jason

My problem with drafting Shelton is that props have already been given to Rat and Ego as the NT. If that's the case - assuming it's not all smoke - then drafting Shelton basically throws at least one of those guys away. It just makes more sense to maximize who you have on the roster and use either Rat or Ego at NT. Then they can figure out WTF to do on the ends.

That's funny stuff, right there. OLB: McPhee, McClellin, ILB: Foster, Greene, Jones, Bostic DE/LB?: Young, Houston, Allen WTF is going to happen with that mess?

Consider me guilty of multiple counts as well. This reeks of a payout, maybe even extortion.

Agreed. I don't see what's wrong with making signings that improve the team in any way. There is ZERO doubt that Rolle improves the team. Same goes for McDonald. Same for McPhee. Same for Royal.

And that's considering PFF rankings, which are questionable at best, and worth less than what I wipe my ass with at worst. Wiz for $4 per year sounds like a good idea.

Young, proven good, relatively cheap vet is always preferable to unproven rookie. Although, I think a third rounder on Grasu is a great spot to get him.

Collins going at 29 is straight retarded. If he lasts that long, I hope the Bears trade up and select him. Of course, that's fantasy land because the Ravens select a few slots before that, and they'll pick him in a heartbeat because they have a history of being a good drafting team and selecting guys I like.

"WE WANT SAPP! WE WANT SAPP!" No. Take this nobody TE and like it. LOL I'm sure if it had been held in Chicago all those years, we would have a video like this. Maybe worse. And it would be just like us here...we'd have a track record of better picks than the actual team.

Simple oversight, which is probably the result of Waynes almost never showing up in the top ten of mock drafts.

Honestly, I don't care. When you look back years and years, you remember the rings. You barely remember or talk about what bad guys were on the team. I wish the Bears would have signed Hardy as well. Also, if this and the Jenkins deal get done, that tells me the Bears are not going to pick DE at #7.

Interesting replies. If this shows anything, it's that the team is an enigma right now. We barely agree at all. Personally, I think the 4th best pass rusher is a scary proposition. Beasley may end up a stud, but I don't like the value when the #1 WR, #1 OT, and #1 S are on the board. If it played that way, which of those three would help the team the most? Cooper - He'd be a great rookie, but wouldn't he essentially be the #3 guy at best? Scherff - I think he'd be a great addition and would solidify our OL for years to come. Putting him next to Long on the RHS would guarantee running lanes. Collins - Probable day 1 starter at SS alongside Rolle. That combo would solidify S problems. I'm thinking Scherff or Collins now.

Can you imagine a scenario where DL goes hot and heavy before the Bears pick? 1. TB – Jameis Winston, QB, FSU 2. TEN – Leonard Williams, DT/DE, USC 3. JAX – Dante Fowler, DE, FLA 4. OAK – Randy Gregory, DE/OLB, NEB 5. WAS – Danny Shelton, NT, WAS 6. NYJ – Marcus Mariotta, QB, ORE What then? My thought here is, do the Bears take the 4th best pass rusher with the #7 pick in the draft? I don't like that idea. Assuming no trade down possibilities, I'm thinking they have to go Bama with either Collins or Cooper.

That's why this site is so fun some times. Such diverse opinion. I'd love Collins at 1, wouldn't mind Hundley at 2, and am interested by Funchess at 3.

It's almost that time of year again, and like ever year, I ask what your nightmare draft would be. 1. Mariotta, QB, Oregon - I would hate a QB in the 1st. Additionally, I don't think he's going to pan out. I think he'll be average at best. This would destroy the locker room. 2. Gurley, RB, UGA - Injury prone RB to serve as a backup, and may not even beat out Carey for #2. I'd hate this because it would mean the current staff are moving from Forte. 3. Jaquiski Tartt, S, Samford - Saw him up close and personal. Never really stood out. Small school DB...smells like a Lovie pick. 4. Senquez Golson, CB, Miss - He's listed at 5'9", but I'm pretty sure he was on an episode of "Little People, Big World." 5. Jesse James, TE, Penn St. - A-I hate a TE pick in this draft, B-This guy is a classic workout warrior who doesn't produce as much on the field, C-Cool name 6. Nick Marshall, "CB", Auburn - A QB transitioning to CB. Loathe position moves. Might as well throw this pick in the trash. I'd be pulling out hair if that's how the draft went.

Backup TE...waaaaaaay down on the priority list.

Given that I hurt/injured/broken myself many many times for free, I'm guessing that if I had made it to the NFL I would have had to be carried off the field. I imagine I would have been like Mark Schlereth with something like 13 knee surgeries. Totally agree about the final paragraph. My dad cut off a finger with a table saw, grabbed it off the floor, covered the stump in a towel, and drove (quickly) to the ER.

Yeah, it could be entirely the fact that instead of 220lb DTs there are now 300lb DTs who run like LBs from the 50s. More mass and more speed means nastier collisions. Until someone has been next to one of these behemoths and has seen how quickly a man nearing 300lbs can move, it's hard to comprehend. Being around football on a yearly basis, I get to see some of these ridiculously sized guys who move like 4-5 weight classes lower. Seeing an absolutely chiseled LB blur by like a WR is scary when considering the RBs are also like that. Remember Thomas Jones' arms? Guys today are just packing on more and more muscle but keeping the speed. Maybe in the past those huge dudes had collisions that were slower, and, physics-ly speaking, less impactful?

The highlighted portion is the exact reason for my offensive draft thread. I just don't see how anyone can truly know what these players will do in a 3-4.

Bear with me on this, but do any of you guys think this stuff is linked in any way to softer generations? Some sort of evolution, so to speak? Shake the hand of a 60-70 year old guy nowadays, and most likely he's still got some good strength. Guys back then, and really the previous generation, were stronger it seemed overall. Wiry strong. Sure, players today can bench more, but those guys back then had that "country strength" which turned into "old man strength". How and why all that happened, and why it changed, is anyone's guess, but I happen to think it has to do with three things: 1. Food - The food today just isn't the same. It doesn't nourish us the same. 2. Activity - This is more important. Kids today and within the last generation or so seem to be specialized more. They don't rough-house around because they're not allowed. Games I used to play when younger, when the objective was just to gang-tackle the kid with the ball, aren't played. Kids today don't play tag in school! I remember playing tackle football as a youngster in a field that very clearly had trash on it...I remember because I fell on some glass. Baseball (with a tennis ball) in the middle of the street. Ever hear of a 13-year old getting Tommy John surgery before the 90s? I think there is something I'm going to call "developmental toughness" that kids don't have any more. I know I got blasted more times than I can count, but I don't know if I ever had a concussion. I don't think I did. Blessed with a hard head. This same thought goes towards the tons and tons of knee injuries we see in sports today. Bigger muscles, but not everything else is strong in support. 3. Lifestyle - Obviously more sedentary than before. I'm just wondering if this is a two-sided issue where we obviously know more about the dangers of concussions today, but the players themselves just aren't the same.

Third would be just right in my opinion. I'd be very happy with that pick. I've disliked Garza as a center for some time now, regardless of what any bogus PFF stats say.

So if you pick Shelton at #7, then you intend on starting him at NT. What are you doing with Ratliff? The more and more I think about the Shelton pick, the less I like it. It throws away Ratliff, and potentially Ferguson. At the least it stunts Ferguson's development because he becomes the #3 NT, who gets zero playing time.

I'm not so sure that's not what many here have discussed. BPA in its strictest forms. Like QB for instance. I just don't see how Winston isn't the BPA, but if he falls to 7 I'm still not sure I want him. That would be a ton of money at QB, and it would destroy the locker room.

I agree that it's a need. I was just holding on to hope, like last year, that the Bears would resign Peanut. With Peanut and Jennings last year, there was no need to draft Fuller. Well, little did we know that Peanut would get hurt again and Jennings would regress so much. Insurance is always nice, but it's called insurance for a reason. You're probably right about this year though...CB is a greater need now that Peanut is pretty much gone and Jennings is now an enigma.

Did we?! I misunderstood that trade if that's what happened.

Seriously? Scherff is projected at a RT or a G, and he'd help immensely. If he lined up at RT, which is where I'd hope, you could pretty much guarantee 4+ YPC running on the right side behind him and Long. Dude is a monster, much like Long. Almost always described as a road grader. Putting those two together would be a nasty combination, and it would force defenses to overload that side on pretty much all rushing downs. Additionally, that would greatly improve the play-action game, something pretty much every Bears fan wants to see more of. I agree the defense stunk the last two years, but I just don't know how the team with new coaches and and a new scheme can adequately evaluate players without having seen them play that scheme. By the way, if the offense were much better at running the ball, it would improve time of possession, and keep that horrid defense off the field more.