dawhizz

We're about 36 hours from the big night. Let's do a quick speed round for those who follow and are interested. Feel free to answer whatever you want: 1. Most underrated prospect? 2. Most overrated prospect? 3. Your favorite day 3 prospect? 4. Projected 1st/2nd round pick most likely to fall to day 3? 5. Surprise 1st round pick? 6. Your bold Bears draft prediction? 7. Guy you don't want the Bears taking in the first? 8. Who should the Bears take in the first? 9. Who will the Bears take in the first?

I like him. My main concern with him is where he plays for the Bears. He looks like a 4-3 DE to me. I'm never really comfortable projecting a 4-3 DE to 3-4 OLB because they are such different skill sets, so I don't know if he can do it. What I know is I haven't seen much tape of him moving in space, covering, back pedaling, etc. and what I've seen hasn't shown me that he's that fluid in that aspect. Maybe he can get there and if we take him and put him at OLB, I have to assume we are comfortable with that part of this game. I think he would be better served adding 10 lbs or so and playing DE if we were to take him. If that's what we decide we want to do, the one thing I keep coming back to in this draft is the depth of the DL pool. I feel like if the Bears are taking a DE at #11, then they have to really like him, because on paper the difference between the DE you draft in the 1st and who will be left when you pick in the second might be the smallest skill difference between two positions, whether you end up looking at Vernon Butler, Chris Jones, Jonathan Bullard, Ogbah, the list goes on. It's a little hard for me to believe the Bears love Lawson that much. But maybe they do.

These position by position rankings with "scout's notes" that Bob McGinn does are always a good read. There's always some positive and some negative, which is nice. http://www.jsonline.com/about-us/bob-mcginn-28302749.html

I guess that would arguably make sense for a team that was set at CB, but needed a S, but for the Bears he would probably be best served just staying at corner, though for his first year they would probably put Hargreaves at the nickel and Fangio could probably move him around a bit like they did with Jimmie Ward his first year, who is very similar in size and measurable to Hargreaves.

Seeing more and more about Floyd to the Bears and I still don't like it. McShay and Kiper both said last week that he's rising into the top ten and I swear I've seen 3-5 mocks in the last week with Floyd to the Bears at #11. I was already a little skeptical given his relatively lack of production and the fact he'll probably need to get bigger to be effective. Then I read that he'll turn 24 this year! I have no problem getting Fangio a developmental OLB, but I don't see why we'd take Floyd in the first when there are plenty of others just as likely to be effective at the NFL level who are younger that we can get later.

The two obvious ones to me are either: - Trade #11 and #106 to the Bucs for #9. I think most of us (and most of the general public) sees a drop off in talent after a top nine of some combination of Goff, Wentz, Tunsil, Stanley, Bosa, Buckner, Ramsey, Jack, and Elliott (with maybe Hargreaves thrown in there if you don't like Elliott). If only one of those guys is left at #9, I would strongly consider giving up a 4th and maybe a future pick to get that guy. On the flip side I could also see: - Trade #11 to the Dolphins or Raiders for their first round pick and a fourth. If Elliott is still there and the Bears don't like him as much as they seem to claim, I can see a bidding war between the Dolphins and Raiders to trade up for him that would probably net us about a 4th round pick. Unless we have one guy left on out board that's clearly valued above the rest, that should allow the Bears to still get a guy they like and pick up another valuable 4th round pick which they could use or package a couple of 4ths to move up higher.

Faulk ran a 4.28 40 at the combine. Peterson ran a 4.38. Elliott ran a 4.47.

He's not as fast as AP or Faulk. He's just not. I'm not even sure he's as fast as a healthy Gurley. I see more of a Frank Gore type back - good power, great vision, good at following his blocks, can catch and block. He's going to be a really good RB in the league.

That's what gives me hesitation. Next year you're looking at a draft with Fournette, Chubb, Cook, and McCaffery, at the least. Fournette is better than Elliott and I would argue Chubb, Cook, and McCaffery are all better than Henry. With RB generally devalued around the league no matter where we pick in the 1st round I have to think we would have a chance at one of those guys if Langford doesn't show us something this year.

I would be good with this. I probably prefer Kaufusi a little more than Nassib because he's done it more than one year, but I have no real issue with any of the picks.

I have no big problem with Conklin, but he seems a clear step below Stanley from the tape I've watched (I was not impressed with Conklin's tape against Ohio State, for instance).

I'd much rather Wilkerson. I know we'd have to give up something, but Norman is 29 years old whereas Wilkerson is 26. I'm not eager to give a wad of cash to a CB to pay for his 30s years, and Pace doesn't seem like the type to do so either. No way we get both.

Man, I've been 5 seconds late on my breaking news all day . . . Also, if someone in the top ten signs him, that might push Hargreaves down to the Bears, for those of us on the Hargreaves bandwagon.

Panthers rescind franchise tag because they are unable to reach an agreement on a long term contract. Bears have cap space. I'm not generally one of those guys who says "let's get him" for every FA out there, and it sounds he's going to be asking for a chunk of change, but Pace has to at least ask, right?

So if Reggie Ragland is the #5 player on the Bears board, you still think the Bears should take him?

I am definitely getting the irrational feeling that someone really good is going to tumble to us at #11. Like Joey Bosa good.

Eagles get #2 and a 2017 4th. Browns get Eagles' 1st, 3rd, 4th, 2017 1st and 2018 2nd. I don't get all this movement so far in advance. I didn't get why the Rams would trade up to #1 and not announce who they were taking right away because they have to know if they are trading up there. I don't get the Eagles giving up so much to move up unless they know for sure which QB (I assume) they are going to be left with after the Rams draft. And I really don't get why this year seemed to start out as a relatively down year for QBs and now everyone is trading whole drafts to get Carson Wentz and Jared Goff. Maybe the Eagles are targeting someone else (Ramsey?), but everyone seems to be thinking it'll go QB/QB. Not sure how this impacts Bears, though it would be great if the Browns took Lynch at #8 and pushed another player down.

Bears apparently met with WR Will Fuller yesterday and are meeting with Ezekiel Elliott today as well as 5'6" Texas Tech WR Jakeem Grant ( ). I believe is the last day prospects can visit a team at their facility. Also Tony Pauline reported that the Bears are "seriously considering" Jarran Reed at #11.

I don't think Rankins makes much sense as a 3-4 DE. The one thing I'll mention (and I did it elsewhere at some point) is that Fangio's NTs have tended to be on the small side -Rankins is pretty much the same size Ian Williams was when he was the NT in SF with Fangio. Meanwhile, Goldman has the length you usually want in a 3-4 DE. With Fangio being a pretty innovative coach, I wonder about the potential of drafting Rankins as the 3-4 NT and putting Goldman and Hicks on the ends. It's pretty unorthodox, but you would have a NT who is strong enough to occupy blockers, but is quick enough to penetrate, with two massive DEs on either side that occupy blockers on both sides, and let the LBs run the gaps. I don't know enough about the 3-4 defense to know if that has been tried before, but its something that intrigues me a bit.

I'm not generally a fan of the troubled boom or bust pick (though it depends on the round of course), but one guy I'd be willing to take a chance on is Demarcus Robinson, WR, Florida. Physically he looks like an NFL WR and seems to have the tools when I watch his tape, but he was suspended several times at Florida (three times as a freshman, after which he went to rehab) and is coming off a bad last year. On the other hand, he's coming from a Florida program that couldn't get anyone the ball offensivly and he's the nephew of Bear great Marcus Robinson, who might have some extra motivation to help keep him in line.

I went OT, S, CB. I didn't go edge rusher because I think we're OK with McPhee + Houston/Young. I didn't go DT because I'm kind of bullish on a healthy Ego Ferguson at DE and think our depth there is OK with Sutton and Unrein. OT is #1 because we have a so-so starter at LT in Leno and absolutely no depth at the position whatsoever. S is #2 because while we have a so-so starter in Rolle, I'm not sure there is much of drop off between him and Jones-Quartay if he were to falter/get injured, but I think a second or third round safety would represent a big upgrade over either of those guys. CB is #3 because I'm not sure I trust any of our current starters.

I'm torn. On one hand, I see him do some great things. And I think he's better suited to DE in a 3-4 - he played a lot of DT in college and seemed to get tied up inside a lot. On the other hand, you can actually see him taking plays off when you watch the tape or giving up on plays earlier than he should. My other major concern is his ability to find the ball. Too often, it seems like his plan is "go forward and beat my man" without any concern for what type of play is being run, where the ball is going, or what a player in his position should be doing from a team defense perspective. He'll blow by his man and just kind of expect the ball to be in front of him, and the RB will be running past him. I assume he's been taught how to recognize run/pass and locate the ball and I'm worried it won't take and/or he just doesn't care. Because if he doesn't learn that stuff, his physical talent is not going to do him that much good.

In the event we don't got Elliott in the first, I can really see the Bears using a pick in the middle rounds on a compliment back to Langford. They have to feel pretty good about their ability to get good value in the middle rounds in RB after getting Langford, and truthfully most of the RBs taken in the middle rounds last year performed pretty well, so they can probably aim to catch a falling RB around the same area they took Langford and get a good complimentary back. My question is, what kind of back do we need as a compliment to Langford? He's kind of an in-between back. He's got the size of a between the tackles guy, but doesn't really run that way. He's got good (but not great) speed and is probably better as an outside the numbers runner, but he's not super shifty. He came into the draft as a good pass-catcher, but dropped a lot of passes last year. So is the ideal compliment to Langford more of a pounding inside runner (someone like Derrick Henry or Alex Collins) or a third down/shifty/pass-catcher (like Paul Perkins or Tyler Ervin)? Or do you just take another guy who is a little bit of both like Kenyon Drake? Currently, I lean toward a guy like Alex Collins if he's still there in the 4th ( ), but I'm interested in what others think.

Yeah, I've had enough of the veteran option and am ready for a young backup to (hopefully) get excited about.

Thing is, while we don't have that many needs, we also don't have that many thing we couldn't use. As a fan, I know I'm more likely to forgive a pick I don't necessarily agree with if we got good value than if we reach, but fill a need. So that suggests to me a BPA approach - as long as the Bears are trusting their board and getting good value at every spot, they will probably do a fine job filling out this roster, as opposed to saying "he's the 15th guy on our board, but we are determined to get a RB in the first three rounds and it's round three." So many guys fall at every position (admittedly some for good reason) that a needs-based draft just doesn't make much sense to me.