I touched on this in another thread, but I think the Bears have to be at least considering drafting two WRs this year if the value is there. I'm sure they would still love to add a veteran (particularly Holt), but the amount of research the Bears have put into scouting the WRs suggests to me that they would probably be interested in getting a couple new bodies in there.

 

So, if that's the case, which two WRs do you draft and where do you think you can get them?

I touched on this in another thread, but I think the Bears have to be at least considering drafting two WRs this year if the value is there. I'm sure they would still love to add a veteran (particularly Holt), but the amount of research the Bears have put into scouting the WRs suggests to me that they would probably be interested in getting a couple new bodies in there.

 

So, if that's the case, which two WRs do you draft and where do you think you can get them?

 

Sheesh . . . are you suggesting we go WR in rounds 2 & 3??? I'm not a fan of that idea. Not unless somebody slips.

 

I'm sure we will draft two WR's . . . last year we took Bennett in round 3 & Monk in round 7. I hate to even speculate after the early rounds, and I sure as hell don't think we'll take two in a row.

I'm not saying two in a row. In fact, I would be very against that. But a WR in round 2 or 3 and another with one of our round 5 picks would be a good idea, IMO. Robiskie and Dillard, Gibson and Kelly, Barden and Tate. Something like that.

First, let me just say that I would not be absolutely against two WRs in rounds 2 and 3.

 

I don't care who we draft. No WR we take will be a sure thing. Yet, at the same, what is a sure thing is our need. I would argue it is too important we add weapons for Cutler, and if that means hedging our bets, so be it. Not only that, but we are so thin now that WR, that if both were to step up, that would be absolutely fine.

 

Okay, while I would not hate drafting WR in the 2nd and 3rd, at the same time, I think it will be the 2nd and 7th.

 

I'm not saying two in a row. In fact, I would be very against that. But a WR in round 2 or 3 and another with one of our round 5 picks would be a good idea, IMO. Robiskie and Dillard, Gibson and Kelly, Barden and Tate. Something like that.

First, let me just say that I would not be absolutely against two WRs in rounds 2 and 3.

 

I don't care who we draft. No WR we take will be a sure thing. Yet, at the same, what is a sure thing is our need. I would argue it is too important we add weapons for Cutler, and if that means hedging our bets, so be it. Not only that, but we are so thin now that WR, that if both were to step up, that would be absolutely fine.

 

Okay, while I would not hate drafting WR in the 2nd and 3rd, at the same time, I think it will be the 2nd and 7th.

If it were up to me then I would get Robiskie in the 2nd and Kelly in the 4th

If it were up to me then I would get Robiskie in the 2nd and Kelly in the 4th

 

 

I definatley really like Robiskie if we could get him in the 2nd but would also like a speedster like Johnnie Knox in the 5th or 6th round to develop.

First, let me just say that I would not be absolutely against two WRs in rounds 2 and 3.

 

I don't care who we draft. No WR we take will be a sure thing. Yet, at the same, what is a sure thing is our need. I would argue it is too important we add weapons for Cutler, and if that means hedging our bets, so be it. Not only that, but we are so thin now that WR, that if both were to step up, that would be absolutely fine.

 

Okay, while I would not hate drafting WR in the 2nd and 3rd, at the same time, I think it will be the 2nd and 7th.

I too don't think that we draft WR with our first two picks. IMdO, they have several options on thier board for each pick and they'll go with BPA that also fits a need--unless, of course, someone has fallen dramatically to our pick that is not, necessarily, a need. I think we go into the draft with WR and FS as top needs up front. Now, if an OL were to fall to the 49th pick that we like, then I can see JA taking him as well.

I can see us taking two WR in the draft, just not consecutively.

I too don't think that we draft WR with our first two picks. IMdO, they have several options on thier board for each pick and they'll go with BPA that also fits a need--unless, of course, someone has fallen dramatically to our pick that is not, necessarily, a need. I think we go into the draft with WR and FS as top needs up front. Now, if an OL were to fall to the 49th pick that we like, then I can see JA taking him as well.

I can see us taking two WR in the draft, just not consecutively.

I feel if a high rated one drops to us at 49 we will take one there, otherwise we go with FS or DE since they need to fix the defense to be successful. So depending on who is there at 3 or 4 will take one there instead. Maybe with one of our 2-5th round picks will grab another one. I also feel they think after the draft will pick up a FA after maybe a few more are cut, so only feel the need to draft one.

I'd definitely like to see the Bears take the shotgun approach to receivers. I'll do one better, in fact: I'd like to see them take a receiver in the 2nd or 3rd, another one in the 5th-7th, and a third one as a UDFA. An NFL team needs to carry 5 receivers, generally, and could potentially carry 6. Assuming Chicago doesn't sign or trade for a veteran receiver, we'll have three guys who I think should DEFINITELY be on the roster next year: Hester, Bennett, and our 2nd/3rd-round pick.

 

I'd like to see an open competition for the other two/three spots between Rideau, Aromashodu, Broussard, Rashied Davis, a late-round rookie and a UDFA. So let's say we draft Robiskie or Nicks or Iglesias in the 2nd, with the expectation that he'll make it onto the roster. Then we can pick up Johnny Knox in the 5th and Greg Carr from FSU as a priority free agent. I'd be happy with a depth chart of:

1. Hester

2. Bennett

3. Nicks/Robiskie/Iglesias

4. Knox

5. Davis

6. Rideau/Carr

 

Again, that's all assuming we're not going to get a veteran receiver, which I would much rather have Chicago do.

I've been saying we need two WR for some time. Ideally I'd like to add a veteran to the roster with Holt at the top of my list. If we don't do something like that soon I think we're looking at WR in 2 or 3rd and then again in Rd 4 or 5.