dawhizz

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.

My problem with this trade is that you are bringing a rookie QB into a situation without a supporting cast to succeed. While it would be smarter to let him sit for a year, they will want to start their rookie QB because I can't imagine this new LA franchise doing anything else. But who does he have to throw to? They didn't upgrade their skill positions at all and are stuck with Kenny Britt, Brian Quick, Tavon Austin, and Lance Kendricks. That's not a recipe for success and they aren't going to upgrade that group appreciably with a third and 2 fourth round picks.

If Stanley is there at #11 and the Titans call and offer #15 and their 3rd, do you take Stanley or trade down?

1. I'm at the point with Elliott where I would be OK with the pick, but I'm not so secretly hoping someone above us takes him because I think we have other needs and I want to see what Langford can do. 2. I think it's a lack of pure edge rush guys from the OLB spot that is pushing him up more than usual. Most of the "edge" guys seem like better fits at DE or are frankly more equally good defending the pass as the run as opposed to a guy who you can project as a 12 sack a year guy, so if there's a team high who there is a perception needs a pass-rusher, Floyd is the guy that it makes the most sense to project to that spot. I don't think I've seen any actual indication that the Bears like him or are interested in him, which probably means they love him . . . 3. Lawson seems like a better fit if we want a versatile guy who can play DE and OLB, but Dodd is bigger if we are looking for a straight-up 3-4 DE and I've heard some persuasive arguments on Dodd that make me like him a lot. 4. I'm on the Hargreaves bandwagon because despite his height, he's thicker than most 5'10" CBs so he can be more physical than them. 5. Seems like they've shown interest in Vigil since we signed Freeman/Travethan. We currently have a couple of former UDFAs backing up those guys in Timo and Anderson, and while they did OK when they were in there, if we like Vigil more and he's there in the later rounds, why not? Freeman's only on a three year deal and he's turning 30, so if he starts to decline, we might need someone to step in sooner than we'd like. 6. I like trading back as well, but there's a lot of talk about how valuable 2nd and 3rd round picks are this year because you might like a guy in the early 2nd just as much as someone you could get in the late 3rd (see Peter King's MMQB column yesterday), so teams might be reluctant to part with those picks. 7. Pretty much.

FYI, they gave them Leonard Floyd/Vernon Butler/Alex Lewis/Eric Murray in one scenario and William Jackson/Austin Hooper/Charles Tapper/Juston Burris in another.

The Path to the Draft episode today on NFL Network had a Bears War Room feature where they talk about the roster and picks in the first few rounds that they think would make sense. They've been doing these for all the teams leading up to the draft. It will probably be rebroadcast a few times in the next 24 hours, but I'm not sure about availability after that.

Darn auto-correct.

I see where the Bears are bringing in Lynch for a workout now. I think it's pretty clear we will be drafting a QB relatively high between the fact that Fales is our current #2, we didn't make any attempt to sign a veteran QB (as far as I can tell) and we've shown some level of interest in just about every QB projected to go in the first 5 rounds. I'm very interested to see who they get. I'm personally not a fan of drafting Wentz/Goff/Lynch in the first considering our other needs and I don't really like Conner Cook or Hackenberg, and while Prescott's my favorite, I could get behind Prescott, Hogan, Brissett, Sudfeld, or even Kessler or Allen.

I think the other related question is, if we do want a NT, what kind of NT do we want? Ian Williams is only 6'1" 305. So if we were looking at the body type at the nose, it would be really interesting if we envision, for instance, Goldman and Hicks at the DEs and take Sheldon Rankins and put him at the NT (I've even heard some draft profiles suggesting he could play the nose in a 3-4). To be honest, I just don't know enough about what Fangio wants in his DL to determine that, but it would be one way to go.

It's that time of year when some of us are spending way too much time looking at draft guides/highlights/etc. So inspired by the recent All Athlete Draft I saw posted, any other fun All "Something" drafts you can put together for the Bears. I can make a very credible "all Florida" draft with one little cheat that I actually wouldn't be upset with for the Bears: 1. Vernon Hargreaves, CB, Florida 2. Jonathan Bullard, DE, Florida 3. Keanu Neal, S, Florida 4. Demarcus Robinson, WR, Florida 4. Kelvin Taylor, RB, Florida 5. Antonio Morrison, ILB, Florida 6. Jeff Driskell, QB, Louisiana Tech (but formerly of Florida) 6. Alex McAllister, OLB, Florida 7. Jake McGee, TE, Florida Any other schools this would work for? How about an all injured draft? All same first name? All undersized? Just trying to kill time to get me through the next three weeks . . .

Enough that you would take him at #11? Because that's probably what it's going to take.

He wouldn't be my first choice, but I wouldn't hate it. He's thin, but has good height and athleticism for the OLB spot. The Bears could rotate him in while he adds weight. My main concern would be the effect the added weight has on his quickness, but that's a concern for a lot of rookies.

I think there's a lot of fluff in the PFF approach, but it does force me to look into prospects no one else is talking about. They certainly march to their own beat. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2016/...und-mock-draft/

I might even take Dodd over Lawson in that situation, particularly if we want a pass-rusher we can plug and play at 3-4 DE. I think Lawson can play both 3-4 DE and OLB, but Dodd is bigger and taller and seems like a better fit to stick at DE right away. He might be viewed as a bit of a reach, but for what the Bears need, he fits the bill, I think.