Mikey was kicked out, we hired one.

 

no? i believe i posted this some time ago in a discussion with you or LT3:

 

From the Chicago Tribune

Bears name Angelo GM

By Don Pierson | Tribune pro football reporter

10:17 PM EDT, June 11, 2001

 

“The job is expected to pay in the $600,000-$750,000 a year range, the low end for a general manager but a significant increase in what any of the finalists are now earning.”

 

 

One. I am not talking about what I would have done so much as understanding the reasoning for why we did as we did. It is a copy cat league, a statement most in the NFL would agree w/. At the time, we were copying the Ravens, who went to and won the SB w/ a very similar team. Great D, solid to great run game, and journeymen QB.

 

Two. I think you are making Bledsoe out to be some incredible player everyone had a shot at, but I just don't recall it that way. I don't recall there being massive interest in him at the time, and frankly, he wasn't a FA. I don't know. While there are times I think I would more tend to agree w/ you, in this situation, I just think there is reason to understand why we didn't make a big play for Drew.

 

1. if any team in the entire nfl should know better than this it should be us!!! if that was not enough shouldn’t the ravens superbowl success after the 2000 season have been the period at the end of that sentence???

 

2. “Chicago Sun Times – “The Patriots had been trying to trade Bledsoe since Tom Brady, a former fourth-stringer who inherited the starting job when Bledsoe was injured in Week 2 last season, led the team to an improbable 20- 17 victory against the St. Louis Rams in the Super Bowl on Feb. 3.” http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1437014.html

 

just for curiosities sake, what reason don’t you think we made a play for bledsoe? they wanted a first round pick? the size of his salary? he wasn’t good enough to play in chicago?

 

Stats do not tell the whole story. Our not having big passing totals was not all about QB play. (a) Our system was based on running the ball, which is going to create lower passing numbers. ( Our D shut down opponents so much, the need to pass for big numbers was less. © Our D often created great field position, which I would argue is relfected in our offense not putting up great yardage totals, but ranking near top 10 in TDs. That means our offense was scoring, but simply not needing to move the ball as far to do it.

 

I really think you are forgetting something. Who was our HC and OC at the time? We had coaches who wanted a conservative running offense. If that is your system, you don't go out and make a big spash at QB.

 

you can’t be serious. bret favre was beating our brains out and winning the division hands down, on his own hook, for how many years and we didn’t think we needed a great qb to counter that???

 

dick jauron’s first OC was pass happy gary crowton (99-2000)!!!!! after that even that complete idiot shoop would have been dancing in the streets to have a pro-bowl quality qb!!

 

One. You have absolutely no way of knowing if we did call Cincy or not. Teams make tons of phone calls behind the scenes, and we hear only a bit of that. For all you know, Cincy made it clear they were not trading the pick, and everyone else backed off. You just do not know.

 

Two. There is no way Angelo considered Rex a franchise QB, or even better than Leftwhich? Why not. As far as trading down, that is simply about being a good GM in the draft and not reaching for players, but getting them w/ better value. Take this year for example. If we felt Forte was a better RB prospect than McFadden and others taken ahead, and knew we could get him in the 2nd, what is the problem w/ drafting as we did. I guess you would argue we should have taken Forte in the 1st if we felt he were that good, but again, that is all about knowing/feeling the draft and players values. There is no reason to believe we didn't in fact believe Rex would be a franchise QB. I didn't, but we are talking about Angie. As for Wolfe, the news really didn't come out until after the draft how high he was on Rex, and how much he wanted GB to draft him, so saying it was to make us take him is a stretch. And regardless of what GB's situation was, if Wolfe felt he was worth a 1st round pick, then he isn't looking at Rex as just being a good long term backup. He is looking at Rex as having greater potential than that.

 

1. sorry, but i just can’t believe that this franchise even considered trading up to get the #1 pick in the draft. there certainly has never been ANY indication that angie has EVER traded up in the first round for anyone or anything let alone that high!! if we had tried it would have been eventually reported in my opinion. so i don’t believe that for a minute.

 

2. a good gm would trade down when he thought the player on the board when he drafted was a real possibility to be a franchise quality player and especially a qb? puuullleease. he would be a complete IDIOT to do this.

 

as far as the forte scenario? what are you talking about? do you think runningback was a top priority in that draft??? even if it had been, which is certainly wasn’t, the number one position we needed to fill to go to a superbowl and he considered forte better than the best rated rb in the draft they yea, take him. why take a chance the best runningback in the draft is gone by trying to get cute? incidentally isn’t one our biggest bitches with angie is that he DOES draft players higher than they should go? hmmmmm.

 

(EDIT_ FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH: PFT - Forget Rex Grossman; Green Bay consultant and former G.M. Ron Wolf believed that only Carson Palmer and Kyle Boller were worthy of the Pack's first-round pick.

http://archive.profootballtalk.com/5-1to5-31archive.htm

 

Again, nice thought, but I question the reality of it. You really make it sound so easy, but I think if you look at the league (not just us) and history, you will find it is anything but. Finding that franchise QB is no easy or simple thing to do. You say, you should give up whatever it takes to move up in the draft to get that sure thing, but history has shown there is no sure thing. You say you might get burned by taking a Couch or Leaf, but the problem is, if you gave up future #1s as well, you just kill yourself.

 

I agree w/ the idea of going after a QB, but I do not agree it is so easy to move up in the draft to get one. I am rarely in favor of giving up a future #1 pick. To bust potential is too great, not just for the player, but what the long term effects on the team can be.

 

when did i ever say it would be remotely easy? when did i EVER say it would be a “sure thing”?? the fact is it won’t be. does that mean we just continue on for the NEXT 40 years doing the same thing over and over?

 

did i say we should give up “whatever it takes” to move up in the draft? no. would i give up 2 #1’s to move up to get a player that has the best possibility to become a franchise qb in a decade? yes!!!! otherwise what is the alternative? wait around until WE have the overall #1 pick in the draft and hope that player is there that particular year?

 

the only other way is to have some top quality staff that actually knows how to recognize a franchise player in later rounds and and can teach and groom them to play in the nfl!!

 

but until you make a commitment to hire people who can give you the best chance to bring in these type players and turn them into franchise players, i just don’t see it happening the way we are going unless by sheer blind luck, you are destined to fail.

 

you also mention the risk is too great to the team to give up more than a #1 to go for these type players. greater than what? by keeping all of our draft picks and picking at or below our allotment (trading out) how many superbowl rings have we won doing it in 44 years? how close TODAY are we of winning a superbowl next season?

 

Sorry, but this is simply ridiculous. In the draft, you have to factor the value of a player, as well as other team needs and such. You very well may look at a player and view him as a franchise player, even if the rest of the league doesn't. Your board is not going to match everyone elses. I mean, come on. By your argument, players outside the first couple picks can't be considered frachise because you would say other teams passed.

 

I disagree that a team can't view a player not expected to go in the top 10 as being a franchise player. Further, I disagree it is best to move up to get a player if they believe they can get that player later. If I write out my board, and Grossman is my 2nd rated QB, and I know he is likely to be available in the middle of the 1st round, and I have a high pick, there is no reason for me to simply reach for him. It is simply smarter to trade down and get him.

 

come on... the top five and POSSIBLY in certain years, top 10 players in the draft are considered elite players to draft. that is why it is so expensive to trade up. from then on down it is taking the best player available with the most ‘potential’ talent and need. this was so EVEN when the league of the 60’s, 70’s and possibly part of the 80’s had a LOT less teams picking!!

 

you can disagree all you want about where franchise talent players are picked but unless it is an exceptionally RARE year of talent that is where it shakes out. always correct? no. but if you ever see a team trading DOWN more than one spot to get in their estimation a franchise quality player you are seeing a fool of an organization.

 

I just think there is more to it than that. Sure, you mention Manning and Montana, and those two are so good the rest doesn't matter, but they come around how often? I agree you should always seek out a franchise QB, but at the same time, I disagree that is all that matters. I swear you act like you should ignore everything else until you find that franchise QB, but I would argue you will never find that franchise QB until other parts of the puzzle are in place.

 

i don’t know... how often are franchise qb’s drafted? certainly not every year. certainly not even in the first round every time. what i do know is it takes very good staff personnel not only to find these gems in the first that DO show up but talented enough staff to turn the gems in the rough from later rounds INTO franchise qbs.

 

“ignore” what? am i saying you spend every draft pick on a qb? no i think not. i am not even saying spend a first round pick every year on one if the talent doesn’t stand out.

 

your statement about putting in place the other parts before finding the qb rings hollow. sure you build as good of a team as you can until you find your franchise player. but when you do you THEN adjust, tweak and change your team to the strengths of that player. you don’t do like we always do and force feed the players into a system that does not get the most out of the talent on your team and certainly not the key components.

 

Holmgren? I am not sure he has looked like such a genius since leaving GB. And you mention Tuna. Didn't jerry spend the money to bring in Tuna? How did that workout.

 

You seem to think it is always about money, but I would argue that often enough, it has been proven that simply throwing money at the problem just does not always spell victories. Danny Snyder has got to be your favorite owner in the league. He goes out and gets a hall of fame HC, and offers enough to get him out of retirement. He then spends so much on his coordinators as position coaches you would think they were all headcoaches. And yet, how well has Wash done? You think any team that doesn't spend like this is cheap, but I would argue it is simply a difference of philosophies. Jerry Jones for example is an owner few would call cheap, but he has never been willing to pay for his coaches. He hired coaches on the cheap, often going to the college ranks to get them. When they want too much control, he says good bye. He finally broke w/ his ways in hiring Parcells, but that didn't work out, and now most believe he will be worse than ever. Further, Jones is the GM in Dallas. By your rationale, that would make him too cheap to hire a GM, right?

 

The point is, you always believe that when a team doesn't spend, it is because they are cheap, but I think there is ample evidence that it is often simply a difference in philosophies. Snyder has a philosophy that you must love, and yet how well has it worked for them. Jones is considered cheap by few, yet runs his team in such a way you would have to consider cheap by your reasoning.

 

i think the point i was making is with a holmgren you get someone who CAN see talent and who CAN teach that talent to play successfully in the nfl. do you disagree favre is/was a great talent? would you have liked to have hassellback as the leader of our offense for the last 5 years? i sure would have. that is a pretty good body of work in my opinion. in fact i will take all of his faults if we had him as our head coach because he is better than any coach in chicago that i can remember. if you disagree name the bear head coaches since 1960 you rather would have had.

 

parcells? same scenario. who in your opinion would be a better gm or even a coach/teacher to find or groom a player than him that we have had coaching in chicago? or a talent evaluator since finks/vanisi? and i don’t even like the guy.

 

jerry jones... as much as i dislike this egomaniac i do have to admit he will spend money to win. he is a poor gm much like snyder is a poor owner. snyders problem has been similar to jones. they both think they know more about football operations than they really do and enjoy the limelight more than is normal for an owner.

 

but i have to admit both want to win and are not afraid of spending money or stretching the possibilities (thinking out of the box) to do it. the pulling of gibbs out of retirement was in my opinion a great move even if it didn’t work out. same with jones parcells move. in these instances they did NOT let their ego’s stand in the way of winning and in the long run did improve their franchises chances of winning.

 

finally, if you and the mccaskey family are happy with the methods they have employed for decades then more power to you. i personally am not and want something tangible to move forward with to bring this franchise real possibilities to win superbowls more than once every 20-30 years and at the very least bring us into the last half of the 20th century let alone the 21st.

[danimal99]

This just in....... Cassel still not tagged.

 

Hope you understand........