I've always been critical of people thinking the Bears were going to develop a QB from some undiscovered gem. Problem I had with this idea is the offensive coaches we've had like Tice and Turner were completely incapable of developing a starting QB, let alone a scrub. And Lovie would throw his support behind whoever's name was penciled in as the starting QB.
Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99
With Trestman, I feel that posters can finally let their imaginations run wild. Whereas last year I was of the mind that Blanchard could stay or go, now I'm interested to see what Trestman can do with him. I don't feel like I need to hope for magic QB pixie dust to make him good.
High Fives / Like - 4 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
If Blanchard isn't the guy, then take a guy in the 4th-5th. Like Grizz said this is a time to be proactive at the position and not reactive, and there are scenerio's that lend to Cutler not being around for 2-5 years after this one, for a multitude of reasons.
There are a ton of issues on this team, but if qb is the most imporant position, then the backup is definately up there, and some failure retred is hardly going to patch it up; and will be an huge caphit to boot.
It will be interesting to see what happens w/Melton b/c if the team cannot afford to keep him(ranked 2nd in the upcoming FA period) then the Bears might be able to FT/trade him and get picks. which would open up the possibility of filling more holes; 2nd OL, QB, DE, etc etc.
One of the things that I couldn't understand, regarding young QB's during the Angelo/Lovie years, was that we never seemed to commit to any of the young guys. Angelo would sign a "project" and he'd be here a short while (very brief time) and then the next youngster would be signed. I understand that projects are a roll of the dice, but we often didn't keep them long enough to develop them.
Originally Posted by weneedmorelinemen
At some point, I think you identify a guy who has all of the attributes you want in a prospect, and you commit to developing him. But that takes two things we didn't have:
1. A solid talent evaluator.
2. A coach who had the skills to develop a QB.
If Trestman truly is a solid quarterback developer, then I'm hoping he identifies the raw youngster that he believes in - and then he commits to making him, at the very least, a rock solid backup to Cutler. And who knows, maybe even a guy who can step into Cutler's role, once he is past his prime, and we need a new guy.
If you look at history in the NFL, you see that a lot of great QB's were not high draft picks. And many top draft picks, including Heisman winners, and #1 overall draft picks too - were busts.
Thanks For The Memories
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
I agree that we have "bigger" needs but you have to realize the fact that if Cutler goes down (again) it has the potential to tank our season with no backup plan. IMO after round 2 we should at least be considering the option of a qb. with the right value (no reaches)
As mentioned before, there are some scenarios where Cutler wont be here for another 2-5 years (not that I want him replaced, but with a new staff, and his concussion history there are not gaurentees.)
IF Blanchard is the guy to eventually take the reins then I will excited and that is fine, but if were kidding ourselves its not worth costing us another season like 2011.
Manuel,Scott,Klein, would be on my radar if I'm Trestman/Emery, if we get a guy with good value somewhere in the draft, then im all for pulling the trigger, if not then no need to reach on a pick we can see what Trestman can do with Blanchard.
We already have a developmental QB on the roster with prototypical size, good foot speed, and a college rep for a strong and accurate arm. Yes, I know he played Div III ball and he's totally raw beyond a few decent series last preseason and one year on the practice squad. But...what makes anyone think that Manuel or Scott or Klein is going to be a much better prospect than we already have in Blanchard???
Originally Posted by Grizzblue
Unless there's some compelling reason I'm not seeing yet, I think drafting a QB "just for development" would be wasteful this year when we have needs (even down-draft) and only 5 picks to use.
Well, I'm all in on Matt Scott, if only because he's as cool of a qb as there is. True, Nick Foles beat him out each year for the starting role, but he willingly took a redshirt sophomore season after playing as a freshman, which shows he's a total team player. The biggest "red flag" I see with him is that he's viewed as being too small framed to be a starting QB. I could swear that was the knock on Tom Brady.
Prospect: Matt Scott, QB, ArizonaHeight: 6’ 2.5”
Grade: 6.3 (Grading Scale)
Scouting Report: Athleticism: +Shows good footwork and acceleration on rollouts
+Able to make strong throws with balance on the move to his right
+Has good speed and quick acceleration as a runner
-Average height; listed by school at 6’3” but by scouting sources as 6’2” and appears closer to the latter
-Skinny build, small framed for his height
Arm Talent: +Able to throw the ball down the field with zip
+Throws a tight spiral that doesn’t wobble down the field
+Has good high release point and compact delivery
+Able to generate strong velocity while on the move
-Tends to aim shorter throws
-Accuracy is streaky and goes away for prolonged periods (see UCLA game)
-Trajectory is low on shorter throws and when on the move Pocket Presence: +Can stand in pocket from shotgun and step forward
+Feels backside rush, able to climb the ladder without rushing
+Has good mobility and escapability both forward and to the sides
-Will roll out even with no pressure
-Tends to short-arm throws under pressure and not on the run Command of Offense: +Quickly called plays and directed formations in the Wildcats no-huddle spread
+Able to operate at an up-tempo pace and in two minute situations (see USC & Nevada games)
+Showed some ability to check out of plays and adjust at the line
+Not afraid to run and create with his legs when given an opening
-Seldom works through progressions, goes to primary option even if it’s not there far too often
-Inexperienced showed with miscommunications with his receivers (see Oregon and UCLA games)
-Only reads half the field
-Has a tendency to stare down his target, no eye manipulation of the defense
+Showed team-first attitude by waiting out early QB shuffling and redshirting his senior season to get a chance to start in 2012
+Rallied team from large deficits with poise and confidence
+Gave positive support to receivers after drops
+Able to put mistakes in prior games behind him
-Took a backseat to Nick Foles because of poor play Overall:
Scott had quite a star-crossed career at Arizona. He initially won the starting job in his sophomore year only to lose it to Nick Foles, who kept Scott largely on the bench for three years. After redshirting as a true senior in 2011, Scott took over in 2012 and made up for lost time. He is a mobile quarterback with good quickness and will time out as one of the fastest QBs in this draft. He has a live arm with solid mechanics, and he throws very well on the run. He was an excellent fit for Rich Rodriguez’s shotgun spread offense. Much like Christian Ponder, Scott is prone to having very bad games and strings of prolonged inaccuracy. But those are offset by gutsy, heroic performances where his creativity and unwavering confidence serve him well. With more experience and solid coaching to develop consistency and stability, Scott should make it as a backup QB with developmental potential to eventually start in the right circumstance. He figures to be drafted in the 5th or 6th round but could work his way into the 4th with a good workout season. Scouting Notes Arizona vs. Oregon
-Shows ability to throw deep with accuracy on the move
-Lined up in shotgun almost exclusively
-Missed high on throw to open receiver in back of end zone
-Forced ball into double coverage on 3rd down
-Fired strike to wide sideline between layers of the defense
-Consistently showed good weight transfer and a strong over-the-top release
-Failed to get team into end zone on four consecutive drives into red zone
Arizona vs. Nevada
-Hit receiver in stride on intermediate crossing route
-Threw behind an open receiver on 3rd down
-Stared at target and threw high, resulting in INT
-Perfect strike between closing defenders while running to his right
-Showed arm strength to throw back across the field with zip
-Led furious comeback, trailed by 13 with under two minutes to go and got the win
If Blanchard is the guy fine, but he's another udfa and division 3 prospect. I'm sure there's a reason for that
Klien Scott and Manuel would all be upgrades, the real question will be if we get one late enough to make the value of the pick worth it
I agree we have more pressing needs but "next man up" isn't a good way to approach the qb position, not for a team serious about winning now and later on
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
I'd rather see us keep Blanchard and develop him. I think with Trestman he has great potential. I am not a big Scott fan to begin with plus we have too many needs to fill.
In my only Mock offseason so far, I have us taking Scott. I think he could end up as steal. He has the tools but really really needs work to become a NFL QB
I read the title and the first words that came to mind was hell no. We have a young QB already and unless he not worth a damn and since we just resigned him he should be ok, we don't need to draft one we need a Vet to back up Cutler. I don't see us or most any team carrying 4 QBs even if one is on the PS at least not at the start of the season. So why waste money getting someone just to cut them or the guy we have on the PS. To lazy to look up his name.