Draft Day

[BearFan PHX]

23 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

One thought that crosses my mind is what is more important to get, a stud LT, DE, or WR?  This is taking into account that next draft the Bears could be looking at drafting 15-20th and can they get one of the 3 positions next year at that slot. With that thought, I hate to say it but Alt would have to be deeply considered. Yes, they have Braxton but saying they shouldn't shoot for a top 3-5 LT to pair with Wright and make the line one of the best is like saying QB wasn't a need with JF.

you can ask by position, but then you also have to ask if any of the DEs or available OTs or WRs are true studs. If you figure we finish the rebuild next year, then you gotta look for BPA at need, and that factors in with positional importance too, and I suppose who is available next year - is 2025 deep in WR, DE or OT?

[DABEARSDABOMB]

3 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

Thayer had an interesting take on what he wants.  He wants Alt, saying he's a can't miss lockdown left tackle.  He mentioned that teams would line up to trade for Braxton.  There is value in a starting left tackle with only two years in the NFL.

I hadn’t thought about what they could get for Braxton. I still think Braxton could be a good guard. But I would be ecstatic with Alt..I would be fine trading up for him too - as long as Poles and company had a high grade on Alt. 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

1 hour ago, Stinger226 said:

Olin Kreutz  said the same thing about having the chance to get a top 5 OT, you take it. I would normally push OL, but Braxton has progressed enough to think he's a top 12 LT. Not a great difference from top 5 to top 12 to not take advantage of the blue chip edge or WR. Thinking long term, that would be smart but I think we are in the window to win now and edge would be more valuable now. 

I think Braxton is good for a late round pick but will never be more than mediocre as an LT - so I am all in on idea of trying to have book end legit tackles on both side in Wright and Alt (or whomever else if Poles has a blue chip grade on Fashanu or whomever).  

[Stinger226]

We're 10 days away. Many draft scenarios with really no bad results. 

What does Poles do that surprises us?

I would have originally said trade the # 1 pick and draft a different QB but I think it's safe to say that ain't happening. 

With  the second pick take a WR, OT, DL, or edge. None of them would be a bad pick.

Trade back and draft any of the above. Expected

I think the only surprise pick would be  pick Brock Bowers and you could still make an argument for that.

I think it's safe to say no LB, no OG, no RB, no CB , no FS.

The only surprise I think  that could happen is him trading out of the top 20 or a couple times that get us out of the first round. His sweet spot, IMO, is the second round. Is there a couple of trades that could happen to get us 4 second round picks?

Would anyone support that?

Washington has two

Houston has two

Carolina has two

GB has two

Philly has 2

[Pixote]

I just saw this proposed trade on NFL.com as one of three possible round 1 trades that would be a win/win for teams involved. This one had Chicago trading #9 to KCC. I personally do not like the deal. The first, being the last pick of rd 1, and he second rounder, again near the bottom of round 2, are not much better than a 2nd & 3rd instead of a 1st & 2nd. The extra 4th round is cool, but the 2025 #1 will probably be near the end of round 1.

What do you guys think? Would you do this trade?

Quote

CHIEFS RECEIVE:

2024 first-round pick (No. 9 overall) | 1,350 points
 

BEARS RECEIVE:

2024 first-round pick (No. 32 overall) | 590 points
2024 second-round pick (No. 64) | 270 points
2024 fourth-round pick (No. 131) | 41 points
2025 first-round pick | 740 points (valued at the 24th pick in the round)

 

[killakrzydav]

I would not no. if I am trading so far down I would target one of the teams that have multiple picks in the 30s.  Rather have one top 15 selection as it stands thou with a slight trade down.

[killakrzydav]

Additionally, in this draft, which by all accounts is very deep in the first hundred players. I want to select this year not next. Lastly, a team Im beating on to be shit and pull a Carolina is not the defending champs.

[Mongo3451]

2 hours ago, Pixote said:

I just saw this proposed trade on NFL.com as one of three possible round 1 trades that would be a win/win for teams involved. This one had Chicago trading #9 to KCC. I personally do not like the deal. The first, being the last pick of rd 1, and he second rounder, again near the bottom of round 2, are not much better than a 2nd & 3rd instead of a 1st & 2nd. The extra 4th round is cool, but the 2025 #1 will probably be near the end of round 1.

What do you guys think? Would you do this trade?

 

I would on the condition that we could parlay picks to somehow get back in the top twenty and get another second rounder.  It would be tough sledding though, Poles would have to have a trade partner in advance. 

Odds are a strong no.

[BearFan PHX]

The more I look, the more I think Fashanu is a solid option at 9 along with WR Thomas.

I'm really the foggiest on the talent level of Verse, and the injuries of Latu. If I could bank on them a little more and one more OT, I'd feel more comfortable trading down a little. Im (maybe foolishly) leaving Turner off my list for scheme fit, just as I'm leaving Bowers off my list because of Kmet's contract.

As it stands, I think the blue chippers are

MHJr
Nabers
Odunze
Alt

and the very next tier (are any real pro bowlers?)

Fashanu
Verse?
Thomas?

And then it drops off to the 1b tier.

[killakrzydav]

No Bowers?  I think he belongs in your top non qb tier but that's just me.

[killakrzydav]

Thomas will need to learn more routes. If you want a deep threat going straight down the field he is definitely it though.

[BearFan PHX]

4 minutes ago, killakrzydav said:

No Bowers?  I think he belongs in your top non qb tier but that's just me.

I excepted Bowers in the text above saying that because of Kmet's contract we probably wouldnt take him. He is definitely a blue chip player. I also left Turner out because he might not be a scheme fit. I could be wrong on both accounts, but neither one of them was left off for ability, just because I dont see us taking them.

[Stinger226]

5 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

The more I look, the more I think Fashanu is a solid option at 9 along with WR Thomas.

I'm really the foggiest on the talent level of Verse, and the injuries of Latu. If I could bank on them a little more and one more OT, I'd feel more comfortable trading down a little. Im (maybe foolishly) leaving Turner off my list for scheme fit, just as I'm leaving Bowers off my list because of Kmet's contract.

As it stands, I think the blue chippers are

MHJr
Nabers
Odunze
Alt

and the very next tier (are any real pro bowlers?)

Fashanu
Verse?
Thomas?

And then it drops off to the 1b tier.

Spiielman have both listed in his top 10 Fashanu and Alt. He praised Braxton and said no way Poles takes a OT at 9 with blue chip players (WRS and Edge) available. He was a GM, been long time NFL employee. CBS hired him for input . Agree with all his takes. He did say if they trade back and top WRs and DEs are gone then they might take a OL. He even mentioned JPJ and Barton there.

[BearFan PHX]

41 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

Spiielman have both listed in his top 10 Fashanu and Alt. He praised Braxton and said no way Poles takes a OT at 9 with blue chip players (WRS and Edge) available. He was a GM, been long time NFL employee. CBS hired him for input . Agree with all his takes. He did say if they trade back and top WRs and DEs are gone then they might take a OL. He even mentioned JPJ and Barton there.

and many other professionals who have also been GMs and players and scouts say that OT is very much in play.

You can give your opinion, you can even give someone else's opinion, but this error of citing someone's credentials in a business where every year the CURRENT professional GMs make good and bad choices is a mistake. There are no credentials that make someone right about who we will take other than being GM of the Bears.

[Stinger226]

7 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

and many other professionals who have also been GMs and players and scouts say that OT is very much in play.

You can give your opinion, you can even give someone else's opinion, but this error of citing someone's credentials in a business where every year the CURRENT professional GMs make good and bad choices is a mistake. There are no credentials that make someone right about who we will take other than being GM of the Bears.

Everyone has an opinion and I value people that did the job before more than so called media experts. I guarantee you  percentage wise, they are right more than media experts and fans. You're right people that own them jobs get fired all the time. 

None of them are right all the time, but I watched Rick Speilman on 5 podcasts and, he's a very smart guy. I also value Greg Gabriel and Dave Wannsted opinions . From the people I trust, they say we aren't drafting a OT. I also believe that.  Their is no right or wrong opinions, just right or wrong facts. It's all subjective.

[BearFan PHX]

3 hours ago, Stinger226 said:

Everyone has an opinion and I value people that did the job before more than so called media experts. I guarantee you  percentage wise, they are right more than media experts and fans. You're right people that own them jobs get fired all the time. 

None of them are right all the time, but I watched Rick Speilman on 5 podcasts and, he's a very smart guy. I also value Greg Gabriel and Dave Wannsted opinions . From the people I trust, they say we aren't drafting a OT. I also believe that.  Their is no right or wrong opinions, just right or wrong facts. It's all subjective.

Heres my point.

When you argue that someone must be right because of their credentials, that is a logical fallacy called "argument from authority"

It's very easy to show why it is a logical fallacy.

Find two people with similar credentials who disagree - boom, youve just proved that having credentials doesnt make you right, since people with similar credentials disagree.

It's like saying "well my lawyer says Im right in my legal case, and that proves it because he is a professional lawyer" well sure, but does the other side have a professional lawyer too? And are they saying the opposite? Then that proves that being a professional lawyer doesn't make you right about the law, since another professional lawyer disagrees.

So if the pros disagree, and they cant both be right, then being a pro doesnt make you right.

Spielman has had plenty of bust picks. He doesnt have a crystal ball. No one does. That's why your argument of authority is a fallacy.

[Mongo3451]

1 hour ago, BearFan PHX said:

Heres my point.

When you argue that someone must be right because of their credentials, that is a logical fallacy called "argument from authority"

It's very easy to show why it is a logical fallacy.

Find two people with similar credentials who disagree - boom, youve just proved that having credentials doesnt make you right, since people with similar credentials disagree.

It's like saying "well my lawyer says Im right in my legal case, and that proves it because he is a professional lawyer" well sure, but does the other side have a professional lawyer too? And are they saying the opposite? Then that proves that being a professional lawyer doesn't make you right about the law, since another professional lawyer disagrees.

So if the pros disagree, and they cant both be right, then being a pro doesnt make you right.

Spielman has had plenty of bust picks. He doesnt have a crystal ball. No one does. That's why your argument of authority is a fallacy.

He's not arguing that Spielman is right.  He's stating that he trusts him and others like him over less football centric folks that haven't played, coached or scouted professionally.  It's the same way I think due to the smallest of things they know, that we don't. 

As an example, I was a very good baseball player and was asked to walk on at IU.  However, I was very untrained as an athlete due to poor coaching.  These dudes knew so much more than me mentally and physically.  I didn't stick. 

Skip forward 30 years to me coaching my son in baseball.  I thought I was doing alright until a former pro can't to work with me.  I quickly made him the coach and learned directly from a pro.  It was night and day.  He still knows more than he can ever teach.  After that we got another pro in the coaching tree and these dudes speak a different language that the rest of us can't keep up with.  They are the real deal and they know we aren't.

So, here we are, only giving opinions and eye test analysis.  I think I know  OL and DL better than most on here, because that's what I used to be.  But if I'm talking to a pro, I always acquiesce to their knowledge.  Do they get things wrong?  Absolutely.  Do we get things right?  Yes.  But they get more right than we do by a long shot.

[Stinger226]

9 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

He's not arguing that Spielman is right.  He's stating that he trusts him and others like him over less football centric folks that haven't played, coached or scouted professionally.  It's the same way I think due to the smallest of things they know, that we don't. 

As an example, I was a very good baseball player and was asked to walk on at IU.  However, I was very untrained as an athlete due to poor coaching.  These dudes knew so much more than me mentally and physically.  I didn't stick. 

Skip forward 30 years to me coaching my son in baseball.  I thought I was doing alright until a former pro can't to work with me.  I quickly made him the coach and learned directly from a pro.  It was night and day.  He still knows more than he can ever teach.  After that we got another pro in the coaching tree and these dudes speak a different language that the rest of us can't keep up with.  They are the real deal and they know we aren't.

So, here we are, only giving opinions and eye test analysis.  I think I know  OL and DL better than most on here, because that's what I used to be.  But if I'm talking to a pro, I always acquiesce to their knowledge.  Do they get things wrong?  Absolutely.  Do we get things right?  Yes.  But they get more right than we do by a long shot.

That's kind of my point.

PHX, you give your opinions like you were a scout for 20 years and then tell people  they have dumb thoughts because they don't see what you do. 

Then you try  to argue my point about some former football guys aren't any smarter than others. I listen to people and some come across as being smarter than others that do that job. That's my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm right or wrong. 

The logical fallacy here is you think you're smarter than they are if they would happen to  disagree with you. I would love you to go to a NBC talk  show and tell Dave Wannsted he's dumb for having his opinion. 

Mine---your thoughts are just  opinions Former players get to have them to. I never said because he was a former GM, that his opinion is the gold standard. I just liked how he framed it.

There is no supreme court we go to prove either of us wrong. It's just open debate.

[killakrzydav]

Wowsers, I thought y'all blocked each other.  If you don't quote the other person you won't ever see each other.

[Stinger226]

1 minute ago, killakrzydav said:

Wowsers, I thought y'all blocked each other.  If you don't quote the other person you won't ever see each other.

I never said I would block him, he said he blocked me. My doors alwaysopen for debate any time. He likes to push back on posts I make. 

I seen several videos by Rick Speilman and liked his opinions. Apparently he doesn't agree with them. 

[killakrzydav]

ok gotcha.  I think you made good points as did Speilman.  I don't do a lot of debating points honestly.  We've gotten too much into saying who is right or wrong IMO. Most people on here watch the Bears way more than myself. I can only offer opinions but I don't think they are any gold standard or anything.  The draft is my favorite time of year tbh. 

[Pixote]

6 hours ago, Stinger226 said:

Everyone has an opinion and I value people that did the job before more than so called media experts. I guarantee you  percentage wise, they are right more than media experts and fans. You're right people that own them jobs get fired all the time. 

None of them are right all the time, but I watched Rick Speilman on 5 podcasts and, he's a very smart guy. I also value Greg Gabriel and Dave Wannsted opinions . From the people I trust, they say we aren't drafting a OT. I also believe that.  Their is no right or wrong opinions, just right or wrong facts. It's all subjective.

I value Spielman's opinions. I was sorry he left the Bears, but he deserved his promotion. I have also always enjoyed listening to Greg Gabriel. I'm not a big Wannsted fan, but I love hearing what Charles Davis says. 

So we all (except for PHX?).) have our favorite professionals to read/listen to for their opinions. But, as you noted, you are not claiming they are right; you just value their opinion. The same is true here. 

[BearFan PHX]

I definitely have people I listen to too of course. I hear what they say, and then I evaluate whether I agree. The ones I like to listen to are naturally the ones I agree with most. I think we are all like that. I don't know that I have ever agreed 100% or 0% with anyone about everything.

My point was just the idea when two people are debating, one cant say "well Mr _____ agrees with me, and he has a pedigree of _______, so my point of view has more weight than yours." thats the fallacy of argument of authority. It's a well known logic error. It's been known for thousands of years, it has a latin name too.

"An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument. The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible." - from Wiki

And that is easy to understand because I also have people I listen to who disagree, and I cant say "Well my guy disagrees, and he has pedigree Z so I must be right" either.

Whenever you're listing someone's pedigree in an argument to lend more weight to their opinion, youre committing the logical fallacy of "the argument from authority" and it's simple to understand, because experts disagree, so being an expert doesnt mean you are more right, if another expert says the opposite.

But in all of this, I wasnt fighting, and I dont think Stinger was either. I havent read the last few responses yet, but i was just saying "you assert A, and your evidence is a logical fallacy so all thats left is just an opinion same as mine or anyones"

[BearFan PHX]

1 hour ago, Stinger226 said:

That's kind of my point.

PHX, you give your opinions like you were a scout for 20 years and then tell people  they have dumb thoughts because they don't see what you do. 

Then you try  to argue my point about some former football guys aren't any smarter than others. I listen to people and some come across as being smarter than others that do that job. That's my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm right or wrong. 

The logical fallacy here is you think you're smarter than they are if they would happen to  disagree with you. I would love you to go to a NBC talk  show and tell Dave Wannsted he's dumb for having his opinion. 

Mine---your thoughts are just  opinions Former players get to have them to. I never said because he was a former GM, that his opinion is the gold standard. I just liked how he framed it.

There is no supreme court we go to prove either of us wrong. It's just open debate.

I didnt say any of the things youre saying I said.

I didnt say your opinion is wrong because it is shared by Spielman, I just said its still just an opinion. That's all I said.

I do think the Bears are looking to draft an OT this year. They are also looking hard at WR and DL.

If Spielman says they arent considering an OT, then I think he is wrong.

I dont know why you think Im saying you dont have a right to your opinions. Im only saying you dont have a right to say I dont have a right to mine just because Spielman says so.

[BearFan PHX]

1 hour ago, Pixote said:

But, as you noted, you are not claiming they are right; you just value their opinion. The same is true here. 

actually what he said was

"I value people that did the job before more than so called media experts. I guarantee you  percentage wise, they are right more than media experts and fans."

he guarantees us, on a percentage basis, they are right more. and the reason hes is right so often is

"He was a GM, been long time NFL employee. CBS hired him for input"

So Im saying, other GMs, long time NFL employees and TV commentators think that OT is on the table for the Bears this year. Most people do.

So can I guarantee that percentage wise they are right more, and therefore Spielman is wrong? Of course i cant. Neither side can.

And that is ALL Im saying. Opinions abound all over the place, and Spielman's in this case isn't any more likely to be right, because we can all see the Bears are doing a lot to look at OTs, and we are debating them a lot, and pretty much everyone thinks OT is in the mix for the Bears this year. It doesnt seem very controversial at all.