jason

Because he would.. 1. be a nuisance. 2. bitch the first time he wasn't the lead RB. 3. get injured 4. take away development carries from Langford and Carey. 5. probably cost more than you are stating. The "does he make our team better"-question is far too simple to determine if someone should be on the team. If the Bears want to spend money on a third RB to complement Langford and Carey, it needs to be a bruising GL back who can get 3-yards regardless of the situation and can cave in a blitzing LB's ribs.

I think he's WAAAAY better than Bennett.

Cutting Houston would be a bad move. He was dinged at the beginning of the year and came on strong late. Same goes for Willie Young who was on fire for 5-6 games. Those guys are both good vets. B+ guys who won't be pro-bowlers probably, but they are good enough to be really solid on a team that has starts elsewhere.

DAMN! A Seahawk friend of mine who is hardcore just called me today and asked me if I'd take Graham for Bennett and a 6th. I said yes immediately.

It seems that as long as we're not talking about Cutler, we agree for the most part. Picking up Foster would, indeed, be dumb.

Wow. That second draft would be ridiculous. Get a potential franchise QB, AND first day starters on the defense at three positions?! Reed would be great, Cravens would by dynamic, and Kearse would be a freak. And, hell, Bradberry/Zettel might even get in on the action.

For the most part I like it, but two things: 1. I don't like Braxton Miller for reasons mentioned above. 2. Don't we have three 6th rounders?

Have the Bears traditionally or ever, or has Fox ever kept 6 WRs?

1. Completely agree. McPhee, Young, and Houston constitute the deepest position on the Bears. 2. No way on OLB in the first two rounds. 3. Ragland absolutely can't play OLB in a 3-4.

If they truly believe that, then I can see it more as an option. I don't think it's right, given how close they were so often last year despite their horrendous defense, but I'm not running the team. We pretty much all want a trade-down. If this is what they are doing, then I know I'm completely on board with a trade down to get as many picks as possible, and I echo your sentiments about Jaylon Smith.

Quick answer, BPA is more viable if the Bears fill holes. If they snagged Trevathan, Osemele, and a few high quality other signings, then yes BPA makes more sense.

I think this draft is thin with TEs overall, but it's a great fit for what the Bears are trying to do. Resigning Miller gives the Bears a starter, and most of the TEs we'd likely target are 3rd-6th. Great value for multiple guys. Tyler Higbee, Bryce Williams, and Henry Krieger-Coble are all nice options. And if we're looking for a blocking TE, Nick Vannett could be a great choice.

Kind of. It's prioritized need. You take the position of need when rankings are close. And the problem with pure BPA in the 1st is that he'd have to already be AP after 3-4 years to justify the selection, because there are guys at positions of need that grade similarly or better. You absolutely must factor in the current player at the position. He may be a game-changing RB, but if he's a 9.5 out of 10, for instance, and someone like Myles Jack is a 9.3, you take Jack because Langford already looks like a 6-7 and has potential for 9+. Meanwhile, the pair of starting ILBs are not even a combined 9, and that absolutely must be addressed before a luxury pick.

Yes, New England was lucky. They did, however, what I think franchises with stable-to-great QBs should do: draft for QB later. Always. You never know when you'll hit a grand slam with a Brady in the 6th. But you don't do it early at the expense of the rest of the team.

Almost exactly my thoughts. Also, I don't think he prioritized the OL enough.

Bolded...I don't know if that's true. A balanced team wins more often than not. It's very rare where a SB winner just jumps on the QBs back and says, "Take us home." Of course, that's basically what happened to the Bears and Manning in 2007. Even teams that had very good offenses (e.g. New York Giants recent SB teams) relied heavily on portions of their defense to stifle the opposing offense (i.e. pass rush limiting Brady). Picking a franchise QB when you have a franchise QB is sacrificing other portions of the team, and balance. Even the 85 Bears had a top 5 offense. More specifically, this team has serious flaws in multiple positions, and picking another QB would result in the old saying, "When you have two starting QBs you don't have a starting QB", as well as a losing team.

You basically nailed why "true BPA" makes no sense for the Bears. If so, the Bears could potentially be in a position to draft the same position, regardless of need, for multiple years in a row. Same goes for any GM that drafts just for BPA and ignores the holes on his team.

I'm still shocked anyone thinks this is a good idea. A QB would do nothing for this franchise right now. It would just create a situation where a rookie would get demolished behind an iffy line while trying to come back from a deficit his deficit his porous defense created.

I like the Rolando McClain idea. He's a low-floor, high-ceiling guy. If he regresses to a knucklehead, cut him. But he has great talent and could be a stabilizing force in the middle.

I think Grasu has serious potential in the NFL. He was a little soft last year when he started, but he's got all the tools to start for a long time. I'd say the Bears have more pressing areas they need to spend the money. They shouldn't pursue Alex Mack unless he loves Chicago and would be willing to give a hometown discount.

I'd be really happy with that draft, even if I'm not a huge fan of Will Jackson. That's a lot of talent and team speed at positions of need.

I'd like to have a stud RB combo too. I'd love Henry; he's a monster. But, yes, the idea of the Bears drafting a RB in the first round is dumb. It makes no sense for a team that needs DE, OLB, ILB, CB, FS, OT, OG, and backups.

I remember you saying that, but I was more thinking about bunching up picks in the 2nd and 3rd, which is where I believe the talent and depth is at in this draft.

I didn't make it clear that I was proposing a trade with a team that didn't want to give up s first. Hence, the Bears are out of the first.

Just thinking outside the box here. There are a few teams that may want to jump into the QB sweepstakes at #11. Teams that could need QBs: Browns - Will draft QB at #2 Cowboys - May draft QB at #4 Niners - #7 Eagles - #13 (recent 2yr deal with Bradford) Rams - #15 Texans - #22 Chiefs - #28 (maybe) Broncos - #31 (maybe) So let's say only the Browns pick a QB at #2. The Bears #11 is worth 1250. The prime target here is the Rams. They have the two picks in the 2nd round worth 920. If they also threw in their 3rd (210), that would be a decent compromise. The Bears lose in the points, but the compromise is pretty good for the value. In this scenario the Bears have three 2nd rounders, and two 3rd rounders. I see great value in the draft in those rounds. Imagine the Bears come away with the following: 2(41) Robert Nkemdiche, DE, Miss 2(43) Vadal Alexander, OG, LSU 2(45) Jaylon Smith, ILB, ND 3(72) Jayron Kearse, SS, Clemson 3(76) Scooby Wright, ILB, Arizona I think I'd be OK with that trade off. No, I'd be ecstatic with that. Huge athleticism, size boost. And watch out for 2017 when a full speed Jaylon Smith gets back to full speed.