Camp Weds notes

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by riczaj01, Jul 31, 2013.

  1. Xa0sG0rilla

    Xa0sG0rilla

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +55 / 0 / -0
    At the risk of sounding like an idiot, any NFL team should ALWAYS be in the business of developing a QB. If the team in question can't draft a QB to develop, then the developmental QB ends up being an UDFA (mostly by default).

    Not doing so is how the Bears have ended up having to overpay for an average to average+ QB. It is also how the Bears have ended up with O-linemen who don't have to compete for their starting jobs. Which is how the Bears have ended up with an O-line that ranks in the bottom third (at best) in the NFL.
    • Like Like x 4
  2. blinddeafmute

    blinddeafmute

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    24,842
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,254 / 4 / -2
    AGREE 100 PERCENT.

    THIS ALL CAPS THING IS GETTING IRRITATING....
  3. weneedmorelinemen

    weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +265 / 0 / -0
    Blanchard has not sat for 3 years. He was a UDFA rookie last year and was on our practice squad in 2012. Of course he didn't get reps last year.

    You are talking about cutting the lone vet backup QB and only going with a kid that has not played in a regular season NFL game, and was not on the active 53 man roster. That is stupidly risky. You only have training camp and preseason to judge if he is any good. That's not enough data. He's a #3 until he proves on the field during the regular season that we do not need McCown.

    Campbell playing poorly last year is inconsequential to what is the right decision when it comes to a #2 QB. I'll take the vet over the unproven undrafted rookie any day of the week. It's the right call, we just picked the wrong guy.
  4. riczaj01

    riczaj01

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,093
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,827 / 5 / -4
    That's all anyone has on their qb before they play them. That's all NE had on Brady before they started him. Most times a team does not have NFL game film on their future starter or backup.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. blinddeafmute

    blinddeafmute

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    24,842
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,254 / 4 / -2
    MANY BACKUPS TO A VETERAN QB ARE UNPROVEN. IM NOT SAYING THAT BLANCHARD IS THE RIGHT BACKUP TO DEVELOP, BUT THE STRATEGY OF OVERPAYING A PROVEN VETERAN IS A BAD STRATEGY.
  6. weneedmorelinemen

    weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +265 / 0 / -0
    Actually, teams should develop players they are good at identifying as being good in the first place.

    We've tried drafting low round and UDFA QB's to develop. Orton, LeFevour, Hanie, and Enderle were poor attempts by our previous management to develop QBs. We'd have been better off focusing that effort on offensive linemen, if we only had the coaching personnel during that time that could coach and identify o-line talent, which they could not do either.

    The only thing Lovie and JA could evaluate better than most teams were lower round, UDFA , or castoff defensive players from other teams, and that success trailed off towards the end of their run.
  7. weneedmorelinemen

    weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +265 / 0 / -0
    Brady had a year on the 53 man roster with Belichic in 2000 before he was asked to play in 2001. That's two camps, and he started off as the 4th stringer in 2000 until he worked his way up throughout that year to the 2nd string. And this is Bill Belichick doing the offensive evaluation, and he's an offensive genius.

    Trestman does not know what BLanchard can do. He doesn't know him, and I'd rather have McCown and Blanchard on the roster this year than just rolling the dice with Blanchard and a 7th inactive WR.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. riczaj01

    riczaj01

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,093
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,827 / 5 / -4
    But McCown and Blanchard are both getting tons of work so that Trestman can know them. And you have to stop w/the historically bad qb thing of the Bears, new GM and new HC, a HC that has proven to be able to get the absolute best of even average qb's.
    And this would be the 2nd offseason for Blanchard. Again it's not that I like Blanchard, team should have traded back and got more picks to get a rookie this year in the 2-4th rounds. They didn't so it's who we are stuck with. Your theory is along the lines of keeping the OL together even though they are all no good b/c they have "chemistry". But Chemistry has to come after actual talent; and McCown has no talent so it doesn't matter that he's played before. W/Trestman here I have complete faith that he'd have Blanchard prepared. The question is then, does he have the talent to play.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. JPosh2012

    JPosh2012

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -0
    Oh swell..........
  10. JPosh2012

    JPosh2012

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -0
    That is a good thing IMO that they are giving the #2 and #3 guys reps especially considering Cutler's injury history.

    Regarding the development QB and drafting a guy, here's the problem expect for Barkley the draft class SUCKED this year for QB's. Their wasn't anyone worth taking minus Barkley and only because he will be a good WCO QB I think.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. weneedmorelinemen

    weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +265 / 0 / -0
    Trestman just got here. They are getting one training camp of work. That is not near enough to base a decision to go with only one QB, and that QB having never taken a regular season snap.

    McCown has no talent? Bull. He's a backup caliber QB. Should he be developed into starter? Hell no. But he played well enough to beat the Vikings in 2011 after being on the roster for just a short while. And his years in the NFL are invaluable as a backup. It is impossible for anyone to have Blanchard ready to play right now at a capable level. Okay week 1, Cutler goes down to a concussion, McCown is gone because you don't like old players, and Blanchard steps in. You think he's ready to handle the load? How? How do the coaches know that when they have zero NFL tape on the kid? How do you know he won't lock up out there, or panic? Now who do you go to? And don't give me that "they are getting one training camp of work" business. Whatt, all five weeks?

    You know what about the HC being "proven to be able to get the best out of every QB", how about we let him o that first. When we first got Tice, how many people proclaimed him an offensive line guru, and he would develop the o-line? And shit, let him fix Cutler and not worry about carrying all his eggs in one basket. Trestman is not a miracle worker.

    It makes zero sense to cut the vet backup QB so you can carry one #2 that has never played the game and an extra inactive player, when you can carry a #3 emergency QB that can play.
  12. riczaj01

    riczaj01

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,093
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,827 / 5 / -4
    Really he's a backup caliber QB? The guy that was coaching HS football until the Bears got desperate is backup quality?!?!?!? Boy you must have loved Campbell...
  13. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,558
    Likes Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +773 / 2 / -0
    ahhhh... there's the old Bears OL we know and lov(i)e
  14. weneedmorelinemen

    weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +265 / 0 / -0
    Yes. McCown is backup quality because he has played and won regular season NFL games. Blanchard is third string quality because he has no game experience and played division III ball. You got it! Yes, I can be a smartass too :)

    When Blanchard has been with the team on the 53 man roster for the 2013 season, Trestman can judge him over a long term evaluation than just a few weeks in camp. Maybe during a blowout game or two if we have any, he'll put him in. Get some tape on him. See how he does with the scout team this year. Watch how he studies and prepares for game day. Then, next year, if he has done well in practice and OTA's, he could be elevated to the backup #2 position. It would be very early, considering he was a UDFA and did not play against real stiff competition in college, but that is how the process should work.

    Under no circumstances should we cut our only vet backup QB and go with a complete unknown with no #3 QB. The risk in a move like that far exceeds the reward of another guy on the inactive list come game day.
  15. riczaj01

    riczaj01

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    19,093
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +1,827 / 5 / -4
    McCown is a shit qb that was coaching HS, ie no longer in the league after every team...including the Bears....decided he wasn't NFL quality. Then the Bears get desperate and bring him back in and now he's backup quality again. Hey JRussel won NFL games too, doesn't mean he's backup quality. Rex Grossman got to a SB, and he's NOT backup quality.

    Why not cut him? Who's going to pick him up? No one...that's right absolutely no team is going to pick up McCown...why....b/c he blows as a qb. This is the Campbell situation all over again. The young guy isn't experienced enough so you cannot have him...but if that's the case how do you ever get him experience? Oh you don't? circuluar logic is all your giving me. Every qb at one point was young and inexpereinced, in your theory Joe Montana, Steve Young and Donte Culpepper should still be in the league.
  16. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,558
    Likes Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +773 / 2 / -0

    It has actually worked both ways. I've seen rooks come in and play lights out and you wonder why they didn't put them in earlier (49ers good example), and have seen rooks come in and stink it up (Bears good example).

    I really don't know if you can say there is a clear concensus on this. I think it depends on the rook in question. Hell, sometimes even the coaches he has worked with for a year are surprised at how good or how bad they do.

    I don't have a problem with Blanchard -- I like the guy, but I have no idea if he is ready or how well he would do. Hell, I thought Hanie was going to do well.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. weneedmorelinemen

    weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +265 / 0 / -0
    Joe Montana, Steve Young, and Dante Culpepper should still be in the league? What the hell are you talking about? Stay on topic. I'm talking about yours and MP68's idea that we should let Blanchard be the #2, cut McCown, and most stupidly, go with only two quarterbacks on the roster so we can carry a 7th WR or some other nobody on the inactive roster. That's the dumb idea I've been talking about, and after further review, it is still a dumb idea :).

    Phil Emery's job is to field the most complete team that he can. Blanchard is not ready to start a game. He does not know how to play the game at the NFL level yet. How hard is that concept to grasp? We do not have the roster depth at QB to feel comfortable going with only two quarterbacks. Emery just tried this stunt with Jason Campbell last year, and found himself scrambling to get McCown back here after Cutler got dinged up. You think he wants to do that again, but this time with a kid that never played an NFL game?

    Is McCown a strong #2 QB? No. But he's played in the NFL. He can start a game. He knows what he is doing, and he knows this team. Most importantly, he knows Cutler, and is liked by him. Really, Jay needs all the friends he can get on this team. He can use an older, wiser QB helping him with Trestman's playbook. The 2013 Bears season is not to get experience for our backup QB so we can develop him. It's to have a guy ready to play if Cutler goes down or simply needs a breather.

    I could give two shits about Blanchard getting reps in an NFL game in 2013. All I care about is that he does not have game reps right now. That's his problem. That means he can't be my #2 QB, especially with no one backing him up. Right now, at this moment in his career, Blanchard is a nobody that crushed Division III level players who has good physical tools but needs a ton of work. What, do you think Tice gave him any attention at all on the practice squad last year? And if he did, it was Tice doing the teaching. He needs to forget that and learn from real coaches.

    I hope this logic was much more straight forward and not of the circular variety.
  18. MPbears68

    MPbears68

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    3,744
    Likes Received:
    747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +853 / 1 / -0
    This topic is endless and we beat it to death months ago. The traditional route has been to go with the classic "vet backup" in the #2 spot while trying to develop a young, raw #3 who's not ready to play yet. That's what I'm used to seeing and what we have set up in camp so far. I do see Ric's point that (most of the time) the typical vet backup is a has-been former failed starter or a "never was" vet that gets way more money than he's worth and is a waste.

    There may be some extenuating circumstances here, but I think we can agree that Jason Campbell was a waste of $3.5 million last year. He definitely sucked. A much cheaper alternative would have done no worse and won no less. Emery must have agreed since he never ever hinted about bringing him back.

    I argued for (and was flamed for it) McCown to brought back before he was this last offseason. My rationale was that he had good rapport with Cutler, recent history with the team, knew the system/players, and was a CHEAP option until we had somebody else ready to go. Another advantage was that he could be cut if need be and brought back if need be almost at will--very unlikely any other team is going to pick him up. All of the above is still true right now.

    I have no idea where Blanchard is right now in his progress. If this PS shows him to be much improved and ready as a player, then yeah I think McC should be cut and we go with two (like the Packers do, their backup is a no-name). If not, then we keep him as he's cheap until we don't need him anymore. It's really not that complicated.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  19. weneedmorelinemen

    weneedmorelinemen

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +265 / 0 / -0
    Wait, that's not true about the Packers. They have Graham Harrell, who has been on the team since 2010 and is now their backup QB. They had a 3rd stringer last year in BJ Coleman. He's still there. They don't go with two QB's. And their backup QB is someone they have developed into a backup that the coaches know and apparently trust.

    I think you guys are completely missing that it is impossible for Trestman to correctly evaluate if Blanchard is ready to play in the NFL with no safety net behind him. He's not psychic. There just is not enough time or plays in a camp to do that.
  20. MPbears68

    MPbears68

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    3,744
    Likes Received:
    747
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings:
    +853 / 1 / -0
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe Green Bay carried only 2 QBs last year (or after Flynn left). And even if they didn't, I know for sure that they didn't do the typical "vet backup" thing. Graham Harrell is a udfa from a smallish college and is a zero in terms of actual playing experience. He's been in on a few RS plays in garbage time and has one fumbled snap to show for it. He's no different than Hanie or Blanchard.

Share This Page