BearFan PHX

Possibly we will get that DE in a trade or free agency as rosters develop, and maybe mid season like Sweat at the trade deadline. Not bad to take a minute to get a look at younger players who need reps. But will we be adding a DE to this roster before the draft next year? 100% you guys are right.

Yeah you gotta KNOW this guy is gonna be the best WR in the league, or I'm not trading up either. Maybe if I did more work, I'd be convicted on it, who knows what Poles thinks, he's certainly seen all sides of this question.

I havent watched enough film on them to say. Right now, I think that MHJr, Nabers and Odunze are kind of grouped together. But that's just because of stuff I've read. Some people say MHJr is the next coming, and others say he is one of three exceptional talents this year. So I'll answer this way: *IF* my scouts and my film study are telling me that MHJr is the best WR in 10 years, then yes, I would look at trading up for him. I dont think next years 2nd would do it. I think wed have to give next years first and get back a teams 2nd this year. So our #9 and next years first for #4 or #5 to get MHJr and their this years 2nd. If I thought he was going to be Randy Moss, yes I would do that. But anything less, and no, I'll wait for #9, and if my guys arent there, possibly even trade back a little, maybe to #11 and get Thomas, maybe as far down as #18 and take an OL or DL

actually what he said was "I value people that did the job before more than so called media experts. I guarantee you percentage wise, they are right more than media experts and fans." he guarantees us, on a percentage basis, they are right more. and the reason hes is right so often is "He was a GM, been long time NFL employee. CBS hired him for input" So Im saying, other GMs, long time NFL employees and TV commentators think that OT is on the table for the Bears this year. Most people do. So can I guarantee that percentage wise they are right more, and therefore Spielman is wrong? Of course i cant. Neither side can. And that is ALL Im saying. Opinions abound all over the place, and Spielman's in this case isn't any more likely to be right, because we can all see the Bears are doing a lot to look at OTs, and we are debating them a lot, and pretty much everyone thinks OT is in the mix for the Bears this year. It doesnt seem very controversial at all.

I didnt say any of the things youre saying I said. I didnt say your opinion is wrong because it is shared by Spielman, I just said its still just an opinion. That's all I said. I do think the Bears are looking to draft an OT this year. They are also looking hard at WR and DL. If Spielman says they arent considering an OT, then I think he is wrong. I dont know why you think Im saying you dont have a right to your opinions. Im only saying you dont have a right to say I dont have a right to mine just because Spielman says so.

I definitely have people I listen to too of course. I hear what they say, and then I evaluate whether I agree. The ones I like to listen to are naturally the ones I agree with most. I think we are all like that. I don't know that I have ever agreed 100% or 0% with anyone about everything. My point was just the idea when two people are debating, one cant say "well Mr _____ agrees with me, and he has a pedigree of _______, so my point of view has more weight than yours." thats the fallacy of argument of authority. It's a well known logic error. It's been known for thousands of years, it has a latin name too. "An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument. The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible." - from Wiki And that is easy to understand because I also have people I listen to who disagree, and I cant say "Well my guy disagrees, and he has pedigree Z so I must be right" either. Whenever you're listing someone's pedigree in an argument to lend more weight to their opinion, youre committing the logical fallacy of "the argument from authority" and it's simple to understand, because experts disagree, so being an expert doesnt mean you are more right, if another expert says the opposite. But in all of this, I wasnt fighting, and I dont think Stinger was either. I havent read the last few responses yet, but i was just saying "you assert A, and your evidence is a logical fallacy so all thats left is just an opinion same as mine or anyones"

Heres my point. When you argue that someone must be right because of their credentials, that is a logical fallacy called "argument from authority" It's very easy to show why it is a logical fallacy. Find two people with similar credentials who disagree - boom, youve just proved that having credentials doesnt make you right, since people with similar credentials disagree. It's like saying "well my lawyer says Im right in my legal case, and that proves it because he is a professional lawyer" well sure, but does the other side have a professional lawyer too? And are they saying the opposite? Then that proves that being a professional lawyer doesn't make you right about the law, since another professional lawyer disagrees. So if the pros disagree, and they cant both be right, then being a pro doesnt make you right. Spielman has had plenty of bust picks. He doesnt have a crystal ball. No one does. That's why your argument of authority is a fallacy.

it's funny that people think it isnt so - obviously the players the professionals believe in most are picked first, and sure they get it wrong sometimes, but its not totally random. And yeah, 1st round OL is usually predictable (cough stan thomas, gabe carimi, chris williams, marc columbo) boy have we been bad at drafting players before Poles got here. And youre right about OL, we've just been terrible at it. The Darnell Wright pick tells me Poles understands OL eval.

and many other professionals who have also been GMs and players and scouts say that OT is very much in play. You can give your opinion, you can even give someone else's opinion, but this error of citing someone's credentials in a business where every year the CURRENT professional GMs make good and bad choices is a mistake. There are no credentials that make someone right about who we will take other than being GM of the Bears.

Of the top 10 WRs in the league (according to Pro Football Network) 4 are first rounders 3 are second rounders 1 is a 4th rounder 2 are 5th rounders Clearly, the better players are more often picked higher, which would actually be really surprising if it wasn't true. Justin Jefferson 22nd overall (1st round) Tyreek Hill 5th round Cee Cee Lamb 17th overall (1st round) Davante Adams 53rd overall (2nd round) Ja'Marr Chase 5th overall (1st round) AJ Brown 51st overall (2nd round) Amon-Ra St Brown 4th round Brandon Aiyuk 25th overall (1st round) Stefon Diggs 5th round Deebo Samuel 36th overall (2nd round) https://www.profootballnetwork.com/best-wide-receivers-nfl-rankings/

I think it's hard to say that a lower picked WR has a better chance of going to a superbowl based on talent, i think it's more likely that the top picking teams just dont have the roster to go to the superbowl?

The Bears did meet with Barton, Guyton, Latham, Powers-Johnson and Zack Frazier. They did not meet with Fashanu. Very Interesting.

I excepted Bowers in the text above saying that because of Kmet's contract we probably wouldnt take him. He is definitely a blue chip player. I also left Turner out because he might not be a scheme fit. I could be wrong on both accounts, but neither one of them was left off for ability, just because I dont see us taking them.

yeah, and it doesnt make it any more (or less!) true. I'm trying to figure out if Fashanu or Thomas are true top 10 type values. I think they might be. I'm less sure of the DEs. Does anyone know what the DE depth looks like for the 2025 draft? edit - looks to be a DE and WR heavy class. Hmmmm.

The more I look, the more I think Fashanu is a solid option at 9 along with WR Thomas. I'm really the foggiest on the talent level of Verse, and the injuries of Latu. If I could bank on them a little more and one more OT, I'd feel more comfortable trading down a little. Im (maybe foolishly) leaving Turner off my list for scheme fit, just as I'm leaving Bowers off my list because of Kmet's contract. As it stands, I think the blue chippers are MHJr Nabers Odunze Alt and the very next tier (are any real pro bowlers?) Fashanu Verse? Thomas? And then it drops off to the 1b tier.

I think this is just writers speculating because the Bears brought him in for a 30 visit. Maybe they really are interested, I dont know, but i dont think these articles have any inside info, just connecting dots we already knew. If the Bears have too much money invested in Kmet right now to take on another TE1, they might well be meeting him because he would be an excellent trade or free agency target in the future, so good to make connections and start the book on him now? No matter what, Odunze and Bowers are both big time talents, and someone will take them each early. And each of them would look great in a Bears uniform.

Last year, Skoronski was the pick at 9, and he is a guard, and not even close in talent to Larry Allen. I do agree with you that Fuaga looks like a monster OG in the making. I also saw that you never said to take him at 9, Id be comfortable with him at a slightly lower position, and I think you would too. That said, there are other players I might take first who are grouped in similar value, but if I could add Fuaga as an OG to this roster, it would be a big win for sure. I feel like Jenkins is on the trading block too, so that might make this more likely to happen.

LOL not at nine, but maybe at 18?

yeah I agree - i just dont think the DEs are the right fit for us. Verse is probably the best one for us (I worry about Latu's injuries), but no one is mocking him to go in the top 6, so hes not a sure fire blue chipper. And if we pick at 9 we need one,l otherwise, you trade down because there are a bunch of good 1b guys.

and pay Moore too! Of course the same logic works to have a rookie DE across from Sweat. In important positions, a top ranked vet paired with a high picked player on a rookie deal is the way to go. But you need to be sure youre getting a real stud and not just drafting a position?

If Nabers is there, Poles will actually move faster than the speed of light to pick him. I think the mock machines arent really as cutthroat as the real teams are. I dont see him falling to 9, but that would be great. Im more worried that only 3 QBs go before we pick. I see the 1b list, but I think Williams, at least 2 WRs and Alt are the only sure fire pro bowlers, the rest are 1b, worthy of a first half of the first round pick, but not a top 5. For example, if any od the DEs were that clear cut, wed be seeing them go in the top 4. In this draft many times the first defensive player off the board is at 9, so there are blue chippers, and then there are blue chippers.

its true if you only look this year, but if you look for the next 2-3 years, WR is going to matter too, and if you think you have a shot at one of a certain quality that you wont get a chance at again, except in free agency, and youre about to pay Moore too. I think WR is definitely a need, even if not this year? But I also agree with the idea that we need a C, we need at least one young G and we probably need a new LT, and we need another pass rusher and maybe a 3T as well. I think it's gonna matter more on the quality of the players available this year, and predictions on what will be deep or not next year. For example - who will have the better NFL career, Fashanu or Verse? Are either or both of them going to be pro bowl blue chippers? Im personally not sure at all. Trenches are extremely important. I just want to be sure the guy Im getting is a true blue chipper at #9, and other than Odunze, I'm not sure there's a clear answer for us as a for sure blue chip player. I think all of a sudden theres a group of about 8 tier 1b guys who would all help us, but none of which is a clear cut pro bowler. I like the idea of staying at #9 and grabbing an impact player, but when it theyre all off the board? Im not looking to trade down for the extra value, but I feel like the blue chippers are possibly gone by 9. Unless you move to interior offensive linemen like Fuaga at guard or Powers-Johnson at C. And you know what? This could also be a good argument for trading up to get MHJr, Alt or Nabers at 5 or 6 if they're available too.

and you dont want to have to trust them going forward. Its rich at #9, but a monster guard is a good thing to add to this OL. At some point we are going to need to replace Jenkins and Davis both. Getting a stud and making them compete for playing time is a great idea. If we could trade down a bit and still get him, that wouldnt suck. But Im not sure we dont need our future WR, OT or DE more.

I see Fuaga as a road grading guard in the NFL - another Jenkins type.

you can ask by position, but then you also have to ask if any of the DEs or available OTs or WRs are true studs. If you figure we finish the rebuild next year, then you gotta look for BPA at need, and that factors in with positional importance too, and I suppose who is available next year - is 2025 deep in WR, DE or OT?