adam

The Raiders were horrible, so I can understand why someone would not want to return there (and they may be in LA in 2016). Definitely some uncertainty there. Also, based on PFF ratings Hudson was the #3 Center and an upgrade over Wiz. The Raiders are paying Hudson $8.9 a year, and if we can get Wiz for less than half of that, we would be getting a steal.

I don't mind any of these signings. Rolle was brought in for his leadership which the locker room was completely devoid of last year. He also buys us another year or two to draft a replacement. Since we can't replace the entire roster in one offseason, we have to find some players that are upgrades and can bridge to the next draft. Sure these are not long term solutions, but they are definitely upgrades. McDonald is only 30, so he has a few good years left in him, so I wouldn't lump Rolle and McDonald into the same type of signing. Rolle was brought in for leadership and McDonald was brought in for his familiarity with the defense. None of the signings outside of McPhee have been huge impact deals, but most of them have improved the roster, and that is all we can ask for at this point. McPhee, Royal, Rolle, Foster, McDonald, and Jenkins will all be at least minor upgrades at their positions. If we can add 1x more FA signing (Wisniewski please), a few other league minimum guys, and 3-4 more upgrades in the draft, then we will have turned over 12-15 roster spots in one offseason with potentially 8-9 starters. TLDR: I like the plan

I am glad this deal finally got done and he didn't stiff us for SD. This will be a solid addition with a lot of upside. I just thought the vet minimum signings would cost little against the cap because they would essentially be pushing another minimum contract off the cap (when we cut the other guy without guarantees.

He is speaking for the Jets I would assume.

Looking at our pick numbers and by projecting compensatory picks, it looks like we will have the following picks: 1st - #7 2nd - #39 3rd - #71 4th - #106 (3x 3rd round compensatory picks push ours back 3) 5th - #141 (4x 4th round compensatory picks push ours back 4 - from NYJ) 6th - #180 (6x 5th round compensatory picks push ours back 6) So I agree the most likely trading partners are CLE, NO, and PHI for #7. CLE and NO have the better picks as Philly at #20 would have to basically give up their 1st-5th rounders to move up from 20 to 7, so I don't know how likely that would be. I guess if Mariotta is there at #7, they could move up and give a 1st and 2nd this year and a 1st next year to us, which would nice for us to have 2x firsts next year and 2x 2nds this year (especially if that tanked). For CLE and NO, both seem to be in play as both need impact players with the loss of Graham and Gordon. In any scenario, I would at least want to get Shelton, Collins, or Waynes, if we didn't get an Edge Rusher, Williams, White, or Cooper at #7.

For the 40 times, less than 0.20/s is not that much and can easily be within the margin of error for that short of a run (bad start, bad day, tight hammy, outdoors vs indoors). So Leshoure's is only .16/s off. Now the others that are 0.25/s and over, yeah, you definitely slow with age.

I would be interested in Adam Carriker, DE and Mikel Leshoure, RB. For the league minimum, there is very little risk, and both of these guys have experience. Carriker tweeted about the combine: He showed some promise in Washington before a knee injury derailed him.

Definitely possible. We were at 18 with a few weeks to go, then 13, then ended up with 7. I figure at worst we will end around 10 or 11, and at best 32nd. TEN, JAX, and TB will be lucky to get 3 wins WAS, OAK, and CLE are all destined for 3-5 wins NYJ, STL, SF, NO, ATL, MIN and DET will finish clumped in between 6 and 8 wins. The Jets have to play NE, BUF, and MIA for 6 of their games, with BUF stocked and Miami with Suh, they will be lucky to win 1 in their division. STL might've improved, but they still have to play SEA, ARZ, and SF for 6 games. If anything they improve by a game or two while SF falls back by that many. NO lost Graham, so I can't see them improving, and ATL was horrible last year. MIN is relatively the same team and DET lost at least 2-3 games by losing Suh/Fairley/Bush. To me that puts us somewhere between 7 and 9 wins, probably picking in the mid teens.

Wasn't he just coming in for a personal visit?

Yeah, I didn't know he had a weak arm: That kinda scares me, especially in Chicago.

or a QB prospect....

Makes sense, I would be good with it.

That would be an insane draft. I like 3 defensive players taken first (Collins fills a huge need/CB and DT hit), and still hitting the Oline with a starter, RB, WR/KR, and TE. I really like Ryan too. Top Safety, #2 C, #3 CB, #9 DT, #6 RB, #12 WR, and the #9 ILB.

Got it, I just don't know how much you can count on a 6th rounder as a starter. We tried Mills late and it didn't work out.

So #7 and 5th round pick for Cameron, #13 and a 3rd. Basically #7 for #13 and a 3rd, then a 5th for Cameron.

True, but I wouldn't say Garza has 3 years. I would love to pick up Wisniewski at Center, then that would be a very strong line. For the DLine, I really don't know what direction they are going in.

That would be a great scenario for picks, especially getting 16, 44, and 51 for 7. That seems borderline unrealistic that Houston would move up 4 slots for a 2nd rounder (that seems more like 3rd round value), but it is just a plan. Now for the picks, if we had 4 picks in the first 51 and ended up with those 4, I would be disappointed. Just using WF prospect rankings, we would end up with: (2nd OT, 9th DT, 11th best WR, 7th CB). To me, we should have all players in the top 5 or 6 at their positions, not 7th, 9th, and 11th in the 2nd round. With our defense so bad can we afford to draft 2x Offensive players in the first 4 picks, and 5 out of 8? I just don't see it. We have to draft a defensive player at every level (DLine, LB, CB, and S), and then use the last two on offense from: (OLine, WR, QB, or RB)

Yeah, if you look at all 3-4 teams around the league, at least the successful ones have that type of guy. Ratliff, Ferguson, and Sutton do not command that attention. For a drafting strategy, you have to look at Pace, Fox, Gase, and Fangio as a whole. Fangio will have input, but not as much as Pace or Fox.

Yeah, all I was saying was relative to last year, they have taken a step back. Williams and Hawk were starters and the 3rd/4th leading tacklers. Harris was their primary KR, and House/Guion/Jones were all depth players.

I have heard some reports that have him as high as the late 1st and early 2nd round. I don't know if we can afford that high of a pick (39) unless the team just loves him. Hundley also looked good on his pro day.

In terms of improving the team since last season, have the Bears not had the best offseason of any team in the division? GB has actually lost a lot of their depth and some key vets (Williams, Hawk, House, etc). So even though they re-signed Cobb and some others, at this point they are slightly worse than last year. Detroit has taken a massive step backwards losing Suh and Fairley and only gaining Ngata (who is older). Minnesota had a slight upgrade going from Jennings to Wallace, but the biggest swing will be in regards to what happens with AP. With their other roster losses (Felton), they probably are even at this point. With every team expected to improve through the draft similarly, it is hard for me to see the Bears as not improving the most so far this offseason (GM, coaching staff, Tucker gone, McPhee, Royal, Rolle). Now I know we lost Marshall, but I think our additions still outweigh his loss (on and off the field). https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/...ecap-nfc-north/

I just don't think Gurley or Gordon will be there when we pick at 39. If we traded with CLE (12/19) or NO (13/31), the only pick I would entertain picking Gurley would be 31 (but with all the other holes and Forte/Carey on the roster, would that be the most efficient pick?).

I couldn't find a primary or alternate list, just Pro Bowl or not. Sure there will be a few exceptions (mainly QB), but for the most part it is accurate. With this being Pace's first draft, he is going to pick the safest BPA on the board at #7 (or trade down). If I can find the number of first rounders drafted by position, then I can see what percentage of each have become Pro Bowlers. So even though Safety is low, they could be 5/5 when picking them in the first.

Here is a list of Pro Bowlers drafted in the 1st round, by position (last 10 years): 1st Round Pro Bowlers (109 total): Offense: 59 Defense: 50 LB - 15 OT - 12 WR - 12 CB - 12 RB - 10 DE - 9 QB - 8 DT - 7 OG - 7 S - 7 OC - 5 TE - 5 After seeing his pro day, I am down on Ray, I don't want him and think he would be a bad first pick. The 2 QBs would also be bad picks with so many other needs on the team. I would be ok with Beasley, Fowler, Williams, Gregory, Shelton, Cooper, White, and Scherff at #7 (if we couldn't trade down and still get one of them at 12 or 13). After that, I couldn't tell you about specific names that I don't want. For the players you guys listed, I agree that drafting an injured RB, when you have one of the best RBs in the league (and a rookie that still hasn't really been used on the roster), is a wasted pick. Now about Marshall in the 6th, I wouldn't mind him in other years, but I just don't think we are in a position to draft a "project" player right now. We need pro ready talent that can come in Day 1 and contribute and upgrade the roster. So any pick that is not going to be an upgrade somewhere is a "nightmare" pick for me.

7 - A. Cooper, WR 39 - C. Davis, DE 71 - L. Mauldin, OLB 103 - D. Smith, S 134 - S. Golson, CB 167 - B. Hager, ILB To me this is a pretty solid draft in terms of positions. If we sign Wisniewski, then this is a great draft.