"He's not worth the 3rd overall pick"

playthrough2001

playthrough2001

Monday Morning QB
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
12,950
Liked Posts:
15,097
Location:
United Club
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Central Florida Knights
  2. TCU Horned Frogs
Garrett has elite traits and on the field production. However, he's not a sure thing either. He was a bit of a bum slayer at A&M. I realize he was hurt most of last year too. I certainly would take him at 3 but Barnett arguably had better production playing in the same conference.
 
Wild_x_Card

Wild_x_Card

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
13,847
Liked Posts:
13,931
Leave it to the bears to be historically bad in a year loaded with talent but a total lack of blue chippers.
 
Sculpt

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,599
Liked Posts:
2,951
nc0gnet0 said:
Worth should be first calculated based on what is available in that years draft, not prior years. Pure BPA is a myth, and positions of need always play a factor.
Click to expand...
Amen, brother.
 

Luke

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 25, 2016
Posts:
2,160
Liked Posts:
1,597
Wild_x_Card said:
Leave it to the bears to be historically bad in a year loaded with talent but a total lack of blue chippers.
Click to expand...

much like their last couple when they took Benson and the other when they traded back and got Haynes/grossman
 

Luke

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 25, 2016
Posts:
2,160
Liked Posts:
1,597
have to play the hand your dealt, plenty of top 10 talent to choose from.
 
Wild_x_Card

Wild_x_Card

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
13,847
Liked Posts:
13,931
A great example is OJ Howard. He is absolutely a blue chip talent but how do you justify a TE in the top 5? He'd have to be a center piece in your offense. Doable for a few teams but not many.
 

CHICAGOMIDWAYMONSTERS

New member
Joined:
Apr 3, 2016
Posts:
1,040
Liked Posts:
241
Wild_x_Card said:
A great example is OJ Howard. He is absolutely a blue chip talent but how do you justify a TE in the top 5? He'd have to be a center piece in your offense. Doable for a few teams but not many.
Click to expand...

Bears aren't winning anytime soon anyway, why not just take the best available player? Our WRs might not be too bad if we add a guy like OJ Howard. DB is deep this year, you can find a possible starter in the 3rd or 4th round.
 
Washington

Washington

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
3,784
Liked Posts:
2,752
DaYdAy69 said:
What kills me is 5 years from now the draft gets reordered based on results... x team should have drafted A instead of B. It's a fucking crapshoot. Get the guy you believe in. Let people bitch about where he is ranked vs where you drafted. You may have gotten one of the best players of the draft when it is reviewed.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Remember the whining when Long was picked? Most didn't see that coming at all and were like WTF. Once he proved he was worth a 1st round pick, there were no more complaints.
 
WindyCity

WindyCity

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
Posts:
30,816
Liked Posts:
35,721
Wild_x_Card said:
A great example is OJ Howard. He is absolutely a blue chip talent but how do you justify a TE in the top 5? He'd have to be a center piece in your offense. Doable for a few teams but not many.
Click to expand...

You say fuck it and pick a talented player.

If he is an All Pro TE no one is going to give a shit where he was drafted 3 years ago.
 
Sculpt

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,599
Liked Posts:
2,951
Big Tyme D said:
Only because I think that the QBs will actually slide qas they have in many drafts due to the fact that none of them are viewed as sure fire 1st round material... I don't want the team to reach for one at #3... but if they do.... then I would want them to take who I consider to have the best upside, Kizer. That being said... the team has been burned to many times taking players who had issues with injury or were reaches.. and.. I've never been too hot on players with only one year of starting.

Garrett would be the obvious pick if for some reason CLE and SF got stupid.... but after him... I think Hooker may be a slightly better S prospect coverage wise... but Adams, isn't far behind and brings some physicality and leadership qualities I think this team needs right now. I believe he would be better for the team. I'm all team Adams with this pick.... though high for a DB.... but none the less he's one of the best players in this years draft....... and you can only draft from what is available... and he is considered almost unanimously a top five prospect. Dont reach for a lesser player at another position because DBs shouldn't be taken so high... just do the right thing.

I know some are yelling for a QB.... but face it... any QB taken at #3 would be a reach... and would only be considered for a team desperate at QB. I belvie after picking up Glennon... Pace doesn't feel the deperate need for a QB now. Glennon had a decent rookie year but was caught up in the fact that Tampa was a bad team... and Lovie was not going to pass up on drafting a QB prospect like Winston... so he had to sit... while Winston was given the reigns. Pace likes him.. and at worst I think Pace will feel that Glennon takes away the desperation of having to draft a QB #3....... 2nd or 3rd round is would still be in play as QB could liley be BPA in those rounds.... but not with the third pick.
Click to expand...
I'm in favor of giving Glennon his full chance to ascend in 2017. Obviously that means if he's doing well he's remains the starter -- nobody takes out the hot hand.

However, that doesn't preclude taking a top QB when you're at #3 in the draft. Packers took Rogers when they had Farve. That's the right way to handle the essential position in football.


Add to that you're a team picking at #3, and yOu don't have a good established starting QB. You'd be obtuse not to be eyeing the best QB in the draft.


You're right, Glennon allows the Bears not to overreach for a QB to start 2017, and go for best potential (as opposed to flashy college accomplishments) like a Kyle Long. The QB prospects should be considered for slow good old fashioned franchise QB development.


In your pointing to Kiser, I'm not sure if you're specifying physical talents? I think the mental processing is the most important, as long as the base physical abilities are also there. I think NFL history bears that out clearly. (I'm no expert here, but I lean Trubisky.)


If Pace thinks any QB has excellent franchise potential, he should take him at #3. If not, than the BPA for a relative position of need, such as Garrett or Adams.
 
Monsieur Tirets

Monsieur Tirets

Well-known member
Joined:
Nov 8, 2012
Posts:
8,682
Liked Posts:
4,314
all i know is that due to paces allergy to talented receivers, wr is a huge need. yet again. especially considering shins cannot be counted on to be productive in the least.
 
WindyCity

WindyCity

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
Posts:
30,816
Liked Posts:
35,721
Wild_x_Card said:
Leave it to the bears to be historically bad in a year loaded with talent but a total lack of blue chippers.
Click to expand...

There are blue chip players.

People have just cut down the top guys because there is nothing better to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,884members
93,298threads
4,387,873posts
250online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 250 (members: 32, guests: 218)

Staff online NOW

Top