jason

My thoughts exactly. I'd love to see Berry in Chicago, but it ain't happening because of $$ and DT need.

HAHA! Exactly. Guys like Mayock, McShay, and Kiper have WAY more connections than we do. No doubt about it. But the simple fact is, they throw so much shit against the wall on a consistent basis because their hit percentage is horrible. Their guess is as good as ours. Out of all the picks yesterday, there were very few surprises in my mind. I called the first 3 including Bortles, missed on Buffalo's post-trade pick (thought they'd go OL), and then hit on the next 3. After that it was a mess (got Mosley, HHCD - as well as Manziel and Bridgewater once the trades happened), but guess what, so was Mayock's mock. He only hit on FOUR picks in the first round. I'd bet just about everyone on the board hit on more than Mayock's four players.

I see what you're saying, but ultimately Mayock has about as good of a chance of knowing who will do well as anyone else. There is a reason each team doesn't agree on which player is best, best fit, etc. I'm just not a fan of strict BPA when there is BPA and need at a very similar rating. Nobody can convince me that Fuller's rating was so much more than HHCD or Pryor at that point (i.e. HHCD at 16). It's not exclusively based on immediate need, but that is absolutely something a team has to consider. I don't have a metric worked out or anything, but if I were doing it I'd have a big board with ratings, but I'd also have a multiplier of some kind that factored in what positions are currently the worst on the Bears, and what positions are deepest in the draft. Thinking simply and only BPA is just plain stupid, and it's the reason Matt Millen didn't last long picking WR year after year for the Lions.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Sad thing is, I have that feeling as well. I have a feeling Amaro is sitting there and the Bears would pull the trigger. I just don't think there are enough balls to go around to add another #1 TE, and D has way more problems right now.

You and I shared the exact same thoughts on the current situation.

Right now I'm at a "calm after the storm" kind of feeling. Was it what I wanted? No. Could it have been worse? Absolutely. If the Bears come out of day two with Jernigan and Brooks I'll be very happy, even though I would have preferred the order of S, DT, CB. Brooks is the only FS left that I really like.

As usual, blow me. Fuller could be great. I hope he is. But the simple fact is, S and DT were greater needs. And the S class was thin. The reason I was happy yesterday - still happier than during a JA draft - is because Emery's past showed that he liked to attack positions of need. So, when he had a chance to do that, and didn't, it's upsetting. If he feels Fuller plays FS this year and then moves back to DB, doubt it, then so be it. But right now it looks like he drafted a 2014 nickel corner with a first round pick when full time starting, stud FS's were on the board.

So far Emery is 50% on first rounders. Maybe worse overall. You could have hit on 1 out of 2. Besides, it didn't take genius to see the great DT depth and the minimal FS depth. Absolutely everyone saw that.

Make it Jordan Tripp to the Niners then. I think the hoopla of the actual draft makes this something nobody wants to pay attention to any more. Me included.

EXACTLY. We're not lost. We're disillusioned for the reasoning above. The whole "he'll be better because of the surrounding cast"-logic can be applied to ANY position, so it doesn't fly. You put Troy Polamalu on the same side as an average DB, and then provide a decent pass rush, and that DB's job becomes easy. I want a guy who will excel without the requirement of a superb supporting cast, but I also want holes to be filled THIS YEAR with a first rounder. Fuller might be the former, but he is definitely not the latter. Unless Peanut agrees to move to FS, which he has fought already, Fuller will play about 50% of the snaps on defense (based upon the link I provided earlier regarding last year's #3 DB). With the problems on defense the Bears had last year at DT and FS, we should have used the first rounder on a guy who will be an immediately impact and play 100% of the defensive snaps.

The DTs played out exactly as I said. There is great depth there. There is a good chance more than one will fall. Too bad Safeties didn't.

I wouldn't say it's flushed. It's just that the Safeties dropped off a cliff after the first three - or four depending on view. And that's still the #1 team need based on starter weakness. DT value in rd2 should be nice, so Safety probably gets skipped again.

What this means is, he is a nickel this year, and Peanut is gone after this 1-yr contract. Hope he turns into Deion Sanders, but generally you want a first rounder, especially a top 15 guy, to be on the field more than 50% of the defensive plays.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb..._medium=twitter Nickel corner was on the field less than 50% last year. :/

Disagree. Conte was bad to average, but the front seven made up for his deficiencies. Basically he's a guy who needs all the support to succeed. He's like a RB who needs a probowl offensive line. Sure, he will hit the hole, but he's not going to dominate individually.

It's going to make me sick if HHCD turns into a stud.

Deal with it? Agreed. Like it? No. Question it if it doesn't work? Absolutely.

Maybe it's because we realize what the biggest need is and want to see BPA and need combined. I'd rather see BPA and need than just BPA, provided the need isn't a reach.

I don't know about 70%, and even if it were 70%, whoever the Safety is required to cover is going to exploit that major weakness.

So you disagree and then basically say that he will be a nickels corner? You draft first round for year one. First round players should start year one. Period.

I hate that reasoning for two reasons. 1. If they wanted Safety, they should gave drafted a freaking safety. The two best were there. And studies have shown (link from previous thread) that drafting a first round safety is basically a guarantee. 2. You're basically saying that the safeties we have REQUIRE a stud DL and LB core to succeed. I'd rather have a FS who can succeed without needing a superb front 7.

And if Peanut doesn't move? It's a first round nickel corner. Bad value if that's what it is.

Thanks goodness they didn't go LB. That just doesn't make sense. CB makes more sense, but not as much as S and DT. Also. It's not as easy to finda good safety late...just look at the roster since Mike Brown.

Got too cute. FS flew off the board and at best there is minimal value. DT in the second.

Not a smart pick IMO. Not with FS being a much greater need and the top two FS on the board.