What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Chicago Bears Thread*** Ben Johnson hired. The Resurrection Begins! (14 Viewers)

flapgreen said:
If Pace takes a qb, Trubiskey seems like the least likely to be taken.  Least experience. Looked to the sideline for most of his plays.  Leaving Mahomes, Watson, and Kizer

Watson-Great under pressure. Ultimate competitor. Average arm but good enough to be a quality NFL QB.  A lot of experience. Ceiling not as high as Mahomes or Kizer. Didn't run a pro-style offense and arm strength could be limiting factor

Kizer- Has all the tools. Strong arm. Big guy. Very good in pocket and played in most pro-style offense. Can make all the throws.  A lot of experience. Questionable footwork amd decision making at times. Can be hesitant to make a throw and not trust his read.  Not a great second year and struggled with his coaching. 

Mahomes - Booming arm. Had a lot of responsibilities. His team sucked. Similar to Cutler in a lot of ways. Questionable decision making and footwork because of his arm and feeling the need to carry his team.  Makes magnificent throws sometimes. Has the highest ceiling, along with Kizer. Oozes confidence. 

Take your pick, Pace. Mahomes and Kizer will need a lot of coaching up to reign in their talents. Both could melt down and bust without good coaching.  With good coaching, both could be stars. 
Click to expand...
I've read that Trubiskey has the highest ceiling, just doesn't have the experience as a starter. And why would he be the least likely to be taken? Many say he needs to sit a year, but Glennon will be starting this year anyway.

 
flapgreen said:
Someone mentioned arthritis in his shoulders at one point but sounds like nonsense to me. Never missed a game. Could see him being a starter for 10 years.  He's the only pick I wouldn't have a fit over if they passed on qb
Click to expand...
Not nonsense, it's been confirmed. But they say it won't affect him u till after he retires. Still leaning toward him being the pick we should make.

 
3nOut said:
I've read that Trubiskey has the highest ceiling, just doesn't have the experience as a starter. And why would he be the least likely to be taken? Many say he needs to sit a year, but Glennon will be starting this year anyway.
Click to expand...
Pace has said numerous times he values experience and leadership first.  Trubiskey has very little of either.  Not a knock on Trubiskey. He just hasn't done it much. No idea why anyone would think Trubiskey had highest ceiling. 

 
3nOut said:
Not nonsense, it's been confirmed. But they say it won't affect him u till after he retires. Still leaning toward him being the pick we should make.
Click to expand...
Nonsense in that it will be a nonfactor in his career. A lot of people have arthritis, especially football players. 

 
3nOut said:
So were Leaf and Russel. 
Click to expand...
Huh? Leaf wasn't a consensus #1 over Manning. Had plenty of character concerns.  Russel obviously was.  I'm not sure where we're going with this.  My point was only a few guys were viewed as "can't miss" type qbs.  Some of them did anyway, mostly guys with character and work ethic issues. 

 
Hoping they go defense with the first pick preferably Allen or Thomas but would be ok with a db since we do need them so badly.

A qb would be ok too and I would prefer Watson. I think there is a reasonable chance Kizer might slip to the second and would be good taking him there. If he is gone I'm also intrigued by Peterman as a day two pick.

 
flapgreen said:
There's no such thing as can't miss talent players in the draft, except for a few guys like Luck or Cam recently.  The other positions coming out this year are no different.  Garrett only "generational" type guy this year.  Bosa, Ramsey last year.  There's none of those type guys available this year.  Hooker and Lattimore have long injury histories. Adams is solid but not a spectacular athlete and not a free safety or ball hawk.  Thomas flashes big plays but still has a lot of work to do and nowhere near a Bosa or Miller coming out.  There just isn't anyone that stands out.  

And when you have a top 5 pick, you use it on a qb, pass rusher, or OT. That's just how it works. 
Click to expand...
I'd like to know when this became a rule in drafting?  I know we all hear people say this but I'm not sure how this became a rule or fact.  Go look back over the years and see what players get drafted.  Teams are taking who they consider to be the best players and guys that fill their biggest needs.  Tackles are a more recent popular pick in the top 5, it's wasn't always that way 15 years ago.

There are only two positions that should never, EVER, be picked in the top 10 or even the first 4 rounds and that's a kicker or punter.  The rest are all viable options if that player is the biggest need for your team and considered the best player.  The reason why we don't see a lot of other positions taken that high is because the most talented players are usually at positions like QB, RB, WR, DB, DE and T.

 
Hawkeye21 said:
I'd like to know when this became a rule in drafting?  I know we all hear people say this but I'm not sure how this became a rule or fact.  Go look back over the years and see what players get drafted.  Teams are taking who they consider to be the best players and guys that fill their biggest needs.  Tackles are a more recent popular pick in the top 5, it's wasn't always that way 15 years ago.

There are only two positions that should never, EVER, be picked in the top 10 or even the first 4 rounds and that's a kicker or punter.  The rest are all viable options if that player is the biggest need for your team and considered the best player.  The reason why we don't see a lot of other positions taken that high is because the most talented players are usually at positions like QB, RB, WR, DB, DE and T.
Click to expand...
RBs are rarely taken in the top 10 anymore for a reason. The league has changed. WR not that common either in top 10.  Not DB, but CB only. Safety  rarely go in the top 10.  The major reason is because of the importance of that position to a team.  Qb, OT, CB, DE/Edge more important than other positions.  That's why they're such a hot commodity and taken so often in top 10.

 
flapgreen said:
RBs are rarely taken in the top 10 anymore for a reason. The league has changed. WR not that common either in top 10.  Not DB, but CB only. Safety  rarely go in the top 10.  The major reason is because of the importance of that position to a team.  Qb, OT, CB, DE/Edge more important than other positions.  That's why they're such a hot commodity and taken so often in top 10.
Click to expand...
Well, you're about to see the second year in a row with a RB going in the top 10, maybe even top 5.  Team's take the best players and if that player happens to be a safety then take him.  If it's a guard, take him.  If it's a TE, then you better damn well take him.  The only thing that changes that is if you already have a great player at that position.

 
Successful GMs take similar positions in the first round most years.  Unsuccessful ones do not.  Remains to be seen if a RB goes in top 10 this year but I doubt it.  Didn't say they never went in top 10, but there's a reason they rarely do.  Also a reason why TEs never go in the top 10.  

Bpa is a myth.  BPA depends on team need and value of the position. It's why the 5th best OT normally gets taken ahead of the best guard in the draft. Positional value. Hooker and Adams are nowhere near the best safeties to come out in 10 years.  Again, positional value.  CBs get taken all. Of the time in the top 15, not nearly as much with safeties. Doesn't mean the safety isn't as good or better than than a CB taken ahead of him. 

Overdrafting or reaching is also a myth with QBs. No idea why people keep using that term. The majority of the successful QBs go high no matter what.  Has nothing to do with reaching and missing on some and reaching and hitting on others.  

 
It's a very deep draft at DB this year. Would represent poor value to take one early when there is a much bigger drop off at other positions. Same at TE. Very deep. No reason to take one in the first. 

 
Every team wants an elite pass rusher, LT, qb, CB. It's because there are fewer of them and they affect the game more than other positions.  Hold more value and the reason they get paid more.   Other positions are taken all over the place and don't make as much, in general, on the free market. 

 
Here's the point I'm trying to make.  A team needs to take the best player at one of the position they need the most or a position that can help them the most.  If the best TE that college football has ever seen was there for the Bears and TE was one of their biggest needs then they should take him.  If the team has a starting QB and the draft doesn't have a clear cut starting QB in it then I would not take a QB.  If a team is like the Bears where they have multiple needs at multiple positions then I think they should be picking a player that will be the biggest difference maker and help the team.  This player could be a QB, OT, DE, DT, OLB, TE, S or CB.  I don't care which position he plays, if he's going to help win games over any other player in the draft then I want him.

It's this unwritten rule that teams shouldn't take a safety in the top 10 just because that hasn't been the trend that I think is just stupid.

 
BPA should really be considered "BVA:  Best Value Available."  In this era of salary cap, the cap works a lot like roster spots do in fantasy, making VBD Principles critical to good NFL drafting as well.

 
The problem I have is forcing a QB at 3. None of these QBs are grading out high enough to use the 3rd pick on them. Seems really stupid to pick one that high. Do the Bears need a QB? Of course they do. But I'd much rather they take a safer blue chip player and select a qb with the 2.3 pick.

 
ditka85 said:
The problem I have is forcing a QB at 3. None of these QBs are grading out high enough to use the 3rd pick on them. Seems really stupid to pick one that high. Do the Bears need a QB? Of course they do. But I'd much rather they take a safer blue chip player and select a qb with the 2.3 pick.
Click to expand...
Here's the difference. GM and teams aren't just telling every draft analyst and reporter what they're going to do and what they think of each qb. If four go in the first round, we'll know the chatter this whole time was just noise.  These idiot analysts never have to answer for being wrong. Pace doesn't give a damn what they're saying. 

And if you're taking a qb in the second, you also expect him to be your franchise qb.  And if you're looking for a franchise qb, it would make the most sense to take the best available 

 
flapgreen said:
Here's the difference. GM and teams aren't just telling every draft analyst and reporter what they're going to do and what they think of each qb. If four go in the first round, we'll know the chatter this whole time was just noise.  These idiot analysts never have to answer for being wrong. Pace doesn't give a damn what they're saying. 

And if you're taking a qb in the second, you also expect him to be your franchise qb.  And if you're looking for a franchise qb, it would make the most sense to take the best available 
Click to expand...
So which analysts are you referring to as idiots? Guys who worked for NFL teams as scouts, GMs, coaches? Because those are the guys I pay attention to. According to many of them, these QBs grade out at 2nd rounders, MAYBE late 1st at best. All have major holes. None are "franchise" QBs. So why piss away 1.3 on one? 

 
I'm hoping for some safety help in Adams at 3, he's probably the BPA on the board if it goes as predicted. He would fit in nicely.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ditka85 said:
So which analysts are you referring to as idiots? Guys who worked for NFL teams as scouts, GMs, coaches? Because those are the guys I pay attention to. According to many of them, these QBs grade out at 2nd rounders, MAYBE late 1st at best. All have major holes. None are "franchise" QBs. So why piss away 1.3 on one? 
Click to expand...
Just wait and see how many go in the first round to see what the GMs really think

 
I'm starting to warm up to the idea of taking a QB at 3. I've read that this is one of the best classes of DBs (S and CB) EVER. If that's the case, it seems a waste to take one that high when you can still get a very good one in the second.

Lets swing for the fences. Not much has worked in past years, why not try something different, something they haven't tried in, what, 30 years? If it doesn't work, I'd rather fail trying. And if Glennon is not the answer, you'll get a high pick again next year and can try again.

That said, I still think it would be best to do everything you can to get a deal going with Cleveland to move down to their #12, while picking up extra picks along the way. At 12, take the best QB available.

And flap, this ones for you: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-bears-should-draft-quarterback-biggs-spt-0425-20170424-column.html

 
3nOut said:
I'm starting to warm up to the idea of taking a QB at 3. I've read that this is one of the best classes of DBs (S and CB) EVER. If that's the case, it seems a waste to take one that high when you can still get a very good one in the second.

Lets swing for the fences. Not much has worked in past years, why not try something different, something they haven't tried in, what, 30 years? If it doesn't work, I'd rather fail trying. And if Glennon is not the answer, you'll get a high pick again next year and can try again.

That said, I still think it would be best to do everything you can to get a deal going with Cleveland to move down to their #12, while picking up extra picks along the way. At 12, take the best QB available.

And flap, this ones for you: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-bears-should-draft-quarterback-biggs-spt-0425-20170424-column.html
Click to expand...
pretty good article. #### it, let's take a QB.

 
3nOut said:
I'm starting to warm up to the idea of taking a QB at 3. I've read that this is one of the best classes of DBs (S and CB) EVER. If that's the case, it seems a waste to take one that high when you can still get a very good one in the second.

Lets swing for the fences. Not much has worked in past years, why not try something different, something they haven't tried in, what, 30 years? If it doesn't work, I'd rather fail trying. And if Glennon is not the answer, you'll get a high pick again next year and can try again.

That said, I still think it would be best to do everything you can to get a deal going with Cleveland to move down to their #12, while picking up extra picks along the way. At 12, take the best QB available.

And flap, this ones for you: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-bears-should-draft-quarterback-biggs-spt-0425-20170424-column.html
Click to expand...
That's my man! Let's do it! 

 
ditka85 said:
You are missing the point. GMs reach all the time. I don't want to see the bears follow suit. Let some other team do so.

So what?  I don't get how that makes a difference. If he's the best player at 3 then take him. 
Click to expand...
So what's your barometer for reaching then?  If you ignore what the actual NFL GMs do, who's evaluations are you using above theirs to call it a reach? 

If you don't understand the difference between a free safety and a strong safety, there's no reason to go into that discussion. 

You're the one missing the point.  You're waiting for some mysterious tipping point where taking a player you view as your franchise qb is no longer a reach.  Either that or you're hoping for the #1 pick and waiting God knows how many years to get it and hope that you get it in the right year.  That's not how good GMs think. Pace doesn't care what a bunch of dumb #### analysts or the general public think about him "reaching" for a QB.  You get into the best scenario you can and get the best guy available that you think has to tools to be successful. Good luck waiting on the next Andrew Luck or Cam Newton.  Sometimes, you swing for the fences. There's no sure thing. You take the shot and trust your judgment that you can mold the kid into a star. 

 
I can't believe fans are worried about the Bears reaching for a QB when they haven't taken one in the first round in 15 FREAKING YEARS! Live a little folks! 

 
I do wonder if the Bears can trade down with the Browns at #12. Seems like they want both Garrett and Trubisky, just depends if the 49ers take a QB or not. Browns can take their guy before the Jags or Jets, Bears can take a QB at #12 in case the Cardinals want someone like Watson or Mahomes.

 
pbandy1 said:
I do wonder if the Bears can trade down with the Browns at #12. Seems like they want both Garrett and Trubisky, just depends if the 49ers take a QB or not. Browns can take their guy before the Jags or Jets, Bears can take a QB at #12 in case the Cardinals want someone like Watson or Mahomes.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of chatter about the Browns moving up from 12 to get a QB, just not with the Bears, which I don't get. I'm hoping they've talked and are just waiting to see what SF does. If SF takes Trubiskey, all bets would be off. If SF takes someone else, the Bears would be a great trade partner. Not sure why there's no talk about that.

 
3nOut said:
There's a lot of chatter about the Browns moving up from 12 to get a QB, just not with the Bears, which I don't get. I'm hoping they've talked and are just waiting to see what SF does. If SF takes Trubiskey, all bets would be off. If SF takes someone else, the Bears would be a great trade partner. Not sure why there's no talk about that.
Click to expand...
One thing I've noticed about Pace is that Halas Hall has been air tight since he's been there. Nothing leaks out, unless they're putting it out there on purpose. I'm sure everything is up for grabs. 3 is a great spot to be in this year. Should be the most unpredictable draft in a long time. 

 
flapgreen said:
So what's your barometer for reaching then?  If you ignore what the actual NFL GMs do, who's evaluations are you using above theirs to call it a reach? 

If you don't understand the difference between a free safety and a strong safety, there's no reason to go into that discussion. 

You're the one missing the point.  You're waiting for some mysterious tipping point where taking a player you view as your franchise qb is no longer a reach.  Either that or you're hoping for the #1 pick and waiting God knows how many years to get it and hope that you get it in the right year.  That's not how good GMs think. Pace doesn't care what a bunch of dumb #### analysts or the general public think about him "reaching" for a QB.  You get into the best scenario you can and get the best guy available that you think has to tools to be successful. Good luck waiting on the next Andrew Luck or Cam Newton.  Sometimes, you swing for the fences. There's no sure thing. You take the shot and trust your judgment that you can mold the kid into a star. 
Click to expand...
Ok I see this convo going nowhere. I will say if they do go qb at 1.3 I hope it's Watson or trubisky.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ditka85 said:
Ok I see this convo going nowhere. I will say if they do go qb at 1.3 I hope it's Watson or trubisky.
Click to expand...
No offense meant. Just enjoy getting into heated discussions in here. You can hammer me back. I can take it. 

I agree, if they take a qb at 3, then  Trubisky and Watson sound like the only names they will consider.  I like Kizer, but that's not happening. 

 
I'm not knocking Adams. Looks like he's going to be a really good player. Nothing against the kid.  But he doesn't have a history of being a ball hawk like an Ed Reed, Eric Berry, Sean Taylor etc.  Not a spectacular athlete.  I just think you take a player at that spot who will make the biggest impact on the game. A SS won't have that type of impact.  If Lattimore or Hooper didn't have an injury history, I wouldn't be opposed to taking them. I wouldn't agree with it, but I think their likelihood of being impactful is much higher than Adams.  Doesn't mean he won't be very good. 

 
flapgreen said:
Lol new here? I'm sure I'll yell at my TV and post some really negative things in this thread about how Idiotic the Bears are, then just move on. 
Click to expand...
Well then aren't u contradicting yourself? You say trust Pace regarding his evaluation on a qb but not a safety at 1.3?

im trying to understand where you are coming from

 
ditka85 said:
Well then aren't u contradicting yourself? You say trust Pace regarding his evaluation on a qb but not a safety at 1.3?

im trying to understand where you are coming from
Click to expand...
I don't think he'll take a safety at 3. I think he understands positional value better than taking a DB at 3 who has shown very few ball skills throughout his career. I think you take a guy who makes a huge impact on the team. A defensive player who doesn't rush the passer or create many turnovers doesn't fit that mold. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
1 Hot Take Per Team(pre-FA)
Replies
25
Views
2K
Anarchy99
Anarchy99
T
Travdogg's Free Agency Predictions and 2 round mock (updated 4/8/22)
2
Replies
73
Views
6K
rockaction
rockaction
T
My final 2022 mock draft, 3 rounds
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
travdogg
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Back
Top