jason

I understood you, but I can't see signing a FA vet like him unless he's going to start. I read the comment about backup OT, but it's not really a big part of the conversation to me. I'd rather have single-position dominance than above average versatility. Either way it happens, if signed in Chicago either he or Slausson has to move to RG. That's all I was referring to. One has to move and I don't know which one would be best there. Maybe the RT to LG to RG transition would be easier for Osemele because of the RT experience. You may be correct.

Agreed. No need to draft another RB when there are three viable ones in town.

Why not both? Because there are worse positions that need more attention. That's basically it. IF they use a 4th on a RB it means neglecting a position that doesn't already have a potential star in the making and a suitable backup. Based on the compromise draft alone, we need OL, DE, ILB, CB, SS, a backup QB, and assorted players.

The kid looks explosive. The video below shows some serious talent. But you know who interested me? The DB who tracked him down at about 1:53: Donnie Duncan. Wow. How is that guy not rated anywhere?! On athleticism alone he's someone I would like to see on the Bears. Highlight video Side note: I can't get the video to embed. Did something change on the board? Or on youtube?

I don't think it does. A rookie RB just doesn't fit. If the Bears plan on bringing in some competition for Langford, it will be a mediocre priced/skilled vet.

Based on the replies, I think we can consider this a case closed. A draft we can all agree on. I didn't think it would happen this easily, and I enjoyed the process. Thanks for the feedback everyone. I look forward to Stanley and Vaitai manning the OL and protecting Prescott for a decade, Cravens/Kearse/Kaufusi/Russell turning this D into a top 5 unit, saying Silverberry's name, and Glenn Gronkowski convincing his brothers to both come to Chicago.

I meant in regards to the role he'd fill on this team. Slauson and Osemele have been LGs all but the one year Osemele played RT. Other than that, all LG. Further, if he did that well at RT, do you really think they'd have moved him inside? Last but not least, this is based on the concept that Long stays at RT.

I disagree somewhat. You're looking recent, and not necessarily historical. Even last year the offense trumped the defense when the Patriots beat the defensive stud Seahawks. Two years previous and the team with the better D lost again, when the Ravens beat the Niners. It wouldn't take much for me to go back and figure out I like a team led by defense. As a Chicagoan, how could I not. But if the Bears have a great defense and a garbage offense, we'll see what we've already seen: the relatively wasted careers of defensive stalwarts. I want a top 10 defense over a top 10 offense, but I believe a top 10 offense can be had at a relative discount if the OL is exemplary. I still say guys like Emmitt Smith aren't that great, and are the result of their OL rather than the opposite. Put that OL together in Chicago, and Langford likely goes for 1500yds and 15TDs next season.

Agreed. However, Slauson and Osemele have only played LG exclusively. I wonder how much moving to the right side would affect either? [stanley - Osemele - Grasu - Slauson - Long] would be NASTY. Offense is probably top ten.

UH-OH! Are we at an agreement? AZ, Ashkum, dawhizz, Mongo, stinger, DBDB, have voted in the affirmative. Include me and that's seven. scs, Alaska, Adam, lemon, killakrzydav, TD, bradjock...and anyone else I left out (apologies) care to chime in with final comments or a vote?

I could only hope it played out that well. I wouldn't mind seeing Higbee replaced with OL; that would be damn near a dream draft.

I think you ALWAYS need to invest in OL. If OL is good, invest weakly. If OL is average, invest a lot or more. If OL is bad, invest heavily. It's the key to the entire offense. Right now Leno is average at best. Maybe a year under his belt he's average. In my mind that warrants mid-round (3-5) competition/replacement/depth.

And, personally, I think it's an ignorant trend. The fact that guys like Zach freaking Miller have the balls to ask for $5M a year when he has played one full year without injury, and even at that the jury is still out on his ability to produce consistently, is absolutely ridiculous. Meanwhile, RBs like Forte are a rare commodity. A guy who can proficiently run inside, outside, cut-back, pass-block, and receive out of the backfield are not common. A guy like Forte gets as many targets as the average TE, catches at a higher percentage, and on top of all that, he runs the ball. If the Bears give Miller $4-$5M a year for a 2-3 year deal, and Forte ends up signing with some other team for a comparable amount/length, I'm going to be pissed.

scs - YES:[ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, Conklin RD1, CB before RD6], NO:[Nkemdiche RD1, Scooby before RD4] Ashkum - YES:[OL focus, late focus TE over K, ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, prioritize SS > CB, OLB w/RD6],NO:[Killebrew as SS] Alaska - YES:[QB Hogan, emphasize D 1st 5 picks], NO:[Prescott RD5] AZ54 - YES:[OL huge need, Jarran Reed, Hogan late, ILB in 1st 4 rds], NO:[A'Shawn Robinson RD1, Oakman, Conklin RD1, no DL double up RD1/2] Adam - YES:[RD1-RD5 must have ILB, DB, OL, DL any order], NO:[RB early, injury prone RD1] Mongo - YES:[Nkemdiche RD1], NO:[Ragland RD1] dawhizz - YES:[ILB RD1 (Smith > Ragland)] lemon - YES:[Ragland RD1, Prescott mid-RD, late focus TE over K] DBDB - YES:RD2 ILB > DE,NO:[Ragland RD1] killakrzydav - YES:CB potential, Kicker late, Prescott late,NO:[Ragland RD1] MOCK DRAFT VER 8.0 1. Ronnie Stanley, OT, ND 2. Sua Cravens, ILB, USC 3. Jayron Kearse, SS, Clemson 4. Bronson Kaufusi, DE, BYU 5. KeiVarae Russell, CB, ND 6. Dak Prescott, QB, MSU 6. Halapoulivaati Vaitai, OG, TCU 6. Silverberry Mouhon, OLB, Cincy 7. Glenn Gronkowski, TE, KSU Minor change, as AZ (not Ashkum) isn't a big fan of Killebrew. He's out, Jayron Kearse is in. For me it's po-tay-to, po-tah-to. I like Kearse as a freakish SS option. Major objections?

You listed SS prioritized over CB as one of your qualifiers. Adam wanted a CB within 5 rounds. And killakrzydav also had CB as a position of need. I was just trying to fill in the slots based on the qualifiers.

Agree; except it's OT AND OG, because regardless of what Long does, his one OT position will be weak, and Slausson can't play forever.

Crazy how much we are agreeing lately. Have you been concussed? Ragland didn't get all those tackles by accident. And he didn't get all those tackles because he's slow. He played in the best conference and drilled guys who are going to play in the NFL. I want ILBs who drill RBs and drive back. Who wrap up. Who consistently find the ball carrier. Who absolutely plug holes. That guy is Ragland - best pure ILB in the draft.

ILB is the second Rd pick at this point, and I can't foresee another draftee being a better option. None who wouldn't be a reach at that point or who haven't already been eliminated (Scooby). I'm also having issues with a good Rd3 SS, since that's pretty much locked in. Any suggestions on a comparable SS at that point?

If that happens, Pace doesn't know what the hell he is doing. When a team has multiple missing pieces, you don't replace a great working piece for a potentially worse piece. You fix what's broken and try to keep the great working piece as long as it remains good. First it was Marshall, which was followed by drafting a WR. That was a mistake considering how well BM did and White not even seeing the field. This could potentially be the same type of move, just different position. Let's hope he's not planning this thought. If Forte is gone, Langford should be the main man, due for huge carries, 1000+yds, and 10TDs.

It's a mistake to forego the negotiation as if some moderate middle ground can't be reached. That is absolutely the first step towards everything in negotiation. It's not debatable. If you go to the table you never know what the other person is willing to offer. If their offer is too steep, then you pass. But you must try to see if you can get great value. That's negotiation 101. Injuries can't be helped. But if Langford + Carey fall off, then you'll certainly hear "I told you so" from me. Negotiate first, then tell him you can't do it. Unless you negotiate, you don't know what the other side is willing to concede.

I don't think it makes logical sense. Forte was easily the best RB the Bears had last year. -Better YPC than either Langford or Carey. Surprisingly, Langford was third. -Nearly broke 1000yds despite losing a huge chunk of his carries -Most receptions out of the backfield -Easily better receiver out of the backfield (76%) while Langford barely broke 50% This move is a mistake. It's particularly a mistake when Forte has stated he wants to come back to Chicago. When brokering a deal, both sides have to at least attempt to make a deal. The Bears should at least go to the table to see what he wants. To see if there is a middle ground. "Take it or leave it" is not negotiation. "We're not even interested" is not negotiation. This move is a mistake.

In general, agree with this thought. It's probably why I'm interested the athletic freaks and/or high-motor guys this year so much. To be honest though, I'd rather have the B+ guys with non-stop motors than the A+ guys with questionable effort. It's why I'm fond of ILBs who are known as tackling machines. Give me Ragland in the 1st, Scooby in the 3rd, and Kwiatkowski in the 6th/7th, and you have yourself a revamped LB corp that fits perfectly with the current talent.

I must say, I don't like the fact that the OL gets ignored in your mock, but that top 5 would have me jumping up and down. Jack would be value there since he's projected earlier, Lee goes bottom 1st in some drafts, Killebrew is a fast riser, a DT at 4 I'm meh on, and Hogan for the future...that would be pretty damn good.

Completely agree with the theory behind the 3-4. Beef up front. ILBs more athletic than OLBs. But OLBs must be able to get the edge fairly regularly.

scs - YES:[ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, Conklin RD1, CB before RD6], NO:[Nkemdiche RD1, Scooby before RD4] Ashkum - YES:[OL focus, late focus TE over K, ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, prioritize SS > CB, OLB w/RD6] Alaska - YES:[QB Hogan, emphasize D 1st 5 picks], NO:[Prescott RD5] AZ54 - YES:[OL huge need, Jarran Reed, Hogan late, ILB in 1st 4 rds], NO:[A'Shawn Robinson RD1, Oakman, Conklin RD1, no DL double up RD1/2] Adam - YES:[RD1-RD5 must have ILB, DB, OL, DL any order], NO:[RB early, injury prone RD1] Mongo - YES:[Nkemdiche RD1], NO:[Ragland RD1] dawhizz - YES:[ILB RD1 (Smith > Ragland)] lemon - YES:[Ragland RD1, Prescott mid-RD, late focus TE over K] DBDB - YES:RD2 ILB > DE,NO:[Ragland RD1] killakrzydav - YES:CB potential, Kicker late, Prescott late,NO:[Ragland RD1] MOCK DRAFT VER 7.0 1. Ronnie Stanley, OT, ND 2. Sua Cravens, ILB, USC 3. Miles Killebrew, SS, S. Utah 4. Bronson Kaufusi, DE, BYU 5. KeiVarae Russell, CB, ND 6. Dak Prescott, QB, MSU 6. Halapoulivaati Vaitai, OG, TCU 6. Silverberry Mouhon, OLB, Cincy 7. Glenn Gronkowski, TE, KSU After the impasse, Adam allowed a gentlemanly compromise which created a slight dilemma. How to emphasize D in the first 5 rounds (per Alaska), focus on the OL (per Ashkum & AZ), prioritize SS over CB (Ashkum), have a CB within the first 6 rounds (scs), and how to squeeze in ILB, DB, OL, DL within the first 5 rounds given the other requests/stipulations/team needs. Since the OL focus got a heavy dosage with the first round pick, I believe the above mock satisfied all requirements. Unless I missed something, at this point there isn't much wiggle room about the positions being draft. If there is an objection, please state any objections to specific players. BTW - I look at this draft and can't say I love it. Personally, I think the team would be better off by doubling up on both ILB and OL during some point in the draft. But if the picks played out like they do above, I'd be fairly happy with it.