Zack Wilson

[Eriebear]

I'm still pushing for him a #1 . Take a good look at him . Look, all the "TOP " QB's will be gone when we pick . Tribs and Foles ,well , you see where they got us ,no where w/out the D . The one thing Zack has is accuracy and seeing the field.
We need to draft a QB, Mitch will be gone , and Foles ? Foles can't run a lick , and now is hurt .
Last Opinion = If we drafted a great rated TE , WHY are we using him as a blocker more than a receiver ? Graham looks like Frankenstein after a catch .

[G08]

He's my guy!

[Arkansasbear]

Not sold on him yet but haven’t watched him enough. Trask is still my guy.

[UOK]

Zack Wilson will get into the top 10 and likely go 2 or 3 picks before the Bears will be up, so don't count your chickens.

[IE]

Either one of those guys (or Trey Lance, IMO) would be a huge get for the Bears. I'm actually in favor of losing out to make that happen.

I think we're looking at next year being a transition year with a young QB taking some lumps behind a much better Oline, with some major changes on offense and defense keeping some key pieces in place and targeting 2022 to be competitive again.

Goodbye:
- Arob
- Leno
- Massie
- Ifedi
- Graham
- CPatt
- Mack
- Hicks
- Trevathan
- Jackson
- Also Quinn that was highway robbery and a major bummer. I was just hoping to get $2Million a sack is that asking too much? (same with Mack... jesus).

[The Cooler King]

Zack Wilson will get into the top 10 and likely go 2 or 3 picks before the Bears will be up, so don't count your chickens.

Let's just say it's 14 to 8. That's 300 points on the trade value chart or roughly a late 2nd. Can't let that hold you up if you're sold on a QB. Key is obviously getting the pick right.

It will be interesting to see who goes QB. I assume Lawrence and Fields go 1-2, with a team trading up to 2 a possibility. After that there's lots of teams who would consider a QB, but no slam dunk sure things I think. So individual valuations will matter a lot for that Wilson/Trask/Lance group.

[The Cooler King]

Either one of those guys (or Trey Lance, IMO) would be a huge get for the Bears. I'm actually in favor of losing out to make that happen.

I think we're looking at next year being a transition year with a young QB taking some lumps behind a much better Oline, with some major changes on offense and defense keeping some key pieces in place and targeting 2022 to be competitive again.

Goodbye:
- Arob
- Leno
- Massie
- Ifedi
- Graham
- CPatt
- Mack
- Hicks
- Trevathan
- Jackson
- Also Quinn that was highway robbery and a major bummer. I was just hoping to get $2Million a sack is that asking too much? (same with Mack... jesus).

Mack I kinda get (needs to be a trade), but I think more likely than not he stays. Jackson though? I don't see that at all. Quinn is a total sunk cost unless you can trade him, but you might be paying another team to take him after this years performance. So I think hell be back if for nothing else than the only marginal cost is a 100k workout bonus.

[dplank]

Zack Wilson will get into the top 10 and likely go 2 or 3 picks before the Bears will be up, so don't count your chickens.

Let's just say it's 14 to 8. That's 300 points on the trade value chart or roughly a late 2nd. Can't let that hold you up if you're sold on a QB. Key is obviously getting the pick right.

It will be interesting to see who goes QB. I assume Lawrence and Fields go 1-2, with a team trading up to 2 a possibility. After that there's lots of teams who would consider a QB, but no slam dunk sure things I think. So individual valuations will matter a lot for that Wilson/Trask/Lance group.

You can’t trade up, you just can’t give up more picks esp high ones. With limited cap space and lots of holes to fill, we need more picks not less.

[The Cooler King]

Let's just say it's 14 to 8. That's 300 points on the trade value chart or roughly a late 2nd. Can't let that hold you up if you're sold on a QB. Key is obviously getting the pick right.

It will be interesting to see who goes QB. I assume Lawrence and Fields go 1-2, with a team trading up to 2 a possibility. After that there's lots of teams who would consider a QB, but no slam dunk sure things I think. So individual valuations will matter a lot for that Wilson/Trask/Lance group.

You can’t trade up, you just can’t give up more picks esp high ones. With limited cap space and lots of holes to fill, we need more picks not less.

Pace: Hold my beer.

But seriously, with that attitude Mahomes ain't a Chief. If you hit on a QB no one cares about a couple picks.

[HurricaneBear]

It's the Bears. They will finish 8-8 or 9-7 and do enough to justify to ownership making no major changes. Foles(or Trubisky if he comes back in and plays well enough) will be trotted out there. A few mid tier signings will be sold as the Answer. The teams first draft pick, which will not be a QB, will not produce much as a rookie driving fans mad. They produce another up and down season without any meaningful results. Meanwhile in Green Bay, they will be laughing as prick rodgers gets another ring or two so he can ride off into the sunset happy. Because we are Bears fans and we don't get what we want.

[dplank]

You can’t trade up, you just can’t give up more picks esp high ones. With limited cap space and lots of holes to fill, we need more picks not less.

Pace: Hold my beer.

But seriously, with that attitude Mahomes ain't a Chief. If you hit on a QB no one cares about a couple picks.

...and if drafted in Chicago, Mahomes ain't "Mahomes" either. Pretty sure that's a board consensus opinion at this point.

We can't keep chasing our tail here. Even if we draft one, we'll never know if we landed a transcendent QB or not because we don't have any of the pieces around him for him to succeed/show who he really is. If we haven't learned that lesson by now we're doomed. We can't keep making the same mistake over and over again, it's time to do something different.

Simple math Bill. You want to keep trading assets away for, what, a 1:20 shot at hitting on QB? And even if you get lucky and hit, you've created a situation where there's not enough around him to be successful anyways? Or if you want to make the "If he's Aaron Rodgers then we don't need much around him" argument, then move those odds to roughly 1:200. Not a smart bet either way. Half the board still thinks Mitch Trubisky is a good QB that is stuck in a shitty situation and will shine when he gets out of Chicago - doesn't that kind of kill the whole "just find a qb and everything will be ok" argument? I know you're stuck hard on this, but I really think you're missing the big picture. We need to build up our entire offense and then start taking shots at QB once we have a situation where he has any chance of succeeding. We are cap strapped going forward, our path towards building up the offense will be via the draft. Trading away picks for a hope and prayer QB is fools gold.

[The Cooler King]

Pace: Hold my beer.

But seriously, with that attitude Mahomes ain't a Chief. If you hit on a QB no one cares about a couple picks.

...and if drafted in Chicago, Mahomes ain't "Mahomes" either. Pretty sure that's a board consensus opinion at this point.

We can't keep chasing our tail here. Even if we draft one, we'll never know if we landed a transcendent QB or not because we don't have any of the pieces around him for him to succeed/show who he really is. If we haven't learned that lesson by now we're doomed. We can't keep making the same mistake over and over again, it's time to do something different.

Mahomes in Chicago in that specific circumstance... Yea I agree. But I think Mahomes could have clearly gone a lot of places and still been a transcendent QB.

But good QBs just rarely come around. Waiting until the perfect cast is set up is just setting yourself up for never being ready for a QB in that scenario.

You frame the mistakes of Chicago as if there's some natural order about team building. There isn't. Acquire good players. Don't overpay for too many vets. If you can find a top 10 QB, don't let him go. Those are basically the keys. Look at the most successful teams over the past 20-30 years (1993 I think was the start of the current FA/salary cap era). You won't find some obvious trend. The best teams have done lots of different things and failed at a lot of them. There's no specific formula to team building. The Bears history of mistakes is just drafting bad players.

[dplank]

But good QBs just rarely come around. Waiting until the perfect cast is set up is just setting yourself up for never being ready for a QB in that scenario.

You frame the mistakes of Chicago as if there's some natural order about team building. There isn't. Acquire good players. Don't overpay for too many vets. If you can find a top 10 QB, don't let him go. Those are basically the keys. Look at the most successful teams over the past 20-30 years (1993 I think was the start of the current FA/salary cap era). You won't find some obvious trend. The best teams have done lots of different things and failed at a lot of them. There's no specific formula to team building. The Bears history of mistakes is just drafting bad players.

You're making my exact point, you just flub it there at the end when you say "if you can find a top 10 QB don't let him go". OF COURSE if we had a magic ball and knew that a guy would be one, absolutely 1000% you take him. That's how you framed it, but that's not how it works. Because the odds of finding a Top 10 QB are very low! For reference, just see basically every Bears QB draft pick ever. The odds are very much against it and even moreso against it if you bring one in to a shit team. You're plan says let's hope we've identified one and trade up to get him, my plan is stay where you are and draft good players and if QB happens to line up with that draft position then fine - but don't reach and don't give up assets when you know going in that no matter how strongly you might feel about a QB, that the historical miss rate is extraordinarily high.

As much as I want OL here, I wouldn't trade up for one there either - even though the hit rate is much higher at that position than it is at QB.

[DevilsProspect]

F it, I say the bears just take a punter or long snapper in the first....

[IE]

What do you get for Mack in a trade for picks? Or potentially anyone else other than Johnson and Smith?

[The Cooler King]

What do you get for Mack in a trade for picks? Or potentially anyone else other than Johnson and Smith?

I posted in another thread that I'd be looking for the following.

Mack: Top 50 pick and a 4th
Fuller: Top 100 pick and a 5th
Hicks: A 5th

I think those are all pretty fair roughly 50/50 propositions which is what trade scenarios should look like. Obviously you'd start the asking a little higher, but those would be my settling points. Hicks is the only one of the group I'd settle for less or just end up cutting.
Mack and Fuller I'd just as soon hold onto if no intriguing deal materializes. I don't see anyone else really having much value, or their value is too great for the Bears verse what they'd realistically get (Jackson, Johnson, Smith mainly). Though they did manage to get a conditional 7th/6th for Shaheen so you never know. Guys on rookie deals will have the most value (Miller, Mooney, Daniels, Nichols), but I don't particularly want to see the whole thing blown to shreds for some 50/50 chance draft picks.

[DevilsProspect]

What do you get for Mack in a trade for picks? Or potentially anyone else other than Johnson and Smith?

Ya know, when they made the trade for Mack it was a good one. If everything else worked out and Trubisky was what they wanted him to be, this team would be looking great. However since basically nothing worked out on offense I could see trading Mack. If the Bears can get a little more than a 1st round pick, you do it IMO. Bears gave up 2 firsts (though they did get a second back). If they could get a 1st and say maybe a 3-4th rd pick I do it. We all know how great the guy is and hate to see him move on, but....

Say if the bears were able to swing it, they could have enough ammo to get Lawerance. True Jets could be set on taking him, but they still invested in Darnold and it isn’t set in stone that they are willing to be done with him. Hell, Lawerance could pull a “I’m not gona sign with the jets if I’m drafted” and force a trade. You never know. I am dreaming but what the hell.

But if the bears did get that capital, they could fill 3 positions at low cost and begin a bit of a rebuild. Draft BPA and then load up on OL.

Trading Mack would suck, but it will suck more to waste his prime years in a loosing effort. If the Bears didn’t waste $$$ on Quinn I wouldn’t be for it. But they buried themselves. So they have to deal with the consequences.

[The Cooler King]

But good QBs just rarely come around. Waiting until the perfect cast is set up is just setting yourself up for never being ready for a QB in that scenario.

You frame the mistakes of Chicago as if there's some natural order about team building. There isn't. Acquire good players. Don't overpay for too many vets. If you can find a top 10 QB, don't let him go. Those are basically the keys. Look at the most successful teams over the past 20-30 years (1993 I think was the start of the current FA/salary cap era). You won't find some obvious trend. The best teams have done lots of different things and failed at a lot of them. There's no specific formula to team building. The Bears history of mistakes is just drafting bad players.

You're making my exact point, you just flub it there at the end when you say "if you can find a top 10 QB don't let him go". OF COURSE if we had a magic ball and knew that a guy would be one, absolutely 1000% you take him. That's how you framed it, but that's not how it works. Because the odds of finding a Top 10 QB are very low! For reference, just see basically every Bears QB draft pick ever. The odds are very much against it and even moreso against it if you bring one in to a shit team. You're plan says let's hope we've identified one and trade up to get him, my plan is stay where you are and draft good players and if QB happens to line up with that draft position then fine - but don't reach and don't give up assets when you know going in that no matter how strongly you might feel about a QB, that the historical miss rate is extraordinarily high.

As much as I want OL here, I wouldn't trade up for one there either - even though the hit rate is much higher at that position than it is at QB.

But you definitely won't find a top 10 QB if you don't try to draft one. Even if you fall short and find merely an average QB, there's likely lots of surplus value over a 4 year rookie deal. That's a potential 5 year window you open!

The reach thing is of course true. The KC chiefs had the number 1 pick in an absolute shut QB draft where EJ Manuel went first at like 16 and no other QB was any good either. No, they shouldn't have drafted a QB just because it was a need. And I think the Bills even traded down to nab him at 16 and it was still too high (even at the time I think that was consensus). But acquiring a QB involves some level of risk assessment unless you luck into the 1st pick when a Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck or Trevor Lawrence are sitting there. Finding these guys pretty much always entails passing up a safer option.

Again the risk of the bust has to be weighed against the reward, no magic 8 ball required. A good QB is more valuable than a great OG. The stability points of the G only count for so much its not a 1:1 trade off. And there's still plenty of "safe" positions that turn up plenty of duds.

[The Cooler King]

What do you get for Mack in a trade for picks? Or potentially anyone else other than Johnson and Smith?

Ya know, when they made the trade for Mack it was a good one. If everything else worked out and Trubisky was what they wanted him to be, this team would be looking great. However since basically nothing worked out on offense I could see trading Mack. If the Bears can get a little more than a 1st round pick, you do it IMO. Bears gave up 2 firsts (though they did get a second back). If they could get a 1st and say maybe a 3-4th rd pick I do it. We all know how great the guy is and hate to see him move on, but....

Say if the bears were able to swing it, they could have enough ammo to get Lawerance. True Jets could be set on taking him, but they still invested in Darnold and it isn’t set in stone that they are willing to be done with him. Hell, Lawerance could pull a “I’m not gona sign with the jets if I’m drafted” and force a trade. You never know. I am dreaming but what the hell.

But if the bears did get that capital, they could fill 3 positions at low cost and begin a bit of a rebuild. Draft BPA and then load up on OL.

Trading Mack would suck, but it will suck more to waste his prime years in a loosing effort. If the Bears didn’t waste $$$ on Quinn I wouldn’t be for it. But they buried themselves. So they have to deal with the consequences.

I think a 1st is unrealistic, but it's probably a good starting point for them to ask if they shopped him. Top half of the 2nd is more realistic as an end target. YMMV about if you feel that's worth it.

I don't think they can maneuver up for Lawrence. Jets aren't THAT dumb or it would become too costly to convince them. I could see it happening for Fields though, and I'd honestly consider it.

[DevilsProspect]

Ya know, when they made the trade for Mack it was a good one. If everything else worked out and Trubisky was what they wanted him to be, this team would be looking great. However since basically nothing worked out on offense I could see trading Mack. If the Bears can get a little more than a 1st round pick, you do it IMO. Bears gave up 2 firsts (though they did get a second back). If they could get a 1st and say maybe a 3-4th rd pick I do it. We all know how great the guy is and hate to see him move on, but....

Say if the bears were able to swing it, they could have enough ammo to get Lawerance. True Jets could be set on taking him, but they still invested in Darnold and it isn’t set in stone that they are willing to be done with him. Hell, Lawerance could pull a “I’m not gona sign with the jets if I’m drafted” and force a trade. You never know. I am dreaming but what the hell.

But if the bears did get that capital, they could fill 3 positions at low cost and begin a bit of a rebuild. Draft BPA and then load up on OL.

Trading Mack would suck, but it will suck more to waste his prime years in a loosing effort. If the Bears didn’t waste $$$ on Quinn I wouldn’t be for it. But they buried themselves. So they have to deal with the consequences.

I think a 1st is unrealistic, but it's probably a good starting point for them to ask if they shopped him. Top half of the 2nd is more realistic as an end target. YMMV about if you feel that's worth it.

I don't think they can maneuver up for Lawrence. Jets aren't THAT dumb or it would become too costly to convince them. I could see it happening for Fields though, and I'd honestly consider it.

Come on man, it’s the jets. Yes they are that dumb! Lmao....

I know it’s unrealistic, but I can dream. We have all seen some weird shit over the years.

With Mack, I could see a team in the late 1st do it. If they are close with a solid squad it would be worth it. I haven’t looked at their caps, but say it’s a team like KC and they have money (not sure where they are). A late 1st would be easy to give up for him. I know what your saying and understand the logic, but he is well worth it even with his salary. Obviously it would have to be a team that could take the salary, but that’s something.

[The Cooler King]

Without diving deep into it, about 13 teams have negative cap space projected for 2021 (based on 176m estimate). Only 13 have in excess of 17m that they'd need to absorb Mack.. That's without counting rookie pools FYI. Obviously there's going to be lots of room for play (as shown the other thread, Bears could free up 30-40m if they wanted, for example).. But the cap crunch does complicate a lot. The teams with far and away enough money without lots of cuts or absorbing most of their space:
Jaguars (no)
Jets (no)
Colts (competitive window but don't need the D help)
Patriots (def not a first IMO)
Washington (could see their 2nd, but not their first)
Bengals (no)

Widdling down the list id say it's a team with a rookie contract QB who isn't great on D but still trying to compete:
Cardinals, they'll have some space and room to create a little more for other moves still
Bills, no cap but some options to create it if they wanted to be agressive
Dolphins, Have some space and some options to get more. But don't really need a ton of D help.
Browns, similar spot to Cards
Ravens, similar to Fins

So Cardinals and Browns would be the betting favorites if I had to guess.

Just at a really high level the teams with the biggest cap crunches (this doesn't take into account available cuts or internal FAs)
Saints - nearly 100M over
Eagels - nearly 70M
Between 20-50M
Falcons, Rams, Steelers Packers, Chiefs,
Between 5-20M
Texans, Vikings, Raiders, Bears

So I'd say all those teams are out.

This is an imperfect list though. Cowboys show 23m in space but presumably have to figure out how to retain Prescott plus any other FAs

Be sure to click on 2021 tab.
https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

[RichH55]

There is no real reason to deal Hicks or Mack.

I could see us eating a bit of a pick to get someone to take Quinn off our hands - but that isn't really a cap savings since it will accelerate the dead cap hit

But that might let more accounting tricks down the line with others become more viable

[DevilsProspect]

Well, if the Bears can’t get a 1st for Mack they should keep him. Maybe early 2nd and some change but...

Just Watched some highlights on Wilson, he looks the goods. Yeah don’t think he will be there when the bears pick. I’m not totally against moving up a few spots if he falls. But it’s doubtful. But yeah I liked what I saw,

[DevilsProspect]

There is no real reason to deal Hicks or Mack.

I could see us eating a bit of a pick to get someone to take Quinn off our hands - but that isn't really a cap savings since it will accelerate the dead cap hit

But that might let more accounting tricks down the line with others become more viable

Yeah I don’t see any benefits of letting either loose. Only Mack if they got at least a first. If that’s unlikely than it’s not worth loosing his talent.

[dplank]

But you definitely won't find a top 10 QB if you don't try to draft one. Even if you fall short and find merely an average QB, there's likely lots of surplus value over a 4 year rookie deal. That's a potential 5 year window you open!

The reach thing is of course true. The KC chiefs had the number 1 pick in an absolute shut QB draft where EJ Manuel went first at like 16 and no other QB was any good either. No, they shouldn't have drafted a QB just because it was a need. And I think the Bills even traded down to nab him at 16 and it was still too high (even at the time I think that was consensus). But acquiring a QB involves some level of risk assessment unless you luck into the 1st pick when a Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck or Trevor Lawrence are sitting there. Finding these guys pretty much always entails passing up a safer option.

Again the risk of the bust has to be weighed against the reward, no magic 8 ball required. A good QB is more valuable than a great OG. The stability points of the G only count for so much its not a 1:1 trade off. And there's still plenty of "safe" positions that turn up plenty of duds.

This isn't your best thread, you keep strawmanning your argument which isn't typical of you. I said:

my plan is stay where you are and draft good players and if QB happens to line up with that draft position then fine - but don't reach and don't give up assets when you know going in that no matter how strongly you might feel about a QB, that the historical miss rate is extraordinarily high.

So how exactly do you reply with this?

But you definitely won't find a top 10 QB if you don't try to draft one.

Odd. Anyhow, you're still wrong sir. Because you are assuming if you fail to find your Top 10 QB then oh well, you'll just end up with an 'average one'? That's also historically just untrue. The odds are that player won't be average, he'll suck - I'll again point to that same list of every Bears QB drafted ever. And even if it were true, you've ignored the second half of my point which was that if you put an 'average' QB into a shit situation like ours, he's going to fail - 100% he's going to fail. If you trade all your picks away for an average QB, he'll have shit around him and will fail - bad plan.

But rather than a constant back and forth, just focus on the point I've made a few times now. I just don't want to trade up and give up a 2nd round pick for a QB that more than likely won't be any good. I'm not opposed to drafting a QB and taking shots on goal, but I see no need to trade up for one when the odds hardly move in your favor. If he falls to us then fine, but you can't trade up and give up a 2nd - that's a pick we desperately need to spend on the OL if we take a QB in the first. You've essentially doomed that pick to failure unless you hit a miracle generational talent at QB3/4 in the mid first round - good luck with that.

[Z Bear]

Trading into the top 5 makes no sense when historically the best QB drafted was NOT the first QB drafted. If you look at the top 10 QBs in the NFL today only Matt Ryan was the first QB selected. Mahomes, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Wilson. Watson, Jackson, Wentz, Prescott, Rothlisberger....none of them were the first QBs in their class. It is amazing how bad NFL execs are at selecting players for the amount of money spent. Curiously enough none of them went to top football schools except for Watson. The NFL keeps overrating production at big schools when said QB is surrounded by NFL talent. Anyone can look good throwing to a NFL talent WR from a clean pocket. One of the reasons I predict Tua will not be an All Pro but just a decent QB. I am putting Fields and Trey Lance in this category too. I would rather take a look at a mid tier guy that is excelling with mediocre talent around him.

[The Cooler King]

I'm not strawmanning anything dplank. You keep bringing up the historical fail rate of QBs. But we all know that. Basically to find a QB who's just as safe as a comparable BPA OL you are looking at a top 3 pick, and even then the QB is more often still risker. You have to take a risk to increase your QB odds unless you just plan to count on nearly 100% luck. You brought up this magic 8 ball 1000% certainty when I claimed no such thing in fact

I disagree with the aversion to trading up, but I get it. Trading up is a good way to create your own odds when your record doesn't put you in the position, though. And you can help your OL other ways like in FA or in future years.

As to the development of an average QB v great QB, I'm not really sure I buy that an averag QB needs total certainty right when they come in. I don't think anyone in this board, including me doesn't want line upgrades, but if you were absolutely banking on that second rounder to be a specific position you're doing it wrong IMO. But it all goes back to the eval and risk assessment. Of course there's risk there, but I'm not focused on the low to mid range in a QB, I'm playing for the HR. For someone who apparently doesn't like the middle ground of outcomes I still find it odd you seem more risk averse in this matter. But as always, YMMV on risk assessments/comfort. That's seemingly the biggest difference.

[Otis Day]

Prescott , Gannon, Romo, Moon, Rypien, Brad Johnson, Bulger, Brunell, trent Green, Hasselbeck, Warner. All QBs who were either drafted in the 3rd rd or later (or not drafted, Warner) who had careers all Bears fans would love if they played in Chicago.

If you have the right coaching, QBs can be found outside of rd 1. Chances are slim, yes, but 1st rd QBs have not fared well in this city.

Put me on the OL bandwagon. Without a competent OL, you ain't got shit.

[The Cooler King]

Trading into the top 5 makes no sense when historically the best QB drafted was NOT the first QB drafted. If you look at the top 10 QBs in the NFL today only Matt Ryan was the first QB selected. Mahomes, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Wilson. Watson, Jackson, Wentz, Prescott, Rothlisberger....none of them were the first QBs in their class. It is amazing how bad NFL execs are at selecting players for the amount of money spent. Curiously enough none of them went to top football schools except for Watson. The NFL keeps overrating production at big schools when said QB is surrounded by NFL talent. Anyone can look good throwing to a NFL talent WR from a clean pocket. One of the reasons I predict Tua will not be an All Pro but just a decent QB. I am putting Fields and Trey Lance in this category too. I would rather take a look at a mid tier guy that is excelling with mediocre talent around him.

Wait did you count Watson as the best QB in his class (point still stands, but you missed an MVP there).

But you do have something of a point. But at the same time, I the best QB skews high. And even in the case where a guy maybe wasn't the best he was still damn good (Luck v Wilson for example). So all the same I'd rather be higher than lower.

You're also still looking at mainly Power 5 conference QBs, though if you focus on just the very elite programs I agree that the QB success doesn't look great, but you're also comparing like 5-10 schools against several dozen so it's not quite a balanced comparison. Further the NFL has frequently and consistently dropped QBs from elite programs because they didn't see the standout skill level evident. So I think the evaluators do by and large agree with that point?

[The Cooler King]

Prescott , Gannon, Romo, Moon, Rypien, Brad Johnson, Bulger, Brunell, trent Green, Hasselbeck, Warner. All QBs who were either drafted in the 3rd rd or later (or not drafted, Warner) who had careers all Bears fans would love if they played in Chicago.

If you have the right coaching, QBs can be found outside of rd 1. Chances are slim, yes, but 1st rd QBs have not fared well in this city.

Put me on the OL bandwagon. Without a competent OL, you ain't got shit.

If you have the right QB and coaching you can also find OL talent outside Rd1. Even if you plow like 4 high picks into the line like Dallas did you have to continually renew it no matter what, so it's not like build an OLine then get the QB because you'll have rebuilt your line within a few years and the QB will be continuous.