Bears offseason

jumbo
Starter
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:37 am
x 178
x 12

Re: Bears offseason

Postby jumbo » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:23 pm

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/121 ... -fournette

Who wants to trade past JAX to draft Fournette? Give me a trade down partner, somebody
0 x

jumbo
Starter
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:37 am
x 178
x 12

Re: Bears offseason

Postby jumbo » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:44 pm

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/512 ... n-francois

Bears just heavily attended Deshaun Watson's pro-day. Now meeting wiith another DL. Nobody will mistake signing Francois for drafting, Allen, but it's fun to try to connect the dots.
0 x

User avatar
Stannis
RIP Sulley
Posts: 45657
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Winterfell
x 135
x 398

Re: Bears offseason

Postby Stannis » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:26 pm

Watson at 3? Ehhhhh
0 x
“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy.

User avatar
minnesotacubsfan
Superstar
Posts: 14605
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: da Salish Sea
x 201
x 261

Re: Bears offseason

Postby minnesotacubsfan » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:02 am

Stannis wrote:Watson at 3? Ehhhhh


I'm hoping rd 2, but wh knows
0 x
Image

davell
Superstar
Posts: 19998
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1207
x 1631

Re: Bears offseason

Postby davell » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:49 am

I expect we'll trade down. Just in later rounds and not from 3.

I don't think we'll find a team willing to give up even most of what value supposedly is....

I think we'll take defense at 3. Thomas, if he's there. Adams or Allen, if he's not.

36 is very interesting. My guess is we DO trade that pick. And honestly, it can go either up or back. Here's my guess.....If one of the top 4 QB's is still on the board late in the 1st(personally I think 2 make it past pick 24), then a trade up becomes a serious possibility, if the price isn't too steep.

If the price IS too steep or they're gone by that stage, I think we'll move back 10-20 spots, add a 3rd or future picks, and take one of Webb, Peterman, or Kaaya.


My personal Bears Mock at this point.....

3) Edge- Solomon Thomas
36) Trade down w/ Cleveland to 52- add pick 108, plus 3rd next year.
52) QB- Davis Webb
67) Trade down with Houston to 89- add pick 131, plus 3rd next year.
89) CB- Sidney Jones
108) TE- Jordan Leggett
111) OT- Julie'n Davenport
117) WR- Taywan Taylor
131) Trade for 4th next year to Rams
147) DL- Eddie Vanderdoes
221) S- Tedric Thompson

Full Draft-

Edge- Thomas, QB- Webb, CB- Jones, TE- Leggett, OT- Davenport, WR- Taylor, DL- Vanderdoes, S- Thompson

Add Cleveland and Houston 3rds next year and the Rams 4th.....

Thomas has versatility and as much upside as anyone. Webb isn't a world beater, but he's got nice potential and allows us to still take a 1st Rd QB in 2018, if neither Glennon or Webb look like the future QB....Jones may not last this long, since his injury doesn't appear to be that severe.....But, he's tremendous value at 89, in this case. Leggett is a future starter, likely by mid season and is a weapon. Davenport is a love him/hate him type. Loads of potential, will need to develop. Taylor is an excellent slot guy. Feel confident he can take over that role from Wright in 2018. Vanderdoes intrigues me. He didn't make it all the way back from his ACL in 2016. But it may be that he just needs to drop 20 pounds. He's got a shot at being worth way more than the 4th-5th Rd pick he's getting drafted at. Thompson is a sleeper. Not a great hitter, but a ball hawk. I may be a round or two light on his eventual draft position. But I've seen him mocked this late too.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

jumbo
Starter
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:37 am
x 178
x 12

Re: Bears offseason

Postby jumbo » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:23 am

davell wrote:I don't think we'll find a team willing to give up even most of what value supposedly is....


Have you seen this article by one of the Browns FO?

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress ... aft-picks/

The old chart that everyone looks at originates from Jimmy Johnson's days at Dallas. This puts the #3 pick at 2200 points. #1 is 3000. You're all aware of this one.

For example, look at a Jet's trade up to 3
#3 = #6 + #38 + #102
1, 3, 4 to move up 3 spots

The new one in the link could been seen as the Brown's chart. The implication is that top picks are highly overvalued and mid-round picks are undervalued.

#3 is the Browns chart is 401 points.

#3 = #6 + #166 (or #134 if it takes a slight premium)
1, 5 or 6


A more extreme example might be seen by trading further down in Round 1. Let's use the Broncos at pick 20. They have a lot of mid round picks that will make matching up values easier.

Regular Chart
#3 = 20 + 52 + 80 + 101 + 126 + 177 + 203 + 252 + 253 + still short by 600 points
OR
#3 = 20 + 52 or 80 + 2018 1st round pick

Browns Chart
#3 + 131 (5th rounder) = 20 + 51 + 101

It would be pretty fascinating to see each team's chart.
0 x

User avatar
rawaction
Hall of Fame
Posts: 33622
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:04 pm
x 592
x 492

Re: Bears offseason

Postby rawaction » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:57 pm

davell wrote:I expect we'll trade down. Just in later rounds and not from 3.

I don't think we'll find a team willing to give up even most of what value supposedly is....

I think we'll take defense at 3. Thomas, if he's there. Adams or Allen, if he's not.

36 is very interesting. My guess is we DO trade that pick. And honestly, it can go either up or back. Here's my guess.....If one of the top 4 QB's is still on the board late in the 1st(personally I think 2 make it past pick 24), then a trade up becomes a serious possibility, if the price isn't too steep.

If the price IS too steep or they're gone by that stage, I think we'll move back 10-20 spots, add a 3rd or future picks, and take one of Webb, Peterman, or Kaaya.


My personal Bears Mock at this point.....

3) Edge- Solomon Thomas
36) Trade down w/ Cleveland to 52- add pick 108, plus 3rd next year.
52) QB- Davis Webb
67) Trade down with Houston to 89- add pick 131, plus 3rd next year.
89) CB- Sidney Jones
108) TE- Jordan Leggett
111) OT- Julie'n Davenport
117) WR- Taywan Taylor
131) Trade for 4th next year to Rams
147) DL- Eddie Vanderdoes
221) S- Tedric Thompson

Full Draft-

Edge- Thomas, QB- Webb, CB- Jones, TE- Leggett, OT- Davenport, WR- Taylor, DL- Vanderdoes, S- Thompson

Add Cleveland and Houston 3rds next year and the Rams 4th.....

Thomas has versatility and as much upside as anyone. Webb isn't a world beater, but he's got nice potential and allows us to still take a 1st Rd QB in 2018, if neither Glennon or Webb look like the future QB....Jones may not last this long, since his injury doesn't appear to be that severe.....But, he's tremendous value at 89, in this case. Leggett is a future starter, likely by mid season and is a weapon. Davenport is a love him/hate him type. Loads of potential, will need to develop. Taylor is an excellent slot guy. Feel confident he can take over that role from Wright in 2018. Vanderdoes intrigues me. He didn't make it all the way back from his ACL in 2016. But it may be that he just needs to drop 20 pounds. He's got a shot at being worth way more than the 4th-5th Rd pick he's getting drafted at. Thompson is a sleeper. Not a great hitter, but a ball hawk. I may be a round or two light on his eventual draft position. But I've seen him mocked this late too.


I think the same thing about the QB position. I think the Bears will either move up into the late 1st to secure a 5th year for one of the top 4 QBs if they are still around. And if not, they'll move down and take one of the senior bowl QBs (Peterman or Webb). As for the rest of the draft, it's interesting. I'm a big Taywan fan. I think he can be the best separation WR in this class and he's great with the ball in his hands. I'd kill for Jones at that point. One of my favorite prospects in the draft, and he has an argument for top CB in this class. Agree with your assessment of Thompson. I'd probably want to go S a little earlier, as I still don't think the position is upgraded enough....but if it played out this way I wouldn't be upset.
0 x

davell
Superstar
Posts: 19998
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1207
x 1631

Re: Bears offseason

Postby davell » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:26 pm

jumbo wrote:
davell wrote:I don't think we'll find a team willing to give up even most of what value supposedly is....


Have you seen this article by one of the Browns FO?

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress ... aft-picks/

The old chart that everyone looks at originates from Jimmy Johnson's days at Dallas. This puts the #3 pick at 2200 points. #1 is 3000. You're all aware of this one.

For example, look at a Jet's trade up to 3
#3 = #6 + #38 + #102
1, 3, 4 to move up 3 spots

The new one in the link could been seen as the Brown's chart. The implication is that top picks are highly overvalued and mid-round picks are undervalued.

#3 is the Browns chart is 401 points.

#3 = #6 + #166 (or #134 if it takes a slight premium)
1, 5 or 6


A more extreme example might be seen by trading further down in Round 1. Let's use the Broncos at pick 20. They have a lot of mid round picks that will make matching up values easier.

Regular Chart
#3 = 20 + 52 + 80 + 101 + 126 + 177 + 203 + 252 + 253 + still short by 600 points
OR
#3 = 20 + 52 or 80 + 2018 1st round pick

Browns Chart
#3 + 131 (5th rounder) = 20 + 51 + 101

It would be pretty fascinating to see each team's chart.


The chart is interesting. But wow, it devalues the cost of moving around in the draft. Maybe in a year like this, where there's lots of players with little separation, you could use it. In the end, its still just supply and demand. Its a bit rare to see trades match up perfectly with the JJ chart, but it'd be cool to see how teams charts differ. My guess is not much, since there's obviously tons of draft deals.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

davell
Superstar
Posts: 19998
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1207
x 1631

Re: Bears offseason

Postby davell » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:52 pm

Raw, I got way too cute with trades. I'm just so horsefeathering jealous of how many picks Cleveland has, yet our "rebuild" consists of a normal allotment of picks every year.

I agree on S, I probably shouldn't have moved pick 131 for a future pick and used it on Lorenzo Jerome.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

We Got The Whole 9
All-Star
Posts: 2176
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:38 am
x 248

Re: RE: Re: Bears offseason

Postby We Got The Whole 9 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:06 pm

davell wrote:Raw, I got way too cute with trades. I'm just so horsefeathering jealous of how many picks Cleveland has, yet our "rebuild" consists of a normal allotment of picks every year.

I agree on S, I probably shouldn't have moved pick 131 for a future pick and used it on Lorenzo Jerome.

Could not agree more with your first paragraph. I'm actually gonna pick them as my AFC team to pull for. There's gonna be so much young talent on that team in a couple years. They're gonna look like the football version of the Cubs. They've done an outstanding job on the teardown. Best I've ever seen. And they'll probably trade back several more times throughout the draft and continue compiling picks. So jealous.

For us, I wish we had traded down in the 1st and got some picks for Jeffery last year. I hate the fact that we got absolutely nothing for him because he torpedoed his season. It was obvious this team did not have talent to compete and Pace failed there in my eyes. And he could have piled up several future picks by trading back from 9.
0 x

davell
Superstar
Posts: 19998
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1207
x 1631

Re: Bears offseason

Postby davell » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:45 pm

You guys will probably disagree with this, but assuming we don't take a QB at 3 and don't trade back up or have one of the top 4 fall to us at 36.....The best option, in my mind, is spending our 5th on Chad Kelly.

Reasons

He's got more talent than Webb, Peterman, or Kaaya.

It allows us to add more impact at other spots.

It gives us a better use of resources if we need to still take a guy in the 1st in 2018

He's got a very realistic chance to improve his value initially, even if he never takes a regular season snap for us.

Is Fox the guy to be able to control him? Probably not. But, I do think he'd keep out of trouble at first anyway. And if the focus turns to his talent, we could turn that 5th round pick into a nice trade piece pretty quickly. In my mind, he's a stock that likely goes up a good bit, before it falls off or stabilizes. Just seems like a good initial gamble, even if I would never expect him to actually play for the Bears.

And if we're going to gamble at QB in this draft, take the one with the most upside.

Too hot of a take? Or what?
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

User avatar
jersey cubs fan
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 55879
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Hoboken squat cobbler
x 1481
x 4751

Re: Bears offseason

Postby jersey cubs fan » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:52 pm

I'm all for drafting horsefeathers quarterbacks.
0 x
longhotsummer wrote:I realize now, any opposing viewpoint, will not be tolerated.

davell
Superstar
Posts: 19998
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1207
x 1631

Re: Bears offseason

Postby davell » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:19 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:I'm all for drafting horsefeathers quarterbacks.


This is where horsefeathers sucks lol. Do you mean effing QB's or sh*tty QB's?

And if its the latter, who in this class do you spend a pick on, since you're not wanting to use 3 on one?
1 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

User avatar
David
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 57835
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:33 am
Location: Chicago
x 5333
x 3260

Re: Bears offseason

Postby David » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:33 pm

davell wrote:
jersey cubs fan wrote:I'm all for drafting horsefeathers quarterbacks.


This is where horsefeathers sucks lol. Do you mean effing QB's or sh*tty QB's?

And if its the latter, who in this class do you spend a pick on, since you're not wanting to use 3 on one?


I was thinking maybe a-hole
1 x
Image

The Cubs’ transaction list under Epstein and Hoyer reads like a work of fiction, a wish-fulfillment list composed in hindsight.

User avatar
philosophizer75
Starter
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 4:45 am
Location: Maryland
x 41
x 166

Re: Bears offseason

Postby philosophizer75 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:44 pm

Its a-hole. Tapatalk doesn't filter.
1 x
\:D/ wubalubaCUBCUB! \:D/

When Schwarber wins the WS with a big fat dong and uses his bat to club to death every player on the other team and half their fans, I expect every one of these talking heads to defend him. -yanrslatr

davell
Superstar
Posts: 19998
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:55 pm
x 1207
x 1631

Re: Bears offseason

Postby davell » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:44 am

I'm bored and trying to find a way for the Bears to trade down from 3. The first thing is to try and figure what's the furthest they'd trade down to.....Not an easy thing to decide, but I'll say 13. Because Arizona could be looking for a QB and its at least conceivable they'd try and grab the guy that's first on their board. Why would they move to 3 though? Because its possible we'd move down for slightly less than full value and MAYBE they'd even be scared the Jags take a QB at 4.....

4) Jacksonville- biggest needs, QB, RB, OT, Edge, TE

They're not trading up a spot. I feel relatively comfortable saying that. But a team thinking they're taking a QB, Fournette, Thomas, or Allen could be persuaded to jump them. There's a relatively good chance that 1 of those 3 guys or a QB is who San Fran takes at 2 obviously. Which certainly affects who may trade up.

5) Tennessee- biggest needs, WR, CB, S

I don't see why they'd need to vault Jax. In fact, they kind of look like a decent bet to trade back themselves. Unless they want Adams or Hooker at 5, which is a possibility.

6) New York Jets- biggest needs, QB, OT, Edge, CB, S

The Jets are dumb. Maybe they move up to get the QB they want? Or Thomas. But they have so many needs, it doesn't make sense for them. Still, I'd say there's a chance, because Jets....

What it'd take- They're 2nd rounder is 39th. Its close to value and my guess is we'd drop 3 spots for pick 39.

7- Los Angeles Chargers- biggest needs, OT, OG, CB, QB, ILB

Just moved to LA....Create a splash with a QB? Within the realm of possibility. But, they do have more pressing needs. It'd be fun if both them and the Jets wanted to move up to get "their" guy though....

What it'd take- Their 2nd is 38th. I'd say that's possibly enough. It'd still leave us with one of Thomas, Allen, Adams, Hooker, or Lattimore on the board. Of which, I'd be happy enough with any of that group.

8) Carolina- biggest needs, RB, CB, OT, WR

I could see this as a true possibility. Fournette seems to me who Jacksonville looks to be taking. There's solid backs in this draft, but he's a level ahead of them. Still, this would take us out of definitely getting one of the 5 guys I mentioned earlier.....So, my guess is the price is higher to drop this far....

What it'd take- Pick 40 AND 64 would be great. But, its a bit much. Maybe we could throw them back pick 111? Or get pick 40 and their 3rd next year? Its not their MO to trade up, but they certainly see themselves as contending, so maybe they think Fournette puts them over the top....

9) Cincinnati- biggest needs, DE, S, WR, OT

They've got lots of needs. They could use Thomas, but they're better off staying put. Or maybe even moving back a bit themselves. A team could try and jump Buffalo for a QB. Cincy could move back and take a WR or OT.

10) Buffalo- biggest needs, QB, WR, OT, CB, ILB, S

They kept Taylor. But QB could still be the direction they take. Foster or Williams looks like their best fit for me. Maybe even Bolles. At any rate, they've got too many holes and no real reason to try and move up.

11) New Orleans- biggest needs, CB, LB, DE, QB, TE, OG

They're set up well to trade up. Pick 32(or 11 possibly) looks to be on the move to the Pats for Butler. They're expected to draft defense as it is. A guy like Burnett fits them well in the range they're in. For that matter, Howard could be a great fit too. I wish they had reason to move up. I just don't see it though.

12) Cleveland- biggest needs, QB, RB, Edge, CB, S, OT, WR

If they trade this pick for Garoppolo, I won't be surprised. I know they have an insane amount of picks, so I guess its possible they love one of these QB's? Personally, my guess is they'll move back a bit and get one, accumulating even more picks. But, I'll include them, on the off chance they can't live without the top QB on their board and San Fran takes Thomas, Allen, or the QB that's not their top choice.....

What it'd take- pick 12, pick 33, and pick 52 is almost a match. Pick 12, 33, and a 2nd and 3rd next year works too. The question then becomes what we'd look at, at 12.....Howard, a CB, a WR, a QB that falls there? Maybe even an OT.....There'd be options for us and it'd give us some excellent collateral to spend later on as well....

13) Arizona- biggest needs, QB, CB, DE, WR, OG

Palmer is on his last legs obviously. They can stay put and get one of the top 4 guys. So again, they'd have to love one of this group. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess....

What it'd take- pick 13, pick 45, and pick 77 doesn't get us close enough. They'd probably need to part with pick 13, their 1st next year, and pick 77. Or 13, 45, 77, and their 2nd next year. Again, it'd put us looking at the same things I mentioned at 12. Which I'd be fine with, with the added collateral.

So, I'm thru with this horsefeathers. Looks to me like the Panthers at 8 are our BEST shot. And that goes away if they sign AP or Charles most likely.

The Jets don't seem likely to me. Neither does Cleveland. The Chargers do though. I'd say that's our second best bet.

7 or 8. And I'd be OK surfing further down, into the 10-15 range, accumulating more ammo, if we can execute a trade down from 3.

Again, I'm just sick of looking at all of Cleveland's picks. We're rebuilding, whether its a true necessity or not, based on how we've handled FA. Might as well go all-in, instead of half-assing it.
0 x
Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

User avatar
Stannis
RIP Sulley
Posts: 45657
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Winterfell
x 135
x 398

Re: Bears offseason

Postby Stannis » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:07 pm

Personally, i think Mahomes is better than Darnold.
0 x
“I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy.

User avatar
minnesotacubsfan
Superstar
Posts: 14605
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: da Salish Sea
x 201
x 261

Re: Bears offseason

Postby minnesotacubsfan » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Stannis wrote:Personally, i think Mahomes is better than Darnold.


Arm strength wise, def
0 x
Image

User avatar
David
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 57835
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:33 am
Location: Chicago
x 5333
x 3260

Re: Bears offseason

Postby David » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:51 pm

0 x
Image

The Cubs’ transaction list under Epstein and Hoyer reads like a work of fiction, a wish-fulfillment list composed in hindsight.

User avatar
rawaction
Hall of Fame
Posts: 33622
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:04 pm
x 592
x 492

Re: Bears offseason

Postby rawaction » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:12 pm

I think if Cleveland can't get Garoppolo, they'd definitely look to trade up to #3. There's really no point in having all those picks without coming out of it with a QB and the best defensive player. They don't have a ton of major needs, at least not as many as they have early draft picks. Pass rusher and QB are their 2 biggest needs. After that, they could use a WR, TE and another CB....but they could get by with what they have and certainly could add talent with their other picks.

I look at trade downs a couple different ways. There's the trade down to the 6-8 range. Then there's the trade down to 9-13 range. At 6-8, you may be able to get a lot of the guys you would be looking at with the 3rd pick.

I see the options for the 3rd pick as (in no order): Solomon Thomas, Jonathan Allen, Deshaun Watson, Mitch(ell) Trubisky, Jamal Adams, Malik Hooker, or Marshon Lattimore. Figure Garett goes 1, so at 3 the Bears should have their pick of all but 1 of those guys. And then at 8, at least 1 of those guys would be left.

At 9-13, I think you could still have one of those QBs on the board (Watson most likely). I think Hooker or Lattimore could still be on the board, depending on how team's feel about their injury situations and if a RB or TE goes. And then I think it opens up the board for OJ Howard, Mike Williams/Corey Davis, or the 2nd CB or 3rd edge rusher.

The one caveat here is if the Niners don't want a QB at 2, then they'll basically have neon signs to sell their draft slot.
0 x

User avatar
minnesotacubsfan
Superstar
Posts: 14605
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: da Salish Sea
x 201
x 261

Re: Bears offseason

Postby minnesotacubsfan » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:46 am

rawaction wrote:I think if Cleveland can't get Garoppolo, they'd definitely look to trade up to #3. There's really no point in having all those picks without coming out of it with a QB and the best defensive player. They don't have a ton of major needs, at least not as many as they have early draft picks. Pass rusher and QB are their 2 biggest needs. After that, they could use a WR, TE and another CB....but they could get by with what they have and certainly could add talent with their other picks.

I look at trade downs a couple different ways. There's the trade down to the 6-8 range. Then there's the trade down to 9-13 range. At 6-8, you may be able to get a lot of the guys you would be looking at with the 3rd pick.

I see the options for the 3rd pick as (in no order): Solomon Thomas, Jonathan Allen, Deshaun Watson, Mitch(ell) Trubisky, Jamal Adams, Malik Hooker, or Marshon Lattimore. Figure Garett goes 1, so at 3 the Bears should have their pick of all but 1 of those guys. And then at 8, at least 1 of those guys would be left.

At 9-13, I think you could still have one of those QBs on the board (Watson most likely). I think Hooker or Lattimore could still be on the board, depending on how team's feel about their injury situations and if a RB or TE goes. And then I think it opens up the board for OJ Howard, Mike Williams/Corey Davis, or the 2nd CB or 3rd edge rusher.

The one caveat here is if the Niners don't want a QB at 2, then they'll basically have neon signs to sell their draft slot.


How many teams weigh 8 players equally enough to trade out of a spot where they could draft their #1, even for more pucks?
0 x
Image

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 10973
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 1097
x 336

Re: Bears offseason

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:04 am

CJ Wilson re-signed. Bears also met with Ricky Jean Francois this weekend. So the DL depth has been adressed a bit.
0 x
Image

User avatar
rawaction
Hall of Fame
Posts: 33622
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:04 pm
x 592
x 492

Re: Bears offseason

Postby rawaction » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:44 pm

minnesotacubsfan wrote:
rawaction wrote:I think if Cleveland can't get Garoppolo, they'd definitely look to trade up to #3. There's really no point in having all those picks without coming out of it with a QB and the best defensive player. They don't have a ton of major needs, at least not as many as they have early draft picks. Pass rusher and QB are their 2 biggest needs. After that, they could use a WR, TE and another CB....but they could get by with what they have and certainly could add talent with their other picks.

I look at trade downs a couple different ways. There's the trade down to the 6-8 range. Then there's the trade down to 9-13 range. At 6-8, you may be able to get a lot of the guys you would be looking at with the 3rd pick.

I see the options for the 3rd pick as (in no order): Solomon Thomas, Jonathan Allen, Deshaun Watson, Mitch(ell) Trubisky, Jamal Adams, Malik Hooker, or Marshon Lattimore. Figure Garett goes 1, so at 3 the Bears should have their pick of all but 1 of those guys. And then at 8, at least 1 of those guys would be left.

At 9-13, I think you could still have one of those QBs on the board (Watson most likely). I think Hooker or Lattimore could still be on the board, depending on how team's feel about their injury situations and if a RB or TE goes. And then I think it opens up the board for OJ Howard, Mike Williams/Corey Davis, or the 2nd CB or 3rd edge rusher.

The one caveat here is if the Niners don't want a QB at 2, then they'll basically have neon signs to sell their draft slot.


How many teams weigh 8 players equally enough to trade out of a spot where they could draft their #1, even for more pucks?


Didn't mean to imply that the Bears would have all 8 rated the same. Just to paint the picture of what the team would be looking at to draft.
0 x

User avatar
minnesotacubsfan
Superstar
Posts: 14605
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: da Salish Sea
x 201
x 261

Bears offseason

Postby minnesotacubsfan » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:55 pm

rawaction wrote:
minnesotacubsfan wrote:
rawaction wrote:I think if Cleveland can't get Garoppolo, they'd definitely look to trade up to #3. There's really no point in having all those picks without coming out of it with a QB and the best defensive player. They don't have a ton of major needs, at least not as many as they have early draft picks. Pass rusher and QB are their 2 biggest needs. After that, they could use a WR, TE and another CB....but they could get by with what they have and certainly could add talent with their other picks.

I look at trade downs a couple different ways. There's the trade down to the 6-8 range. Then there's the trade down to 9-13 range. At 6-8, you may be able to get a lot of the guys you would be looking at with the 3rd pick.

I see the options for the 3rd pick as (in no order): Solomon Thomas, Jonathan Allen, Deshaun Watson, Mitch(ell) Trubisky, Jamal Adams, Malik Hooker, or Marshon Lattimore. Figure Garett goes 1, so at 3 the Bears should have their pick of all but 1 of those guys. And then at 8, at least 1 of those guys would be left.

At 9-13, I think you could still have one of those QBs on the board (Watson most likely). I think Hooker or Lattimore could still be on the board, depending on how team's feel about their injury situations and if a RB or TE goes. And then I think it opens up the board for OJ Howard, Mike Williams/Corey Davis, or the 2nd CB or 3rd edge rusher.

The one caveat here is if the Niners don't want a QB at 2, then they'll basically have neon signs to sell their draft slot.


How many teams weigh 8 players equally enough to trade out of a spot where they could draft their #1, even for more pucks?


Didn't mean to imply that the Bears would have all 8 rated the same. Just to paint the picture of what the team would be looking at to draft.


I guess my point is that's why trading picks seems so unlikely to me. When you are picking top 5, you typically have plenty of needs and therefor it makes more sense to pick your top guy if you can.
0 x
Image

User avatar
David
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 57835
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:33 am
Location: Chicago
x 5333
x 3260

Re: Bears offseason

Postby David » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:12 pm

minnesotacubsfan wrote:
rawaction wrote:
minnesotacubsfan wrote:
How many teams weigh 8 players equally enough to trade out of a spot where they could draft their #1, even for more pucks?


Didn't mean to imply that the Bears would have all 8 rated the same. Just to paint the picture of what the team would be looking at to draft.


I guess my point is that's why trading picks seems so unlikely to me. When you are picking top 5, you typically have plenty of needs and therefor it makes more sense to pick your top guy if you can.


What makes you say this?
0 x
Image

The Cubs’ transaction list under Epstein and Hoyer reads like a work of fiction, a wish-fulfillment list composed in hindsight.


Return to “Other Sports”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cubs 32 and 0 guests