Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 Would you guys be opposed to drafting 2 wideouts in the first 2 rounds? If some team outbids the Bears on Jackson, Johnson stays in Buffalo, Wayne goes wherever Peyton goes, Colston stays, and Bowe gets tagged, wouldn't this make sense? Also, keep in mind that it seems like the organization likes Webb and Williams at LT. I don't love this idea, because I think making the D younger is more important, but Floyd and Hill/Sanu wouldn't be too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I have zero problem with that. I think it is a major need. I tend to think we probably would be better off moving down and than using 2 of our 1st 3 picks but if it happens to be that the BPA is a wideout at both of our 1st picks, than so be it. Bears need massive help at the wideout position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I'd be opposed to the idea that this should be plan A, B, or C. WR is just one of those positions that takes time to really develop in most cases, and especially coming in with a new offensive coordinator and new system, it's going to take Cutler and any WR you draft time to grow together. If you plug in a veteran, yes he has to pick up a new system, but he doesn't have to learn the NFL at the same time. Picking up a veteran in FA gives the Bears ammunition to compete this year, drafting a WR may or may not do so depending on how well you hit with the player. Even good WR's can take half a year to really get acclimated. If the Bears wash out on 3-4 different WR's, but they can manage to fill other holes like O and D line, CB, and TE in free agency, and they go into the draft with only a real need at WR, then you do what you have to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 I don't really like it. i feel we need some veteran presence. Although, if we cant get one, this shotgun theory may at least enable us to find 1 great WR in the process. Then, it may be worth it. I don't see then doing this though. Would you guys be opposed to drafting 2 wideouts in the first 2 rounds? If some team outbids the Bears on Jackson, Johnson stays in Buffalo, Wayne goes wherever Peyton goes, Colston stays, and Bowe gets tagged, wouldn't this make sense? Also, keep in mind that it seems like the organization likes Webb and Williams at LT. I don't love this idea, because I think making the D younger is more important, but Floyd and Hill/Sanu wouldn't be too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Share Posted February 29, 2012 It's not an ideal situation. The WR position is almost the polar opposite of RB. It's awfully tough for rookie WR's to come in and make an impact immediately. There is a learning curve in most cases. Adding a veteran FA WR to go along with a young rookie is the best thing the Bears could do. If they were to add 2 WR's in back to back rounds, it would mean that they either struck out in free agency or they signed one of the big fish that they weren't expected to get (Williams, Nicks). The infusion of young talent at that position would be exciting for Cutler in the offense, so in that sense I wouldn't be against it, but if none of those guys turn out, then you're in a world of hurt. That's why a vet is so important. And not just any vet, I'm talking about one that can still play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Would you guys be opposed to drafting 2 wideouts in the first 2 rounds? If some team outbids the Bears on Jackson, Johnson stays in Buffalo, Wayne goes wherever Peyton goes, Colston stays, and Bowe gets tagged, wouldn't this make sense? Also, keep in mind that it seems like the organization likes Webb and Williams at LT. I don't love this idea, because I think making the D younger is more important, but Floyd and Hill/Sanu wouldn't be too bad. You have to add some a vet WR, counting on two rookies to come in and make an impact is risky business. If the top 4 are gone, you go get Laurent Robinson. He is 6-2 200lbs, and went to Illinois state. He had 11 tds in 54 recptions last year. He is only 26, and I think he can become a #1. Then you grab eddie Royal and a draft pick and we are good to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 Bad idea. Two rookie WRs, a first and second rounder, means that one of those guys most likely will not develop, and he will be disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 I don't know how feasible that would be. Even if we miss on one of the Tier 1 Free Agents for a #1 WR, I still think we will pick up a WR via FA, but it might only be a #2. Then we draft a WR at #19 as our #1. Drafting two doesn't seem realistic with the other areas we need to address, especially with youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.