jason

But you're equating each player equally. That's flawed. The bolded sentence is reality. When you have 100 players, and take one away, if they are all equally weighted then it's 99 players. But in terms of value, the guys in the first round are worth more than one. So each time you take away a first rounder, the value from 100 goes down by more than one, and that is why the percentages of success decreases by round. Based on just 100, you'd have to give a value to the first round guys (let's say 1.5), second round guys (.7), third round (.4), fourth (.25), fifth (.15), sixth (.1), seventh (.05). I realize those are made up, but they come pretty close to 100. So when the first guy comes off the board, you don't have 99/100, you have 98.5/100. After the first round you have 52/100. After the second round you have 29.6/100. More than likely those 3 HOF players have already been selected. At least 2 of them. If it worked the way you're saying, everyone would trade out of the first two rounds, and get a ton of 6th and 7th rounders. You could draft every single pick in the 7th round if you tried hard enough as a GM to trade away your higher picks. But the simple fact is, even if you had 32 picks in the 7th round, you'd probably hit on less than if you had 10 picks in the first round. BTW - The dice example is probable better explained like this: 1st round - Coin 2nd round - 4-sided die 3rd round - 6-sided die 4th-6th round - dungeons and dragons dice of increasing size 7th round - roulette wheel

It's actually the same die, rolled individually, multiple times. Same as flipping a coin. Each time you flip it, the odds are almost exactly 50/50. Doesn't matter how many flips you have, each time starts back up at 50/50. I agree with the general idea this year because the draft seems deep.

Sure as hell wouldn't be three defensive guys. And your explanation or defense of the OL continues to be poor at best. But, I guess that should be expected from someone who defended Webb so vehemently. You act as if THIS is finally the year that a group of guys who sucked last year will finally turn it around. And we'd be talking about the same crap this time next year.

You're right about your follow-up sentence. That's not how statistics work. Each roll of the dice has it's own percentage. If you don't believe me, go to Vegas, watch the roulette wheel hit red 5 times in a row, then bet everything on black. Having said that, I agree with you on the trade down, however unlikely it might be. It seems this year in particular has a pretty deep value, and getting some mid-rounders in the 2nd would be similar to late 1st rounders. I'd say the late 1st rounders this year would be slightly lower (let's say 45-50%) and the early/mid 2nd rounders would be higher (let's say 35-40%). If this is something the F.O. believes, then the trade down makes a lot of sense.

It must be the bias then, because the thought of this Bears team trading down, getting three 2nd rounders, and then picking defense for all three picks, is sub-moronic. This team has needed offense for a ridiculously long time, and it clearly needs the most help there. With the supposed problems the defense had, and the player movement, they still managed to be significantly better than the offense. The offense is just not good. In fact, it sucked. I would have been fine if you said any realistic combination of offense and defense, but for the Bears to do what you initially proposed would be absolutely ridiculous. It would be once again putting Cutler into the hands of a collection of guys (aside from Bushrod) who either suck, are well past their prime, have injury issues, need to learn the intricacies of a new position, or some combination of the above. It's classic Lovie, realizing the bigger needs are on offense, and still focusing the majority of emphasis on defense. I hope the entry of Emery and Trestman marks the end of that philosophy, and the beginning of a new brand of Bears football that actually threatens the opponents' defense instead of hoping to hold on for a 17-14 win.

The play at 2:30 in that clip is all I need to see. I don't think I have EVER seen Jay Cutler stand like a statue for that long in the pocket and not even get sniffed.

That's why I said your "first choices" were all defense. Which is simply indefensible. The Webb/Bushrod thing may take quite some time. I'm not purposely dodging it, but I do most of my posting on this board while at work, and the one thing I can't do very much is stream large amounts of video without being noticed. Time at home to watch video is nearly nonexistent.

I do like him, but I don't pretend he was good last year. I'm just holding out hope that his injury and unfamiliarity with the right side were the primary reasons he didn't do so well. It's not beyond me that there is a possibility the Bears front office disliked him enough last year to view his position as one in need. I hope they don't give up on him just yet.

I won't be. I'm hoping Carimi is the one who improves and heals enough to play RT. I don't want him to be another wasted first round draft pick. Webb has already had ample opportunity to show his skills, and he has been lacking the entire time.

Thank you. If the Bears had to double-team the DEs the entire game, then that's at least 6 linemen (OL + TE) and more likely 7 (OL + TE + TE). To block FOUR people. The 49ers then would have had 7 people to cover the Bears 4 or 3 players. Not a good ratio. Speaking of that ratio, it might have been necessary, because we all know (read below) what happened in the Packer game. Both guys sucked that game. But even if you look at one of the bad plays by Carimi you'll see that Webb was beat equally bad...in addition to his other number F'ups.

You would have three 2nd round picks, and your first choices are CB, LB, and 3-4 NT? Be honest, you absolutely hate Cutler and want to see him crippled. First you advocate harder for Webb than his own family, comparing him to Bushrod even though the entire football watching world realized Webb sucked and Bushrod was far superior, but now, in this fictitious scenario, you are given THREE 2nd Round picks and you use them all on defense? Even though three of the weakest positions on the entire team are OG, C, and RT? I think I finally cracked the case as to your identity. Nice to meet you, Lovie.

Forgive me. I got years and situations confused. It's just that Lovie has won a meaningless game at the end of the season and tanked draft position in multiple seasons. I forgot this miserable team was vying for a final playoff spot at the end of the year last year.

I can't imagine it happening any other way in the draft war room. Imagine sometime last year... Emery: "OK guys. Here are my thoughts. We need a play-maker to pair with Brandon Marshall. We need protection for Jay pretty badly at more than one position. A defensive end, too, I guess." Lovie (Raising his hand in the air, waving it frantically): "Ooooh. Oooh! Oooh!" Emery: "I already told you, Lovie, you don't have to raise your hand to speak." Lovie: "I think a defensive end is definitely what we need." Emery: "Are you sure? We weren't too bad in defense last year." Lovie: "Oh, yeah, definitely. That's why I think. And just because I'm thinking about it, we probably need a safety or cornerback from a small school." Emery: "We'll get to that later. Mike, what do you think." Tice (picking his nose with his thumb): "I like our guys. They did well. Showed a lot of talent." Emery: "You guys do realize the offense has been bad for a while, and Jay personally begged me to draft offensive linemen and wide receivers, right?" Tice (scratching his butt): "Yeah, but I like our guys." Lovie: "Agreed. It's about execution. We need to go out and execute." Tice: "Coach them up. I don't need a pro-bowler at LT to make my offense work like Martz did. (winks at Lovie)" Emery: "Fine. If you guys honestly believe that, we'll go defensive end. Now, who fits our defense the best? We need a 4-3 guy, a perfect 5 technique for our defense." Lovie: "I think..." Emery (cutting Lovie off): "Rod? Your thoughts?" Marinelli: "Me and Lovie agree. He knows what I wants." Lovie (quickly): "Shae McClellin!" Emery: "Huh? The guy the Packers want as an OLB in their 3-4?" Lovie (smiling): "Yep." Emery: "You realize he is sorta light, and many have him going much later?" Lovie (excitedly): Yep. Gotta have him now." Emery: "Alright, it's your funeral. Phone it in."

I would love to see that happen. The talent this year is deep, and the 20 spot (thanks for winning that last meaningless game AGAIN, Lovie) is far enough down that the elite talent has a good chance of being gone. That scenario is basically a way of saying you hope a trade happens with either the 49ers or the Bengals, the only teams with multiple picks in the 2nd round. The #20 pick is worth 850, and the 49ers' two picks are 852, with the Bengals being a bit more pricey at 900. If that were to happen, which three players/positions would you like to see? The 2nd round appears to be pretty deep this year.

I like the idea of getting everyone's input on which available players should have been targets. From there it seems better that we either advocate individually or we arrive at a player ranking combination (since no site is all-encompassing). Having people advocate for their own guy seems like a better way to do it. Narrow that down to X number of choices. Vote. Top 3 go forward. Vote for the actual selection.

I think it would help, but I think the help would be minimal. I have said it for close to 6 straight years, and for that entire time I've been correct, but it doesn't matter what skill players you add if the OL sucks. The addition of someone like Austin would look great on paper, but Jay Cutler rarely had time for a second read with the blocking he received last year. And make no mistake, Brandon Marshall is the first read. Maybe with Bushrod, and hopefully a high draft pick (crossing fingers), all this will change.

Was it a picture of you getting past him?

HAHAHAHA. That one burns.

Playmaker? Sure. But I hope team need is factored in as we'll. you could draft 5 straight play making WRs, but it won't help the team that much.

Are you planning on quitting the board after the first pick, or after this year? Or maybe it didn't occur to you we could do this for future drafts and begin to form a better picture of the board>GM theory.

Exactly. It's something we've done before (not collectively). What's so difficult to figure out? If players X, Y, and Z are available at the Bears pick, and they select X, but the Board thinks Z would have been a better pick, we pick Z. Three years down the road, if Z kicks ass and X is selling tires in Detroit, then we can pat ourselves on the back.

After the draft the board is usually quiet. This off-season I propose we take on the challenge of acting like a front office and run our own draft. Once the draft is in the books we will know which players are available at our picks. We can setup simple votes for each pick. That's the easy part.

I like the general idea, but there is always one "what if" we can't factor. We never really know what would happen to player X on team Y if he actually ended up on team Z. For instance, Randy Moss would never have exploded onto the league if he were drafted by the Bears. The combo of Kramer, Stenstrom, and Moreno would not have been able to reproduce what Randall Cunningham and that offense did. Most likely, Moss would have seen a significantly smaller number of passes his way, and his attitude would have started much earlier in his career. With his emotion/attitude, it could have derailed his entire career. And that's just one of countless examples.

I think the original message is meant to imply that we can't select a player who is not available. Seems pretty obvious to me. The Bears have #20. Anyone >19 is up for grabs.

And my comment was in reply to a comment stating: "Thats a good comment, maybe he could win some biggest losers competition, but is to far removed from the NFL to be consider a thought." The simple fact is, he IS getting attention, and he's not that far removed.