What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Chicago Bears Thread*** Poles is playing 5D chess! (20 Viewers)

I'm curious how many people feel that taking a safety with the 3rd pick is a draft no no and why.  I feel many are just saying it because they heard it on TV or read it somewhere and are just repeating it.  Has anyone ever looked at past drafts to see which positions always get taken?

I took a quick look at the top 10 picks of every draft since 1990 and the only constants I really noticed were QBs and DEs getting taken every year.  All other positions vary greatly.  One year you'll see a bunch of RBs taken and then none the next.  A TE occasionally.  OL wasn't near as popular as it is now.  I even managed to find that safeties actually were taken that high also!  :shock:

It's not a huge list and I may have missed one but here are the safeties I found taken in the top 10 since 1990.

1991 the Browns took FS Eric Turner with the 2nd pick.
2002 the Cowboys took FS Roy Williams with the 8th pick.
2004 the Redskins took FS Sean Taylor with the 5th pick.
2006 the Raiders took SS Michael Huff with the 7th pick.
2006 the Bills took SS Donte Whitner with the 8th pick.
2007 the Redskins took SS LaRon Landry with the 6th pick.
2010 the Chiefs took SS Eric Berry with the 5th pick.

 
I don't know, I'm starting to get the sinking feeling the after draft press conference is going to sound like:

Hub: You've said you could draft a QB every year but for the third year in a row you haven't drafted one, can you explain your thinking?

Ryan: That's a great question.  You know we took a real solid look at all the QB's in this draft and think there were some really talented players, but we also look at the moves we made this offseason and really felt that QB is a strength for us right now and we didn't need to add any more players to the QB room.  We think really highly of Mike and feel that he can be that starting QB we are looking for.  Mark provides a really strong veteran backup, he's been in so many game situations and has seen about everything, so we appreciate that experience he brings.  And we really feel Conner has done great things for us so far.  He has really be developing in the system and we think he could do good things for us in the future.

(note: not in any way am I saying I agree with this, just looking at what they've done this offseason, I could see it)
:lmao: Wouldn't surprise me 

 
Wouldn't it be great if the Browns would trade up and give the Bears their 1.12, 2.1, 3.1 and 4.1?  That's a ton to give up but that's what it would take, maybe even one of their 5th round picks yet too.
This would be a dream.   Grab your QB and still load up on DB's in a deep draft, along with a WR and a TE.

If I am not mistaken, CLE is loaded with picks....

Here's hoping Ryan Pace is trolling this forum ?

 
What qb from the last 6 drafts would you take in the first round, who wasn't taken in the top 2?  Wilson, Daq, Carr? Anyone else out of the last 6 years you guys would take in the first round?  I think it's just those 3.  6 years worth of qbs taken and only 3 successful ones who weren't taken in the top 2.  Does that mean the Bears were right in never trying for one? Of course not.  That's the landscape now in the draft.  There's no such thing as "reaching for a qb" when everyone else is doing the same thing.  The Bears have a shot at getting the first QB off the board this year.  There's no waiting a few more years in hoping you get the first pick in the draft with Andrew Luck sitting there.  You have to swing for the fences sometimes.  If it doesn't work out, then oh well.  At least I know they're trying to get a franchise qb, not just waiting for what has been most of the entirety of my lifetime hoping one shows up out of nowhere.  It's this year or never.  Pace knows it.  I don't see any scenario where he doesn't take his guy at three.

 I keep hearing how this is a weak class. When was the last strong class?  More QBs will likely go in the first round this year than in many years.  That doesn't sound weak to me.   

 
This would be a dream.   Grab your QB and still load up on DB's in a deep draft, along with a WR and a TE.

If I am not mistaken, CLE is loaded with picks....

Here's hoping Ryan Pace is trolling this forum ?
No way of knowing a qb would be waiting for them at 12.  I'm all for getting a ton of picks and it sounds great, but they're worthless without a qb.  Look at every team that went deep in the playoffs last year.  Stud QBs.  A lot of teams around the league are loaded at a lot of positions, except qb. Almost always miss the playoffs. You build from the qb out. Not the other way around.  Seattle has been the only exception.  And they still have a very good qb

 
flapgreen said:
What qb from the last 6 drafts would you take in the first round, who wasn't taken in the top 2?  Wilson, Daq, Carr? Anyone else out of the last 6 years you guys would take in the first round?  I think it's just those 3.  6 years worth of qbs taken and only 3 successful ones who weren't taken in the top 2.  Does that mean the Bears were right in never trying for one? Of course not.  That's the landscape now in the draft.  There's no such thing as "reaching for a qb" when everyone else is doing the same thing.  The Bears have a shot at getting the first QB off the board this year.  There's no waiting a few more years in hoping you get the first pick in the draft with Andrew Luck sitting there.  You have to swing for the fences sometimes.  If it doesn't work out, then oh well.  At least I know they're trying to get a franchise qb, not just waiting for what has been most of the entirety of my lifetime hoping one shows up out of nowhere.  It's this year or never.  Pace knows it.  I don't see any scenario where he doesn't take his guy at three.

 I keep hearing how this is a weak class. When was the last strong class?  More QBs will likely go in the first round this year than in many years.  That doesn't sound weak to me.   
I would take Carr out of those 3 and then Wilson.  I don't think Dak is in the conversations since he only played one season and hasn't been proven yet.

So far the top of 2015's class is pretty good.  Winston and Mariota have exceeded my expectations and seem to be getting better.  The next decent draft class was 2012 with Luck, RG3 and Tannehill.  You'd have to go all the way back to 2004 for the last really good QB class when Eli, Rivers and Roethlesberger were all taken in the first round.

When looking at the past QBs taken in the first round it's hard to get excited about taking one that early but it's important to remember that your best odds of landing that franchise player is still in the first round.

 
flapgreen said:
No way of knowing a qb would be waiting for them at 12.  I'm all for getting a ton of picks and it sounds great, but they're worthless without a qb.  Look at every team that went deep in the playoffs last year.  Stud QBs.  A lot of teams around the league are loaded at a lot of positions, except qb. Almost always miss the playoffs. You build from the qb out. Not the other way around.  Seattle has been the only exception.  And they still have a very good qb
Only one of those guys was the 1st QB drafted.

I don't think anyone is denying that QB is the most important position on the field, but that doesn't mean you have to take one with the #3 overall pick just to "take a shot". That's how bad teams stay bad.

 
With the importance (and failure rate) of drafting a franchise qb, why not take one with the 1st and 2nd round pick. Heck take one with the 3rd rounder as well. 

If it's that important lessen  the odds of failing by increasing the chances of success.

 
With the importance (and failure rate) of drafting a franchise qb, why not take one with the 1st and 2nd round pick. Heck take one with the 3rd rounder as well. 

If it's that important lessen  the odds of failing by increasing the chances of success.
Don't forget to do that every year too.  Bound to get the next Peyton Manning eventually.

 
Don't forget to do that every year too.  Bound to get the next Peyton Manning eventually.
Only need to do it until you find your franchise qb. Then build around him. 

As crazy as it sounds, it's not that odd. It's a proven fact that you need a great qb to win a Super Bowl. Everything else is just filler.

 
Only need to do it until you find your franchise qb. Then build around him. 

As crazy as it sounds, it's not that odd. It's a proven fact that you need a great qb to win a Super Bowl. Everything else is just filler.
And some will argue that you build a great core group of players then get a franchise QB.  Lots of different strategies but they all require a good QB.

I think the Packers have been a great example lately.  Rodger may be the best QB in the NFL yet they can't get the job done because of the rest of the team.  Without Rodgers that team is most likely .500 in a weak division.

 
Only one of those guys was the 1st QB drafted.

I don't think anyone is denying that QB is the most important position on the field, but that doesn't mean you have to take one with the #3 overall pick just to "take a shot". That's how bad teams stay bad.
Uh the Bears have been bad for most of the past 30 years.  This reasoning makes no sense to me.  When should they take a shot? There's never going to be a perfect time.  Take a qb with the tools and coach him to succeed. 

 
With the importance (and failure rate) of drafting a franchise qb, why not take one with the 1st and 2nd round pick. Heck take one with the 3rd rounder as well. 

If it's that important lessen  the odds of failing by increasing the chances of success.
Lol wouldn't piss me off

 
Uh the Bears have been bad for most of the past 30 years.  This reasoning makes no sense to me.  When should they take a shot? There's never going to be a perfect time.  Take a qb with the tools and coach him to succeed. 
I think he means a team shouldn't just take a QB because they feel they have to.  You should take a QB because you think he's the best player available for your team.  Wouldn't it sound dumb if a team said they didn't really think the guy was all that good but they needed a QB so they took him any way?

Sounds about as smart as taking Manziel because he was so popular and it would really bring in more fans.  That is actually a reason why some teams take players.

 
Uh the Bears have been bad for most of the past 30 years.  This reasoning makes no sense to me.  When should they take a shot? There's never going to be a perfect time.  Take a qb with the tools and coach him to succeed. 
Weren't they in the SB ~10 years ago? The Bills haven't even sniffed the post-season in forever, and EJ Manuel is the poster-child for not reaching for a QB because you "have" to get one.

You take a QB early in the 1st round if you think they will be a franchise guy, not if they could be- pretty much anyone could be.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think he means a team shouldn't just take a QB because they feel they have to.  You should take a QB because you think he's the best player available for your team.  Wouldn't it sound dumb if a team said they didn't really think the guy was all that good but they needed a QB so they took him any way?

Sounds about as smart as taking Manziel because he was so popular and it would really bring in more fans.  That is actually a reason why some teams take players.
It should be both.  Team need plays into every decision.  There are extremes on both sides.  If you have a qb already, you can be more patient.  If you don't have one, you have to take a little more of a risk in hopes you can coach a guy up.  The Manziel thing was just dumb. 

 
Sure would make it hard to build the rest of the team though.  Would be great if they had 12 picks every year so they actually could use that strategy though.
Not saying I would celebrate or they would even do it, but they had an excellent D for many years and it got them very little. 

 
Weren't they in the SB ~10 years ago? The Bills haven't even sniffed the post-season in forever, and EJ Manuel is the poster-child for not reaching for a QB because you "have" to get one.

You take a QB early in the 1st round if you think they will be a franchise guy, not if they could be- pretty much anyone could be.
No one would view the Bears as a successful franchise.  The Manuel analogy doesn't mean anything.   Everyone knew that pick was bad when it happened.  That doesn't mean franchises without a qb should wait year after year until they deem one worthy of being a HOF'er.  You take a guy with the tools who you think you can coach up.  It's not an exact science, but the chances of success trying for one are a lot higher than not trying at all.  That's why every franchise is always trying to draft the next big qb.  No one knows for sure but they keep trying for one.  Meanwhile, the Bears haven't taken a qb early in 30 years.  We see the results.  

 
No one would view the Bears as a successful franchise.  The Manuel analogy doesn't mean anything.   Everyone knew that pick was bad when it happened.  That doesn't mean franchises without a qb should wait year after year until they deem one worthy of being a HOF'er.  You take a guy with the tools who you think you can coach up.  It's not an exact science, but the chances of success trying for one are a lot higher than not trying at all.  That's why every franchise is always trying to draft the next big qb.  No one knows for sure but they keep trying for one.  Meanwhile, the Bears haven't taken a qb early in 30 years.  We see the results.  
Lol- how is the Manuel analogy meaningless? It's a perfect example of the terrible logic that you're using- you need a QB so go ahead and take a shot at one early in the draft, even if they are far from sure things, just because there might be a chance that they're good.

 
Lol- how is the Manuel analogy meaningless? It's a perfect example of the terrible logic that you're using- you need a QB so go ahead and take a shot at one early in the draft, even if they are far from sure things, just because there might be a chance that they're good.
Completely meaningless.  Manuel is nowhere near any of the top 4 qbs this year.  Your opinion may be that they're far from a sure thing.  If the top 4 guys go in the first half of the first round, which I think they will, they're close enough to give it a shot.  There's no sure thing.  My logic is that these top 4 guys are good enough to take the risk.  Keep passing on qbs year after year and you end up like the Bears. This team is not a safety or DE away from competing.  They're a good qb away from competing. Pace knows this is the pick out of his entire tenure that he has to nail. He won't waste it on a safety or DE 

 
Completely meaningless.  Manuel is nowhere near any of the top 4 qbs this year.  Your opinion may be that they're far from a sure thing.  If the top 4 guys go in the first half of the first round, which I think they will, they're close enough to give it a shot.  There's no sure thing.  My logic is that these top 4 guys are good enough to take the risk.  Keep passing on qbs year after year and you end up like the Bears. This team is not a safety or DE away from competing.  They're a good qb away from competing. Pace knows this is the pick out of his entire tenure that he has to nail. He won't waste it on a safety or DE 
We have absolutely no idea how good any of these QBs are.  Trying to compare them to past NFL failures or successes is useless right now.

 
We have absolutely no idea how good any of these QBs are.  Trying to compare them to past NFL failures or successes is useless right now.
Of course not. But that's what we're here talking about.  No one knows for sure what's going to happen with these guys.  But it's probably the biggest story going into the draft in recent memory. 

 
Of course not. But that's what we're here talking about.  No one knows for sure what's going to happen with these guys.  But it's probably the biggest story going into the draft in recent memory. 
Honestly I feel like it's almost the same debate nearly every draft.  It's always about which QB is the best and will be the next franchise guy.  I remember 2 years ago going back and forth on whether the Bears should trade to get Mariota and if he and Winston were even good enough to be taken that high.

 
Completely meaningless.  Manuel is nowhere near any of the top 4 qbs this year.  Your opinion may be that they're far from a sure thing.  If the top 4 guys go in the first half of the first round, which I think they will, they're close enough to give it a shot.  There's no sure thing.  My logic is that these top 4 guys are good enough to take the risk.  Keep passing on qbs year after year and you end up like the Bears. This team is not a safety or DE away from competing.  They're a good qb away from competing. Pace knows this is the pick out of his entire tenure that he has to nail. He won't waste it on a safety or DE 
No, your logic is that if a team needs a QB they should take one early, that's it.

I'm not a Bears fan so I couldn't care less what they do with the pick, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't take a QB necessarily, just not based on your logic that they need one so that should be the pick.

 
No, your logic is that if a team needs a QB they should take one early, that's it.

I'm not a Bears fan so I couldn't care less what they do with the pick, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't take a QB necessarily, just not based on your logic that they need one so that should be the pick.
And the thing is, they don't NEED a QB.  They need to find a long term, franchise QB but not one just to fill the position.  Glennon is that guy right now which allows the Bears a small cushion to select the exact QB they want to be their next franchise guy.

 
No, your logic is that if a team needs a QB they should take one early, that's it.

I'm not a Bears fan so I couldn't care less what they do with the pick, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't take a QB necessarily, just not based on your logic that they need one so that should be the pick.
You're picking out part of what I said and leaving out the rest. I know what my logic is better than you do. 

 
And the thing is, they don't NEED a QB.  They need to find a long term, franchise QB but not one just to fill the position.  Glennon is that guy right now which allows the Bears a small cushion to select the exact QB they want to be their next franchise guy.
I'm not sure what this means.  They need a franchise qb.  Anytime they draft a qb in the first round, it should be with the intentions that he is the guy. 

 
I'm not sure what this means.  They need a franchise qb.  Anytime they draft a qb in the first round, it should be with the intentions that he is the guy. 
It means that not every draft has a franchise level QB in it.  If the Bears don't think any of the QBs are legit franchise caliber QBs then they shouldn't grab one in the first round.  A team that doesn't have a starting QB may feel the need to draft a QB in the first round regardless if they feel he is the long term answer just because they need to find a starter.

 
If Kizer from last year was in this draft, he'd be far and away the #1 QB taken. All he did was get an additional year of experience. He didn't become a worse qb. 

 
You're picking out part of what I said and leaving out the rest. I know what my logic is better than you do. 
You've been arguing with anyone who will respond in this thread for weeks, basically saying that one of the 4 QBs taken in the 1st (still tbd by the way) will be successful, so the odds are in their favor if they take 1 at #3. Um, that's not how it works.

 
It means that not every draft has a franchise level QB in it.  If the Bears don't think any of the QBs are legit franchise caliber QBs then they shouldn't grab one in the first round.  A team that doesn't have a starting QB may feel the need to draft a QB in the first round regardless if they feel he is the long term answer just because they need to find a starter.
Exactly. It shouldn't be this difficult- if you have a need at QB and there's one available who you think has a good chance to be the franchise guy, it's a no-brainer. If not, you don't pick one just "because".

 
Now that is funny 
“Name a college quarterback who goes into the game-plan meetings on Monday and throws his notes at the coaches,” WTF???!!! Kizer said. “No one else game plans the way I do. No one else prepares the way I doNO ONE else knows football the way I do. No one else is as big as I am. No one else is as powerful a runner as I am. “No one else can do what I can do. And I’ve truly figured out in this (draft) process, if I can maximize all my potential in every aspect of the game – this is bold – I do have the ability to be the greatest quarterback to ever play. Imagine taking (Tom) Brady’s intellect and Brady’s preparation and putting it on a guy with Cam Newton’s body. Why can’t I be the greatest? Because you are a moron.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally, I'm hoping for either Thomas or Hooker at #3, or a trade down, which would be best. Maybe all this QB at 3 has been a smokescreen. 

Unless Kizer falls to round 2, I'd be pretty happy just giving Glennon a year, I wasn't thrilled with that signing, but its better than reaching on a QB at 3, especially when there is can't miss elite talent at other need positions.

Best case scenario if they stay put in my opinion, would be Thomas at #3, and McDowell in round 2, or Foster if he falls. 

 
There's no such thing as can't miss talent players in the draft, except for a few guys like Luck or Cam recently.  The other positions coming out this year are no different.  Garrett only "generational" type guy this year.  Bosa, Ramsey last year.  There's none of those type guys available this year.  Hooker and Lattimore have long injury histories. Adams is solid but not a spectacular athlete and not a free safety or ball hawk.  Thomas flashes big plays but still has a lot of work to do and nowhere near a Bosa or Miller coming out.  There just isn't anyone that stands out.  

And when you have a top 5 pick, you use it on a qb, pass rusher, or OT. That's just how it works. 

 
Doesn't he have an injury issue?
Someone mentioned arthritis in his shoulders at one point but sounds like nonsense to me. Never missed a game. Could see him being a starter for 10 years.  He's the only pick I wouldn't have a fit over if they passed on qb

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Pace takes a qb, Trubiskey seems like the least likely to be taken.  Least experience. Looked to the sideline for most of his plays.  Leaving Mahomes, Watson, and Kizer

Watson-Great under pressure. Ultimate competitor. Average arm but good enough to be a quality NFL QB.  A lot of experience. Ceiling not as high as Mahomes or Kizer. Didn't run a pro-style offense and arm strength could be limiting factor

Kizer- Has all the tools. Strong arm. Big guy. Very good in pocket and played in most pro-style offense. Can make all the throws.  A lot of experience. Questionable footwork amd decision making at times. Can be hesitant to make a throw and not trust his read.  Not a great second year and struggled with his coaching. 

Mahomes - Booming arm. Had a lot of responsibilities. His team sucked. Similar to Cutler in a lot of ways. Questionable decision making and footwork because of his arm and feeling the need to carry his team.  Makes magnificent throws sometimes. Has the highest ceiling, along with Kizer. Oozes confidence. 

Take your pick, Pace. Mahomes and Kizer will need a lot of coaching up to reign in their talents. Both could melt down and bust without good coaching.  With good coaching, both could be stars. 

 
This is only because of hindsight. What makes them different from the Ryan Leaf, Jamarcus Russell, etc, etc. 
Overstated a little. I think Luck and Cam were viewed as surest thing at qb position coming out over the last few years.  Consensus #1 guys coming out.  Lived up to it

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top