- Bears hated Nick Perry's personality but loved his game. Supposedly, he's a bit of a douche and seemed careless in all of the interviews.

- They had Mercilus #3 behind McClellin and....wait until my last point...

- They didn't like Kendall Wright really.

- They had offers to move up or down, but loved McClellin.

- He is going to start day 1 most likely at LDE.

- If Bruce Irvin would've fell to 19, he would've likely been the pick. (FML)

Phill Emery said McClellin was #1 out of the 7 players they had targeted... Makes sense that they had interest in Irvin if they wanted McClellin. Both undersized players that are better off in 3-4 schemes.

 

If we're going to use this kid, I'd like to see a little hybrid defense installed by the Bears next year. I know it would never happen with Lovie as the coach but why on earth would you not use McClellin as a stand up rush LB in certain situations? A little 3-4 mix up every once in a while would be something unique and intriguing to watch. Peppers would be more than capable of standing up too. Creates a lot of confusion for teams.

- Bears hated Nick Perry's personality but loved his game. Supposedly, he's a bit of a douche and seemed careless in all of the interviews.

- They had Mercilus #3 behind McClellin and....wait until my last point...

- They didn't like Kendall Wright really.

- They had offers to move up or down, but loved McClellin.

- He is going to start day 1 most likely at LDE.

- If Bruce Irvin would've fell to 19, he would've likely been the pick. (FML)

If he was rated that high on the Bears' board then it was a good pick.

If he was rated that high on the Bears' board then it was a good pick.

 

Why do people keep using this flawed logic? Until the Bears prove a track record of successful drafts, and a track record of consistent threats in the playoffs, and a track record of realistic chances at making Super Bowls, the logic of "it was a good pick because they liked him" is flawed. If I'm the cook for a Ruby Tuesday's in town, and we're consistently a middle-of-the-pack place, where we have some great meals and some bad meals, some devoted customers and some who think we suck, I can't just fire something up and say it's a great dish because I like it. A five-star restaurant where there are nothing but rave reviews and people fight to get in the door to dine on the chef's cooking, where women faint at the first taste of a specially prepared glaze of some sort, where the Japanese fly over their best chefs to find out what Kobe beef is supposed to taste like? Yeah, that place gets to cook anything and say it's great. The Bears are a Ruby Tuesday's.

Phill Emery said McClellin was #1 out of the 7 players they had targeted... Makes sense that they had interest in Irvin if they wanted McClellin. Both undersized players that are better off in 3-4 schemes.

 

If we're going to use this kid, I'd like to see a little hybrid defense installed by the Bears next year. I know it would never happen with Lovie as the coach but why on earth would you not use McClellin as a stand up rush LB in certain situations? A little 3-4 mix up every once in a while would be something unique and intriguing to watch. Peppers would be more than capable of standing up too. Creates a lot of confusion for teams.

 

First off, no matter who we'd taken, we'd publically say "He was #1 out of the 7 players." They'd be foolish not to say this.

 

As to your 2nd point, you read my mind. We seem to have a slight change in philosophy, one way or another. It's tough to see McClelliin being an every down DE with his size. My guess he'd be a liability against the run. Yet you figure we love his speed and versaility. I can see us moving him around and utilizing him in different situations.

Emery says he is a 4 down player, and after watching the videos of him, I agree. He has great technique, is fast, and plenty strong enough to play every down. I like the way he wraps up on every tackle, many rookies, hell, even pros, get sloppy and do not wrap up.

Why do people keep using this flawed logic? Until the Bears prove a track record of successful drafts, and a track record of consistent threats in the playoffs, and a track record of realistic chances at making Super Bowls, the logic of "it was a good pick because they liked him" is flawed. If I'm the cook for a Ruby Tuesday's in town, and we're consistently a middle-of-the-pack place, where we have some great meals and some bad meals, some devoted customers and some who think we suck, I can't just fire something up and say it's a great dish because I like it. A five-star restaurant where there are nothing but rave reviews and people fight to get in the door to dine on the chef's cooking, where women faint at the first taste of a specially prepared glaze of some sort, where the Japanese fly over their best chefs to find out what Kobe beef is supposed to taste like? Yeah, that place gets to cook anything and say it's great. The Bears are a Ruby Tuesday's.

 

You had me at hello but then you went right into a WTF moment.

 

We all like the intangibles this kid has...high motor, hustle every down, great work ethic, do whatever the coaches need inside outside drop back etc. What we don't like....level of competition and that is the bottom line. His measurables hold up against any of the other DEs in the draft. I like what I see in his highlights but I have no idea if that will translate to the NFL level of competition. Which is why I said WTF last night when I heard his name. At least JA usually made me wait until Rd 2 to say that.

You had me at hello but then you went right into a WTF moment.

 

We all like the intangibles this kid has...high motor, hustle every down, great work ethic, do whatever the coaches need inside outside drop back etc. What we don't like....level of competition and that is the bottom line. His measurables hold up against any of the other DEs in the draft. I like what I see in his highlights but I have no idea if that will translate to the NFL level of competition. Which is why I said WTF last night when I heard his name. At least JA usually made me wait until Rd 2 to say that.

 

HA! I tried to present an analogy, and because I'm hungry the first thing I thought of was food.

First off, no matter who we'd taken, we'd publically say "He was #1 out of the 7 players." They'd be foolish not to say this.

 

As to your 2nd point, you read my mind. We seem to have a slight change in philosophy, one way or another. It's tough to see McClelliin being an every down DE with his size. My guess he'd be a liability against the run. Yet you figure we love his speed and versaility. I can see us moving him around and utilizing him in different situations.

The statement that Emery made was (he was the top rated player left out of his 7 top rated players) not the #1 choice. I think they liked Ingram alot and would have taken him over McCeillin.