BearFan PHX

MacKenzie Alexander CB LeRaven Clark OT great

OK. two of my list still left on the board. Cool. MacKenzie Alexander CB LeRaven Clark OT

got bills 4th this year and next year. so they got back their 4th and gained one for next year

Bears swapped with Bills. Draft tracker is wrong, Bears will pick right after Indi.

Dont forget DE Kevin Dodd

I'm looking at (in no particular order) TE Henry Hunter DE Kevin Dodd RB Derrick Henry CB Mackensie Alexander OT Le'Raven Clark We're pick #10, and Myles Jack, Reggie Ragland and A'Shawn Robinson are still on the board so there is hope one or more of my five will be there when we pick. I gotta say I trust Pace and Fox to do this right. They have more information and experience than I possibly can. So the game I play on draft day isn't to target a player and then get upset if the Bears don't take him, but instead I like to target players I like and then hope they are available when the Bears pick. If a few of "my guys" are there when we pick, I'll be happy, and if they don't get picked, then I assume we liked the guy we picked even better, which is a sign that we did well.

60% of the time, and in passing situations, we are in Nickel, with a 4 man front, and need 3 point stance pass rushing 4-3 type Defensive Ends.

Yeah, rather than debate position vs BPA, Id like to see more talk about just how good (or not) Zeke is. I havent seen enough to have a good feel for it, so I can only contribute on the general topic - i.e. is it smart to draft a great RB at #11. I'd rather hear about how great (or not) he actually is. Thoughts?

I don't think it's shocking. We don't have a proven world beating RB, so if you think Zeke is one of those you take him. Every GM is clear about not drafting for need. It's cool you don't agree, but to be "shocked" is kinda crazy.

If you think he is a cut above everyone else at that point, then yes, you have to. You dont pass on Lawrence Taylor because you have a need at safety and a pretty good starter at OLB. Im not saying Ragland is Taylor! But if you think he is, you gotta take him. Ask the packers about taking Aaron Rogers. Or ask any of us Bears fans LOL I think position comes into it when you have more than one player rated roughly equally available, which is almost always. But if Zeke is a difference maker in your eyes, you take him, even with Langford on the roster.

Browns and 49ers could each be strong possibilities for a 3rd QB taken before we pick.

You draft playmakers, not positions. Every GM worth their salt says you want to be in a position to the take the best player available. Now I'm not saying Ive watched a ton of film on Zeke, or that he would be the BPA, but I am saying that if you think he is the best player on the board, you take him, regardless of positions of need.

But we play nickel, with a four man front on passing downs, and he is too light to play from a three point stance.

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2016/4/6/...s-leonard-floyd I dont see it at all. An undersized pass rushing linebacker who can't play the run? They say he isn't a 3 down player, but brings a pass rush on passing downs. But we don't line up in 3-4 in passing downs, we line up at Nickel, and 4-3 ends like Willie Young are more suited to a 3 point stance than this kid. Kiper isnt paying attention.

I could see them going with Long LT Slauson LG Ramirez / Grasu C Ramirez / Larson RG Massie RT If Long can handle LT, that'd be a pretty damn good OL. I know the more likely scenario is: Leno LT Larson / Ramirez / Slauson LG Ramirez / Grasu C Long RG Massie RT Which is pretty good, but all teams would like to have a stud at LT, and unless that's Long, we don't have one. That's why I wonder if they will look at Long at LT, they can afford it with the Ramirez and Larson signing. Massie was a great signing. That's a set piece of the puzzle that frees Long to try LT, or dominate next to Massie. Either one is a serious block to build on. Grasu should be bigger, having been in the weight room, and that should help him at the NFL level.

No, Im saying the miscalculation was that perhaps they assumed they could get Hill when they decided to move Bennett. They still would have moved Bennett, and overpaying for Hill wasnt an option either. It doesnt hurt us long term, just maybe this year. I just wonder if we were surprised we didnt end up with Hill.

Hill was not a bad receiver at all. I think our staff thought he had what it takes to become a good one. I think this was the first "mistake" of the off season. But we aren't going to the super bowl this year, and so this was a tactical swing and a miss, but not a strategic one. Bennett was not a long term piece of the puzzle. But I think that if we had signed Hill, we would have the ammo to move up for a QB. We still do, but it makes us less flexible for later rounds and moves if we have a true NEED going into the draft.

I wonder if they were assuming the Saints couldnt match when they moved Bennett. This probably affects our 2nd or 3rd round draft pick.

He is a kick returner.

The Bears arent going for high priced FA to put a near super bowl team over the top, they are going for soild mid priced guys to fill holes so that we can actually pick best player available in the draft. Thats how you build a team long term. Once we get good, then we can add those special FA pieces to take you over the top. These guys are doing it right, great to see.

Im not sure why the cap hit would be so high unless the team wanted it that way. To the player a signing bonus is immediate money too, but gets prorated over the life of the contract against the cap, so its no difference to the player. If true, the team must have preferred it that way but it's weird.

yup

Im not diminishing Urlacher or Brown or any other. Im just saying, if you remove all of Peanut's turnovers, Lovie's record is atrocious. Peanut alone was the difference. Had we had someone terrible at MLB that would have done it too etc. Thats the point, Lovie's "success" was so fragile, that you get rid of any ONE of those guys, and he's nothing. But especially Peanut. You can see the turnover stats more clearly than you can mathematically calculate Urlachers coverage for example. Urlacher is a HOF LBer. No doubt. But without Peanut's turnovers alone, Lovie is crap. You can give Lovie credit for where he put Urlacher in the scheme etc, but Peanut punching out balls was not about Xs and Os or coaching at all.

I dont think Lovie was a good coach. I think he was a mediocre coach, and he got a LOT of wins and credit on the back of Tillman's uncanny ability to punch the ball out. If that was something that he taught, other guys would have been better at it too. Seriously factor out Peanut, and Lovie has a terrible record.

Absolutely. I would have averaged 2 1/2 yards a carry behind that line.