NFL 2021 offseason thread

[The Beast]

17 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

I’ll believe it when I see it. I do get the Inkling bears are going to go into draft not yet solving qb. After that - we will see if they draft a qb like Mac Jones or lance or if they trade for D’Arnold or Ryan after their respective teams take a qb. 
 

Feels like at this point - No Qb move is happening for bears until at or after the draft. 

If the choice was Mac Jones or Sam Darnold what would people do?

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, The Beast said:

If the choice was Mac Jones or Sam Darnold what would people do?

what is the price for Darnold?

[The Beast]

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

what is the price for Darnold?

The asking price that a local reporter they interviewed on 670 said would be a second round pick and fourth round pick.

[Chisoxfn]

4 hours ago, The Beast said:

If the choice was Mac Jones or Sam Darnold what would people do?

What is price for both? Mac isn’t going to be sitting there - bears would have to trade up to get him (IMO). 

[The Beast]

41 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

What is price for both? Mac isn’t going to be sitting there - bears would have to trade up to get him (IMO). 

What if Mac is available at 20 though? I don’t know what he would cost if they were to move up but I would imagine it would cost the first, second or third and fourth round pick to take him higher in the first.

[Chisoxfn]

45 minutes ago, The Beast said:

What if Mac is available at 20 though? I don’t know what he would cost if they were to move up but I would imagine it would cost the first, second or third and fourth round pick to take him higher in the first.

If I knew Mac was there at 20 - I take him. I am not sold on him - but I certainly can see him being a good qb. I think I take him over Sam D if I knew I had him. 
 

That said - I really don’t think that will happen and thus Sam will be cheaper to get. 

[SoxAce]

18 hours ago, maggsmaggs said:

Watt wants to win and the Bears are in bad cap shape. Watt is not coming here.

It's not totally farfetched. His wife plays for the Red Stars (Chicago NSWL team) and he has hinted in the past about Chicago. But this feels similar to Jared Allen to me. A future HOF player interested in Chicago after his prime is over. I would not hate it but it would have to depend on the contract.

[Balta1701]

So a second and a fourth for Darnold vs. a First + for Jones? If it requires a first and a second for Jones I'd really rather not do that. 

[bigruss]

I wouldn't do either of those, those both sound terribly overpriced.

[knightni]

10 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

If I knew Mac was there at 20 - I take him. I am not sold on him - but I certainly can see him being a good qb. I think I take him over Sam D if I knew I had him. 
 

That said - I really don’t think that will happen and thus Sam will be cheaper to get. 

I'd sooner struggle with Foles and a stud OT at 20 than Mac Jones as Foles' back up and still have a Porous Line.

[CentralChamps21]

2 minutes ago, knightni said:

I'd sooner struggle with Foles and a stud OT at 20 than Mac Jones as Foles' back up and still have a Porous Line.

If any of Slater, Vera-Tucker or Darrisaw is available at 20 and the Bears go another direction, I'll be incredibly upset. If all three of those guys are gone, I'd like to see what kind of trade down offers are available or see what kind of offers for QBs are there.

[knightni]

6 minutes ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

If any of Slater, Vera-Tucker or Darrisaw is available at 20 and the Bears go another direction, I'll be incredibly upset. If all three of those guys are gone, I'd like to see what kind of trade down offers are available or see what kind of offers for QBs are there.

What's your opinion of Kyle Trask?

I think that he's not that much of a step-down from Jones and might be there in round 2 or 3.

[CentralChamps21]

1 minute ago, knightni said:

What's your opinion of Kyle Trask?

I think that he's not that much of a step-down from Jones and might be there in round 2 or 3.

Trask might be better than Foles over the next couple years, but he's not a franchise QB. I really think the Bears need to just write off the QB position while they beef up their OL/DL and improve their cap situation.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

I heard a guy on the radio the other day actually say something very interesting.  He said 75% of the leagues QB's had a rating of 90 or higher.  He said it's easier to play QB than ever before and unless you have a top QB (Mahomes, Rodgers) teams should be more focused on trying to build the team around the QB.  I don't think the Bears should give up a 1st for a middle of the pack QB.  Hell they probably shouldn't give up a 2nd either. 

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, knightni said:

I'd sooner struggle with Foles and a stud OT at 20 than Mac Jones as Foles' back up and still have a Porous Line.

I think you could still get a similar RT prospect at 20 and 52, but 20 you could maybe be in position to get a high-level LT prospect. I think 1. Jones 2. T and let rest of draft fall where it leads is a decent possibility.

It's just hard with QB. I think when the NFL was dominated by the likes of Brees/Brady/Manning I think there was more of a ethos of "arm talent is overrated" in favor of smart QBs with accuracy that could compete. And it's not like a Cam Newton is ignored being drafted 1-1, but Luck was the prototypical then - accurate, dominates the offense ins and outs, competitive, etc.

And now the league is led by Mahomes, and Josh Allen surprise hits, and kyler murray's height and experience get ignored for arm talent, and suddenly it's an arm talent league and a guy like Lance is a no brainer for first round.

And maybe in few years we are all saying well it's so obvious, he was competing at top of college football at alabama, he was super efficient, of course he would succeed with Mac Jones.

Ultimately we are in a league where the top 2 first round QBs drafted from 2009-2016 aren't on their original teams anymore and not because they were too expensive. So it's not that I trust Pace/Nagy to hit on the zig when the league zagged as much as it's hard to feel that confident that Jones is milquetoast prospect with ceiling of a ryan fitzpatrick vs just feeling like if it happens it happens and I really can't say it's bad or good just that they decided to go for the mystery door rather than the higher probability prizes in front of them.

[bmags]

3 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

I heard a guy on the radio the other day actually say something very interesting.  He said 75% of the leagues QB's had a rating of 90 or higher.  He said it's easier to play QB than ever before and unless you have a top QB (Mahomes, Rodgers) teams should be more focused on trying to build the team around the QB.  I don't think the Bears should give up a 1st for a middle of the pack QB.  Hell they probably shouldn't give up a 2nd either. 

I think that's just more of a reflection of how easy it is to juke that rating now. Mitch was rated 93. But if you are getting there without being able to get big chunks of yards you are useless. The timidity with quick check downs which helps your passer rating in most of the field ends up making you poor in the red zone, you are useless.

So I just don't really buy that. A lot of the QBs with 90 ratings had really unproductive offenses. I mean Kirk Cousins had a top 5 passer rating, had a fantastic WR core and RB and they weren't even top ten in points scored. Hell, Andy Dalton was damn near 90 at 87 passer rating, had an excellent supporting cast, and that offense was bad. Teddy Bridgewater was the embodiment of what works with passer rating, and that offense was just average.

And they were not top offenses because of their QB, despite "performing" with 90 passer ratings.

[Balta1701]

2 hours ago, bigruss said:

I wouldn't do either of those, those both sound terribly overpriced.

Mel Kipers column today suggests a late second or early third is a price the Jets should take for Darnold.

[knightni]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

Mel Kipers column today suggests a late second or early third is a price the Jets should take for Darnold.

They're already down their 4th.

To be honest, they could slide from 20 to 27, still get a sold tackle and get a third or fourth to re-add to their picks.

 

[Chisoxfn]

I just know one thing - for everyone that proposes we just roll with Nick Foles and some late QB - there is zero scenario that I think that is okay. The Bears have many times ignored QB and tried other moves. You can look at so many times where they didn't invest in the QB in the draft of take a shot and instead stood status quo.  There is zero scenario where I accept that.  Make a move - even if the probability is low - make a move for someone that has upside - whether Winston / D'Arnold / Tua / Jones (or someone else early in the draft). 

 

[bigruss]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

I just know one thing - for everyone that proposes we just roll with Nick Foles and some late QB - there is zero scenario that I think that is okay. The Bears have many times ignored QB and tried other moves. You can look at so many times where they didn't invest in the QB in the draft of take a shot and instead stood status quo.  There is zero scenario where I accept that.  Make a move - even if the probability is low - make a move for someone that has upside - whether Winston / D'Arnold / Tua / Jones (or someone else early in the draft). 

 

While I get that, a rookie QB doesn't save this roster and a veteran like Darnold may not even be an upgrade over Foles, so why give up a 2nd when we desperately need talent on this roster?  

[knightni]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

I just know one thing - for everyone that proposes we just roll with Nick Foles and some late QB - there is zero scenario that I think that is okay. The Bears have many times ignored QB and tried other moves. You can look at so many times where they didn't invest in the QB in the draft of take a shot and instead stood status quo.  There is zero scenario where I accept that.  Make a move - even if the probability is low - make a move for someone that has upside - whether Winston / D'Arnold / Tua / Jones (or someone else early in the draft). 

 

There is no free agent or available qb better than a 3rd or 4th round qb.

 

[Chisoxfn]

26 minutes ago, bigruss said:

While I get that, a rookie QB doesn't save this roster and a veteran like Darnold may not even be an upgrade over Foles, so why give up a 2nd when we desperately need talent on this roster?  

I don't care about saving the roster - I care about consistently taking steps at improving the QB situation.  Doing nothing is useless and terrible. And it is also completely ignores what Nagy/Pace have been asked to do.  Whether you or I would have asked them to have this chance - they do - and the scenarios / views that this franchise should just ignore QB another year are just that - bad and flawed.  

They took this approach for years and that is part of the reason why they have never found a QB, like ever.  I mean in my entire lifetime as a Bears fan (so I'll say post 1985 - since I was 2 years old at the time) - I can pretty much count QB's whom this team drafted with high picks.  Grossman (after a trade down), McNown, and Trubisky.  I don't even think beyond that they used a 2nd round pick on a QB.  In 35 years - that is 3 1st round qb's (and I don't think they had any 2nd round QB selections either.  That is PUTRID.  

The only other time this franchise made a major investment in a QB - they traded a 1st round pick for a former 1st rounder (Rick Mirer) and obviously the Cutler trade. They also NEVER made any major QB free agent signing, so lets not pretend that they handled this via free agency.  

Bottom Line: You want to know why this team has been bad at QB - well a huge reason is because they have barely invested in the QB position.  Yes - they had some misses there - but the Packers didn't sit around and wait until they needed to get Rodgers (They had Favre) and whether it works for not - they are doing the same with Love and also had recently taken a shot in some other former higher picks/guys (former UCLA QB whose name escapes me who was never any good and Kizer who stunk too).  

Now you are right - beyond just finding a QB - you need to than do your part to give him the weapons, etc.  

[Chisoxfn]

30 minutes ago, knightni said:

There is no free agent or available qb better than a 3rd or 4th round qb.

 

Well - Wentz was traded for pennies on the $.  I would have easily given up what the Colts did - but that didn't happen; Matt Ryan is out there, Sam D'Arnold too.  I'm not saying I want Ryan - but it is certainly an option to consider.  Winston - is a FA - whether he ends up as the Saints QB or not - I'm not ready to jump to that conclusion.  High probability that all of those guys are better than any 3rd or 4th round QB will be.  

If I went those routes though - If there was a QB in that range that I liked - I"d take them too. Point is - take swings and multiple swings at QB.  

[bmags]

11 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I don't care about saving the roster - I care about consistently taking steps at improving the QB situation.  Doing nothing is useless and terrible. And it is also completely ignores what Nagy/Pace have been asked to do.  Whether you or I would have asked them to have this chance - they do - and the scenarios / views that this franchise should just ignore QB another year are just that - bad and flawed.  

They took this approach for years and that is part of the reason why they have never found a QB, like ever.  I mean in my entire lifetime as a Bears fan (so I'll say post 1985 - since I was 2 years old at the time) - I can pretty much count QB's whom this team drafted with high picks.  Grossman (after a trade down), McNown, and Trubisky.  I don't even think beyond that they used a 2nd round pick on a QB.  In 35 years - that is 3 1st round qb's (and I don't think they had any 2nd round QB selections either.  That is PUTRID.  

The only other time this franchise made a major investment in a QB - they traded a 1st round pick for a former 1st rounder (Rick Mirer) and obviously the Cutler trade. They also NEVER made any major QB free agent signing, so lets not pretend that they handled this via free agency.  

Bottom Line: You want to know why this team has been bad at QB - well a huge reason is because they have barely invested in the QB position.  Yes - they had some misses there - but the Packers didn't sit around and wait until they needed to get Rodgers (They had Favre) and whether it works for not - they are doing the same with Love and also had recently taken a shot in some other former higher picks/guys (former UCLA QB whose name escapes me who was never any good and Kizer who stunk too).  

Now you are right - beyond just finding a QB - you need to than do your part to give him the weapons, etc.  

It reminds me of people saying sox are horrible at drafting high school players, when much of it is they just drafted a handful over a decade 

[bigruss]

14 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I don't care about saving the roster - I care about consistently taking steps at improving the QB situation.  Doing nothing is useless and terrible. And it is also completely ignores what Nagy/Pace have been asked to do.  Whether you or I would have asked them to have this chance - they do - and the scenarios / views that this franchise should just ignore QB another year are just that - bad and flawed.  

They took this approach for years and that is part of the reason why they have never found a QB, like ever.  I mean in my entire lifetime as a Bears fan (so I'll say post 1985 - since I was 2 years old at the time) - I can pretty much count QB's whom this team drafted with high picks.  Grossman (after a trade down), McNown, and Trubisky.  I don't even think beyond that they used a 2nd round pick on a QB.  In 35 years - that is 3 1st round qb's (and I don't think they had any 2nd round QB selections either.  That is PUTRID.  

The only other time this franchise made a major investment in a QB - they traded a 1st round pick for a former 1st rounder (Rick Mirer) and obviously the Cutler trade. They also NEVER made any major QB free agent signing, so lets not pretend that they handled this via free agency.  

Bottom Line: You want to know why this team has been bad at QB - well a huge reason is because they have barely invested in the QB position.  Yes - they had some misses there - but the Packers didn't sit around and wait until they needed to get Rodgers (They had Favre) and whether it works for not - they are doing the same with Love and also had recently taken a shot in some other former higher picks/guys (former UCLA QB whose name escapes me who was never any good and Kizer who stunk too).  

Now you are right - beyond just finding a QB - you need to than do your part to give him the weapons, etc.  

I'm good with taking shots but we can't keep throwing critical capital at it either, because it's killing this teams overall talent level.  We've gone from very few holes in the roster just 2 years ago to needing upgrades or having huge gaps at almost every single position.  I don't have any problem if they take a 2nd rounder or later for a qb, do that every year and eventually one should hit.  And if you find you have 2 good qbs, obviously the market is showing you'll get value back for them.  

But in this year, we really can't afford to trade for another qb that isn't a clear upgrade over Foles, at least not with 1st, 2nd or even 3rd round talent.  If we traded a 4th for Darnold, whatever.  But we need impact players at positions that are in high demand, and we don't have draft capital in abundance.