THE DRAFT and FA

[balta1701-A]

I agree, I loved it every time a top underclassman declared for the draft. The more talent at the skill positions on the Offense and the more talent in the area of DL, LB, & CB that is present in the top half of round 1 gives the Bears a better chance of getting a top LOT. The only position I am immediately concerned about right now on defense is Safety. We should be able to get good value at QB, RB, and WR after round 1. Round 1 right now (before knowing what will happen after FA starts) is hopefully reserved for LOT.

Aside from Brown, is there anyone obvious on the FA market as a safety this offseason? Not a big money guy or anything, just a guy who could come in and give us some depth there.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Well if we are going to play let's make a wish then why not trade that late round 1st we obtained when trading down and get a 2nd & 3rd for that selection? That would give us 3 2nd rounders and 3 3rd rounders, correct? Then we could add a top prospect at safety as well so that by the time the first 3 rounds are over we will have OT, OT/G, QB, RB, WR, Safety.

 

It is fun to speculate and I am sure Angelo would love this scenerio however it takes two to tango and two GMs to make a trade and just as I understand Angelo wanted to do some trading last year with a few spots and was unable to find a dance partner, there is no guarantee that JA won't wind up a wall flower standing over by the punch bowl filled with Bears kool-aid and watching as the draft continues to play on.

I guess we could do that; either way is fine with me. Although, thinking about your idea, I like it more then my original idea! With the exception of Urlacher, we don't pick too well in the first round, so if we had 3 seconds and 3 thirds, that'd be incredible. Let's all write JA letters, in different wording, telling him to do this!

 

Also, does anybody think that if we had 2, maybe even 3 like Pixote said, 2nd round picks, do you think Early Doucet will still be there? I'd love to snatch him if one of our 2nd rounders was in the first 10 picks in the 2nd round.

[Pixote]

Aside from Brown, is there anyone obvious on the FA market as a safety this offseason? Not a big money guy or anything, just a guy who could come in and give us some depth there.

 

Here is a site I like for draft info, although not as good as Football's Future or Draft Countdown, Draft Daddy has a very good free agency listing.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Here is a site I like for draft info, although not as good as Football's Future or Draft Countdown, Draft Daddy has a very good free agency listing.

Wouldn't mind seein' Merrillville HS in Indiana grad Eugene Wilson from NE playin' with us next year.

[balta1701-A]

Wouldn't mind seein' Merrillville HS in Indiana grad Eugene Wilson from NE playin' with us next year.

Is there any chance the Patriots tag him?

 

The question is going to be cap room, obviously. A tandem of Brown and Wilson starting the season, along with Vasher and Tillman on the outside, sounds to me like the best defensive backfield in the NFL, if Brown ever stays healthy (clearly you have to be careful in how you use him at the least). I'd probably be willing to lose Briggs and go with Williams/Okwo to free up cap room to do that. The question is going to be the rest of your cap room...is it worth signing him while at the same time failing to upgrade the O-Line (NO), is it worth signing him while risking not being able to extend Harris (with the tag around, maybe).

[nfoligno]

Couple safeties I would like to look at:

 

Ken Hamlin is a FA. I actually wanted him over Arch last year, but he ended up signing a one year deal w/ Dallas, and did quit well. Dallas suffered numerous injuries at CB, and he really helped out breaking up a lot of big plays, and lending support for lesser corners. Many, if not most, big plays came against their other safety (Williams). Hamlin would be a solid fit at FS for us, and provide us w/ a lot of options going forward. We could allow McGowan and Payne to battle at SS, or even keep Brown involved. The question will be cost. While he was not expensive at all last year, his price tag went up, particularly in a weak S market.

 

Gibril Wilson - He is a pure SS, but one I like. The problem for me is, FS is our greatest weakness. While Arch was an obvious weak link at SS this year, I think McGowan or even Payne could slide in as an upgrade. Further, SS' are not as difficult to find later in the draft. FS is our weaker area, IMHO, and one that is more difficult to find in the offseason. But if we can not get Hamlin, I would not mind Wilson, who should not be expensive, and would likely provide an immediate upgrade.

[brletich]

5) Drafting BPA is great in theory, but anyone calling for strict BPA is not thinking clearly. Should the Rams draft McFadden if he falls to them? BPA has to be balanced by need.

 

Tell that to Minny...Your theory would have them passing on AP because they had a very good back in Chester Taylor already on the roster. If there is a stud available take him, there is always room on the roster for studs who can play.

[nfoligno]

Disagree - I also do not think most teams can afford to draft strictly based on BPA. I think you go into the draft w/ a group of needs, and try to draft the BPA w/ in that group.

 

That does not mean you reach for need. It is my opinion that you can most always find a player w/ in a couple spots on your board that fits a need area. For example, lets say we feel we are absolutely set at MLB, and the BPA is a MLB, yet a spot or two down on our board is a LT. I would argue we take that LT, and not the MLB, who may be graded slightly higher, but does not fill a need. Another example that may be more specific to the bears in this draft could be DE. From what I have seen, it looks like there are a slew of highly rated DEs. If our pick came up, and the highest player available (according to our board) was a DE, and the 2nd or 3rd best available was a LT, I think it would be a huge mistake to take the DE over the LT.

 

The key, IMHO, is going into the draft w/ a broad enough grouping of need areas. If you go into the draft w/ only one or two needs, and draft the BPA w/in only those positions, you are more likely to reach for a player. An example of this might be when we drafted Columbo. I seriously doubt he was the BPA, or even close, yet LT was so far and away a need that we reached for a position. Going into this draft, I think we could consider need areas to be: QB, RB, WR, OT, OG, OLB & S. You might even be able to make an argument for DT, though I would in large part disagree. We have numerous need areas, and if the BPA were any of these positions, I can see the argument for taking that player.

[ChileBear]

The key, IMHO, is going into the draft w/ a broad enough grouping of need areas. If you go into the draft w/ only one or two needs, and draft the BPA w/in only those positions, you are more likely to reach for a player. An example of this might be when we drafted Columbo. I seriously doubt he was the BPA, or even close, yet LT was so far and away a need that we reached for a position. Going into this draft, I think we could consider need areas to be: QB, RB, WR, OT, OG, OLB & S. You might even be able to make an argument for DT, though I would in large part disagree. We have numerous need areas, and if the BPA were any of these positions, I can see the argument for taking that player.

 

Sound philosophy and I agree with you Nfo. BPA at a need position, and we've got enough of those to find someone at no. 14 or even later.

[brletich]

Disagree - I also do not think most teams can afford to draft strictly based on BPA. I think you go into the draft w/ a group of needs, and try to draft the BPA w/ in that group.

 

That does not mean you reach for need. It is my opinion that you can most always find a player w/ in a couple spots on your board that fits a need area. For example, lets say we feel we are absolutely set at MLB, and the BPA is a MLB, yet a spot or two down on our board is a LT. I would argue we take that LT, and not the MLB, who may be graded slightly higher, but does not fill a need. Another example that may be more specific to the bears in this draft could be DE. From what I have seen, it looks like there are a slew of highly rated DEs. If our pick came up, and the highest player available (according to our board) was a DE, and the 2nd or 3rd best available was a LT, I think it would be a huge mistake to take the DE over the LT.

 

The key, IMHO, is going into the draft w/ a broad enough grouping of need areas. If you go into the draft w/ only one or two needs, and draft the BPA w/in only those positions, you are more likely to reach for a player. An example of this might be when we drafted Columbo. I seriously doubt he was the BPA, or even close, yet LT was so far and away a need that we reached for a position. Going into this draft, I think we could consider need areas to be: QB, RB, WR, OT, OG, OLB & S. You might even be able to make an argument for DT, though I would in large part disagree. We have numerous need areas, and if the BPA were any of these positions, I can see the argument for taking that player.

 

For a team like us with so many needs, it will be easy with #14 (and probably all 8 of our picks) to pick the BPA and say they filled a need area. There are very few exceptions though where I would say that you bypass an absolute stud to pick a lesser player for a need though. Teams who do this tend to not fare too well. I agree with your premise that you have a collection of players on your board who are close in value and you chose the one who will help you the most. But I will disagree if someone says you pick a lesser player to fill a need. Teams need playmakers, and the best teams use their draft picks on the best playmakers on the board.

[BearSox]

Tell that to Minny...Your theory would have them passing on AP because they had a very good back in Chester Taylor already on the roster. If there is a stud available take him, there is always room on the roster for studs who can play.

Chester Taylor is/was no where as good of a back as Jackson. Jackson is probably a top 3-5 runningback in the league, if not higher. Taylor is just alright, who has gotten his stats inflated due to Minny's OLine.

[nfoligno]

I mostly agree. My point is simply that it is not totally cut and dry. It needs to be a fluid process that depends on each individual situation.

 

Let me ask you this. Lets say our pick comes up, and a CB we had graded as a top 10 player is there, and we have a significantly higher grade on him than the next best player available, who happens to be say an OT. Would you draft the CB? We have two starters set, and both are locked up w/ good sized contracts, so drafting a CB may not seem like a very smart idea, regardless if that is the best player available.

 

That is the problem I have w/ saying BPA no matter what. I want to draft BPA, but I also still feel you have to take need and your roster in the equation. Picking a stud sounds great, but if you do not have a place for that stud, does it really benefit the team. If you have LT, and a RB was the BPA, how smart would it truly be to take another RB. We have so many needs, that to draft a player who does not fill a need seems impractical.

[brletich]

I mostly agree. My point is simply that it is not totally cut and dry. It needs to be a fluid process that depends on each individual situation.

 

Let me ask you this. Lets say our pick comes up, and a CB we had graded as a top 10 player is there, and we have a significantly higher grade on him than the next best player available, who happens to be say an OT. Would you draft the CB? We have two starters set, and both are locked up w/ good sized contracts, so drafting a CB may not seem like a very smart idea, regardless if that is the best player available.

 

That is the problem I have w/ saying BPA no matter what. I want to draft BPA, but I also still feel you have to take need and your roster in the equation. Picking a stud sounds great, but if you do not have a place for that stud, does it really benefit the team. If you have LT, and a RB was the BPA, how smart would it truly be to take another RB. We have so many needs, that to draft a player who does not fill a need seems impractical.

 

If that CB turned out to be the next Deion Sanders or Champ Bailey? I might take him even with Tillman and Vasher. Maybe Tillman moves to Safety and bolsters that position for us. I see your point and don't disagree with most of it and if there is an LT that can anchor our line for the next 10 years, then we should take him because I would value that higher than the CB top 10 on the board or not. But if we feel 1 is a sure fire stud and the other is not, then I say take the stud. I am all for taking OL with any pick that we can, but if someone stud worthy drops to us, then I can see taking them.

[nfoligno]

Here is the problem, at least as I see it, w/ you point.

 

You ask the question, what if that CB is the next Sanders. My answer is, how would find that out? W/ Tillman and Vasher ahead of him, that rookie would not even have an opportunity to start. Hell, he would have to fight just to become the nickel back. The only chance he would realistically have would be if one of our corners went down due to injury.

 

Look at SD. They have LT. What if a RB was far and away the best prospect? Even if they drafted him, and he had the potential to be the next Tomlinson, would they ever find that out, or would whatever team that signed him after he left SD find that out? Regardless how good a player may be, if you are already set at a position, the odds go down that player's potential would ever be realized.

 

That is why you have to factor need. A prospect may have all the talent in the world, but he has to go to a team (a) that he would be a good fit and ( has a need for his talent. If we draft a CB in the first, regardless how good he "could" be, I doubt we would ever see that potential as he would be burried on the depth chart.