Bears Draft Grade

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 09:16 PM)

1- I think you should be the one looking up the stats.. Ronny Shoop Had 1good year as OC in 95.. 93(24/28),94(24/28) and 96(26/30) his offenses ranked near the bottom of the NFL in ponts scored.  So a failed OC and Failed College HC, has now come back to fail yet again at the OC postion.

 

As Stated before, The bears are going backwards with offense, they had a great system in place that take more than 1 training camp to learn.. You also need the horses there as well, something that was not there once the line and QB went down.

 

GB..They realized that there was no-one in the draft that could help them out right now, why not take a QB let him sit under one of the best ever to play the game and learn. Only helps them down the line smart move. If you were GB who would you have choosen?

 

DET.. we are just going to have to agree that I am right! J/K.. I agree to disagree, I think they did a good job with MW, You keep mentioning this Rodgers kid.. How much NFL experience does he have?..Either way you look at it, this was a wise pick by DET. You say def, but if you look at the stats they were at the bottom of the NFL in offense 24/32 points scored.. they needed help on both sides of the ball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1 - who care about college head coaching? That means you will be a bad assistant coach? I don't think so.

 

2 - their offense last year was pathetic. Any direction they go will be a better move. If you think that system was good last year then I think we were watching a different team. It didn't work.

 

3 - I would have rather had Campbell. I would have rather had a defensive back like Marlin Williams. How about a DT such as Castillo or Patterson. I would have had any of these players instead of Rodgers. All play defensive positions where the Packers need help

 

4 - I will agree to disagree. This was an awful pick. Rogers has played more than Williams has played. He has been hurt, but the same can happen to Williams. Rogers is a much better talent when healthy than Mike Williams. They didn't score a lot of points becuase their QB is absolutely awful. It has nothing to do with WRs. They already signed Pollard in the off season, good move. They did not need Mike Williams.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 09:21 PM)

I dont get how anyone can knock the Lions pick...

 

Yes, it was mind boggling at first... but now they have possibly the most dangerous line up of WR's in the league..

 

The fact that they will have Mike Williams, Roy Williams, and Charles Rogers lined up wide with Kevin Jones in the backfield is going to help their offense immensly. If Joey Harrington cant succeed with these weapons he needs to be out of a job..

 

Detroit is forming one hell of an offense, and their defense should improve too.. Shaun Cody was a solid pick

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then why sign Pollard in the off season? How many teams play 3 WR sets all game long? Does it creat mismatches? Possibly, but he is not Randy Moss. He does not create the mismatch Randy Moss did when they had him Reed and Carter all out there. Shaun Cody is ok. I have a feeling Peterson helped him look as good as he was. JMO.

[T R U]

1 - who care about college head coaching? That means you will be a bad assistant coach? I don't think so.

 

2 - their offense last year was pathetic. Any direction they go will be a better move. If you think that system was good last year then I think we were watching a different team. It didn't work.

 

3 - I would have rather had Campbell. I would have rather had a defensive back like Marlin Williams. How about a DT such as Castillo or Patterson. I would have had any of these players instead of Rodgers. All play defensive positions where the Packers need help

 

4 - I will agree to disagree. This was an awful pick. Rogers has played more than Williams has played. He has been hurt, but the same can happen to Williams. Rogers is a much better talent when healthy than Mike Williams. They didn't score a lot of points becuase their QB is absolutely awful. It has nothing to do with WRs. They already signed Pollard in the off season, good move. They did not need Mike Williams.

 

Marlin Williams.... hmm.... dont think that player exsists

 

I think you mean Marlin Jackson..

 

The fact that your so blind to see GB needed a QB and a very solid one fell right to them already proves you dont know what your talking about.. no that was prolly out the window when you said Rodgers is no better than Orton :headshake

[T R U]

Then why sign Pollard in the off season? How many teams play 3 WR sets all game long? Does it creat mismatches? Possibly, but he is not Randy Moss. He does not create the mismatch Randy Moss did when they had him Reed and Carter all out there. Shaun Cody is ok. I have a feeling Peterson helped him look as good as he was. JMO.

 

Its not like they are gonna use 3 WR sets ALL GAME LONG but the fact that its there and will be used is deadly enough

 

No one ever said all of them have to be on the field at the same time

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 09:31 PM)

Marlin Williams.... hmm.... dont think that player exsists

 

I think you mean Marlin Jackson..

 

The fact that your so blind to see GB needed a QB and a very solid one fell right to them already proves you dont know what your talking about.. no that was prolly out the window when you said Rodgers is no better than Orton  :headshake

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We will have to see then wont we? I beleive they could have taken Marlin Jackson in the first, which fills a great need at a cheaper price, and then taken Frye, Orton, or McPherson later in the draft. I don't believe Rodgers is any better than any of those QBs. I may be proven wrong, but I doubt it. You don't know any more than I do that he will be a better QB than any of them. So you want to try to insult me for having a different opinion than yours? Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

[T R U]

We will have to see then wont we? I beleive they could have taken Marlin Jackson in the first, which fills a great need at a cheaper price, and then taken Frye, Orton, or McPherson later in the draft. I don't believe Rodgers is any better than any of those QBs. I may be proven wrong, but I doubt it. You don't know any more than I do that he will be a better QB than any of them.  So you want to try to insult me for having a different opinion than yours?   Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. 

 

Yeah your right, a first round QB is no better than a guy taken in the 4th or 5th

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 09:37 PM)

Yeah your right, a first round QB is no better than a guy taken in the 4th or 5th

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your right. It has never happened before.

[Goober]

Your right. It has never happened before. 

there are exceptions to every rule. that doesn't make it the normal though.

[T R U]

Your right. It has never happened before. 

 

So what are you trying to say... its better to pass up better prospects that PAID Scouts who do scouting for a living deem to be better than say a guy who goes in the 5th, your supposed to pass up the first round talent and settle for a 5th because "you never know how they will turn out"

[AnthraxFan93]

1 - who care about college head coaching? That means you will be a bad assistant coach? I don't think so.

 

2 - their offense last year was pathetic. Any direction they go will be a better move. If you think that system was good last year then I think we were watching a different team. It didn't work.

 

3 - I would have rather had Campbell. I would have rather had a defensive back like Marlin Williams. How about a DT such as Castillo or Patterson. I would have had any of these players instead of Rodgers. All play defensive positions where the Packers need help

 

4 - I will agree to disagree. This was an awful pick. Rogers has played more than Williams has played. He has been hurt, but the same can happen to Williams. Rogers is a much better talent when healthy than Mike Williams. They didn't score a lot of points becuase their QB is absolutely awful. It has nothing to do with WRs. They already signed Pollard in the off season, good move. They did not need Mike Williams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. My point was that where ever Turner goes.. Failure follows..

 

2. Again, you fail to realize the system that was in place. When it was annoucnce that we were taking on the KC/St louis Offense, I said that going into the 2006 season; if everyone stayed healthy we would have a great team. Take a look at both KC and St louis Numbers the first year Dick Vermil put the system into place, its not the systems fault for not having the proper players in it.

 

3. See again Agree to disagree, I think GB realized this is the start of the Demiss, and is covering its butt..IMO this is Farves last year. I think Rodgers will excel with a few tweaks in his mechanics, and with farves teaching GB did a wonderful job. Granted those Def guys would help out this year, but if Farve retires.. then where do they go, when a guy like Rodgers falls into your lap you have to grab him.. Much like the bears did with Orton.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 09:39 PM)

So what are you trying to say... its better to pass up better prospects that PAID Scouts who do scouting for a living deem to be better than say a guy who goes in the 5th, your supposed to pass up the first round talent and settle for a 5th because "you never know how they will turn out"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What are you trying to say that Brett Favre is not as good as Dan McGwire or Todd Marinovich? In the same draft Brett Favre was taekn in the 2nd round those two others were taken in the first. Would you have passed up the talents of Dan McGwire and Todd Marinovich for the likes of Brett Favre? Why would you do that when a scout who does scouting for a living deem to be better than a guy who goes in the 2nd? Your supposed to pass up 1st round talent and settle for Brett Favre?

 

The point is you never know how any of these picks will turn out. It doesn't matter if it is the 1st round or 5th round, you don't know.

 

And by the way Tmar, it is very normal for later round QBs to out perform 1st round QBs. It happens all the time.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 09:45 PM)

1. My point was that where ever Turner goes.. Failure follows..

 

2. Again, you fail to realize the system that was in place. When it was annoucnce that we were taking on the KC/St louis Offense, I said that going into the 2006 season; if everyone stayed healthy we would have a great team.  Take a look at both KC and St louis Numbers the first year Dick Vermil put the system into place, its not the systems fault for not having the proper players in it.

 

3. See again Agree to disagree, I think GB realized this is the start of the Demiss, and is covering its butt..IMO this is Farves last year. I think Rodgers will excel with a few tweaks in his mechanics, and with farves teaching GB did a wonderful job. Granted those Def guys would help out this year, but if Farve retires.. then where do they go, when a guy like Rodgers falls into your lap you have to grab him.. Much like the bears did with Orton.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We will have to see. I would have rather had Campbell, Frye, Orton, or McPherson. I would have rather had Marlin Jackson in the first round. JMO.

[T R U]

What are you trying to say that Brett Favre is not as good as Dan McGwire or Todd Marinovich? In the same draft Brett Favre was taekn in the 2nd round those two others were taken in the first. Would you have passed up the talents of Dan McGwire and Todd Marinovich for the likes of Brett Favre? Why would you do that when a scout who does scouting for a living deem to be better than a guy who goes in the 2nd? Your supposed to pass up 1st round talent and settle for Brett Favre?

 

The point is you never know how any of these picks will turn out. It doesn't matter if it is the 1st round or 5th round, you don't know.

 

And by the way Tmar, it is very normal for later round QBs to out perform 1st round QBs. It happens all the time.

 

Your lucky as hell if you get a QB drafted in the later rounds that turns out to be a franchise Quarterback for you..

 

You think NE was sitting in their war room before their pick in the 6th round laughing their ass off because they knew they were about to steal a Super Bowl MVP? Yeah, I doubt that...

 

The % of succesful late round QB's is NOT something you should be banking your franchise on.. Green Bay made the right choice, you take the safer pick..

 

There is a reason Orton, Orlovski, and McPherson were late round picks.. If they were = to Rodgers they would have been 1st round or even 2nd round picks as well dont you think??

 

Not only does your argument for this not make sense, it makes you look like you know nothing about the draft.. There might not ever be another Tom Brady again, you dont sit around hoping to find one..

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 09:55 PM)

Your lucky as hell if you get a QB drafted in the later rounds that turns out to be a franchise Quarterback for you..

 

You think NE was sitting in their war room before their pick in the 6th round laughing their ass off because they knew they were about to steal a Super Bowl MVP? Yeah, I doubt that...

 

The % of succesful late round QB's is NOT something you should be banking your franchise on.. Green Bay made the right choice, you take the safer pick..

 

There is a reason Orton, Orlovski, and McPherson were late round picks.. If they were = to Rodgers they would have been 1st round or even 2nd round picks as well dont you think??

 

Not only does your argument for this not make sense, it makes you look like you know nothing about the draft.. There might not ever be another Tom Brady again, you dont sit around hoping to find one..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Don't attempt to insult me because you yourself are being made to look like a fool. The percentage of a succesful QB taken at anytime is not something anyone should be banking on. It is hit and miss no matter where you take him. There is a reason Favre, Brooks, Hasselbeck, Green, Brees, Delhomme, Warner, and Bulger not 1st round picks correct? Because they were no where near as good as the likes of Dan McGwire and Todd Marinovich? How about Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith or Tim Couch? How are they working out?

Edited April 25, 2005 by southsideirish

[T R U]

Don't attempt to insult me because you yourself are being made to look like a fool. The percentage of a succesful QB taken at anytime is not something anyone should be banking on. It is hit and miss no matter where you take him. There is a reason Favre, Brooks, Hasselbeck, Green, Brees, Delhomme, Warner, and Bulger not 1st round picks correct? Because they were no where near as good as the likes of Dan McGwire and Todd Marinovich? How about Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith or Tim Couch? How are they working out?

 

How about Peyton Manning or Donovan McNabb?

 

Culpepper?

 

Carr?

 

Leftwhich?

 

Pennington?

 

Vick?

 

You cant bank your franchise on getting lucky with late round picks.. Im done arguing with your ignorant ass..

[ZoomSlowik]

Hold on a second here, let's look at all of the top QB's in the league and where they went in the draft.

 

Peyton Manning- #1 overall

Dante Culpepper- #11 overall

Tom Brady- 6th round

Brett Favre- Second Round

Donovan McNabb- 3rd overall

Michael Vick (I know, he's a RB playing QB, he's still makes one of the biggest impacts)- 1st overall

Steve McNair- can't remember exactly where he went, but he was either a late first or second round pick.

 

To me those are the only major upgrades over the rest of the league. Only one of them was taken after the second round, and an arguement can be made that Brady wouldn't be there if he were on a weaker team. You do never know what you are going to get, but many more of the first round picks become successes than in the later rounds. The guys that stick around for the long run are more likely to be top picks. If you are looking for a backup that might step in and succeed as a starter for a year or two, then you can take a chance on a later round pick. But if you want to get a QB that is going to be an above average starter for many years, you almost have to take them early. More importantly, the success rate isn't any higher for taking players at other positions high in the draft. I'd much rather have a guy that was predicted to go in the top 10 by pretty much everyone than a second or third tier player at another position.

Edited April 25, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[T R U]

Hold on a second here, let's look at all of the top QB's in the league and where they went in the draft.

 

Peyton Manning- #1 overall

Dante Culpepper- #11 overall

Tom Brady- 6th round

Brett Favre- Second Round

Donovan McNabb- 3rd overall

Michael Vick (I know, he's a RB playing QB, he's still makes one of the biggest impacts)- 1st overall

Steve McNair- can't remember exactly where he went, but he was either a late first or second round pick.

 

To me those are the only major upgrades over the rest of the league. Only one of them was taken after the second round, and an arguement can be made that Brady wouldn't be there if he were on a weaker team. You do never know what you are going to get, but many more of the first round picks become successes than in the later rounds. The guys that stick around for the long run are more likely to be top picks. If you are looking for a backup that might step in and succeed as a starter for a year or two, then you can take a chance on a later round pick. But if you want to get a QB that is going to be an above average starter for many years, you almost have to take them early.

 

 

Check and Mate

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 10:04 PM)

How about Peyton Manning or Donovan McNabb?

 

Culpepper?

 

Carr?

 

Leftwhich?

 

Pennington?

 

Vick?

 

You cant bank your franchise on getting lucky with late round picks.. Im done arguing with your ignorant ass..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You jsut helped prove my point. It is hit or miss no matter where you pick a QB. Early or late. It doesn't matter. What has Carr, Leftwich, or Pennington proven so far? 17 or 18 NFL teams will have 1st round QBs starting for them. How many of them have proven to be good yet? The others are all QBs taken later in the draft or FAs. It is not a sure thing no matter where you take them. Ignorant? I don't believe you even know what you are arguing about anymore. Fool.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 10:06 PM)

Check and Mate

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah you did a lot of research there T R U. Good job.

[T R U]

yeah you did a lot of research there T R U. Good job.

 

Just give it up... no one here agrees with you... and you dont even make any sense.. Again you just look like a moron

[ZoomSlowik]

The point isn't whether you can find a mediocre quarterback that gets by for a year or two in the later rounds. Clearly you can. But how many franchise-type QB's get taken on the second day of the draft? In the last 20 years it's basically Brady, with Young coming out of the USFL. Not exactly a high success rate there.

[T R U]

The point isn't whether you can find a mediocre quarterback that gets by for a year or two in the later rounds. Clearly you can. But how many franchise-type QB's get taken on the second day of the draft? In the last 20 years it's basically Brady, with Young coming out of the USFL. Not exactly a high success rate there.

 

Thats the point but SS doesnt seem to grasp it..

 

If QB's rated 1st round talents were = to 5th round talents then why even take a QB in the first round??

 

Smith and Rodgers were closely rated, are you saying Smith is no better than Orton??

 

s*** why even take a QB in the first round, according to Irish you can just pick one up day 2 and be set :headshake

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 10:04 PM)

Hold on a second here, let's look at all of the top QB's in the league and where they went in the draft.

 

Peyton Manning- #1 overall

Dante Culpepper- #11 overall

Tom Brady- 6th round

Brett Favre- Second Round

Donovan McNabb- 3rd overall

Michael Vick (I know, he's a RB playing QB, he's still makes one of the biggest impacts)- 1st overall

Steve McNair- can't remember exactly where he went, but he was either a late first or second round pick.

 

To me those are the only major upgrades over the rest of the league. Only one of them was taken after the second round, and an arguement can be made that Brady wouldn't be there if he were on a weaker team. You do never know what you are going to get, but many more of the first round picks become successes than in the later rounds. The guys that stick around for the long run are more likely to be top picks. If you are looking for a backup that might step in and succeed as a starter for a year or two, then you can take a chance on a later round pick. But if you want to get a QB that is going to be an above average starter for many years, you almost have to take them early.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First, we were not arguing about later than 2nd, but after the first.

 

I would say there is just as much success rate in a QB taken after then 1st round.

 

Tim Couch, Cade McNown, and Akili Smith were in the same draft that produced Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper. Peyton Manning was in the same draft as Ryan Leaf. Drew Brees, who some consider last years MVP, was taken in the 2nd round of the same draft as Michael Vick, who may be overrated as a QB.

 

The success rate is the same. You are taking a chance mo matter where you draft the QB. I don't think Rodgers was worth the pick for the Packers when they had other needs to fill.

[southsideirish]

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 25, 2005 -> 10:09 PM)

Just give it up... no one here agrees with you... and you dont even make any sense.. Again you just look like a moron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Damn shame with the insults.

[T R U]

Steve McNair- can't remember exactly where he went, but he was either a late first or second round pick.

 

McNair was the 3rd Overall pick in 1995