jason

I was thinking about who else was available. 1. Goff 2. Wentz 3. Bosa 4. Elliott That leaves Ramsey, Stanley, Tunsil, Buckner, Hargreaves, Jack. It could happen, but I don't think it will. I think one of those guys fall.

YEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. HAHAHAHA. PERFECT. Someone is guaranteed to fall now.

That's a hit and miss for me. I like the trade down and the first two picks. I also like Hogan later on. I really hope the Bears don't use an early pick on a RB, and I don't particularly like Sean Davis as a CB prospect...he's not good in coverage.

If that's the case, I sure hope it's Lawson.

I have said this many times. I think VHIII is very likely.

Unfortunately, all GMs talk in GM-speak and generalities. The key word to all of his info is the word "close". We don't know what he considers close.

That's kind of my point. Just about every GM misses at roughly 50%. So hinging your 1st rounder on a potential miss is not as good a strategy when you don't need that position. That's my whole point. If you're going to take that same chance, it may as well be on a position of need. Saying, "Yeah, I think this guy is the different one though" is not good enough because it doesn't overcome the proven odds of the draft. Polian's probably as sure as they come, maybe the best (Newsome?), but he's still around .500. I guess I'm just more into the percentages of it all since the truly great guys can't be predicted.

1. Underrated? Scooby Wright. I don't care how he tested. Dude can play football. 2. Overrated? Eli Apple. He's way overrated. He's grabby and doesn't see the ball. 3. Favorite day 3? Jayron Kearse. I've been a fan of his for a while. All he really lacks is the mental game. 4. 1st/2nd falls to 3rd? I'll go crazy and say Nkemdiche. Maybe the GMs are scared off by his lack of production. 5. Surprise 1st? Connor Cook. Every year QBs are way overvalued. 6. Bold Bears prediction? The Bears go for a TE early. 7. Don't want in 1st? Ezekiel Elliott. My thoughts on this are known. The Bears need several other positions much more, and Elliott is not that much better than other prospects. 8. Right choice? Ronnie Stanley or Vernon Hargreaves III. Honestly, I don't know WTF will happen tomorrow night. I can see a scenario when Stanley falls. Otherwise, VGIII is the most likely answer. 9. Probable choice? Shaq Lawson.

I'm really hoping it's a huge smoke-screen. Leno was not good enough last year to be a guy who gets specific, singled-out, rave reviews.

Do you believe they want to move Long to LT after the fairly pedestrian effort - despite the popularity/pro bowl - last year? I think they know he's a monster at G and they are going to maximize his potential.

Agreed. Way too much $$.

So a whole three picks? And one was Peyton Freaking Manning? That's a great sample size.

You asked a question. I answered it. Polian's rating? I honestly don't know what his hit/miss percentages were, but he's generally thought of as one of the best in the business. Of course, it helps when you have one of the best QBs of all time for a decade. So I took a quick look at his drafts with Indy...he's below 50% overall, and just barely above 50% on his 1st rounders. He just happened to be on fire his first 7 years, absolutely killing it 6 out of 7 years. His 1st rounders (bold is a hit, italic is questionable): 98-Manning 99-Edge 00-Rob Morris 01-Reggie Wayne 02-Dwight Freeney 03-Dallas Clark 04-Bob Sanders 05-Marlin Jackson 06-Joseph Addai 07-Anthony Gonzalez 08-Mike Pollak 09-Donald Brown 10-Jerry Hughes 11-Anthony Costanzo

Of course I like my mock better than yours, but I like both of ours way better than the author's "booty" mock.

Not a huge fan. I love the start with Stanley, of course, but after that I am not pleased. Here are the problems as I see it. 1. The Bears need D more than O, and the beginning doesn't reflect that. 2. I don't like TE then RB in the 2nd and 3rd unless someone excellent falls. Hunter Henry wouldn't be horrible (not great for us either), but I don't like Prosise there. 3. Willie Henry is thought of as a 3T more than a 5T. Bad fit. 4. No safety help? 5. Cody Kessler? Meh. May as well skip the QB position this year. He has virtually no upside. Everyone thinks he'll be a journeyman, game-manager at best. 6. Waiting that late on CB? With that layout, the Bears could have had the following: 1. Ronnie Stanley, LT, Notre Dame (Day 1 starter) 2. A'Shawn Robinson, DE, Alabama (#2 rated 34DE in the 2nd) 3. Jeremy Cash, S, Duke (Lays wood, probably starts day 1) 4. Yannik Ngakoue, OLB, Maryland (Good athlete) 4. Cardale Jones, QB, Ohio State (Great upside) 5. Zack Sanchez, CB, Oklahoma (Playmaker) 6. Graham Glasgow, OG/C, Michigan (Good power run guy) 6. Beau Sandland, TE, Montana St (Intriguing prospect with great athleticism) 7. Moritz Boehringer, WR, Germany (What the hell.)

That's a tricky question. In general, if you are putting people in groups, then I agree. We've seen numerous statistical breakdowns where 1st rounders perform better overall than 2nd, 2nd over 3rd, and so on. But I don't know that I've seen something that compares a team's actual draft board with their drafted players' success. And we certainly haven't seen something like that as it compares to one player over another when only a few picks divide them. As such, it depends on who is doing the rating. The the argument that has been made on this board - and other boards - for years, is that the guys running the team knew better. Yet the Bears draft board and people doing the drafting have both underperformed for years. One of the worst drafting teams in the past decade or so, at least. One of the lowest number of homegrown talent on team. So, if we're talking about those ratings, then no, I don't agree, because facts prove otherwise. Unless, of course, they are not drafting by a draft board with ratings...which is virtually impossible.

OLB...I agree. I'm worried the Bears might actually reach for someone to be Von Miller in Chicago. DE? I don't agree. Elliott is highly rated at RB, but Buckner and Bosa are absolute studs.

Scum fan? I don't even know what that is. Alabama fan? No, but I live there. And I'm a huge fan of Henry. I'm actually a ND fan. Elliott gets better and stronger as the game goes on? That's funny, everyone says the same thing about Henry. Everyone. There may have been extenuating circumstances, but he still reacted very poorly after the game. He threw his coaches under the bus.

Or DE. Or CB. Or OLB. All three positions we need much more.

The 50/50 argument applies to all players all positions. But that's why it's smarter to include a healthier dosage of need in there. You miss, and you still have a body at the other position and Langford at RB. You miss with a position you don't need and you now have a body behind Langford, and a gap elsewhere.

This way of thinking I like better. But for starters, I don't know I agree with your initial ruling out of DL or LB. Again, 50/50. We don't know if Leonard Floyd is the next great OLB. But let's say he's not. I think Buckner is easily better than any DE the Bears have on roster. So I'd say that leaves us with DE, T, RB, or DB dropping. The bolded part I disagree with, but can wholeheartedly respect. I think Stanley's floor is somewhere around Leno's ceiling. Barring injury, Stanley will be a good to great pass-blocking LT in the league for a while. I also don't like the idea that you're throwing out about outstanding RBs succeeding despite OL deficiencies, because the opposite can be said as well.

Good point. What about him? 1. He may not be the right fit for the Bears. It seems that any sort of trouble-maker is gone, and he seems to fit the bill of a Terrell Owens type. How else does someone explain him shitting all over the coaching staff after the MSU game and then saying he wouldn't come back to OSU the next year? That's a serious red flag. 2. Everyone talks about the flaws of Derrick Henry, but when you watch the Elliott tape, there really isn't a lot of shiftiness in there either. It's one cut, OL opens huge hole, and he outruns everyone downhill. 3. He's not really a very good blocker. He's more of a "get in the way"-blocker. And sometimes he doesn't pick up the assignment. When he does engage, he rarely locks on, and he has a bad habit of lunging and dipping his head. The Virginia Tech and Notre Dame games showed that pretty well. Speaking of the VT game... 4. He's not someone to use in the return game. 5. Others have mentioned wanting a RB that can be split out wide. Well, they did it with him at OSU, but he's a far cry from Forte. It didn't look natural at all when I saw him lined up like a WR. 6. I honestly don't think his vision is that great. He often takes unnecessary cuts, and also end up running right at guys. In college that's cool, because he's probably one of the best athletes on the field at all times. He won't get away with it as much in the pros. He's no doubt one of the top 2 RBs in this draft, but I don't think he's the next AP. I think he'll be a good pro RB, but not great.

Again. I'd love to have the next AP or LT as well, but Bill Polian himself said the draft is roughly a coin flip. Even the #1 rated guy. 50/50 odds. Why take the 50/50 odds on a position you don't really need? It makes more sense to skip that position since the Bears already have a player who represents odds greater than 50/50. Use that coin flip elsewhere. Especially considering the Bears have had less than 50% success for quite some time. Kick ass for a few years? Sure, you've proven yourself. Go and get the BPA guys because you're likely to be right.

Did I say that? I thought I just said Forte was awesome, and I much prefer him over the others. Hell, I didn't even want to draft Langford, because I felt Forte had more tread left on the tires.

The problem is, you guys are all misconstruing the BPA vs. need debate. Absolutely none of the GMs are advocating pure BPA. None. They would not draft year after year of the same player because that guy was the #1 guy in the draft class. That is simply not up for debate. As a result, there simply has to be some amount of BPA and need put together. At that point you have to determine how much better someone like Elliott is over a comparable player the Bears will draft. The problem with that is, even the great Bill Polian admits to it being a coin flip. So whatever value someone is given, it's awfully naive to think you can absolutely nail the next great Montana, Taylor, Pace, etc. just because he's highest rated on your board that year. Lord knows we as Bears fans have seen our fair share of #1 picks bust. If you ignore all that and draft on BPA anyway, you're flipping the coin that the player selected is a HOFer, and you're neglecting a position of greater need...unless, of course, that BPA #1 player is also at a position of need. Thinking it through logically doesn't really make a case where the Bears should target Elliot. Langford showed enough promise last year that the Bears should see what they have invested in him before reinvesting in the position and leaving the cupboards bare at other areas.