BearFan PHX

yeah, I just disagree, but I have no more facts than you (or Spielman) does, just my opinion too.

true. but you also have a lesser chance of hitting a home run too with lower picks, so it's like buying insurance against a bust, but you lose on the premiums?

Thank you for saying that. Listen i dont think that Spielman said it makes it WRONG either, it's just another opinion for sure. I just think the Bears are considering OT with their second pick. And DL and WR too.

Ok I can agree with that, a 5th round pick, you dont expect greatness so if you find it its a bonus. BUt if your plan is to build a roster, then youre picking higher because thats where the more likely successes are? So trading down doesnt necessarily make it better. When it comes to a 3rd rounder, year, 2 4ths are probably better, but if you have a certain guy targeted who fell, then thats better. But either way, this is our last top pick for a while, so you want to get a blue chip player if you can, and not just give away your upside for insurance?

if a 3T is the best DL available, we could definitely use them.

no, it's not a higher risk. more busts come out of each later round than in the first round. What I think you've discovered is that more unexpected players are able to break out of the mold at lower rounds at WR than OL. But lower round picks are still much more likely to bust?

I mostly agree. I think you can add Fashanu and possibly Thomas to the "take at 9" list which would lessen the trade down likelihood to only stupid rich trade offers. Or to just moving down to 11 or something.

totally, and we were there for a LONG time. You keep the roster decent, especially maybe on defense, and you dont lose enough games to get that really good QB. Trapped in the middle. This is why the idea of building a roster around a lesser QB is a bad idea. You dont win superbowls, but you dont fail enough to get a winner at QB.

I agree with all of this! Leno was a nightmare. PFF told us he was gold. LOL That's when I really soured on PFF. Like all of us, we watched the games, and saw how absolutely awful he was, and they were praising him as a top LT. It was probably the beginning of needing to see my own film. I also agree that having a QB like Williams who moves in the pocket in ways to help the OL will make things better, but I also know how a top 10 OL helps you win games, and close them out. If you can make first downs on the ground, there is no need to punt and play prevent defense. Imagine having Caleb as a top QB, and being able to still lean heavily on the run? That's how you win playoff games.

Possibly we will get that DE in a trade or free agency as rosters develop, and maybe mid season like Sweat at the trade deadline. Not bad to take a minute to get a look at younger players who need reps. But will we be adding a DE to this roster before the draft next year? 100% you guys are right.

Yeah you gotta KNOW this guy is gonna be the best WR in the league, or I'm not trading up either. Maybe if I did more work, I'd be convicted on it, who knows what Poles thinks, he's certainly seen all sides of this question.

I havent watched enough film on them to say. Right now, I think that MHJr, Nabers and Odunze are kind of grouped together. But that's just because of stuff I've read. Some people say MHJr is the next coming, and others say he is one of three exceptional talents this year. So I'll answer this way: *IF* my scouts and my film study are telling me that MHJr is the best WR in 10 years, then yes, I would look at trading up for him. I dont think next years 2nd would do it. I think wed have to give next years first and get back a teams 2nd this year. So our #9 and next years first for #4 or #5 to get MHJr and their this years 2nd. If I thought he was going to be Randy Moss, yes I would do that. But anything less, and no, I'll wait for #9, and if my guys arent there, possibly even trade back a little, maybe to #11 and get Thomas, maybe as far down as #18 and take an OL or DL

actually what he said was "I value people that did the job before more than so called media experts. I guarantee you percentage wise, they are right more than media experts and fans." he guarantees us, on a percentage basis, they are right more. and the reason hes is right so often is "He was a GM, been long time NFL employee. CBS hired him for input" So Im saying, other GMs, long time NFL employees and TV commentators think that OT is on the table for the Bears this year. Most people do. So can I guarantee that percentage wise they are right more, and therefore Spielman is wrong? Of course i cant. Neither side can. And that is ALL Im saying. Opinions abound all over the place, and Spielman's in this case isn't any more likely to be right, because we can all see the Bears are doing a lot to look at OTs, and we are debating them a lot, and pretty much everyone thinks OT is in the mix for the Bears this year. It doesnt seem very controversial at all.

I didnt say any of the things youre saying I said. I didnt say your opinion is wrong because it is shared by Spielman, I just said its still just an opinion. That's all I said. I do think the Bears are looking to draft an OT this year. They are also looking hard at WR and DL. If Spielman says they arent considering an OT, then I think he is wrong. I dont know why you think Im saying you dont have a right to your opinions. Im only saying you dont have a right to say I dont have a right to mine just because Spielman says so.

I definitely have people I listen to too of course. I hear what they say, and then I evaluate whether I agree. The ones I like to listen to are naturally the ones I agree with most. I think we are all like that. I don't know that I have ever agreed 100% or 0% with anyone about everything. My point was just the idea when two people are debating, one cant say "well Mr _____ agrees with me, and he has a pedigree of _______, so my point of view has more weight than yours." thats the fallacy of argument of authority. It's a well known logic error. It's been known for thousands of years, it has a latin name too. "An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument. The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible." - from Wiki And that is easy to understand because I also have people I listen to who disagree, and I cant say "Well my guy disagrees, and he has pedigree Z so I must be right" either. Whenever you're listing someone's pedigree in an argument to lend more weight to their opinion, youre committing the logical fallacy of "the argument from authority" and it's simple to understand, because experts disagree, so being an expert doesnt mean you are more right, if another expert says the opposite. But in all of this, I wasnt fighting, and I dont think Stinger was either. I havent read the last few responses yet, but i was just saying "you assert A, and your evidence is a logical fallacy so all thats left is just an opinion same as mine or anyones"

Heres my point. When you argue that someone must be right because of their credentials, that is a logical fallacy called "argument from authority" It's very easy to show why it is a logical fallacy. Find two people with similar credentials who disagree - boom, youve just proved that having credentials doesnt make you right, since people with similar credentials disagree. It's like saying "well my lawyer says Im right in my legal case, and that proves it because he is a professional lawyer" well sure, but does the other side have a professional lawyer too? And are they saying the opposite? Then that proves that being a professional lawyer doesn't make you right about the law, since another professional lawyer disagrees. So if the pros disagree, and they cant both be right, then being a pro doesnt make you right. Spielman has had plenty of bust picks. He doesnt have a crystal ball. No one does. That's why your argument of authority is a fallacy.

it's funny that people think it isnt so - obviously the players the professionals believe in most are picked first, and sure they get it wrong sometimes, but its not totally random. And yeah, 1st round OL is usually predictable (cough stan thomas, gabe carimi, chris williams, marc columbo) boy have we been bad at drafting players before Poles got here. And youre right about OL, we've just been terrible at it. The Darnell Wright pick tells me Poles understands OL eval.

and many other professionals who have also been GMs and players and scouts say that OT is very much in play. You can give your opinion, you can even give someone else's opinion, but this error of citing someone's credentials in a business where every year the CURRENT professional GMs make good and bad choices is a mistake. There are no credentials that make someone right about who we will take other than being GM of the Bears.

Of the top 10 WRs in the league (according to Pro Football Network) 4 are first rounders 3 are second rounders 1 is a 4th rounder 2 are 5th rounders Clearly, the better players are more often picked higher, which would actually be really surprising if it wasn't true. Justin Jefferson 22nd overall (1st round) Tyreek Hill 5th round Cee Cee Lamb 17th overall (1st round) Davante Adams 53rd overall (2nd round) Ja'Marr Chase 5th overall (1st round) AJ Brown 51st overall (2nd round) Amon-Ra St Brown 4th round Brandon Aiyuk 25th overall (1st round) Stefon Diggs 5th round Deebo Samuel 36th overall (2nd round) https://www.profootballnetwork.com/best-wide-receivers-nfl-rankings/

I think it's hard to say that a lower picked WR has a better chance of going to a superbowl based on talent, i think it's more likely that the top picking teams just dont have the roster to go to the superbowl?

The Bears did meet with Barton, Guyton, Latham, Powers-Johnson and Zack Frazier. They did not meet with Fashanu. Very Interesting.

I excepted Bowers in the text above saying that because of Kmet's contract we probably wouldnt take him. He is definitely a blue chip player. I also left Turner out because he might not be a scheme fit. I could be wrong on both accounts, but neither one of them was left off for ability, just because I dont see us taking them.

yeah, and it doesnt make it any more (or less!) true. I'm trying to figure out if Fashanu or Thomas are true top 10 type values. I think they might be. I'm less sure of the DEs. Does anyone know what the DE depth looks like for the 2025 draft? edit - looks to be a DE and WR heavy class. Hmmmm.

The more I look, the more I think Fashanu is a solid option at 9 along with WR Thomas. I'm really the foggiest on the talent level of Verse, and the injuries of Latu. If I could bank on them a little more and one more OT, I'd feel more comfortable trading down a little. Im (maybe foolishly) leaving Turner off my list for scheme fit, just as I'm leaving Bowers off my list because of Kmet's contract. As it stands, I think the blue chippers are MHJr Nabers Odunze Alt and the very next tier (are any real pro bowlers?) Fashanu Verse? Thomas? And then it drops off to the 1b tier.

I think this is just writers speculating because the Bears brought him in for a 30 visit. Maybe they really are interested, I dont know, but i dont think these articles have any inside info, just connecting dots we already knew. If the Bears have too much money invested in Kmet right now to take on another TE1, they might well be meeting him because he would be an excellent trade or free agency target in the future, so good to make connections and start the book on him now? No matter what, Odunze and Bowers are both big time talents, and someone will take them each early. And each of them would look great in a Bears uniform.