What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bear Fans (1 Viewer)

The Dude

Footballguy
If Favre goes to TB, it seems likely that Simms could be dealt.

Should we be leading the rally for the Bears to trade for him? Is he an improvement over Grossman/Orton (can't believe I just typed that)?

He may not be great but I think it's a significant step up - good genes, good family, shown some promise, and would likely kill for a shot at starting. Probably a much better competitor than the Dyanetics Duo we got.

 
Sims showed flashes of potential and handled the playoffs with significant poise imo. I still remember the near-touchdown that he threw an amazing pass on that would've won the Bucs that playoff game. He would have been a hero if not for the rule that WRs have to maintain control while they go to the ground. It was real close. The problem he had though was batted balls at the line of scrimmage. It was a huge problem for him. I think he deserves another chance to prove himself, to compete for a starting position somewhere.

 
Potential gets you fired (at least everywhere but Chicago). Bears need a producer, not a prospect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mbuehner said:
If we want to continue stockpiling crappy QBs, the answer is yes. I wonder if Aaron Brooks is available?
Not to hijack, but whatever happened to Brooks? He made the occasional boneheaded play, but he was always more productive than half the other QB's in the league. Seems weird that he can't find a job but a guy like Joey Harrington can keep hanging around.The Bears should certainly sign an experienced vet...for that matter they shouldn't have dumped Griese who was their best QB last year.
 
I think that Tampa would be wanting to trade Garcia if Favre is signed. He would definitely be an upgrade compared to Orton/Grossman, but the question is

whether Chicago would want a one year rental. I would think not.

 
Simms may not be the best QB around, but he is certainly better than Grossman or Orton.
My opinion exactly. I posted about this a while back and I think it would be good for them even if Simms didn't win the starting job. Orton and Grossman know that they both pretty much suck. Bringing in an unknown would at least raise the level of competition. Provided we don't have to give up anything to get him (ie Don't trade for him as he is likely to be cut) I say why not? Worst case scenario he brings a new element to the competition, best case we don't have to watch the Neck-Beard/Grossbomb carousel all year.
 
mbuehner said:
If we want to continue stockpiling crappy QBs, the answer is yes. I wonder if Aaron Brooks is available?
Just using this response as an example - too many people get into the "what have they done lately" mode instead of being objective. Plenty of guys came off the short resume back up pile (Schaub, Delhomme, Warner, Brunell, Favre).And right now, I would give a draft pick for any of those guys in their early years.Low risk high reward.
 
mbuehner said:
If we want to continue stockpiling crappy QBs, the answer is yes. I wonder if Aaron Brooks is available?
Just using this response as an example - too many people get into the "what have they done lately" mode instead of being objective. Plenty of guys came off the short resume back up pile (Schaub, Delhomme, Warner, Brunell, Favre).And right now, I would give a draft pick for any of those guys in their early years.Low risk high reward.
I dont disagree with this, but the problem i have with the Bears is that they have no ability to evaluate QB talent, and that makes a situation where they hold on to guys that are never going to develop for way to long. I am one of the believers in drafting a QB every year at some point in the draft until you strike gold. Or bringing over a new face from another team. But it should be apparent within 1 or at most 2 seasons whether a guy is ever going to be THE guy. Either make him the starter or cut him loose. The Bears have a habit of holding on to guys they think make swell backups... but i see no point in that. If you arent good enough to play you arent good enough, whats the point of having a guy not quite good enough to start? These caliber of players don't suddenly blossum very often, if ever, and not without a change of scenery (and some help at the skill positions).
 
mbuehner said:
If we want to continue stockpiling crappy QBs, the answer is yes. I wonder if Aaron Brooks is available?
Just using this response as an example - too many people get into the "what have they done lately" mode instead of being objective. Plenty of guys came off the short resume back up pile (Schaub, Delhomme, Warner, Brunell, Favre).And right now, I would give a draft pick for any of those guys in their early years.Low risk high reward.
I dont disagree with this, but the problem i have with the Bears is that they have no ability to evaluate QB talent, and that makes a situation where they hold on to guys that are never going to develop for way to long. I am one of the believers in drafting a QB every year at some point in the draft until you strike gold. Or bringing over a new face from another team. But it should be apparent within 1 or at most 2 seasons whether a guy is ever going to be THE guy. Either make him the starter or cut him loose. The Bears have a habit of holding on to guys they think make swell backups... but i see no point in that. If you arent good enough to play you arent good enough, whats the point of having a guy not quite good enough to start? These caliber of players don't suddenly blossum very often, if ever, and not without a change of scenery (and some help at the skill positions).
Ask the McCaskey's accountant :yucky:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top