adam

I thought he was pretty spot on about DE, OLine, CB, DT, and WR as all need areas. I wouldn't, however have them in that order. Also, this last line of the article confuses me: So we lose Graham and Hurd, and acquire Costanzo, Weems, and Thomas, and we need help on Special Teams? http://www.suntimes.com/sports/11924965-60...-to-figure.html

People are just starting to realize what we already knew, that Cutler is a true gamer.

I would say Floyd has a chance to be there at 19. Looking at other team's needs, here are the teams that WR would be considered a top 3 need (MIN, CLE, MIA, BUF, ARZ, NYJ), so 6 teams before 19. Now he won't go to MIN or CLE because they will take Kalil, Blackmon, or Richardson. That leave MIA at 9, BUF at 10, ARZ at 13, and NYJ at 16. I doubt he goes in the top 10 with the other players available. So that leaves Arizona and NYJ. I think Floyd has a good shot at being there at 19.

I like those picks, but no O-Line? I know this is not an all-inclusive list, but kinda scary not to see any O-Line picks Phil should contemplate.

Kickoffs travel 70+ yards and the kicking team has a running start with essentially 10 special teamers who all can tackle and most are in position by the time the ball is returned. Punts are normally done with somewhat of a normal line for blocking and the center, so you are cutting down on the true special teamers to about 5 or 6. Additionally, punts are going 40-50 yards, so there is less time for the kicking team to get in place to defend against the return.

I say no, it only gets worse in the pro's.

I'm in as Cutler2Marshall46 Just FYI to those joining, type the League password over the greyed out password field, then hit + League.

Looking at data from about 10 different mock drafts, this is what I came up with: Players that will be gone by #19: Luck, RG3, Kalil, Claiborne, Blackmon, Richardson, Cox, Tannehill, Reiff * All these players were drafted in the top 10 over 80% of the time That leaves these players in order of their average mock draft position (highest draft position in parentheses) : Ingram, DE - 12.29 (7) Kuechly, LB - 12.57 (11) Coples, DE - 13 (7) Poe, DT - 13.57 (9) Floyd, WR - 13.71 (10) DeCastro, OG - 15.14 (9) Barron, S - 17.71 (14) Upshaw DE/OLB - 18 (12) Brockers, DT - 18.29 (11) Glenn, OL - 18.86 (13) These players had a mock draft position lower than #19: Kirkpatrick, CB - 20.71 (17) Gilmore, CB - 20.86 (15) Mercilus, DE - 21.71 (12) Martin, OT - 22.14 (13) Wright, WR - 24 (22) Adams, OT - 25.86 (10) Hightower, LB - 26.89 (24) Perry, DE/OLB - 28.71 (27) Hill, WR - 29.43 (19) Konz, C - 30.29 (29) Fleener, TE -32.43 (30) Based on those numbers, and picking at 19, we should be able to pick up someone from that first group (Ingram...Glenn) or have the luxury of dropping down to the mid-20's and picking someone from the 2nd group (Kirkpatrick...Fleener). Using the first group, here is my draft board: 1. Coples, DE (Need and BPA) ^ 2. Floyd, WR (Need and BPA) ^ 3. DeCastro, OG (Need and BPA) ^ 4. Ingram, DE/OLB (Need and BPA) 5. Poe, DT (BPA) ^ 6. Kuechly, LB (Future Need and BPA) 7. Glenn, OL (Need and BPA) ^ 8. Barron, S (Slight Need and BPA) 9. Brockers, DT (BPA) 10. Upshaw DE/OLB (BPA) Personally I would like to see Coples or Floyd. I think Peppers and Coples (especially with the UNC connection) could be special. Coples would have some of the best mentorship you could have, and playing in front of Urlacher and Briggs. For Floyd, he would give us a true #2 and possibly the best WR pairing the Bears have ever had. I don't believe CB is a need after all the depth we acquired, so I doubt we use a first rounder on CB. Other than Kuechly, I don't believe we would go LB either at 19. OL, DL, or WR in the first couple of rounds.

Ok, so I was thinking about our Left Tackle situation and thought I would take a look at the last five years of teams that made the Conference Championship games (20 teams) and see how many had a Pro Bowl Tackle. Out of the 20 teams, only 9 had a Pro Bowl Tackle, and one of those was an Alternate. So more than half of the teams did not have an Offensive Tackle (Left or Right) on their team that year. Going further, only 3 of 10 teams that played in the Super Bowl over the past 5 years had a Pro Bowl Tackle. This is sort of the reason why I would not go OT in the first round unless someone drops to us at 19. I think guys like Martin and Adams may be reaches and not a good value at 19. So what do you think? Here is the list: 2011 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (NYG, NE, BAL, SF-1) Joe Thomas, Cleveland Jake Long, Miami D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NYJ Ryan Clady, Denver (Alt) Jason Peters, Philly Joe Staley, San Fran Jermon Bushrod, New Orleans 2010 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (GB-1, PIT, CHI, NYJ-1) Jake Long, Miami Joe Thomas, Cleveland D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NYJ Matt Light, New England (Alt) Jason Peters, Philly Jordan Gross, Carolina Chad Clifton, Green Bay Tyson Clabo, Atlanta (Alt) Donald Penn, Tampa Bay (Alt) 2009 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (NO-1, IND, MIN-1, NYJ-1) Jake Long, Miami Ryan Clady, Denver Joe Thomas, Cleveland D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NYJ (Alt) Jason Peters, Philly Bryant McKinnie, Minnesota Jon Stinchcomb, New Orleans David Diehl, NYG (Alt) 2008 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (PIT, ARZ, BAL, PHI) Joe Thomas, Cleveland Jason Peters, Buffalo Michael Roos, Tennessee Jake Long, Miami Jordan Gross, Carolina Walter Jones, Seattle Flozell Adams, Dallas Chris Samuels, Washington Jammal Brown, New Orleans 2007 OL Tackle Pro Bowlers (NYG, NE-1, GB-1, SD-1) Matt Light, New England Jason Peters, Buffalo Joe Thomas, Cleveland Jonathan Ogden, Baltimore Marcus McNeill, San Diego Flozell Adams, Dallas Walter Jones, Seattle Chris Samuels, Washington Chad Clifton, Green Bay

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Some-p...ound-picks.html They list Coples, Floyd, Jenkins, Poe, and Martin. They make Martin sound like Chris Williams 2.0.

Yeah, if you are talking about 5 slots, you need to at least give up a 3rd rounder to move up in the first, a 4th rounder to move up in the 2nd, a 5th rounder to move up in the 3rd.

For the OLine, the subtraction of Omiyale helps a lot and you can almost consider Carimi an addition. We will definitely go OL and DL in the first three rounds shoring up those need areas.

I would be up for it as long as we had several options at 19 and felt like we could get that player at 24 (PIT), 25 (DEN), or 26 (HOU) while also picking up a late 3rd rounder or swapping some other picks. Another scenario would be swapping 1st's then moving into the end of the 2nd from the 3rd, essentially giving us a 1st and 2x 2nds and adding a 4th. Take Houston at #26 (700), they also have #58 (320) in the 2nd and #121 (52) in the 4th. They move up to #19 (875) in the first, move down to #79 (195) from the 2nd, and give up their 4th rounder, #121. We get #26, #58, and #121 and give up #19 and #79. 700+320+52=1072 875+195=1070, Pretty close in terms of draft value. New England is also an option at #27 as they have a bunch of picks, but they always seem to fleece people. Now if someone falls to us that we didn't expect to be there, I say we keep the pick unless we get an offer we cannot refuse.

He is a new DB on the Chicago Bears, played for NE and DEN; has started 15 games in his 4 year career (comparable to Bowman and more than Graham). A decent pickup for a backup DB.

Really hard to see us drafting a DB now. Looks more and more like OL, DL, and WR.

Great signing, damn I thought we were done. He is a decent CB and knows the Cover-2. This should obviously reduces the need for a CB in the first few rounds, and makes the picks a little more focused.

They also noted on ESPN radio that this occurred after the league warned that they were looking into bounty systems. It is one thing to say "hit em in the mouth" or "knock the daylights out of them", but when you specifically name players and body parts, that is pretty blatant to me. This in itself is one thing, but tied to the whole bounty system thing makes it something totally different.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-s...s_bounty_040412 I wonder how many games some players will get?

Two of the games have exact dates, its the games at Soldier Field that only have windows:

I agree, almost every acquisition filled a need, replaced a player who departed, or was an upgrade for that position. What more could Emery have done? Marshall obviously fills one of the team's biggest needs and is the biggest upgrade for this team. We might have overpaid for Campbell, but he is a starter-caliber QB on a one year deal. Bush not only can be the change of pace back if Forte is starting, but can come in and start if Forte holds out or is injured. Costanzo replaces Graham on SP, Weems replaces Knox on SP and can fill in at the bottom of the WR corps, if needed. Thomas is a league minimum pickup who can also play SP and WR if needed. So the Bears can now go into the draft targeting OL, DL, DB, and pickup a LB and some other roster fillers.

I think almost all offensive skill players will benefit from having Marshall out there. Bennett, Davis, Hester, they are all going to have more open looks and space to work in.

We had 6 last year (Knox, Williams, Bennett, Hester, Sanz, and Hurd), we lost Knox, Williams and Hurd - and gained Marshall, Weems, and Thomas. So we are still at 6.

What would've been our record if we had Campbell and Bush last year with the same team? 11-5 at least? The point is, we aren't as bad off as some are making us out to be. Hell, with Marshall alone we probably would've won 2 more games than last year. Each player that has been brought in is essentially better than the player they replaced. Campbell > Hanie, Bush > Barber, Weems/Costanza/Thomas > Graham/Knox, and obviously Marshall > entire Bears Receiving Corps. So the offense and special teams should be better with those acquisitions, and that is all you can really ask for. Looking at some of the contracts handed out, we could've probably gotten maybe one more major acquisition, but it would've sacrificed 3-4 of the other pick ups. Now if we add OLine and defense in the draft, we can cover the other areas of need and also get younger on defense which is becoming critical at this point.

Who are the scrubs, and who are the backups?

Yep, and it is better to be able to narrow down BPA to only a few positions. It sort of makes the picks a little easier, and if a few are available at each pick, we could always look to trade down a few slots, gain a pick, and still get the guy we wanted. I really like our position heading into the draft.