jason

The 50/50 argument applies to all players all positions. But that's why it's smarter to include a healthier dosage of need in there. You miss, and you still have a body at the other position and Langford at RB. You miss with a position you don't need and you now have a body behind Langford, and a gap elsewhere.

This way of thinking I like better. But for starters, I don't know I agree with your initial ruling out of DL or LB. Again, 50/50. We don't know if Leonard Floyd is the next great OLB. But let's say he's not. I think Buckner is easily better than any DE the Bears have on roster. So I'd say that leaves us with DE, T, RB, or DB dropping. The bolded part I disagree with, but can wholeheartedly respect. I think Stanley's floor is somewhere around Leno's ceiling. Barring injury, Stanley will be a good to great pass-blocking LT in the league for a while. I also don't like the idea that you're throwing out about outstanding RBs succeeding despite OL deficiencies, because the opposite can be said as well.

Good point. What about him? 1. He may not be the right fit for the Bears. It seems that any sort of trouble-maker is gone, and he seems to fit the bill of a Terrell Owens type. How else does someone explain him shitting all over the coaching staff after the MSU game and then saying he wouldn't come back to OSU the next year? That's a serious red flag. 2. Everyone talks about the flaws of Derrick Henry, but when you watch the Elliott tape, there really isn't a lot of shiftiness in there either. It's one cut, OL opens huge hole, and he outruns everyone downhill. 3. He's not really a very good blocker. He's more of a "get in the way"-blocker. And sometimes he doesn't pick up the assignment. When he does engage, he rarely locks on, and he has a bad habit of lunging and dipping his head. The Virginia Tech and Notre Dame games showed that pretty well. Speaking of the VT game... 4. He's not someone to use in the return game. 5. Others have mentioned wanting a RB that can be split out wide. Well, they did it with him at OSU, but he's a far cry from Forte. It didn't look natural at all when I saw him lined up like a WR. 6. I honestly don't think his vision is that great. He often takes unnecessary cuts, and also end up running right at guys. In college that's cool, because he's probably one of the best athletes on the field at all times. He won't get away with it as much in the pros. He's no doubt one of the top 2 RBs in this draft, but I don't think he's the next AP. I think he'll be a good pro RB, but not great.

Again. I'd love to have the next AP or LT as well, but Bill Polian himself said the draft is roughly a coin flip. Even the #1 rated guy. 50/50 odds. Why take the 50/50 odds on a position you don't really need? It makes more sense to skip that position since the Bears already have a player who represents odds greater than 50/50. Use that coin flip elsewhere. Especially considering the Bears have had less than 50% success for quite some time. Kick ass for a few years? Sure, you've proven yourself. Go and get the BPA guys because you're likely to be right.

Did I say that? I thought I just said Forte was awesome, and I much prefer him over the others. Hell, I didn't even want to draft Langford, because I felt Forte had more tread left on the tires.

The problem is, you guys are all misconstruing the BPA vs. need debate. Absolutely none of the GMs are advocating pure BPA. None. They would not draft year after year of the same player because that guy was the #1 guy in the draft class. That is simply not up for debate. As a result, there simply has to be some amount of BPA and need put together. At that point you have to determine how much better someone like Elliott is over a comparable player the Bears will draft. The problem with that is, even the great Bill Polian admits to it being a coin flip. So whatever value someone is given, it's awfully naive to think you can absolutely nail the next great Montana, Taylor, Pace, etc. just because he's highest rated on your board that year. Lord knows we as Bears fans have seen our fair share of #1 picks bust. If you ignore all that and draft on BPA anyway, you're flipping the coin that the player selected is a HOFer, and you're neglecting a position of greater need...unless, of course, that BPA #1 player is also at a position of need. Thinking it through logically doesn't really make a case where the Bears should target Elliot. Langford showed enough promise last year that the Bears should see what they have invested in him before reinvesting in the position and leaving the cupboards bare at other areas.

I'm still constantly shocked any Bears fan thinks RB is a good pick at 11 for this year's team. Generally shocked. I've asked multiple friends who are fans of other teams, and all of them are shocked that Bear fans would consider it.

Me too, but I think Kaufusi goes in the 2nd. Nassib might just drop to us in the 3rd. This draft has a very interesting dilemma when it comes to the 2nd tier SS and 34DE options. Choose your SS in the 2nd, and you might miss a solid 34DE. Choose 34DE, and your SS is likely gone. Luckily, I like Kearse and he's fallen several times.

Really like that CBS draft.

This guy threw for over 3000 yards on a Cleveland team in the last few years. Cleveland. He'd be a great option as a backup QB, and would allow the Bears to really focus the attention elsewhere in the draft.

Gotta pay Wilkerson or Norman either way, right? I'd rather pay the big boy than the DB.

I thought you were just talking about RBs. I don't apply that philosophy across all positions. RBs? Yeah, in general I prefer the homerun hitter over the steady 4ypc guy. LBs? Give me the steady guy who wraps up and makes consistent tackles all day over the guy who may explode into a few huge plays and perform average the rest of the time...not that either description fits Jack/Ragland.

And Bill Polian himself has said that the draft is basically a coin flip! He's said the great teams hit at about 58% and the bad teams are at around 50% or less. Mortgaging the team's future on a position we don't really need for a coin flip? No thanks. http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nf...draft/30475885/

I think that's crazy because you NEVER know who LT is. You just don't know. So by doing what you suggest, you're mortgaging the future for what amounts to, at best, a 50/50 bet. You hit, OMG, great! But there is a good chance there is a serious deficiency elsewhere, because you went pure BPA. You miss on him being a HOFer, which has very great odds, and you have a surplus at a position, at least one player being underused because you drafted a position you didn't need, and you have a hole at another position. Oh, and that's based on the entire premise that a guy you're picking is waaaaay better than the comparable player at a different position. I agree with that line of thought if we're talking someone like Elliott in the second. At that point, the likelihood of him being way better than anyone else at any position is decent. But very rarely does a guy fall 20-30 spots further than he should.

Who is younger in terms of NFL games/years? Who is younger in terms of chronological age? Neither matters to me. I think Wilkerson is a better bet because getting the right DL and LB group together means we could put just about any NFL ready CB back there. Kind of like the 85 Bears...it didn't much matter who was at CB because the opposing QBs had zero time to throw the ball. I say pass on Norman.

I did. I do. As long as his knee can be prepared. He has skill that outweighs his size and risk.

Bolded... :headbang :headbang

Zeke? No. No. No. I still don't understand why anyone wants him at 11. Even after everyone put in their top three needs, and RB was nowhere to be seen, we're still talking about freaking Elliott? I think dawhizz is closer to the truth. And I wouldn't be shocked if there are more moves before it's all said and done.

The problem with including QB into that line of thought is that there is a VERY finite number of NFL capable QBs. Those guys don't grow on trees. Just about every team in the NFL is sitting on a dangerous powder-keg of QB depth. Their guy goes down, and the season is over. That's not the same for other positions.

What high risk, high reward players are you hoping the Bears take a chance on? A few that come to mind: Robert Nkemdiche Shawn Oakman Moretz Boeringer Rashard Robinson Any others that you're thinking about?

And that's only half the photo!! He's just about as thick as Ingram, while being 5" taller. Meanwhile, Trent Richardson and Lacy look like fans taking photos with their favorite player. He's immense. He's stronger than the others, and just as fast. https://twitter.com/BamaPride143/status/721...0008192/photo/1

SS - I'm not sure about us being screwed if Rolle goes down. We don't even know what he is capable of anymore. He might go out on the field and just show his age this year. I don't think he was great when he played last year; he was average. DL - Ego, Unrein, Sutton, Hicks. While he isn't the best, Unrein was decent last year. I feel we are way worse in terms of depth at LT. Leno is average at best, and if he goes down it puts an absolute scrub in at LT, or rearranges the entire line into chaos with Massie going to LT, Long going to RT, and Ramirez (?) going to RG. Horrible scenario either way.

On the contrary. We're the same. I'd much rather have the home-run hitter. I've said so for years. But this is about which player is a better compliment to Langford, a guy who already has home-run speed (4.42).

If I were running the show I'd want to do two main things, and one supplementary thing: -Shore up the OL by picking a LT that can start day-one. -Pick long, rangy, athletic defensive players to infuse the team with some burst. *Use late picks on risks with great reward. Here's how I'd do it. 1. Ronnie Stanley, LT, ND (Bookend for a decade) 2. Artie Burns, CB, Miami (Shutdown corner. Perfect fit with great potential.) 3. Carl Nassib, DE, PSU (Love his drive, determination, length. Perfect 5T for the Bears.) 4. Dak Prescott, QB, MSU (The more I watch of him, the more underrated I think he is. He has great potential.) 4. Jerell Adams, TE, SC (Big, looks like a power forward. I watch his highlights and think of another Gamecock on the Bears' roster.) 5. Jayron Kearse, S, Clemson (Freakish potential but falling everywhere. His measurables are hard to ignore.) 6. Shawn Oakman, DE, Baylor (I think this guy is going to plummet to about here. Incredible upside this late.) 6. Dan Vitale, FB, NW (I think the Bears want a RB, but I hope they go for a FB-hybrid.) 7. Moritz Boehringer, WR, Germany (He's worth a shot late. Hopefully nobody else takes the chance.)

If you want a slot WR, the Bears should draft a slot WR. Using that as an option is just a minor schematic option. I still think you're wrong about Henry. He doesn't have the "juke you in a phone booth" skills that some shifty guys like Ervin has, but he only needs the single cut most of the time because he's so strong and explosive. He'll truck right through arm tackles in the NFL as well. Not only that, but Langford is not a pure power back, and he's yet to show his GL abilities. That is not a concern with Henry. At the very least, he's a monster, guaranteed GL back, pseudo FB. He's a guy who is going to get you 3 hard yards regardless of where you're at. Great compliment if you ask me.