| Author |
Messages |
|
egami
Posts:5392
 |
| 04/28/2008 12:16 PM |
 Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 04/28/2008 11:17 AM
I am not suggesting that Chicago doesn't have a QB need. The fact of the matter is that last year, they had a blocking issue. 43 sacks allowed. I don't care for Grossman, but a QB does need protection, no matter who it is.
That was never my point. I never suggested they didn't have line issues.
Do I think they need to shore up the QB position? You're damn straight I do. But your approach to draft a QB "just because" makes no sense to me.
My point isn't to draft one "just because" and that's an intellectually bankrupt argument on your part.
My argument is they should address because it's a need. And not just A need, an important one. If you guys want to downplay the importance of a QB to a dishwasher, fine. But you don't win without a QB, period.
Also, taking into consideration their situation. They have two QB's on one year deals that have proved nothing over the past 3-5 years. I don't care if your plan is a FA veteran, you still need to be investing in the future.
And I am not buying the "wasted picks" argument either. Chicago had plenty of picks and could of easily drafted a late round QB with all the depth in this draft to start checking out. There were plenty of mid to late round value QB's...Dixon, Woodson, Flynn, Ainge, Brennan...all very much uncostly picks.
They have a roster spot open for a QB, and my guess is they will fill it via F.A.
Even if, it doesn't address the future. I wouldn't want some veteran FA, Grossman and Orton as my "future".
Besides, Grossman will likely leave if he loses his job again anyway. And vetern FA's that are FA's after the draft are so for a reason.
And I am not biased.
Everyone is biased. But I don't buy that anyone doesn't have "fan bias".
I have been exceptionally critical of Chicago over the last couple of years. I just don't see this as a terrible draft.
Conversely, I never said you were a Chicago homer, I am just saying "bias" does play into it.
At any rate, we'll disagree. I am not totally for taking the route Chicago took when you have an established QB, but surrounding a guy with weapons who has consistently demonstrated he doesn't know how to use them when he has them I think it insane.
And, personally, I think they are pissing away 2008...even IF they go out and get a top ranked QB somehow after 2008, it'll take a year to acclimate them.
But then, my guess is, Chicago has no intention of getting a higher caliber QB than they've had over the past couple decades.
|
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
vranged
Posts:2813
|
| 04/28/2008 12:39 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By egami on 04/28/2008 12:03 PM Posted By vranged on 04/28/2008 11:09 AM
So, if the Bears management and coaching staff decide that there are no QBs available who can help them, they should still draft one?
Hmmm.... That's purely speculative...if you want to pretend that's their position, fine.
And if you want to pretend it's not, fine.
I would say it's pretty fair and reasonable speculation CONSIDERING THEY DIDN'T DRAFT A QUARTERBACK!!!!!!
|
|
After acknowledging that he was desperate, Dwight said "people will resort to saying things they know aren't true when they are desperate." That about sums it up! |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 04/28/2008 12:42 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By vranged on 04/28/2008 12:39 PM
And if you want to pretend it's not, fine.
I would say it's pretty fair and reasonable speculation CONSIDERING THEY DIDN'T DRAFT A QUARTERBACK!!!!!!
I am not pretending anything. It doesn't matter what the Bears thought. I don't care how they arrived there, but not addressing the QB situation is a mistake. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
vranged
Posts:2813
|
| 04/28/2008 12:43 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By egami on 04/28/2008 10:53 AM
I am focused on a few things. Primarily, however, who was on the board when they drafted their respective players. In other words, teams I ranked high I think got best overall value on round by round basis and vice versa.
So, if the Bears didn't take a QB b/c they thought there was better value in taking another player, aren't they following your recipe for a successful draft?
Do you not think Chicago knows it needs a QB? Of course they do.
Do you not think if they thought they could get a good value, or somebody to develop, that they would have drafted one? Of course they would have.
The most logical explanation is that they didn't like any of the available QBs, so they weren't going to take a QB that they didn't have faith in. That's smart management. They spend a lot more time scouting these guys than you or I do.
|
|
After acknowledging that he was desperate, Dwight said "people will resort to saying things they know aren't true when they are desperate." That about sums it up! |
|
|
vranged
Posts:2813
|
| 04/28/2008 12:53 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By egami on 04/28/2008 12:42 PM Posted By vranged on 04/28/2008 12:39 PM
And if you want to pretend it's not, fine.
I would say it's pretty fair and reasonable speculation CONSIDERING THEY DIDN'T DRAFT A QUARTERBACK!!!!!!
I am not pretending anything. It doesn't matter what the Bears thought. I don't care how they arrived there, but not addressing the QB situation is a mistake.
Addressing the QB situation by drafting someone who the organization does not have faith in, was not scouted to be a good player (by the Bears), and in the meantime, passing up a player who is scouted to have a better chance to be a contributor, would be a much bigger mistake.
If the Bears had the Hennes, Brohms and others of this draft not rated high enough to justify a pick, they're better off filling other needs, and exploring other avenues to get a QB (rookie free agent, trade, free agency, etc.) Otherwise, why even bother having a scouting department if you're not going to listen to them?
|
|
After acknowledging that he was desperate, Dwight said "people will resort to saying things they know aren't true when they are desperate." That about sums it up! |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 04/28/2008 1:02 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By vranged on 04/28/2008 12:43 PM Posted By egami on 04/28/2008 10:53 AM
I am focused on a few things. Primarily, however, who was on the board when they drafted their respective players. In other words, teams I ranked high I think got best overall value on round by round basis and vice versa. Next, whether or not I feel they filled needs.
So, if the Bears didn't take a QB b/c they thought there was better value in taking another player, aren't they following your recipe for a successful draft?
No, because clearly, as I've stated before, addressing critical needs is one of the areas I measure success.
Do you not think Chicago knows it needs a QB? Of course they do.
I never suggested that they didn't whatsoever.
Do you not think if they thought they could get a good value, or somebody to develop, that they would have drafted one? Of course they would have.
Now you're just arguing out of speculation again.
Could've, would've, should've...I don't really care. I care about DID and DID NOT.
The most logical explanation is that they didn't like any of the available QBs, so they weren't going to take a QB that they didn't have faith in. That's smart management. They spend a lot more time scouting these guys than you or I do.
Maybe, but they didn't get anything done at a primary need position. I don't care what their excuse is...they are pissing away another season.
|
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 04/28/2008 1:07 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By vranged on 04/28/2008 12:53 PM
Addressing the QB situation by drafting someone who the organization does not have faith in, was not scouted to be a good player (by the Bears), and in the meantime, passing up a player who is scouted to have a better chance to be a contributor, would be a much bigger mistake.
If the Bears had the Hennes, Brohms and others of this draft not rated high enough to justify a pick, they're better off filling other needs, and exploring other avenues to get a QB (rookie free agent, trade, free agency, etc.) Otherwise, why even bother having a scouting department if you're not going to listen to them?
You continue to argue speculatively...you have no more idea about what the Bears had on their draft board than do I.
QB is a top need for the Bears. I don't care what their coaches or staff think. Anyone can see that there are major issues at a major position. They chose not to get it done, and I don't care what their excuse it, they didn't get anything done. That's where I am criticizing them and it's perfectly valid criticism.
And on top of it, they didn't get it done in one of the deepest talented drafts at QB ever. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2483
|
| 04/28/2008 1:20 PM |
Alert
|
That is basically my point Vranged. They very well may have had a QB on their wish list......and maybe they were using the Midge mentality to nab a guy like Henne or Brohm......thinking there was more value in taking another need first and assuming that their guy would still be there when they came around again, because they weren't that solid of a lower round pick as far as "value" was concerned.
You can't have it both ways....criticizing Baltimore for trading to get back into the first round to get their guy vs. waiting and hoping that he's still there when they come around again to gain "value" in their pick.
Talk about speculating.....that's all we're all doing here. We have no idea what was going on with draft boards and discussions. We are speculating.
And after touring some of the "experts" grades........Chicago was far from one of the worst 2 teams with its selections over the weekend, but again, its all relative until they get into camp and show what they can do. So, I guess I'm as biased as the "experts" are. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2483
|
| 04/28/2008 1:27 PM |
Alert
|
And on top of it, they didn't get it done in one of the deepest talented drafts at QB ever.
Are you serious? Deepest, talented, yet you did not have a QB that, in your mind, was good enough to go 1st round or even early 2nd. Cmon Midge. You're altering your position now to support your argument. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 04/28/2008 1:35 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 04/28/2008 1:20 PM
That is basically my point Vranged. They very well may have had a QB on their wish list......and maybe they were using the Midge mentality to nab a guy like Henne or Brohm......thinking there was more value in taking another need first and assuming that their guy would still be there when they came around again, because they weren't that solid of a lower round pick as far as "value" was concerned.
I don't believe any team has QB as a major concern and slips 7 rounds without addressing the need in any way.
You can't have it both ways....criticizing Baltimore for trading to get back into the first round to get their guy vs. waiting and hoping that he's still there when they come around again to gain "value" in their pick.
Um, I am not criticizing Baltimore in the first to rounds specifically on their QB pick, I felt both picks were a reach.
Also, I didn't criticize Baltimore for going after their guy...if that's who they wanted, that's their prerogative, but consequently that doesn't mean I, personally, have to like the guy as their pick.
Big difference between me criticizing Chicago for not making ANY move for 7 rounds on a MAJOR need.
Talk about speculating.....that's all we're all doing here. We have no idea what was going on with draft boards and discussions. We are speculating.
I know that. My opinions are my speculation, however I don't have to speculate that Chicago has a major need at QB, you yourself acknowledge this as do most analysts.
And after touring some of the "experts" grades........Chicago was far from one of the worst 2 teams with its selections over the weekend, but again, its all relative until they get into camp and show what they can do. So, I guess I'm as biased as the "experts" are.
Well, it was inevitable that you'd run out to ESPN for validation.
And that's fine, but my critique of the draft isn't quite the same perception as theirs. Especially Kiper's who is traditionally very much looking at how teams pick according to how he had players personally ranked.
I am sure the experts also think Chicago is fine without addressing their QB issue.  |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 04/28/2008 1:35 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 04/28/2008 1:27 PM And on top of it, they didn't get it done in one of the deepest talented drafts at QB ever. Are you serious? Deepest, talented, yet you did not have a QB that, in your mind, was good enough to go 1st round or even early 2nd. Cmon Midge. You're altering your position now to support your argument.
So you're telling me that depth has to do strictly with the first round?
I never said they had to get one in the first round, Crit. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2483
|
| 04/28/2008 1:49 PM |
Alert
|
"Talented" and "ever" are the two words that stick out. If you are just suggesting "deepest", without an acknowledgement to ultimate talent, maybe.
But deepest and talented and ever together lead me to believe you were thinking something different.  (like a comparison to the 83 draft?)
And finally, if Chicago had several QB's in mind that they thought could help them, and they used your drafting procedure.....they were probably gone when they wanted to take them.....looking for "value" and all. Rather than draft a guy who they felt would not help them, they went in other directions, adding "value" to their "overall" draft. Which brings it back to the fact that you just think they should have drafted a QB period......regardless if it was Mr. Irrelevant or not. 
Actually, a guy from Fox gave them an A. Kiper only graded them a B.  |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2483
|
| 04/28/2008 2:06 PM |
Alert
|
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-080423-david-haugh-chicago-bears-nfl-draft,1,1757816.column
This might answer many of the questions surrounding why the Bears did not take a QB.
Sound familiar? |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 04/28/2008 2:07 PM |
Alert
|
I haven't changed my position on the depth at QB in this draft significantly as you are suggesting...go back and look at my top ten, go back and look at other comments I've made on Matt Ryan, I've suggested multiple times that there is depth at QB, and actually to emphasize that fact suggested MANY teams in need of a QB should wait until round two.
So, I don't get where you are reading into that because historically my comments are consistent. It's a deeply talented draft at QB and it's not loaded with high end talent. Those two can co-exist and they did in this draft
Do a little research on successful QB's in the NFL and you'll find a fair number drafted AFTER round one. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 04/28/2008 2:13 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 04/28/2008 2:06 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-080423-david-haugh-chicago-bears-nfl-draft,1,1757816.column
This might answer many of the questions surrounding why the Bears did not take a QB.
Sound familiar?
Ok, so with that argument he is suggesting that they needed o-line protection, which I am ALL for. Totally agree, but they drafted ONE OL in the top of the draft.
Conversely, if you are going to use that argument for QB than it also hold true for RB, yet they grab one of those in round two.
The truth is Chicago did little to solidify the o-line. They drafted on starter, on TE that isn't a blocking TE and the rest were 7th round developmental players. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2483
|
| 04/28/2008 2:22 PM |
Alert
|
Midge, I'm not arguing that there is talent. They wouldn't even be considered for drafting if they don't have some talent. You said "deepest talented drafts at QB ever".
Number-wise you may be right. We may see a slew of these guys on rosters throughout the league. I just don't see it as one of the most talented drafts at QB ever. If your idea of talent and success is having 10 guys from this year make rosters, then maybe I would agree. Right now, I just don't see a bunch of these guys being labeled "franchise QB's", but then time will be the judge. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2483
|
| 04/28/2008 2:31 PM |
Alert
|
Conversely, if you are going to use that argument for QB than it also hold true for RB, yet they grab one of those in round two.
The argument is they allowed 43 sacks last year and had the 3rd worst rushing team in the NFL. They lost Berriman in the off-season, so they had a need there as well. I'm not sure how much Barton and Adams will need to develope. If you talk about value, here are two horses that played for 2 of the top teams in the country. If they work out, your O-line should look pretty damn good for years to come.
As for RB, Benson is lazy and has a poor attitude. I at least think Orton and Grossman work hard.
|
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 04/28/2008 2:33 PM |
Alert
|
Crit, rarely do have drafts with this many QB's coming projected in the top 3 or 4 rounds. That's what I mean by deepest talented draft. I am not talking about going back historically knowing what we know now...I am talking about taking ANY past year looking at the QB's coming out with what we knew THEN and saying "this is where we project them to go".
The fact is a lot of good QB's come out of the mid or late rounds...Brady, Hasselbeck, Romo (undrafted, actually), Delhomme (undrafted), Garrard...and there quite a few that were "projected second rounders" like Brees as well. There doesn't need to be first round glory pick. In fact, I like teams that take that late round approach looking for diamonds.
But to sit there and NOT address the issue...and you're right, they could get veteran FA, they might be able to get an undrafted work in progress, but still you're talking about a 2-deep QB chart that is PATHETIC beyond belief. It made no sense for them to not make any attempt at a pick to address the position.
Bad move, period. That's my stance. |
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2483
|
| 04/28/2008 2:37 PM |
Alert
|
| I'm hoping for a Tony Romo. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5392
|
| 04/28/2008 2:38 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 04/28/2008 2:31 PM Conversely, if you are going to use that argument for QB than it also hold true for RB, yet they grab one of those in round two. The argument is they allowed 43 sacks last year and had the 3rd worst rushing team in the NFL.
Exactly, and yet they address oline with exactly ONE top pick.
They lost Berriman in the off-season, so they had a need there as well.
I didn't specifically criticize the Bennett pick.
I'm not sure how much Barton and Adams will need to develop. If you talk about value, here are two horses that played for 2 of the top teams in the country. If they work out, your O-line should look pretty damn good for years to come.
Maybe, maybe not.
I don't really care, I do care about not addressing the QB need. QB's take longer to assimilate than any other position player, period. They pissed away 2008 by not getting a developmental QB, I don't care how you slice it.
Just my opinion.
|
|
Posted By Omahan on 11/04/2008 2:24 PM
I've worked very hard to become your friend egami. |
|
|
|