Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[raw]

I see people continuing to suggest trading down for more and more picks. I understand the team sucks and you need a ton of talent, but to not even get a blue chip player out of the #1 overall pick would hurt. I like DJ Moore, but don't consider him a blue chip guy (which I'll define as a top 5 player at your position or top150 player in the entire league). Maybe you don't get one of those at #9, either, but you at least give yourself a better chance than at 15 or whatever.

 

I still probably would have just taken whatever Houston was willing to give to move to #1 and take Will Anderson #2 overall unless you subsequently got bowled over by an offer the night of the draft. I think Anderson could be a Myles Garrett type guy and will be an awesome blue chip level player.

 

DJ Moore is a top 150 player in the league. If your only desire is for the Bears to draft a blue chip guy in this draft, the only one available at 9 is possibly Bijan Robinson, a running back.

[Tim]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

With regard to overloading on receivers, don't forget that both Mooney and Claypool are hitting free agency after next season.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Impossible, but a 6th, Herbert, spare change for Henry?

 

https://apple.news/A409oxcmQTCuvTm_Bz4vqyg

[raw]

While Claypool and Mooney are free agents after the year, WR is a position where there are guys that come out every year and put up great numbers right away. The Bears probably will draft a WR at some point this year, because they do need to hedge their bets against both Claypool and Mooney leaving, and they have enough picks to literally take every offensive and defensive position. But there's no reason to take a non-elite propsect in the top 10 when you don't have to. DJ Moore should afford you the ability to take the BPA at 9, or else why did insist on him being included? And IMO that best player won't be a WR, no matter how the top 8 unfolds. If they trade down to the mid-to-late teens, then that makes more sense. It's not a complete waste of assets, but I'd much rather go Bijan at 9 than JSN, and I love Smith-Njigba as a player and fit on this team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No one is saying "take a WR regardless of bpa." We are saying "if the player you want is a WR, that's fine."

 

Generally I hate the concept of "BPA.". After the first few picks, the distinctions between players aren't fine enough to definitively say "hmmm, we have two All Pro tackles, but this tackle is the BPA at 8.07 footballs and this safety is only worth 8.05 footballs, we can't take him."

 

If the BPA at 9 is a QB and we don't get good value offers to trade down, should we take the QB?

 

BPA just turns into an ad hoc justification of picks.

[minnesotacubsfan]

No one is saying "take a WR regardless of bpa." We are saying "if the player you want is a WR, that's fine."

 

Generally I hate the concept of "BPA.". After the first few picks, the distinctions between players aren't fine enough to definitively say "hmmm, we have two All Pro tackles, but this tackle is the BPA at 8.07 footballs and this safety is only worth 8.05 footballs, we can't take him."

 

If the BPA at 9 is a QB and we don't get good value offers to trade down, should we take the QB?

 

BPA just turns into an ad hoc justification of picks.

 

nah, I think when people are talking about BPA, they are talking BPA in a position of need or fit for the organization. What it isnt is fixating on a certain player and going all in to get them. And I think every year certain players drop. Justin Fields is a perfect example. This year for example, one could see Carter dropping to the Bears at 9, and he would certainly fit all the definitions of BPA

[CubinNY]

No one is saying "take a WR regardless of bpa." We are saying "if the player you want is a WR, that's fine."

 

Generally I hate the concept of "BPA.". After the first few picks, the distinctions between players aren't fine enough to definitively say "hmmm, we have two All Pro tackles, but this tackle is the BPA at 8.07 footballs and this safety is only worth 8.05 footballs, we can't take him."

 

If the BPA at 9 is a QB and we don't get good value offers to trade down, should we take the QB?

 

BPA just turns into an ad hoc justification of picks.

It should be a multiple value judgment, BBA + current needs. You could have a player at the spot you are picking who is clearly the best player on your draft board, but he isn't the best fit for the current needs of the team. In a perfect scenario, you would be able to trade the pick and get some extra value and get the player who at that pick, is the BPA and meets needs. That perfect scenario doesn't exist in the NFL draft due to other teams' needs and values.

 

I want them to draft the best player available that meets the current needs of the team. A wide receiver who is BPA is great, but it doesn't appear to fit the needs of the Bears. So you overdraft a guy who might be available at some later pick that you don't have, what is the problem?

[jumbo]

No one is saying "take a WR regardless of bpa." We are saying "if the player you want is a WR, that's fine."

 

Generally I hate the concept of "BPA.". After the first few picks, the distinctions between players aren't fine enough to definitively say "hmmm, we have two All Pro tackles, but this tackle is the BPA at 8.07 footballs and this safety is only worth 8.05 footballs, we can't take him."

 

If the BPA at 9 is a QB and we don't get good value offers to trade down, should we take the QB?

 

BPA just turns into an ad hoc justification of picks.

 

nah, I think when people are talking about BPA, they are talking BPA in a position of need or fit for the organization. What it isnt is fixating on a certain player and going all in to get them. And I think every year certain players drop. Justin Fields is a perfect example. This year for example, one could see Carter dropping to the Bears at 9, and he would certainly fit all the definitions of BPA

 

Well said

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So Best Player Available doesn't actually mean best player available?

 

*sigh*

[jumbo]

No one is saying "take a WR regardless of bpa." We are saying "if the player you want is a WR, that's fine."

 

Generally I hate the concept of "BPA.". After the first few picks, the distinctions between players aren't fine enough to definitively say "hmmm, we have two All Pro tackles, but this tackle is the BPA at 8.07 footballs and this safety is only worth 8.05 footballs, we can't take him."

 

If the BPA at 9 is a QB and we don't get good value offers to trade down, should we take the QB?

 

BPA just turns into an ad hoc justification of picks.

It should be a multiple value judgment, BBA + current needs. You could have a player at the spot you are picking who is clearly the best player on your draft board, but he isn't the best fit for the current needs of the team. In a perfect scenario, you would be able to trade the pick and get some extra value and get the player who at that pick, is the BPA and meets needs. That perfect scenario doesn't exist in the NFL draft due to other teams' needs and values.

 

I want them to draft the best player available that meets the current needs of the team. A wide receiver who is BPA is great, but it doesn't appear to fit the needs of the Bears. So you overdraft a guy who might be available at some later pick that you don't have, what is the problem?

 

 

Agree

I think of it as a matrix of grades, positional value, and existing roster.

 

Each team grades each player against their ideal version of that position. Obviously scheme impacts this, hence the Bears not chasing Orlando Brown. He wasn't on their "board" for FA because he didn't fit, or his grade would have been very bad in their scheme compared to a power running scheme. They won't be selecting a "0" type 3-4 NT because of scheme fit/impact on grading.

 

So you have your draft board constructed from 100 down to zero, allowing you to see who the most talented player is at any moment. If you were building an expansion team you'd just pick from the top of the list every pick except for positional value. I think of it as a multiplier against the players grade. For example, QB is so incredibly important you would put the higher factor/muliplier against that position. Then you'd follow with the next groups, loosely T/Edge/WR/CB, then the next group, etc. Scheme/philosophy of course affects this, too.

 

Finally this is all set against the backdrop of your roster. Some of your players are locks and you aren't going to pick that position. QB is an easy example, but all positions are affected by this. The other extreme is an obvious hole, such as Bears RT and DL at the moment. Other positions have a placeholder that you could replace or create competition.

 

You all know all of this, but it's clearly a blend of all these factors when assembling a roster. A lot of the BPA yelling on Twitter and such is either someone who has no clue or someone making an intentionally dishonest argument.

[jersey cubs fan]

So Best Player Available doesn't actually mean best player available?

 

*sigh*

There’s no way to quantitatively value football players and therefore any BPA discussion begins and ends with some variation of the consensus view of the people in the room doing the evaluation. They group these guys in similar brackets and it makes sense to take a guy who fits best from the group that is available at your pick. You might have 2 guys standing alone, then 3-6 more in the next group. If one of that group is available at 9 he technically fits the BPA distinction. But if the next group is 7-11 and the rest of the groups are empty, any one of those 5 will be the BPA by default and should be taken based on fit.

[David]

No one is saying "take a WR regardless of bpa." We are saying "if the player you want is a WR, that's fine."

 

Generally I hate the concept of "BPA.". After the first few picks, the distinctions between players aren't fine enough to definitively say "hmmm, we have two All Pro tackles, but this tackle is the BPA at 8.07 footballs and this safety is only worth 8.05 footballs, we can't take him."

 

If the BPA at 9 is a QB and we don't get good value offers to trade down, should we take the QB?

 

BPA just turns into an ad hoc justification of picks.

 

this is where you use common sense and realize that nobody advocating for BPA wants the bears to take a QB at #9 if one is available.

 

what it means is don't reach for someone at the pick if the value isn't there just because it's a position of greater need. in the bears case, if the available OL/DL guys are guys you don't have valued anywhere near a #9 pick but a great corner who you have with top 10 value is available, take the corner or look at trade down options. if the guys available at the pick are valued closely, then break the tie with wherever you feel you have the most need.

 

what is nuance?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So Best Player Available doesn't actually mean best player available?

 

*sigh*

There’s no way to quantitatively value football players and therefore any BPA discussion begins and ends with some variation of the consensus view of the people in the room doing the evaluation. They group these guys in similar brackets and it makes sense to take a guy who fits best from the group that is available at your pick. You might have 2 guys standing alone, then 3-6 more in the next group. If one of that group is available at 9 he technically fits the BPA distinction. But if the next group is 7-11 and the rest of the groups are empty, any one of those 5 will be the BPA by default and should be taken based on fit.

 

See, that all just sounds like ... drafting. I've always assumed when people were talking about BPA they meant it as some sort of philosophical approach, with drafting for positional need being the opposing philosophy.

 

It actually apparently just means "take a pretty good player who also you kinda want," which seems to me to be vague enough to be useless, but at least now I know it doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

[jersey cubs fan]

So Best Player Available doesn't actually mean best player available?

 

*sigh*

There’s no way to quantitatively value football players and therefore any BPA discussion begins and ends with some variation of the consensus view of the people in the room doing the evaluation. They group these guys in similar brackets and it makes sense to take a guy who fits best from the group that is available at your pick. You might have 2 guys standing alone, then 3-6 more in the next group. If one of that group is available at 9 he technically fits the BPA distinction. But if the next group is 7-11 and the rest of the groups are empty, any one of those 5 will be the BPA by default and should be taken based on fit.

 

See, that all just sounds like ... drafting. I've always assumed when people were talking about BPA they meant it as some sort of philosophical approach, with drafting for positional need being the opposing philosophy.

 

It actually apparently just means "take a pretty good player who also you kinda want," which seems to me to be vague enough to be useless, but at least now I know it doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

You thought this was yahoo draft set to auto pick?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There’s no way to quantitatively value football players and therefore any BPA discussion begins and ends with some variation of the consensus view of the people in the room doing the evaluation. They group these guys in similar brackets and it makes sense to take a guy who fits best from the group that is available at your pick. You might have 2 guys standing alone, then 3-6 more in the next group. If one of that group is available at 9 he technically fits the BPA distinction. But if the next group is 7-11 and the rest of the groups are empty, any one of those 5 will be the BPA by default and should be taken based on fit.

 

See, that all just sounds like ... drafting. I've always assumed when people were talking about BPA they meant it as some sort of philosophical approach, with drafting for positional need being the opposing philosophy.

 

It actually apparently just means "take a pretty good player who also you kinda want," which seems to me to be vague enough to be useless, but at least now I know it doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

You thought this was yahoo draft set to auto pick?

 

I thought "best player available" meant "best player available," yes.

[raw]

WR is a position where there are guys that come out every year and put up great numbers right away.

 

This isn’t unique to WRs though, every position on the field is like this. Heck, Bijan Robinson is being pushed as a top 10 pick as a RB and I’d argue a

stronger prospect on paper in Breece Hall fell to the second last year *because* he’s a RB

 

You'd be wrong on that argument too.

[David]

 

See, that all just sounds like ... drafting. I've always assumed when people were talking about BPA they meant it as some sort of philosophical approach, with drafting for positional need being the opposing philosophy.

 

It actually apparently just means "take a pretty good player who also you kinda want," which seems to me to be vague enough to be useless, but at least now I know it doesn't mean what I thought it meant.

You thought this was yahoo draft set to auto pick?

 

I thought "best player available" meant "best player available," yes.

 

you're self aware enough to know that you do this "taking everything too literally" thing, but you don't do anything to adjust for it?

 

or are you knowingly just doing it to do this kyle thing you do on here

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You thought this was yahoo draft set to auto pick?

 

I thought "best player available" meant "best player available," yes.

 

you're self aware enough to know that you do this "taking everything too literally" thing, but you don't do anything to adjust for it?

 

or are you knowingly just doing it to do this kyle thing you do on here

 

This is me admitting that I misunderstood and that my misunderstanding was the cause of disagreement, and that I now know my previous understanding was wrong.

 

What more do you want here?

[David]

 

I thought "best player available" meant "best player available," yes.

 

you're self aware enough to know that you do this "taking everything too literally" thing, but you don't do anything to adjust for it?

 

or are you knowingly just doing it to do this kyle thing you do on here

 

This is me admitting that I misunderstood and that my misunderstanding was the cause of disagreement, and that I now know my previous understanding was wrong.

 

What more do you want here?

 

I am just positive you are smart enough to realize that just about everyone here wouldn't want the Bears to take Stroud at #9 if he were somehow available there, regardless of their draft philosophy.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

you're self aware enough to know that you do this "taking everything too literally" thing, but you don't do anything to adjust for it?

 

or are you knowingly just doing it to do this kyle thing you do on here

 

This is me admitting that I misunderstood and that my misunderstanding was the cause of disagreement, and that I now know my previous understanding was wrong.

 

What more do you want here?

 

I am just positive you are smart enough to realize that just about everyone here wouldn't want the Bears to take Stroud at #9 if he were somehow available there, regardless of their draft philosophy.

 

Correct. Which is why I've always found the "BPA" takes irritating. People didn't really mean it, they would just say it if it happened to fit the argument for whatever player they wanted to draft or draft pick they wanted to defend in the moment.

 

But at least now I know that *they* know they don't mean it, that you're supposed to adjust for "nuance" to whatever seems obvious regardless of what was said. I'm working on adjusting to that.

[David]

 

This is me admitting that I misunderstood and that my misunderstanding was the cause of disagreement, and that I now know my previous understanding was wrong.

 

What more do you want here?

 

I am just positive you are smart enough to realize that just about everyone here wouldn't want the Bears to take Stroud at #9 if he were somehow available there, regardless of their draft philosophy.

 

Correct. Which is why I've always found the "BPA" takes irritating. People didn't really mean it, they would just say it if it happened to fit the argument for whatever player they wanted to draft or draft pick they wanted to defend in the moment.

 

But at least now I know that *they* know they don't mean it, that you're supposed to adjust for "nuance" to whatever seems obvious regardless of what was said. I'm working on adjusting to that.

 

BPA means don't reach for poor value in the name of need

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

I am just positive you are smart enough to realize that just about everyone here wouldn't want the Bears to take Stroud at #9 if he were somehow available there, regardless of their draft philosophy.

 

Correct. Which is why I've always found the "BPA" takes irritating. People didn't really mean it, they would just say it if it happened to fit the argument for whatever player they wanted to draft or draft pick they wanted to defend in the moment.

 

But at least now I know that *they* know they don't mean it, that you're supposed to adjust for "nuance" to whatever seems obvious regardless of what was said. I'm working on adjusting to that.

 

BPA means don't reach for poor value in the name of need

 

That's ... tautological. You should never take poor value. That's baked into the definition of poor value.

 

But in baseball, you should absolutely take best player available with zero regard for position. Same with hockey. I dunno a ton about basketball but I'm pretty sure you do there too. So BPA does mean BPA in those sports.

[raw]

BPA is in the eye of the beholder, so obviously need goes into it, even if subconsciously. But when you need a certain position, you can justify taking a that player by saying, "oh he was the best on our board" even if we know it's clearly nonsense. We saw the Cowboys draft board leak last year and they passed up their last guy with a 1st round grade, who was a safety (can't remember who, maybe Georgia kid?) and picked an offensive lineman who was their top 2nd round grade. Because position value came into play as well as need.

 

My whole point about taking a WR at 9 is that I don't think any WR in this draft class would be the best player available with the 9th pick. And now that you added a WR by literally insisting he be included in the trade and it getting done ASAP instead of waiting anywhere near draft day, you don't have the justification to draft a WR at 9 who, IMO likely isn't even arguably the BPA in any scenario there.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

BPA is in the eye of the beholder, so obviously need goes into it, even if subconsciously. But when you need a certain position, you can justify taking a that player by saying, "oh he was the best on our board" even if we know it's clearly nonsense. We saw the Cowboys draft board leak last year and they passed up their last guy with a 1st round grade, who was a safety (can't remember who, maybe Georgia kid?) and picked an offensive lineman who was their top 2nd round grade. Because position value came into play as well as need.

 

My whole point about taking a WR at 9 is that I don't think any WR in this draft class would be the best player available with the 9th pick. And now that you added a WR by literally insisting he be included in the trade and it getting done ASAP instead of waiting anywhere near draft day, you don't have the justification to draft a WR at 9 who, IMO likely isn't even arguably the BPA in any scenario there.

 

Bringing it back to the actual discussion, yeah, I'm 100% fine with "I don't like any of these receivers enough to pick them over other players likely to be available at No. 9."

 

I don't pretend to be enough of a scout to have opinions on exactly how to slot the players in the back of the top 10 of the draft.

 

I just don't think that the combination of Moore/Mooney/Claypool, two of whom are in contract years, would be enough to make me pass on a WR if that was who they liked most at no. 9.