Where do the Bears go in the 1st?

[jason]

With the two ILBs and Unrein signed, and an OT to set the right edge, it worries me the Bears may actually be thinking about a QB in the first.

 

What else makes sense?

-Ragland and Mack are out in my opinion.

-Way too deep at DE to spend the pick there.

-The Bears best defensive position is OLB, so that wouldn't be a good move.

 

I think the FA signings are good enough that the Bears have narrowed down their likely 1st round positions to: CB, LT, and QB. But suppose they are including RB in their consideration?

 

The QB and RB portions of that really worries me.

[scs787]

With the two ILBs and Unrein signed, and an OT to set the right edge, it worries me the Bears may actually be thinking about a QB in the first.

 

What else makes sense?

-Ragland and Mack are out in my opinion.

-Way too deep at DE to spend the pick there.

-The Bears best defensive position is OLB, so that wouldn't be a good move.

 

I think the FA signings are good enough that the Bears have narrowed down their likely 1st round positions to: CB, LT, and QB. But suppose they are including RB in their consideration?

 

The QB and RB portions of that really worries me.

 

They are deep with back up DEs IMO. They obviously wanna upgrade the position(see interest in Hicks) and if they don't get Hicks or Fairley, it's a need.

 

Even if they sign Hicks, I would still like another one in the first 2 rounds honestly......Unrien, Ego, Sutton, and Washington are all backups IMO. I wouldn't hate to see a competition between those 4, but would prefer 2 starters.

 

All that said, I do like the depth in the draft at DL, so I wouldn't mind waiting till the 2nd. I'm coming around on the OT in the first idea. Eli Apple is getting some love as the 2nd CB off the board, so Hargreaves(or Apple) might make it down to 11 and I wouldn't mind that pick...

 

 

 

 

['TD']

Why would a QB worry you? The Bears are in a prime position to get one to groom for the future.

[Chitownhustla]

With the two ILBs and Unrein signed, and an OT to set the right edge, it worries me the Bears may actually be thinking about a QB in the first.

 

What else makes sense?

-Ragland and Mack are out in my opinion.

-Way too deep at DE to spend the pick there.

-The Bears best defensive position is OLB, so that wouldn't be a good move.

 

I think the FA signings are good enough that the Bears have narrowed down their likely 1st round positions to: CB, LT, and QB. But suppose they are including RB in their consideration?

 

The QB and RB portions of that really worries me.

 

 

I totally understand where you are coming from in regards to RB and QB but its about whats best for the Bears for long term sustained success. If Pace thinks a QB has IT you have to go with him. I think EZ from OSU will be a special RB in the NFL. I would be happy with him as well. The Bears need to add GAME CHANGERS I honestly dont see one position other than G that is off limits.

 

Just to add Im totally good with going OT in the first if there is a stud LT sitting there at 11. You will never go wrong with having a great oline.

[50england50]

Trade down with the Rams. Swop our 1st (11th) for their 1st (15th). Swop our 2nd (41st) for their 2nd (43rd) and gain their other 2nd (45th) they got off the Eagles. Then we would need to give them our 3rd.

This would mean we could not have to reach in the 1st and then pick 3 players in the first 45 picks.

This would be better than picking 3 players in the first 72 picks.

With D line supposedly being the strength of the draft I would pick corner back and then the best 2 available d linemen.

[bear trap]

Call me crazy, but I would actually like to have Elliot in the first... I know we have Langford, but I sit here thinking what if he turns into the second coming of Adrian Peterson... pace puts us in the position to take the best player on the board... you gotta give Zeke a look cause with a good 1-2 punch of Langford and Zeke, jay will be a better player... not to mention we have one of zekes biggest fans as our rb coach as he was zekes rb coach at OSU... you gotta go for a game changein the first rd and if you need to ask if Zeke is a game changer, watch any game from the buckeyes championship season...

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Why would a QB worry you? The Bears are in a prime position to get one to groom for the future.

I agree, if the Bears are in position to take BPA, and that is Wentz, Goff, or Elliott, no reason to be discouraged. As long as that player has what it takes to be great, we are heading in a good direction.

I would love Stanley or Buckner round 1, they can fill a need but they most likely won't be there.

[scs787]

Yeah, I would love to trade down if possible.

 

I will say I'm not 100% against a QB. I don't think Leno is a MUST replace. With Fuller, Porter, and Callahan, I don't think CB is a MUST in the first. A lot of depth in the draft at DL means they don't HAVE to grab one in the 1st. Unless Ramsey falls, there isn't a first round safety. There is no first round TE. OO, WR, and LB aren't needs.

 

We all know I'm a huge Cutler backer, but with what they've done thus far in improving the defense, they shouldn't be picking this high anytime soon so it could be a prime time to grab a guy for the future.

 

Zeke wood be highly intriguing. I would hate to discard Langford, but I can't pretend that Zeke wouldn't be an upgrade.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Yeah, I would love to trade down if possible.

 

I will say I'm not 100% against a QB. I don't think Leno is a MUST replace. With Fuller, Porter, and Callahan, I don't think CB is a MUST in the first. A lot of depth in the draft at DL means they don't HAVE to grab one in the 1st. Unless Ramsey falls, there isn't a first round safety. There is no first round TE. OO, WR, and LB aren't needs.

 

We all know I'm a huge Cutler backer, but with what they've done thus far in improving the defense, they shouldn't be picking this high anytime soon so it could be a prime time to grab a guy for the future.

 

Zeke wood be highly intriguing. I would hate to discard Langford, but I can't pretend that Zeke wouldn't be an upgrade.

I thought Leno did well, but would not hesitate on Stanley either because of that.

We may be drafting below 20 for years, so if Pace sees a great QB now, then I would understand the pick. Jay I think has 2-3 good years in him. I haven't kept up on QBs to know much on them, but Wentz seems to have some good things. I like Goff and his quick release, but not sure at 11.

[jason]

They are deep with back up DEs IMO. They obviously wanna upgrade the position(see interest in Hicks) and if they don't get Hicks or Fairley, it's a need.

 

Even if they sign Hicks, I would still like another one in the first 2 rounds honestly......Unrien, Ego, Sutton, and Washington are all backups IMO. I wouldn't hate to see a competition between those 4, but would prefer 2 starters.

 

All that said, I do like the depth in the draft at DL, so I wouldn't mind waiting till the 2nd. I'm coming around on the OT in the first idea. Eli Apple is getting some love as the 2nd CB off the board, so Hargreaves(or Apple) might make it down to 11 and I wouldn't mind that pick...

 

That's kind of what I meant. I should have said "they have too many bodies at DE". Unrien,, Ego, Sutton, and Washington are all guys with potential. I just don't see DE in the first.

[jason]

Why would a QB worry you? The Bears are in a prime position to get one to groom for the future.

 

Because it's a pick that immediately gets wasted for one year because a rookie is not playing over Cutler. No way. I don't like losing a year of a rookie's contract. And picking Elliiot essentially throws Langford away, and absolutely shits on Carey.

 

Aside from that, the Bears simply aren't as bad as it would seem. They were close in multiple losses last year, and I'm convinced it was weakness at a few positions that cost them big. I don't think they need game-changers on offense. I believe Cutler and Langford can be those guys, but the OL has been week. On defense, the ILBs were very weak and the DEs (hinted at) weren't great either.

 

Well, the ILBs are greatly improved. The OL is stronger because a RT is in house and Long moves back to RG.

[scs787]

That's kind of what I meant. I should have said "they have too many bodies at DE". Unrien,, Ego, Sutton, and Washington are all guys with potential. I just don't see DE in the first.

 

No, I know what you mean, I just don't agree. I think they're all best suited for a back up role. With them going after Hicks, they obviously see the need for at least one starter. If they do get Hicks you can make a case for those 3 battling for the other spot, but I would prefer they all be backups.

 

As I stated though, I do like the depth there in the draft, and wouldn't mind waiting till the 2nd.

['TD']

Because it's a pick that immediately gets wasted for one year because a rookie is not playing over Cutler. No way. I don't like losing a year of a rookie's contract. And picking Elliiot essentially throws Langford away, and absolutely shits on Carey.

 

Aside from that, the Bears simply aren't as bad as it would seem. They were close in multiple losses last year, and I'm convinced it was weakness at a few positions that cost them big. I don't think they need game-changers on offense. I believe Cutler and Langford can be those guys, but the OL has been week. On defense, the ILBs were very weak and the DEs (hinted at) weren't great either.

 

Well, the ILBs are greatly improved. The OL is stronger because a RT is in house and Long moves back to RG.

I am not big on the idea of a RB, but if he can be as good or better than Forte for the next 10 years then go for it. I really got burnt bad on my support of Bensen, so I don't want a first round RB, but I would be OK with it, because of who he is. I really like Langford and the way he runs.

 

I simply view QB different. I wouldn't see it as a lost year, but a year of adjusting that any QB will need coming into the league due to the big contrast of the college and pro games. If the Bears are really not that far away as you think, then it's best to get a QB now before they are drafting too late to get a top prospect.

 

I'm a firm believer that if you aren't drafting one of the top QB prospects, one they personally believe in, then don't draft one at all. QB's picked any later are a lot more likely to fail, and a pick is being used that could be a starter or depth at other positions and be a contributor to the team.

 

[Chitownhustla]

Because it's a pick that immediately gets wasted for one year because a rookie is not playing over Cutler. No way. I don't like losing a year of a rookie's contract. And picking Elliiot essentially throws Langford away, and absolutely shits on Carey.

 

Aside from that, the Bears simply aren't as bad as it would seem. They were close in multiple losses last year, and I'm convinced it was weakness at a few positions that cost them big. I don't think they need game-changers on offense. I believe Cutler and Langford can be those guys, but the OL has been week. On defense, the ILBs were very weak and the DEs (hinted at) weren't great either.

 

Well, the ILBs are greatly improved. The OL is stronger because a RT is in house and Long moves back to RG.

 

 

Lets say Pace believes EZ is a game changer, AP type of RB (kind of like Gurley last year with the Rams), Langford is a 4th round draft pick, you dont not draft EZ because of a 4th round pick. I like Langford but I dont see him being a AP type of RB, EZ has been compared to AP. This all could be a moot point, who knows if he will still be there at 11.

 

I agree with you, I think the Bears are real close. I really hope someone very high on the Bears draft board falls to them eliminating a QB or RB pick but could live with it.

[adam]

With the two ILBs and Unrein signed, and an OT to set the right edge, it worries me the Bears may actually be thinking about a QB in the first.

 

What else makes sense?

-Ragland and Mack are out in my opinion.

-Way too deep at DE to spend the pick there.

-The Bears best defensive position is OLB, so that wouldn't be a good move.

 

I think the FA signings are good enough that the Bears have narrowed down their likely 1st round positions to: CB, LT, and QB. But suppose they are including RB in their consideration?

 

The QB and RB portions of that really worries me.

 

The only way QB is even an option is if only 1 is selected in the top 10, which is highly unlikely. 3 QB's are not going in the top 11. So the only way we would select one is if Wentz or Goff fell to us at 11. ILB would be out unless Jack is there. I agree on OLB. I think DL in general is a possibility between Buckner and Robinson. Stanley for LOT or Hargreaves at CB. Then there is Elliott, if he is there at 11, it will be hard for the Bears to pass on him.

[Stinger226]

The only way QB is even an option is if only 1 is selected in the top 10, which is highly unlikely. 3 QB's are not going in the top 11. So the only way we would select one is if Wentz or Goff fell to us at 11. ILB would be out unless Jack is there. I agree on OLB. I think DL in general is a possibility between Buckner and Robinson. Stanley for LOT or Hargreaves at CB. Then there is Elliott, if he is there at 11, it will be hard for the Bears to pass on him.

If we fill all of our general needs in FA, with his old coach here, I can see where they would take EZ. You have to have more than one RB, so Langford would never be a waste. If EX makes us get to a SB quicker, Im all in. As far as a QB, I see us only taking Wentz, if he is there. I dont think Goff or Lynch have as much upside to be picked that high.

[jason]

Lets say Pace believes EZ is a game changer, AP type of RB (kind of like Gurley last year with the Rams), Langford is a 4th round draft pick, you dont not draft EZ because of a 4th round pick. I like Langford but I dont see him being a AP type of RB, EZ has been compared to AP. This all could be a moot point, who knows if he will still be there at 11.

 

I agree with you, I think the Bears are real close. I really hope someone very high on the Bears draft board falls to them eliminating a QB or RB pick but could live with it.

 

In general I don't think I pick EZ in that scenario. The reason why is I don't think the superstar model is one you can build and sustain a team around for multiple years unless that superstar is a QB. I think you can't keep that team together well if you try to continually sign or draft A+ guys to replace B or B+ players. I think excellent teams that maintain success are generally multiple B level guys, with a small assortment of B+ & A- who are willing not to financially cripple the organization with contract demands.

 

BTW - I believe Langford is a B level guy with the potential for more. I don't think he's someone we should try to find a replacement for. We should try to find a replacement for the guys on the roster who are C's and D's.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

In general I don't think I pick EZ in that scenario. The reason why is I don't think the superstar model is one you can build and sustain a team around for multiple years unless that superstar is a QB. I think you can't keep that team together well if you try to continually sign or draft A+ guys to replace B or B+ players. I think excellent teams that maintain success are generally multiple B level guys, with a small assortment of B+ & A- who are willing not to financially cripple the organization with contract demands.

 

BTW - I believe Langford is a B level guy with the potential for more. I don't think he's someone we should try to find a replacement for. We should try to find a replacement for the guys on the roster who are C's and D's.

The way FA is falling, I want a game changer that fits our schemes. Still have needs at DT, SS, and TE. Depth at CB, OLB speed rush, and OLT. Maybe another G to free up Slaussen to slide over if need be.

[Mongo3451]

I would love to land one of the LT's, Elliott or a pass rusher.

[bradjock]

I would love to land one of the LT's, Elliott or a pass rusher.

 

Normally I'd love a LT. Except this team has indicated they want to solidify the front on offense and defense. While Charles Leno may or may not be good, at least I've heard of him. With defense and the front three, we have Eddie Goldman and . . .

[bradjock]

I would love to land one of the LT's, Elliott or a pass rusher.

 

Normally I'd love a LT. Except this team has indicated they want to solidify the front on offense and defense. While Charles Leno may or may not be good, at least I've heard of him. With defense and the front three, we have Eddie Goldman and . . .

[bradjock]

I would love to land one of the LT's, Elliott or a pass rusher.

 

Normally I'd love a LT. Except this team has indicated they want to solidify the front on offense and defense. While Charles Leno may or may not be good, at least I've heard of him. With defense and the front three, we have Eddie Goldman and . . .

[dawhizz]

Based on what I know (or think I know) about the personnel, scheme, and this draft, there's really only two positions at #11 that make sense to me outside a pure "BPA" approach:

 

-OT - Stanley would be considered a slight slide and Conklin or Decker might be considered a slight reach, but you currently have an "OK" Leno at LT and zero depth behind the starters, so ideally you draft an OT in the first two rounds to challenge Leno - winner gets LT and loser is the - very important - swing tackle, cause you don't want a situation where Massie or Leno gets hurt and you are moving Long back to tackle and shuffling the line again.

-DE - Buckner or Robinson seem are great fits at 3-4 DE. As someone above said, this is a deep DL draft in general, but I'm not sure that the 3-4 DE market is quite as deep, so if you need a difference maker and immediate starter (and I think the Bears might), those guys make sense.

 

Beyond that, I feel like a trade down would make the most sense.

-I get the Elliott argument, I just have such a hard time taking a first round running back, knowing how much depth and value there is generally.

-I would usually put CB on the list, but popular consensus is that Hargreaves and Alexander and the #1 and #2 CB, and neither has the size that Fangio seems to typically prefer. If you trade down, you should reap a decent haul in compensation, plus still put you in position to take a better fit at CB like Apple, Jackson, Burns, or Howard. I guess it would come down to how important Fangio sees size as in his CBs and/or whether they see one guy as clearly a tier above the rest.

-The QB argument just doesn't track for me. My read of this QB draft is that it's more the draft where you take a first round QB because you need a QB, not one where you take one because he's BPA. Maybe Pace and company falls in love with someone, and if so, great, but from what I've seen of these projected 1st round QBs, I can't see any of them being the kind of guy you get enamored with. I think it's more likely that they determine that they really like someone in the 2nd/3rd tier and maybe take them higher than otherwise projected (someone like Brissett or Prescott or Sudfeld).

 

[dawhizz]

Normally I'd love a LT. Except this team has indicated they want to solidify the front on offense and defense. While Charles Leno may or may not be good, at least I've heard of him. With defense and the front three, we have Eddie Goldman and . . .

 

See, I think the DL is in much better shape than OL (especially if we get Hicks or a comparable FA DE). We resigned Unrein, who did OK last year. You have previous draft picks Ferguson and Sutton, who haven't stayed healthy, but have flashed some when they've been out there. McPhee plays DE sometimes and Houston is still usable there.

 

Compare that with the OL. Right now the starters look good: Leno-Slauson-Grasu-Long-Massie. But we have no one I've ever heard of to step in if any of those guys get hurt or if Leno falters in his first full year. I follow the Bears and I've never heard of these guys, outside of Tayo, who hasn't done anything yet. Martin Wallace? Jason Weaver? TJ Henry? Nick Becton? (I even made one of those names up, and you probably didn't notice.) You can get guard depth in the middle rounds, but this team is desperate (IMO) for a potential stud starter at LT or swing tackle to push Leno.

['TD']

Based on what I know (or think I know) about the personnel, scheme, and this draft, there's really only two positions at #11 that make sense to me outside a pure "BPA" approach:

 

-OT - Stanley would be considered a slight slide and Conklin or Decker might be considered a slight reach, but you currently have an "OK" Leno at LT and zero depth behind the starters, so ideally you draft an OT in the first two rounds to challenge Leno - winner gets LT and loser is the - very important - swing tackle, cause you don't want a situation where Massie or Leno gets hurt and you are moving Long back to tackle and shuffling the line again.

-DE - Buckner or Robinson seem are great fits at 3-4 DE. As someone above said, this is a deep DL draft in general, but I'm not sure that the 3-4 DE market is quite as deep, so if you need a difference maker and immediate starter (and I think the Bears might), those guys make sense.

 

Beyond that, I feel like a trade down would make the most sense.

-I get the Elliott argument, I just have such a hard time taking a first round running back, knowing how much depth and value there is generally.

-I would usually put CB on the list, but popular consensus is that Hargreaves and Alexander and the #1 and #2 CB, and neither has the size that Fangio seems to typically prefer. If you trade down, you should reap a decent haul in compensation, plus still put you in position to take a better fit at CB like Apple, Jackson, Burns, or Howard. I guess it would come down to how important Fangio sees size as in his CBs and/or whether they see one guy as clearly a tier above the rest.

-The QB argument just doesn't track for me. My read of this QB draft is that it's more the draft where you take a first round QB because you need a QB, not one where you take one because he's BPA. Maybe Pace and company falls in love with someone, and if so, great, but from what I've seen of these projected 1st round QBs, I can't see any of them being the kind of guy you get enamored with. I think it's more likely that they determine that they really like someone in the 2nd/3rd tier and maybe take them higher than otherwise projected (someone like Brissett or Prescott or Sudfeld).

I couldn't disagree more. Projects don't work at QB. For every Brady you have dozens to hundreds that don't work out. Your later picks should be for starters hopefully, depth atleast, and someone that will contribute to your team.

 

I'd also argue that BPA doesn't apply to QB. To go to an extreme, the next legendary kicker has 0 value compared to an average QB. The price that QB's get paid are reflective of that. If you want to be comeptive for the next 10 years, you need a QB. The only other option is to build a team where you have to be near the top and every year be able to replace the multiple other pieces you lose. We see it every year multiple times with Aaron Rodgers. Their defense is usually pretty bad. They lost Jordy Nelson this year and still competitive. While you may not be the best at your position in the draft according to the big heads, that doesn't apply to value you bring to a team over the next 10-15 years.