NFP Mock v2.0 by Greg Gabriel/Eric Galko

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by soulman, Mar 28, 2014.

  1. BSBEARS

    BSBEARS Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,786
    Likes Received:
    624
    Ratings:
    +828 / 4 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    873ß
    GREAT POINTS IN ENTIRE POST. I was thinking this CB thing too, if we pick in the mid to late 20's next year how it effect the thinking on taking a CB this year if you can get a potential corner to replace Peanut. Glad to see someone thinking about this as well. I came to no conclusion except it would probably ensure this is Peanuts last yr and I have no idea if Peanut will want to return again or if he will still have the ability to return. I like getting a CB but leaning more towards Aiken in Rd 5 or 6. I am on board with your list and unless a stud LB falls, Mack, Mosley, or Barr is on the board in rd 1, (not sure on Barr), I am leaning to DT in rd 1. If we do not pull the trigger in rd 1 on DT, I suspect we would do DT in RD 2. Hoping Quarles will be there, if he is I would not mind them double dipping at the DT spot (Donald and Quarles). Rd 2 from mocks is not good value for S or CB as the so called top ones are gone and the next level appears to be late rd 2 or into 3. Problem is they get taken in the mocks before we get to pick again, so interested on how Phil has them graded out which we will not know until the draft.

    With you list of DT, LB, S, and CB and you through in QB, TE and RB you have all seven picks accounted for. If no value in rd 2 for CB and S then down do LB or offense. Be interesting how it works out and if they have somebody graded at more value at CB or S in rd 2. Ward may be there in rd 2 and he seems to be up and down the board with his foot injury so..... Guess time wil tell. With the other needs good arguements to be made for all positions. Depending how Emery sees CB or S he may do it in RD 1 because the value in RD 2 may not be there and a DT like Quarles would be a lesser difference from Donald. If Quarles is gone then we would not get that 3 tech stud Donald and Quarles appear to be the front runners at 3 tech. If we do not take Donald in RD 1, we better make sure Quarles wil be there.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston Position Coach

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Ratings:
    +1,894 / 7 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,214ß
    yeah... it's just how one sees it. A perfectly good argument could be made there and maybe even be the right right argument. S is probably our weakest position, but with pretty much the same people it looked pretty good previously because the LB group and CB group kept their need to a minimum. A good DT along with the rest of our line can do the same. If the RB can't go anywhere and the QB can't throw the ball, you tend not to see any failures with the S group!

    That being said, opposing teams get paid to get the ball into our backfield and we need to be strong there and we aren't. So yea... S could definitely be our first pick.
  3. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Ratings:
    +1,914 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß
    Well done! :jenius:

    Maybe I started this thing with Fuller off wrong and I tried to explain that but maybe it bears repeating. All three CBs carry the same "success rating" but they are ranked Dennard/1, Gilbert/2 and Fuller/3. No one can ever explain exactly why this is and it's so subjective when it comes down to it with these three that they could go in any order depending on the needs of the team taking each. Fuller may well be the best prospect for the Bears and Dennard the worst. I don't see it so much as taking the 3rd best CB as much as whether a CB who would in all likelihood sit for a year behind two vet CBs is the best use of that #1 pick. But that's up to Emery to decide.

    I'm with you in that IF he took Fuller, while I might disagree with his strategy, it wouldn't be a bad pick. The kid obviously has talent. My real point was only whether it was the best pick or not. I tend to think not but I'm biased towards always taking the best pass rusher on the board whenever you need one and great insider rusher don't come along every draft. This year there appears to be one and by all appearance he should be there at #14. Of course that could change entirely in another month which is why these early mocks are never the last word. There's a possibility Donald might go ahead of us and then a Safety or CB may be the next best bet. Those are needs as well and we can't ignore the need for a MLB either. DWill won't be around much longer or at all if he gets hurt again.

    You bring up a good point about Briggs and as much of a warrior as he's always been you have to sense his career is drawing to a close as well. He might be good for another year after this one but it'll come down to what his price will be vs what we'll pay just as it did with Peanut. At present I see Bostic as the right guy to take over at that spot but if that's the case he needs to be playing which is the only reason why I think they're trying him at SLB to compete with McClellin. I believe McCellin is the right guy for that spot and Bostic isn't but we'll see how it sorts itself out. Greene is a bit like Washington in that he's either gotta show more than he did last year or he's either gone
    or becomes a career STeamer. My concern is more in drafting a MLB than a WLB and I think we need to do that. I really don't want Bostic there and the only other ILB we have is Franklin and he's never been much above a STeams guy either.

    I would love to see us cover all four of those slots with out first four picks but being as practical as I am I'm not thinking we will. That would be too perfect and it would also mean we may have taken by position and passed on better players where we could still use some help. We aren't gonna solve all of the current needs and the needs for youth and depth in just one draft. So now it does come down to ranking those needs ahead of the players themselves and that's how I believe you build you board. If your top need is FS then you take the best on the board IF he's a better pick than the DT you have as your second highest need and so on through at least the first few rounds. Only when you've run out of any possibility of drafting for need to you go with a BPA pick. JMHO.
  4. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston Position Coach

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Ratings:
    +1,894 / 7 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,214ß
    I totally agree with you as to when you start to implement your BPA... of course that's a grey area depending on just you have available... If you have Dick Butkus sitting there you do it. But yeah. I'm not a big advocate of BPA until you have a solid team. It's a luxury. I'd love to be the Seahawks in that regard. They have no obvious holes and can do that. So can SF. But I think you would agree that Emery makes more of a difference in one offseason than JA used to make in 5.
  5. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Ratings:
    +1,914 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß
    I'll just add this again. If you're in a win now mode and an impact starter or starters are there when you're on the clock you take whichever one will help you the most and that's the decision Emery has to make. His moves in FA confirm that he's after a championship now, not three years from now, so drafting for the future should be the last thing on his mind during those first few rounds.

    It's quite likely that drafting this high for change there will be a top DT, a top Safety, and a top CB there to pick from so which do you take? That's what HE has to decide. My thoughts on it are pretty clear and go like this.

    Why take the CB who won't play now? There is some decent depth in 2nd tier guys I can take later on in rounds two, three, or four. We did quite well with Peanut who came in round two and Jennings was also a 2nd round pick.

    Is a Safety gonna have more impact as a rookie that a DT? In my book no and in this defense I'd say never. Gary Fencik and Dave Duerson were both Pro Bowl Safeties with those '80s Bears teams but would they still have been if they didn't have that pass rush from hell in front of them? Fencik was an UDFA WR out of Yale we picked up on waivers and converted to a Safety and Duerson was a 3rd round pick who was drafted for depth but started when Todd Bell held out and never gave up his spot again after that. These guys were not high draft picks and neither was Todd Bell, but Hampton was and he was the guy who made that line work and made life easier for the sack meisters Dent and McMichael because he was the one every team had to double team or he'd kill them with his penetration. He was a HOF 3 tech DT before anyone ever called it that. That's what the right guy can do for a DLine.

    So that's how I play it but I'm not the Bears GM.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page