BearFan PHX

It's early for me to be sure what I think, but Maye may be the best QB in this draft. To get the best QB and pick up some extra picks would not suck.

Im still doing my homework, but maye looks pretty impressive, and some say he's the best of the crop. If he's evaluated as even as a prospect (different style but even) to Williams, then hell yeah take the picks and draft Maye. I just dont know what I really think about either of them yet.

I haven't done deep enough player evaluations to have an opinion on that, Im just saying generically, that LOT is a premium position, and if the draft falls in such a way that an excellent player at LOT is available, and that player grades out better than the players available at other positions, that having Braxton jones shouldnt prevent us from taking the player. Ditto at DE. If players of equal value are available, then you consider need. And i think part ot the issue is around words like "hole" or "need" so I think there are three tiers. 1) you have a premium player on the roster under long term contract = you dont draft another one. We all agree on that. 2) you have a gaping hole or need in the roster and an excellent prospect is available when you pick = you take them. We all agree on that too. 3) you have a decent player at that position, and an excellent prospect is available who grades more highly than any other available prospect and the player is at a premium position = you might still draft Braxton Jones' replacement (for example). I wont be shocked if the #9 pick goes to WR, TE or DE at all. but it might go to LOT if the right guy is there, and others arent. I dont think thats an immediate trade down. BUT if you have identified JPJ as a premium player, and you would take him at #9 if trade downs didnt exist, then yeah, sure, trade down to 15 or 20 and grab him. It'd be foolish not to get extra value if you could of course!

that is extremely clear, and it's what makes a winner too.

without addressing whether Poles keeps Justin or drafts a QB with a top pick, I think this approach is closer to what Poles should be doing. Having more players is not as preferable as having great players. We've been stuck with a limited roster for SO long that we are used to the idea of quantity over quality, but of course those players never achieve greatness and then youre stuck repeating yourself forever. When you take players, in free agency, trade and the draft who will be great, then your roster starts to fill. As that happens, you have fewer and fewer holes and then you're almost in trade UP territory. Of course players age out and you lose them to other teams as they want big paydays, so you never quite get to trading up, but the next equivalent is trading players away when they have one year left before their big deals. That keeps the draft pump primed, and allows you to continue the cycle of drafting talent rather than need in the top few rounds. So I agree with this way of thinking, even though I want a top rookie QB this year too.

so I agree in that hes not gonna draft a linebacker high. When a position is filled with a great player who is on a large long term contract, youre right that it would be nuts to draft talent at that position high. But, when you look at a guy like Braxton Jones, it's not a need, but neither is it a great player on a large long term contract. So what to call that? Not need, but still a key position you can draft if the right player falls and that's the BPA pick. Im not saying he'd choose an OT over a great WR or anything, certainly when players are evenly rated and both available, need plays a role. And also, the importance of the position does too. We NEED a center, and JPJ is a great prospect, but we wont likely draft him with pick #9 because center is not a key position the way left offensive tackle is. But if you reach to fill holes, thats how you squander draft value and end up with a subpar roster. Im guessing you agree with all of this, and it's about the word "need" more than anything else? Anyway this is why GMs usually sign free agents before the draft to fill "needs" not necessarily with the best players, and not necessarily on long term deals, but so that dont have to reach if the draft falls one way or another.

yeah, insane for sure.

sure, but as DABEARS just said so well, most years a QB like that isnt even available. And on the rare years one is, any given team likely doesnt have the pick to take them. But football IS the #1 team sport for sure. I just think there are lots of ways to build rosters, and only very rare chances to get a top 2 (in the league not the draft!) QB. Are any of those guys this year that guy? No one knows, but at best the scouts may be telling you that there is a decent chance Williams (or whoever) IS that guy, and a lottery ticket with even a 50% chance on a guy like that is worth buying at pretty much any cost. Especially when the cost doesnt come from your future, but just in missed opportunites for extra draft picks?

Oh for sure, most years there is no top 2 in the league QB in the draft! I just mean if Caleb Williams (or whoever) is that guy, and your scouts are SURE, theres still a 33% chance they will bust. But yes, most years there is not, I should have been clearer. But I also think unless you have one of those QBs, you arent realistically competing for a super bowl victory, so when (if) one comes along, and youre sold thats who he is likely to be, you gotta reach for it. And Im not even saying I think Caleb or anyone is that guy either. In a couple months I'll have my guess, but I dont even know what I think right now about any of them.

I think that a true top 2 in the league QB is worth whatever it takes. If I knew that Williams or Maye was one of those guys, I would easily walk away from the trade, or any trade unless it included a top 2 QB. Your point about now knowing is fair, but without a top 2 QB, youre not reliably and consistently going to the super bowl or winning it. So there is tremendous value in a 66% chance lottery ticket on a top 2 QB. You can build your team out all you like, but without one of those top QBs, youre just a playoff team, but not really in the hunt. So you cant win it all without one, or getting some stupid luck along the way, and you cant count on that, or repeat it. To me, as large a haul as that is, if you assume you need one of those QBs at any price, there are two reasons to trade the #1. 1) You dont think Williams or any rookie QB is a 66% chance to be a top 2 QB 2) You think more than one QB in this draft has a 66% chance to be a top 2 QB. and possibly 3) You think someone other than Williams is the one with the 66% chance to be a top 2 QB AND youre sure the team picking at #1 doesnt think the same. And that's a real gamble. But I dont believe in the plan of building a team around a lesser QB as a plan to consistently get to and win superbowls. Seven of the last ten superbowls were won by Mahomes or Brady. And one more by Peyton Manning. The two years a non top QB won the superbowl, only one beat one of the top QBs (Eagles beat Patriots) I think you can get lucky or unlucky in the league. Brady and Mahomes went/go to the superbowl consistently but not every year. If you build a team around a lesser QB, you might get lucky one year and miss having to face Mahomes. But that's not a plan. And honestly, thats less likely than that a QB you believe in and draft ends up a bust. It's much more likely that your super team with a lesser QB doesnt ever get you there and win it.

and it's all extremely valuable. the only thing more valuable would be a Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes. Im not saying that's who WIlliams is. I have a lot of film to watch before i make my guess. But if he is, he is worth passing on the haul. And i wasnt making a purely financial argument. At the end of the day youre happy to pay players who excel and are young. Like Montez Sweat, or DJ Moore. You just dont want to be tied down long term with large contracts to players who are good but not great. But if they are great, then they are what the money is for.

exactly. these generic discussions about trading down or not dont make sense unless you plug in the players youre targeting. The trick is to only spend value on players that will be great for you. We used to sign free agents to try to compete each year, and in doing so, wed end up married to players for 4 years, when better options came along just a year later. Poles has been disciplined to avoid that. And drafting, at least int he top rounds, is the same thing. You dont draft holes, you draft talent. If a #1 pick QB is a Mahomes, he's worth more than any trade package offered. If not, then you blew the chance to get players with all those picks in a trade. Neither answer is right or wrong, depending on how your picks turn out. It's a good point you make about spreading the risk around. The more swings you get, the more chances you have to hit the ball - but you dont get multiple swings at a top QB. It all comes down to what your scouts and research tell you about the players. If Williams or Maye is who some say they are, then you gotta take em, and if not, youd better not take em.

I just keep getting hard on pills ads. hmmm LOL Im kidding of course, but the ads do suck. I could re-engage my adblocker, but then it wont load tweets that people paste.

i think Poles has shown he doesnt draft for need. He has been disciplined to wait the requisite years to fill out the roster. The previous Bears GMs were always about filling holes. We'd sign someone to a high contract, or draft someone high, and they would be overvalued because of need. We'd end up married to a 75%er for four years. Poles knows that when you find the right player at the right point in their career, you pay them what they are worth, but you cant reach because you have a hole and are thinking about this year only. Claypool is a perfect example of why not to do that. So I think Poles takes value at the #9 pick, regardless of players he may have on cheap deals who are doing OK. If that means OT, then so be it. It sure doesnt rule out the top WRs ot Bowers either. It just depends who falls to us.

I think we need help at a lot of positions, and there are lots of ways to get help; trade, free agency, the draft. So your question, which non QB should we get in the top of the first round, is about finding value at KEY positions, that you dont have to overpay for like you do in free agency or the draft. So before I look at team needs, or even the Bears at all, the answers to that question are always the same: QB, Edge, Left Offensive Tackle and game changing impact players (who are rare) and any position. Usually that last part means WR or TE. Those are the generic values by position. So for example, if JPJ is going to be the best center that ever played the game, you still don't draft him in the top 5 picks. He's trending like he's gonna go around pick #20, which means he's a hell of a prospect at center. But I cant think of any center who can take over a game. They can do a lot, but for example, you dont normally think of a LB being able to take the team on his shoulders the way a championship QB does - but Ray Lewis did. But even still you wouldnt put non-edge LB in the top 10 of most drafts. It'd take a very rare player to do that. So I think the answers in this draft at #9 are QB (probably not the 9 pick! and outlawed by your rule here anyway), LOT, DL (could be edge could be 3T), WR and possibly Bowers too. If you stack all of those up, you get a choice of at least a few of them at 9. The way you listed it makes perfect sense, but add in the LOTs, and the edge rushers you mention later, and then you've got your full list. That's my answer anyway.

yikes - thank you for the info.

I feel badly for Fields. He's had a rough road, and it must be very frustrating for him. Whatever he wants to do with Bears social media is fine with me. he's earned the right to at least say "I dont like this" thats fair.

yeah Cushenberry won't break $16M a year

In the second half of the season especially, we were being destroyed up the middle. When pressure comes from outside, a QB should be able to step up into the pocket and deliver a ball. When it comes up the middle the throw is going to be contested and the QB is going to get hit, maybe even as he is throwing. The flip side of this is why having a disruptive 3T can make a defensive front go. This is all stuff everyone here already knows, and all of us know that we need a new center too. It's a no brainer. We all agree on this one! And since we're building the line for this opening competitive window, a foundational type player would be great at that position. There are a few free agents that fit that description including a couple who are young too, and at least one real candidate in the draft expected to go in the bottom third of the first round. My gut is to think we are getting a presumed multi year starter in free agency or a trade. We will want to have that nailed down before the draft, and starting a rookie center isnt always the best idea with a 1) rookie QB or 2) struggling vet QB that needs to show something now On the other hand, I wouldnt expect that starting rookies in the secondary is a very wise move either, and yet we have done it a lot with success under Eberflus and Poles. And they put a 5th round OT into the fire at left tackle right away too, and started Wright at RT immediately last year too. So if this administration does that, maybe they can start a JPJ too. On possible strategy would be to sign a free agent center that can play guard too, and then draft JPJ (trade down pick #9 or use picks from a Fields trade - JPJ should go around pick #20) with the idea that JPJ can win the job in camp, or during the season, and when that happens, the free agent competes with Jenkins and Davis for playing time. I can also see us bringing in a free agent guard and drafting one lower in the draft too. I think Poles will create a lot of competition in the OL room this year. And none of this to address whether Braxton Jones can be upgraded. Personally I think he's been growing well, but if things fall a certain way and a true foundational player is available at OT you gotta look at that too.

welcome home

Waldron left lots of contradictory bread crumbs, and the reporters are going to feast on them, each out of context of the others, to support any narrative, but it's funny because you cant say one overtone implies what were going to do because he said turned around and said other ones that supported the exact opposite direction. It was very clever. Hes a game player for sure. I like Waldron. I'll bet he will be the first rock/paper/scissors winner we've had calling plays on either side of the ball in a long time. The press conference solidified it for me - he's a competitive MF and he loves playing mind games. Love it.

oh for sure. Im not saying that i dont think Justin is going to be traded - I absolutely do - I was just commenting on the technique that Wldron used to duck the questions. I hadnt seen that approach before. Usually everyone just tries to avoid any overtones, but he was slinging them out all over the place and they were completely contradictory. I think Waldron is a good strategist. And that was entertaining to see.

agree with all of this. Especially Flus' new look. It's not just cosmetic either, he has a more serious vibe doesnt he? Like this offseason kicked his butt and he realizes this isnt just easy going and fun. Good to see. Its almost like he's a little bit angry and keeping it inside. Good. I liked Waldron's energy too. He feels like a leader.

For sure. We will be grabbing a center and FS in free agency 100% I dont think Poles is trading the #1 pick. I think he will take a QB there, and trade Fields. But I cant predict whether Poles will make what I think would be an error. And you're right, if we dont sign free agents, a trade may be in the works. But we have a lot of cap space, so i think we will be signing free agents no matter what the plan is, so even if he is trading #1 (please god no lol) he will still be signing free agents. I think we are at the point in roster building where we need great players, not just more numbers. If you want to trade #9 down to like #20ish so you can get JPJ without overdrafting him, then cool. I get that. But it's because JPJ is great, not because the 3rd rounder youre also gonna pick up is a sure thing to set the world on fire. I surely wish we had 5 first rounders this year, and could load up the OL, but adding a few more 3rd and 4th rounders isnt gonna be the same thing. We won that gamble and have Braxton Jones as a result. Hes a 5th(?) rounder that has grown a lot into his position. But if we are talking about replacing him with a clear upgrade, thats gonna be a round 1 or round 2 player. and at LOT, its probably round one or you dont do it. WR is a glaring need. We absolutely need top talent to pair with Moore for whoever the QB is next year. There is every good reason to take WR at #9 too. Ditto DL. But trading down to get a bunch of lower picks isnt going to really fill the larder. That was who the Bears used to be. Now we have a lot of talent on the roster, and so even as we need a bunch of players, they need to be GOOD players, and i think that means taking them higher int he draft than what used to make sense for us when we were more depleted on the roster.

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.