Chitownhustla Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/mock-drafts http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/mock-draft http://walterfootball.com/draft2016.php https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2016/...1-overall-pick/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Well, PFF didn't disappoint. They continue to be the dumbest football-related site on the internet. They, completely different from the spattering of Ronnie Stanley, Reggie Ragland, and A'Shawn Robinson, decide the Bears, who got rid of Forte because Langford and Carey proved fairly capable last year, would totally pick Ezekiel Elliott with the #11 pick. That's just ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Well, PFF didn't disappoint. They continue to be the dumbest football-related site on the internet. They, completely different from the spattering of Ronnie Stanley, Reggie Ragland, and A'Shawn Robinson, decide the Bears, who got rid of Forte because Langford and Carey proved fairly capable last year, would totally pick Ezekiel Elliott with the #11 pick. That's just ignorant. I dont have problem with any of the names, except for Lee( a workout warrior) that boosts his draft position. Elliot just doesnt make sense. We are bringing back AJ, with White looming, putting that much of an investment in a RB with Langford is on the team would be dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Well, PFF didn't disappoint. They continue to be the dumbest football-related site on the internet. They, completely different from the spattering of Ronnie Stanley, Reggie Ragland, and A'Shawn Robinson, decide the Bears, who got rid of Forte because Langford and Carey proved fairly capable last year, would totally pick Ezekiel Elliott with the #11 pick. That's just ignorant. Then call me 'dumb' (I know you will) because this morning when watching NFL HQ on the Network they were reviewing some of the RB's from the draft. And for some reason in the back of my mind, despite the logicalness of needing defensive help, I thought wouldn't it be nice to have someone like Ezekiel or Henry (I'd prefer him personally) to add to what could be one of the best up and coming RB groups? Was it because Fox is known to run with a "stable" RBC type of approach? Or overall it seems in this draft there seems to be a plethora of defensive talent where the offensive side is lacking. I know it goes against conventional wisdom but it made sense when I was rationalizing it early this morning. Of course I hadn't had my quota of coffee yet either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Stopping the run is top priority this offseason. There are other needs but RB falls way down the list as we have players who are productive in that spot. There are plenty of other spots where we can't say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Then call me 'dumb' (I know you will) because this morning when watching NFL HQ on the Network they were reviewing some of the RB's from the draft. And for some reason in the back of my mind, despite the logicalness of needing defensive help, I thought wouldn't it be nice to have someone like Ezekiel or Henry (I'd prefer him personally) to add to what could be one of the best up and coming RB groups? Was it because Fox is known to run with a "stable" RBC type of approach? Or overall it seems in this draft there seems to be a plethora of defensive talent where the offensive side is lacking. I know it goes against conventional wisdom but it made sense when I was rationalizing it early this morning. Of course I hadn't had my quota of coffee yet either... One thing to point out, our RB coach is the guy who gets a ton of credit from Elliot for (was OSU's RB coach). Elliot supposedly loves him, so you never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Well, PFF didn't disappoint. They continue to be the dumbest football-related site on the internet. They, completely different from the spattering of Ronnie Stanley, Reggie Ragland, and A'Shawn Robinson, decide the Bears, who got rid of Forte because Langford and Carey proved fairly capable last year, would totally pick Ezekiel Elliott with the #11 pick. That's just ignorant. On one hand, I agree with you because I think it goes against Fox's philosophy and we are so desperate on defense. On the other hand, they are calling Elliot a game-changing NFL back and he's drawing comparisons to Adrian Peterson. If Pace feels that way, as a Bear fan, aren't you begging the Bears to take him at #11? I got to be honest, I didn't want the Bears taking White last year. We had AJ and we needed defense. But Pace's reasoning is that we need playmakers. I don't see how that has changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 One thing to point out, our RB coach is the guy who gets a ton of credit from Elliot for (was OSU's RB coach). Elliot supposedly loves him, so you never know. Yeah, I'd heard that too. There is that.... Edit: was watching highlight videos on Ragland again and decided if (or maybe Lee) and only if he's not available... Then maybe....just maybe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 Then call me 'dumb' (I know you will) because this morning when watching NFL HQ on the Network they were reviewing some of the RB's from the draft. And for some reason in the back of my mind, despite the logicalness of needing defensive help, I thought wouldn't it be nice to have someone like Ezekiel or Henry (I'd prefer him personally) to add to what could be one of the best up and coming RB groups? Was it because Fox is known to run with a "stable" RBC type of approach? Or overall it seems in this draft there seems to be a plethora of defensive talent where the offensive side is lacking. I know it goes against conventional wisdom but it made sense when I was rationalizing it early this morning. Of course I hadn't had my quota of coffee yet either... Sure it would be nice to have him but if your drafting a RB that early you wont be having a RBC approach, which we have to many other needs to draft a RB that soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 Well, PFF didn't disappoint. They continue to be the dumbest football-related site on the internet. They, completely different from the spattering of Ronnie Stanley, Reggie Ragland, and A'Shawn Robinson, decide the Bears, who got rid of Forte because Langford and Carey proved fairly capable last year, would totally pick Ezekiel Elliott with the #11 pick. That's just ignorant. I actually would not complain if they picked Elliott, with the condition they trade Langford. I think the guy is going to be terrific. My bold prediction is that Henry will be a bust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitownhustla Posted March 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 Then call me 'dumb' (I know you will) because this morning when watching NFL HQ on the Network they were reviewing some of the RB's from the draft. And for some reason in the back of my mind, despite the logicalness of needing defensive help, I thought wouldn't it be nice to have someone like Ezekiel or Henry (I'd prefer him personally) to add to what could be one of the best up and coming RB groups? Was it because Fox is known to run with a "stable" RBC type of approach? Or overall it seems in this draft there seems to be a plethora of defensive talent where the offensive side is lacking. I know it goes against conventional wisdom but it made sense when I was rationalizing it early this morning. Of course I hadn't had my quota of coffee yet either... I have not made up my mind on this one. I told a buddy I thought the Bears would draft him after seeing a bunch of the mock drafts a round or two ago. Eze could very easily be the BPA when the Bears draft. I think he will be a game changer, you just have to watch one game to see it. Watch the NC against Bama. Kid is special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 Then call me 'dumb' (I know you will) because this morning when watching NFL HQ on the Network they were reviewing some of the RB's from the draft. And for some reason in the back of my mind, despite the logicalness of needing defensive help, I thought wouldn't it be nice to have someone like Ezekiel or Henry (I'd prefer him personally) to add to what could be one of the best up and coming RB groups? Was it because Fox is known to run with a "stable" RBC type of approach? Or overall it seems in this draft there seems to be a plethora of defensive talent where the offensive side is lacking. I know it goes against conventional wisdom but it made sense when I was rationalizing it early this morning. Of course I hadn't had my quota of coffee yet either... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killakrzydav Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 I heard him compared to Bell recently and that he should be a top five pick. If he's a back like that in all for it. We will have to go defense heavy in FA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 An RB pick at 11 would depend on free agency. No way we could afford to do that if we don't address some holes in FA. If RB is in play at 11, then Treadwell or WR is as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 An RB pick at 11 would depend on free agency. No way we could afford to do that if we don't address some holes in FA. If RB is in play at 11, then Treadwell or WR is as well. Any player should be in play if we truly think BPA, including QB. I am more of a needs guy myself. If I get an extra $500, I don't buy the newest best TV, because my 15 year old tube TV still works and I can only watch one...lol. I also don't like to over spend, so if there is not a need at #11, they really need to find someone looking for TV's to trade with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 Any player should be in play if we truly think BPA, including QB. I am more of a needs guy myself. If I get an extra $500, I don't buy the newest best TV, because my 15 year old tube TV still works and I can only watch one...lol. I also don't like to over spend, so if there is not a need at #11, they really need to find someone looking for TV's to trade with. Any GM that just drafts for need doesn't usually keep his job long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 Any player should be in play if we truly think BPA, including QB. I am more of a needs guy myself. If I get an extra $500, I don't buy the newest best TV, because my 15 year old tube TV still works and I can only watch one...lol. I also don't like to over spend, so if there is not a need at #11, they really need to find someone looking for TV's to trade with. 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. Any GM that just drafts for need doesn't usually keep his job long. Same goes for any GM that drafts just for BPA and ignores the holes on his team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 IF they go off and get a 5tech, ILB, and a corner in FA I wouldn't HATE it. Absolutely wouldn't prefer it, but dude is gonna be a beast. I think Langford and Carey will form a formidable duo but Elliott will be miles ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 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. So does it look bad for Washington to draft RG3 and then take Cousins in the third? It paid dividends for them. You have to draft BPA with an eye on need. We need OL or any defensive players so the BPA will fit one of our needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 So does it look bad for Washington to draft RG3 and then take Cousins in the third? It paid dividends for them. You have to draft BPA with an eye on need. We need OL or any defensive players so the BPA will fit one of our needs. I don't know if that was actually planned the way it worked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 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. So just to clarify: You are saying that hypothetically, at #11 even if the Bears view Elliot as a game changing RB, we should draft for need? You look back at the Adrian Peterson draft, and there's 3 teams who wished they'd have taken AP (and the Bears are still wishing they hadn't given up a 2nd rounder for Gaines Adams) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NFL_draft Hey, if the rankings are real close, you take the position of need. But if you have a guy clearly ranked ahead of the others, you take the game changer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 So just to clarify: You are saying that hypothetically, at #11 even if the Bears view Elliot as a game changing RB, we should draft for need? You look back at the Adrian Peterson draft, and there's 3 teams who wished they'd have taken AP (and the Bears are still wishing they hadn't given up a 2nd rounder for Gaines Adams) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NFL_draft Hey, if the rankings are real close, you take the position of need. But if you have a guy clearly ranked ahead of the others, you take the game changer. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 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 saw Brads response and had thought about this earlier today. If the team addresses a lot of the 'needs' as you listed them through FA, would you still feel the same way? And when I say through FA I don't mean old guys who are has beens but a player like Trevathan, an Osemele and a Berry? Players who can contribute now and for a few more years? And FWIW I have to somewhat agree with Houston that I don't think OLB is as much a need as some are thinking. I think based on what McPhee has shown in potential and what Houston and Young did in the late stretch, I don't think we're nearly as bad off there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 I saw Brads response and had thought about this earlier today. If the team addresses a lot of the 'needs' as you listed them through FA, would you still feel the same way? And when I say through FA I don't mean old guys who are has beens but a player like Trevathan, an Osemele and a Berry? Players who can contribute now and for a few more years? And FWIW I have to somewhat agree with Houston that I don't think OLB is as much a need as some are thinking. I think based on what McPhee has shown in potential and what Houston and Young did in the late stretch, I don't think we're nearly as bad off there. I think we need more pass rush and even thou they all fared well, can we count on any of them to do better than 10 sacks a year? We need one thumper we can count on to be a consistent threat other teams scheme for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 I think we need more pass rush and even thou they all fared well, can we count on any of them to do better than 10 sacks a year? We need one thumper we can count on to be a consistent threat other teams scheme for. Agreed and we need someone coming off the edge that scares the crap out of our opponents! When you play 3/4 teams you look for their edge rusher no matter where he lines up. The Bears need that kind of guy. 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.