jason

Bottom Line Up Front: The Bears haven't taken a lot of flack because of the uncertainty. The Bears have taken a lot of flack because they went completely against conventional wisdom and took an entire draft full of risks. Reading is fundamental.

I know next to nothing about Gentry, but he's one of those guys I like to get behind. He's a guy who put up good stats in college for more than one year, but then had a disappointing drill of some kind. In this case it was the forty. I like Kwiatkoski before the draft last year because he was a tackling machine, but he also dropped off because of a bad forty. Let's hope Gentry surprises. I wouldn't mind seeing him make the roster in place of Bellamy. I'll never forgive him for the drop in the Titans game last year.

Short and sweet: -I officiate and watch enough college football that my wife hates me during college football season. I devote enough time to it that I send my family away on vacation for two months every year. I'm sure that's more than the great majority who doesn't do it for a living. And, yes, I'm dead serious about that. No, I don't have access to the treasure trove that NFL scouting departments have, but all those scouting departments differ from one another. Otherwise there would be a near consensus on the rankings. -Regarding the lower level guys, the fact that you had to include two guys who are retired, and more than one who is a scrub, shows how little talent matriculates from the lower levels to the NFL. Is it possible? Yes. I never said it wasn't. Is it as likely as finding talent at the FBS level? Unequivocally no. And, yes, I'm saying that maybe the fact the Bears have sucked for quite some time might have some relation to the fact the Bears have more players on your list that average. -I'm obviously not opposed to finding lower level talent. I thought Hall was a well-placed pick last year. But there is a reason Pace was highly touted last year and is getting ripped this year. -Cohen is a great compliment to Howard because his skill-set is different. Do you know what the word compliment in this regard means? Where he is drafted is inconsequential to that statement. -I'm glad you think you know the history of why the scouting departments have changed over the years, but I'll stick with money being the main cause. Teams got more sophisticated scouting, put more emphasis on it, added more bodies to scout regionally, were able to gather more video, and generally built more robust scouting departments so they could glean information from more and more data.

The one you linked wasn't mine. It was Walter's. And I disagreed with where Shaheen was mocked. Just like I disagree with where he was picked by the Bears. But if you agree with Walter's mock about where Shaheen was ranked, then surely you agree with their evaluation of the Bears' draft as being one of the worst of all time. The same can be applied to just about any of those sites. They may have ranked Shaheen highly, but they're all ripping the Bears' draft. That's what I said in the original comment to which you replied. One risky pick, sure. An entire draft of risky picks, no thanks. The list you provided is hilarious. You had to reach back to Shannon Sharpe and Roberto Garza? And you included a guy named "Snacks?" More telling is the fact that on that list, the Bears are heavily represented. Maybe coincidentally, the Bears have sucked for the majority of the past two decades. Nobody is saying there aren't gems at lower levels. But to try to find three or four of those gems in the same draft is not a very solid strategy because, as your list has shown, there just isn't as much talent there and the odds of hitting are severely minimized. Think of it like the roulette wheel. Betting a color is like picking from FBS. Splitting your bet is like picking from FCS. Betting a straight up number is picking from DII or below. BTW - I'd argue the reason you see more lower level scouting is because the NFL has become a multi-billion dollar industry and they have the resources to scout there. In the past they didn't.

Agree. Awfully risky endeavor though. I guess some prefer four double, and others want a HR and strikeouts. For the record, I don't think I've seen multiple drafts in a row, much less a stretch of them, where the Bears were thought of as having great drafts. Do conventional wisdom may have gotten David Terrell, but it has been ignored more than followed by Bears' front offices.

That's funny. That could become a meme. Something like, "Jay Cutler broadcasting predictions"

Precisely. You can't use Walterfootball to say Shaheen is the #4 TE and a stud, but then discount Walterfootball when they rip the Bears' draft as being one of the worst ever.

And if you look at that post, it was from a thread that was something like "Great 7th round guy." Not a 4th round guy. The fact is, he beat up on weaker competition in the MEAC. And the main problem is that Pace took a risk with every single pick, not just one. If he had taken a single risk, it's not as bad. But when every single pick is a risk (e.g. DII & FCS, injured, minimal experience), it's hard to say it's a good draft.

You apparently didn't bother to read what I posted. It's about the uncertainty of the picks. And there is definite uncertainty when picking a 2nd round TE from a DII school. DII is nowhere near the same as FBS talent. There is no doubting this. Simply stated, there is naturally going to be a much better hit percentage selecting from higher level FBS than there is from DII conferences. And if you look at the first link you posted, you would see I didn't think Shaheen was the right guy. I hope I'm wrong, but choosing DII guys is just not the same as choosing FBS guys. Choosing a TE is not the same as choosing "any" TE. What's so difficult to understand about that? If it was simply about picking a position, then a lot more DII guys would probably get drafted. But they don't, because DII talents is inferior on the whole.

The Bears haven't taken a lot of flack because of the uncertainty. The Bears have taken a lot of flack because they went completely against conventional wisdom and took an entire draft full of risks. (Yeah, yeah, I know all picks are risks, but these are different.) Trubisky - Only one year starting, cost the Bears extra picks they couldn't afford Shaheen - Unproven, except against DII scrubs Jackson - Broken leg, and we certainly know by now that those can linger Cohen - Unproven, except against MEAC scrubs Morgan - Unproven, except against DII scrubs They literally didn't take a single player who is healthy, and has sustained, outstanding production against high-level DI competition.

If Trubisky was his guy, and unavailable, he should be prepared for that. Glennon was already in place, so QB for 2017 was already settled. At that point he may be disappointed, but he shouldn't be so myopic as to have a single plan. Just load up on defense, and hope Glennon is awesome. If he isn't? The team should be overall better due to the picks, and QB could be priority in 2018's superior class.

It's money that could have been used to entice a top FA like Bouye, Gilmore, or Campbell. I agree with the hedged bet comment. That's the best outlook we can have on it.

Assuming the "Cleveland picks Trubisky"-scenario, you pick defense in one of the best defensive drafts in history. Seems pretty straightforward.

That's been my stance and dilemma the entire time. If Glennon blows up, the Bears: -Good: Have a starting QB who is a stud. -Bad: Have a #2 pick overall who doesn't see the field If Glennon sucks, the Bears: -Good: Have absolutely no reason not to get their #2 guy in the game -Good: Can cut Glennon and free up his money. -Bad: Wasted money on Glennon when they were going to pick a QB at #2 anyway.

Agree. I know everyone doesn't agree with this, and some say the meaningless wins have meaning. I'd rather have another bad season to get the high draft pick, or an incredible season that ends with the playoffs. I loathe the 6-10 through 9-7 seasons.

I don't trust Ron Wolf in regards to this. He may just be laughing inside and saying it's good because he's a packer guy.

Double-edged sword. If Howard is in there, the defense has to be worried about a legit, up the middle, power run that easily goes for 3-4 yards if they're not prepared to be stout against the run. That's not a real concern with Cohen. And if Cohen is in there, the defense has to be prepared to defend an exterior run as well as a quick pass to him, which isn't a huge concern with Howard.

I don't care about the signing of Jaye Howard much. If he were great, he wouldn't have been available. With any luck, however, he'll get back to pre-injury conditions and turn out as a steal. But I do care about the upgrade of 3-4DE. The biggest aspect of this signing is that Mitch Unrein is off the field. Upgrading the 3-4DE spot was essentially, and I'm still baffled the Bears didn't draft one. Unrein may have been the worst guy on defense last year. So, congrats to Jaye Howard, but any name better than Unrein would have made me happy.

You've hit on the major reasons I posted the question. I'm a huge fan of north-south guys, they don't last long, and Fox is a committee guy. Howard may not be great out of the backfield catching passes, but what's broke may not need to be fixed. What's done is done with Cohen, but I was thinking about the question this morning and believe there is merit to it.

Random thought on Tarik Cohen (like him, but I think he was a reach) and other "change of pace" backs. Are they needed? I get that each RB has their own style, flavor, and advantage. Some may be better at catching out of the backfield than others. Some are better going between the tackles. Given Howard's success last year, wouldn't it be better to just get a Howard clone and pound the opposing defense all game? Regardless of which RB is in there, the opponent really doesn't know what to do, or can't take a break. I mean, if Howard fits so well, why not a guy who runs just like him?

Very good point, and all the more reason for the team to draft heavy defense in a very deep defensive draft. Then those guys have a year under their belt when the team finds out if Glennon is good or not. If not, draft a QB high, because the record will be bad. If he's good, then the QB position is locked up and the rest of the team can be strengthened for a playoff push.

I appreciate this post, but coming from the other side of the aisle, it's difficult to swallow for a different reason. Most Bears' fans that I've met and interacted with are pessimistic about Bears' drafts, and optimistic about the seasons. Year after year we question, and year after year the Bears don't do well, so it strengthens our belief that odd decisions from the front office are poor decisions when it comes to the draft. When the front office eschews conventional wisdom and does something odd, it's baffling because year after year the Bears have avoided what most believed they should do in the draft. Pace may be an excellent talent evaluator, and he may be right about the 2017 draft, but for just a few years in a row it would be nice to see the Bears kind of do what most people (including most on this board) expect them to do.

That makes it even more baffling to me. With a job on the line, you'd think he would be more in favor of surer bets, guys with high floors. With a job on the line it's an entirely different draft. My job on the line, the draft would have been: 1-Jamal Adams 2-Zay Jones 3-Chris Wormley 4-David Sharpe 4-Julien Davenport 5-Nathan Peterman 7-Chad Kelly That way I have two sure fire players, one likely starter, a hedged bet on OT and QB in hopes at least one of each pans out.

If you say so. I think if anything you have given reason for why Whitehair should be moved back to his natural position of LT. You said it takes multiple years to get used to a new position, and he has more years familiarity at LT than C. The one year of cohesion is the only real sacrifice.

If the coaches and Pace think they are going to be good, then they're worse at talent evaluation than anyone could possible imagine. They'll be lucky to get to .500.