Why Not To Draft A QB... Yet
I'm all for drafting a QB, but not until there is a line that is ready. Why waste the pick unless the guy in like a Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer coming out of college that you rarely have the opportunity to grab from a draft. Almost every year there are Henne's & Flacco's & Brohms you can draft. QB first rounders, second rounders, third and so on are so unpredictable. Just because you draft one doesn't even mean the guy will be valuable to the team.
The reasons you draft QB are this:
- Your offense has an above average receiving corp and a solid line
- There is a once every 3-5 years QB available
- You have a pick to spare
- A QB has slid so far that there is a huge value pick available
None of these were our situation. Bears scouts felt these guys were all mediocre which to me says, they aren't real confident the guys will be valuable short or long term to our team. On the contrary the guys we picked up instead of a QB in rounds 2-4, they feel will make it and play right away and even start in this year or next.
This draft scenario may have been the only one that would improve our team as dramatically as it did for this year. Had we taken RB in round one, like Mendenhall (whom I love), chances are that we would have missed out on OL who would start from day 1. In round two it was either QB on the bench or RB on the field. We could not afford another 3.4 ypr next year. These two pics were the only scenario where we draft potential starters this year for both positions. Round 3 we drafted a receiver who will strongly increase competition at the position and has a good possibility of becoming a starter this year or next. In this round we also strengthened depth at DT. This guy as many of you know is first round talent that we picked up late in the 3rd. I think the Bears believe they have learned enough from the Tank situation that they can put in an accountability system that will keep this guy out of trouble. Everyone here knows that this is still a risk, but if the guy is that good, late third round is a place to take that risk. The fourth round is where the Bears had the biggest decision to make at QB. Here Angelo mentioned someone he felt he could have taken there, which had to be Booty. Instead,
Grossman and Orton both will be better QB's with a better line. If you really broke down what happened on most of the offensive plays last year you will see that QB's were getting hit often and very quickly. Nearly all of Grossman's bad stats last year came from the first three games of the season where he was outright pummeled by defense lineman. On top of that he also didn't get any run support and his receivers were dropping touchdown passes. That will hurt you. In his return, he was hit, half as much and looked dramatically better. The stats looked ordinary, but if you look at the plays one at a time, Grossman was decisive, accurate, and protected the ball very well. I was very impressed with his ability to zing the ball into the flats so quickly and accurately. The one big concern was his lack of pocket presence. He was aweful in that category. A good line will help and that is a trait that still can develops with time and consistency at OL.
Orton also did some good things. His arm looked stronger. He moved well in the pocket. He made some clutch throws and did an excellent job of protecting the ball. Some of the areas that were a concern with him started with accuracy. He still had a tendency to miss a guy by a lot from time-to-time. He also tended to lock in on one receiver from the snap. This is something should improve with more playing time and confidence. He also needs to work hard on throwing the out route in the flat. His ball took an ion to get there and will be picked off for TD's if it doesn't improve.
Yet is the key word. This year we will make final decisions on both Rex & Kyle. If one of them plays exceedingly well, we may not even be looking for a starter next year and will have a veteran QB. If neither is cut out for the job, here's what else we will know. Benson will have his last chance to prove himself with hopefully (fingers crossed) and improved line. Should he fail, we have a good plan B in Forte. We also have a lot of receivers competing for 2 or 3 spots. One of those is Devin Hester who could be ready to be a full-time starter by the end of the year. Throw in a pair of excellent TE and one of our wild card WR's (Booker, Bennet, Davis, or Lloyd) surprising us and you have a decent WR group. This year we have the chance to become a decent OL, a decent WR group, and maybe a team that can run the ball again. This is the type of offense that is ready draft a QB. We also could sign an average proven free agent QB (great QB's never make it to FA), or trade for a QB.
The Bears Are Back Now! With the defensive talent we already had, we really only need an average offense to make another run. Even with a battered secondary and DT group and 28th defensive rank, we still were only one game below .500 for the year (7-9). Depth to DT and safety were the keys to us returning to a top 10 defensive club or better. Plus, we not only added depth, but I believe we struck gold at those positions.
On offense I expect the offensive line to be improved some, maybe a lot, but definitely some. This should help the QB play and the running game. The running game will be better this year by default because they can't be worse. WR is going to be a curious group, but there are plenty of guys with the potential that you hope someone jumps up and becomes a quality player. Really I think we need about 20 points a week from this team and Hester on returns and our defense should help this offense do it.
Why not to draft a QB... Yet?
- Because we can compete this year.
- Rex or Kyle may break out this year (neither had a fair shake last year with time in the pocket, a respectable running game, WR's that played hard, ran the correct routes, or even caught the ball, or a decent offensive coordinator).
- A rookie QB wouldn't have an offensive group that he would even be able to succeed with this year or next year. Get the group ready first and let a vet go through the hard times, then give a young guy a shot with a solid group of players.
1 recs |
18 comments
Comments
If you draft a qb this year, he wouldn't play this year
Might as well let him get some time learning a playbook while you get your line ready, then once the line is ready he can be ready to jump in. If you get the line set, then draft a qb, you have to wait a year or two for your qb to develop, and by that time you have to start rebuilding your line.
Someone, I can’t remember who, said you should draft a qb you like every year. That way you always have someone ready, and if you have too many there is always a market for QBs that haven’t been exposed.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on
Apr 30, 2008 3:49 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree on the second part
Marv Levy said that. I understand the point and agree that later in the draft we should have, but not in the first 4 rounds. The QB’s were available were not more beneficial to our team today than the players we drafted. Had we picked a QB in round 2, we would have risked having another running back year like last. I think what we did this year put us in better position for this year and next year. If we draft a QB next year it says the road to a Superbowl is not in the near future so he can sit that season in come in a year later. I think the offense next year will be in better shape, but lets be honest. It would be better for a young QB’s first year as starter to be in two years from not, not one. We still need another draft or two to help the offense and we all know it. I think our team will be better with veteran QB’s for the next two years, then a second year player can come in the third year.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on
Apr 30, 2008 4:05 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Um... Yes. :)
"I've got a class (coming in) here, we've got a chance to do some things." --Tom Izzo on why he might not consider the Bulls coaching vacancy.
by tyger1147 on
May 1, 2008 8:37 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree on the second part
Marv Levy said that. I understand the point and agree that later in the draft we should have, but not in the first 4 rounds. The QB’s were available were not more beneficial to our team today than the players we drafted. Had we picked a QB in round 2, we would have risked having another running back year like last. I think what we did this year put us in better position for this year and next year. If we draft a QB next year it says the road to a Superbowl is not in the near future so he can sit that season in come in a year later. I think the offense next year will be in better shape, but lets be honest. It would be better for a young QB’s first year as starter to be in two years from not, not one. We still need another draft or two to help the offense and we all know it. I think our team will be better with veteran QB’s for the next two years, then a second year player can come in the third year.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on
Apr 30, 2008 4:04 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Nice analysis 23
I also think the offense will improve to average. The defense improves to above average or real good. Our special teams are still great. 9-7 or 10-6. Division win or wild card.
by MuleTrain on
Apr 30, 2008 4:36 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You keep on talking
like the o-line is sooooooooooo much better because of Williams. First of all, HE’S A ROOKIE. They don’t tend to fare too well when they start right away. And anyway, he is the only “improvement” on the o-line.
You’ll all be surprised when you actually see the o-line play. For now, we probably took a step back, considering that we released 2 starters, have only added Williams (no free-agent acquisitions) and we still aren’t sure about one of our starting guard spots.
I am like your Dan Aykroyd and biglow would be Jane, the ignorant slut. -Chad
by thecoolest on
Apr 30, 2008 7:01 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Ugoh, Thomas, McNeill
Marcus McNeil tackle for Chargers, 1st year starter (2 years ago), all 16 games at tackle-ProBowl
Joe Thomas tackle for Cleveland, 1st year starter (last year), all 16 games at tackle-ProBowl
Tony Ugoh tackle for Indy, 1st year starter (last year), 11 games (injured for 5).
Recent evidence kind of shows that rookie Tackles not only can start, but can make a major impact. Is Williams that guy? Don’t know yet. But since it’s April, I’ll be optimistic.
Reuben Brown and Fred Miller are perfect examples of addition by subtraction. They were awful last year.
So yes, our offensive line is better. I didn’t say soooooooooooo much better, but just better.
by MuleTrain on
Apr 30, 2008 7:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And...
Tony Ugoh was a second round pick.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on
Apr 30, 2008 7:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the o-line improves
no more miller or brown is an improvement right off top. tait moving to right tackle, a spot he is much better at playing, improves our line.
by lopey986 on
May 1, 2008 1:16 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's such a bad comparison. It really, REALLY is.
Those three players were in exceptionally different situations that Williams.
FIrst off, Thomas. Please don’t include him ever again in a discussion about Williams. Thomas was one of the best LT prospects since Chris Samuels in 2000. AND he lived up to the hype. Not only that, but the Browns also signed a Top-10 Guard in Eric Steinbach to help bolster their. If the Bears had done that (say, with Jordan Gross or someone similar), I’d be a lot more optimistic. Please don’t ever make this comparison again.
Ugoh and McNeill are also different. Or at the very least, are very bad examples. The point isn’t whether they can be good (really), but how much better they can make this line. In that sense, Ugoh and McNeill are bad examples because they came into lines that were already among the best in the league. Yes, they still had to play well, but their mistakes were covered up by the superior play of their teammates.
I can’t imagine Josh Beekman or Roberto Garza helping Williams too much in this sense. Speaking of, who are the guards? Are they really, by default, no matter what, better than Brown. I certainly hope so, and I bet so, but the uncertainty is still nerve-racking.
Tait will obviously be better than Miller. And it might even be a lot, but can you really expect Williams to be ANY better than Tait at LT? At all?
It’s good to be optimistic, but banking on a best-case scenario is sort of foolish. I guess it just depends when one wants to do his bitching and whining. Now, like I am, or in the middle of the season when reality finally strikes (like soooooo many did last year).
"I've got a class (coming in) here, we've got a chance to do some things." --Tom Izzo on why he might not consider the Bulls coaching vacancy.
by tyger1147 on
May 1, 2008 8:50 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Here is why the line should be better...
Fred Miller was horrendous at RT. Against the Giants, he let one of their ends run right around and past him untouched 3 consecutive plays and then got called for two straight false starts. The guy was at the end of his rope. He was extremely aweful. Tait will be moving back to RT where he has played most of his career and this should not only make the right side of the line significantly better, but also he should play better as well. On the left side we will have a new starter and rookie in Williams, but it is a hope that he will be able to sustain the performance that Tait was doing on the left or very close. I can’t guarantee this will happen, but I have hope. He was the second offensive tackle drafted in what many scout’s, analysts, and teams have said was the best offensive line draft that had ever seen. So I think the hope is warranted. I don’t know the exact reason why Brown did poorly, but I remember many players coming right up the gut and drilling the QB. Was it Kruetz or Brown or Garza, I don’t know, but the Bears don’t want him anymore and they know more about OL’s than I do. We did draft a a couple more guys late to compete with Metcalf, St. Clair, and Beekman for the final spot on the line. They also could develop in a year or two on the practice squad. Beekman has been on the team for a year now and would qualify as a more experienced young player who could be ready to start. Also, I believe that we will be waiting for teams to make cuts soon and try to pick up one more lineman. If on a scale of 1-10, last year the line was a 2. I think that we will do no worse than a 4 this year and I’m hoping for a 5. To me that is much better. It is an evaluation that is subjective, but that is what I think.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on
Apr 30, 2008 7:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I didn't read the whole thing (I'm fond of paragraph breaks--I'm lazy)
But the Giants were pretty well-known for their ability to pass rush… if I’m not mistaken.
Okay, I did read the rest. A line going from a “2” to a “4” is hardly anything to be optimistic about.
"I've got a class (coming in) here, we've got a chance to do some things." --Tom Izzo on why he might not consider the Bulls coaching vacancy.
by tyger1147 on
May 1, 2008 8:52 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i hope dez
is ready for a significant drop in catches this year, becasue he should be sticking next williams and blocking the whole year.
by mike b on
May 1, 2008 9:32 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The defense is not as bad as the rank
I know we were statistically ranked 28th or something on defense, but there were at least 4 big reasons why:
1: Lovie’s love affair with Mark Anderson. Anderson should be used ONLY on passing downs, as he is only effective as an outside, speed rusher. Once Alex Brown reclaimed the spot, the run defense got a LOT better, which made the pass D better too.
2: Chaos in the defensive secondary. Mike Brown’s injury, coupled with the trade of Chris Harris, left the secondary in the hands of players who were not ready for prime time. The drafting of Craig Steltz improves us tremendously, should Brownie not be able to play.
3: Injuries. Yeah, yeah, everybody has them, but the Bears, particularly the Bears’ defensive linemen, were devastated. Will that change in 2008? Sure hope so.
And, finally
4. The horrendous offense. A lot of times a bad statistical rank on defense just means they were on the field too much, because their offense couldn’t get a first down. I think we saw a whole lot of that last year, and an improved offensive line, along with a more effective running game, should keep the defense off the field much more.
by garsky on
Apr 30, 2008 10:31 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
agree
those are all good points, the way lovie and co mocved peopel around last eyar was moronic.
i think the offense being only slightly better this year will lead to a high amount of injuries and fatigue. even with more depth at safety and dt and good depth at end, linebacker and corner. of course, we'll see who gets hurt in camp.
by mike b on
May 1, 2008 9:30 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep
This is why I feel so good about our defense returning to dominate form this year. Drafting safety and DT should help two of our lowest areas of depth stay healthier. Last year was the worst I’ve seen any side of the ball be hit with injuries on any team. You have to believe that won’t happen two years in a row. Throw in the young guys who got much better (McBride & Grahm)and some rookies that never played last year who have a year of studying under there belt (Bazine-DE and Owkwo-LB) and we should be extremely deep on defense. Give us a miracle with a healthy full year of Mike Brown and we will be very dangerous.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on
May 1, 2008 10:40 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Brohm was the #2 QB(or Henne, if preferred) and was available
late in the 2nd round. Not likely to find that kind of value ever again. And with 11 draftpicks going into the draft, they had a pick to spare. Next years QB class is said to be weak, and if we find out Grossman and Orton arent good, there isnt a good alternative. They blew a golden opportunity to land one of this years best QB prospects without sacrificing a win-now approach.
by gillrowdy on
May 2, 2008 12:17 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Good points
Next year is said to be weak. I would have had no problem with trading up for a QB after Forte was picked. But I will say it would have meant probably missing out on both Steltz and Harrison. That would have been sad. Both of those positions non should greatly help us this year and next as long as they are healthy and not suspended. I couldn’t say that about a QB because their is no rotation for QB’s and QB’s don’t play special teams. But like I said, I would have had no problem with trading up for a QB in the late 2nd. Especially if we gave up a second next year plus a third this year or something like that. That would of given us one of the players I mentioned. But that isn’t always possible to pull off and Angelo doesn’t trade away the future.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on
May 2, 2008 2:37 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs









