Lucky Luciano

this linear thinking is what MAY win battles or skirmishes but not the war. pace OBVIOUSLY does not have a doubt (as much as one can predict in the entire draft scenario of the NFL) that this guy has the POTENTIAL to become a franchise qb. you on the other hand want skill players who without a doubt start day one or as the media consensus pushes "the most ready to start" player. what GOOD gm's should be looking for in the draft are players who can play at the highest level for 5-10 YEARS and not just be able to play at HOF level their rookie season to appease the masses in the media or the stands that one year. it's fools gold nonsense that this franchise has done for decades. cade mcnown was one of if not 'the' "most ready to start" qb when we drafted him according to the media. how did that turn out? look at my post of HOF quarterbacks in this thread that were very high first round picks. every one of those listed did NOT start the entire season. in your 'scenario' we would have passed on each one of those players because they were not ready to start the opening game in their rookie season thus "not worthy" according to you. finally... did you REALLY believe we could have won a superbowl this season EVEN if we started trub? seriously? you keep harping about how the bears should tank the season so we get a better draft pick next year. how does that fit into this scenario?

hmmmmmm...... just HOF quarterbacks: namath drafted #1 - played in 13 games started 9 games - 14 game season troy aikman drafted #1 - played in 11 games, started 11 games - 15 game season Bobby Layne drafted #3 (bears) - played in 11 games, started 1 game 12 game season John Elway drafted #1 - played in 11 games, started 10 games - 16 game season Terry Bradshaw drafted #1 - played in 13 games, started 8 games - 14 game season Bob Griese drafted #4 - played in 12 games, started 10 - 14 game season Len Dawson drafted #5 - played in 3 games, started 1 - 12 game season Sammy Baugh drafted #6 - played in 11 games, started 5 games - 11 game season Steve Young drafted #1 - played in 5 games, started 5 games - 16 game season Sid Luckman drafted #2 - played in 11 games, started 7 games - 11 game season Otto Graham drafted #4 - played in 14 games, started 9 games - 14 game season

how is a stop gap player a hindrance to any rookie and especially a qb? it limits his learning the system by trial of fire? i don't believe that at all. in complex positions like qb, LT wr and cb these are skills that take time to adjust to in the nfl because the the vast gap in player quality and speed between college or semi pro and the nfl. limited action, watching the game from the sidelines and viewing game film has to be a plus in the mental aspects of this sport. you also assume that the player the bears coveted in the draft, qb, was actually going to be there when the bears picked. if they targeted one specific qb and he was gone then what? what if you had to draft a player who really needed a year or even two to become acclimated to the nfl? or what if that qb was destined to be an average at BEST qb in their opinion? that is one MAIN reason they chose glennon. they thought, wrongly as it turns out, that IF that player they wanted wasn't there they may have gone at a different position in the draft in round 1 or have chosen a qb who wasn't capable of their vision of the future or one who took multiple years to show his talent.

agreed. in this case, hind sight is 20/20.

i'm sorry but that is not even realistic. they picked up glennon as a stop gap qb or maybe a dark horse who with more time could be a 'good' qb and had targeted a qb in the draft. in my opinion it was a smart move even if the cost was salary wise high. it gave us in theory time to groom a young qb to compete in the nfl when we filled out our offense in the draft which included offensive lineman. it also gave us a possible 'good' qb as trade bait for future picks. there is no possible way you would not have started glennon for at least the time involved he started for us. it would have been stupid to not even give him a shot at starting. did it turn out? NO it did not. i don't think anyone could have perceived glennon being this bad. the decisions were sound but the results turned out not as expected. so it goes.

i have to agree with you. what could anything have possibly hurt this team by taking out glennon? really though, i never have seen a team quit at the start of the 4th quarter before. i have seen them play bad before and i have seen them start a rb or te because both qb's were out injured, but never have i seen them give up and run the ball up the middle play after play with that much time left in a real game with a first string qb calling the plays. it was mind boggling. even if they didn't put in trubinsky throw the ball downfield. even if it's intercepted or incomplete at least look like you are trying to win the game at that point in time.

i don't recall EVER seeing a team quit at the start of the 4th quarter. we were down by a lot but cheezus h. ceerist, run the ball for an entire quarter? why not just kneel on it and save the wear and tear on our running backs? this was a shameful pretense of an nfl game.

if there is please list them as i didn't see anything that would say this was a professional football team. glennon? hope you banked your salary cause it's the last one you will ever see in the nfl. if they actually start him again fox and pace both better be touching up their resumes. our offensive coordinator? what the hell kind of a game plan was that? if you have that little faith in your qb there is no reason to even start him. just run the pistol or whatever the hell they call it for the whole game. is this some whitehair impersonator? if not, he is playing like garbage. any hack could look as bad as him. where is shaw at these days? if trubisky needs more time someone needs to start this offense that can play in the major leagues. glennon is not even a #3 qb if this is all he has. the defense? what defense? it's not as bad as under tucker but we are closing in on it. so far fangio either doesn't have a clue or else our personnel is worse than imagined. trevathon? that is the best you got? we are not thugs in chicago. you should have been ejected or at least benched. what an ugly, STOOOOPID play. what a god awful game.

i didn't watch the last game closely but the first game he did look bad. hope that doesn't turn out to be the norm.

this sounds very reasonable... good take. as stated before this is not a superbowl contender this season and the expectations of us making it so should be realistic. quite frankly i did project a winning season this year which could happen but without glennon doing a 180 i can't see this as the case. he just plain, to this point, looks like the face of every bad QB we have run through this organization for decades. we still are bringing in and evaluating talent. our offensive line has holes along with our receiving corp. on defense we still are not there on our defensive line putting pressure on the qb. we also have a waaays to go on our DB situation. it all takes time when going from a semi pro team talent pool to playing with the big boys. for whatever reason, the injuries we keep suffering are also hindering our successes. for that i have no solution for other than to say this is happening throughout the league. accept sucking - possibly in the right context but as far as the tanking goes... i don't believe that will happen and it should not ever happen. that is how you would completely lose a locker room.

the vampire!

i can somewhat agree that blaming an entire city for the few MAY be a bit overboard. but... death threats or threats of bodily injury to anyone and more pointedly his friends, family or children ESPECIALLY in this day and age when some idiot mental case wanting his name in the news can be real. i can see where it may sour a normal person or athlete to a city or region and cause him to lash out in a general term. fans need to throw this mindset to the curb. 99% of all athletes are trying their best to be the best. whether they are not successful because of physical or mental limits is inconsequential. the blame is not on the athlete. if anyone is to blame it is upon the organization. the people who hired him or coached him. so for me, the real life vicious fan or media threats in any form are flat out stupid and made by idiots.

totally disagree. if what they said is true, "Conte, who received death threats on social media over his mistakes with the Bears" then that is completely unacceptable. are some snap head bear fans turning into packer fans - the lindy infante coach who received death threats and more from scumbag packer fans? if true, chicago deserves the conte insult for what was supposed to have happened. it's truly embarrassing if that's the case.

agree. they have to open up the passing attack into the medium range and at least once or twice on a long ball to spread the defenses even if glennon doesn't have the touch on those long balls. i think the coaching staff will adjust. this was a shakedown game.

agree. seems like a great kid with a great attitude. just has brittle bones unfortunately.

i missed some of the game but... i thought glennon had a good game. he moved the ball downfield when he had to and made some very nice passes. on the long ball he threw it was a fraction of a second slow but still a very catchable ball if the defender didn't make a good play on knocking it away (or was it holding him? whatever). critical drops at critical times and everybody praises his game for the most part. i am optimistic he can play with adequate protection. i thought our offensive line was average at best. whitehair struggled in that game in my opinion and caused some critical mistakes. the two penalties hurt us not to mention the bad snap. massie looked ok with the exception of the final play where he got beat at a critical game changing moment. i thought leno also looked ok to good through out the game. we need to get long back in the mix. our run blocking was not very good. if not for the moves by cohen it would have been a sad day for our run offense. this was our game plan... run the ball. wide receivers were average at best with no threat downfield and not much separation. out te's looked good, especially simms. on defense i thought our DL looked mediocre at best. not a lot of pressure on the qb in passing downs but they did look good on run defense. hicks looked like he was recovering from a hangover from celebrating his new contract. he looked lethargic at times and out of gas on others. not much from floyd on the outside either. i don't know how good the falcons o line is but the controlled our DL for most of the game. freeman had a monster game at lb. our safeties were ok with the exception of the long gains which killed the game. fuller looked ok at cb and they seemed to limit the falcons offense to a short zone attack. not happy with the outcome but it could have been a lot worse. this team does NOT give up.

1. who cares? i don't care if they were a first round #1 pick or 12th round pick. that's the hype that makes no sense to me. the slots in the draft are for talent and potential supposedly. i have heard the "most ready to start" or "picked that high he has to be a starter" BS for years and years. it's a stupid way to determine when to start ANY player and ESPECIALLY a quarterback! this is a media give me a story to run with scenario or fan's howling for the #2 qb to start nonsense. it's gm or coaching desperation in many/most cases. staubach - i really don't understand what you are talking about. staubach was a 10th round pick that was drafted one year before his college eligibility was over. he was drafted in 1964 and served out his military commitment and became a ROOKIE player two years later in 1969. in his rookie year as a player, 1969, he played in 6 games and started only ONE.

first of all i am not trying to "hide" anything. the point was to show 'some' quality qb's who benefited (AGAIN in my opinion) by not being thrown into the fire right out of the college ranks into NFL quality pro football. the discussion was in reference to the modern age of NFL pro ball which started in the 1950's thus the variety from that period for the qb's i selected. that said, i believe that sitting on the bench and watching games play out, watching game film, seeing how the professional ranks work with the mental and physical aspects of professional football is benefitial. i just don't see how it can't be a good thing. second: i realize some of these players were in different leagues. the canadian football league, the USFL and so on. i think you could include NFL europe in that scenario also. the point of this is the quality of these other leagues is NOT the same as the NFL pro level. the only league that comes to mind that was close is the original AFC before the merger. these players in other leagues were in essence grooming for the move into the NFL pro ranks where the best players in the world compete. it was/almost a semi-pro invironment. even then, take in mind, with that experience the qb's i mentioned did not start on day one for whatever reason. acclimation into the nfl? i would say it was a serious consideration by smart coaching staff. other reasons? sure, possibly. third: i did not just use first round picks (your favre example) because to me it is a moot point. the gulf is vast between college (and semi-pro) ball and NFL quality play no matter what 'round' you were drafted in or what organizatin you were acquired from. fourth: you mention hart. yes i was mistaken. coryell wasn't the coach he started out with. it was winner. does that matter? he still was not the opening day starter in 1966 and sat on the bench under winner. staubach - again, he was not a starter in the first two years of his career and played behind morton. i don't get your point on this. rivers - behind a sure HOF qb? brees? that is a complete misconception. brees career was just starting to shine after four years in SD. he looked very good by his fifth year and then was released after an injury and accquisation of rivers who sat behind brees for 2 years. but HOF quality at that time? no. but they WERE grooming rivers for the change. at the time of his release, brees, he was a rising star that BEGGED for the idiot jerry angelo to acquire him in chicago. it was one of the biggest gafs in bear history that we could have acquired a pro-bowl quality qb for NO COMPENSATION in his prime!!!!!! bobby lane - this was before my time. i never watched him play, only in highlight films. lane was similar to elway in many ways by refusing to play for the team that originally drafted him. he was acquired by halas who had two other qb's in the stable. the aging and soon to be gone luckman and johnny lujack. lane was the 3rd string qb and wanted out of chicago and was traded to the AFC bulldogs. so this in itself fits the scenario i portrayed. after the bulldogs went under i assume halas still had the rights to lane and thus traded this 'malcontent' to the lions. halas chose to keep lujack who was in rights a good successor to luckman (maybe or maybe NOT the best choice) until he was injured and eventually ended his career. this certainly had ramifications for the bears for years to come. fifth and last: no, i did NOT include qb's who started the first game of the first year in the NFL. that was my initial point. i stated that there are always exceptions but i also stated that in my opinion probably all would have benefited by sitting for a period of time to acclimate into pro NFL play. i still believe that.

most if not all of those players would have benefited with extra time for the acclimation in my opinion. many of the decisions to start rookies, especially first round picks is to get the biggest bang for the buck pressure or if the position they are filling is decimated. this holds true ESPECIALLY at the qb position. we are not in that position where the coaches or GM are engaging in the lovie syndrome. your best players on the field in pre-season scenario is truly the incorrect approach. if this were a gold standard hardly any of your veteran starters, pro-bowl or not, would start in this scenario. this is PRE-SEASON. most of all the young rookies are playing in spot rolls or against the 2nd and 3rd string opponents. this also coincides with vanilla offensive schemes on both sides of the ball. it is just not a yardstick to base a cognizant opinion on.

what does "Kodak" have to do with anything relating to football in any possible way? the grooming of draft picks over the last fifty years was accounted for and practiced extensively by nearly if not ALL franchises. the only difference between now and then is the pressure on management (the i want it NOW syndrome from fans and the media) and the fact that the time frames for player development have changed since the addition of more teams in the nfl, free agency and the cap. the "complexities and variables involved in the QB position" is EXACTLY the reason to let the most important player on your entire team become adjusted to the speed and complex defensive schemes in REAL games where it counts. he can learn on the sidelines or in the film room. we DO NOT NEED to start him early because this is the hump year to turn the corner for our future. it's a thousand to one shot we win a superbowl this season so why push it? "never had the opportunity"? you can't be serious. the quarterback position has been the absolute hardest to fill since the 'modern' age of professional football started. everyone wanted the next johnny unitis since the 1950's. who put the 2 year defining moment on qb grooming? if he sits for half a year or if it TAKES that 2 year period it's smart planning in my opinion. that said, do you really think on the practice field and pre-season games jim mccmahon couldn't "beat out" the likes of bob avellini or vince evans?? seriously? see above. first... glennon has looked poor for TWO pre-season games. this is an entire new offense to him and half the offensive team. REAL games with all your starters working together is where you make your evaluations on performance. pre-season is fools gold. even experienced qb's look poor in pre-season in MANY instances and especially in this day and age. the limited ability to practice certainly is a factor. next: your real game analysis is purely hypothetical or wishful thinking. payton manning is probably the most ready, smartest rookie to come together into the nfl maybe ever. he came in with a lot of college starts unlike trubinsky. his poor play and the stupid coaching gaffs in my opinion didn't help his acclimation into the nfl by learning through live fire. in my opinion if he weren't a really good and smart student of the game ball player who's father was in the nfl it could have changed the outcome of his career. who knows? in any case this is a knee jerk reaction this early in the season before a single regular season snap has taken place. give it time. we HAVE it for a change.

because this is how it was done for over 50 years before it was all the coaching pressure to win now, media hype, free agency, high rookie salaries, the cap and so forth. because it was smart. is this set in stone? absolutely not. there are plenty of exceptions but in my opinion it's a benefit to the player and the team in most instances. this was not only true on offense but defense as well. ask anyone who played under buddy ryan. it used to be a target for 3 years for a player to reach full potential. even with the likes of bob avellini and vince evans as your starters, mcmahon stood on the sidelines for half a season acclimating to the nfl. others? boomer esiason sat half a season jim hart sat a full season under coryell roger staubach sat for 2 years don meredith sat for 2 years aikman sat for 1/3 season elway sat for 1/3 season bobby lane 1 start first season bart starr started 1 game favre sat for a year len dawson sat for 2 years montana 1 start dan fouts started 6 games brees sat for a year rivers sat for 2 years roman gabriel sat for 2/3 season dan marino started 9 games bob griese started 10 games culpepper sat a year tarkenton started 10 games brady sat a year bledsoe sat 1/4 year eli manning started 7 games ken stabler sat a year namath started 9 games mcnabb started 6 games cunningham started 4 games jaworski sat a season rapesomberger 13 starts bradshaw 8 starts steve young 5 starts theismann sat 2 years

completely agree. we are not a superbowl contender, although i think it's a good possibility we can make the playoffs, so there is no NEED to rush him into the lineup. that is how you take a real chance to ruin a raw qb. give him some time and we could have a decade player who is more than average. who cares where he was drafted or how other draftee's compare. let's do the right thing for once and win the war, not the battle.

this is what i am hoping for. we went from amateur coaching to a pro coaching staff. fox brings in GREAT assistants and keeps the locker room on an even keel. i don't see a plus for getting rid of him at this point. we don't need the merry-go-round of coaching staffs certainly at this point in a complete rebuild. it would be mass confusion again for the players working with new assistants and coaching philosophy.

i really don't think we will suck this year. our defense is starting to come together and give our DB's some time to get sorted out and gel together i think they should be adequate. don't forget mcphee is coming back and hicks and gold looked pretty good. on offense... it is certainly too early to tell anything yet. glennon will get better as the season goes on and i'm really hoping he does. he also wasn't working with all of our starters on the OL. wait for the dust to settle on this. one question, was grasu in the game last night? trubisky - i was really impressed with his accuracy. it's still way to early to tell yet but wow, if he continues to improve mentally we could have something special. i am hoping glennon looks good and gives trubinsky that year he needs to put it together. as far as fox goes, i don't see any problem with him at all. i would like to keep this coaching staff intact and hope fox sticks for a couple more years at least. the jury is still out on our OC but we shall see how he does later in the season. i'm really liking fangio's part as our DC. the tackling in this first game was very good. once we start to gel as a unit they could be very good. superbowl ready... doubtful this year but we are building the foundation for a really good team.

is grasau in this mix at center? has whitehair practiced at any other positions besides center? who is glennon working under or is this too early in camp yet for shaking out a first string OL? thanks for the info