BearFan PHX

In the short term youre right. LT is less of a hole than WR, Edge and DT. But for me, I think it's more important to be sure that when you marry a player for 4+ years, that they're going to be really good at their position. From that point of view, if the right LOT falls to you at #9, and you have them rated over the available WRs, then you take the OT, even though WR is a bigger need today. This is why GMs usually sign free agents to fill every actual hole on the roster before the draft. Of course those free agents arent usually quality players, unless you spend big $ on them. So they are guys you hope will be rotational players and depth. but having them allows you to take the best player available without having to serve a roster hole by reaching or trading down. And of course BPA isnt absolute. If you have a great player already on the roster at that position you dont take another one. Kansas City isn't taking Jayden Daniels even if he falls to them. But if you widen out the definition of need to include players you have that are good but not great, like Braxton(?), then you see what Im talking about? On the other hand, if you think Braxton is just about to take a huge step, and you think he's going to be dominant at his OT position, then you might put him on the "great" list and not a position of "need" even under my expanded definition. I think Poles is going to bring in more players on the OL than we might expect this year. And for sure, we need WRs and DL too, so depending on who falls, pick #9 could well go to a WR or DL too. I just wouldnt rule out a LOT at #9.

Waldron's press conference was very interesting. Obviously the press is going to try to ask sideways questions to reveal what Justin's future may be, so Waldron had to be ready to play defense. But he did it in a unique way. Usually someone in his position would be vague and avoid the questions, but Waldron took them head on, and left clear hints that we WERE keeping Justin AND that we WEREN'T. When the question centered around Justin, he asnwered like we were keeping him, and when it centered around Williams, he acted like that's the way they were going. He even threw in bread crumbs that implied we would take a rookie who wasn't Williams. A really interesting way to handle it. But as sportwriters do their thing today, theyre going to go with excerpts that make it sound like we are going one way or another, so don't be fooled. All comments in context, he left bread crumbs for every option. Pretty smart.

I see what youre saying - good analysis!

for sure. a real center will help a ton. I do think Davis has talent and ability, and I dont know why he was so inconsistent last year. And of course Jenkins has injury issues. A 3rd OG will help a lot. I dont think a swing OT is the answer though. I mean, we need one, but I think you either take a guy in the first couple rounds to play OT and Jones becomes the swing, or you roll with Jones one more year and have a swing under him who is less likely to be a starter. Maybe thats what you meant anyway But I think if youre gonna replace Jones, it has to be with someone excellent. Possibly a name OT with that #9 pick.

A man cheats on his wife. She finds out. Will she stay with him or leave him? She has 10 other possible boyfriends she knows. Shes 10% likely to stay with him. She's 9% likely to leave him for each boyfriend. so shes 90% leaving him, but he's still the top likely guy she ends up with. it's because you split up the "leaving him" options into a second question "if she leaves him, who will she go with?" The Bears are the top destination for Fields, but it is very likely he is not staying in Chicago. See? If you add up the odds of all the other teams together, you'll see the odds are that he wont be in Chicago next year. Even though Chicago is the highest rated likelihood of all the teams separately.

me too re: ads. the bright side is i can now gain muscle and lose fat and invest in bitcoin.

I'm watching Eberflus' presser, and so far a couple things stand out. 1) He feels more serious. The easy goofy smile is gone. His energy feels a little tougher. Im thinking that getting his butt kicked around this offseason has got his attention. This could be a good thing. 2) He mentioned that the Jennifer King was a 7 time All American in tackle football. She played 12 seasons as QB and WR in the womens league on the Carolina Phoenix. Cool. That assuages my worries earlier. If shes a dynamic competitor with experience playing professional football, then I feel differently about what I said earlier. She held the same position "assistant running backs coach" for the Washington Commander the past three years. She also coached at the Senior Bowl. Honestly, I didn't know there really was a womens pro tackle football league other than some gimmick ones like the lingerie league. And some of those girls are freakin intense too, but playing in lingerie makes me take it less seriously LOL But anyway, she seems qualified AND experienced.

if the question was Bears or Trade, then Trade would be favored, but in this case, the "Trade" option is split into a bunch of teams, so Bears beats them each, if not in aggregate.

yeah the Hill chart is awesome. It's much more accurate, and it comes from the actual data. For trades, rule of thumb is a 2025 pick is worth one round less because you have to wait a year for it. I love trading down, but I also love having impact players at key positions! It all depends how the board falls I guess, if a great player is there at a position of need like WR, OT or DL, or if we love Bowers, I could see us standing pat. But if the draft falls so that running backs, linebackers, quarterbacks and cornerbacks are the value picks at #9, we are definitely trading down. And if the scouts have a nice long list of sleepers, we might trade #9 down, pick up a JPJ type and still get a swing or two at some other guys. Plus, if we are taking a QB at #1, it stands to reason we'd have other picks from having traded Justin too, so we could use those. And if we keep Justin, then we'll get more picks trading back the #1 pick too. I think our draft and trade possibilities all depend on three things: 1) who are our best QB options including rookies and Fields 2) what we can get in free agency 3) how the draft falls on the day Somewhere in all of that, I assume we will get a new center, and probably at least one other OL too, maybe more We'll also get a FS for sure. We'll also add at least one new QB, no matter what else happens. I cant see us not getting at least 2 new WRs We'll find a DE, maybe a stud but at least one for the rotation If there is a stud 3T we will try to take him, but if not, we are still getting at least one more for the rotation We might resign Billings and or Jones if need be for this year We will add a running back. I really like Foreman, but if he isn't back, they'll get another. They might look to pick up a TE too. Again, stud if he falls, or situational. So we have a need for quality starters at QB(?), OC, FS, WR And we can use more talent at OG, OT, DE, DT, TE, WR, RB I am assuming we sign or tag Jaylon Johnson too in this.

I agree that trading a blue chipper for a bunch of mid round players is no bargain. I feel the same about passing on a #1 pick QB too. So we agree. The Rich Hill trade value chart is the most up to date model, it's based on real modern trade data , and is a lot better than the older Jimmy Johnson one, It says moving from 9 to 15 is worth about the 4th or 5th pick of the 3rd round. And if there is a specific player falling, especially a QB, the value can increase. But probably not enough to get JPJ - I think that has to come from a trade for Justin Fields. My guess is Fields is worth about what it would take to snag JPJ in the draft with nothing left over. Best case - Pittsburgh's first rounder #20 is probably about where I think JPJ is gonna go. https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp

this is good analysis, it's what I see too.

I assume it would be with consideration they get from trading Fields? Another scenario is to trade down the #9 pick. Not sure Im a fan of that one.

Im torn between both of these ideas. They each make sense. I guess I dont want a rookie starting center day one, or at least I dont want to have assume he will be ready. If a JPJ proves hes good in camp, then great, but I wouldnt want to bet on that happening so early. But on the other hand, I hate letting short term decisions force lesser long term outcomes. i LOVE the idea of JPJ. I dunno how thatd happen, but maybe if we got a 2nd in the package for Justin etc. But assuming we could get JPJ at the right draft value, I wouldnt be against paying a vet a one year deal to give JPJ a chance to grow. But spending capital on the same position twice is a luxury we maybe cant afford? Or if the vet is cheap, then how good is he really gonna be for our QBs? One thing I think Poles has done a great job of is not getting tied down to journeyman free agents long term because he needed them short term. Maybe he will surprise us with a move.

makes sense. Do you expect center and free safety in free agency? I kinda do, and maybe a DL or WR too. And however that goes will probably affect that #9 pick. I think we will see a free agent like OC Lloyd Cushenberry, because even JPJ is a specimen for sure, we probably wont want a rookie center to start day 1?

I dont think Mongo is saying men wont listen to women, I think hes saying they wont listen (the same way) to men who havent done it either.

hes very likeable for sure.

Because there is a difference between talent and experience. Mahomes, the generational talent sat for a year. Rodgers and Love both sat. It's a good way to acclimate a rookie without throwing him into the fire. Let him get used to everything and log some snaps against NFL speed in practice before he learns under fire. My guess is Williams starts by week 8. Maybe sooner. Depends on how he is in camp.

OK, so Justin was on Ahman Ra and Equinimeous St Browns podcast yesterday and he was asked about unfollowing the Bears. He said that he not only unfollowed the Bears but the NFL too - he said he doesnt want to have to read about him and Caleb Williams every day when he looks at social media to relax. Makes perfect sense. who could blame him for that?

I totally agree. Anyone should be allowed to do anything they are qualified for. If a woman is good enough to play in the NFL for example, then I havent really heard anyone object to that. There have been some female goalies in the NHL for example. Cool. But if you're not qualified, then I don't think this trend of giving out spots just for increased representation is a good idea at all. It's the different between equality of opportunity vs equity of outcome. Everyone deserves a good shot at opportunity, but you dont gain anything by ignoring merit, ability and experience just to make the outcome look diverse.

mm hmm but even me, Mr Hug-gate thinks this is a nothing burger LOL

agree. I wouldnt be surprised if we sign a free agent to be the starter until Williams is ready, I dunno if that's Bagents role yet? But i think Bagent is an excellent QB, but he needs to develop more arm strength, which I think is possible. But even so, I dunno if Bagent is ready to be the starter until Williams is ready. But all in all, I think Bagent is eventually going to be the best backup in the league.

Is it possible Fields was never following their account? I can imagine that when you talk to the coaches day to day you dont really need to follow the media department of the team. Of all the things to love about Justin or worry about Justin, this is a nothing burger I think?

Jordan Reid is really smart, and does a great job answering some pretty smart questions by Courtney Cronin.

Im not saying a LOT is a more important need than those other positions right now, but it's on the upgrade list, and if the draft aligns a certain way, I could see it. I could also see a WR, Bowers, 3T, DE, etc for sure as well

sure, but hes going to fix the middle of the line now. A free agent center, a lesser free agent OG...