Ranking the 2022 NFL Draft class

bufordht

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
1,175
Liked Posts:
1,194
Location:
Home
The take sucks because they - writers for NFL.com - whine about the lack of picks to help Fields, and mention who we drafted as an afterthought.

Justin Fields is not the Chicago Bears. Get over it. I'm thinking ppl who keep whining about Fields' weapons are STILL going to look dumb af in the fall.

Fixed that for ya
 

HearshotKDS

Well-known member
Joined:
Sep 9, 2012
Posts:
3,415
Liked Posts:
3,250
Location:
Shanghai
After sleeping on it I like the draft an awful lot, but it makes the FA before it look a lot worse IMO as the holes on the roster going into the draft opened up the criticism of using the teams higher picks on secondary (although i think these were close to if not BPA at time of pick) when the OL and receiving positions had the obvious holes.
 

Clint Eastwood

Active member
Joined:
Mar 23, 2016
Posts:
161
Liked Posts:
218
Delusional homerism it is then.


Of course it's based on what they think. That's how this whole thing works. You want them to post an article based on what the GM thinks? That's what Larry Mayer is for. This whole thing sounds like copium to me.
Not homerism. I think the bears are going to be terrible this year. I think your ideas of what Poles should have done would cripple the franchise and not lead to division titles or more. His way may not either, but I think his approach is the best he could do with what he was dealt.

Your calling my post delusional homerism shows me you are incapable of seeing another mans point and having a rational discussion. Thanks for your insight.
 

Anytime23

Boding Well
Donator
Joined:
Apr 17, 2010
Posts:
27,218
Liked Posts:
26,413
Not homerism. I think the bears are going to be terrible this year. I think your ideas of what Poles should have done would cripple the franchise and not lead to division titles or more. His way may not either, but I think his approach is the best he could do with what he was dealt.

Your calling my post delusional homerism shows me you are incapable of seeing another mans point and having a rational discussion. Thanks for your insight.
And what exactly are my ideas of what Poles should have done? Lets get that part out of the way before we go deeper on that.

It is homerism. You're whining that an article isn't talking about what great value the picks were and how they're running with some kind of narrative. You don't think Poles could have done much better. You have doubts that anyone they didn't add could have made any difference and that everyone they did add are long term answers. This is homerism 101. Everything they did was great. Everything they didn't do wouldn't have been as good. I'm not incapable of having a rational discussion, I just don't have the patience for posters once again blindly agreeing with everything they do, even when what they're doing is a clear zig to the rest of the NFLs zag. Forgive me if I'm not as optimistic after actually paying attention to what this team hasn't done the past 30 years. You think it's a terrible write-up because it doesn't push what you believe. Again, they say they picked up good players for Eberflus' defense but don't get why they aren't doing more for Fields. Wahhhh, they don't talk about value.... maybe they're properly valued at those spots? If they reached, im sure you would have read about that.

One of the writers of the article went into the draft thinking that OL, WR and CB were the Bears biggest needs. Based on their criticisms of the O talent added, id say this article perfectly lines up with how they evaluated the roster and what they needed to do.

I hate to break it to you guys, but this isn't viewed through the Bears fans lens. If someone who covers football thinks the Bears need X, Y and Z and the Bears only make a substantial addition at Z, then they're not going to give them a high grade because of what they believe is this teams most immediate needs.

I think it’s meaningless to take those rankings and articles seriously, which so many fans do. I’d rather read an article based on actual facts over pointless opinions, buts that’s me. So yeah, if more “experts” actually got the insight from GMs, I think fans would then understand why they went the route they did. Poles is slowly getting Fields help, but fans don’t understand that because he didn’t draft or sign the players they wanted.
No, you want to read a fluff piece. chicagobears.com has plenty of that for you. Enjoy.
 

MikeDitkaPolishSausage

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 12, 2013
Posts:
6,753
Liked Posts:
5,220
Location:
Black Rainbow’s Grandma’s house.
No, you want to read a fluff piece. chicagobears.com has plenty of that for you. Enjoy.

If you want to call it a fluff piece that’s fine, but I could say the same thing about the articles you agree with.
 

Clint Eastwood

Active member
Joined:
Mar 23, 2016
Posts:
161
Liked Posts:
218
And what exactly are my ideas of what Poles should have done? Lets get that part out of the way before we go deeper on that.

It is homerism. You're whining that an article isn't talking about what great value the picks were and how they're running with some kind of narrative. You don't think Poles could have done much better. You have doubts that anyone they didn't add could have made any difference and that everyone they did add are long term answers. This is homerism 101. Everything they did was great. Everything they didn't do wouldn't have been as good. I'm not incapable of having a rational discussion, I just don't have the patience for posters once again blindly agreeing with everything they do, even when what they're doing is a clear zig to the rest of the NFLs zag. Forgive me if I'm not as optimistic after actually paying attention to what this team hasn't done the past 30 years. You think it's a terrible write-up because it doesn't push what you believe. Again, they say they picked up good players for Eberflus' defense but don't get why they aren't doing more for Fields. Wahhhh, they don't talk about value.... maybe they're properly valued at those spots? If they reached, im sure you would have read about that.

One of the writers of the article went into the draft thinking that OL, WR and CB were the Bears biggest needs. Based on their criticisms of the O talent added, id say this article perfectly lines up with how they evaluated the roster and what they needed to do.

I hate to break it to you guys, but this isn't viewed through the Bears fans lens. If someone who covers football thinks the Bears need X, Y and Z and the Bears only make a substantial addition at Z, then they're not going to give them a high grade because of what they believe is this teams most immediate needs.


No, you want to read a fluff piece. chicagobears.com has plenty of that for you. Enjoy.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. No where did I whine. I simply said the write up was critical of the bears offseason, which may be fair, but was a myopic view. I agree the bears need WR and OL, but with the picks they had and where the talent was, I think Poles made the correct decision. Granted, I wanted him to take Pickens, but I don’t have access to Pickens interviews and the concerns about his attitude. Other than Pickens talent, I do not think the other players passed on are likely to move the needle or be starters this year. I never said I blindly agree with what they did. I thought they should have spent all free agent dollars on the best offensive linemen free agents. I also wanted DJ charK, and I still want to take a shot at will fuller, as well as Fisher.

Point is, I was evaluating the draft based on picks available and players available, and I think the write up was too biased based on the perceived bears needs. If the bears go out and sign Fuller, fisher and the best guard out there post draft, should the writer of that piece rewrite his review of the draft?

Never said I was optimistic either, so keep putting words in my mouth to suit your holier than though attitude about our beloved bears. Also, I apologize to you for being a fan of the team. But I certainly don’t like everything they do or are doing.

And for the record, I don’t care if you lump me in with posters that you don’t have the patience for, this is a Bears message board. Cheers.
 

Anytime23

Boding Well
Donator
Joined:
Apr 17, 2010
Posts:
27,218
Liked Posts:
26,413
If you want to call it a fluff piece that’s fine, but I could say the same thing about the articles you agree with.
The articles i agree with aren't considered puff pieces. They're considered hit pieces.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. No where did I whine. I simply said the write up was critical of the bears offseason, which may be fair, but was a myopic view. I agree the bears need WR and OL, but with the picks they had and where the talent was, I think Poles made the correct decision. Granted, I wanted him to take Pickens, but I don’t have access to Pickens interviews and the concerns about his attitude. Other than Pickens talent, I do not think the other players passed on are likely to move the needle or be starters this year. I never said I blindly agree with what they did. I thought they should have spent all free agent dollars on the best offensive linemen free agents. I also wanted DJ charK, and I still want to take a shot at will fuller, as well as Fisher.

Point is, I was evaluating the draft based on picks available and players available, and I think the write up was too biased based on the perceived bears needs. If the bears go out and sign Fuller, fisher and the best guard out there post draft, should the writer of that piece rewrite his review of the draft?

Never said I was optimistic either, so keep putting words in my mouth to suit your holier than though attitude about our beloved bears. Also, I apologize to you for being a fan of the team. But I certainly don’t like everything they do or are doing.

And for the record, I don’t care if you lump me in with posters that you don’t have the patience for, this is a Bears message board. Cheers.
You didn't answer me. What are my ideas of what Poles should have done?

There is no reading comprehension issue here. You come off whiny. You're complaining that they're not talking about value about a couple second round picks in which you have no idea where they believe they should have been drafted. Based on them not ripping him for over-drafting them, id say its safe to assume they think its fair value. Call this what it is, you think it's a terrible write-up because you disagree with it.

You're coming off very defensive. I'm sorry if i struck a nerve. You know i hope your weekends go well, Clint Eastwood.
 

Clint Eastwood

Active member
Joined:
Mar 23, 2016
Posts:
161
Liked Posts:
218
The articles i agree with aren't considered puff pieces. They're considered hit pieces.


You didn't answer me. What are my ideas of what Poles should have done?

There is no reading comprehension issue here. You come off whiny. You're complaining that they're not talking about value about a couple second round picks in which you have no idea where they believe they should have been drafted. Based on them not ripping him for over-drafting them, id say its safe to assume they think its fair value. Call this what it is, you think it's a terrible write-up because you disagree with it.

You're coming off very defensive. I'm sorry if i struck a nerve. You know i hope your weekends go well, Clint Eastwood.
You called me a delusional homer. I guess I shouldn’t have been defensive. I also don’t have any interest in your ideas of what Poles should have done, but seemingly you imply he should have done something different than he did. And im not complaining about the authors writeup, im criticizing it for it expressing negativity of the bears offseason not their draft which the article purports being about. My weekends go well half the time. I have to work half of them. Thanks for the well wishes though, Anytime23.
 

MikeDitkaPolishSausage

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 12, 2013
Posts:
6,753
Liked Posts:
5,220
Location:
Black Rainbow’s Grandma’s house.
The articles i agree with aren't considered puff pieces. They're considered hit pieces.
Fair enough. Either belief will be surrounded with fluff/hit pieces. I wanted Poles to surround Fields with more offenses weapons too, but I’m also not disappointed with his draft. I think he made the future of the Bears a better place.
 

Canth

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 23, 2016
Posts:
1,611
Liked Posts:
2,348
I guess the part I find odd in the various reviews is that everyone generally agrees going into the draft that CB, WR, and OL were the Bears biggest needs. They started the draft with 6 picks, traded back in a deep draft and turned it into 11 picks. They spent 6 picks on offense - 4 on the offensive line. They rebuilt the secondary with the two 2nd rounders. It wasn't a bad draft in terms of building the overall team and technically they drafted at least one player at every need position.

Basically, the negative arguments boil down to neither of the 2nd round picks went to offense; therefore, no help was given to Fields and it ignores there were actually 6 picks for offense. Beyond that and specifically for NFL.com, their own rankings had Gordon and Brisker ranked higher by a tier than any WR available at those picks. And keep in mind that the NFL.com rankings are bit odd as a tenth of a point basically represents a tier (snapshot at the end of the post). No prospect this year was ranked higher than 6.81.

Gordon was 6.31 and Brisker was 6.38. They both fall into the "Will eventually be a plus starter" tier

The highest WR's available at the Bears picks were: Skyy Moore at 6.24, Pickens at 6.23, and Tolbert at 6.21 in the "Will eventually be average starter" tier. So, all in the tier below the secondary picks made by the Bears.

The other WR's went into even lower tiers.

Velus Jones was a 5.93, so he falls into the wide "Average backup or special-teamer" tier. Sounds about right - likely to start out as a back-up with really good return skills and likely a core special teamer. Maybe they could have grabbed a better WR prospect, maybe not. By that time, all the WRs left had big weaknesses, so it's a matter of which one do you think fits your offense and vision better to develop. Obviously, the Bears went with Velus, and no doubt his ability to immediately contribute to special teams is a factor.

The only offensive lineman in the same tier as Gordon and Brisker was Raimann. So, I guess that could be the gripe - that they didn't take him. However, they did take 4 offensive lineman late to develop and from a pure size perspective, Braxton Jones and Zach Thomas have NFL size and athletism to be developed. It will be interesting to see if they can get an eventual starter out of 1 of the 4 drafted lineman. Poles would be stupid lucky to get 2 out of the 4.

I'm still hoping they add at least one more veteran WR and OL.

NFL.com prospect rankings scale:
1652074460418.png
 

Calabis

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
14,510
Liked Posts:
7,617
Location:
Texas


-NFL.com

They didn't give us any luv. 😔
Complete joke...do they not realize he addressed WR in FA with two possible good players....they were good in limited roll. I believe Pringle and Brown are better than any draft pick available at the time and will shock some on here.
 

TheWinman

2020 CCS Survivor Fantasy Football Champion
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
6,685
Liked Posts:
2,503
Location:
Ann Arbor, MI
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
The take sucks because they - writers for NFL.com - whine about the lack of picks to help Fields, and mention who we drafted as an afterthought.

Justin Fields is not the Chicago Bears. Get over it. I'm thinking ppl who keep whining about Fields' weapons are going to look dumb af in the fall.
Are you feeling ok or has your account been hacked? Wow, a normal itelligent non hating post
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
34,261
Liked Posts:
17,477
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I wanted Watson as much as any player in 2 but he was gone. I understand any team not wanting to roll the dice on Pickens that high but I wouldn't have complained. That said, most WRs take a year to 'break out' so this immediate help mandate was more than likely not coming from a WR in 2. OL is a different issue and a slam dunk there would have been nice but they were more reaches for need than good values there. Raimann dropped because he's a tweener and none of the others actually have any more potential than our 5th. Just better experience. Goedeke will end up having to move inside and Ingram likely lacks the movement skills needed for this O etc, etc.

I was surprised that we could still get Braxton Jones in 5 and it made the draft a lot better for me. I also Liked Kinnard that went earlier in 5. Basically every OL between our round 2 and 5 pick had an NFL.com prospect score of 6 to 6.25 except for Riamann that had a 6.39 but obviously, GMs saw that differently as 7 of those other OL went before him and after our 2s. Zachary Thomas was also in that grade range.

Like Remy, I've always felt you can get good safeties later but it's a draft and a crap shoot anyway. The alternate view is just how important that position is in this defense. For perspective, think about how many posters thought it cost us a SB. Sanders had a pick and an early forced fumble. Brown was on IR and Manning gave up one of the easiest SB TD catches I've ever seen on a chuck it by a QB.
 
Last edited:

Anytime23

Boding Well
Donator
Joined:
Apr 17, 2010
Posts:
27,218
Liked Posts:
26,413
You called me a delusional homer. I guess I shouldn’t have been defensive. I also don’t have any interest in your ideas of what Poles should have done, but seemingly you imply he should have done something different than he did. And im not complaining about the authors writeup, im criticizing it for it expressing negativity of the bears offseason not their draft which the article purports being about. My weekends go well half the time. I have to work half of them. Thanks for the well wishes though, Anytime23.
and if the Bears made more impactful signing in FA to help Fields, the writers would have given them a better grade but they didn't so obv the article sucks. GO BEARS!
Fair enough. Either belief will be surrounded with fluff/hit pieces. I wanted Poles to surround Fields with more offenses weapons too, but I’m also not disappointed with his draft. I think he made the future of the Bears a better place.
Time will tell. Again, i think both are good picks, i just fundamentally disagree with taking a S there.
 

Anytime23

Boding Well
Donator
Joined:
Apr 17, 2010
Posts:
27,218
Liked Posts:
26,413
Are you feeling ok or has your account been hacked? Wow, a normal itelligent non hating post
If the Bears used 2 of their top 3 picks to surround Fields with talent, he would be relentlessly bashing this draft. The less talent Fields has around him, the better his chances are of getting to come on CCS and shit on him. Now he gets to set his expectations that he know wont be met because this is a bad roster with an unproven coaching staff with an undeveloped QB.

Again, your guys fault for turning him into this. Enjoy week 5 when he's relentlessly shitting on him calling him a bust because Vuvu cant take a 5 yard pass and run it for 75 yards.
 

Top