Paging Derek Anderson?

by Adam T on Dec 7, 2007 7:34 AM CST in News Comment 47 comments

With one hit, could the Washington Redskins have ended the relationship between Rex Grossman and the Chicago Bears?

If Rex Grossman is not ready to play next week or perhaps for the remainder of the year, can the Bears really give him a contract and roll into next year with him as their starter?

Do they really want to go another season with the revolving door at QB? Wouldn't it be better for the coaches, players, fans and anybody else aboard to just solidify the QB spot?

The leading rumor getter for going after the services of Derek Anderson has been the Minnesota Vikings, but their young QB Tavaris Jackson has been playing well recently and might be doing enough to take them out of the running.

Wouldn't we all feel much better if in the offseason the Bears make a serious run at Anderson and then shell out some money to fix this line. If they did that alone prior to the draft, wouldn't it just be better for everybody?

0 recs | Comment 47 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Anderson

I'd like to see Anderson on the Bears, but more importantly I'd like to see the Bears have an NFL caliber offensive line. What QB would want to come to the Bears after seeing their QBs getting murdered all season by unblocked pass rushers? He's also a restricted free-agent, so his price tag will likely include some draft picks. Given the fact that this draft will be deep in O-line talent (and the free agent o-line pool is thin and overpriced), I'd rather use those top picks on a stud off-tackle or guard instead of getting Anderson and seeing him get crippled by week 3.

As for Grossman, it depends on what kind of knee injury he sustained. If it was a minor knee injury, like a sprain or LCL, then give him a 2-year deal but let him compete for the starting spot. If it is a major knee injury, then you can expect him to be out for most of next season too, since they usually require a year to heal and rehab. That's where I'm not sure if we can wait on him to come back. I like the guy and have pulled for him all this time, but to bring him back from a serious knee injury will only set this team back.

Too bad this whole season can be summed up by the second play of the first game of the season: Grossman getting crushed because the offensive line missed a free Shaun Phillips.

Unleash your inner Grabowski.

by jrm78 on Dec 7, 2007 8:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I don't care about the draft pick

We need a QB for next year, if Grossman is once again gone for an extended period of time. If we were going to take a QB in the first round anyway the only extra we would be shelling out for Anderson is possibly a third. I'm ok with that.

by Adam T on Dec 7, 2007 9:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OT: funny latin stuff

While looking for the rules for signing RFAs, I came across these odd NFL.com webpages:
http://www.nfl.com/freeagency
http://www.nfl.com/freeagency/freeagencyreport

The free agency report one is all sorts of messed up. I just find the use of latin to be strangely hilarious.

Unleash your inner Grabowski.

by jrm78 on Dec 7, 2007 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i think anderson is a very bad idea

1, i'm still not sold on how good he actually is. 2, most importantly, he'd cost us a 1 and 3. with the holes we've got, i think it would kill us to give up 2 high picks, both of which could net us starters next year for a guy who may or may not be that good. what good would he do for us when an unfixed OL gets him killed in week 3? in my opinion, rex with any reasonable pass protections and receivers who actually hold onto the ball, is much better than anderson. sign him to a incentive-based contract, and work on the OL, receivers, and safeties early in the draft.

by guy incognito on Dec 7, 2007 9:31 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The draft pick cost for Anderson

is only applicable if the Browns franchise him. If they don't, he only costs the price of his contract.

--Torch

by torch on Dec 7, 2007 9:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

No on all counts......

Anderson would come in expecting to be the QB for years. WIth only one year under his belt I think that direction would be a mistake (he's barely played before 2007).

This is Rex's Xth injury in his career that has lasted X+1 years. (that's 4 in 5 years) We need to thank him for his services, then allow his fragile ass to move to another team.

I think jrm has it right: we need to replenish the OL. The window of that line was 2000-2006, as they become one of the older lines in the league that's becoming obvious. We SHOULD go another year with Griese or Orton while grabbing a late rond rook QB, but put focus into the OL, bolstering the running game to keep the rush honest (which has been the major problem this year) and target a run stuffing safety to make up for Mike Brown's loss.

Target a solid, long term QB replacement for 2009. That might still get us McNabb if he stays in Philly another year. I read somewhere recently that his interest in the Bears is low due to their OL and position player problems, although that might be a negotiating (pre-emptive) stance for the off-season too.

by PopeFlick on Dec 7, 2007 9:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wait .. McNabb in 2010?

Seriously? Or did you mean sometime in 2009? Either way, after all the injuries that guy has dealt with, and the fact that he's hardly effective anymore, I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is regarding McNabb. Proven vets can be reborn, but would he be worth the money considering how often he's hurt?

Rex's "fragile ass" vs. McNabb a year from now? If that's all of our options, things are looking grimmer and grimmer.

I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something. - Dick Butkus

by iowaBear on Dec 10, 2007 12:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"fragile ass"

This is Rex's Xth injury in his career that has lasted X+1 years. (that's 4 in 5 years) We need to thank him for his services, then allow his fragile ass to move to another team.

Well... I am pretty sure that any QB in the league would have been injured on the hit that Rex took last Thursday.

And ironically, you want to replace "fragile ass" Rex with Donovan McNabb, another very fragile QB.

visit the mindful mission.

by big_lowitzki on Dec 10, 2007 8:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Referring to 2009

..for Mcnabb, since he's been the one most talked about before Anderson became flavor of the month.

I'd buy the "anyone would have gotten injured" logic if it was his first injury, not 4th. He's fragile. McNabb may be as well, but not to the extent Grossman has been, along with accomplishing a fair amount than Rex has as well.

by PopeFlick on Dec 10, 2007 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Free the fuckin' NeckBeard already!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 7, 2007 9:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

On the college QB's...

...Brohm, Woodson and Ryan are all going to be pretty good pro QB's. I don't know how anyone can't be high on this class. I'd gladly give up the third-round pick (and whatever mildly intriguing player), it'd probably take to move up the four or five spots to take the last of those guys (although, if they lose 2 out of the last 3, they may not have to).

If the Bears end up drafting in the Top 10 next year so they wouldn't have to give up a third-round pick, it's a no-brainer.

by tyger1147 on Dec 7, 2007 10:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

really?

you can guarantee Brohm, Woodson and Ryan will all be good nfl qbs? whatever. the draft is somewhat of a crapshoot and no one can ever guarantee which qbs will turn into good nfl qbs.

by lopey986 on Dec 7, 2007 12:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

1999

Tim Couch, McNabb, Akili Smith, Culpepper and McNown were supposed to give the 1983 class a run for its money.

by PopeFlick on Dec 7, 2007 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Since I went to Kentucky

I have followed Couch's career a little closer and part of the reason he failed was getting killed with Cleveland not having an offensive line. Not that he wouldn't of failed anyway but it points out we need to address our offensive line problems or we need QB like Tim Tebow who might be able to take the beatings.

by beardown on Dec 8, 2007 5:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Garantee? haha, no.

Read this article.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/04/17/ramblings/nfl-draft/5082/

Check out the player stats via Yahoo! sports. Combine that with what all the scouts say about all of them, and I'd bet money on it.

The only things that keeps these players from being productive starters for an extended period are injuries or being put into a bad system (like a Ron Turner-led one).

by tyger1147 on Dec 7, 2007 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Want would you like to bet:

All 3 develop into starting QBs. Is what you're saying without an ounce of doubt, correct?

by PopeFlick on Dec 7, 2007 3:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

A "guarantee" would be without an ounce of doubt. Did you see where I wouldn't give a guarantee?

Besides, I think you'd allow me to say there's no way this "bet" could be resolved AT A MINIMUM four years from now, yes? Even then, Grossman's been in the league for... nearly five years now, and there are some who still say the juries out for him. I hope to god neither you nor me gives a shit about this five years from now.

The way I'd phrase it after looking it over: "There's a good chance that all three are going to be productive starters for at least 4-5 years. There's an excellent chance that at least one of them is (my money's on Brohm).

Keep in mind, when I'm saying this, I'm thinking along the lines of a Chad Pennington. They don't have to be anything special to satisfy my "bet". I'm merely saying that these guys can be "Top 16" QB's over a four-to-five year period. With a good defense and/or running game, that's typically a winning team. While most teams who draft in the Top 10 would certainly want something better than that, I think most would prefer it to a Ryan Leaf.

by tyger1147 on Dec 7, 2007 8:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a chance

There is very little chance that any of those three pan out let alone all of them. Ryan Leaf looked like a beast and everyone thought he was going to awesome. The Colts almost drafted him instead of that other guy.

There is no bigger risk in the NFL than a first round QB.

by Chad on Dec 7, 2007 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm glad you didn't read the article first.

This is why your comments are so ignorant. No bigger risk than drafting a QB in the first round? I don't know how much hyperbole that has in it, but it is true to the extent.

The problem is, which you of course didn't want to learn, is that there are two important, and easy, statistics one can look at to minimize the risk. All three of these QB's somewhat qualify with those statistics.

There's a huge difference between "looking good" and "being good." Your ignorance is astounding.

by tyger1147 on Dec 7, 2007 8:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yawn

In the NFL, a first round quarterback is the biggest risk.

College stats are very helpful but they do not predict the ability to adapt to the pro game. Even a cursory look shows that players like Byron Leftwich, Kliff Kingsbury and Philip Rivers were +60% completion. It's a nice barometer but not a rule.

by Chad on Dec 7, 2007 9:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Astounding I yell again!!!

Kingsbury and Leftwich don't apply.

Why is drafting a 1st round QB the biggest risk?

by tyger1147 on Dec 8, 2007 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll tell you why...

Playing quarterback in the NFL is by far the hardest job in all pro sports. So when you take a first round quarterback, it's very easy for him to bust out. Any other position is not as hard to play, so the odds of a bust is lower.

Missing out on a first round pick is very rough on a team. Hence why it's hard to give up that pick in a trade.

by Chad on Dec 8, 2007 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and Leftwich and Kingsbury apply

Because my point is that you can't put too much stock in completion percentage. It's a good stat but it doesn't always mean that it will continue in the pros.

by Chad on Dec 8, 2007 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No one is doing that.

Except you. You're the only one putting that much emphasis on it because it's the easiest thing to pick on. As I'm sure you're wont say, no one stat can tell you anything about a player. So why do you do it here? Because it makes your argument easier.

Nobody thought Kingsbury would be a good QB.

by tyger1147 on Dec 8, 2007 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you.

I buy that.

You'd agree, though, that even with this risk, you can't just forget about drafting a QB in the first round if it's available, right?

For instance: the Bears need a QB. That's about as obvious as it gets.

So what are the choices? They either need to take risks on a guy like Anderson, a castaway like Garcia or Kitna or an aging veteran like McNabb. Rarely is there a QB who is available in his prime without some obvious risks.

Or they can draft a QB. The further they get away from the top picks, the more likely they are to bust, right? There are fewer guys drafted in Rnd 2 who stick in the NFL. Fewer still in the 3rd Rnd, and so on. If those guys do bust, which they're likely to do, it won't be as detrimental to the team because you'll have better players around him. But then you end up sort of like the Bears last year. A good team w/ an incompetent QB. You just end up delaying the problem.

The final idea is to draft a Top QB. You have a better chance of drafting a good player (lower bust rates for Top QB's drafted), but as you pointed out, it can hurt your team more if he does bust.

All this little trick does is help minimize that risk.

As that other comment says below, over the past 15 years, no QB drafted in the first two rounds who started more than 35 games in college and had a 60% or higher completion percentage has been a failure.

Isn't that worth something?

by tyger1147 on Dec 8, 2007 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OK some common ground

But let's not forget something. The nucleus of this team is built to win now. Drafting a top college QB is like saying that we have more of a 3 - 5 year plan. We can't expect a rookie qb to do much next year or even the year after.

Now, you may say, that this Bears team is no where near Super Bowl quality. OK, then its time to let Urlacher and Kruetz go. They are still great now, but won't be in 5 years. So if you say that this window is not closed, fine. Go for a top qb.

But I would rather see us go for a top ol or dl and try to go for it one or two more times with Rex.

by Chad on Dec 8, 2007 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i guess it depends

on how big you see the nucleus being. i think there are too many holes to say we have a win now nucleus.

by mike b on Dec 8, 2007 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

And while last year and before Urlacher and Kreutz were the best on the team, I think this team is pretty young again. Harris, Brown, Vasher, (Briggs?), Olsen, Berrian, to name a few. Not great, not exceptionally young, but young enough and good enough to build with.

IF a team gets a good QB (and a good O-coord.), it doesn't take a lot to make it a respectable team--better than what there's been this year, anyway.

Besides, while there are exceptions, it takes offensive lineman longer to develop than QB's. Well, to have an impact anyway. Angelo has already said he doesn't like to draft o-linemen because of this.

I think they should draft a QB, sign a young (26 or less) O-lineman, draft 2 or 3 more after o-line and go from there. PUt Orton at QB and see what happens. If he's good, the team has a nice problem on its hands. If not, then the young guy plays early.

There just haven't been enough (if any) consistent contenders without good QB's at the helm. While this team could get extremely lucky next year, that's what it would have to take for them to be great again.

by tyger1147 on Dec 8, 2007 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

grossman

will be the qb here next year. they will not sink money into that position and grossman should come back relatively cheap.

by lopey986 on Dec 8, 2007 5:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

BUT...

I think that with good scouting you can find good quarterbacks in later rounds. I'm not talking about Tom Brady either.

by Chad on Dec 8, 2007 7:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure.

But if you have good scouting you should be able to find it in the first round, too, no?

by tyger1147 on Dec 8, 2007 8:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Damnit!

I was just getting ready to drop a Leaf up in here and I see you already have.

I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something. - Dick Butkus

by iowaBear on Dec 7, 2007 8:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

60% completion

has been "the line" for a while I had thought. I think the guys has it part right but is leaving too much out of the equation. i guess the scout take is what changes it, but the last time i read any scouting for these three in the end all three had at least some scouts dogging them.

just for fun grossman was a 61 guy at Florida.

did he have a minimum games count in his article, if so i missed it.

I would love to see a sortable list with college and nfl stats to compare.

by mike b on Dec 7, 2007 8:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He didn't have a minimum, as I recall.

But anyone with less than 30 starts is a risk and anyone above 40 w/ about 60% or higher is a good bet.

The scouting part comes into by looking at only those drafted in the Top 10. Hence, someone like Cutler isn't in the picture. Simply being drafted in the Top 10 means there is a widely accepted opinion (although not unanimously) about the QB's "raw" abilities.

So, looking at only the Top 10, he's saying "Everyone thought these guys could be good." Then looking at career starts and completion percentage says that they've shown that they've already been good.

Someone like Akili Smith had one great year, and that's not enough to look at. Someone like Kliff Kingsbury or whomever... well, those guys lacked something like arm strength or mobility, or in this case, were simply part of a system.

by tyger1147 on Dec 8, 2007 2:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

More.

30 games started is about average, 35 is a good number, no quarterback who started 35+ games and completed 60% of his passes and was drafted in the first two rounds has been a failure.

There ya have it, guys. That's why I make my statement. Not even Chad, despite his brilliance, can find an exception this rule.

by tyger1147 on Dec 8, 2007 2:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Anderson

will stay in Cleveland. The new Browns have been looking for a franchise QB as long as they've been a franchise and they may have one. I'd be willing to bet they keep him around and let Quinn sit around and either wait for Anderson to get hurt or be traded.

by tacologic on Dec 7, 2007 12:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

no on anderson

unless he comes cheap. if you're going to spend picks on a qb might as well draft a kid and spend the next two years fixing the other holes.

by mike b on Dec 7, 2007 12:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Seriously though

how low can we go? Time to tank the season and get a top 5 pick.

I think we're around #10 right now but a lot of teams at 4-8 and 5-7 right now.

And more Olsen, Hester, Wolfe on offense the rest of the year...

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Dec 7, 2007 1:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

we don't need to tank

to do that. there's not a team in the league these guys are favored against, i wouldn't have been shocked if they lost out 4 weeks ago,
and i sure as hell won't be shocked if they do it now.

by mike b on Dec 7, 2007 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Definitely.

They're still a "Big Play" team which means they might not be favored against anyone but still have the chance of winning against even above-average teams.

I just want to see what Orton can do.

by tyger1147 on Dec 7, 2007 2:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Touche...

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Dec 7, 2007 2:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no tanking necessary

The way I see it, they'll end up 6-10, and be picking anywhere from #6 through #12. I can see them overtaking Cincinnati in draft position, maybe KC and Baltimore too (all with 4-8 records).

The Pats made the steal of the century by getting SF's 1st round pick last year. They'll definitely be picking in the top 5 this year.

Unleash your inner Grabowski.

by jrm78 on Dec 7, 2007 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sprained MCL

for Rex, no surgery but likely out the year.

Visit The Cub Reporter (mvn.com/mlb-cubs)

by thecubreporter on Dec 7, 2007 4:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

hell be back in time for playoffs! ;-)

by Jbasic89 on Dec 8, 2007 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

O Line

I hate to say it but we can learn from the Browns. Anderson isn't especially great, he's fine...but so is Grossman. Their line has been great this year. And after it being god awful last year, they were able to turn it around in one year, which is what we need to focus on.

not saying another qb option wouldn't be nice, but not sure I want to go with Anderson

by Ando on Dec 7, 2007 5:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

anderson

kind of coming back down to earth lately. seems like our best bet would be to spend money on the offensive line and resign Grossman. i don't think we can afford to give up the 1st and 3rd picks plus big contract it will take to get Anderson.

by lopey986 on Dec 9, 2007 7:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs