Allure Of QB5 or Later?

College football and the NFL Draft

Moderator: wab

Post Reply
User avatar
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

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?
Image
User avatar
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!
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Head Coach
Posts: 2499
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 359 times

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.
Ditto.

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.
User avatar
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?
Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

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?
Some combination of Leno, Whitehair, Daniels, Mustipher, Bars, Ifedi, Wilkinson, Simmons, and Hambright. Be my guess....

Given the importance of the QB position, I think QB6 vs OL5 is pretty negligible.
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

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.
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.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
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

wab wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:51 pm
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?
Some combination of Leno, Whitehair, Daniels, Mustipher, Bars, Ifedi, Wilkinson, Simmons, and Hambright. Be my guess....
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.
Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:50 pm
wab wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:51 pm

Some combination of Leno, Whitehair, Daniels, Mustipher, Bars, Ifedi, Wilkinson, Simmons, and Hambright. Be my guess....
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 mean, you asked. I can't help it that you don't like the answer.

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.
User avatar
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.
User avatar
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.
User avatar
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

wab wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:39 pm
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 mean, you asked. I can't help it that you don't like the answer.

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.
Cosigned.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
Z Bear
MVP
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 141 times

I really think Leno - Whitehair - Daniels - Ifedi - Rookie RT might be the way to go with Bars, Mustipher, and Wilkenson/Simmons/Hambright as the reserves.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

Z Bear wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:46 am I really think Leno - Whitehair - Daniels - Ifedi - Rookie RT might be the way to go with Bars, Mustipher, and Wilkenson/Simmons/Hambright as the reserves.
Maybe. But I think it’s been made pretty clear that Whitehair and Daniels are better guards, and Ifedi played better at OT.
User avatar
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.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

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.
I may not like all the players, but nearly ever position is filled...with the exception of maybe center and the 3rd WR spot.
User avatar
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
User avatar
mmmc_35
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 98 times

I can't see taking a QB at 20 unless shit gets wierd. Later though... if you dont have a ab shooting in the dark is better then nothing.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4817
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 457 times
Been thanked: 655 times

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.
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).

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.
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6806
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 688 times

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?
I'm not that big on 2nd tier QB, but the issue with OT is no mystery.

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.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2137 times

Z Bear wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:46 am I really think Leno - Whitehair - Daniels - Ifedi - Rookie RT might be the way to go with Bars, Mustipher, and Wilkenson/Simmons/Hambright as the reserves.
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.
EricTighe
MVP
Posts: 1219
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:13 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 62 times

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.
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.

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.
EricTighe
MVP
Posts: 1219
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:13 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 62 times

oops
User avatar
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.
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.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2137 times

karhu 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.
Miss rate on QB >>> Miss rate on OL
User avatar
karhu
Head Coach
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:20 pm
Has thanked: 294 times
Been thanked: 373 times

dplank wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:08 pm Miss rate on QB >>> Miss rate on OL
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.
Post Reply