To those that support taking a QB at 20 or in round 2, what is it about taking the 5th, 6th or later QB in the draft when the 3rd or 4th best OL is out there or other positions?
What is the allure of getting caught up in a position run in a draft and leaving talent on the board that is better at their position than the QB you're taking is at theirs?
We have a situation where 5 QBs could go in the top 10. Certainly in the top 20 and maybe even 6 QB before we go at 20.
And who do you expect is going to block for QB6 if we take him?
Allure Of QB5 or Later?
Moderator: wab
- The Marshall Plan
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8411
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
- Location: Parts Unknown
- Has thanked: 909 times
- Been thanked: 1277 times
- Atkins&Rebel
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2177
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:56 pm
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 123 times
Ryan leaf was QB2. Dak and Russell Wilson were 3rd rounders. Order of selection means nothing. If team scouts really believe they can develop a QB then go for it.
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
- Yogi da Bear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
- Has thanked: 209 times
- Been thanked: 359 times
Ditto.Atkins&Rebel wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:08 pm Ryan leaf was QB2. Dak and Russell Wilson were 3rd rounders. Order of selection means nothing. If team scouts really believe they can develop a QB then go for it.
The QB position is too important. You have to take a shot if you identify your guy.
MP, are you really complaining about taking QB 5 or 6 versus OT 4? Now, if you're talking OT 1 or 2, I might see your point.
QB is absolutely critical for us right now. The Bears have to give the fans some reason to at least hope.
- The Marshall Plan
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8411
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
- Location: Parts Unknown
- Has thanked: 909 times
- Been thanked: 1277 times
See my question in the original post.
Given the Bears OL, who do you expect to block for this QB?
Given the Bears OL, who do you expect to block for this QB?
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29805
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 127 times
- Been thanked: 1956 times
Some combination of Leno, Whitehair, Daniels, Mustipher, Bars, Ifedi, Wilkinson, Simmons, and Hambright. Be my guess....The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:41 pm See my question in the original post.
Given the Bears OL, who do you expect to block for this QB?
Given the importance of the QB position, I think QB6 vs OL5 is pretty negligible.
- Grizzled
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5552
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 485 times
Dak was QB 8 and the Bears had 3 chances in the 4th to take him before the Cowboys. Numerous good and excellent QBs taken in rounds later than 1, it's up to the Bears' scouting department to ID them and the team to develop one.Atkins&Rebel wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:08 pm Ryan leaf was QB2. Dak and Russell Wilson were 3rd rounders. Order of selection means nothing. If team scouts really believe they can develop a QB then go for it.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
- The Marshall Plan
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8411
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
- Location: Parts Unknown
- Has thanked: 909 times
- Been thanked: 1277 times
That's really insightful.wab wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:51 pmSome combination of Leno, Whitehair, Daniels, Mustipher, Bars, Ifedi, Wilkinson, Simmons, and Hambright. Be my guess....The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:41 pm See my question in the original post.
Given the Bears OL, who do you expect to block for this QB?
Thanks for sharing.
That actually proves my point for me. Did you watch the games last year? The OL was shit. You could put anybody back there and they'd struggle.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29805
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 127 times
- Been thanked: 1956 times
I mean, you asked. I can't help it that you don't like the answer.The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:50 pmThat's really insightful.
Thanks for sharing.
That actually proves my point for me. Did you watch the games last year? The OL was shit. You could put anybody back there and they'd struggle.
I'd be pleased as punch if they took a 10 year starter at OT in R1. I absolutely love Jenkins. I also like Cosmi an awful lot.
I'm just not certain that's where it's headed.
It's honestly just the reality of the situation. Even IF they take the 5th OL instead of the 6th QB, neither of them are likely going to start day 1. They aren't paying Ifedi 5 mil to sit and watch. It's not like Leno is going to immediately lose his job to the #20 overall pick, and he can't can't "really" be traded/cut.
Wilkinson and Bars are likely to be the utility guys. I could see them taking a tackle with the 2nd or 3rd round pick, carrying one more OL than they usually do, and moving Simmons/Hambright/Eiselen etc to the PS.
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1203 times
- Been thanked: 346 times
I mean the position ranking of a guy means squat. He's either worth his spot or not and year to year variations mean that going off priors is also meaningless.
- Yogi da Bear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2499
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
- Has thanked: 209 times
- Been thanked: 359 times
You do know that you can take one of the many OTs in this draft in the second round don't you? It's not against the law.
- thunderspirit
- Head Coach
- Posts: 3829
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
- Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 603 times
Cosigned.wab wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:39 pmI mean, you asked. I can't help it that you don't like the answer.The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:50 pm
That's really insightful.
Thanks for sharing.
That actually proves my point for me. Did you watch the games last year? The OL was shit. You could put anybody back there and they'd struggle.
I'd be pleased as punch if they took a 10 year starter at OT in R1. I absolutely love Jenkins. I also like Cosmi an awful lot.
I'm just not certain that's where it's headed.
It's honestly just the reality of the situation. Even IF they take the 5th OL instead of the 6th QB, neither of them are likely going to start day 1. They aren't paying Ifedi 5 mil to sit and watch. It's not like Leno is going to immediately lose his job to the #20 overall pick, and he can't can't "really" be traded/cut.
Wilkinson and Bars are likely to be the utility guys. I could see them taking a tackle with the 2nd or 3rd round pick, carrying one more OL than they usually do, and moving Simmons/Hambright/Eiselen etc to the PS.
KFFL refugee.
dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29805
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 127 times
- Been thanked: 1956 times
Maybe. But I think it’s been made pretty clear that Whitehair and Daniels are better guards, and Ifedi played better at OT.
- thunderspirit
- Head Coach
- Posts: 3829
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
- Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 603 times
Yeah, I agree, @wab. Daniels has had two cracks at C and basically been replaced both times. I had high hopes for him at C, but they've now shifted to G, where he has frankly performed considerably better.
I like Mustipher, and hope he's an answer at C (his athletic profile works against him, though his intangibles may make up the difference), but I think the Bears need someone who isn't already starting to be their backup C.
I like Mustipher, and hope he's an answer at C (his athletic profile works against him, though his intangibles may make up the difference), but I think the Bears need someone who isn't already starting to be their backup C.
KFFL refugee.
dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29805
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 127 times
- Been thanked: 1956 times
I may not like all the players, but nearly ever position is filled...with the exception of maybe center and the 3rd WR spot.thunderspirit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:12 am Yeah, I agree, @wab. Daniels has had two cracks at C and basically been replaced both times. I had high hopes for him at C, but they've now shifted to G, where he has frankly performed considerably better.
I like Mustipher, and hope he's an answer at C (his athletic profile works against him, though his intangibles may make up the difference), but I think the Bears need someone who isn't already starting to be their backup C.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29805
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 127 times
- Been thanked: 1956 times
As it pertains to the QB position, the only ones I’m interested in the Bears acquiring at some point in the draft are, in order:
Justin Fields
Mac Jones
Kellen Mond
Gardner Minshew
Sam Ehlinger
Justin Fields
Mac Jones
Kellen Mond
Gardner Minshew
Sam Ehlinger
- Arkansasbear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 4817
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
- Has thanked: 457 times
- Been thanked: 655 times
I think that sums it up. If you go QB in the first you still have some talented players for the OL in the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th rounds (if you trade back and get the picks).Yogi da Bear wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:20 pm You do know that you can take one of the many OTs in this draft in the second round don't you? It's not against the law.
Heck just look at the mock I did where I walked away with Mills, Cosmi and Forsythe. I have a QB and 2 guys I think would be starting on the OL by years end. There are so many guys that "could" be contributors that can be had in rounds 3-4 early on. It's a matter of identifying who they will be. What if we take an OL in the first and he is next Williams, Columbo or Carimi? It's about getting the right guys regardless of the round.
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6806
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 384 times
- Been thanked: 688 times
I'm not that big on 2nd tier QB, but the issue with OT is no mystery.The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:03 pm To those that support taking a QB at 20 or in round 2, what is it about taking the 5th, 6th or later QB in the draft when the 3rd or 4th best OL is out there or other positions?
What is the allure of getting caught up in a position run in a draft and leaving talent on the board that is better at their position than the QB you're taking is at theirs?
We have a situation where 5 QBs could go in the top 10. Certainly in the top 20 and maybe even 6 QB before we go at 20.
And who do you expect is going to block for QB6 if we take him?
You're talking in generic terms, but not looking at the specifics of this year's crop.
After Darrisaw, there's a big drop and nobody remotely agrees on the ordering of OTs after that. IOW, there's no rush to jump on 'the last great choice', because you've got a bunch of guys very bunched up and hard to separate and a guy you take at 20 could, in many cases, still be there 20 picks later.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12025
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1201 times
- Been thanked: 2137 times
Ifedi was a disaster at RG - an absolute turd. He was a big part of our mid season OL implosion. He settled in and played "ok" at RT. I'd like to see an improvement at the RT position, but putting him back at RG would just be an awful move.
Also, Daniels struggled at C and excelled at LG. Why would you want to move him back to the spot where he struggled? Maybe he's grown and can go back there, but Mustipher was an absolute revelation when he stepped in. His insertion into the lineup, combined with Ifedi's move to his natural T position, led to the improved play we saw late in the season. Why in the world would you want to recreate the midseason disaster when we found our formula?
This is one reason I like Jenkins so much, he's a natural RT. He'd start right away, and Ifedi can back up as can Wilkenson, and both can flex inside in a pinch.
-
- MVP
- Posts: 1219
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:13 pm
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
I completely agree with Mustipher. I think we got the steal of the draft with this one. Got him as a free agent to boot. Some guys can just play football regardless of their athletic ability.dplank wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:57 am
Also, Daniels struggled at C and excelled at LG. Why would you want to move him back to the spot where he struggled? Maybe he's grown and can go back there, but Mustipher was an absolute revelation when he stepped in. His insertion into the lineup, combined with Ifedi's move to his natural T position, led to the improved play we saw late in the season. Why in the world would you want to recreate the midseason disaster when we found our formula?
This is one reason I like Jenkins so much, he's a natural RT. He'd start right away, and Ifedi can back up as can Wilkenson, and both can flex inside in a pinch.
Jenkins is a safe bet. One thing I have noticed in all the drafts that I have watched is simple. The offensive lineman that are known to be maulers and play with an attitude seem to make it in the NFL far more than the athletic ones do.
- karhu
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2049
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:20 pm
- Has thanked: 294 times
- Been thanked: 373 times
QB5 vs. OT3 (or S1, for that matter) shouldn't really mean much.
A good starting QB is worth more than a pro-bowler at any other position. He just is. Solid QB + solid OT > project QB + excellent OT.
If you're the Bears, and you think that QB5 can develop into a good starter, you pick him. Even in the first round, even at the expense of an OT with better prospects. And you do it on value, not on need.
The problem from where I'm sitting isn't with a discrepancy in value, it's with how you rate the QBs themselves from 3 on down. For us, probably make that 5 and down, and for me, just Mills and Mond.
Mills's tendency to make every good play look like a pro day throw and to lose it when things go a bit off-schedule really worries me. If Nagy & Co. see the same thing and have a plan to fix it, then Mills is worth taking over any OT in the draft.
Mond hasn't thrown to a good WR since Christian Kirk in, what, his freshman year, and tends to look like he's improvising even when he probably isn't (with predictably irregular results). If our coaches think that they can steady his game out, including somehow teaching him pocket presence behind yet another lousy line, then he's worth taking over Mills.
There's a lot we can't know, either about prospects or about how our coaching staff will handle them. But suggesting that we somehow stand to win the draft by taking the guys with the lowest rankings is a little pat, I think.
A good starting QB is worth more than a pro-bowler at any other position. He just is. Solid QB + solid OT > project QB + excellent OT.
If you're the Bears, and you think that QB5 can develop into a good starter, you pick him. Even in the first round, even at the expense of an OT with better prospects. And you do it on value, not on need.
The problem from where I'm sitting isn't with a discrepancy in value, it's with how you rate the QBs themselves from 3 on down. For us, probably make that 5 and down, and for me, just Mills and Mond.
Mills's tendency to make every good play look like a pro day throw and to lose it when things go a bit off-schedule really worries me. If Nagy & Co. see the same thing and have a plan to fix it, then Mills is worth taking over any OT in the draft.
Mond hasn't thrown to a good WR since Christian Kirk in, what, his freshman year, and tends to look like he's improvising even when he probably isn't (with predictably irregular results). If our coaches think that they can steady his game out, including somehow teaching him pocket presence behind yet another lousy line, then he's worth taking over Mills.
There's a lot we can't know, either about prospects or about how our coaching staff will handle them. But suggesting that we somehow stand to win the draft by taking the guys with the lowest rankings is a little pat, I think.
So much road and so few places, so much friendliness and so little intimacy, so much flavour and so little taste.
Friendship is better than fighting, but fighting is more useful.
Friendship is better than fighting, but fighting is more useful.
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12025
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1201 times
- Been thanked: 2137 times
Miss rate on QB >>> Miss rate on OLkarhu wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:40 am QB5 vs. OT3 (or S1, for that matter) shouldn't really mean much.
A good starting QB is worth more than a pro-bowler at any other position. He just is. Solid QB + solid OT > project QB + excellent OT.
If you're the Bears, and you think that QB5 can develop into a good starter, you pick him. Even in the first round, even at the expense of an OT with better prospects. And you do it on value, not on need.
The problem from where I'm sitting isn't with a discrepancy in value, it's with how you rate the QBs themselves from 3 on down. For us, probably make that 5 and down, and for me, just Mills and Mond.
Mills's tendency to make every good play look like a pro day throw and to lose it when things go a bit off-schedule really worries me. If Nagy & Co. see the same thing and have a plan to fix it, then Mills is worth taking over any OT in the draft.
Mond hasn't thrown to a good WR since Christian Kirk in, what, his freshman year, and tends to look like he's improvising even when he probably isn't (with predictably irregular results). If our coaches think that they can steady his game out, including somehow teaching him pocket presence behind yet another lousy line, then he's worth taking over Mills.
There's a lot we can't know, either about prospects or about how our coaching staff will handle them. But suggesting that we somehow stand to win the draft by taking the guys with the lowest rankings is a little pat, I think.
- karhu
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2049
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:20 pm
- Has thanked: 294 times
- Been thanked: 373 times
That argues in favor of prioritizing QB, too. If the miss rate on OL is so much lower, it should be easier to get a viable starter with a lower pick.
One thing's for sure: we need a solid starting QB who can excel through a chunk of his rookie contract. If a guy who we think matches that description falls to us, it'd take an awfully good OT to overcome the risk/reward curve.
So much road and so few places, so much friendliness and so little intimacy, so much flavour and so little taste.
Friendship is better than fighting, but fighting is more useful.
Friendship is better than fighting, but fighting is more useful.