Which group of players is a must to draft?

[adam]

So I was thinking, regardless if the Bears use #1 on a QB or trade down, they will have at least one pick in the top 10 to draft a non-QB. Knowing that, and with the assumption that 3 QBs will go in the top 10, what group of players must the Bears get at least one player from?

For me, it is a group that includes MHJ, Nabers, Odunze, Bowers, or Alt. With 3 QBs, there is a chance that all of them are gone at #9. If that is the case, would you be ok with someone else in this group? Someone like Turner, Verse, or Latu on the Edge? Fashanu? I would rather trade down if none of those 5 are there.

Thoughts?

[adam]

The last 5 #9s:

Jalen Carter, Charles Cross (OT), Patrick Surtain, CJ Henderson, Ed Oliver. 

[Mongo3451]

I don't think we go OT, so receiver or edge for me.  That includes Bowers.

[BearFan PHX]

I think we need help at a lot of positions, and there are lots of ways to get help; trade, free agency, the draft.

So your question, which non QB should we get in the top of the first round, is about finding value at KEY positions, that you dont have to overpay for like you do in free agency or the draft.

So before I look at team needs, or even the Bears at all, the answers to that question are always the same: QB, Edge, Left Offensive Tackle and game changing impact players (who are rare) and any position. Usually that last part means WR or TE. Those are the generic values by position.

So for example, if JPJ is going to be the best center that ever played the game, you still don't draft him in the top 5 picks. He's trending like he's gonna go around pick #20, which means he's a hell of a prospect at center. But I cant think of any center who can take over a game. They can do a lot, but for example, you dont normally think of a LB being able to take the team on his shoulders the way a championship QB does - but Ray Lewis did. But even still you wouldnt put non-edge LB in the top 10 of most drafts. It'd take a very rare player to do that.

So I think the answers in this draft at #9 are QB (probably not the 9 pick! and outlawed by your rule here anyway), LOT, DL (could be edge could be 3T), WR and possibly Bowers too.

If you stack all of those up, you get a choice of at least a few of them at 9. The way you listed it makes perfect sense, but add in the LOTs, and the edge rushers you mention later, and then you've got your full list. That's my answer anyway.

[Stinger226]

48 minutes ago, adam said:

So I was thinking, regardless if the Bears use #1 on a QB or trade down, they will have at least one pick in the top 10 to draft a non-QB. Knowing that, and with the assumption that 3 QBs will go in the top 10, what group of players must the Bears get at least one player from?

For me, it is a group that includes MHJ, Nabers, Odunze, Bowers, or Alt. With 3 QBs, there is a chance that all of them are gone at #9. If that is the case, would you be ok with someone else in this group? Someone like Turner, Verse, or Latu on the Edge? Fashanu? I would rather trade down if none of those 5 are there.

Thoughts?

After QB what are the most important positions? You can look at what their paid. Not in any order LT, WR, Edge and CB.

We don't need a CB, so those are the positions that will be drafted top 10.

People like Bowers or a Jaylon Carter type pop up once in a while but not the norm. 

After QB, which players would have the most impact right away? Figure in our needs and it's probably edge or WR. Bowers and Newton could be considered. I think our LT is good enough to not consider in a top 10 pick. Poles is a OL guru ( self clamied) so it could be a LT, if he thinks Braxton can play somewhere else. 

[BearFan PHX]

i think Poles has shown he doesnt draft for need. He has been disciplined to wait the requisite years to fill out the roster.

The previous Bears GMs were always about filling holes. We'd sign someone to a high contract, or draft someone high, and they would be overvalued because of need. We'd end up married to a 75%er for four years. Poles knows that when you find the right player at the right point in their career, you pay them what they are worth, but you cant reach because you have a hole and are thinking about this year only.

Claypool is a perfect example of why not to do that.

So I think Poles takes value at the #9 pick, regardless of players he may have on cheap deals who are doing OK. If that means OT, then so be it. It sure doesnt rule out the top WRs ot Bowers either. It just depends who falls to us.

[Stinger226]

5 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

i think Poles has shown he doesnt draft for need. He has been disciplined to wait the requisite years to fill out the roster.

The previous Bears GMs were always about filling holes. We'd sign someone to a high contract, or draft someone high, and they would be overvalued because of need. We'd end up married to a 75%er for four years. Poles knows that when you find the right player at the right point in their career, you pay them what they are worth, but you cant reach because you have a hole and are thinking about this year only.

Claypool is a perfect example of why not to do that.

So I think Poles takes value at the #9 pick, regardless of players he may have on cheap deals who are doing OK. If that means OT, then so be it. It sure doesnt rule out the top WRs ot Bowers either. It just depends who falls to us.

When you rebuild a team, you need players at every position. He takes the BPA and fills needs at the same time. He follows his board. He has a plan. You can do both.

[adam]

10 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

I think we need help at a lot of positions, and there are lots of ways to get help; trade, free agency, the draft.

So your question, which non QB should we get in the top of the first round, is about finding value at KEY positions, that you dont have to overpay for like you do in free agency or the draft.

So before I look at team needs, or even the Bears at all, the answers to that question are always the same: QB, Edge, Left Offensive Tackle and game changing impact players (who are rare) and any position. Usually that last part means WR or TE. Those are the generic values by position.

So for example, if JPJ is going to be the best center that ever played the game, you still don't draft him in the top 5 picks. He's trending like he's gonna go around pick #20, which means he's a hell of a prospect at center. But I cant think of any center who can take over a game. They can do a lot, but for example, you dont normally think of a LB being able to take the team on his shoulders the way a championship QB does - but Ray Lewis did. But even still you wouldnt put non-edge LB in the top 10 of most drafts. It'd take a very rare player to do that.

So I think the answers in this draft at #9 are QB (probably not the 9 pick! and outlawed by your rule here anyway), LOT, DL (could be edge could be 3T), WR and possibly Bowers too.

If you stack all of those up, you get a choice of at least a few of them at 9. The way you listed it makes perfect sense, but add in the LOTs, and the edge rushers you mention later, and then you've got your full list. That's my answer anyway.

Ok, so you are willing to use #9 on OTs not named Alt and any of the top 3 Edge guys listed? I am tracking on JPJ. I would be willing to take him in the 15-20 range if the Bears traded down to that range and he was still on the board. 

[adam]

10 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

I don't think we go OT, so receiver or edge for me.  That includes Bowers.

It really depends on how they view Jones. It feels like a luxury pick if you got OT at #9, but at the same time, if they just paid Kmet, can you justify Bowers (I can) as TE2 in the top 10 with actual massive holes at other positions?

[adam]

9 hours ago, Stinger226 said:

After QB what are the most important positions? You can look at what their paid. Not in any order LT, WR, Edge and CB.

We don't need a CB, so those are the positions that will be drafted top 10.

People like Bowers or a Jaylon Carter type pop up once in a while but not the norm. 

After QB, which players would have the most impact right away? Figure in our needs and it's probably edge or WR. Bowers and Newton could be considered. I think our LT is good enough to not consider in a top 10 pick. Poles is a OL guru ( self clamied) so it could be a LT, if he thinks Braxton can play somewhere else. 

Yeah, drafting the highest paid positions seems like the most efficient roster building, because you can get more quality in free agency on other positions while using draft capital on the most expensive ones.  

So you would be happy with any of those 5 listed + Newton or an Edge at #9?

[Stinger226]

We're getting two quality players, any combination makes us better. 

[Mongo3451]

1 hour ago, adam said:

It really depends on how they view Jones. It feels like a luxury pick if you got OT at #9, but at the same time, if they just paid Kmet, can you justify Bowers (I can) as TE2 in the top 10 with actual massive holes at other positions?

Bowers is different.  You can line him up so many different ways.  Waldren uses a lot of twelve personnel, plus Kmet first need every snap.  There been a common threat lately with the teams that go the farthest.  Great center, move TE and defense.  Kmet is more of a tank, where Bowers is more of an attack helicopter.

[killakrzydav]

I think Poles 100 percent drafts for need.

[killakrzydav]

I think it's a Pass rusher, 3T, or Weapon. Depending on how he views his 3T will determine this draft just as much as qb

[Stinger226]

1 hour ago, killakrzydav said:

I think it's a Pass rusher, 3T, or Weapon. Depending on how he views his 3T will determine this draft just as much as qb

The two most influential picks this year that will put us in the position to win is a DL and a weapon. Correct points.

[BearFan PHX]

3 hours ago, killakrzydav said:

I think Poles 100 percent drafts for need.

so I agree in that hes not gonna draft a linebacker high. When a position is filled with a great player who is on a large long term contract, youre right that it would be nuts to draft talent at that position high.

But, when you look at a guy like Braxton Jones, it's not a need, but neither is it a great player on a large long term contract. So what to call that? Not need, but still a key position you can draft if the right player falls and that's the BPA pick.

Im not saying he'd choose an OT over a great WR or anything, certainly when players are evenly rated and both available, need plays a role. And also, the importance of the position does too. We NEED a center, and JPJ is a great prospect, but we wont likely draft him with pick #9 because center is not a key position the way left offensive tackle is.

But if you reach to fill holes, thats how you squander draft value and end up with a subpar roster. Im guessing you agree with all of this, and it's about the word "need" more than anything else?

Anyway this is why GMs usually sign free agents before the draft to fill "needs" not necessarily with the best players, and not necessarily on long term deals, but so that dont have to reach if the draft falls one way or another.

[BearFan PHX]

On 2/26/2024 at 6:23 AM, adam said:

Ok, so you are willing to use #9 on OTs not named Alt and any of the top 3 Edge guys listed? I am tracking on JPJ. I would be willing to take him in the 15-20 range if the Bears traded down to that range and he was still on the board. 

I haven't done deep enough player evaluations to have an opinion on that, Im just saying generically, that LOT is a premium position, and if the draft falls in such a way that an excellent player at LOT is available, and that player grades out better than the players available at other positions, that having Braxton jones shouldnt prevent us from taking the player. Ditto at DE.

If players of equal value are available, then you consider need.

And i think part ot the issue is around words like "hole" or "need" so I think there are three tiers.

1) you have a premium player on the roster under long term contract = you dont draft another one. We all agree on that.

2) you have a gaping hole or need in the roster and an excellent prospect is available when you pick = you take them. We all agree on that too.

3) you have a decent player at that position, and an excellent prospect is available who grades more highly than any other available prospect and the player is at a premium position = you might still draft Braxton Jones' replacement (for example).

I wont be shocked if the #9 pick goes to WR, TE or DE at all. but it might go to LOT if the right guy is there, and others arent. I dont think thats an immediate trade down.

BUT if you have identified JPJ as a premium player, and you would take him at #9 if trade downs didnt exist, then yeah, sure, trade down to 15 or 20 and grab him. It'd be foolish not to get extra value if you could of course!

[Mongo3451]

Trade the one and draft my boy!

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTL1prcQJ/

[BearFan PHX]

15 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

Trade the one and draft my boy!

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTL1prcQJ/

Im still doing my homework, but maye looks pretty impressive, and some say he's the best of the crop.

If he's evaluated as even as a prospect (different style but even) to Williams, then hell yeah take the picks and draft Maye. I just dont know what I really think about either of them yet.

[Stinger226]

32 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

Trade the one and draft my boy!

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTL1prcQJ/

Many ways to go, trading the first pick and still grabbing a QB is high up there. If he rates QB 1a,1b,1c, they may be close enough in value to be willing to take any of the 3. Daniels is the fastest of the top QBs, and Poles likes speed. He could trade twice and still get one of the top 3. Is 4 or 5 more blue chip worth taking your 1c QB? Maybe.

I trust Poles to make the right choice.

[Pixote]

Let's pray Kliff K. wants his man, Caleb, to return to DC. Obviously, he doesn't have the final say in the Commanders' draft room, but he can possibly convince the powers-to-be that they need to meet the demands of Poles to obtain the number one pick.

I'd love to see, as a minimum return, 2024 #2 (where we draft Maye), 2024 2nd rd pk, 2025 1st rd pk, 2026 2nd rd pk.

I think multiple teams will be bidding against each other, and there is a good chance the scenario I listed could be a lowball.

[BearFan PHX]

It's early for me to be sure what I think, but Maye may be the best QB in this draft. To get the best QB and pick up some extra picks would not suck.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

From the so-called "QB whisperer" I say we need to draft either Daniels, Nix or McCarthy (in that order as available).

Why? 

Daniels played in the SEC and won the Heisman THIS YEAR.

Nix also played in the SEC before going to the Pac12....oddly enough his two years in the PAC 12 (against many of the same opponents) were very similar to the two years Williams spent there:

• Nix stats while at Oregon:      658 / 879  for 8101 yards (74.9%)  9.2 Y/A  74 TDs 10 INTs  177.8 Rate
• Williams stats while at USC:   599 / 888 for 8170 yards (67.5%)  9.2 Y/A  72 TDs 10 INTs  169.2 rate

McCarthy played and won in the NCAA playoffs.

 

[BearFan PHX]

1 hour ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

From the so-called "QB whisperer" I say we need to draft either Daniels, Nix or McCarthy (in that order as available).

Why? 

Daniels played in the SEC and won the Heisman THIS YEAR.

Nix also played in the SEC before going to the Pac12....oddly enough his two years in the PAC 12 (against many of the same opponents) were very similar to the two years Williams spent there:

• Nix stats while at Oregon:      658 / 879  for 8101 yards (74.9%)  9.2 Y/A  74 TDs 10 INTs  177.8 Rate
• Williams stats while at USC:   599 / 888 for 8170 yards (67.5%)  9.2 Y/A  72 TDs 10 INTs  169.2 rate

McCarthy played and won in the NCAA playoffs.

 

I don't think McCarthy has the physical traits the others have, but he only lost one game in college. The kid is a winner. Someone will take him and find out what he can do.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

7 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

I don't think McCarthy has the physical traits the others have, but he only lost one game in college. The kid is a winner. Someone will take him and find out what he can do.

JJ reminds me of Bagent physically.