lemonej Posted February 9, 2016 Report Share Posted February 9, 2016 There has been no consideration to the to positions on offense that may need to be addressed besides the OL. Are we comfortable at WR with probably a franchised Jeffrey, a recovering White and Royal, and Wilson? Who will man the TE position because we all have discussed Bennett probably gone leaving Miller(oft injured) and Lee. I also think an OT can not be picked after rd 3, I like Hawkins of LSU. Since you are not saying what number the picks are coming at trade back scenarios should be factored in and shouldn't rule out Ragland as an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2016 There has been no consideration to the to positions on offense that may need to be addressed besides the OL. Are we comfortable at WR with probably a franchised Jeffrey, a recovering White and Royal, and Wilson? Who will man the TE position because we all have discussed Bennett probably gone leaving Miller(oft injured) and Lee. I also think an OT can not be picked after rd 3, I like Hawkins of LSU. Since you are not saying what number the picks are coming at trade back scenarios should be factored in and shouldn't rule out Ragland as an option. I didn't include the "no trade" stipulation in the rules at first, but I should have. The variables of trades makes an already difficult endeavor truly impossible. The same goes for FA consideration. Obviously both impact the draft, and the latter is guaranteed with all the cap space the Bears have, but it just makes this pointless. For the purposes of this exercise, assume Martellus Bennett is still with the Bears in 2016, and Zach Miller is not. I just can't see any way the Bears pay him what he wants. Do you believe a TE is more important than any of the positions listed? The players listed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 9, 2016 Report Share Posted February 9, 2016 I didn't include the "no trade" stipulation in the rules at first, but I should have. The variables of trades makes an already difficult endeavor truly impossible. The same goes for FA consideration. Obviously both impact the draft, and the latter is guaranteed with all the cap space the Bears have, but it just makes this pointless. For the purposes of this exercise, assume Martellus Bennett is still with the Bears in 2016, and Zach Miller is not. I just can't see any way the Bears pay him what he wants. Do you believe a TE is more important than any of the positions listed? The players listed? Depends...if we get rid of Marty, I think TE becomes a significant area of need. So much so, that I'd be willing to target it as high as the 2nd round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I didn't include the "no trade" stipulation in the rules at first, but I should have. The variables of trades makes an already difficult endeavor truly impossible. The same goes for FA consideration. Obviously both impact the draft, and the latter is guaranteed with all the cap space the Bears have, but it just makes this pointless. For the purposes of this exercise, assume Martellus Bennett is still with the Bears in 2016, and Zach Miller is not. I just can't see any way the Bears pay him what he wants. Do you believe a TE is more important than any of the positions listed? The players listed? I think you are doing this fine. We do not have variables other than our 9 picks. Taking a K is foreshadowing Gould's release though, so I can see were a TE may be a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I think you are doing this fine. We do not have variables other than our 9 picks. Taking a K is foreshadowing Gould's release though, so I can see were a TE may be a thought. Good point. If Martellus is still with the Bears because he's under contract, then Gould deserves equal consideration for this experiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 scs - YES:[ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, Conklin RD1], NO:[Nkemdiche RD1, Scooby before RD4] Stinger - NO:[Nkemdiche RD1] 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-RD4 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] MOCK DRAFT VER 6.0 1. Ronnie Stanley, OT, ND 2. Sua Cravens, ILB, USC 3. Miles Killebrew, SS, S. Utah 4. Bronson Kaufusi, DE, BYU 5. Kyle Murphy, OG, Stanford 6. Dak Prescott, QB, MSU 6. Briean Boddy-Calhoun, CB, Minnesota 6. Silverberry Mouhon, OLB, Cincy 7. Glenn Gronkowski, TE, KSU Major objections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 scs - YES:[ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, Conklin RD1], NO:[Nkemdiche RD1, Scooby before RD4] Stinger - NO:[Nkemdiche RD1] 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-RD4 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] MOCK DRAFT VER 6.0 1. Ronnie Stanley, OT, ND 2. Sua Cravens, ILB, USC 3. Miles Killebrew, SS, S. Utah 4. Bronson Kaufusi, DE, BYU 5. Kyle Murphy, OG, Stanford 6. Dak Prescott, QB, MSU 6. Briean Boddy-Calhoun, CB, Minnesota 6. Silverberry Mouhon, OLB, Cincy 7. Glenn Gronkowski, TE, KSU Major objections? I still think Cravens is to light for an ILB. At 225 lbs he may be effective but with the abuse of the position,it will take its toll. Buchanan has did quite well, but that is a rarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I still think Cravens is to light for an ILB. At 225 lbs he may be effective but with the abuse of the position,it will take its toll. Buchanan has did quite well, but that is a rarity. I think it's becoming more and more of a thing. Bucannon. Kwon Alexander is listed at 226 and he just had a solid year in Tampa. Shaq Thompson just started for the Panthers in the Super Bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 scs - YES:[ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, Conklin RD1], NO:[Nkemdiche RD1, Scooby before RD4] Stinger - NO:[Nkemdiche RD1] 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-RD4 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] MOCK DRAFT VER 6.0 1. Ronnie Stanley, OT, ND 2. Sua Cravens, ILB, USC 3. Miles Killebrew, SS, S. Utah 4. Bronson Kaufusi, DE, BYU 5. Kyle Murphy, OG, Stanford 6. Dak Prescott, QB, MSU 6. Briean Boddy-Calhoun, CB, Minnesota 6. Silverberry Mouhon, OLB, Cincy 7. Glenn Gronkowski, TE, KSU Major objections? I don't hate it, but still think Long gets an OT job Leno should get a shot at the other spot. I'd like to see a CB higher than the 6th as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I don't hate it, but still think Long gets an OT job Leno should get a shot at the can other spot. I'd like to see a CB higher than the 6th as well. Even though I don't think you can let a talent like Stanley go, I agree Leno should get the opportunity to start LT. I would start the season with Leno LT-Slausen LG- Grasu C-Long RG-Stanley RT. With that said, CB can be bumped up to RD5 if a talent fits and take a shot at LT Johnstone RD6-7 if he lasts.. Johnstone may last since he has two bad knee injuries already on him. Let him build strength and knowledge for at least a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 We are at our first true impasse for this effort. GOOD Stinger - NO:[Nkemdiche RD1] Alaska - YES:[QB Hogan, emphasize D 1st 5 picks], NO:[Prescott RD5] 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] IMPASSE scs - YES:[CB before RD 6, ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, Conklin RD1], NO:[Nkemdiche RD1, Scooby before RD4] Adam - YES:[RD1-RD4 ILB, DB, OL, DL any order], NO:[RB early, injury prone RD1] Ashkum - YES:[OL focus, late focus TE over K, ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, prioritize SS > CB, OLB w/RD6] 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] scs wants a CB before RD6. Picking one before, would either cross off Adam's 4RD position request or deprioritize OL, something AZ and ashkum want. So, since AZ and ashkum represent a quorum of sorts, who is willing to budge? scs - Are you adamant about the CB before RD6? Adam - Are you adamant about the first four rounds being ILB, DB, OL, DL (in any order)? Any other comments on this impasse are welcome. We'll decide as a group if scs or Adam are unwilling to budge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 There is a 5th round. Edit- actually looking back at Adams post it looks like the DB he's calling for is indeed a CB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 There is a 5th round. Edit- actually looking back at Adams post it looks like the DB he's calling for is indeed a CB. You misunderstand. If the 5th round is used for a CB, that means the OG gets bumped and then the OL is not prioritized as two posters have requested (three if you count me, but I'm trying to stay out). Also, Adam called for his DB in this post. If he intended CB, then I lost that in translation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 If you go back and look at posts 8 and 9 in this thread it looks to me that CB is the DB Adam is calling for. Your Mick in post 8 had a CB in the top 4 and in post 9 he said you hit on the 4 major needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killakrzydav Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 No on Ragland. I think your hitting the majority of needs well on the top half. I like Dak and Roberto with priority going to the kicker. Cb may be a need and I'd love Norman in FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 We are at our first true impasse for this effort. GOOD Stinger - NO:[Nkemdiche RD1] Alaska - YES:[QB Hogan, emphasize D 1st 5 picks], NO:[Prescott RD5] 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] IMPASSE scs - YES:[CB before RD 6, ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, Conklin RD1], NO:[Nkemdiche RD1, Scooby before RD4] Adam - YES:[RD1-RD4 ILB, DB, OL, DL any order], NO:[RB early, injury prone RD1] Ashkum - YES:[OL focus, late focus TE over K, ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, prioritize SS > CB, OLB w/RD6] 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] scs wants a CB before RD6. Picking one before, would either cross off Adam's 4RD position request or deprioritize OL, something AZ and ashkum want. So, since AZ and ashkum represent a quorum of sorts, who is willing to budge? scs - Are you adamant about the CB before RD6? Adam - Are you adamant about the first four rounds being ILB, DB, OL, DL (in any order)? Any other comments on this impasse are welcome. We'll decide as a group if scs or Adam are unwilling to budge. I'll defer to Ashkum as his knowledge here far outweighs mine. What matters most to me is that you've been able to put together some really good drafts that hit on a lot of needs. Pace should be able to add some good talent to our roster this draft at many positions of need. We're not even considering FA which will eliminate or reduce some of these needs, and that's ok because it will introduce too many variables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 I'll defer to Ashkum as his knowledge here far outweighs mine. What matters most to me is that you've been able to put together some really good drafts that hit on a lot of needs. Pace should be able to add some good talent to our roster this draft at many positions of need. We're not even considering FA which will eliminate or reduce some of these needs, and that's ok because it will introduce too many variables. I don't know about all that, I have stayed at the holiday inn before. I think some of these draft scenarios Jason put together came out great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 No on Ragland. I think your hitting the majority of needs well on the top half. I like Dak and Roberto with priority going to the kicker. Cb may be a need and I'd love Norman in FA. I think Norman is going to be a high priced free agent and Pace has already mentioned that he wont be chasing any high dollar players. Many middle cost players will be more realistic . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 I think Norman is going to be a high priced free agent and Pace has already mentioned that he wont be chasing any high dollar players. Many middle cost players will be more realistic . Could always be GM talk.....But as for Norman, I see no way he doesn't at least get franchised. Same for Von Miller and Mohammed Wilkerson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 We are at our first true impasse for this effort. GOOD Stinger - NO:[Nkemdiche RD1] Alaska - YES:[QB Hogan, emphasize D 1st 5 picks], NO:[Prescott RD5] 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] IMPASSE scs - YES:[CB before RD 6, ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, Conklin RD1], NO:[Nkemdiche RD1, Scooby before RD4] Adam - YES:[RD1-RD4 ILB, DB, OL, DL any order], NO:[RB early, injury prone RD1] Ashkum - YES:[OL focus, late focus TE over K, ILB RD1, Adolphus Washington RD2, prioritize SS > CB, OLB w/RD6] 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] scs wants a CB before RD6. Picking one before, would either cross off Adam's 4RD position request or deprioritize OL, something AZ and ashkum want. So, since AZ and ashkum represent a quorum of sorts, who is willing to budge? scs - Are you adamant about the CB before RD6? Adam - Are you adamant about the first four rounds being ILB, DB, OL, DL (in any order)? Any other comments on this impasse are welcome. We'll decide as a group if scs or Adam are unwilling to budge. I will budge, and the DB could be a S or a CB, I just felt the secondary needed to be addressed due to the age of Porter/Mundy. We could slide that need out of the top 4 picks, but not past the 5th round. So I would say ILB, DB(S or CB), OL, DL drafted within the first 5 rounds. So I want a D-Line pick, LB (preferably ILB), O-Line, and Secondary (S or CB) picked in the first 5 rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 I will budge, and the DB could be a S or a CB, I just felt the secondary needed to be addressed due to the age of Porter/Mundy. We could slide that need out of the top 4 picks, but not past the 5th round. So I would say ILB, DB(S or CB), OL, DL drafted within the first 5 rounds. So I want a D-Line pick, LB (preferably ILB), O-Line, and Secondary (S or CB) picked in the first 5 rounds. What are you thoughts on where Long will play? You think Leno gets another shot? I think in an ideal world they go after Osemele and don't really have to worry about the OL till the 4th or 5th when you look for competition for Leno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 What are you thoughts on where Long will play? You think Leno gets another shot? I think in an ideal world they go after Osemele and don't really have to worry about the OL till the 4th or 5th when you look for competition for Leno. If they can get Osemele before the draft and Ronnie Stanley drops, do you take him as BPA? That is figuring Tunsil, Bosa, Ramsey, Buckner, and Jack are off the board. Stanley LT - Slausen LG -Grasu C - Osemele RG - Long RT would be solid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 If they can get Osemele before the draft and Ronnie Stanley drops, do you take him as BPA? That is figuring Tunsil, Bosa, Ramsey, Buckner, and Jack are off the board. Stanley LT - Slausen LG -Grasu C - Osemele RG - Long RT would be solid. That line certainly looks sexy, but I would probably try and trade back in that scenario. Drafting an OT has its merits, and I'm certainly not gonna be mad if they do so, but I would prefer they add to the defense in the first 2 rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 What are you thoughts on where Long will play? You think Leno gets another shot? I think in an ideal world they go after Osemele and don't really have to worry about the OL till the 4th or 5th when you look for competition for Leno. You keep throwing out these big contract players, I just dont think Pace will do that. Last year he signed one player to real good money. McPhee got 5 years 39 mil. Osemele will command more money than that contract. I think we end up getting someone like Jeff Allen/OG/KC. He played well last year, came from the area, and will be get paid 5 to 6 million. I think if we sign a bigger contract it will be on defense. I think we will go after Jackson or Trevathan ,one of them will be a Bear this year, and not Osemele. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 You keep throwing out these big contract players, I just dont think Pace will do that. Last year he signed one player to real good money. McPhee got 5 years 39 mil. Osemele will command more money than that contract. I think we end up getting someone like Jeff Allen/OG/KC. He played well last year, came from the area, and will be get paid 5 to 6 million. I think if we sign a bigger contract it will be on defense. I think we will go after Jackson or Trevathan ,one of them will be a Bear this year, and not Osemele. Guards are cheap. You suggest Allen at 5 to 6 mill, which is actually about a top 10 guard contract. Marshall Yanda, Osemele's teammate, and type best guard in the league has an average cap hit of about 7.5mil. I think on the open market Osemele gets about the same as Yanda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.