April 13, 200916 yr comment_62762 2. Juaquin Iglesias, WR, Oklahoma Still on the board: Chung, Delmas, Duke Robinson, Derrick Williams 3. Brandon Williams, DE, Texas Tech Still on the board: Nobody worth mentioning 4. Derek Pegues, FS, Mississippi State Still on the board: Gibson, Jason Williams, Mickens 5. James Davis, RB, Clemson Still on the board: Vazquez, Francies, Casillas, Henry Melton, Orion Martin, Bruton 5. Mark Parson, CB, Ohio Still on the board: Collie, Morgan Trent, Maiava, Veikune, Ogletree That wouldn't be so bad. Parson was a 2nd or 3rd a month back so he's of good value there. I'd rather have Melton, Martin, or Vazquez then Davis. We already have Forte, Jones, Wolfe, and AP at RB. Report
April 13, 200916 yr comment_62764 2. Juaquin Iglesias, WR, Oklahoma Still on the board: Chung, Delmas, Duke Robinson, Derrick Williams 3. Brandon Williams, DE, Texas Tech Still on the board: Nobody worth mentioning 4. Derek Pegues, FS, Mississippi State Still on the board: Gibson, Jason Williams, Mickens 5. James Davis, RB, Clemson Still on the board: Vazquez, Francies, Casillas, Henry Melton, Orion Martin, Bruton 5. Mark Parson, CB, Ohio Still on the board: Collie, Morgan Trent, Maiava, Veikune, Ogletree That wouldn't be so bad. Parson was a 2nd or 3rd a month back so he's of good value there. I'd rather have Melton, Martin, or Vazquez then Davis. We already have Forte, Jones, Wolfe, and AP at RB. By the players available , I would take 2nd-Delmars/FS 3rd-Follett/OLB-Cal 4th-Lewis/OT-TS 5th/a-Melton/DE-Texas 5th/b-Collie/WR-BYU Actually Massaqoui is still there at 3 and draft Williams/OLB at 4 as another option with grabbing Parrish/OT in the 5th. Report
April 13, 200916 yr comment_62765 2. Juaquin Iglesias, WR, Oklahoma Still on the board: Chung, Delmas, Duke Robinson, Derrick Williams 3. Brandon Williams, DE, Texas Tech Still on the board: Nobody worth mentioning 4. Derek Pegues, FS, Mississippi State Still on the board: Gibson, Jason Williams, Mickens 5. James Davis, RB, Clemson Still on the board: Vazquez, Francies, Casillas, Henry Melton, Orion Martin, Bruton 5. Mark Parson, CB, Ohio Still on the board: Collie, Morgan Trent, Maiava, Veikune, Ogletree That wouldn't be so bad. Parson was a 2nd or 3rd a month back so he's of good value there. I'd rather have Melton, Martin, or Vazquez then Davis. We already have Forte, Jones, Wolfe, and AP at RB. By the players available , I would take 2nd-Delmars/FS 3rd-Follett/OLB-Cal 4th-Lewis/OT-TS 5th/a-Melton/DE-Texas 5th/b-Collie/WR-BYU Actually Massaqoui is still there at 3 and draft Williams/OLB at 4 as another option with grabbing Parrish/OT in the 5th. Report
April 13, 200916 yr comment_62771 Same argument I've made elsewhere... That's taking the #7 or #8 WR instead of the #1 OG, or the #2 or #3 Safety. Report
April 13, 200916 yr comment_62773 Same argument I've made elsewhere... That's taking the #7 or #8 WR instead of the #1 OG, or the #2 or #3 Safety. I will sight PFW rating of players as an example because they do it for a living instead of a hobby as most mock drafts and information sites do. They rate Delmars/FS as the 37th rated player and Duke is the 51st highest rated player. I would consider FS as more of a need right now than a OG. We have acquired Omilaye and have Buening from last year that are still young and will win the OG jobs. So taking Duke would be nice,but the Bears are not going with a guard or tackle with the 49th spot. If they were rebuilding Duke would be a good pick but after getting Cutler it is going to be about right now, not 3 years from now. By the way Inglesias is the 87th rated player and wouldnt take him at that spot anyways. Report
April 13, 200916 yr comment_62774 Why would the Bears draft ANOTHER RB? We have Forte, Jones, Wolfe AND Peterson. Report
April 13, 200916 yr comment_62780 Why would the Bears draft ANOTHER RB? We have Forte, Jones, Wolfe AND Peterson. Yeah, unless we are getting rid of Wolfe and Peterson we dont need another one unless its a FB. Report
April 13, 200916 yr comment_62790 I think if the Bears think Duke Robinson's shoulder is not a problem they go after the top rated guard in th draft. Garza's "no cartilage" miracle cant go on forever. I think they go WR in the third, maybe even taking a chance on Louis Murphy and hope a good QB makes an avg WR better. Report
April 14, 200916 yr comment_62803 Hey, you know I agree w/ you on OL in general, but I can't go along w/ this argument. Look at this last year in the reverse. How many OL were drafted last year before the 1st WR was taken? 7, 8, 9? Does that mean, for example, KC should not have drafted the 4th (or was it 5th) OL before the 1st of other positions was drafted? Or maybe further down. Houston should not have drafted OL? You have to know this is a bad argument. Various positions in different years are stronger or weaker than in others. The top rated safety this year is not overall that highly rated. Ditto the top rated OG. I agree we need S and OL. That isn't my point. The point is simply that the argument you used is just not a very good one. Same argument I've made elsewhere... That's taking the #7 or #8 WR instead of the #1 OG, or the #2 or #3 Safety. Report
April 14, 200916 yr comment_62804 Hey, you know I agree w/ you on OL in general, but I can't go along w/ this argument. Look at this last year in the reverse. How many OL were drafted last year before the 1st WR was taken? 7, 8, 9? Does that mean, for example, KC should not have drafted the 4th (or was it 5th) OL before the 1st of other positions was drafted? Or maybe further down. Houston should not have drafted OL? You have to know this is a bad argument. Various positions in different years are stronger or weaker than in others. The top rated safety this year is not overall that highly rated. Ditto the top rated OG. I agree we need S and OL. That isn't my point. The point is simply that the argument you used is just not a very good one. "Top rated" was not the basis for the argument, it was really just more of an adjective. I could have just as easily typed "good" instead. My argument was that we need a Guard to step in because our current guard is playing on borrowed time. Report
April 14, 200916 yr comment_62806 I was responding to Jason's argument. I have been on the Duke Robinson as long as, or longer, than Jason. I have been preaching to draft OL for as long as Jason. Even w/ all the addition in FA, I still want to draft OL, and would love to add Duke. That isn't the point. Jason questioned adding the 7th or 8th WR when the top rated OG is still on the board. My point was that the 7th or 8th best WR may still be graded higher than the #1 OG. Just as last year, 8 or however many OL were graded higher (and drafted higher) than the top WR, which was not drafted until round 2. "Top rated" was not the basis for the argument, it was really just more of an adjective. I could have just as easily typed "good" instead. My argument was that we need a Guard to step in because our current guard is playing on borrowed time. Report
April 14, 200916 yr comment_62807 I was responding to Jason's argument. I have been on the Duke Robinson as long as, or longer, than Jason. I have been preaching to draft OL for as long as Jason. Even w/ all the addition in FA, I still want to draft OL, and would love to add Duke. That isn't the point. Jason questioned adding the 7th or 8th WR when the top rated OG is still on the board. My point was that the 7th or 8th best WR may still be graded higher than the #1 OG. Just as last year, 8 or however many OL were graded higher (and drafted higher) than the top WR, which was not drafted until round 2. My bad. Report
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.