With the 8th pick in the NFL Draft the Chicago Bears select?

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
507
I'm not advocating taking Nelson but he's an excellent prospect. However, any time you can radically improve your o-line it's worth the consideration.

The Bears two best O-lineman are guards; how much better than Long or Sitton do you think this guy is? The easiest way to get better in the league is to go from bad players to ok players; it's really hard to get better if you're saying that you want to go from good players to great ones. That would be my problem with anyone at guard and especially with Leno and Massie at tackles. I don't care if this guy is Marshall Yanda, the O-line wouldn't be that much better with him over what they already have.
 

PeterMbangala

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 25, 2015
Posts:
2,747
Liked Posts:
1,391
Location:
Te Anau, NZ
The Bears two best O-lineman are guards; how much better than Long or Sitton do you think this guy is? The easiest way to get better in the league is to go from bad players to ok players; it's really hard to get better if you're saying that you want to go from good players to great ones. That would be my problem with anyone at guard and especially with Leno and Massie at tackles. I don't care if this guy is Marshall Yanda, the O-line wouldn't be that much better with him over what they already have.

Sitton is close to done and Long has been really banged up. Nelson > Compton.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
507
Sitton is close to done and Long has been really banged up. Nelson > Compton.

But when they've played, they've played well enough. Sure they're not all-pros but you're never saying "boy if the team had better guards then they could do X, Y, and Z on offense". Drafting a guy at eight, regardless of position, has to drastically improve your football team. It's too good an asset to waste to just get a good player. The reason the Martin and other comparisons don't hold water is two fold

- One, Martin went in the early 20s
- Two, Martin's selection took the Cowboys offensive line and allowed them to build a system of running whatever style of offense they wanted and protected an incredibly injury prone asset in Tony Romo AND allowed for Romo's replacement to not worry about pressure if Romo got hurt

If someone could advocate how any guard makes the offensive line as a unit that much better than it impacts the rest of the team, I'd buy the argument but just saying "hey, this guy could be a good guard so take him" screams of a waste. The Bears aren't missing good guard play from their team and they're offensive line isn't a HOF level guard away from being any different so I don't even know what value any guard would have even if they maxed out their potential.
 

SugarWalls

Well-known member
Joined:
Sep 17, 2013
Posts:
5,987
Liked Posts:
6,373
Considering the chiefs and Texans trade ups we saw for QB’s last year I would not say that pick 8-12 is out of range for a trade down.

I the bears are looking at pick 10 I’d be okay with an OT or Nelson.
 

ping001

New member
Joined:
Apr 22, 2014
Posts:
148
Liked Posts:
18
Dont overlook Cameron Sutton in the 10-15 range, he is ranked #2 WR on most draft boards and have been very productive last 2 years. He has good size at 6"4 210 pds, but his speed will be the x-factor. Not ranking him higher than Ridley or McGinchly , but he should be in the mix come draft time.
 

bearsfan1977

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 23, 2016
Posts:
2,912
Liked Posts:
2,989
The Bears two best O-lineman are guards; how much better than Long or Sitton do you think this guy is? The easiest way to get better in the league is to go from bad players to ok players; it's really hard to get better if you're saying that you want to go from good players to great ones. That would be my problem with anyone at guard and especially with Leno and Massie at tackles. I don't care if this guy is Marshall Yanda, the O-line wouldn't be that much better with him over what they already have.

I understand your argument, I just disagree. Q. Nelson destroys human life on every snap, and can get to the second level with ease. As far as Long and Sitton-Sitton is aging quickly and may not be here next year. Kyle Long is now battling a host of injuries and we have an out after next year in his contract.

As far as skill-I think he is/will be better than both of them. C and Guards are very critical in a zone blocking scheme. I disagree with your point that its hard to get better by going from good players to great players. That's exactly how you get better in this league and win games that could be decided by a score or less. And if we did have Marshall Yanda-of course this O-line would be much better than what we already have.

I'm not saying take Q. Nelson over Chubb, or vice-versa. But a solid interior OL will prevent pressure from screaming up in Trubs' face, and will open up holes in the zone scheme. Its part of what has made Drew Brees so great (besides being incredibly gifted).

Ask the Cowboys if Zeke would have gone off last year if they had had Grasu at C and T. Compton at G, instead of Frederick and Z. Martin.
 

Big Tyme D

Active member
Joined:
Sep 12, 2010
Posts:
425
Liked Posts:
341
After watching the last Bears game... it gave me thought to consider for the first time in a long time that... 'wow'...we may be back to out usual draft range trying to select the best of the rest.

To that end... the team's needs haven't changed. BPA with position in mind... OLB, DB, WR and then OL The team is looking more likely to be picking in the 5-10 range now (1-2 over final three games.. but 2-1 wouldn't surprise) This actually puts them in the range to still have choice of a significant player. Chubbs is the only player who the team may realistically be look at who should be off the board prior to picking.
 

DanTown

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2009
Posts:
2,446
Liked Posts:
507
I understand your argument, I just disagree. Q. Nelson destroys human life on every snap, and can get to the second level with ease. As far as Long and Sitton-Sitton is aging quickly and may not be here next year. Kyle Long is now battling a host of injuries and we have an out after next year in his contract.

As far as skill-I think he is/will be better than both of them. C and Guards are very critical in a zone blocking scheme. I disagree with your point that its hard to get better by going from good players to great players. That's exactly how you get better in this league and win games that could be decided by a score or less. And if we did have Marshall Yanda-of course this O-line would be much better than what we already have.

I'm not saying take Q. Nelson over Chubb, or vice-versa. But a solid interior OL will prevent pressure from screaming up in Trubs' face, and will open up holes in the zone scheme. Its part of what has made Drew Brees so great (besides being incredibly gifted).

Ask the Cowboys if Zeke would have gone off last year if they had had Grasu at C and T. Compton at G, instead of Frederick and Z. Martin.

How good did Martin look in the games they played with Tyron Smith? You can talk all you want about how Zach Martin is the lynchpin but with Martin in the lineup and with Smith out they looked woefully inept. They couldn't block Adrian Clayborn 1-1. Even with a great guard you're still talking about at best average tackles.

I question the idea that teams get better going good to great because it's an asset that doesn't address the players on the roster who are not good and it's so hard to find truly great players. When you look at the teams around the league who pop and have surprising years (i.e Rams), it's built around a WR of Woods/Watkins/Cupp with the same QB and RB instead of Britt/Austin/Quick. I don't see value in upgrading from Sitton or Long while keeping Massie. It doesn't change your system. You're already an offense built around good interior play so you're basically keeping what you have now, not upgrading the team. The Martin pick was an upgrade for the Cowboys, as you just suggested. I don't see Sitton or Long either going anywhere or falling a cliff in terms of their play to the level that the Bears should spend a top 10 pick to keep a guard paired next to average tackles.
 

gallagher

Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
6,242
Liked Posts:
5,496
Location:
Semi-Nomadic
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
I love Ridley, but does he have the physical tools to go that high?

He passes the eye test for me. He looks to be fast enough to compete, he is tall enough to be an outside receiver, and his hands are better than good.

What makes him worth it to take him that high is that he is a as well polished of a route runner that you can have out of a college kid. That is something this team is clearly lacking. He'd be the best receiver on the team right now if we had him (though I guess that doesn't say much).

If it isn't Ridley, it better be a pass rusher in my book. I'm all for adding to our OL in the draft, but I think we double down on linemen in the 4th
 

bears51/40

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
4,333
Liked Posts:
3,320
But when they've played, they've played well enough. Sure they're not all-pros but you're never saying "boy if the team had better guards then they could do X, Y, and Z on offense". Drafting a guy at eight, regardless of position, has to drastically improve your football team. It's too good an asset to waste to just get a good player. The reason the Martin and other comparisons don't hold water is two fold

- One, Martin went in the early 20s
- Two, Martin's selection took the Cowboys offensive line and allowed them to build a system of running whatever style of offense they wanted and protected an incredibly injury prone asset in Tony Romo AND allowed for Romo's replacement to not worry about pressure if Romo got hurt

If someone could advocate how any guard makes the offensive line as a unit that much better than it impacts the rest of the team, I'd buy the argument but just saying "hey, this guy could be a good guard so take him" screams of a waste. The Bears aren't missing good guard play from their team and they're offensive line isn't a HOF level guard away from being any different so I don't even know what value any guard would have even if they maxed out their potential.
Ok look at Brandon Scherff the fifth overall pick in 2015 as a guard. Three years in the league, a pro bowl player, one of the best linemen in the league. A rock in the middle of the Skins OL who has made his team better. The draft is about upgrading your team at every position, so if Nelson is the best player on the board, you take him even if you think you can get another year out of Sitton.
 

bearsfan1977

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 23, 2016
Posts:
2,912
Liked Posts:
2,989
How good did Martin look in the games they played with Tyron Smith? You can talk all you want about how Zach Martin is the lynchpin but with Martin in the lineup and with Smith out they looked woefully inept. They couldn't block Adrian Clayborn 1-1. Even with a great guard you're still talking about at best average tackles.

I question the idea that teams get better going good to great because it's an asset that doesn't address the players on the roster who are not good and it's so hard to find truly great players. When you look at the teams around the league who pop and have surprising years (i.e Rams), it's built around a WR of Woods/Watkins/Cupp with the same QB and RB instead of Britt/Austin/Quick. I don't see value in upgrading from Sitton or Long while keeping Massie. It doesn't change your system. You're already an offense built around good interior play so you're basically keeping what you have now, not upgrading the team. The Martin pick was an upgrade for the Cowboys, as you just suggested. I don't see Sitton or Long either going anywhere or falling a cliff in terms of their play to the level that the Bears should spend a top 10 pick to keep a guard paired next to average tackles.

Good points. I just disagree that we will be keeping Sitton and/or Long around that much longer. Sitton, for sure. Can Jordan Morgan step in and replace either with minimal drop-off? Perhaps. Kush probably can, if he is fully recovered. But OL (more than any other position group, I would argue) is built around continuity. Dallas built an elite OL. We can too. A lot of this depends on how well Long plays next year. And I am all in on replacing Massie-sooner the better. If Pace projects McGlinchey as a stud RT, I wouldn't hate that pick, either. Get an elite young OL that can grow with Trubisky. But I would bet anything that Sitton (and maybe Long) won't be here after next year. Sitton may not be here next year.

You're right-our WR corps is damn weak. But adding a Ridley wouldn't transform our offense. The Rams attacked that position from all angles-trade, FA, and draft. We should also. And I really like Ridley, and would be all for him in the 12-20 range. But I don't think he is a blue chip prospect, I think Q. Nelson is.

Pace should attack the WR with full force in the offseason. But the question is-what is the talent drop-off between a Nelson and another OG in the mid-rounds, and what is the difference between a Ridley and a Anthony Miller (or some other WR after Round 1).

My order if we are below pick 12: Chubb-Fitzpatrick-Nelson
Pick 12-20: Clelin Ferrell or Ridley.
 

Dragon Slayer

Formerly Hawkeye
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Mar 1, 2015
Posts:
33,022
Liked Posts:
39,607
Considering the chiefs and Texans trade ups we saw for QB’s last year I would not say that pick 8-12 is out of range for a trade down.

I the bears are looking at pick 10 I’d be okay with an OT or Nelson.

Agreed. I think Baker Mayfield will be on the board when we pick and I bet there will be a team willing to jump up for him.
 

dabears70

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 31, 2013
Posts:
33,795
Liked Posts:
-1,052
Location:
Orlando
My favorite teams
  1. New York Mets
  1. New York Knicks
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. New York Rangers
  1. Syracuse Orange
I keep saying we just need elite players.

The same argument I am making about Fitzpatrick. I think we have gotten solid safety play this year, but it is not like we have Eric Berry back there and to me that is what Fitz can be.

I love Fizpatrick but if he can't play SS and we know E.Jackson isn't a SS then it wouldn't be a great idea to draft him no matter how much we like him. I think he'd be a upgrade over E,Jackson but would almost be like wasting a pick in a way. Derwin James could play SS and he's gonna be a great player as well so i could get behind drafting him and having a great safety combo like Seattle has with E.Thomas and K.Chancelor.
 

playthrough2001

Monday Morning QB
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
12,300
Liked Posts:
14,036
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
But when they've played, they've played well enough. Sure they're not all-pros but you're never saying "boy if the team had better guards then they could do X, Y, and Z on offense". Drafting a guy at eight, regardless of position, has to drastically improve your football team. It's too good an asset to waste to just get a good player. The reason the Martin and other comparisons don't hold water is two fold

- One, Martin went in the early 20s
- Two, Martin's selection took the Cowboys offensive line and allowed them to build a system of running whatever style of offense they wanted and protected an incredibly injury prone asset in Tony Romo AND allowed for Romo's replacement to not worry about pressure if Romo got hurt

If someone could advocate how any guard makes the offensive line as a unit that much better than it impacts the rest of the team, I'd buy the argument but just saying "hey, this guy could be a good guard so take him" screams of a waste. The Bears aren't missing good guard play from their team and they're offensive line isn't a HOF level guard away from being any different so I don't even know what value any guard would have even if they maxed out their potential.

Martin went 16th.
 

dabears70

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 31, 2013
Posts:
33,795
Liked Posts:
-1,052
Location:
Orlando
My favorite teams
  1. New York Mets
  1. New York Knicks
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. New York Rangers
  1. Syracuse Orange
To me there are 3 elite non-QBs

Nelson
Chubb
Fitzpatrick

After that I think there are not really any "blue chip" or "can't miss" guys.

I can't remember who it was but i read that there's people that don't think B.Chubb would fit as a OLB in a 3-4 and would only fit as a DE in a 4-3. What say you??
 

RiDLer80

First time, long time.
Joined:
Feb 16, 2014
Posts:
3,782
Liked Posts:
3,334
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Miami Hurricanes
  2. Northern Illinois Huskies
I think at least two QBs go within the top two or three picks--Rosen and Darnold.
Minkah Fitzpatrick, Saquon Barkley (RBs are back in) will also probably go top 5.
Then maybe a pass rusher like Chubb or Key depending on draft boards.
Also one of the top OTs will go top 7, IMO--Connor Williams out of Texas or Mike McGlinchey.

That'll leave us with options like Denzel Ward out of Ohio State or Josh Jackson at CB.
Christian Wilkins is a beast out of Clemson. He would make our DL elite.

I think if we're at 8 Key will be available though. That'd be a solid pick, or Harold Landry.

Stay the fuck away from Derwin James, please.
 

WindyCity

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
Posts:
30,816
Liked Posts:
35,721
I can't remember who it was but i read that there's people that don't think B.Chubb would fit as a OLB in a 3-4 and would only fit as a DE in a 4-3. What say you??

If Pernell McPhee is athletic and fast enough to play the strongsids OLB, Chubb is more than capable.

We have Floyd to do the running around and harder coverage assignments.
 

WindyCity

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
Posts:
30,816
Liked Posts:
35,721
I am not sure how much we can rely on Long and Sitton.

Sitton is on the decline and has not been as good this season. Long is beat to shit right now. I am not 100% he regains his dominant form from that ankle injury.
 

Adipost

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Sep 28, 2014
Posts:
8,616
Liked Posts:
10,212
Location:
Chicago, IL
I am not sure how much we can rely on Long and Sitton.

Sitton is on the decline and has not been as good this season. Long is beat to shit right now. I am not 100% he regains his dominant form from that ankle injury.

Gordon-Ramsay-Doesnt-Approve.gif
 

Top