raw

Bosa (either one) was not an obvious home run I have to admit, I might be wrong about Anderson. David pointed out that Carter was drawing "Darnold" comparisons and last season, Carter was clearly stronger than Anderson. How far would the Bers drop before you would feel comfortable still getting Carter? If they don't go sign someone like Payne, I would be fine if they drafted him at 1 if they felt he was the BPA and for some reason a trade fell through. They still have to be proven wrong at this point whether they can be trusted even in hypotheticals. Eh, there's really no excuse to pick a player with the #1 pick. They have to trade it, whether they get a huge package or not, they should at least get 2-3 top 100 picks. They have to take that over a non-consensus #1 pick. That being said, I think Will Anderson may be a Bosa level talent. He's definitely similar to Joey in recruiting rankings in their respective years. Nick was a top 5 recruit by most publications, but Anderson was a 5-star as well and top 50. Anderson also has put up double digit sacks in the last 2 years in the best conference in college football. He's really damn good.

He's the best guard in this draft. Could argue the best lineman, IMO, if Skoronski's short arms move him to the interior. One thing about him is he's HUGE. 347lbs is his listed weight. The Bears have talked about wanting smaller, athletic linemen to run their outside zone scheme. But Torrence is really good. Even if he lost like 15-20lbs though, he'd still be on the bigger side for what the Bears like. I'm not sure if he'll be truly on their radar, but if he can move well enough at the combine, I don't see why they couldn't make it work. He's played both LG and RG and with this length, if he shows the footwork, I wouldn't be surprised if he could be a solid RT.

Yeah, I'm going to guess this will be similar. I kind of feel bad for the rest of the QBs in the AFC, because the conference is loaded with young talent. Herbert- does he repeat Philip Rivers and be good, but always on the outside looking in? Jackson- if he stays, he's on one of the best run, well coached organizations in the sport Tua- he's shown what he can do when healthy and has weapons Pickett- may never be great, but his coach has never had a losing season, so he will get his shots Lawrence- a better prospect than all of them, now has good coaching, but tough place to win And that doesn't include young guys like Watson (who has a passing title last time he played a full season) or the 1-2 picks in the draft that will potentially be QBs in Indianapolis and Houston or potentially the Jets if they can somehow make something out of Zach Wilson.

No That doesn’t mean it’s not a good pick or a successful draft, but when you have #1 and don’t need a qb but do need a ton of other stuff, you need to do something more than draft defense at the top and wait until pick 56 to grab an offensive player. Yep, even an underwhelming package of picks is better than sticking at 1 to me. The Bears will never have anything more valuable that they actually want to give up than the #1 pick. It's like finding a Van Gogh painting in your basement and not getting what you want from an art buyer and just hanging it in your house.

I think Levis #1 could help the value, it really depends if teams see an issue with Young's size. Granted, there is Stroud in the draft as well. Second question is pretty interesting. We saw first hand what it took to move up 1 spot for Trubisky. I would think 2 to 1 would require a little more than 3 to 2, simply because it's the #1 pick and there is value in taking whoever you want and the value of each pick diminishes with 1 fewer player to pick from. But we also saw the Niners make a huge trade up to get to 3 a couple years ago. Granted, they came up from further away (12), but there's also value in demand increase as the supply of 1 QB goes off the board. I think if the Texans did move up from 2 to 1, if the Bears wanted to trade down again, it'd probably be more like trading beyond the 4th pick. I think the Texans moving up to presumably stop the Colts from getting their guy would mean teams after the Colts would also look to trading ahead of them. Of course, the Colts could move up to ensure it doesn't happen again. So, I do think there is more value in trading down twice in general. You'd get a little less from the Colts from 4 to 2, but I think what you'd get from the Texans would put the double trade down over the top. I think you can get 4 top 100 picks from the Colts. Even if that goes down to 3 picks, if they're now going to 2 instead of 1. I think you get 2-3 picks from Houston in the top 100 as well. Instead of all 1sts and 2nds, maybe they're 3rds mixed in as well. But I do think the package would be greater.

I mean if there was a consensus prospect on the level of Lawrence we probably would be having a real trade Fields conversation. But if we presume something a little less generational, but still consensus, like a Stafford? I think I'd rather have a clear consensus #1. Without benefit of hindsight is this the 2018-lite draft class? That one didn't have a clear consensus #1. Had a couple of college studs (two former Heisman winners), but valuations were all over the place on guys. 5 ended up in the first round with 4 in the first 10, and 4 of the 5 involved trades. Of course the first pick wasn't traded being it was the QB needy Browns. Or even 2017 with three non-consensus QBs, and all 3 were traded up for. Soo you don't need consensus to get lots of trade activity, but do you need it to drive trade activity all the way up to 1? Edit maybe it's like 2016-heavy which also lacked a clear consensus, but was shallower with only 2 FR QBs but both were traded up 1-2. Did lack of supply help there? Is 3 (maybe 4?) too much supply? The biggest factor is the Texans being at #2, and the Bears being obvious sellers. I think the Bears clearly selling in general lowers the value of the #1 pick. It should still be a decent haul though, because it's still the #1 pick. Maybe more if there is a consensus, but I think that would actually mean fewer candidates because the cost would be more prohibitive.

This feels like a good place for that Star Wars meme.

Laviska Shenault is Velus Jones, the prequel. No thanks. He was traded by the Jags this year for nothing, he has 0 value.....which seems to be accounted for with all the other picks, but still.

Real ones own both charcoal and propane. Propane for easy, quick cooking. Charcoal for slower, more flavorful cooking. I didn't use either very much last year though. Unfortunately. But back to football talk, Luke Getsy is the head coach of the American team in the Reese's Senior Bowl. Huge opportunity to get hands-on scouting of some of the top prospects.

There's 0 chance I'm buying that the Colts love Will Levis today enough to be willing to know they are ready to move up for #1 him. The season just ended last week. They didn't even know they would have a chance to trade to #1 until middle of Sunday afternoon. And they haven't even legally spoken to Levis yet. It's possible they are in love with the size and the arm strength, but there's no way they can decide to make a franchise altering trade for him a week after the season based on his college tape. Nor can they be ready to make that decision before they even interview or workout the guy. He could be a bumbling idiot in interviews and put up a single digit Wonderlic. It's way too early for anyone to be enamored with anyone.

Richard Dawson was unavailable.

Day 1 is only the 1st round. They aren't getting 4-5 1st round picks

I get the concern of going defense again but Fields was starting to put up points. If we had a defense to prevent the same from happening to us it would be beneficial. Also i am not a fan of takign wr in 1st round unless he looks like Calvin Johnson and you know hes a HR. Lots of good receivers come out of rounds 3-5. Just need to pick the right one. Best WRs still come out of Round 1. Actually, best everything come out of Round 1. That's probably a large reason why they got in Round 1 in the first place. The Bears couldn't continue to put up those points because the offense where you run 40 times, throw 20, and pray for record breaking rushing performance from your QB was not sustainable. Defense does need a TON of help, but mostly they need to stay out of the way. Take the ball away some times, but most of all, the offense needs to be good enough to either keep them off the field or make the other team 1-dimensional because they got a lead on the other team. Honestly, had the Bears simply kept Roquan Smith, they probably would have been good enough on defense to potentially win all of the first 3 games after the trade where they lost by a total of 7 points. Based on the improvements the Ravens D had with him and the downgrades the Bears suffered without him, it's reasonable that 1 off-ball LB could have won this team 2-3 extra games. Add a top 10 pick and a good bit of the 120M cap space on defense, and there's no reason they can't be good enough while still giving the offense some young talent in the draft.

Welcome. I really don't want to be in a situation where the Bears take defensive players with their first 2 picks 2 years in a row. I love some of those names (not Bresee) and Witherspoon is a stud who I'd love to have. But it would be somewhat of a crime if the Bears don't add some young offensive help early for Fields really soon. I understand defense top 10, because that's where the value is, but after that, you have to take offense. The only offensive help they gave Justin last year was a 5th round LT and Velus who is like 3 years older than Fields.

The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own. Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case. I reminds me of my mother-in-law's shopping strategy in the super market. She was born and raised outside of Manila and moved here in her 30's, so much of American life was learn-on-the-fly. Essentially, she would walk around and watch what other people bought and buy those items, judging if they were popular they must be good. I dont think its a great way to grocery shop OR evaluate your NFL QB, she could quickly over-buy inferior products and in Poles case, walk away from a better QB prospect for the sake of misguided perceptions LOL. I thought this was going to be a horrible story and analogy based on the 1st sentence, but it's actually not bad.

Agreed. I feel like it's a ratings thing in an industry (sports media) that makes money on hot takes. Everyone was saying all season when Fields was putting up highlight plays every week how he was great and the Bears needed to get him some help. Now the same people are saying the opposite for shock value. I feel like if he had a 50 yard run or a beautiful deep ball completion against Detroit Week 17. Or even something as simple as if Houston had lost and the Bears had the #2 pick, nobody would be talking about replacing him with another QB. Even still, I feel like the ones saying that are being disingenuous. yeah... at least, other than lesean mccoy lol McCoy went to high school near me. Aliquippa. Let's just say, that school doesn't focus on academics much.

Figured I'd start a thread to discuss WC games. Saturday, Jan. 14 Seattle Seahawks @ San Francisco 49ers, 4:30PM EST, FOX LA Chargers @ Jacksonville Jaguars, 8:15PM EST, NBC Sunday, Jan 15 Miami Dolphins @ Buffalo Bills, 1PM EST, CBS NY Giants @ Minnesota Vikings, 4:30PM EST, FOX Baltimore Ravens @ Cincinnati Bengals, 8:15PM EST, NBC Monday, Jan 16 Dallas Cowboys @ Tampa Bay Bucs, 8:15PM EST, ESPN/ABC Home teams win every game. Discuss.

Aside from the occasional hot take artist, I’m not seeing this at all. The general sentiment is that they have their quarterback and need to find a way to surround him with better weapons and a line all while restocking a pathetic defense. Agreed. I feel like it's a ratings thing in an industry (sports media) that makes money on hot takes. Everyone was saying all season when Fields was putting up highlight plays every week how he was great and the Bears needed to get him some help. Now the same people are saying the opposite for shock value. I feel like if he had a 50 yard run or a beautiful deep ball completion against Detroit Week 17. Or even something as simple as if Houston had lost and the Bears had the #2 pick, nobody would be talking about replacing him with another QB. Even still, I feel like the ones saying that are being disingenuous.

It's funny, because I never feel like anyone talks about Lamar Jackson's lack of support either. Granted, he has a great OL and a strong defense. But so does Aaron Rodgers and all we heard was "Rodgers doesn't have enough weapons". Rodgers had Lazard, Sammy Watkins, his handpicked safety blanket in Cobb, and they drafted a pair of WRs, including 1 early. Lamar went into the season with Rashod Bateman, who granted was a 1st round pick in 2021, but then they had Demarcus Robinson and glorified Velus Jones, Devin Duvernay. They also traded their #1 WR in the offseason, and I didn't hear a bunch of "they had to trade him because they couldn't pay him and Lamar" like the talking heads say about Rodgers/Adams.

Or not. #-o Such a promising season down the drain.

Yes. This! Saw a tweet that said they should trade a 3rd for Hopkins then get an extra 1st from trading down this year and use on Marvin Harrison Jr., even if you have to trade up next year. Not only would you be trading a 3rd for a WR, after trading a 2nd for Claypool, but now you want to potentially take a WR 1 the following year, maybe even giving up multiple 1sts.....but if you want Hopkins because "Justin needs a #1" and you still need Harrison Jr next year, then maybe Hopkins ain't the guy you thought he was. I'm all about getting weapons. And I know the Eagles gave up a 1 for AJ Brown after using a 1 on Smith. But they didn't do it also after trading the highest possible 2nd on Claypool, nor did they have a Mooney already in house. And I understand guys will be out of contract soon (Claypool, potentially Hopkins) but feels like overkill maybe, when you don't have an offensive line, or a defense.

Really comes down to contract expectations for me. If it's basically guaranteeing his 23/24 and tacks on some new unguaranteed for his age 33/34 at a lower base, I'm okay with that level of risk I think (dependent on draft comp required) Yeah, I just don't see any way all of that stuff lines up. Plus, there's a greater than 0 chance he starts falling off as soon as next year as WRs tend to fall off a cliff after 30.

No interest in Hopkins for me. 31 year old WR (next time he takes the field), who wants a new contract. Yeah, count me out on trading anything of value for him and paying him a bunch of money thru his mid 30s.

I was just using last year's Day 3 trades as evidence that Poles knows they need multiple players. I don't expect him to add 9 guys on Day 3 again. But I think he will use the same approach now with upper level talent. Last year, he was throwing horsefeathers at the wind. This year, a trade down would be building the top of the roster, long term. But just using other teams actions as an example, early round pick treatment isn't necessarily congruent with late round treatment. And frankly he needs less players now. The bottom of roster building has gone *okay*. He still needs to get a few stars. Unless he's trading for assets to in turn trade back for vet stars, I'm not super confident he'll go into crazy pick asset acquisition mode. There's still a pretty big difference from top 10 to next 10. I don't agree he needs fewer players now. But I wasn't trying to imply that he's looking to add quantity like last year. He's obviously going to want to add quality players. But the key is that "s". He has 1 quality player if he stays at 1. The next pick isn't going to be until the mid-to-late 50s. The best way to get multiple quality players is to have a quantity of early picks. The best way to get a quantity of early picks is to trade the most valuable one.

I was just using last year's Day 3 trades as evidence that Poles knows they need multiple players. I don't expect him to add 9 guys on Day 3 again. But I think he will use the same approach now with upper level talent. Last year, he was throwing horsefeathers at the wind. This year, a trade down would be building the top of the roster, long term.