All Things QB

[Chewie]

The QB discussions are all over this board but I don't think we have one dedicated thread to what the plan is to address the QB position this offseason. I've been clear that I'm all for looking at Mark Sanchez in the draft and looking at available vet free agents for competition's sake. Angelo's comments on the Mully and Hanley show sound like he's anything but content to keep things status-quo :

"Kyle started out very well, got a bit of an injury, and that played a part in a not-so-good second half of the season. Until we get that position solidified in terms of winning football, week in and week out, it's going to be tough for us as a football team, particularly as an offense.''

It's his belief the building process begins with the quarterback and not the parts around the passer.

"I was hearing talk again about the wide receiver position, a few years ago it was the tight end, it's the running backs, it's the offensive line," he said. "That's all true. We need to look at every position on offense, try to upgrade whatever we need to do. But we have to stay focused on the quarterback position. You win because of the quarterback. It's not other positions that manufacture the quarterback. And I hear this term `manageable quarterback,' he manages the game. Yes, I understand that but in the end, and we all know this, at some point in the game the quarterback has to make plays to win the game. That's the bottom line.

"We're going to see what options are out there, if there are any, and we will discuss everything. If we want to potentially create competition and, or bring in a veteran to give us somebody in the building that we feel can help Kyle, or whatever. I can't sit here and say definitively what we're going to do. I know right now what we have and I feel good about that. I do feel good about Kyle, I feel good about Caleb Hanie and I want to make sure everyone understands that. But I want to make sure we look at every option that we potentially have to make sure that we're the best going forward at that position in the offseason."

If he was sold on Kyle, his tune would be a lot different. He's calling Kyle a game-manager and he wants a game-winner.

[Balance-a-Bull]

He can create competition with mobile Caleb first and if that does not work out he can seek out vet help. We don't need stopgap help for a year with an aging vet.

Maybe we can look at Leftwich or Vick.

Sanchez comes from the college NFL team USC, and appears to be a good prospect. He is big, productive and has a strong arm ala Carson Palmer. Where is he projected to land? I have seen projections with him going as high as 1 to the Lions.

[Chewie]

Sanchez comes from the college NFL team USC, and appears to be a good prospect. He is big, productive and has a strong arm ala Carson Palmer. Where is he projected to land? I have seen projections with him going as high as 1 to the Lions.

I've seen both Georgia's Matthew Stafford and Sanchez listed as the #1 QB. Should the Lions go w/Stafford, Sanchez could slip to the point where it would make sense for the Bears to move up and nab him.....not that they ever move up in the first round.

[chitownsports4ever]

Angelo is upset that he brought Rex back and Kyle beat him out. Hes been pushing Grossman since 2004 .

This is fromAngelo last February

LAST YEAR YOU SAID YOU WEREN’T READY TO COMMIT TO REX LONGTERM. ARE YOU DOING THE SAME THING THIS YEAR?

JA: “The consistency. We saw some really great moments in ’06 with Rex. He hit a little bit of a tailspin at some point during the season. No big deal; first year as a starter that’s very understandable. He did have one more year remaining and we felt there are really no discounts on quarterbacks. When you pay a quarterback, you pay a quarterback when you talk long term. Given that, we felt it behooved us to continue to take a look, feeling very confident about Rex going into the ’07 season. It didn’t work out the way he wanted, we wanted. He got hurt at the end. I thought when he came back and had time to reflect, he started to show some very good things in terms of the consistency. He got hurt at the tail end. The silver lining with that, we got a chance to take a look at Kyle, and Kyle showed some pretty good things. There was a silver lining in it. We feel good about having Rex back. We feel good about Kyle. Probably the consistency, I think that’s what you want to see. Obviously, when it comes to consistency, you have to be able to win with your quarterback. That would be from my perspective what I would want to see.”

[Chewie]

Angelo is upset that he brought Rex back and Kyle beat him out. Hes been pushing Grossman since 2004 .

This is fromAngelo last February

LAST YEAR YOU SAID YOU WEREN’T READY TO COMMIT TO REX LONGTERM. ARE YOU DOING THE SAME THING THIS YEAR?

JA: “The consistency. We saw some really great moments in ’06 with Rex. He hit a little bit of a tailspin at some point during the season. No big deal; first year as a starter that’s very understandable. He did have one more year remaining and we felt there are really no discounts on quarterbacks. When you pay a quarterback, you pay a quarterback when you talk long term. Given that, we felt it behooved us to continue to take a look, feeling very confident about Rex going into the ’07 season. It didn’t work out the way he wanted, we wanted. He got hurt at the end. I thought when he came back and had time to reflect, he started to show some very good things in terms of the consistency. He got hurt at the tail end. The silver lining with that, we got a chance to take a look at Kyle, and Kyle showed some pretty good things. There was a silver lining in it. We feel good about having Rex back. We feel good about Kyle. Probably the consistency, I think that’s what you want to see. Obviously, when it comes to consistency, you have to be able to win with your quarterback. That would be from my perspective what I would want to see.”

I'll bet you're right. He's calling QB the "Achilles heel under my watch". Rex is the classic case of somebody that needs a change of scenery. He's a joke in this town - despite the fact we got to the Superbowl with him. Of course, he's kind of a national joke but I'm sure he'll land somewhere in free agency. Right ???

[BuLLs>LiFe]

I wouldn't want to waste a first or second round pick on a QB. This team has too many holes to fill and although Orton is not a great QB, I think he'll be good enough with a decent group of WRs. Not to mention, I'm not entirely sold on Sanchez either. I think getting a back-up QB like Leftwich makes more sense.

[Chewie]

This "Dan M." character sounds pretty darn smart.

Whoever he is.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2009/01/four_down_territory_jan_19_sho.html

Four Down Territory, Jan. 19: Should Bears target USC's Sanchez?
By Brad Biggs
on January 19, 2009 1:37 PM |

Q: When you list the needs of the Bears, you consistently ignore quarterback. Given the recent comments of Jerry Angelo that seem like he's not looking for a ``game manager'' (which fits Kyle Orton perfectly), and that he's looking at all options, why wouldn't USC's Mark Sanchez make sense? Should the Lions go with Matthew Stafford or a left tackle with the first pick, couldn't Sanchez slide to the point where it would make sense for the Bears to trade up and nab him? Orton could still play out his contract year in 2009 with Sanchez waiting in the wings. Yes, I know, the Bears never trade up in Round 1 and, yes, I know the Bears have bigger immediate needs than quarterback, but I think the position demands attention. Like Angelo said, you win with your quarterback.

Dan M., Wheaton

A: There is no escaping the fact that quarterback was the No. 1 need when Jerry Angelo was hired as the Bears' general manager in June 2001 and it remains just that. He's failed miserably to deliver a franchise passer and recently has been quite candid about those shortcomings. If Sanchez grades out like a first-round pick for the Bears, then absolutely he would make sense in the first round provided he lasts until No. 18, or some point close to that.

First, let's consider some things Angelo has said recently:

1. He's not going to rule anything out, including using a first-round pick on a quarterback for the second time in eight drafts.

2. He believes that mid-round selections can be brought along and molded into steady, winning quarterbacks. We've seen mid- to late-round picks succeed elsewhere, but there wasn't much evidence that this was the way to go when you studied the 12 teams in the playoffs this year.

The Lions, with the first pick, are not the only team ahead of the Bears in need of a passer. Consider St. Louis (2nd), Kansas City (3rd), San Francisco (10th), Buffalo (11th) and the New York Jets (17th) could also be in the market for an arm. It's way too early to say where Stafford or Sanchez are going to land. Here's one mock draft that has him sliding all the way out of the first round. There are two issues in play when it comes to Sanchez--he doesn't have a ton of experience playing at USC and he was surrounded by some of the finest talent in college. Matt Leinart hasn't exactly panned out yet.

But certainly all quarterback inquiries are fair game.

[WEFFPIM]

Get a proven guy in the league already.

Hmmm, seems like I said that last offseason too.

[shugknight]

This "Dan M." character sounds pretty darn smart.

Whoever he is.

[/quote]

Umm..Sorry Chewie Mark Sanchez is not a game winner. He's not even a winner in general. He played for a winning team. And he became "popular" for playing for a winning team. His stats and record is based upon the system he plays in. When was the last time time a USC QB came in and changed the game in the NFL? Palmer was the closest. (but the list goes on.. Leinhart, Cassel (didn't even play at USC) Sean Salisbury, Rodney Peete.. etc. busts in general)

There's a reason as to why he would have been available in the late 2nd-3rd rounds if the other 3-4 QB's declared this year.

There's a reason as to why he'll still be the 2nd "best" QB in the draft this year.

There's a reason why he declared this year (because any other year, with a decent QB crew, he'd be 4th or 5th best from the class. This is his only opportunity to be drafted in the first round.)

This is another example of how money can make decisions for you. For better or for worst. Which in my opinion, will be for worst.

In 5 years, he won't even be in the league unless he's a 2nd or 3rd string QB.

[Chewie]

So you're saying we differ in opinion, Shug ?

I'm cool with that. I'm a believer. I see a good athlete with a good arm that makes good decisions. You say he's a system QB and USC QBs blow in general.

I'm fully aware I'm in the minority here.

[ChronicKerr]

If he's available when we pick it's easy to make an argument for him but to trade up for him would be stupid

[shugknight]

So you're saying we differ in opinion, Shug ?

I'm cool with that. I'm a believer. I see a good athlete with a good arm that makes good decisions. You say he's a system QB and USC QBs blow in general.

I'm fully aware I'm in the minority here.

Yes we do. But I value your opinion too. If the Bears do draft him, and he becomes the QB that we desperately need. I'll make sure to apologize for being wrong and eat my words.

Do we need a QB? Yes
Do we need to draft a QB in the 1st Rnd? No

I'm going to play the PC card and just say that the Bears needs to take the BPA (Best Player Available) in the draft. As the fact that we have so many glaring weaknesses, taking 1 player, QB or not, will not make a big difference.

I just hope we don't draft another Michael Haynes, or Curtis Enis, or Grossman, or Marc Colombo, or David Terrell.. etc...

[dingojazz]

If he's available when we pick it's easy to make an argument for him but to trade up for him would be stupid

I agree with the Chronic Smoker. If Sanchez falls to 18 then he will deserve serious consideration. However, even to jump ahead of the Jets to the 16th pick will likely cost a 3rd rounder, which is too big of a price to pay. To move up much more than that could cost a 2nd.

I'd be much more in favor of trading down than trading up given how many holes the Bears have.

I would be happy with the QB situation to go in to next year with Orton, FA (Leftwich, Garcia, whoever) and Hanie.

[Chewie]

So you're saying we differ in opinion, Shug ?

I'm cool with that. I'm a believer. I see a good athlete with a good arm that makes good decisions. You say he's a system QB and USC QBs blow in general.

I'm fully aware I'm in the minority here.

Yes we do. But I value your opinion too. If the Bears do draft him, and he becomes the QB that we desperately need. I'll make sure to apologize for being wrong and eat my words.

Do we need a QB? Yes
Do we need to draft a QB in the 1st Rnd? No

I'm going to play the PC card and just say that the Bears needs to take the BPA (Best Player Available) in the draft. As the fact that we have so many glaring weaknesses, taking 1 player, QB or not, will not make a big difference.

I just hope we don't draft another Michael Haynes, or Curtis Enis, or Grossman, or Marc Colombo, or David Terrell.. etc...

Ugh - don't say those names on this board. There should be a law (though Colombo HAS turned it around in Dallas after his injury troubles here).

We're actually sort of on the same page even though we rate Sanchez differently - we have so many needs I'd go BPA as well with the exception of RB or TE. I'm just starving for a QB over here and if Sanchez slides at all, I'd love to snatch him up. Every time I see that list of QBs the Bears have gone through during the Packers/Favre era, I get just a little sick to my stomach. Well, ALOT sick to my stomach. I fully realize we don't NEED to draft a QB in Rd1 - "need" is a strong word and Orton is at least serviceable. I just don't think you can continue to ignore the position year after year - especially when Neckbeard is your #1 guy going into the season. His next full successful season will be his first.

It was only last year Flacco was taken at #18. The Ravens (correctly) saw Flacco as their guy and traded the #26, #89, and sixth round picks to move up and get him despite his 2nd round grade. Now, I'm not saying the Bears necessarily have an eye for judging young QB talent but there's a lesson to be learned here. When you can identify the guy you want to lead your team for the next decade at the most important position on the field, you do what you have to do to get him. Especially if you don't have to mortgage the rest of your draft to do so.

[Balance-a-Bull]

So you're saying we differ in opinion, Shug ?

I'm cool with that. I'm a believer. I see a good athlete with a good arm that makes good decisions. You say he's a system QB and USC QBs blow in general.

I'm fully aware I'm in the minority here.

Yes we do. But I value your opinion too. If the Bears do draft him, and he becomes the QB that we desperately need. I'll make sure to apologize for being wrong and eat my words.

Do we need a QB? Yes
Do we need to draft a QB in the 1st Rnd? No

I'm going to play the PC card and just say that the Bears needs to take the BPA (Best Player Available) in the draft. As the fact that we have so many glaring weaknesses, taking 1 player, QB or not, will not make a big difference.

I just hope we don't draft another Michael Haynes, or Curtis Enis, or Grossman, or Marc Colombo, or David Terrell.. etc...

Ugh - don't say those names on this board. There should be a law (though Colombo HAS turned it around in Dallas after his injury troubles here).

We're actually sort of on the same page even though we rate Sanchez differently - we have so many needs I'd go BPA as well with the exception of RB or TE. I'm just starving for a QB over here and if Sanchez slides at all, I'd love to snatch him up. Every time I see that list of QBs the Bears have gone through during the Packers/Favre era, I get just a little sick to my stomach. Well, ALOT sick to my stomach. I fully realize we don't NEED to draft a QB in Rd1 - "need" is a strong word and Orton is at least serviceable. I just don't think you can continue to ignore the position year after year - especially when Neckbeard is your #1 guy going into the season. His next full successful season will be his first.

It was only last year Flacco was taken at #18. The Ravens (correctly) saw Flacco as their guy and traded the #26, #89, and sixth round picks to move up and get him despite his 2nd round grade. Now, I'm not saying the Bears necessarily have an eye for judging young QB talent but there's a lesson to be learned here. When you can identify the guy you want to lead your team for the next decade at the most important position on the field, you do what you have to do to get him. Especially if you don't have to mortgage the rest of your draft to do so.

lol !!! Neakbeard , now that is funny.

In all seriousness though, superb post Chewie !

I agree with all of your points.

Excellent summation of our QB situation.

[shugknight]

So you're saying we differ in opinion, Shug ?

I'm cool with that. I'm a believer. I see a good athlete with a good arm that makes good decisions. You say he's a system QB and USC QBs blow in general.

I'm fully aware I'm in the minority here.

Yes we do. But I value your opinion too. If the Bears do draft him, and he becomes the QB that we desperately need. I'll make sure to apologize for being wrong and eat my words.

Do we need a QB? Yes
Do we need to draft a QB in the 1st Rnd? No

I'm going to play the PC card and just say that the Bears needs to take the BPA (Best Player Available) in the draft. As the fact that we have so many glaring weaknesses, taking 1 player, QB or not, will not make a big difference.

I just hope we don't draft another Michael Haynes, or Curtis Enis, or Grossman, or Marc Colombo, or David Terrell.. etc...

It was only last year Flacco was taken at #18. The Ravens (correctly) saw Flacco as their guy and traded the #26, #89, and sixth round picks to move up and get him despite his 2nd round grade. Now, I'm not saying the Bears necessarily have an eye for judging young QB talent but there's a lesson to be learned here. When you can identify the guy you want to lead your team for the next decade at the most important position on the field, you do what you have to do to get him. Especially if you don't have to mortgage the rest of your draft to do so.

Funny you mentioned Flacco when talking about Bears QB's. I was actually in favor of drafting Flacco last year in the first round (even with our horrible o-line). I knew he would be good one day, despite all the negative hype about him. But last year wasn't a big year for QB's (neither is this draft) Ryan wasn't proclaimed the savior he was to the Falcons this year and heck I remember alot of people asking us to draft Brohm and/or Henne thinking he could be the next Tom Brady. But I knew that Flacco would be good, and I even told my coworkers when I went to visit them in Maryland. They were all saying he'll be nothing more than a 2nd string QB and that Troy Smith will beat him out. They even had the nerve to say Grossman will be better than him. I told them they'll be wrong come mid-season. And they haven't mentioned the season once to me because of it.

I see the same stereotypes that was being reflected on Flacco last year doing the same thing to Sanchez this year.

Last year, everyone mentioned that since Flacco was playing for Delaware, his stats were inflated because he played teams that had bad or horrible defenses. They then projected him to be the 3rd best QB (behind Ryan and Brohm) and proclaimed he wouldn't go earlier than the late 2nd or 3rd round.

This year, everyone is proclaiming that Sanchez will be a top QB, because well, he played for USC, which is an elite school who played other elite schools with good defenses. And because of this, and his good stats, he's proclaimed to be a top QB. But wouldn't a mediocre QB look good when there are 12 other players on his team that are playing on the NFL level?

At the same time, wouldn't a really good QB look bad when the other 30+ players on his team are playing horrible?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, I'm all for drafting a QB in the first round, as long as he's not a project that needs time to develop. Maybe I'm spoiled by watching the Falcons this year, and want a "Matt Ryan" for our team, but at the same time, I also don't want a "Vince Young" that needs an extra 3-4 years to develope to finally be a leader on our team. Our team is already old as it is, and won't be getting younger. Injuries are starting to hit us big time over the years, and waiting for the QB to develop will only put us in almost a "rebuilding" mode.

[ChronicKerr]

Flacco has a cannon arm and didn't turn the ball over much but he was very pedestrian. The Ravens D is the reason they got so far, definately not him. He was the consumate "game manager". We have one of those.

[Chewie]

I was actually in favor of drafting Flacco last year in the first round (even with our horrible o-line). I knew he would be good one day, despite all the negative hype about him.

If you saw Flacco having this kind of year, you're one up on me! I recall being surprised he went as early as he did. I saw him being taken in Rd2 but the Ravens identified him as their guy and went for it rather than assume he'd slide to them.

This year, everyone is proclaiming that Sanchez will be a top QB, because well, he played for USC, which is an elite school who played other elite schools with good defenses. And because of this, and his good stats, he's proclaimed to be a top QB. But wouldn't a mediocre QB look good when there are 12 other players on his team that are playing on the NFL level?

At the same time, wouldn't a really good QB look bad when the other 30+ players on his team are playing horrible?

Totally get what you're saying here. By the same token, you don't want to penalize a QB who genuinely has the skills to succeed in the NFL just because he had talent around him in college. That's where our scouting dept comes in - it's their job to see if it was just the system or if Sanchez has what it takes.

I should add that Sanchez didn't just come out of nowhere to be plopped in the USC system that gave him inflated numbers. MS was the 2004 high school player of the year and was rated the top QB in his recruiting class when he graduated in '05.

Regarding your comments on wanting a Matt Ryan situation, that may be wishful thinking with Sanchez as rookie QBs that come in and succeed at the level of a Ryan or Flacco are exceptions to the rule. I envision Sanchez would sit behind KO his first year barring injury or a 4-interception half. So that probably would push you even more away from Sanchez in Round 1.

[shugknight]

If you saw Flacco having this kind of year, you're one up on me! I recall being surprised he went as early as he did. I saw him being taken in Rd2 but the Ravens identified him as their guy and went for it rather than assume he'd slide to them.

Totally get what you're saying here. By the same token, you don't want to penalize a QB who genuinely has the skills to succeed in the NFL just because he had talent around him in college. That's where our scouting dept comes in - it's their job to see if it was just the system or if Sanchez has what it takes.

I should add that Sanchez didn't just come out of nowhere to be plopped in the USC system that gave him inflated numbers. MS was the 2004 high school player of the year and was rated the top QB in his recruiting class when he graduated in '05.

Regarding your comments on wanting a Matt Ryan situation, that may be wishful thinking with Sanchez as rookie QBs that come in and succeed at the level of a Ryan or Flacco are exceptions to the rule. I envision Sanchez would sit behind KO his first year barring injury or a 4-interception half. So that probably would push you even more away from Sanchez in Round 1.

I was surprised too that the Ravens traded up for him (cause secretly, I was hoping he'd fall behind and land with the Bears) but I remember reading an article a few months before the draft and it was about Flacco and Colt Brennan. At the time, EVERYONE raved about Colt, saying he'd be the one in this years QB class that everyone will be talking about for years to come. However this article was the opposite. It talked about the flaws that Brennan had and the way Flacco handled himself in pressure situations. Basically the article sold me on Flacco. After that, I wanted the Bears to draft him with a passion. Did I think he'd have such a good season as he did this year? Not really, but I did believe he was the best or 2nd best QB (I thought Ryan was too short for the position, ala Grossman) in the draft. But I do believe Flacco will be a really good QB. (2nd best to Ryan after this year )

And I'm not saying Sanchez is a bum that only had those stats cause he played at USC. I'm sure he has some skills, but will it translate into the NFL? I thought Chris Leak had skills, and well he's nowhere to be found now.

But what the Ravens did last year to trade up for Flacco is something that we can't afford to do this year. Last year, the Ravens didn't have many glaring weaknesses. Their o-line was getting old, but still serviceable. Their D was still good enough to dominate, as long as injuries didn't affect them. They had decent receivers. The only thing missing was that QB.

We can't do that. We need people on D, we need receivers, we need o-line help. We need alot of everything. So trading 2-3 possible roster spots (draft picks) for 1 bench spot for the next year or so doesn't make alot of sense to me. We can't afford to do so unless we make a big splash in FA.

The only way I will agree with the Bears on the possibility of trading up for a better draft pick is if it was to draft Michael Crabtree. Other than that, no body in this draft interests me that we need to trade multiple picks for 1.

[Chewie]

Well, what's interesting is the Ravens traded DOWN to #26 and got some picks in the process then moved UP to get Flacco. You're in a position of power when you've got that high pick to begin with, eh? It blows having your pick right there in the middle - no playoffs AND no high pick.

PURGATORY.