bradjock

Agreed completely. Chances are, Cutler won't play every game. Seeing how bad the offensive was without him last year, helped convince me how valuable he is. Hoyer makes this team better. My only point was, if he signs here, Hoyer is the clear back-up. I think he'd prefer an opportunity where he could compete.

Do you want to give up the #11 pick and pay Wilkerson? I just view it as we are sitting on 20 million. If we think he can work in our system and eliminate the #1 WR, I'm all for it.

I'd add that Payton and Neil Anderson were both #1 ones who worked out okay for us. Different time, different era, different regime. You can't NOT draft a player because of past mistakes. To be honest, I don't think we have any intention of taking Elliot at #11. But if you have a game changing RB . . . I just saw what Todd Gurley did for the Rams with a bad o-line, no QB and no WR's. If Elliott's there, I'll be hoping we take him. I'll understand if we don't.

Except Wilkerson ain't available. It would cost us our #1 pick. And now that it seems likely 3 QB's will go in the top 10, that pick just became more valuable. Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely take Wilkerson over Norman. But if it's Norman and a REALLY good player . . . That's a no brainer.

Wilkerson, while younger, has spent 5 seasons in the NFL and played in 77 regular season games. Norman has been in the NFL for 4 seasons and has played in 53 regular season games. Which guy is younger in terms of football years?

I wonder what he wants? 5 years 90 million??? That would be HUGE if we could nab him. All of a sudden our secondary is respectable.

So your sister would rather have Dirty Sanchez than Jay Cutler? That's crazy. Hoyer would be a nice back-up. However, I'm guessing he wants to go somewhere where he has a better chance of competing. Denver and Jets top that list. I would say that we wouldn't even consider it with what we are paying Cutler, but we have like 20 million in cap room. So anything is possible.

Have you seen any mock where Lynch is going top 11? It could happen, but the general consensus is those teams don't need to trade up.

I think that's how we all feel. The thing is, how early do you draft him? For the Bears, #11 is WAY too early. If I'm Denver at #31, that's a nice get. The back end of the first round or the start of the 2nd seems appropriate. Unless there's a trade, the Bears won't be in range.

Agreed. Think about the positions we could use a significant upgrade: 5 Technique OLB Cornerback Safety OT TE RB That's pretty much every position except for ILB, QB, and WR. Chances are, whoever the BPA is, we likely need that position.

It's weird that the Rams have made so many moves like this, trading back and stockpiling picks. Yet they continue to suck, primarily because they ain't got a QB. If Wenz is the guy the Rams could be dangerous also.

Holy Crap. It looks like it's done. As per the Bleacher Report, it looks like it's the Lawrence Welk combination of draft picks. A one, and a two, and a 3 and a one and a two and a 3 . . . http://www.titansonline.com/news/article-4...97-2747e1599854

I thought this was interesting: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-footba...cting-trade-out Although it probably won't impact the Bears since they will likely still draft in front of them.

I agree it's a likely draft scenario. Particularly since everybody is projecting Elliott to go to Philly. However, the draft never goes exactly like we think. Last year nobody had Brandon Scherff going #5 to Washington or that Leonard Williams would drop to #6. With the injury, it was a shock that Todd Gurley went #10. So IMO, one of the players you mentioned will likely fall to #11 and Elliott's a popular choice because of the position he plays. I don't think we want to take a RB at #11, but the value might be too goo to pass up. I'll add that I don't think we want to go OT because we like Leno, but if Stanley is there at #11, we'd have to take him. We had great success last year finding CB's to plug and play so that position, doesn't make sense, but it would be tough to pass on Hargraves. So basically in my world, we either draft one of the guys I mentioned who fall to us, or we will lock in or taking either the best 5 technique or edge rusher. My thoughts in terms of your mock: 1. TEN - Tunsil - This seems like a lock. Agreed! Unless they can find a trade partner. 2. CLE - Wentz - Another lock. Agreed again! Poor Wentz will be doomed to Cleveland. 3. SD - Ramsey - Best player in the draft? SD's #1 priority should be protecting Rivers. Stanley goes here. 4. DAL - Bosa - Let's say it is too early for Elliott. I can't see them drafting EE with McFadden having a great year and Morris/Dunbar there. Agreed! This is a steal for the Cowboys. 5. JAX - Jack - This seems like a perfect fit for them. Their D was atrocious. If Ramsey is still available, Jax has to take him. 6. BAL - Stanley - I could see EE here, but Forsett still has a decent contract and potential, and Flacco got his ass kicked last year. They can't pass on Buckner 7. SF - Goff - No way they pass on a QB. Agreed! 8. PHI - Elliott - Ryan Matthews is their #1 guy? Seriously? If Elliott gets past Baltimore - I think he will - I can't see how he gets past Philly. Agree! Although I think there's a chance they reach for Lynch. 9. TB - Buckner - The value here is just too good for them. If not him, then Shaq Lawson. Hargraves IMO. 10. NY - Treadwell - I think he makes sense for them, and turns their passing game into something truly scary. You know what though? Their RBs SUCK. And Elliott wants to go there. If for some reason he slips past Baltimore and Philly, there is no way in hell the Giants pass up Elliott when their RBs are Rashad Jennings and New England's sloppy seconds. They have to protect Eli so they draft Conklin In this scenario, if Jack is available at #11, the Bears have to take him, even though we don't need another ILB. I concede it isn't like to to happen--but it could.

LT is one of the better running backs in NFL history. If we thought Langford could be LT, we sure as hell wouldn't be offering CJ Anderson a fat contract. And draft experts wouldn't be speculating that we would take Ezekiel Elliot at #11.

If we think Elliott can be a perennial pro-bowl running back for 8 years, how could that be a bad pick? I see why sites have the Bear's taking him. There's 9 players who are in everyone's top 10. Tunsil, Buckner, Wenz, Goff, Jack, Bosa, Ramsey, Elliott, and Stanley. After that it's a blur in terms of determining who the 10th best player is. After that, there's a dozen guys relatively equal where we could draft for position need. We could take Floyd, Lawson, Conklin, Rankins . . . I don't know if one is particularly better than another. So if we can' trade back and Elliott is the best player available, I'm good with taking him.

I agree with the first part but disagree with the latter. In 2006 we traded down to draft Devin Hester and Dannieal Manning. Good players, but we had the luxury to wait. In 2007 we took Greg Olsen. Really nice player but also a luxury.

But what this article is saying is that teams don't worry about the round. Teams stack their list of players. When it's time to draft, they take whoever is next in their stack. Round has nothing to do with it.

Yeah but half the teams in the league have terrible quarterbacks that they are either waiting to develop or they'd like to replace. The other half that do have quarterbacks, NONE of them have an heir apparent waiting in the wings. The one team that did have a QB replacement was Denver . . . how'd that work out for them?

See, that's what I don't get. How the hell do the Packers even have Aaron Rogers on their board? He was possibly projected to go #1 or at worst top ten. (effing Cedric Benson draft) At the time, WR was the greatest need for the Pack. From a realistic standpoint, they should have drafted Roddy White who went to Atlanta 4 picks later. After drafting Rogers, Favre had 5 REALLY good NFL seasons. What I'm getting at is 21 other teams had Rodgers off their board, probably because they didn't feel like they needed a QB. I'm thinking Green Bay adjusted on the fly. FYI, as per the Mully & Hannelly show, supposedly in the 2001 draft, the Bears did no research on David Terrell because they thought he'd be gone by the time they drafted at #8. We were hoping to draft Deuce McCallister. Despite doing no research on DT, when he was available at #8, we drafted him.

Good article! The only problem I have is, how do you completely ignore a guy who is plummeting? Say Robert NKemdeche is still there at round #3. We wouldn't even consider him? I find that hard to believe.

Also though, when Rogers was drafted, there was a legitimate debate between him or Alex Smith. The thinking was they'd go 1-2. So it was shocking he fell as far as he did. Jason Campbell was drafted after Rogers. Lynch is a distant #3 in terms of quarterbacks in this draft. And as SCS alluded too, we have WAY too many holes to fill. Not to mention, Jay Cutler turns 33 this year. So many of the top QB's are way older than Cutler (Brady, Brees, Palmer, Rothlisberger). I think we can hope for 3-4 more good years from him.

Willie Young asked to be traded last year. That didn't get him very far. Last year I swore we were going to go OLB. Brandon Schreff going #5 changed the mix and allowed White to fall. With no White, I think we take Vic Beasley at #7.

Ideally we draft a guy in the 4th round. Say Christian Hackenberg is available. Let him sit behind Cutler for a couple of years. If he develops--that's awesome. Fourth round just seems like the ideal place to draft a guy you don't have to start immediately but is talented enough to be a potential good back-up/good starter. Less expectations.

IMO, OLB is our greatest need since that is arguably the most important position on this defense. While Willie Young showed promise, this is his last year and he's better suited for a 4-3. Pernell was hurt or ineffective the 2nd part of the season and Lamarr Houston could easily be moved to DE. Sam Acho is a nice back-up. At #11 you want a guy who makes highlight reels. If that's Floyd, I'm good with it.