What position should we draft early.

[55briggs]

OLine and MLB for sure

 

[DaSuperfan]

Personally, I think we need a stud pass rusher early. Whether that's going to be a 34 OLB or a 43 DE, I'm not sure. That depends on the GM/HC combination that is put in place and what defensive philosophy they're going to employ. I'd be fine with Shane Ray or Vic Beasley in R1.

 

[Aussie77]

Always have been advocate on building from the lines out on either side of the ball but I would also say BPA because we need near everything

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

Anyways.

I think it's got to be BPA no matter what position.

Well, maybe not RB. Just don't think thats worth it anymore.

A elite RB is needed past present and future. I don't see how that has changed.

 

[anotheridiot]

Dallas is building thru the o line, and its working. We need a center and left tackle. maybe instead of wanting a RT to take over at LT, we need to get to the point of Bushrod possibly being moved to the right as his skills are declining.

DE would be nice, MLB, Safety, but if Jameis or Mariota happen to slip or we can convince Tampa that they can still get their guy at 7 (Williams, Gregory, Beasley, Collins) and get Mariota to sit and watch for two seasons I am all for that.

 

[Dirk]

A elite RB is needed past present and future. I don't see how that has changed.

I look at it like this.

Taking a RB that high in the draft is kinda like taking a non-tackle OL at that point. I'd grab one in the top of the second though for sure.

 

[anotheridiot]

one of Gurley, Gordon or Yeldon should fall to the second. Still really dont know what we have in CArey. Forte is still strong, not sure its a place to spend a draft pick . We all know how critical a new GM's first draft is ranked on players getting on the field.

 

[toooverbearing]

I like BPA.

If that somehow ended up being Brandon Scherf in the first and Hroniss Grasu in the second, our OL could be straightened out for a decade. But I can justify any position at #7 (except kicker/punter).

RB? Forte is getting older and if the best player available at 7 is a RB, he must be a flat out stud RB. This could extend Forte's career or replace him just as he's about to hit a sudden wall like Shaun Alexander.

WR? Marshall was getting dinged up a lot and Jeffery is a FA who developed alligator arms in 2014. Plus, you can put three on the field at once. If it is a speedster who is the BPA at 7, all the better. We don't have one.

OL? The difference between good Jay and bad Jay in terms of results is about 7-10 interceptions per year. In terms of cause it is one second per drop back. If we give him protection, his mechanics seem to magically get better and he makes plays. He's not like Aaron Rogers who can kill you on the run or Peyton Manning who gets rid of the ball quick enough where it doesn't matter. Improving the OL may be easier and just as effective than finding a next level QB. Mills is upgradable, Garza and Bushrod are regressing... this is easy to justify.

QB? Yeah... I just said what I said and I'm going here. If the BPA is a QB at 7, that's a potential franchise QB and yes... we should.

Anywhere on Defense? I'll save the space and just say "no shit."

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

I look at it like this.

Taking a RB that high in the draft is kinda like taking a non-tackle OL at that point. I'd grab one in the top of the second though for sure.

If AP was there in the first would you hesitate? There will be good backs in every round, but a elite back is still a great thing to have. I don't want a RB in the first, but I think it's still a position of great important s. I don't buy the (it's a passing league now) as no passing team ever won shit. Great Def and running wins SBs.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

If AP was there in the first would you hesitate? There will be good backs in every round, but a elite back is still a great thing to have. I don't want a RB in the first, but I think it's still a position of great important s. I don't buy the (it's a passing league now) as no passing team ever won shit. Great Def and running wins SBs.

This is an outdated idea and passing teams have won the Super Bowl a ton recently. Teams like the Packers, Saints, Patriots, and Colts would not have won Super Bowls if this idea was true. The fact that teams like the patriots, colts, broncos, packers, and saints are usually perennial contenders just further proves your theory wrong. The Bears have built teams around the running backs and great defense since 1985, and still have not won anything.

 

[anotheridiot]

I'm sure we could get AP from Minnesota for our first round pick

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

I don't know about this. The Bears roster strength is the skill position guys. I am in favor of BPA for literally everything but the skill position guys. Why we would draft a running back when we have a much greater need on the O line and everywhere on the defense eludes me. Particularly since you can probably get a top RB in rounds 3-5 anyway, why on Earth would you waste a rare #7 pick on something like that?

 

[toooverbearing]

The big part of the premise is "Best Player Available" which I think is different for running backs today than it was even 5-10 years ago. There is more platooning now among running backs and with rule changes protecting passers and receivers, the value of a guy playing running back is less than the value of that same guy in the previous era.

For a RB to have the value of the 7th best player available in the draft, he WOULD have to be like a prime AP or Barry Sanders. And if that guy were in this draft I would be all for us taking him and letting him platoon for a year with Matt Forte.

 

[anotheridiot]

BPA is Marcus Mariota. I still think Tampa could be interested with the 7th pick and a maybe a few others. Cant get to the Griffin trade with three #1's, but Tampa has alot of holes to fill. I know Philly might do something that stupid since Kelly wants his guy back, but its still #20 in the first round not 7.

I just think this BPA is partially a cop out. You got one guy at the top of the board, if you dont get that guy you are settling. Moving up a few spots by giving up some picks shows you are 100% behind your choice.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

This is an outdated idea and passing teams have won the Super Bowl a ton recently. Teams like the Packers, Saints, Patriots, and Colts would not have won Super Bowls if this idea was true. The fact that teams like the patriots, colts, broncos, packers, and saints are usually perennial contenders just further proves your theory wrong. The Bears have built teams around the running backs and great defense since 1985, and still have not won anything.

All the teams mentioned had great defenses or defenses that came alive during the playoffs. Everyone of those teams won based on defense and turnovers. None of those teams won based on great passing games. None ever will.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

The big part of the premise is "Best Player Available" which I think is different for running backs today than it was even 5-10 years ago. There is more platooning now among running backs and with rule changes protecting passers and receivers, the value of a guy playing running back is less than the value of that same guy in the previous era.

For a RB to have the value of the 7th best player available in the draft, he WOULD have to be like a prime AP or Barry Sanders. And if that guy were in this draft I would be all for us taking him and letting him platoon for a year with Matt Forte.

100% agree. I'm not advocating using our 7th pick on RB. I'm just stating that a elite RB is worth a 7th pick still in today's football.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

All the teams mentioned had great defenses or defenses that came alive during the playoffs. Everyone of those teams won based on defense and turnovers. None of those teams won based on great passing games. None ever will.

Right....

You're absolutely crazy. All of those teams won based on great passing games. Most of those teams had average running offenses at best and above average defenses. Get real, man. None of those teams would have a shot at their Super Bowls with an average nfl quarterback running their offense.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

BPA is Marcus Mariota. I still think Tampa could be interested with the 7th pick and a maybe a few others. Cant get to the Griffin trade with three #1's, but Tampa has alot of holes to fill. I know Philly might do something that stupid since Kelly wants his guy back, but its still #20 in the first round not 7.

I just think this BPA is partially a cop out. You got one guy at the top of the board, if you dont get that guy you are settling. Moving up a few spots by giving up some picks shows you are 100% behind your choice.

I'm a little confused. What you are talking about is trading up, not really BPA. BPA can be applied anywhere, it isn't just a reference to the guy literally at the top of your board before the draft begins. It means you set up your whole board, and then draft whoever is there when your turn comes up regardless of player position. The contrast to BPA is pick-by-need. Most teams use some kind of hybrid, and probably even we will do that this year, but there really are only a couple of positions on the Bears that would be excluded from a BPA pick on the basis of "need."

As to the idea of trading up, which is really what you are talking about here, I am way, way, way opposed to that. The general idea is that if you are a good team with few holes you trade up, if you are bad team with a thin roster you trade down. If, of course, you have the right trade partner. Which do you think describes the Bears?

For us to get him, we would have to give up at least the #7, next year's #1, and almost certainly something else (mid round pick) this year. Dude, the Bears need MORE seed corn, not less. I am sort of thinking we aren't going to do anything with #1, but if we do, I sure hope it is a trade down, not a trade up.

 

[wood20ks]

Tackle Pass rushing DE MLB CB in the first 4 rounds please. What are you guys hoping for?

What I'm hoping for is seeing what big splashes we get out of the free agency list....Then see what the draft will bring.

And to tell you the truth,I really would like to see Marota here.....But being that is a huge remote chance,I wanna see some defense in the free agency.

 

[toooverbearing]

I'm a little confused. What you are talking about is trading up, not really BPA. BPA can be applied anywhere, it isn't just a reference to the guy literally at the top of your board before the draft begins. It means you set up your whole board, and then draft whoever is there when your turn comes up regardless of player position. The contrast to BPA is pick-by-need. Most teams use some kind of hybrid, and probably even we will do that this year, but there really are only a couple of positions on the Bears that would be excluded from a BPA pick on the basis of "need."

As to the idea of trading up, which is really what you are talking about here, I am way, way, way opposed to that. The general idea is that if you are a good team with few holes you trade up, if you are bad team with a thin roster you trade down. If, of course, you have the right trade partner. Which do you think describes the Bears?

For us to get him, we would have to give up at least the #7, next year's #1, and almost certainly something else (mid round pick) this year. Dude, the Bears need MORE seed corn, not less. I am sort of thinking we aren't going to do anything with #1, but if we do, I sure hope it is a trade down, not a trade up.

Exactly! I was a bit confused by that post as well.

When we drafted Urlacher, we needed a safety, a running back and a receiver. We had Minter as the captain of the defense who was pretty solid and two young LBs in Colvin and Holdman. LB was not a need but it worked out. We got the cornerstone of an elite defense for the next decade. Same with Rogers in GB (they had Favre who was playing very well) and Calvin Johnson in Detroit (they at least had great prospects at WR at the point they drafted him). BPA is a good deal.

BUT... let the draft come to you. Trading down is one thing... we could use more assets, but we're talking about the best player available with the seventh pick, not the best player in the entire draft (unless he fell to the seventh pick).