2017 Everyone Agrees Mock Draft

[Lucky Luciano]

This is what I compiled over the past few days. If you have multiple letters after RD1 QB, that means I found where you were leaning one way in one thread, and another elsewhere. Other notes are from whatever comments made in various other threads. If you disagree with something by your name, or your slant on QB in RD1, please let me know.

 

first let me qualify this... i do not watch college ball anymore due to the crap from the BCS (or whatever it is called) and the BIG 10 garbage mess they created by adding a ridiculous amount of teams that can't even play each other in a regular season, along with the 'you have to pay and subscribe to BIG 10 network' in order to watch your local/state college team. it's total BS!!!!

 

that said: i am still saying YES to drafting a QB at #3 IF that player looks to be a franchise quality player. this does NOT mean that the qb drafted has to be ready to start in the NFL this season or even next season. if it takes 2 or even 3 years for us to have a FRANCHISE quality quarterback i am more than willing to wait.

 

i am sick and tired of us drafting qb's who are questionable just so they can qualify to start sooner. it hasn't worked for us and odds are it won't unless we get lucky. nothing will destroy a franchise quicker than to rely on 'luck' rather than building solid foundations. i am also tired of trading down for more draft picks when we should have been trading UP for the most important player on your team.

 

NOW... if the people who evaluate qb talent for this franchise really determine that this draft class does NOT have that franchise quality talent for the future then i would try to trade down ONLY if i can get the team we are trading with their first round pick this year and their first round pick NEXT year. i don't care if we get anything else in return. i want to be able to trade UP with 2 FIRSTS next season to get that qb who IS a franchise prospect without bankrupting our franchise like we did for cutler.

 

if it's determined that no qb is worthy of a franchise possibility and we can't trade down for what i stated above then put me down as my 2nd choice at the 3rd pick for a CORNERBACK. there is no way that a safety can compare in value to a shut down cb and anyone who believes this is dreaming.

 

a shutdown corner not only takes away the other teams #1 receiver it gives our FREE SAFETY the chance to double up with our #2 corner for shut down coverage on that side. this in turn gives our defensive line the extra time to disrupt/sack the opponents qb.

 

here are the TOP 4 values in any draft. QB first and foremost, then it's a grab bag for LOT, CB or pass rushing DE.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

first let me qualify this... i do not watch college ball anymore due to the crap from the BCS (or whatever it is called) and the BIG 10 garbage mess they created by adding a ridiculous amount of teams that can't even play each other in a regular season, along with the 'you have to pay and subscribe to BIG 10 network' in order to watch your local/state college team. it's total BS!!!!

 

that said: i am still saying YES to drafting a QB at #3 IF that player looks to be a franchise quality player. this does NOT mean that the qb drafted has to be ready to start in the NFL this season or even next season. if it takes 2 or even 3 years for us to have a FRANCHISE quality quarterback i am more than willing to wait.

 

i am sick and tired of us drafting qb's who are questionable just so they can qualify to start sooner. it hasn't worked for us and odds are it won't unless we get lucky. nothing will destroy a franchise quicker than to rely on 'luck' rather than building solid foundations. i am also tired of trading down for more draft picks when we should have been trading UP for the most important player on your team.

 

NOW... if the people who evaluate qb talent for this franchise really determine that this draft class does NOT have that franchise quality talent for the future then i would try to trade down ONLY if i can get the team we are trading with their first round pick this year and their first round pick NEXT year. i don't care if we get anything else in return. i want to be able to trade UP with 2 FIRSTS next season to get that qb who IS a franchise prospect without bankrupting our franchise like we did for cutler.

 

if it's determined that no qb is worthy of a franchise possibility and we can't trade down for what i stated above then put me down as my 2nd choice at the 3rd pick for a CORNERBACK. there is no way that a safety can compare in value to a shut down cb and anyone who believes this is dreaming.

 

a shutdown corner not only takes away the other teams #1 receiver it gives our FREE SAFETY the chance to double up with our #2 corner for shut down coverage on that side. this in turn gives our defensive line the extra time to disrupt/sack the opponents qb.

 

here are the TOP 4 values in any draft. QB first and foremost, then it's a grab bag for LOT, CB or pass rushing DE.

This is a really great post. I really agree with your stance on QB.

 

[adam]

So, just to be clear, I'm a little confused on your stance as well. You were definitely QB RD1 in at least two other threads. Are you saying QB in RD1 is a No from you now? And you're on board with S in RD1?

Jason, I 'm sorry if I didn't clarify, those were my "needs" rankings, which should impact draft order if two players of two different positions are equal in skill. For QB, I am fine with a QB in the first, as long as he is BPA at the time of the pick. Same with DL, even though I think we are good on the D-Line, it would be hard to pass on Allen or Garrett at #3. Especially if the top QB is gone and 1 of 2 of them are gone when we pick.

 

I was thinking we could rank the team needs so you had a team prioritization list, which would then guide you through available players when there are equal value. Otherwise, go BPA all the way through and see what we look like.

 

My dilemma is do you go with the #2 QB, #2 DL, #1 Safety, #1 CB, or #1 OL at #3.

[Mongo3451]

Since we are drafting BPA, I would like to select Hooker.

[Stinger226]

Since we are drafting BPA, I would like to select Hooker.

From what I read , Adams, is a more physical type player but would be happy with either one

 

[dawhizz]

I would prefer a FS over Allen.

[killakrzydav]

Yeah...I agree with Connor. On a sidenote, it was amazing how good Matt Ryan looks. I always thought Ryan had talent and he showed it. I've always thought the same of Jay (albeit, at this point, he's too far gone for the Bears to keep), but it does go to show how important it is to put quality players and the right coaches around these guys. Ryan isn't Rodgers or Brady, who can do it on his own, but he's good enough that if you give him the right parts, he can be elite (and this year, Matt Ryan has been that).

 

I'm surprised the Falcons aren't opening as favorites. They've looked fantastic.

 

Also, the Packers lost to the superior team and beat a team that was better then them the week before. I don't really call the choking. Yes, they got whooped this week, but they didn't even belong on the same field as the Falcons (who I happen to think will win the superbowl). That said, I'd never bet against Tom Brady.

 

[killakrzydav]

Who's the qb that San Fran selected?.

 

Bpa is Watson then Allen.

[killakrzydav]

I saw on NFL.com they had Cleveland taking Watson at#1. Did anyone also see that they asked him to play in the senior bowl?

[Daventry]

I vote for Miles Garrett if he is available, if not Allen. No QB for me.

[killakrzydav]

In their three round mock the had us taking Trub at three, white (cb) with Humphrey and Jackson available in the second, and Butt in the third fresh off an acl.

[Pixote]

I saw on NFL.com they had Cleveland taking Watson at#1. Did anyone also see that they asked him to play in the senior bowl?

 

I did see that Cleveland asked Watson to play in the Senior Bowl, interesting.

 

So if Cleveland goes QB #1 with Watson or ???

 

San Francisco with new HC will be tempted to draft a QB at #2

 

So hyperthetically, we could be seeing Garrett drop to number 3?

 

If that happens, no doubt about it, I would draft Garrett.

 

(If Garrett was on the Board at that time I bet there would be some major trade down oportunities for Pace!)

 

I was not at all impressed with what I saw out of DE J. Allen during his last 2 playoff games.

 

If Garrett is gone in the top 2 picks and DE J. Allen is there for us at #3 I would far rather see the Bears pick a QB at #3 than to choose him.

 

I am not 100% sure about a QB at #3 in round 1 but I am becoming more comfortable with the idea when looking at the other options, or should I say the lack of available options, to clean up our long time deficiency at QB.

 

[jason]

Adam - RD1 QB=N, No Trubisky, Garrett/Allen RD1, Needs: QB/LT then CB/S, (S,OT,QB,CB,TE,DL,WR,K)

Alaska - RD1 QB=Y, Deshaun, Needs: QB,CB/Safety (possible 2nd QB later), RD4 OL agreement

Ashkum - RD1 QB=Y, Deshaun, O>D, Kevin King RD4, Julie'n Davenport RD4 (multiple OTs), Chad Wheeler RD3/RD4, CB RD1, Needs: CB/QB

AZ54 - RD1 QB=Y, Trubisky1/Kizer2, No Watson, D>O, Needs: QB/Safety, Adams>Hooker/Peppers, Julie'n Davenport after RD3, QB #1 need, CB #2 need

Bears4Ever - RD1 QB=N, RD1 S, RD2 QB

Boston Boxer - RD1 QB=N, Garrett/Allen > Peppers/FS

Bowlingtwig - RD1 QB=N, Needs: CB/LT, Need early RD 2ndary, D>O,

Chile - RD1 QB=N (No Barkley), QB RD2, DE/S/CB in RD1, RD7 round kicker, Needs: CB/FS

Chitownhustla - RD1 QB=Y, Needs: QB/LT

Connor - RD1 QB=N, QB in RD2, CB/S in RD1

Daventry - RD1 QB=N (too many needs, Barkley potential, RD1 QB ?'s) Garrett/Allen RD1

Dawhizz - RD1 QB=N, Garrett>FS>Allen RD1

DBDB - RD1 QB=Y, FS #3 if forced to choose, would be OK with Allen, Peppers overrated

killakrzydav - RD1 QB=Y, Watson/Trubisky/Kelly/Kizer, O>D, No S @ #3, Garrett>QB, Needs: OT/S/CB, Kaaya "garbage"

Lemon - RD1 QB=N, BPA, Allen potential at #3, No Cam Robinson RD1, high on Fabian Moreau, CB potential 2nd round

Lucky Luciano - RD1 QB=Y, CB @ #3 in RD1, Position importance: QB, LOT, CB, DE. RT in RD3-RD4

MadLithuanian - RD1 QB=Y, Trubisky-lite, Needs: QB/FS then CB

Mongo - RD1 QB=Y, Trubisky, O>D, Hooker>Adams @ FS, Draft an OT

NYC - RD1 QB=Y, Needs: QB, WR need within 3 rounds

Pixote - RD1 QB=N, RD2 QB, maybe another QB >RD3 also

scs787 - RD1 QB=N, Garrett/Allen RD1, FS next RD1 option

Stinger - RD1 QB=N, Must draft QB this year, No Trubisky, No Cam Robinson RD1, No Peppers RD1, Adams/Garrett/Allen RD1, S in RD1

 

QB voted down. DL leads S/CB in the 1st. If that changes, the mock changes. With that said, however, it appears that if the Bears draft Allen at #3, nearly everyone agrees the following two needs are S & QB (in whatever order), assuming the picks are not huge reaches. Assume Myles Garrett and a QB go with the first two picks.

 

2017 EVERYONE AGREES MOCK - VER 1.0

1. Jonathan Allen, DE, Alabama - Nearly half the board is upset, regardless of the pick

2. Pat Mahomes, QB, Texas Tech - Assures Barkley doesn't start

3. Budda Baker, S, Washington - Gives the Bears a solid back-end

4. Julie'n Davenport, OT, Bucknell - Potential for either side

4. Kevin King, CB, Washington - Good size/speed combo, cohesion with Baker

5. Josh Malone, WR, Tennessee - Good prospect, great size, underused at TN

7. Fabian Moreau, CB, UCLA - Rising draft boards, could be a steal

[DABEARSDABOMB]

In their three round mock the had us taking Trub at three, white (cb) with Humphrey and Jackson available in the second, and Butt in the third fresh off an acl.

Butt is a nice TE prospect, however, given White's status, I don't see Pace going for a guy coming off a serious injury (that early in the draft). Especially one whose injury came pretty late in the season, so you know he won't be available for training camp/mini camp, etc. You basically might as well call it a redshirt rookie season.

[Lucky Luciano]

So hyperthetically, we could be seeing Garrett drop to number 3?

 

If that happens, no doubt about it, I would draft Garrett.

 

i am not familiar enough with a 3/4 defense to yet understand how the players compare to those in a 4/3. that said..

 

if this garrett is playing in a similar position as floyd and both are supposed pass rushers how can we afford both?

 

there is no way if floyd pans out like we expect/hope that this franchise can give the kind of money garrett and floyd will demand when both their contracts come due. that would make it 2 franchise quality pass rushing (DE?) contracts due nearly at the same time.

 

so IF we go the garrett route, and he is a similar position player as floyd, how can we justify two top ten picks at the same position two years in a row knowing we will have to release one of them due to cap restrictions in 3-4 years just when they reach their prime?

[jason]

i am not familiar enough with a 3/4 defense to yet understand how the players compare to those in a 4/3. that said..

 

if this garrett is playing in a similar position as floyd and both are supposed pass rushers how can we afford both?

 

there is no way if floyd pans out like we expect/hope that this franchise can give the kind of money garrett and floyd will demand when both their contracts come due. that would make it 2 franchise quality pass rushing (DE?) contracts due nearly at the same time.

 

so IF we go the garrett route, and he is a similar position player as floyd, how can we justify two top ten picks at the same position two years in a row knowing we will have to release one of them due to cap restrictions in 3-4 years just when they reach their prime?

 

I don't agree with that line of reasoning. If they both turn out to be pro bowlers, racking up 15 sacks a year, you pay them both and you figure out where to save elsewhere. It's the same dilemma if you have to pay two pro bowl players at any position. Besides, if the two pro bowlers are DEs who constantly terrorize QBs, the CB and S needs are minimized. If the DEs are Bruce Smith and Michael Strahan, you can put below average DTs in the game and have great success. And if you're running a 3-4, all you need is a massive space-eater at NT.

 

 

[madlithuanian]

That draft would address many needs. Really a good mix other than lack of a TE.

 

Adam - RD1 QB=N, No Trubisky, Garrett/Allen RD1, Needs: QB/LT then CB/S, (S,OT,QB,CB,TE,DL,WR,K)

Alaska - RD1 QB=Y, Deshaun, Needs: QB,CB/Safety (possible 2nd QB later), RD4 OL agreement

Ashkum - RD1 QB=Y, Deshaun, O>D, Kevin King RD4, Julie'n Davenport RD4 (multiple OTs), Chad Wheeler RD3/RD4, CB RD1, Needs: CB/QB

AZ54 - RD1 QB=Y, Trubisky1/Kizer2, No Watson, D>O, Needs: QB/Safety, Adams>Hooker/Peppers, Julie'n Davenport after RD3, QB #1 need, CB #2 need

Bears4Ever - RD1 QB=N, RD1 S, RD2 QB

Boston Boxer - RD1 QB=N, Garrett/Allen > Peppers/FS

Bowlingtwig - RD1 QB=N, Needs: CB/LT, Need early RD 2ndary, D>O,

Chile - RD1 QB=N (No Barkley), QB RD2, DE/S/CB in RD1, RD7 round kicker, Needs: CB/FS

Chitownhustla - RD1 QB=Y, Needs: QB/LT

Connor - RD1 QB=N, QB in RD2, CB/S in RD1

Daventry - RD1 QB=N (too many needs, Barkley potential, RD1 QB ?'s) Garrett/Allen RD1

Dawhizz - RD1 QB=N, Garrett>FS>Allen RD1

DBDB - RD1 QB=Y, FS #3 if forced to choose, would be OK with Allen, Peppers overrated

killakrzydav - RD1 QB=Y, Watson/Trubisky/Kelly/Kizer, O>D, No S @ #3, Garrett>QB, Needs: OT/S/CB, Kaaya "garbage"

Lemon - RD1 QB=N, BPA, Allen potential at #3, No Cam Robinson RD1, high on Fabian Moreau, CB potential 2nd round

Lucky Luciano - RD1 QB=Y, CB @ #3 in RD1, Position importance: QB, LOT, CB, DE. RT in RD3-RD4

MadLithuanian - RD1 QB=Y, Trubisky-lite, Needs: QB/FS then CB

Mongo - RD1 QB=Y, Trubisky, O>D, Hooker>Adams @ FS, Draft an OT

NYC - RD1 QB=Y, Needs: QB, WR need within 3 rounds

Pixote - RD1 QB=N, RD2 QB, maybe another QB >RD3 also

scs787 - RD1 QB=N, Garrett/Allen RD1, FS next RD1 option

Stinger - RD1 QB=N, Must draft QB this year, No Trubisky, No Cam Robinson RD1, No Peppers RD1, Adams/Garrett/Allen RD1, S in RD1

 

QB voted down. DL leads S/CB in the 1st. If that changes, the mock changes. With that said, however, it appears that if the Bears draft Allen at #3, nearly everyone agrees the following two needs are S & QB (in whatever order), assuming the picks are not huge reaches. Assume Myles Garrett and a QB go with the first two picks.

 

2017 EVERYONE AGREES MOCK - VER 1.0

1. Jonathan Allen, DE, Alabama - Nearly half the board is upset, regardless of the pick

2. Pat Mahomes, QB, Texas Tech - Assures Barkley doesn't start

3. Budda Baker, S, Washington - Gives the Bears a solid back-end

4. Julie'n Davenport, OT, Bucknell - Potential for either side

4. Kevin King, CB, Washington - Good size/speed combo, cohesion with Baker

5. Josh Malone, WR, Tennessee - Good prospect, great size, underused at TN

7. Fabian Moreau, CB, UCLA - Rising draft boards, could be a steal

 

[Lucky Luciano]

I don't agree with that line of reasoning. If they both turn out to be pro bowlers, racking up 15 sacks a year, you pay them both and you figure out where to save elsewhere. It's the same dilemma if you have to pay two pro bowl players at any position. Besides, if the two pro bowlers are DEs who constantly terrorize QBs, the CB and S needs are minimized. If the DEs are Bruce Smith and Michael Strahan, you can put below average DTs in the game and have great success. And if you're running a 3-4, all you need is a massive space-eater at NT.

 

i have to completely disagree with your assessment.

 

with TWO contracts coming do nearly at the same time there is just not enough money in the cap to do this. pass rushing DE's are one of the highest paid players in the nfl with the exception of franchise qb's. you would virtually pauper your defense and more than likely your offense as well. in today's world, no, it would bust your franchise and it's possibilities to be a consistent contender for a real shot at a title.

 

if this were pre cap times then it would be a nice proposition which might work although if you want a reality check look no further than the 85 bears defense. we had 2 HOF defensive ends not to mention HOF quality linebackers. the type of offense run today is very similar to what the dolphins did to us in that season with marino. it's the quick release that will negate a pass rush and put the burden on your linebackers and defensive backs. thus the importance of quality corners.

 

in today's defense does that mean we go with mediocre linebackers and defensive backs? your safeties would be just 'good' at best in this scenario and probably even less quality for your linebackers. this also means you are fielding bottom of the barrel cornerbacks. good to elite cb's get nearly if not more money than a DE does.

 

it would be nearly impossible to pay a franchise quality quarterback and certainly franchise quality LOT's along with him if you put that much money in two similar positions on your defense. are you suggesting we go with a mediocre offensive line yet again?

 

if you are forced to let one of these high quality DE's go then you 'literally' wasted a top 5 or 10 pick.

 

it's a recipe for disaster for another decade.

 

[Pixote]

i have to completely disagree with your assessment.

 

with TWO contracts coming do nearly at the same time there is just not enough money in the cap to do this. pass rushing DE's are one of the highest paid players in the nfl with the exception of franchise qb's. you would virtually pauper your defense and more than likely your offense as well. in today's world, no, it would bust your franchise and it's possibilities to be a consistent contender for a real shot at a title.

 

if this were pre cap times then it would be a nice proposition which might work although if you want a reality check look no further than the 85 bears defense. we had 2 HOF defensive ends not to mention HOF quality linebackers. the type of offense run today is very similar to what the dolphins did to us in that season with marino. it's the quick release that will negate a pass rush and put the burden on your linebackers and defensive backs. thus the importance of quality corners.

 

in today's defense does that mean we go with mediocre linebackers and defensive backs? your safeties would be just 'good' at best in this scenario and probably even less quality for your linebackers. this also means you are fielding bottom of the barrel cornerbacks. good to elite cb's get nearly if not more money than a DE does.

 

it would be nearly impossible to pay a franchise quality quarterback and certainly franchise quality LOT's along with him if you put that much money in two similar positions on your defense. are you suggesting we go with a mediocre offensive line yet again?

 

if you are forced to let one of these high quality DE's go then you 'literally' wasted a top 5 or 10 pick.

 

it's a recipe for disaster for another decade.

 

Hicks & Garrett at DE

Goldman at NT

McPhee & Floyd OLB

Freeman & Trevathan ILB

 

Now that would be a solid front 7 on D, get 4 good DBs to go with them and you have a top 5 D.

[jason]

i have to completely disagree with your assessment.

 

with TWO contracts coming do nearly at the same time there is just not enough money in the cap to do this. pass rushing DE's are one of the highest paid players in the nfl with the exception of franchise qb's. you would virtually pauper your defense and more than likely your offense as well. in today's world, no, it would bust your franchise and it's possibilities to be a consistent contender for a real shot at a title.

 

if this were pre cap times then it would be a nice proposition which might work although if you want a reality check look no further than the 85 bears defense. we had 2 HOF defensive ends not to mention HOF quality linebackers. the type of offense run today is very similar to what the dolphins did to us in that season with marino. it's the quick release that will negate a pass rush and put the burden on your linebackers and defensive backs. thus the importance of quality corners.

 

in today's defense does that mean we go with mediocre linebackers and defensive backs? your safeties would be just 'good' at best in this scenario and probably even less quality for your linebackers. this also means you are fielding bottom of the barrel cornerbacks. good to elite cb's get nearly if not more money than a DE does.

 

it would be nearly impossible to pay a franchise quality quarterback and certainly franchise quality LOT's along with him if you put that much money in two similar positions on your defense. are you suggesting we go with a mediocre offensive line yet again?

 

if you are forced to let one of these high quality DE's go then you 'literally' wasted a top 5 or 10 pick.

 

it's a recipe for disaster for another decade.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree overall, but two points:

1) The Dolphins did not win with the offense you describe. They got Marino outside the pocket a bunch, and Marino had a bunch of 7-step drops. It wasn't the 3 and 5 step drop system you're referencing.

2) The DL over other positions is not my opinion. It's just what the majority of the board chose. I'm not suggesting what to do. I'm attempting to leave my "picks" out of the equation.

[Stinger226]

We'll have to agree to disagree overall, but two points:

1) The Dolphins did not win with the offense you describe. They got Marino outside the pocket a bunch, and Marino had a bunch of 7-step drops. It wasn't the 3 and 5 step drop system you're referencing.

2) The DL over other positions is not my opinion. It's just what the majority of the board chose. I'm not suggesting what to do. I'm attempting to leave my "picks" out of the equation.

The first 5 are good picks , the only problem is I dont see a TE anywhere in there.

[adam]

The first 5 are good picks , the only problem is I dont see a TE anywhere in there.

TE in the 5th or 7th and it would look pretty good.

[AZ54]

i am not familiar enough with a 3/4 defense to yet understand how the players compare to those in a 4/3. that said..

 

if this garrett is playing in a similar position as floyd and both are supposed pass rushers how can we afford both?

 

there is no way if floyd pans out like we expect/hope that this franchise can give the kind of money garrett and floyd will demand when both their contracts come due. that would make it 2 franchise quality pass rushing (DE?) contracts due nearly at the same time.

 

so IF we go the garrett route, and he is a similar position player as floyd, how can we justify two top ten picks at the same position two years in a row knowing we will have to release one of them due to cap restrictions in 3-4 years just when they reach their prime?

 

Because we'll have four years with the best OLB/DE combination in the NFL. Perhaps most importantly is that Garrett is about as sure of a thing as a top draft pick as you can find. We won't find that among any of the QB candidates. That performance from two edge defenders can do a lot of damage and then when we have to cross the bridge of new contracts we'll figure it out. If the cap is a problem, then we can always tag one (Floyd) and trade him because if he is among the leagues better pass rushers we will get a 1st Rd pick in exchange.

 

 

 

[AZ54]

QB voted down. DL leads S/CB in the 1st. If that changes, the mock changes. With that said, however, it appears that if the Bears draft Allen at #3, nearly everyone agrees the following two needs are S & QB (in whatever order), assuming the picks are not huge reaches. Assume Myles Garrett and a QB go with the first two picks.

 

2017 EVERYONE AGREES MOCK - VER 1.0

1. Jonathan Allen, DE, Alabama - Nearly half the board is upset, regardless of the pick

2. Pat Mahomes, QB, Texas Tech - Assures Barkley doesn't start

3. Budda Baker, S, Washington - Gives the Bears a solid back-end

4. Julie'n Davenport, OT, Bucknell - Potential for either side

4. Kevin King, CB, Washington - Good size/speed combo, cohesion with Baker

5. Josh Malone, WR, Tennessee - Good prospect, great size, underused at TN

7. Fabian Moreau, CB, UCLA - Rising draft boards, could be a steal

 

I like the draft not sure I love it....yet. That's mainly because I have so many questions on Allen at the #3 pick overall. I still don't see him being a player who will command constant double teams, or as a player who can consistently win 1on1 against OTs in the NFL. RT's yes. At this point I'm not sure that if we want a 5T at #3 then maybe Solomon Thomas is the better choice. I think Thomas is the better edge player among the two because he's more athletic, with Allen probably the better interior player. The draft process will make clear where each fits but either player makes our Dline very good.

 

I think it's fair to say there is no way Moreau lasts until the 7th Rd after being the top riser coming out of the Shrine game but if he's there he'd be a great pick.

 

I've watched a few of Mahome's games. He definitely has all the physical tools needed and can throw accurately even on deep routes. His physical talent could easily put him into Rd 1. OTOH he also makes some crazy decisions when under pressure and will throw into tight coverage. As a 2nd Rd pick he's worth developing but I suspect after two years of Cutler this staff is going to look for a QB who prioritizes taking care of the ball. IMO Mahomes and Trubisky are the two best QBs when forced to move outside the pocket and there is a ton of value in that skill to extend plays.

 

I also think using a 4th Rd pick on J. Davenport is too early for him as he really struggles with speed. In this round I prefer someone like Chad Wheeler out of USC or Antonio Garcia who has the physical tools to handle LT in the NFL if he can improve his technique. Here he is against Clemson, and I have a lot of respect for Clemson's Dline as does coach Saban (now). http://draftbreakdown.com/video/antonio-ga...s-clemson-2016/

[jason]

Adam - RD1 QB=N, No Trubisky, Garrett/Allen RD1, TE mandatory, Needs: QB/LT then CB/S, (S,OT,QB,CB,TE,DL,WR,K)

Alaska - RD1 QB=Y, Deshaun, Needs: QB,CB/Safety (possible 2nd QB later), RD4 OL agreement

Ashkum - RD1 QB=Y, Deshaun, O>D, Kevin King RD4, Chad Wheeler > Julie'n Davenport RD4 (multiple OTs), CB RD1, Needs: CB/QB

AZ54 - RD1 QB=Y, Trubisky1/Kizer2, No Watson, D>O, Needs: QB/Safety, Adams>Hooker/Peppers, Chad Wheeler>Julie'n Davenport after RD3, QB #1 need, CB #2 need

Bears4Ever - RD1 QB=N, RD1 S, RD2 QB

Boston Boxer - RD1 QB=N, Garrett/Allen > Peppers/FS

Bowlingtwig - RD1 QB=N, Needs: CB/LT, Need early RD 2ndary, D>O,

Chile - RD1 QB=N (No Barkley), QB RD2, DE/S/CB in RD1, RD7 round kicker, Needs: CB/FS

Chitownhustla - RD1 QB=Y, Needs: QB/LT

Connor - RD1 QB=N, QB in RD2, CB/S in RD1

Daventry - RD1 QB=N (too many needs, Barkley potential, RD1 QB ?'s) Garrett/Allen RD1

Dawhizz - RD1 QB=N, Garrett>FS>Allen RD1

DBDB - RD1 QB=Y, FS #3 if forced to choose, would be OK with Allen, Peppers overrated

killakrzydav - RD1 QB=Y, Watson/Trubisky/Kelly/Kizer, O>D, No S @ #3, Garrett>QB, Needs: OT/S/CB, Kaaya "garbage"

Lemon - RD1 QB=N, BPA, Allen potential at #3, No Cam Robinson RD1, high on Fabian Moreau, CB potential 2nd round

Lucky Luciano - RD1 QB=Y, CB @ #3 in RD1, Position importance: QB, LOT, CB, DE. RT in RD3-RD4

MadLithuanian - RD1 QB=Y, Trubisky-lite, Needs: QB/FS then CB, TE mandatory

Mongo - RD1 QB=Y, Trubisky, O>D, Hooker>Adams @ FS, Draft an OT

NYC - RD1 QB=Y, Needs: QB, WR need within 3 rounds

Pixote - RD1 QB=N, RD2 QB, maybe another QB >RD3 also

scs787 - RD1 QB=N, Garrett/Allen RD1, FS next RD1 option

Stinger - RD1 QB=N, Must draft QB this year, No Trubisky, No Cam Robinson RD1, No Peppers RD1, TE mandatory, Adams/Garrett/Allen RD1, S in RD1

 

QB voted down. DL leads S/CB in the 1st.

-Ashkum & AZ both think Wheeler is better than Davenport at OT, and both are projected around the same time.

-AZ raises questions about Mahomes in the 2nd, but seems OK with the pick.

-Adam, Madlith, & Stinger think TE is mandatory. Right now that trumps the one mandatory WR vote from NYC.

-Two CBs also trump the one mandatory WR vote because everyone seems to agree there needs to be a focus on CBs, which is problematic since one isn't drafted until RD4.

 

Too many holes with not enough picks. With that said...

 

2017 EVERYONE AGREES MOCK - VER 2.0

1. Jonathan Allen, DE, Alabama - Nearly half the board is upset, regardless of the pick

2. Pat Mahomes, QB, Texas Tech - Assures Barkley doesn't start

3. Budda Baker, S, Washington - Gives the Bears a solid back-end

4. Chad Wheeler, OT, USC - Potential for either side

4. Kevin King, CB, Washington - Good size/speed combo, cohesion with Baker

5. Fabian Moreau, CB, UCLA - Rising draft boards, could be a steal

7. Pharaoh Brown, TE, Oregon - Skilled pass-catcher with injury history