Page 1 of 2
Matt Stafford?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:02 pm
by Cliff Levingston
From Icness' "Gleanings from the combine on Sunday":
On that front, the Lions clearly prefer Stafford over Sanchez if they pull the trigger at #1 overall (more on that in a minute). The Chiefs at #3 prefer Sanchez, and my sources tell me the Niners feel the same way if they choose to go QB at #10. Neither team is locked in to drafting a QB, however.
This presents a potential nightmare scenario for Stafford. It seems less likely every day that the Lions take him at #1 overall, for a variety of reasons. If he’s not an option for KC or SF, the next team with presumed interest in a first-round QB is the Jets at #17, but they appear to favor Sanchez as well. On the unlikely but plausible scenario that the Lions, Chiefs, and 49ers all pass on QBs, Stafford could fall to Detroit at #20. That is a huge financial hit--ask Brady Quinn and Aaron Rodgers. I sense that some team would put together a trade and keep that from happening, but ask yourself this: would you rather deal to move up and take an unproven rookie in Stafford or spend the same picks and go get Matt Cassel?
If Stafford indeed does drop to us at #18, would you take him even considering all the glaring holes we have?
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:44 pm
by Chewie
We DO have a lot of holes and I consider QB to be one of them.
I'd take either Stafford or Sanchez if they dropped to #18 and would probably would prefer Sanchez. Orton could play out his contract year with either one behind him. If Orton kicks booty - you've got a good problem on your hands.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:58 pm
by Cliff Levingston
Chewie wrote:We DO have a lot of holes and I consider QB to be one of them.
I'd take either Stafford or Sanchez if they dropped to #18 and would probably would prefer Sanchez. Orton could play out his contract year with either one behind him. If Orton kicks booty - you've got a good problem on your hands.
Cliff Levingston wouldn't consider the QB position as a "hole." Orton isn't going to light the world on fire, but ICLO, he's serviceable. Where as WR, we've literally only got one guy (Hester) who's got a legit excuse for being on the football field. Same for the tackle position if Tait ends up retiring and probably the safety position as well.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:12 pm
by ChronicKerr
I'd take him at 18 but I'm almost positive there's no way that comes close to happening (meaning him falling to 18 not the fact that we'd pass him if he was there).
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:55 pm
by emperorjones
I'd take him at 18 (would not trade up) and then take an OT in the 2nd round and let Orton feel the pain for a year with St. Clair as our starting RT.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:00 pm
by Chewie
Cliff Levingston wrote:Cliff Levingston wouldn't consider the QB position as a "hole." Orton isn't going to light the world on fire, but ICLO, he's serviceable.
I'm greedy! I want MORE than serviceable out of my QB ! How long must we starve for a franchise QB?
Don't get me started !!!
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:13 pm
by NoSkyy
I would consider him strongly as the favorite depending on who else was on the board.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:36 am
by Chewie
It would help matters if Cassel ended up in K.C. given they're reportedly hot for Sanchez. New Chiefs GM Scot Pioli drafted Cassel in 2005 for NE. If Detroit goes for the top OT and the Chiefs don't go QB, we could see some sliding.
Of course the 49ers and Jets are obvious threats to draft QBs so I'm guessing this isn't a decision we'll have to make.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:08 am
by Chi Dynasty12
Completely unrealistic, but yes, I would
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:34 pm
by Cliff Levingston
Chewie wrote:Cliff Levingston wrote:Cliff Levingston wouldn't consider the QB position as a "hole." Orton isn't going to light the world on fire, but ICLO, he's serviceable.
I'm greedy! I want MORE than serviceable out of my QB ! How long must we starve for a franchise QB?
Don't get me started !!!
Cliff Levingston answered "yes" to the question, btw.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:48 pm
by Chewie
Cliff Levingston wrote:Cliff Levingston answered "yes" to the question, btw.
Smart man. I posed the question of what he thought the Bears would do if Sanchez or Stafford slipped to Brad Briggs on his Bears/Sun-Times blog as he mentioned he's short on questions lately so we'll see what he says.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:13 pm
by Ruben Douglas
If Stafford for some reason fell to #18 (I don't think it will happen) but based on previous years with Quinn and Rodgers you just never know, I would draft him.
Will it happen if he falls? Not a chance. You know there would be a team that would love to trade up and draft him. Look at what the Browns gave up for Quinn, a second round pick and a future 1st round pick. I imagine that Angelo would be trying to strike a trade to get as many more draft picks as possible. If he could get a second and future first he would make the deal...it would be hard not to based on his philosophy.
However, it's tough to pass on a potential franchise QB.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:33 pm
by WAYSA
Icness has the Bears passing on Stafford for DHB in his post-combine mock.
Ugh.
I'd take Stafford and not think twice.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:50 am
by Chewie
WAYSA wrote:Icness has the Bears passing on Stafford for DHB in his post-combine mock.
Ugh.
I'd take Stafford and not think twice.
Though I doubt Stafford would make it to our pick, he's probably right in saying we'd pass, too. Despite what WE'D do, the Bears fail to think outside the box. I doubt they've even considered what to do if one of the top 2 QBs fell to their spot. They'd probably wet their pants while the draft clock whittled down and pick the safe guy they slotted to take all along. Or - better yet - draft down for a coveted extra 7th round pick that won't make the team and let someone else with a pair of grapefruits make the "risky choice".
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:12 am
by IVSKIN
I am a pretty big Orton fan, but I still say the Bears would have to take him, and they could still consider it a safe pick. Fans, and analysts keep bringing up how many starting QBs we have had in the last ten years, so picking a potential franchise QB would shut them up. If he busts out, well.... damn, but Heyward-Bey has more bust potential.
Knowing Angelo, he would trade for a second and a third and draft the Dan Bauzin (who?) and Daniel Manning clones in the next round.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:47 am
by nitetrain8603
Orton is not a big hole, but he's more of a leaky pipe. With that said, I think the Bears would be crazy to pass up Stafford. Mark Sanchez, I'm not so sure. I'm not completely sold on the guy.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:26 am
by chitownsports4ever
I said no because I think Orton is on a solid developmental path and even if he doesnt progress the way we want we will be in position next year to chase someone in FA or draft someone next year.
I actually liked icness Mock where we take WR ,S,QB in that order .If we let Kyle go after his season then at least next year we are looking at DHB, Hester,Olsen,Forte at our skill positions on offense .That gives us the most offensive weapons weve had in I dont know how long.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:54 pm
by Cliff Levingston
chitownsports4ever wrote:I said no because I think Orton is on a solid developmental path and even if he doesnt progress the way we want we will be in position next year to chase someone in FA or draft someone next year.
I actually liked icness Mock where we take WR ,S,QB in that order .If we let Kyle go after his season then at least next year we are looking at DHB, Hester,Olsen,Forte at our skill positions on offense .That gives us the most offensive weapons weve had in I dont know how long.
The QB was Pat White though. He's not exactly tailor made for NFL success at QB.
If we're not going to take a QB early, Cliff Levingston would rather see us address WR, OL and S in the first 3 rounds then just fill out the rest of the picks with good value if it's there then look to free agency to find a decent backup QB. Cliff Levingston hears Rex Grossman is available.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:02 pm
by Chewie
Chewie wrote:It would help matters if Cassel ended up in K.C. given they're reportedly hot for Sanchez. New Chiefs GM Scot Pioli drafted Cassel in 2005 for NE. If Detroit goes for the top OT and the Chiefs don't go QB, we could see some sliding.
Of course the 49ers and Jets are obvious threats to draft QBs so I'm guessing this isn't a decision we'll have to make.
Boo-yah! Chiefs got Cassel today for the Chiefs 2nd rd pick (#34 overall).
That's pretty cheap.
One less team picking before us to go QB in Rd1.
Re: Matt Stafford?
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:32 pm
by Chewie
Current threats to take a QB ahead of the Bears now that KC is off the market :
1-Lions
10 -49ers
17-Jets
AND, of course, there's the chance of a team trading up in front of the Bears (Bucs?). The biggest obstacle, though, would be that it's a gutsy move to go QB in Rd1 and I'm not sure Angelo has the balls when it's not a pure need. Drafting a bust at a the highest profile position is what gets GMs fired. Not to mention it would be a media spectacle in camp that would be distracting to say the least. Chicago loves its quarterback controversies.
Like I said before though, if we were to get Stafford or Sanchez they'd still sit behind Orton in his contract year. If Orton looks good, we've got a good problem on our hands. If Orton fails, gets injured, or looks merely "serviceable" then we move on to the draftee.