jumbo

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.

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

while being as careful as I can not to read his posts too closely, he said mooney isn't an outside guy Use the "mute" tool, that's what I do

I totally agree on the BPA comments. I just think last draft Poles had the flexibility of holes all over the roster to not "remove" a position group from the board. I was hoping for a WR and OL with the two second rounders last year and was upset when they didn't sign any notable OL (I wanted the Saints T that went to Miami, blanking on his name). At this point the first rounder basically has to be a T to avoid a massive hole on the roster.

I think Poles and his scouts built a board and religiously stuck to it. Those picks were the top guys on their board when their turn came up. Poles seems so committed to a good process that I don't think he would veer off course with the first few picks in his career. It should also be said that their board was edited based on what Flus/Getsy likes in various positions based on the intended scheme. Additionally, Poles selected very athletic players (the OL specifically were all high RAS guys) in the draft and that has continued into this free agnecy. His FA selections were all 28 or under, most were 27 and under, prioritizing young players. Not sure what you mean about trading the 2nd rounders in the last draft? You mean trade back a few picks and still get the same guy along with a later round pick? At the time I remember thinking that he should trade back in the second if he could get another 3rd. Maybe trade back and get a fourth with the other. He ended up trading back three times and picking up a few picks, but all were late rounders. One of the fifth rounders was Braxton so that's a vote for the volume concept of drafting. I can't predict who would have been available so I wasn't suggesting he could have traded those picks and still got Gordon and Brisker; rather that I would have traded back and taken BPA. I just felt that we could have stacked more capital and the roster was so bare that there was no need to prioritize any specific positions. Sent from my motorola one 5G UW using Tapatalk I get it. I was glad to see the trade backs to pick up more picks, but I agree that we could have added some earlier round picks by trading back the twos. We'll see how much Poles continues to trade back. I think until they get a little closer to a full team without holes they shouldn't trade up a whole lot.

I'd be more comfortable with this argument if I hadn't said it at this time last year, and then we went DB-DB-KR with our top picks and the cap casualties sucked (as they tend to do) and then Fields had his second year derailed by the worst sack rate in history. Im still of the opinion that neither Gordon, Brisker, or Velus needed to be taken when they were and I would have traded those 2 2nd round picks for sure, so I'm with you on sharing that frustration and angst. But he's filled in the floor decently well this time around and set himself up to where I don't see any way he doesn't hammer the lines hard in the first few rounds. Eberflus obviously has a decent amount of influence and I think he played a major part in those first 2 selections. Poles acquiesced possibly not wanting to make waves in a partnership that was just forged. IDK. FWIW, Fields is the reason for the worst sack rate in history. I think it's fair to state that. It would have been BAD but he made it historically bad, not the line, even accounting for the malpractice of making Mustipher the starting C. But Poles absolutely could have done more to improve that OL. However would we have the draft capital we have now... Likely hell no. So it is what it is and hopefully we will benefit from the negligence. Sent from my motorola one 5G UW using Tapatalk I think Poles and his scouts built a board and religiously stuck to it. Those picks were the top guys on their board when their turn came up. Poles seems so committed to a good process that I don't think he would veer off course with the first few picks in his career. It should also be said that their board was edited based on what Flus/Getsy likes in various positions based on the intended scheme. Additionally, Poles selected very athletic players (the OL specifically were all high RAS guys) in the draft and that has continued into this free agnecy. His FA selections were all 28 or under, most were 27 and under, prioritizing young players. Not sure what you mean about trading the 2nd rounders in the last draft? You mean trade back a few picks and still get the same guy along with a later round pick? At the time I remember thinking that he should trade back in the second if he could get another 3rd. Maybe trade back and get a fourth with the other. He ended up trading back three times and picking up a few picks, but all were late rounders. One of the fifth rounders was Braxton so that's a vote for the volume concept of drafting.

I don't blame him for moving when he had the chance. I don't think he was going to end up stuck with the pick, but you never know if the offers would have gotten smaller later. I'm sure its easier for him to move through FA and the rest of the draft process with this out of the way. I'm really happy to get Moore; that makes the deal for me (not that he wouldn't have been included in another trade). I watched a bunch of his highlight videos and he is pretty good at everything. He can high point it, goes over the middle, breaks tackles like a Deebo lite, has really good speed (not elite but very good - 4.42 40) and is really good with the ball in his hands. Most importantly he both gets open and can make contested catches. Fields should be comfortable chucking it up to him.

I don’t want them to get rid of him either. But they’ve had a target on him from day one and tried to get rid of him all last summer. I’m not saying he can’t switch sides, but it is a position change and not as meaningless as you suggest. It just strikes me that with four other positions less settled than RG, the one lineman they sign is a RG, and the incumbent RG just so happens to be a guy they tried to run out of town already. As raw pointed out maybe that’s just because he was the best available interior linemen that meets their criteria. Some poeple are speculating that Whitehair will be cut with Davis signed. I hope that doesn't happen. I'm not sure Whitehair is the best option, but given that players miss games I'd be happy to line him up at LG and have Jenkins available on a rookie contract to back up. Or switch them, I don't care, but don't put Jatyre Carter in when one of them goes down. I also think Patrick sucked balls all last year. I know he was hurt multiple times, but he was not great. So I hope he's not viewed as a starter in any way going forward. I hope I'm wrong and he is capable.

I was worried that was going to be your take. I would have said going into the off season that the Bears biggest holes were in the trenches, even more than WR. So far we haven't done a ton to change that. While they could focus heavily on this in the draft, I don't want the Bears to be in a position where they have to take OL and DL instead of BPA. I watched a YouTube video from a guy I follow on Twitter (didn't know he had his own YouTube channel until today). He's a Titans fan and he made me feel much better about Nate Davis. He thinks he's still an ascending player and he did say he became a really good pass blocker since midway thru 2021 and had his best PFF pass blocking grade this year, before getting injured late in the season. So, I could make that a solid B with potential to be a B+ I saw a good video of him climbing off duo to the second level and he was pretty nimble. I think he’ll do well in the zone blocking scheme. I expect at least a couple DL/Edge signings, at least one more OL On defense the whole line needs a talent boost, but you could make the case that the back seven only really needs a CB at this point. Offense obviously still needs some line upgrades, but receivers are there and a RB decision on Montgomery/FA is probably it. Maybe another wr and another te

It was mainly a curiousity on my part, I don't expect the team to trade him as they likely won't get the same high 2nd that they gave up to get him. The main reason I wondered about it is that Mooney and Claypool are FA after this year. You can pick one or the other to extend, but I kind of like the idea of picking up JSN so that there is another fixture in the receiving room. If Claypool (who claimed he is/could be a top 3 reciever in the league) wants some stupid amount of money it ends up being a 1.5 year rental for a pretty high pick. If you could recoup some of that capital it might make sense. I totally get being happy to have lots of receivers, especially with tools and past production.

I can’t help but wonder if trading Claypool is back on the table. The lack of WR available might push up his value, though not to the bears 2nd that they traded for him. Picking up Moore obviously changes the receiver room, and if JSN was the pick I could see Claypool being expendable for a second rounder. Maybe it’s not realistic or just a terrible idea, but it keeps coming to mind.

What if you could play a round of golf in 2.5 hours consistently? Would that be too far? I don't think that is a fair comparison. For the players, it's great, but at some point it likely becomes a negative for the fans if games are consistently clocking in shorter than any other major sport. And this isn't really our concern, but what does it do to advertising revenue when there is 30-45 minutes less of live game content each night? I guess we'll see how it plays out over time. I still like it for the most part, but I have some concerns with how significantly the games are being shortened. Whether or not it’s a fair comparison, I don’t know. But what if you could drive to work in less time? Wouldn’t that be better for you? Doing anything you want to do with more time freedom seems better to me. I don’t care about advertisers or owners.

What if you could play a round of golf in 2.5 hours consistently? Would that be too far?

I saw someone on Twitter say that the Jets should insist on getting a '24 second round pick from Green Bay that voids if he plays the '24 season. Essentially insurance against Rodgers retiring after one year This concludes what I know about the situation. I hate the QB (don't even want to type his name again) for trying to get the media to hang on his every action/word/movement every offseason. He might be the biggest attention whore out there, depending on your view of Musk and Trump, and I hate him

That's what I want at this point. I'm taking a guess that Carolina is the team they are talking about that might be offering this year's first, second and third, next year's first, second and third and then the first in 2025. If someone is offering that, how can you say no? Hell, I'd take that without the 2024 second and third. I seriously doubt they can get that much, but it is going to be fun watching the process play out these next few months. I'd love to know the 4 teams. I guess Carolina, Las Vegas, Indi, and the Texans. Someone said Titans a while back, I could see it

I love "shelter in place for the combine" raw

Congrats, Tim. Hope you got a big pile of cash out of this

Im not sure if Aaron Wilson is a real NFL reporter, but he tweeted that Muhammad (#55) was released I didn't see it elsewhere, but I only really look at Rotoworld and they are sort of fantasy focused but tend to report most transactions I wouldn't miss him if true

It is amazing that he had to answer that question. Sounds like it didn't come up in the interview process...

Is Payton's personality at all like Parcells'? I believe he coached under Bill when he was the Dallas HC, I wonder if he has any of the "dictator" type personality that Parcells had (use your own best work to describe him, that's the first thing that came to mind)

I think Indy has to trade up. They risk getting the 4th best QB if they sit still. Houston is taking a QB. Bears are trading down with someone. AZ could trade down also if they are offered a crazy package for the 3rd pick and the last of the top 3 QB prospects. I think the Indy pick is one of the best picks the Bears can get. They have a chance to get the best player in the draft this year and next year as I think the Colts will have a tough year. If I'm Poles, I try to get as much out of Indy as I can. If AZ doesn't trade down and takes the guy the Bears covet, they can then consider dropping back again to the team that wants that last top QB prospect. In other words, I feel like the Bears will be in another great spot to trade back a second time (or even a third time if they swapped with Houston, although highly unlikely). Yeah, Colts are an ideal trade partner. It makes so much sense. Division foe that needs a QB is sitting at 2. Years of vet QBs who haven't worked out. Likely going with an offensive coach (thinking Eagles OC gets the job, hence why no hire yet). They really need an identity as a franchise. And they have had good luck (pun intended) with drafting QBs at #1. Plus from the Bears perspective, they could be top 10 bad again next year. Also, as you said, if the Bears really like Carter and/or Anderson it gives them a shot to get either with a trade back. That being said, I think Carolina has close to the same level of desperation. Even down to a division foe potentially getting the QB they want as Tampa and Atlanta could trade up as well (NO has no 1st). Less obvious path to their division foe getting their guy, but also less obvious path to actually sit still and get their guy than the Colts. And if moving down from 1 to 9, you're talking potentially getting an absolute mint for the pick. Poles said he wants value, and if he's not sold on the top guys in this draft, this could be a more desirable trade. I've thought about this and wondering how much less Poles might take to stay at 4 with Indy versus trading further down. Similar idea to Houston. The only reason I wondered this is because of teams not being in love enough with a clear top QB to pay up for the trade. But, as they say, it just takes one, so they'll likely be able to make some kind of trade. If they can get firsts in 24 and 25 with some other picks I think you just have to do it. Carter and Anderson are still prospects who have to pan out and I don't think you can give up that opportunity for either of them.

I will be royally pissed if we do not sign Payne if he's available. Clear need, young proven stud, lots of space. Guys like him don't hit the market more often than not. Can't afford to punt two offseasons in a row on some absurd value principle. It's not absurd at all. And there will be 30 other teams trying to sign him. It makes no sense to be pissed off if Payne decides to pick Miami over playing over Chicago or something. Just setting yourself up to be disappointed. But yeah, I explained the value thing. I don't think you are clear on what I am saying. Value does not mean, cheap. I get what you're saying. I realize he can choose another destination and every GM will have his limit as far as what they would spend on player X out there. I should have said I'd be pissed if they don't make a serious run at him or whoever the top players are that actually hit FA. We have the need at almost every position and the money and need to be flexible and add the best talent available. I'd rather pay the top player at their position and set the market (or non-Donald market in this case) than overpay a second tier player that you're dreaming on turning into the guy. Not really in response to anything, but I didn't intend to say that the Bears are cheap. I think they've spent plenty and let their GMs do what they want. I never bought the meddling owner conspriacy that is out there either.

I will be royally pissed if we do not sign Payne if he's available. Clear need, young proven stud, lots of space. Guys like him don't hit the market more often than not. Can't afford to punt two offseasons in a row on some absurd value principle.

Have you seen his new girlfriend?

Good read. I’d love it if the bears got Anderson then a solid 3 technique right after. Are you the scoring report analyst?