jason

I thought you were just talking about RBs. I don't apply that philosophy across all positions. RBs? Yeah, in general I prefer the homerun hitter over the steady 4ypc guy. LBs? Give me the steady guy who wraps up and makes consistent tackles all day over the guy who may explode into a few huge plays and perform average the rest of the time...not that either description fits Jack/Ragland.

And Bill Polian himself has said that the draft is basically a coin flip! He's said the great teams hit at about 58% and the bad teams are at around 50% or less. Mortgaging the team's future on a position we don't really need for a coin flip? No thanks. http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nf...draft/30475885/

I think that's crazy because you NEVER know who LT is. You just don't know. So by doing what you suggest, you're mortgaging the future for what amounts to, at best, a 50/50 bet. You hit, OMG, great! But there is a good chance there is a serious deficiency elsewhere, because you went pure BPA. You miss on him being a HOFer, which has very great odds, and you have a surplus at a position, at least one player being underused because you drafted a position you didn't need, and you have a hole at another position. Oh, and that's based on the entire premise that a guy you're picking is waaaaay better than the comparable player at a different position. I agree with that line of thought if we're talking someone like Elliott in the second. At that point, the likelihood of him being way better than anyone else at any position is decent. But very rarely does a guy fall 20-30 spots further than he should.

Who is younger in terms of NFL games/years? Who is younger in terms of chronological age? Neither matters to me. I think Wilkerson is a better bet because getting the right DL and LB group together means we could put just about any NFL ready CB back there. Kind of like the 85 Bears...it didn't much matter who was at CB because the opposing QBs had zero time to throw the ball. I say pass on Norman.

I did. I do. As long as his knee can be prepared. He has skill that outweighs his size and risk.

Bolded... :headbang :headbang

Zeke? No. No. No. I still don't understand why anyone wants him at 11. Even after everyone put in their top three needs, and RB was nowhere to be seen, we're still talking about freaking Elliott? I think dawhizz is closer to the truth. And I wouldn't be shocked if there are more moves before it's all said and done.

The problem with including QB into that line of thought is that there is a VERY finite number of NFL capable QBs. Those guys don't grow on trees. Just about every team in the NFL is sitting on a dangerous powder-keg of QB depth. Their guy goes down, and the season is over. That's not the same for other positions.

What high risk, high reward players are you hoping the Bears take a chance on? A few that come to mind: Robert Nkemdiche Shawn Oakman Moretz Boeringer Rashard Robinson Any others that you're thinking about?

And that's only half the photo!! He's just about as thick as Ingram, while being 5" taller. Meanwhile, Trent Richardson and Lacy look like fans taking photos with their favorite player. He's immense. He's stronger than the others, and just as fast. https://twitter.com/BamaPride143/status/721...0008192/photo/1

SS - I'm not sure about us being screwed if Rolle goes down. We don't even know what he is capable of anymore. He might go out on the field and just show his age this year. I don't think he was great when he played last year; he was average. DL - Ego, Unrein, Sutton, Hicks. While he isn't the best, Unrein was decent last year. I feel we are way worse in terms of depth at LT. Leno is average at best, and if he goes down it puts an absolute scrub in at LT, or rearranges the entire line into chaos with Massie going to LT, Long going to RT, and Ramirez (?) going to RG. Horrible scenario either way.

On the contrary. We're the same. I'd much rather have the home-run hitter. I've said so for years. But this is about which player is a better compliment to Langford, a guy who already has home-run speed (4.42).

If I were running the show I'd want to do two main things, and one supplementary thing: -Shore up the OL by picking a LT that can start day-one. -Pick long, rangy, athletic defensive players to infuse the team with some burst. *Use late picks on risks with great reward. Here's how I'd do it. 1. Ronnie Stanley, LT, ND (Bookend for a decade) 2. Artie Burns, CB, Miami (Shutdown corner. Perfect fit with great potential.) 3. Carl Nassib, DE, PSU (Love his drive, determination, length. Perfect 5T for the Bears.) 4. Dak Prescott, QB, MSU (The more I watch of him, the more underrated I think he is. He has great potential.) 4. Jerell Adams, TE, SC (Big, looks like a power forward. I watch his highlights and think of another Gamecock on the Bears' roster.) 5. Jayron Kearse, S, Clemson (Freakish potential but falling everywhere. His measurables are hard to ignore.) 6. Shawn Oakman, DE, Baylor (I think this guy is going to plummet to about here. Incredible upside this late.) 6. Dan Vitale, FB, NW (I think the Bears want a RB, but I hope they go for a FB-hybrid.) 7. Moritz Boehringer, WR, Germany (He's worth a shot late. Hopefully nobody else takes the chance.)

If you want a slot WR, the Bears should draft a slot WR. Using that as an option is just a minor schematic option. I still think you're wrong about Henry. He doesn't have the "juke you in a phone booth" skills that some shifty guys like Ervin has, but he only needs the single cut most of the time because he's so strong and explosive. He'll truck right through arm tackles in the NFL as well. Not only that, but Langford is not a pure power back, and he's yet to show his GL abilities. That is not a concern with Henry. At the very least, he's a monster, guaranteed GL back, pseudo FB. He's a guy who is going to get you 3 hard yards regardless of where you're at. Great compliment if you ask me.

Bolded - That's the issue. Who's grading? What do they consider blue chip? What's their record of recognizing blue chip guys? What's their hit/miss percentage? I think it's Millen-esque to pick a guy perceived to be a blue chip (let's say rated #10 on the board) at a position with two solid starters already, when you can get a guy rated #15 or so at a position of desperate need. You end up bolstering a position that didn't need much help and keeping an issue alive at another position.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAT? That's straight insane. You're not objectively looking at this at all. There is a reason Drake didn't start over Henry. It's because as a RB Henry is a monster. He's super fast, runs with great power, is capable of breaking tons of tackles, is an absolute terror running north-south, and has very good vision through the hole. Who cares if the RB can split out as a WR. 2:18 - Great double cutback then turns on the jets. 2:45 - Single cut, explodes downhill. 2:51 - Single cut, explodes to the EZ. 3:10 - Single cut, sets up his WR block, goes to the outside for a TD. 3:36 - Amazing creative vision here, cutback left is blocked by LB, sees RT get leverage, blasts into the weak spot, then powers for a long TD 3:54 - Catches a pass in the flats, shits on a LB, runs through an arm tackle, stiff-arms another, TD 4:08 - Great jump cut, explodes down hill for a much bigger gain than he should have gotten Find another highlight and I'll show you a bunch more. If Henry is there in the 3rd, the Bears front office should draft him instantaneously and then have a war room orgy to celebrate.

B)

Bolded-Only if the guy you're drafting is rated way lower than the position of surplus. If they are rated remotely close to one another, it makes way more since to fill the hole on the team than it does to double or triple up on an already strong position. For instance, I loved Ragland before the Bears signed Freeman and Trevathan. Now? I don't want him unless he drops all the way to the Bears in the second.

But there has to be degrees to the BPA philosophy. If a player with a higher score is there, he shouldn't be picked if hes barely higher in points and at a non-need position. Sure, if The best RG in the draft is there is the 6t, go for it, but that situation never happens.

Why aren't you a fan of the home games? I think it looks pretty damn sweet. The only one that truly worries me is the late GB game, because if the Bears have a shot at the division that could be very tough. Otherwise they're all very winnable games.

That "can't run block" stuff is being overplayed. People are reaching for something on him. Look at any of his highlights and you'll see good run blocking and very superior pass blocking. He engages strong in the run. He uses angles and defender momentum to crash them away from the play. He locks on and doesn't let go. When defenders get the inside leverage, they still have difficulty getting off and making the tackle because Stanley is man-handling them. He gets a good base and pushes back linemen. He absolutely destroys or seals off guys on the second level. His feet are SUPERB in all of this. It's amazing how often he gets the outside seal on a defender for being such a big guy. Watch this USC highlight and tell me you see otherwise. The pass blocking really is a thing of beauty. He just buries guys, obliterates them, covers them up with a blanket and tucks their asses in.

Personally, I say no. Stanley is a bookend LT that solidifies the offense, protects Cutler (and the QB of the future). He's about as sure of a pick as there is in the draft. A 3rd rounder is a much bigger gamble.

I think this is a horrible trade for the Rams. They're mortgaging the future on one player. It's a single roll of the dice. There is zero room for mistakes. The Titans, however, have several rolls. Great for them. It feels like the Dallas Cowboy trade that built their franchise in the 90s. You're right that Conklin et. al. are not as good as Tunsil or Stanley, but this is a smart percentage play. According to this site the Titans need a RT, CB, WR, FS, & RB. Imagine if they came away with the following combo: 1.16 - Jack Conklin, OT, MSU 2.33 - Michael Thomas, WR, OSU 2.43 - Artie Burns, CB, Miami 2.45 - Keanu Neal, FS, FL That's a scary good start and fill of their positions.

That's kind of what I was getting at. We live in a very scary world in terms of that stuff. Not to get too political, but I think these dudes are being set up for traps all the time. And it takes very little for someone to cry wolf. But just the scare of this will cause teams to completely write him off. If he falls pretty far, and the Bears get a good feeling about this being a BS case, I wouldn't mind seeing them draft him a little later.

I agree this is bad for us at 11 and the prospect of trading back. But I think this is good for us because it's likely the Rams, Browns, and Niners pick a QB. That means at least one stud falls to 11. For the record, it's a pretty even trade. Titans give up 1.1-3000 4.113-68 6.177-20.6 Total-3088.6 Rams give up 1.15-1050 2.43-470 2.45-450 3.76-210 1.15-1050 (approx) 3.145-33.5 (approx) Total-3263.5