Phil emery is a great football mind and I agree with what he's laid out here. Keep in mind there will probably be 5 or 6 qbs selected in the first two rounds, so what he's saying doesn't necessarily apply to the qbs that Dave might be looking at as a starter at some point.

 

Agreed, and I think there's some room for interpretation when it comes to what Caldwell might consider a "developmental" QB.  He's made it clear none of the QBs are ready to start right away with possibly one exception.  So, he's basically saying the majority of the guys taken in the 1st or 2nd round are going to require some seasoning.  I'd consider those developmental QBs in his eyes.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Because of the musical chair-like coaching carousel every off season, it is getting more and more difficult to develop quarterbacks. Gabbert probably would've been terrible regardless, but a young qb needs continuity and a good cast around him to be developed. Gabbert had three head coaches/offensive coordinators/qb coaches in three years?

---

No commercial messages in sigs

David Garrard, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Russel Wilson, Brad Johnson, Tom Brady, Marc Bulger.

 

Hey, Mark Brunnell was a 5th rounder. Rich Gannon. (4th) Matt Hasselbeck.

 

Going back further into history.. There was a Redskins QB in the 80's-90's that I can't remember.

 

And then there is Aaron Rodgers, who was a first rounder, but he gave credence to the sitting behind a starter before you start philosophy. But yeah, it's possible to find them. I think it's even more possible to find them nowadays since the QB position is so scrutinized.

---

David Garrard, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Russel Wilson, Brad Johnson, Tom Brady, Marc Bulger.

 

Hey, Mark Brunnell was a 5th rounder. Rich Gannon. (4th) Matt Hasselbeck.

 

Going back further into history.. There was a Redskins QB in the 80's-90's that I can't remember.

 

And then there is Aaron Rodgers, who was a first rounder, but he gave credence to the sitting behind a starter before you start philosophy. But yeah, it's possible to find them. I think it's even more possible to find them nowadays since the QB position is so scrutinized.

 

I think it's more possible to find them now because passing offense have spread throughout the college and even high school levels.

 

More guys are developing passing techniques and reading defenses, which should make for more candidates to develop.

 

That said, I still firmly maintain you almost have to get your QB early.  The ones you listed are still the exceptions, not the rule.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

No, but even the best in the game normally have a transition period.

 

Yes, but its usually very short. Rodgers was a strange situation in which Favre simply didn't want to stop playing. Sitting on the bench holding a clipboard or taking a few snaps with the 1s in practice rarely does any true developing. That is not to say QBs have reached their ceiling but that a prospect who is deficient in critical areas at the college level rarely "develops" and greatly improves on those deficiencies. Was Gabbert ever going to improve his pocket presence, a skillset that is mostly based on instinct? Leftwich with the windup? 

---

Yes, but its usually very short. Rodgers was a strange situation in which Favre simply didn't want to stop playing. Sitting on the bench holding a clipboard or taking a few snaps with the 1s in practice rarely does any true developing. That is not to say QBs have reached their ceiling but that a prospect who is deficient in critical areas at the college level rarely "develops" and greatly improves on those deficiencies. Was Gabbert ever going to improve his pocket presence, a skillset that is mostly based on instinct? Leftwich with the windup? 

 

Players can improve their mechanics in a practice environment if they're given the opportunity to do so.  The problem is that inherent problems with mechanics that have been part of their process for years tend to bubble back to the surface any time they're in a pressure situation.  That's why a guy like Gabbert can look great in practice, then fall on his face in game situations.

 

We saw similar advances and regression with Leftwich where he really worked on his footwork over the off season, then reverted to what was comfortable to him previously when he got into games.

 

To be fair, there are players who only need minor adjustments to prep for the next level.  I think more than one of the guys that will be available to us in rounds 1 and 2 are potential starters.  We just need to get it right in which player we target. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

“There’s entire classes of quarterbacks, since ’06, I went back and looked at from Jay’s on — when people say developmental quarterbacks, OK, so who has gotten developed? There isn’t a single quarterback after the third round since 2006 that has been a long-term starter. So you’re either developing thirds, and most of them have been wiped out of the league. So to get a quality quarterback, you’ve got to draft them high. That 2012 class is a blip on the radar that’s unusual, highly unusual.”

http://fansided.com/2014/05/04/bears-gm-...terbacks/#!IBK8s


I have to agree with him, what are your thoughts?

Tell him to look at the quarterbacks drafted number one over-all since Terry Bradshaw.

 

---

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi

 

http://s6.postimg.org/vyr2ycdfz/Teddy_Br...cked_4.gif

Interesting point.  So if there isn't a new QB on the roster by Friday night the chances of him bucking the trend is very low. 

---

Interesting point. So if there isn't a new QB on the roster by Friday night the chances of him bucking the trend is very low.

Pretty much. It's why I'm such a big proponent of drafting one early and making sure you get your guy. Odds are already stacked against you when drafting a qb. why make it worse by picking one later?

---

I disagree.  Is it likely that a late round pick (regardless of position) turns into a quality starter?  No.  Is it possible?  Yes.

 

It is simply less likely for QBs since only one QB can be on the field at a time.

 

There are no "special teams ace", "slot receiver", "nickel corner", "flex RB" or "flex LB" type guys for the QB position.

---

Yes, but its usually very short. Rodgers was a strange situation in which Favre simply didn't want to stop playing. Sitting on the bench holding a clipboard or taking a few snaps with the 1s in practice rarely does any true developing. That is not to say QBs have reached their ceiling but that a prospect who is deficient in critical areas at the college level rarely "develops" and greatly improves on those deficiencies. Was Gabbert ever going to improve his pocket presence, a skillset that is mostly based on instinct? Leftwich with the windup? 

 

When a QB hits the field he'll revert to his comfortable way of doing things, especially under pressure. A QB with an issue should benefit from not playing while practicing until the new, better form becomes second nature. Leftwich didn't have that luxury, nor did Gabbert, (or David Carr, or ...).


 

Late round QBs can be developed. Green Bay did that, Philly did that, and both got more value from trading those QBs then their initial investment in draft picks. The Jags did that successfully under Coughlin, where two 4ths and a 3rd (Johnson, Garrard, Quinn) got us a 1st round pick plus an eventual starter. Developing a QB for trade value, or for the distant future, can work. Of course you also need a good coach.


 

That's a different matter from trying to fill a current need by drafting a QB in the later rounds. The Jags need a starting QB now, not as an insurance policy for future needs. It's extremely unlikely that Caldwell will find our 2015 starter in the 3rd-7th rounds this year.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I think it's all about having a plan. Most of these later round guys fall out the league because they play to early. If given a year to three they could become quality staters. It boils down to how long is a franchise willing to spend on a guy and if they feel the return is worth the investment.


A guy like Tom Savage may not give returns now but if allowed to sit for a year to 2 may lead to a top 12 caliber of qb.

---

I think it's all about having a plan. Most of these later round guys fall out the league because they play to early. If given a year to three they could become quality staters. It boils down to how long is a franchise willing to spend on a guy and if they feel the return is worth the investment.


A guy like Tom Savage may not give returns now but if allowed to sit for a year to 2 may lead to a top 12 caliber of qb.

I seriously doubt that.

---

I seriously doubt that.

That's the point, we don't know? Most qbs fail because of the situation they are in. Very few are capable of taking trash to the promise land. That's tgrough the history if the game. Brady is the only qb I can recall to win multiple championships with regular wideouts.


If allowed to develope for a year or two some of these guys could be serious players. It depends if the team is willing to give them that much time

---

Let's not lie.  That's not what he said.  Title is misleading.  But, consider the source...

 

He's not saying anything anyone doesn't know.  The odds aren't in favor of finding a franchise QB.

 

However, that's not what most people are expecting, either.  You always want someone in the wings that's young and has room to grow (regardless of the chances something will ever happen for him), just as you'd also like veteran experience there, too.

 

The short window he's looking at is also skewed by the two QB system effect as well.  More is being asked of whoever the backup is, and since most QBs need seasoning (as Dave loves to put it) there's not enough patience or time for development anymore with most clubs.  That wasn't always the case, and you could argue that it shouldn't be the case.

 

I much prefer the three QB system where you can have your veteran and developmental QB, too.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Later round draft picks on QBs are simply lotto tickets.

 

Very true.

 

But a lotto ticket that hasn't been scratched is better than holding on to the losing ticket already in your hand.

 

This is why I don't understand why some want to see more from Matt Scott.  It's kind of hypocritical... let's develop Scott but not bring in anyone to develop?  No.  You bring in talent and let the best man win... let the cream rise to the top.  You don't stop drafting until you hit.  That was the mentality that settled for Garrard and whatever garbage they had behind him on the scrap heap (which ironically, is what the Bears GM is advocating... fill with someone else's trash instead of new blood.)  Seems like a bargain bin philosophy of managing the backup QB position.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Let's not lie. That's not what he said. Title is misleading. But, consider the source...


He's not saying anything anyone doesn't know. The odds aren't in favor of finding a franchise QB.


However, that's not what most people are expecting, either. You always want someone in the wings that's young and has room to grow (regardless of the chances something will ever happen for him), just as you'd also like veteran experience there, too.


The short window he's looking at is also skewed by the two QB system effect as well. More is being asked of whoever the backup is, and since most QBs need seasoning (as Dave loves to put it) there's not enough patience or time for development anymore with most clubs. That wasn't always the case, and you could argue that it shouldn't be the case.


I much prefer the three QB system where you can have your veteran and developmental QB, too.

This is personally what I advocate. Years ago you had the starter, back up and developmental guy. When the developmental guy was better than the back up then he moved up. And then you drafted another developmental guy. Over time some one beat out the other and a new starter emerged. And the system just keeps repeating.


The Flaccos, Lucks and RG3s have destroyed everyone's expectations and has caused teams to not have the time you mentioned.

---

Dalton and Kaepernick were both second-rounders. That's not a middle round.

Closer to middle rounds, than to the number 3 pick!

---

Dalton and Kaepernick were both second-rounders. That's not a middle round.

ah my mistake. I will read more carefully next time.

---

I think it's all about having a plan. Most of these later round guys fall out the league because they play to early. If given a year to three they could become quality staters. It boils down to how long is a franchise willing to spend on a guy and if they feel the return is worth the investment.


A guy like Tom Savage may not give returns now but if allowed to sit for a year to 2 may lead to a top 12 caliber of qb.

 

He's the guy a lot of folks are starting to mock as high as the first pick of the second round.  I'm always skeptical of the "trendy" pick, but there are always last minute risers as reports leak out of who's falling for who.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."