defiantgiant

Yeah, we've only got three. It sounds like the Bears reversed themselves on Manning: Angelo implied that they'd be trying him at free safety again, then they corrected that statement and said he'd be staying at nickel back. He's better as a nickel than a safety anyway. Steltz has less than ideal speed and below-average coverage skills for a FS. His range and ball skills are more than adequate for a strong safety, though, and he's got the size for it. Payne has proven that he's not FS material at this point, so we've really only got one FS on the roster. The article I read in the Sun-Times (it's here) made it sound like Chicago could still pick up a free safety in the draft, and I hope they do. After the Bullocks signing, I'd like to see Bullocks and a draft pick (c'monnnn Jairus Byrd) compete for the starting FS job, with Steltz as the starting SS and Payne as his backup. Steltz was a beast in college, and he looked pretty good when he got to play last season. I've seen enough of Payne sliding off tackles because he won't wrap up: I don't want that guy starting anywhere.

I'm with you there, I think the 40 is over-emphasized. I was just trying to make the point that he's definitely not slow. I didn't elevate him above Nicks and Britt until I saw him in the gauntlet and the route drills at the combine. The guy's hands are just unbelievable, and you can tell the level of concentration that he's got from watching him. Honestly, I think Robiskie's floor is a lot higher than Nicks' is. Robiskie looks more fluid and is a more natural catcher, plus he's definitely a student of the game; it's not his fault he was underutilized when they changed the focus of the offense his senior year. I'm not as sure about Nicks, to tell you the truth. He's great running after the catch, and has very good hands, but he also had two other legitimate threats at wideout to draw attention off of him. A lot of the things that he got away with in college on account of his strength and athleticism, he won't be able to do in the NFL. Everybody remembers that insane catch against West Virginia, but you can't put the ball between your legs and switch hands behind your back in the NFL - that's a forced fumble with a bow on it. All in all, I think Nicks is more physically impressive, and might end up the better player down the road, but Robiskie seems like he's ready to step in and play right now.

I don't think we'd even need a 4th. Apparently he was being shopped at the Senior Bowl, in a package deal with Orlando Pace, for a 3rd (EDIT: that's one third-rounder in exchange for both players. Ridiculous.) I think a 5th or even a 6th would get it done at this point. The Rams have to know that they're not drawing any trade interest, since it's common knowledge that they have to either cut him or give him $1.25 million a week from now. They just announced that he's not invited to minicamp, so they're making it pretty plain that they're ready to cut him. At this point, I think they'd be happy just to get some value for him. Maybe he'd be willing to renegotiate his contract after a trade, maybe not. Either way, Chicago needs to make this move. They've got the cap room, and giving up a 6th-round pick to jump the line is fine by me. If he hits FA, other teams are going to try to sign him. If the Bears trade, they don't have to worry about it.

Couldn't agree with you more on what kind of WR we need, but I think Robiskie could end up being even more than that. He showed some decent speed at the Combine: he had a 4.48 in the 40, and everybody's times seemed to be slow this year. I don't know if it was the new track or the timers, but compared to the field this year, 4.48 isn't slow. He certainly timed a lot faster than Boldin or Fitzgerald (4.72 and 4.63 respectively,) both of whom are built pretty comparably. Andre Johnson ran a 4.4 flat, Greg Jennings ran a 4.42, Marques Colston ran a 4.50, and all of them were on a faster track than Robiskie was on. I think Robiskie's definitely got enough speed that it's not going to hinder his game. I see him as a great #2, borderline #1 receiver in a year or two.

I'd add Iglesias to that list, albeit at the bottom after Robiskie. His ceiling certainly isn't as high as Robiskie's, and he's not as polished a product, either. He could still end up a pretty good #2, though, and he could step in as a slot receiver right away for Chicago. I don't know about Derrick Williams: he seems to be in the same category as Harvin - project receiver, great return guy. I agree that Harvin is Hester-lite, though, and the Bears don't need that. Somebody else will, though...think Ted Ginn to the Dolphins. I think Harvin's value will be pushed up a lot by his return potential, which will hopefully push more of the pure receivers down toward the Bears' second-round pick. Maclin's in the same boat, even more so. If Maclin pushes Crabtree and DHB down, and Harvin pushes Britt, Nicks, Robiskie, and Iglesias, then the Bears could have a shot at one of those last four by the time we pick in the 2nd. Still, I really hope we find a way to move up significantly in round 2: I don't want to have to gamble on those four still being there, even if it's a relatively safe gamble.

I think you're pretty much on point as far as who needs to add a wideout, but you've got to take into account whether teams with a need are likely to commit a first-round pick to that need. I'd restructure your list like this: TB - After they blew everything up on defense, they've got a bunch of holes all of a sudden. They need some guys to take over for Brooks and Cato June, and who knows what they'll do at quarterback. I hope they're not planning to start Griese. Add to that the money they shelled out for Clayton and Antonio Bryant, plus the role Winslow/Stevens will have in the passing game, and I would be shocked if they spent a first-rounder on a wideout. Detroit - Needs a wideout, but not in the first. Even with two picks, they've got WAY too many needs. Receiver is one of maybe four or five positions where they currently have even ONE good player - they've got to address middle and strong-side LB, left tackle, tight end, and quarterback. Any one of those is a much, much bigger issue than receiver. Philly- They need a wideout, but not compared to a running back (who weighs over 215 and isn't constantly injured) and an offensive line. DeSean Jackson had a ridiculous year for a rookie, Avant is a serviceable #3, and Baskett/Curtis could compete with a mid-round pick for the other spot. Receiver's not worth neglecting their other first-round needs. Minny- They just spent a TON on Berrian, and Bobby Wade's been all right for them, too. Their quarterback situation is bad enough that they should really use this pick on a QB. They're the epitome of being a QB away from contending. NE - Not a need. Definitely not a need. Atlanta - Could upgrade at #2 receiver, but I don't think that's a first-round caliber need. Despite their success last season, they're still rebuilding. With both starting OLBs gone and no good receiving TE, I wouldn't expect to see them spend a first on a receiver. Miami - Ginn was kind of a mistake, but Parcells seems to prefer to stick with role-players over stars at wideout. They got a nice surprise in Davone Bess, and Greg Camarillo started to look pretty good. I'd be surprised if they took a receiver in the first. Baltimore - Could go wideout in the first. I like them to pick up DHB. They're already got a reliable vet in Mason, but they could stand to add a deep threat, and they don't have a ton of other needs. Indianapolis - They lost Marvin, but Reggie Wayne is still performing at a high level, and Gonzalez looks like he'll be good. That said, it wouldn't be crazy for them to spend this pick on a receiver, given how much they rely on Manning and the passing game. They could really stand to add a defensive tackle, though. Philly - See above. They really need to go RB and OT with their first two picks. NY Giants - Could definitely go wideout in the first. They've got Manningham waiting in the wings, but there were reports that he struggled pretty badly. With Toomer gone and Mario and Plax both question marks, that's putting a lot on Hixon. Tennessee - They definitely need a good wideout, but their system doesn't value one highly enough to make it a likely first-round pick, and they don't have a QB good enough to capitalize on a top-tier receiver. Arizona - Not a need. Pitt - Not a need. Even if Sweed isn't working out, they could replace Nate Washington with a FA or a late-round pick. Of the whole list, I'd be very surprised if more than three of these teams took a receiver in round 1 - I'm thinking Baltimore, Indianapolis, and the Giants are the likeliest. There's enough depth at receiver in this draft that I think any of the other 11 teams could address that need in round 2 or 3. I'd still like to see the Bears move down in the first and up in the second, but hopefully we won't have to reach for a receiver at #18.

I'm not sure solidifying our run game is a luxury. Look at it this way: barring some huge FA move or a very lucky draft, we're going to have one big corps of projects at wide receiver next season. We've got some good tight ends to throw to, but that's not an offense by itself. Unless they go out and get Holt or trade for some other wideout, the Bears are going to be leaning very, very heavily on the run game next season. Even though we've got a couple of good pieces in place already, we can't afford to sell that area short. Forte accounted for a higher percentage of his team's offensive yards than any other back last season; unless we're going to make him do it all himself again in 2009, we need a legitimate threat at our #2 RB spot. Peterson is steady but unspectacular, and both Jones and Wolfe are big question marks. If we go into the season as is, we're gambling that Wolfe, Jones, or one of the receivers has a huge breakout year. I'd rather not roll the dice on that.

I'd be more comfortable if we still at least grabbed another RB late in the draft. There are plenty of day 2 backs who can contribute in a committee - there's no good reason not to open the #2 RB spot up for competition. Jones has had a LOT of injuries, and they were all really worrisome ones for a running back: Lisfranc fracture requiring surgery in '06, ACL tear requiring surgery in '07, whatever that hamstring problem was last season. I understand he was basically in recovery all last season, but he hasn't shown anything that makes me think he should be handed a large role without competing. He was a special player in college/his rookie year, and I like keeping him on a relatively cheap deal based on that potential, but dude hasn't played a 16-game season in the NFL. He's a huge injury risk, in my mind, and the Bears need to be sure that they've got a back who can be counted on to spell Forte. Otherwise, we're going to run him into the ground.

The Lions essentially tried to do this with Jon Bradley - it didn't work out well. A 300-pound blocking FB sounds great on paper, but he's slow as hell. If I were going to convert anybody to a blocking FB, I'd go for a linebacker or defensive end, probably one who's too short to project to the pros. I think there's a reason that when most teams have to move the fullback to tailback, like for a jumbo package, they put in a linebacker as his lead blocker. Look at Worrell Williams from Cal ( ) - he's fast, he's got an ideal build for FB (5'11" 240 lbs., ridiculous lower body strength) and that dude can throw a hit. I'm not saying he won't make it as a linebacker, but he could make a good fullback if somebody wanted to convert him. EDIT: To bring it back to the OP, I'd love it if the Bears picked up Karney. He wouldn't cost a ton (and Angelo's not likely to make any big money FA signings, from the look of it) but he'd offer a significant upgrade to the Bears' running game without taking up a draft pick. I've never thought Jason McKie was better than average as a blocker, and he's not Leonard Weaver, he just doesn't offer enough as a ballcarrier or receiver to make him irreplaceable. In a perfect world, I'd rather have Weaver, sure, but he'll cost more and there'll be competition. Failing that, I'd rather have a guy like Karney who's awesome at one thing than a guy like McKie who's mediocre at several. Think about what Forte could do with an upgraded right side of the line and a real lead blocking fullback to open lanes for him.

All the T.O. drama aside, I'd take Holt over Owens any day, just considering what happens on the field. T.O. just drops too many passes. His catch rate last season was under 50% - that might be OK from a deep threat #1 receiver, but it's not going to cut it for a safety valve, which is what the Bears need. Basically every other big-name receiver catches at least half of the passes thrown to him: the only guys under half for 2008 are Owens, Santonio Holmes, and Braylon Edwards. All of them were complemented by either a world-class receiving tight end or an extremely reliable possession receiver. Think of it this way: by the numbers, Devin Hester is actually MORE reliable than T.O. is. Yikes.

I'm very high on Robiskie after watching him in the Combine drills. He made everything look 10 times easier than most of the other WRs, and a lot of the balls that came his way were VERY badly thrown. Even before that ridiculous sideline catch, he was looking like he was already an NFL wideout, which none of the other guys (even DHB and Nicks, in my opinion) did. If we're going to be counting on a rookie to step in and contribute immediately, I think he's the one who could do it. I'm with you as far as our draft position: as I've said before, I'd love to see Chicago trade down in round 1 in exchange for moving up in round 2. One of the good OT prospects will still be around at the bottom of the 1st, and we don't need Monroe or Jason Smith, since their skillsets put them both pretty squarely at left tackle. I'd be hesitant to pick Robiskie at 18, but if we could trade up to 33 or 34 in the second, I'd take him in a heartbeat. If the Bears are going to reach at #18, though, I'd rather they "reach" for Robiskie or a guy like Jairus Byrd. If you're going to overpay somebody, better to overpay a guy who's more or less guaranteed to be a solid contributor. That's why I liked the Jake Long pick so much: yeah, Miami's paying a little too much for him and he's not totally spectacular, but he was a no-risk pick - they knew he'd be, at a minimum, very very good. With the amount of guaranteed money that guys in the first round get now, I'd take a higher floor over a higher ceiling any day. Robiskie might not have the potential that Maclin and DHB have, but those two could possibly end up being nothing in the NFL, and Robiskie seems guaranteed to be at least a very solid #2 receiver. You can gamble on guys with potential later on: if it's me, I'm giving the first-round money to the safest pick possible.

I like that mock. As some other people have said, I'd rather have Jairus Byrd than Sherrod Martin, but I doubt Byrd lasts until the 3rd. Some evaluators have him as the #2 DB overall, behind Malcolm Jenkins. Green looked great in Senior Bowl practices, and Oher/Britt would both be big additions. The only minor quibble I have is at DE: I'm not sure we need to add two guys. I really like Veikune, though. I'm not sure he'll last until the 7th, but if he does, Chicago would be dumb not to grab him. WARNING: RAMPANT TRADE SPECULATION BELOW Really, I wish the Bears had another 2nd-rounder this year, so they could go get one of the borderline DB prospects like Byrd, Alphonso Smith, or Sean Smith. My dream trade scenario (for now, at least) goes like this: now that the Pats have Kansas City's second rounder (#34) I wouldn't mind seeing the Bears swap #18 and #49 for #23 and #34, then trade our 3rd-rounder and a pick next year (probably would have to be another 3rd) for New England's pick #58. The Bears move down in the first, up to the top of the second, then get an extra second out of the deal, which we need. The Pats still have San Diego's mid-second-round pick, they move up in the first, and they get an extra third this year and next. To sum up: Bears pick #23, #34, #58, and our compensatory 3rd-rounder. NE picks #18, #47, #49, #83, and #84, plus they get a 2010 pick. This way, the Bears can go Oher or Beatty/Britton at 23 (depending on how far Oher falls) then get Nicks/Robiskie/Britt at #34 and Byrd at #58, then get an OG like Green with the compensatory pick. I think Byrd might be the one DB in the draft who could step in at free safety as a rookie, and we'd be in a great position to have our pick of the borderline-first wide receivers at #34.

I think that's actually good news. From the article: "Angelo said Omiyale's immediate future is at guard. The team is not pleased with the performance of right guard Robert (sic) Garza, so Omiyale might have a chance to compete for a starting role there." I can't imagine they'd be unhappy enough with Beekman's performance to make him compete for his spot: he looked just fine at LG, and it's not like he had even a league-average tackle next door to help him out. So if they're unhappy with Garza, they've now got two guys with starting experience, Omiyale and Buenning, who can compete for his job. If Omiyale's good enough to beat out Buenning (who's got 23 starts under his belt) then good, otherwise we've got a decent backup LT in case Williams' injury isn't history. Remember that we have (including Omiyale) three tackles on the roster, one of whom is a practice-squad guy. I would guess that Metcalf is history, which leaves us with four guards, one of whom is a practice-squad guy as well. The Bears need to add two more linemen, even after signing Omiyale, just to have adequate depth, so there's no reason to think that he's their only answer. If they want to try him at guard, that makes them even more likely to draft/sign/trade for another tackle.

I hope he's just for depth/competition. From what I've heard from Carolina fans, he's a pure left tackle. When the Panthers lost their right guard, they kicked Otah inside to RG, then moved Gross over to the right tackle spot and put Omiyale in at LT. Apparently the reason for moving two starters out of position was that Omiyale can ONLY play the left side. I don't know, though. It could also just mean that he's a worse run-blocker than Gross or Otah: no shame in that, both those dudes are beasts. Still, we've got a quasi-rookie coming off back surgery penciled in as our starting left tackle. It can't hurt to have quality depth behind him, and I'd be surprised if Omiyale is as bad in pass protection as St. Clair. I guess we'll have to wait and see with him.

Yeah, I guess at this point we just differ on how heavily we want the Bears to invest in the o-line, versus how heavily we think they should invest in the holes in the secondary and receiver corps. I'm of the mind that, since it's easier to find good linemen than good corners/wideouts on the second day, we should go WR/DB early, then burn a bunch of late picks and FA/UDFA signings on o-line. If the Bears could land at least one premier DB or receiver in free agency, though, I would definitely not be opposed to getting a tackle on day 1. Really, the only need that I hope we DON'T address on day 1 is d-line. I don't see a single d-lineman in this draft who'd be worth passing up on the chance to get a starter at safety, receiver, or even right tackle. Jerry can find defensive starters on the second day, that's his one real area of strength when it comes to the draft. Every time I see Mel Kiper projecting Tyson Jackson to the Bears at #18, I die a little inside.

Emphasis mine. This is what I'm talking about: if you're comparing one early pick to one late pick, then yeah, you have a better chance with the early one. But if you're comparing one early pick to a large number of late picks, and you're talking about a position like o-line, where there are at least SOME quality players available in every round, then you have a better chance with the late picks. I know it doesn't work like that for quarterbacks or shutdown corners, but there's a pretty long history of teams getting quality starters on the line in the later rounds. I don't want the Bears gambling on one dude being the answer; they need to hedge their bets here.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. His mock has both Eben Britton and William Beatty passing Oher in the draft. He's got Oher falling out of the first round entirely while Andre Smith goes at 13. Banks also has the Chiefs taking a pure left tackle (Eugene Monroe) at #3, when they spent last year's first-rounder on an LT in Branden Albert, and he's played very well. It's not like they'd be looking to slide Albert over to left guard, either, since Brian Waters has been to four Pro Bowls. The list goes on: he has the Packers taking Malcolm Jenkins so they can move Woodson to safety. Only problem is, they've explicitly said they're not going to do that next season. He has the Colts taking Clay Matthews, who's a 3-4 rush linebacker. He has the Eagles, who desperately need a short-yardage back, passing on Beanie Wells TWICE. Instead, they take Donald Brown, who's 5'10", 210. This is the best, though: Banks has the Browns taking Rey Maualuga at #5, despite the fact that he acknowledges they need an outside 'backer, not an ILB. His reasoning? They're afraid of Brian Orakpo because he pulled his hamstring at the Combine. So they pick another linebacker who plays a spot they don't need, would be a reach 10 picks later, and ALSO pulled his hamstring at the Combine. Nice.

I don't know, from reading Oher's story, it sounds like his dependence on his family might run a fair bit deeper than that. What you suggest might work in a Jim Zorn - Steve Largent type of situation, where he really is spending most of his free time with his teammates, in addition to practice and everything. Hard to say, though.

I mean, the Giants probably do scout talent better than the Bears do. But those players were originally brought in by the Giants, Jets, and Browns. I'm definitely not ready to say that the Jets and Browns draft better than the Bears. Angelo's big problem appears to be the first round: he keeps getting hung up on guys produced at the college level but have major question marks attached to them (see: Cedric Benson, Rex Grossman, Michael Haynes.) Then they get handed the job based on draft position. If anything, I'd prefer that we got at least one solid contributor at RT or RG through free agency, then used the shotgun approach in the draft. Use a third-round pick on a lineman, then another second-day pick, then bring in as many UDFA linemen as you can: open the RT or RG spot to competition between all the guys. Clearly we haven't gotten anywhere by using high picks and then handing guys the starting job. The difference between the Giants' line and ours is that every guy on the Giants' line originally had to compete to become a starter. That means there were other guys competing with them, which means the Giants used multiple (probably late) picks to get a starter at one position. That's a winning strategy. Agreeing that Angelo doesn't draft that well in the first round, let's say that Chicago's success rate for a first-round OL pick is 50%, versus 35% for a second-day pick and, say, 15% for a UDFA. I'm just making numbers up, but you get the idea. You can take a 50-50 on one first round pick, who you'll be counting on to start, or you can roll the dice on one guy emerging from among two second-day picks and like three UDFAs. You're paying those five guys less than you'd pay the first-rounder, and you're more likely to succeed. Drafting the first-round guy, you have a 50% chance that he's a bust. But for ALL the later guys to bust, that's 65%x65%x85%x85%x85% - just over a 1 in 4 chance. So you've got about a 75% chance that at LEAST one of them ends up being a solid contributor.

Looks like they had a plan when they played hardball with Yeremiah Bell.

Bowman's a pure cover corner, from what I've seen. He's over 200 pounds, sure, but he's not built like a safety. I'd be very, very hesitant exposing a guy like him to more contact. His injury history isn't just the torn ACL. In 2005, he had an undisclosed leg injury that knocked him out for a while. Then he tore the ACL in his left knee during fall practice in 2006 and missed the whole season. In 2007 spring practice he ruptured the patellar tendon in his right knee. That's the same injury that Cadillac Williams has been trying to get over since 2007. Then, after all that, he ruptured his bicep. He's been injured every season he's played, and three of the four have been season-ending. That's not a guy I'd want at safety.

That's a pretty interesting mock. Very different from anything I've been seeing. Oher/Britt would be good, and I really liked what I saw from Green in the Senior Bowl practices. I'll cop to being intrigued by Pat White, too - maybe it's just an awful class of QBs, but he really did look the best out of anybody throwing at the Combine. Mitch King, I don't know about. He's built like an under tackle in the 4-3, which is about the least-needed position on the Bears' roster. I've heard a lot of people talk about him as a potential 3-4 base end, but I don't know if he fits as an end in the 4-3. If he doesn't, then he's not really filling a need. Ray Willis would be a solid pickup, and David Patten's an interesting call. I don't know if he's got anything left, but if he does, he'd add a lot by helping Hester develop. I'd stay a mile away from Reggie Williams, though. He's a big WR, but he's too slow to be anything but a red-zone target, and he doesn't have the hands for that. Buckhalter's could be a good pickup as a change of pace, but he can't stay healthy. If Forte gets injured and we're relying on Buckhalter to carry the load, that's a bad position to be in. I'd worry that there's not enough help at the safety position in your scenario, though. Who do you see behind Fuller, Payne and Steltz?

Umm, why? Kareem McKenzie was a third-round pick, and he's a great right tackle. Nick Kaczur was a late third-rounder, and he's definitely a better right tackle than what we've got. David Stewart of the Titans was a fourth-rounder, Jon Runyan was too. David Diehl was a fifth-rounder, etc. etc. There's no reason in the world why you can't get a starting right tackle in the third round. I mean, we were just discussing in the other thread how the Giants' line is one of the best in football, right? Here's their starting line: LT - David Diehl - 5th Round (#160) in 2003 for the Giants, started at RG in rookie season, then moved to RT, then LT. LG - Rich Seubert, UDFA for the Giants in 2001, starter since rookie season. C - Shaun O'Hara, UDFA for the Browns in 2000, starter since 2002 with 8 starts in 2000-2001. RG - Chris Snee, 2nd Round pick (#34) in 2004 for the Giants, starter since rookie season. RT - Kareem McKenzie - 3rd Round pick (#79) in 2001 for the NY Jets, starter since rookie season. ...they've got ONE pick higher than the 3rd round on their entire line, and we all agree (I think) that that's one of the best lines in football. And it's not like these guys were developmental projects, either. With the exception of O'Hara, they were all immediate impact players from their rookie years onward. So if it's a bad idea to wait until the late 3rd to take an o-lineman, explain that to the Giants.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should move out of the first, either: I was just offering an alternate scenario for what we could do if we did. There's a reason that you almost never see teams trade out of the first round altogether. I was just trying to argue that, assuming we did trade out of the 1st, we would be better off picking up multiple 2nd-rounders this year than getting a 3rd this year and a 1st in 2010. In the real world, I'd like to see us trade down from 18 to somewhere in the 20s (unless Jenkins or Oher start to fall) and get some extra picks that way. The Bears could trade our 1st (#18 overall) and 5th-round (#147) picks to the Giants for their 1st (#29) and 2nd (#60). The value's about on par (Bears come out ahead by the value of a late 7th-round pick) and the Giants have New Orleans' 2nd anyway, so they wouldn't be missing out on the 2nd round. That gives us a late 1st, two 2nds, and (assuming we get the compensatory pick for Berrian) two 3rds.

I don't have a problem with trading down, per se, but this seems to be missing the point. We have holes in at least three starting positions; we need first-day picks this year, not next. If we're going to trade out of the first this year, I'd like to see us trade with Miami and get their two seconds. Check this out: Bears trade their first-round pick, 18th overall. Dolphins trade their second-round pick, 56th overall, as well as Washington's second-round pick (Jason Taylor trade,) 45th overall, and their fourth-round pick, 122nd overall. By the value chart, Miami actually comes out ahead by the value of a mid-fourth pick, not to mention the fact that they're a rebuilding team that would have two picks in the first 25. Meanwhile, the Bears could do this: Resign Nick Roach and John St. Clair. Give Idonije a new contract. Sign Jim Leonhard and Brandon Moore, plus Torry Holt if the Rams cut him. 2.45) Brian Robiskie, WR, Ohio St. 2.49) Jairus Byrd, CB/FS, Oregon 2.56) Connor Barwin, DE, Cincinnati 3.84) Shonn Greene, RB, Iowa or Rashad Jennings, RB, Liberty 3.97) Fenuki Tupou, OT, Oregon 4.116) Johnny Knox, WR, Abilene Christian 4.123) Stephen McGee, QB, Texas A&M 5.147) David Bruton, FS, Notre Dame 6.178) Joel Bell, OT, Furman 7.203) Glover Quin, CB, New Mexico UDFA) Daniel Holtzclaw, LB, Eastern Michigan; Willie Williams, LB, Union; Frank Summers, FB, UNLV That'd give us Leonhard-Byrd-Bruton at FS and Payne-Steltz-Leonhard at SS. Jim Leonhard's probably the closest thing to a free safety on the market right now: it seems like every single free-agent safety is a strong safety. I wouldn't mind the Bears making a play for Anthony Smith, either. A receiver corps of Hester, Holt, Bennett, Robiskie, Knox, and Rideau/Davis would be pretty raw and youth-heavy, but could turn out well. Our line depth would be OK, with Williams-Beekman-Kreutz-Moore-St. Clair as the starters and Tupou, Bell, Balogh, Garza, and Buenning for depth.