Bears need to trade.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I have a bad feeling about this years draft. Maybe winning the GB & NO hurt us? I think most of us will be disappointed unless we either trade up or trade down.

 

If we stay at 14, it would be a miracle to have Clady, Williams, or Mendenhall be there. Otah should be there, and I believe he'll be a great run blocking RT, but I'd rather go w/ a LT prospect.

 

We can make Buffalo an offer to move up with our extra 3rd as I think they would be better off getting the extra pick and getting the guy they wanted at 14 all along. We can then leap frog Denver/Carolina for a shot at Clady/Williams. A lot of mocks have Clady sliding b/c he won't fit KC O-line and Williams/Otah may be a better fit there. NE may surprise us by tacking a OLT.

 

trading down=more bodies/prospects trade up=maybe a sure thing?

trade up w/ Buffalo 11=(1250) , 14=1100 + 91=136 + 169=23.8 (1259.8)

11-Chris Williams OLT

45-Joe Flacco QB

76-Kevin Smith RB

107-Josh Barrett SS

137-Darius Reynard WR

207-James McClinton DT

 

Another option is trading down. Maybe Atlanta will trade there 38, 49, and 69 for our 14 and 107. We can then get multiple prospects.

38=520 + 49=410 + 69=245 (1175) 14=1100 + 107=80 (1180)

 

38-Gosder Cherilus OT

45- Joe Flacco QB

49-Roy Schuening OG

69-Earl Bennett WR

76-Kevin Smith RB

91-Tony Hills OT

137- Jamar Adams SS

169-Peyton Hillis FB

207-James McClinton DT

[balta1701-A]

I don't think you make that deal until draft day to see how things roll out as you approach 11...someone is bound to drop. But I think that's a sensible move for both the Bills and the Bears.

[Adibear]

I don't think you make that deal until draft day to see how things roll out as you approach 11...someone is bound to drop. But I think that's a sensible move for both the Bills and the Bears.

 

 

may be a draft day deal with Benson..we can only hope.

[balta1701-A]

may be a draft day deal with Benson..we can only hope.

No one will give you anything for Benson.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I don't think you make that deal until draft day to see how things roll out as you approach 11...someone is bound to drop. But I think that's a sensible move for both the Bills and the Bears.

 

 

We definately need to wait to see what shakes out up to 11, but I'd hate to get stuck missing out on Clady, Williams, Mendenhall. And I'd hate to reach for Otah/Albert

[adam]

Askhum,

I can't see the Bears trading up in the first unless one of the Long's or McFadden is still there around 9. I would hate to trade up and lose 2 picks just to pick up Williams when one of Clady/Otah/Williams should be there at 14.

 

I think the trade down is much more realistic in the 1st, with even some moving up in the later rounds. Something like trading down into the 20's to pick up another 2nd rounder, then coupling the extra 3rd and a 4th to move into the low 80's with the pick from SD in the 3rd. That would give the Bears 5 picks within the first 80 or so (1x 1st, 2x 2nd, 2x 3rd)

[Adibear]

to be honest we never really do that well with first round picks...

 

Benson 2005

Marc Colombo 2002 (was always injured)

David Terrell 2001

Cade McNown 1999

Curtis Enis 1998

(p)rick Mirer (ok so it was a 1st round trade with Seattle) 1997

Rashaan Salaam 1995

[azbearsfan]

to be honest we never really do that well with first round picks...

 

Benson 2005

Marc Colombo 2002 (was always injured)

David Terrell 2001

Cade McNown 1999

Curtis Enis 1998

(p)rick Mirer (ok so it was a 1st round trade with Seattle) 1997

Rashaan Salaam 1995

 

 

Good point.

 

I think we should always look to trade out of the first round for 2nd and 3rd round picks. The value is just much better.

For every Adrian Peterson there are 10 guys who dont earn their huge contracts.

[AZ54]

No to Joe Flacco in Rd 2, yes to Josh Barrett at 107

[Adibear]

Good point.

 

I think we should always look to trade out of the first round for 2nd and 3rd round picks. The value is just much better.

For every Adrian Peterson there are 10 guys who dont earn their huge contracts.

 

yeah I agree,look at some of the stars JA got in the later rounds...

[nfoligno]

We definately need to wait to see what shakes out up to 11, but I'd hate to get stuck missing out on Clady, Williams, Mendenhall. And I'd hate to reach for Otah/Albert

 

For me, a reach for Albert or Otah would not be the end of the world. Also, come draft day, I wonder how much either are considered a reach. Not long ago, Otah was considered a solid value w/ our pick, but fell some after the combine. If he has a solid showing in his workout, his stock could go right back up. As for Albert, I have seen many mocks w/ Pitt taking him at #23. As much as anyone, his stock is hot and on the rise. By this time next month, he could easily be considered a value w/ our pick.

 

Frankly, and I have gone back to this before, but sometimes I am not that against minor reaches. Indy reached big time on Freeney, and yet who today thinks of Freeney as a reach, or cares? Albert looks like a freaking stud OG, and so many have said he has potential at LT. So we play him at LG, and maybe in a year slide him outside to LT. But if he becomes a stud for us, who cares if we took him 4, 6 or 8 spots higher than some felt his value was. As for Otah, I am not even sure he is a reach.

[nfoligno]

I can't see the Bears trading up in the first unless one of the Long's or McFadden is still there around 9. I would hate to trade up and lose 2 picks just to pick up Williams when one of Clady/Otah/Williams should be there at 14.

 

I do not think you meant to mention Williams twice. And Clady is assumed gone. I don't see us moving up for Williams, but Clady is a possibility, though only slight. I think it comes down to how our scouts and personnel guys grade out these OTs. If they grade Clady out as a top 10 pick, and the rest as 15-20 range, and Clady drops to Buffalo, then yes, I can see the logic. We all love stock piling picks, but but is an extra 3rd round pick even remotely close to equal the value of getting a guy the staff believes is a stud LT?

 

I think the trade down is much more realistic in the 1st, with even some moving up in the later rounds. Something like trading down into the 20's to pick up another 2nd rounder, then coupling the extra 3rd and a 4th to move into the low 80's with the pick from SD in the 3rd. That would give the Bears 5 picks within the first 80 or so (1x 1st, 2x 2nd, 2x 3rd)

 

I was for trading down yesterday. I am against it today. Ask me again how I feel tomorrow.

 

The problem I have w/ trading down is how many teams behind us may well be looking at OL as well. Det (15), AZ (16), Hou (18), Phi (19), TB (20), Pitt (23). While you can argue whether or not you think they will/would, there have been enough mocks and talks of each looking at OL, and some are consider to have OL at the top of their priority list.

 

In most scenarios where fans want us to trade down, it is because Clady and Williams are off the board. That means you have Otah, Albert and maybe Cherilous. If we liked all three equally, then maybe a move down makes some sense, but I would wager we have one or two higher, and thus question the logic in trading down and risking whether we get our guy or not.

 

That is why I am now thinking we sit still at 14, and simply take the best OL available. I do not think any would consider Otah a reach. Albert might be considered a slight reach, but a very slight one. Cherilous would be considered a greater reach, yet I still go back to this. If we view that player as a pro bowl OL, so freaking what. Take him, and later on when he is starting in the pro bowl, lets see who says, "well, he may be a pro bowler, but we reached for him in the draft."

[nfoligno]

Say we don't do well, but leave out the never.

 

I think most would argue Harris was a great pick. Urlacher? And while Columbo was not a good pick for us, I am not sure he was that awful of a pick as he is now a starter for a good team. When a player doesn't have prior injury history, it is hard to really bash the GM when the player suffers injuries.

[Mongo3451]

I have a bad feeling about this years draft. Maybe winning the GB & NO hurt us? I think most of us will be disappointed unless we either trade up or trade down.

 

If we stay at 14, it would be a miracle to have Clady, Williams, or Mendenhall be there. Otah should be there, and I believe he'll be a great run blocking RT, but I'd rather go w/ a LT prospect.

 

We can make Buffalo an offer to move up with our extra 3rd as I think they would be better off getting the extra pick and getting the guy they wanted at 14 all along. We can then leap frog Denver/Carolina for a shot at Clady/Williams. A lot of mocks have Clady sliding b/c he won't fit KC O-line and Williams/Otah may be a better fit there. NE may surprise us by tacking a OLT.

I wish I would have read this one before posting about this on another thread. Because, of course, you said it better!

[Adibear]

Say we don't do well, but leave out the never.

 

I think most would argue Harris was a great pick. Urlacher? And while Columbo was not a good pick for us, I am not sure he was that awful of a pick as he is now a starter for a good team. When a player doesn't have prior injury history, it is hard to really bash the GM when the player suffers injuries.

 

 

yeah I agree Harris and Urlacher where great picks..yeah two great picks in over 10 years..and as for Columbo,he never lived up to his 1st round 29th over all pick IMO..yeah he is doing ok at Dallas,but he never lived up to top bill at Da Bears.

[Mongo3451]

For me, a reach for Albert or Otah would not be the end of the world. Also, come draft day, I wonder how much either are considered a reach. Not long ago, Otah was considered a solid value w/ our pick, but fell some after the combine. If he has a solid showing in his workout, his stock could go right back up. As for Albert, I have seen many mocks w/ Pitt taking him at #23. As much as anyone, his stock is hot and on the rise. By this time next month, he could easily be considered a value w/ our pick.

 

Frankly, and I have gone back to this before, but sometimes I am not that against minor reaches. Indy reached big time on Freeney, and yet who today thinks of Freeney as a reach, or cares? Albert looks like a freaking stud OG, and so many have said he has potential at LT. So we play him at LG, and maybe in a year slide him outside to LT. But if he becomes a stud for us, who cares if we took him 4, 6 or 8 spots higher than some felt his value was. As for Otah, I am not even sure he is a reach.

You of all people should never be accepting of a reach. (and that is what both are at 14) Otah is a true RT, unless you know he's going to be an all-pro, he's a reach at 14. Albert is still too unknown and huge reach. Trade down and you can probably draft two of these three in the 1st two rounds. (Otah, Albert and Baker) The Freeney analogy is not very solid. He was a stud that was highly coveted by Polian and Angelo. IE: Great pick for the scheme and not close a reach in Polian's eyes, he is arguably the most accomplished player of that entire draft.

[brletich]

That is why I am now thinking we sit still at 14, and simply take the best OL available. I do not think any would consider Otah a reach. Albert might be considered a slight reach, but a very slight one. Cherilous would be considered a greater reach, yet I still go back to this. If we view that player as a pro bowl OL, so freaking what. Take him, and later on when he is starting in the pro bowl, lets see who says, "well, he may be a pro bowler, but we reached for him in the draft."

 

Exactly Nfo (Man I am agreeing with you way too often lately...If I don't watch it I may become a crotchety old man like you! ) Hester was consider by a ton of "experts" and many of us on the board to be a reach, and now who says we reached for him? He would be a top 10 pick if teams knew what he would do when he was in the draft (just look at Ted Ginn). Beson was considered "value" at # 4 when we took him, and now who says anything good about him? It all depends on the player and how he develops. Reaches be darned, pick the guy you feel will be a stud and ride him to the Dance.

[nfoligno]

You of all people should never be accepting of a reach. (and that is what both are at 14) Otah is a true RT, unless you know he's going to be an all-pro, he's a reach at 14. Albert is still too unknown and huge reach. Trade down and you can probably draft two of these three in the 1st two rounds. (Otah, Albert and Baker) The Freeney analogy is not very solid. He was a stud that was highly coveted by Polian and Angelo. IE: Great pick for the scheme and not close a reach in Polian's eyes, he is arguably the most accomplished player of that entire draft.

 

Sorry, but I do not see it that way.

 

It was just a couple weeks ago Otah was considered a solid value at 14. His stock has dropped some, but not more than 10 spots, and as I said, I think his stock will go back up again after his workout. Point is, I simply do not view Otah as much of a reach, if at all.

 

As for Albert, he would be closer to being considered a reach, but if you look at mocks, most have him going to Pitt, if not sooner. Pitt draft 8 or 9 spots after us. So is Albert a reach? Maybe a little, but I simply do not agree it is a big reach.

 

As for Freeney, is he the most accomplished from that draft? Peppers, McKinnie and especially Ed Reed may argue, but that point aside, the question is regarding reach. That year, we picked at 29, and many felt Freeny might be there. If not, I recall most believing one of the teams in the early to mid 20s might take him. NO ONE thought he would go as high as 11, and when Indy took him, he was called a huge reach. Dungy had to explain the pick in response to all the reach criticism.

 

You say Polian coveted him and that Freeny was a perfect fit for his system, but that is a justification for reaching, not an argument against Freeney being a reach. What if Angelo looks at Albert and see's a perfect fit for our system that will be a pro bowler? Is that not the same justification? And Abert at 14 is less of a reach than Freeney at 11. Again, it is hard to consider Freeney a reach today due to his accomplishments, but when he was drafted, he was considered a huge reach, and that is my point. If you reach for a player, and that player becomes great, no one remembers him being a reach.

 

I might point to Tillman as an example. When we drafted him, many felt he was a reach, but today, who talks about that?

 

I have an issue when you draft a 2nd round pick in the 1st, or when you reach for big time for a player. I do not have as great of an issue when you make a slight reach, and even less so when it is not likely you can trade down and still get the player.

 

For example, it is my believe that in 2006, we traded down looking at a group of LBs who we felt a late 1st was too high, and wanted to get better value by taking one in the early 2nd. Problem is, we traded down behind a group of other teams w/ LB as a high need, and watched 3 or 4 LBs go off the board, taking away our LB prospects. So, in a situation like that, it is my argument that we would be better served to simply take the player we wanted, even if he was a slight reach, rather than trade down hoping to get him at a better value, and then lose him all together.

 

Another example would be the year we drafted Cade McNown. Many still believe Culpepper was who we wanted. We felt we could trade down and get him for a better value, but then Minny unexpectedly drafts him, and we end up w/ Cade. That is why, while I understand trading down and getting a player for better value, sometimes if you like a player and want a player, you may be better off simply drafting that player. Reaching for a player a little, who you want and feel is a stud, is better than trying to get him for a better value, and in turn losing him to another team.

[nfoligno]

Old? I have a pair of kiddies about the same age as yours. So who you calling old? Crotchety? Okay, I can take that

 

I used to be totally against the idea of reaching. I would say that if a player was graded out 5 or 8 spots later than when you drafted him, you should have traded down. But today, I think you simply take that player. If you can fortell the future and know for a fact no team between your pick and your traded down pick would take the player you want, fine. But that is not reality. If Otah or Albert represent a player we grade high, and really want to add to our offense, I would argue we are better off simply taking that player, rather than risk trading down and missing out on the opportunity.

 

I have said this before, and go back to Cade McNown v Culpepper. I still believe today that Hatley traded down believing he could get Pepper for a better value. When you look at the teams between our original pick, and traded pick, it was not believed any intended on drafting QB. But Minny defied expectations and took Culpepper, and we were stuck w/ McNown. If we trade down this year think Albert will be there, we may end up losing out on him, and stuck taking a player we didn't really want, or w/ a significantly lower grade, all because we wanted better value.

[nfoligno]

Never said we have done well. Far from it. My point was simply to take out the word "never" as he have hit on a couple.

 

As for Columbo, he has become a solid RT in the league. What more should you expect from a late 1st round pick? Yea, he was a bust for the bears, but even I (the eternal Angelo basher) avoid bashing him for Columbo too much as injury killed his career w/ us, as opposed to talent.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I'd rather have Andre Caldwell or Jerome Simpson then Bennett, otherwise, I like the idea.

[Rush23]

I have a bad feeling about this years draft. Maybe winning the GB & NO hurt us? I think most of us will be disappointed unless we either trade up or trade down.

 

If we stay at 14, it would be a miracle to have Clady, Williams, or Mendenhall be there. Otah should be there, and I believe he'll be a great run blocking RT, but I'd rather go w/ a LT prospect.

 

We can make Buffalo an offer to move up with our extra 3rd as I think they would be better off getting the extra pick and getting the guy they wanted at 14 all along. We can then leap frog Denver/Carolina for a shot at Clady/Williams. A lot of mocks have Clady sliding b/c he won't fit KC O-line and Williams/Otah may be a better fit there. NE may surprise us by tacking a OLT.

 

trading down=more bodies/prospects trade up=maybe a sure thing?

trade up w/ Buffalo 11=(1250) , 14=1100 + 91=136 + 169=23.8 (1259.8)

11-Chris Williams OLT

45-Joe Flacco QB

76-Kevin Smith RB

107-Josh Barrett SS

137-Darius Reynard WR

207-James McClinton DT

 

Another option is trading down. Maybe Atlanta will trade there 38, 49, and 69 for our 14 and 107. We can then get multiple prospects.

38=520 + 49=410 + 69=245 (1175) 14=1100 + 107=80 (1180)

 

38-Gosder Cherilus OT

45- Joe Flacco QB

49-Roy Schuening OG

69-Earl Bennett WR

76-Kevin Smith RB

91-Tony Hills OT

137- Jamar Adams SS

169-Peyton Hillis FB

207-James McClinton DT

 

No win over Green Bay is a bad win. I would love the Flacco & Kevin Smith picks.

[Mongo3451]

Sorry, but I do not see it that way.

Dude, I bust your chops because you bitched the last two drafts about reaching. Now you are all for it. Now, I have to answer this manifesto.

 

It was just a couple weeks ago Otah was considered a solid value at 14. His stock has dropped some, but not more than 10 spots, and as I said, I think his stock will go back up again after his workout. Point is, I simply do not view Otah as much of a reach, if at all.

That’s because he’s now projected as a RT due to displaying limited technique and mobility.

 

As for Albert, he would be closer to being considered a reach, but if you look at mocks, most have him going to Pitt, if not sooner. Pitt draft 8 or 9 spots after us. So is Albert a reach? Maybe a little, but I simply do not agree it is a big reach.

That is a monstrous reach for us. The staff would have to have a major boner for this guy to take a known guard, instead of a tackle, especially at 14.

 

As for Freeney, is he the most accomplished from that draft? Peppers, McKinnie and especially Ed Reed may argue, but that point aside, the question is regarding reach. That year, we picked at 29, and many felt Freeny might be there. If not, I recall most believing one of the teams in the early to mid 20s might take him. NO ONE thought he would go as high as 11, and when Indy took him, he was called a huge reach. Dungy had to explain the pick in response to all the reach criticism.

It’s easy to argue Freeney VS Peppers. Peppers was supposed to be the greatest DL drafted since Reggie White. He has underperformed so far vs Freeney, let alone the expectations of being the #2 pick. I really wouldn’t consider a safety in the same class as a top DE, so I’m taking Reed out of the discussion.

 

You say Polian coveted him and that Freeny was a perfect fit for his system, but that is a justification for reaching, not an argument against Freeney being a reach. What if Angelo looks at Albert and see's a perfect fit for our system that will be a pro bowler? Is that not the same justification? And Abert at 14 is less of a reach than Freeney at 11. Again, it is hard to consider Freeney a reach today due to his accomplishments, but when he was drafted, he was considered a huge reach, and that is my point. If you reach for a player, and that player becomes great, no one remembers him being a reach.

There’s a huge difference in DE’s fitting a scheme vs OT’s. I get the comparison, but OT’s, especially LOT’s simply do what they do for the most part.(Control the backside and seal the pocket) If they can’t do that they are a RT.

 

I might point to Tillman as an example. When we drafted him, many felt he was a reach, but today, who talks about that?

I believe someone stated when he was drafted, that if he didn’t make it as a corner he would be an all-pro safety. Damn, I brought up Ed Reed again. Again, not a reach as he a typical cover two corner.

 

I have an issue when you draft a 2nd round pick in the 1st, or when you reach for big time for a player. I do not have as great of an issue when you make a slight reach, and even less so when it is not likely you can trade down and still get the player.

 

For example, it is my believe that in 2006, we traded down looking at a group of LBs who we felt a late 1st was too high, and wanted to get better value by taking one in the early 2nd. Problem is, we traded down behind a group of other teams w/ LB as a high need, and watched 3 or 4 LBs go off the board, taking away our LB prospects. So, in a situation like that, it is my argument that we would be better served to simply take the player we wanted, even if he was a slight reach, rather than trade down hoping to get him at a better value, and then lose him all together.

 

Another example would be the year we drafted Cade McNown. Many still believe Culpepper was who we wanted. We felt we could trade down and get him for a better value, but then Minny unexpectedly drafts him, and we end up w/ Cade. That is why, while I understand trading down and getting a player for better value, sometimes if you like a player and want a player, you may be better off simply drafting that player. Reaching for a player a little, who you want and feel is a stud, is better than trying to get him for a better value, and in turn losing him to another team.

My God man! You are still typing... What a machine!!!

[nfoligno]

Dude, I bust your chops because you bitched the last two drafts about reaching. Now you are all for it. Now, I have to answer this manifesto.

 

Hey, I have at least confessed as much. I have said that I was among those who always bashed for reaches. I used to believe in drafting the best player available. I have changed my position, and have explained my reasons. There are still times I would scream about a reach. However, some of those "reaches" have proven me wrong. Further, I question how great of a reach some of these players are. For example, I would agree Baker and even Cherilous would absolutely be reaches. I simply disagree Otah would be a reach, and argue Albert would be only a minor reach, and a reach I could justify.

 

That’s because he’s now projected as a RT due to displaying limited technique and mobility.

 

One. I said his stock dropped after the combine, but also argued I believe that after his pro day, and before the day of the draft, his stock will be back up.

 

Two. To further that point, in looking at many mocks, I have seen him once again on the rise. Numerous mocks even have him gone before our pick.

 

Three. Even if he is simply a RT, if he is believed to be a stud RT, is 14 really too high?

 

that is a monstrous reach for us. The staff would have to have a major boner for this guy to take a known guard, instead of a tackle, especially at 14.

 

"monstrous reach". Most every mock I have seen has him going no later than 23 to Pitt, which numerous having him gone by then. Is that truly monstrous? He is considered a stud OG w/ the potential to slide outside and play LT, where he finished his college career. Sounds pretty dang good to me. We can play him inside this year, then move him to LT next year.

 

It’s easy to argue Freeney VS Peppers. Peppers was supposed to be the greatest DL drafted since Reggie White. He has underperformed so far vs Freeney, let alone the expectations of being the #2 pick. I really wouldn’t consider a safety in the same class as a top DE, so I’m taking Reed out of the discussion.

 

I am not sure the argument is so simple. In Peppers, you talk about expectations, but I thought we were talking about who is simply best. Freeney is the better pass rusher, no question, but Freeney is not good against the run, and it is his side that is often attacked. Pepper is a better all around DE IMHO, as he is very strong against the run and pass. As for Reed, I think that is a legit comparison. I agree DL is more valuable than S, but on the other hand, Reed has one a league defensive MVP award, and that speaks VERY highly to his value.

 

There’s a huge difference in DE’s fitting a scheme vs OT’s. I get the comparison, but OT’s, especially LOT’s simply do what they do for the most part.(Control the backside and seal the pocket) If they can’t do that they are a RT.

 

While I agree DE is more scheme specific, I also would argue OT does depend on scheme as well. There are different blocking schemes used by different teams. A big, powerful OT may fit a power blocking scheme, yet not fit as well in a drop step scheme that relies more on athleticism. The opposite is also true.

 

I believe someone stated when he was drafted, that if he didn’t make it as a corner he would be an all-pro safety. Damn, I brought up Ed Reed again. Again, not a reach as he a typical cover two corner.

 

I would still argue he was a reach, but simply one that our staff felt was worth it due to scheme and other factors.

 

End points are these. One, while drafting best available always sounds nice, when you have particular needs as great as ours, and those needs fit perfect w/ the draft, it doesn't make sense to me to pass on those positions. Further, I simply argue that if a team grades a player very high, it makes sense to simply draft him, rather than pass because others view his value a tiny bit lower, or to trade down and risk not getting him.

 

If we draft Otah or Albert, and either become pro bowlers, I simply doubt anyone down the road will talk about how they were reaches.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Agree, if we can fill our greatest need (Oline), I wouldn't mind for a little reach. In a perfect situation, Dallas would trade us there two first rounders and we land both Albert and Otah/Cherilus.

 

I was down on Otah for a little bit, but now I think he still has potential for the OLT since he is so raw and at least can be a great RT. He would be a road grader for any RB to run behind.

 

As for RB/QB, yes they are needs, but we do have players there capable of playing. At Oline, we lost 2 of our 2007 starters. I do not want to end up like Kenny Williams with the 2nd base situation.