What will the Chicago Bears do on Draft Day? (1 Viewer)

[flapgreen]

Good analysis, G. I was wrong about last years draft. I could be wrong about this one too.

 

[flapgreen]

Don't really understand why they took wolfe. If you're going to take a chance, why not take it on someone like Michael Bush this late? Not some guy you know will never be a superstar. Before Bush got injured, he was projected to go really high. Great upside. to you Bears.

This guy is exciting. Can't wait to see how they'll use him. Obviously not an everydown back, but can be a weapon.

I would imagine they see him taking the "Thomas Jones role".

Outplaying Benson? probably

 

[twistd]

well, there is your offensive lineman!

I am thrilled with that pick. I was looking for the Bears to take Beekman in the third. The fact that they could get him in the fourth is terrific.

 

[PsychoMan]

well, there is your offensive lineman!

I am thrilled with that pick. I was looking for the Bears to take Beekman in the third. The fact that they could get him in the fourth is terrific.

agreed - another pick with great value where he was selected AND it filled a need

 

[flapgreen]

well, there is your offensive lineman!

I am thrilled with that pick. I was looking for the Bears to take Beekman in the third. The fact that they could get him in the fourth is terrific.

agreed - another pick with great value where he was selected AND it filled a need

 

[PsychoMan]

Good analysis, G. I was wrong about last years draft. I could be wrong about this one too.

thanksi was pretty happy about last years draft, and so far pretty happy about this years. i think the bears have a lot of depth in general on the team and dont have a ton of immediate needs. thats why they can go for BPA and also "reach" on big time playmakers like hester (last year) and wolfe (this year) ...can't wait till august to see some of these guys in action

 

[SmoovySmoov]

I'm liking this year's draft, as well. I learned a few years ago to trust what the front office did in the draft. I remember that I wanted Sebastian Janikowski (of all people) really badly. Then, The Bears took some guy I had never heard of named Brian Urlacher. I've trusted them ever since.

 

[flapgreen]

I'm liking this year's draft, as well. I learned a few years ago to trust what the front office did in the draft. I remember that I wanted Sebastian Janikowski (of all people) really badly. Then, The Bears took some guy I had never heard of named Brian Urlacher. I've trusted them ever since.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

On the clock.......

#167.........#168?

I like Beekman. Helps alot. Now a WR maybe? Another S?

 

[PsychoMan]

thoughts on kevin payne & corey graham?

i dunno much bout these 2 ... nfl.com on payne: "While the casual football fan might not be aware of Payne's exploits, NFL scouting organizations are well aware of Payne, one of the best athletes in the country. "

 

[SmoovySmoov]

thoughts on kevin payne & corey graham?i dunno much bout these 2 ... nfl.com on payne: "While the casual football fan might not be aware of Payne's exploits, NFL scouting organizations are well aware of Payne, one of the best athletes in the country. "

What I have on them basically tells me Payne is the FS of the future, while Graham is a nickel corner."Payne summary - Converted RB who has just begun to reach his potential. Has the size and toughness to be very effective banging inside the box, and if used properly, could develop into a fine pro."

 

[Hairy Snowman]

thoughts on kevin payne & corey graham?

i dunno much bout these 2 ... nfl.com on payne: "While the casual football fan might not be aware of Payne's exploits, NFL scouting organizations are well aware of Payne, one of the best athletes in the country. "

I havent seen either on film, but reviews seem very positive. Physically these men are able to play the system the way the Bears want it played. Now can they learn how to do it?

Kevin Payne (love the name)

Ht., 6'0" Wt.: 220

40 Time: 4.63

BIOGRAPHY: Four-year starter who began his career at running back, before moving to safety as a junior. All-Conference selection last year, totaling 98/4/3 after posting 87 tackles as a junior.

POSITIVES: Good-sized defensive back whose game is on the rise. Instinctive, diagnoses the play and shows solid ball skills. Quickly breaks to the action with a burst of closing speed, aggressive and gives top effort. Disciplined with assignments and wraps up tackles.

NEGATIVES: Not efficient and takes incorrect angles to the action. Struggles in one-on-one coverage assignments. Average playing speed.

ANALYSIS: A hard-working and physical prospect whose game made major strides last season, Payne nicely fits as either a conventional strong safety or in a secondary that employs a two-deep zone system.

Corey Graham

Ht.,6'0" Wt.: 195

40 Time: 4.48

BIOGRAPHY: Four-year starter awarded All-Conference honors throughout his career. Played in seven games last season before breaking his leg, posting 41/2/3 on defense while also averaging 9.3 yards on 11 punt returns with one score, and 32.3 yards on 10 kick returns.

POSITIVES: Competitive cornerback who displays top instincts. Possesses ball skills and solid playing speed. Physical, supports the run and defends screen throws. Instinctive and correctly diagnoses the action. Game-changing return specialist who is tough to catch.

NEGATIVES: Not smooth pedaling in reverse, loses a half-step transitioning to run with opponents, and gets beat deep on occasion.

ANALYSIS: Offering a good amount of upside, Graham has a real possibility to make it as an eighth defensive back/return specialist in the NFL.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

They drafted for speed, and the best players available for their system.

Nothing wrong with that.

ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with getting Olson with the 31st pick either.

 

[mlball77]

I'm not super-happy with CHI's draft, but it was ok. They addressed some needs and got the top TE on most people's draft board. The choice of a DE in round two was the only thing that really baffles me, but maybe mgmt felt they couldn't pass on Bazuin (I know very little about him). I would have liked to have seen DT and DB addressed a bit early... but oh well.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

I'm not super-happy with CHI's draft, but it was ok. They addressed some needs and got the top TE on most people's draft board. The choice of a DE in round two was the only thing that really baffles me, but maybe mgmt felt they couldn't pass on Bazuin (I know very little about him). I would have liked to have seen DT and DB addressed a bit early... but oh well.

Bazuin = speed.

 

[Sister Havana]

From everything I've seen it looks like this was another solid draft for the Bears.

 

[jbird5150]

No WRs. Interesting.

Wonder if they'll deal Briggs for a WR and future picks once camp starts--especialy if somebody goes down with injury.

 

[RBM]

Ok, Im pretty happy with the draft now.

Best picks - Wolfe and Beekman

Worst pick - Bauzin

Think Wolfe can be real good in a specific role. 6-8 touches a game type. Beekman makes me breathe a bit easier. Happy what Im reading about him. I just cant get into the Bauzin thing in the 2nd round.

 

[Nookular Power]

So, with a few picks to go before the Bears choose in Round 1, Joe Staley and Ben Grubbs are available, and the part of me that posted in this thread earlier is getting nervous -- these are the guys I'd want the Bears to take. Should they trade up and make sure they get one of these guys? In the end, SF paid big to get NE's pick to take Staley, and the Ravens grab Grubbs. Leaving Olsen as the "consolation prize" -- they'd never say this, and maybe they wouldn't agree. Maybe they still take Olsen if those 2 are still there. I don't.

Then there are a couple guys, approaching pick 37, who might fit the bill at OL or WR...and again they go just before the Bears pick. So the Bears trade down with SD.

It reveals a strategy -- it seems the Bears are more inclined to wait on a few guys they like, and if those guys don't last, trade down and try again. This as opposed to singling out one particular guy (or, seeing just one of their guys left...) and trading up to get him. What do folks here think of this approach? Do you want the Bears to be aggressive and trade up for the guys they most like? Or do you like that they seem to sit back, then trade back if the guys they like are no longer available. I think on the whole, the Bears' strategy is a good one -- it's all such a crap shoot anyway, and it seems if you're trading up for one guy, you're likely to over-pay. It seems you can slowly accumulate value by trading down with other teams that are madly in love with a particular player -- as happened with that pick at 37. In the long run, though it's boring and seemingly passive, I think it's a good way to go. Thoughts?

 

[NattyDread]

No WRs. Interesting. Wonder if they'll deal Briggs for a WR and future picks once camp starts--especialy if somebody goes down with injury.

Anyone else thinking that with all of these picks in the secondary that Devin Hester will be switching to O?

 

[SmoovySmoov]

So, with a few picks to go before the Bears choose in Round 1, Joe Staley and Ben Grubbs are available, and the part of me that posted in this thread earlier is getting nervous -- these are the guys I'd want the Bears to take. Should they trade up and make sure they get one of these guys? In the end, SF paid big to get NE's pick to take Staley, and the Ravens grab Grubbs. Leaving Olsen as the "consolation prize" -- they'd never say this, and maybe they wouldn't agree. Maybe they still take Olsen if those 2 are still there. I don't.Then there are a couple guys, approaching pick 37, who might fit the bill at OL or WR...and again they go just before the Bears pick. So the Bears trade down with SD.It reveals a strategy -- it seems the Bears are more inclined to wait on a few guys they like, and if those guys don't last, trade down and try again. This as opposed to singling out one particular guy (or, seeing just one of their guys left...) and trading up to get him. What do folks here think of this approach? Do you want the Bears to be aggressive and trade up for the guys they most like? Or do you like that they seem to sit back, then trade back if the guys they like are no longer available. I think on the whole, the Bears' strategy is a good one -- it's all such a crap shoot anyway, and it seems if you're trading up for one guy, you're likely to over-pay. It seems you can slowly accumulate value by trading down with other teams that are madly in love with a particular player -- as happened with that pick at 37. In the long run, though it's boring and seemingly passive, I think it's a good way to go. Thoughts?

I think they were going Posluszny in the 2nd, until Buffalo swooped in and took him. Hence, they traded down.

 

[flapgreen]

So, with a few picks to go before the Bears choose in Round 1, Joe Staley and Ben Grubbs are available, and the part of me that posted in this thread earlier is getting nervous -- these are the guys I'd want the Bears to take. Should they trade up and make sure they get one of these guys? In the end, SF paid big to get NE's pick to take Staley, and the Ravens grab Grubbs. Leaving Olsen as the "consolation prize" -- they'd never say this, and maybe they wouldn't agree. Maybe they still take Olsen if those 2 are still there. I don't.Then there are a couple guys, approaching pick 37, who might fit the bill at OL or WR...and again they go just before the Bears pick. So the Bears trade down with SD.It reveals a strategy -- it seems the Bears are more inclined to wait on a few guys they like, and if those guys don't last, trade down and try again. This as opposed to singling out one particular guy (or, seeing just one of their guys left...) and trading up to get him. What do folks here think of this approach? Do you want the Bears to be aggressive and trade up for the guys they most like? Or do you like that they seem to sit back, then trade back if the guys they like are no longer available. I think on the whole, the Bears' strategy is a good one -- it's all such a crap shoot anyway, and it seems if you're trading up for one guy, you're likely to over-pay. It seems you can slowly accumulate value by trading down with other teams that are madly in love with a particular player -- as happened with that pick at 37. In the long run, though it's boring and seemingly passive, I think it's a good way to go. Thoughts?

The Bears are not going to overpay for anyone. They're known to be one of the cheapest teams in the league for a reason. I knew there was no way they were going to trade up to get one guy. Hell, it seems like they trade down every single year. I think it goes both ways though. They usually save themselves from paying more for a guy but also shoot themselves in the foot at what would be a golden opportunity sometimes. I don't necessarily agree with either approach. I think it should be a little of both. Don't overpay too much but also don't completely limit yourself from making a move if there's someone there you want. But the Bears have been this way for years and will not change.As far as their recent success, you can't argue with that. They've figured out how to make it work, at least for the short-term. We'll see how it all plays out in the long run.

 

[mlball77]

No WRs. Interesting. Wonder if they'll deal Briggs for a WR and future picks once camp starts--especialy if somebody goes down with injury.

Anyone else thinking that with all of these picks in the secondary that Devin Hester will be switching to O?

I don't know about that. I think it would be interesting to let him run a reverse once in a while though... or have him out there for the threat of it at least.

 

[mlball77]

So, with a few picks to go before the Bears choose in Round 1, Joe Staley and Ben Grubbs are available, and the part of me that posted in this thread earlier is getting nervous -- these are the guys I'd want the Bears to take. Should they trade up and make sure they get one of these guys? In the end, SF paid big to get NE's pick to take Staley, and the Ravens grab Grubbs. Leaving Olsen as the "consolation prize" -- they'd never say this, and maybe they wouldn't agree. Maybe they still take Olsen if those 2 are still there. I don't.Then there are a couple guys, approaching pick 37, who might fit the bill at OL or WR...and again they go just before the Bears pick. So the Bears trade down with SD.It reveals a strategy -- it seems the Bears are more inclined to wait on a few guys they like, and if those guys don't last, trade down and try again. This as opposed to singling out one particular guy (or, seeing just one of their guys left...) and trading up to get him. What do folks here think of this approach? Do you want the Bears to be aggressive and trade up for the guys they most like? Or do you like that they seem to sit back, then trade back if the guys they like are no longer available. I think on the whole, the Bears' strategy is a good one -- it's all such a crap shoot anyway, and it seems if you're trading up for one guy, you're likely to over-pay. It seems you can slowly accumulate value by trading down with other teams that are madly in love with a particular player -- as happened with that pick at 37. In the long run, though it's boring and seemingly passive, I think it's a good way to go. Thoughts?

I think they were going Posluszny in the 2nd, until Buffalo swooped in and took him. Hence, they traded down.

You might be right about this. I was really hoping they would land him. Imho, he would have been a great fit in CHI.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

So, with a few picks to go before the Bears choose in Round 1, Joe Staley and Ben Grubbs are available, and the part of me that posted in this thread earlier is getting nervous -- these are the guys I'd want the Bears to take. Should they trade up and make sure they get one of these guys? In the end, SF paid big to get NE's pick to take Staley, and the Ravens grab Grubbs. Leaving Olsen as the "consolation prize" -- they'd never say this, and maybe they wouldn't agree. Maybe they still take Olsen if those 2 are still there. I don't.Then there are a couple guys, approaching pick 37, who might fit the bill at OL or WR...and again they go just before the Bears pick. So the Bears trade down with SD.It reveals a strategy -- it seems the Bears are more inclined to wait on a few guys they like, and if those guys don't last, trade down and try again. This as opposed to singling out one particular guy (or, seeing just one of their guys left...) and trading up to get him. What do folks here think of this approach? Do you want the Bears to be aggressive and trade up for the guys they most like? Or do you like that they seem to sit back, then trade back if the guys they like are no longer available. I think on the whole, the Bears' strategy is a good one -- it's all such a crap shoot anyway, and it seems if you're trading up for one guy, you're likely to over-pay. It seems you can slowly accumulate value by trading down with other teams that are madly in love with a particular player -- as happened with that pick at 37. In the long run, though it's boring and seemingly passive, I think it's a good way to go. Thoughts?

I think they were going Posluszny in the 2nd, until Buffalo swooped in and took him. Hence, they traded down.

You might be right about this. I was really hoping they would land him. Imho, he would have been a great fit in CHI.

I dont think he would have fit the WLB position. Too slow. I think the Bears did good this draft, especially later.

 

[Butt-Head]

I had read last night in the Chicago Tribune that JA had targeted Anthony Gonzalez with the 37th pick. When the Colts took him with #32, JA's mind was made up to trade down, even with a guard like Blalock and a tackle like Ugoh still on the board. The Beekman pick in the fourth, makes the trade down worth it. I would have been very happy with Blalock at 37.

Good draft IMO.

What makes me really happy is it seems that GB really blew it. Combined with the fact that a lot of their fans started clamouring for Randy Moss and he dissed them...sweet!