Our first pick needs to be a all pro type

[Connorbear]

1 hour ago, DABEARSDABOMB said:

I'm saying we trade down and draft Landry.  

Draft Nelson or Edmunds or trade down and get Landry. 

Peace

[jason]

Unless Chubb or Nelson are there, the Bears should trade back. This trade with NE is perfect..

I'd hate Roquan Smith or Edmunds at #8 because the Bears don't really need an ILB. Kwiatkoski an Trevathan are fine, and far better at their respective positions than several others on the team. And neither can play 3-4OLB, no matter what anyone says.

The only other player who makes sense at #8, and fits team need without unnecessary redundancy, is Fitzpatrick. Prince is a rental at best, and the spot will open up.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

2 hours ago, BearFan NYC said:

Edmunds has more upside than Smith, and since this si the first year of a new staff, and we have a new QB developing, the win now / sign peaking free agents model doesnt fit.

We are building a team for a window that probably opens next year. We will be competitive this year, and maybe even go 9-7. But we've lived through too many decades of the quick fix 9-7 team that ages before it gets 10 wins to do this again. Pace has the discipline and the time to draft for ceilings, and Edmunds looks like he could be a transformative player.

It is killing me seeing all these beat writers marking Nelson as the Bears pick. I do not see how he slips to 8.  Sure it's a no brainer for me but it would be Aaron Donald all over again.  If we dont trade down, I also think Edmund's is the pick.  As you state, Pace was rewarded an extra clock with Nagy coming in with a raw QB.   Edmund's fits Paces athletic freak model.

[AZ54]

I'm not changing and I still value Edmunds more than Roquan Smith.  I went back and watched a game of each and I see the same mistakes people complain about with Edmunds made by Smith.  He gets caught up inside at times mis-reading the keys.  One thing is clear, if any blocker gets his hands on Smith he's out of the play unless he can loop back around for a tackle a bit further downfield.  I watch Edmunds at the goal line at 1:05 against Clemson (seems like reasonable high level college competition) and he pushes off the block from the RG and stuffs the RB preventing a TD.  Again around 1:20 Edmunds fends off the block from the LT and a WR crashing in on him to get into the outside gap.   Both are plays Smith is not capable of.  Edmunds isn't perfect either or he'd easily be a top 5 pick.  At 1:40 he misses his assignment on the RB out of the backfield.  Then again if you watch the Auburn game Roquan Smith makes the same mistake.  If you continue watching Edmunds against Clemson you'll see he doesn't make that mistake again, and often picks up the RB out of the backfield.      

http://draftbreakdown.com/2017/11/13/roquan-smith-vs-auburn-2017/

http://draftbreakdown.com/2017/10/16/tremaine-edmunds-vs-clemson-2017/

I'll cede the fact Smith is the better LB in coverage but, there is not a huge gap here.  Anywhere around the LOS in traffic, and especially in the redzone I prefer Edmunds.  In fact I think Edmunds is the perfect compliment to Trevathan.   

[Stinger226]

For me, as the post title stated, drafting in the top 10 needs us to grab a player than can start in year one and become a all pro type. 

Barkley-Nelson-Chubb-Fritzpatrick-Ward- R. Smith  all fit that type.

Next you have James-Edmunds-Vea-Davenport-Landry may become those players.

There is no guarantee for any but usually the best players have less risk.

So do we draft on potential or draft a less risk player?

We all project what we want someone to be because of needs the team have.

I think we need to take the BPA even if its not a fill a need. 

Chubb is a no brainer, will not be there.

Nelson is a no brainer , probably will not be there.

Barkley is not a need but if there, puts us in a better position to trade back.

Fritz and Ward or R. Smith should be available for us, so we should just grab the BPA at that spot.

We all have different opinions but if you look at all information available, the top 6 non QB player have been consistently listed through out the process.

Edmunds has moved up since the beginning of the process because he is a physical freak, but is he really a top 10 player type.

So many times players look good at the combine and everybody values them more, I want the best football player, not the top physical stud..

[BearFan PHX]

10 hours ago, AZ54 said:

I'm not changing and I still value Edmunds more than Roquan Smith.  I went back and watched a game of each and I see the same mistakes people complain about with Edmunds made by Smith.  He gets caught up inside at times mis-reading the keys.  One thing is clear, if any blocker gets his hands on Smith he's out of the play unless he can loop back around for a tackle a bit further downfield.  I watch Edmunds at the goal line at 1:05 against Clemson (seems like reasonable high level college competition) and he pushes off the block from the RG and stuffs the RB preventing a TD.  Again around 1:20 Edmunds fends off the block from the LT and a WR crashing in on him to get into the outside gap.   Both are plays Smith is not capable of.  Edmunds isn't perfect either or he'd easily be a top 5 pick.  At 1:40 he misses his assignment on the RB out of the backfield.  Then again if you watch the Auburn game Roquan Smith makes the same mistake.  If you continue watching Edmunds against Clemson you'll see he doesn't make that mistake again, and often picks up the RB out of the backfield.      

http://draftbreakdown.com/2017/11/13/roquan-smith-vs-auburn-2017/

http://draftbreakdown.com/2017/10/16/tremaine-edmunds-vs-clemson-2017/

I'll cede the fact Smith is the better LB in coverage but, there is not a huge gap here.  Anywhere around the LOS in traffic, and especially in the redzone I prefer Edmunds.  In fact I think Edmunds is the perfect compliment to Trevathan.   

I dont think Smith is better in coverage. Edmunds excels in coverage, and I have seen some very impressive film with extremely fluid hips running with WRs.