Would you give up next year's 2nd rounder to get Olave

[gallagher]

I might. Though I think you might do pretty well taking a WR in the 2nd/3rd. Seems to be quite a few fast WR in this draft.

2nd AND 3rd...

I mean I am all for beefing up our OL or front 7 with one of our day 2 picks, but it isnt necessarily bad if we add two real horses to our WR room at those spots. If we have a well-planned offense, fast weapons are going to force teams to keep as many men back in coverage as they can, giving Fields more time.

Hell, if we find a way to get two starting OL in FA, I'd do backflips if we got two WRs on day 2

 

[dabears70]

The Bears would be in a position to draft Olave or some other first round talent if they hadn't traded away their first-round pick.

So, maybe quit trading away high draft picks?

Just a thought...

So you'd rather have our 1st round pick back over J.Fields?

 

[Chicagosports89]

2nd AND 3rd...

I mean I am all for beefing up our OL or front 7 with one of our day 2 picks, but it isnt necessarily bad if we add two real horses to our WR room at those spots. If we have a well-planned offense, fast weapons are going to force teams to keep as many men back in coverage as they can, giving Fields more time.

Hell, if we find a way to get two starting OL in FA, I'd do backflips if we got two WRs on day 2

I'd love Watson and Calvin Austin but I can't imagine we plug all the other holes in FA to the point we can do that. Fuck it, I'm going deep would be back though

 

[greg23]

I'd rather give up future #1 picks.....works well

 

[Anytime23]

There is WR depth in the draft. This is already a multi-year roster rebuild team. No need to mortgage the future just so Fields can have a guy he already knows. Fields is a guy who puts in work with his receivers and whoever they draft, he'll eventually have chemistry with them too.

 

[Kurtosis]

I echo the sentiment about not giving up draft picks. The Bears need as many chances as possible to start hitting on talent. With the WR class looking pretty deep I’m sure they can land someone that can be an impact player without giving up draft capital to do so.

Simply put there are too many roster holes to be giving up picks.

 

[gallagher]

I'd love Watson and Calvin Austin but I can't imagine we plug all the other holes in FA to the point we can do that. Fuck it, I'm going deep would be back though

It would be great to be able to find near-term fixes at a lot of positions, but I would rather the Bears take a more realistic approach.

Make the offense look like it is ready to run through Fields and the rest will have to come later. We are a long ways from competing for the division and make a playoff run; I say get a starting LT and C through FA and spend two picks on WRs that will play this year.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

The Bears would be in a position to draft Olave or some other first round talent if they hadn't traded away their first-round pick.

So, maybe quit trading away high draft picks?

Just a thought...

And they would have been looking to draft a QB in the 1st round ... a much worse QB than Fields.

Think before sharing your thoughts, please.

 

[pseudonym]

2nd AND 3rd...

I mean I am all for beefing up our OL or front 7 with one of our day 2 picks, but it isnt necessarily bad if we add two real horses to our WR room at those spots. If we have a well-planned offense, fast weapons are going to force teams to keep as many men back in coverage as they can, giving Fields more time.

Hell, if we find a way to get two starting OL in FA, I'd do backflips if we got two WRs on day 2

If we addressed the OL in FA sure, take WR in 2nd and 3rd. It's a fast, deep class.

 

[vinson555]

I know trading monty and roquan is a very unpopular decision, but we need to take into account one or both may not want to be here next year. You can tag roquan which I would pick to over monty. But I would hesitate if it meant we gave fields that LT OR THAT NO 1 WR. It's a deep draft I'd rather get more picks in this draft where you know it's stacked as oppose to more next year which might be a huge question mark

 

[Major Ursa]

I know trading monty and roquan is a very unpopular decision, but we need to take into account one or both may not want to be here next year. You can tag roquan which I would pick to over monty. But I would hesitate if it meant we gave fields that LT OR THAT NO 1 WR. It's a deep draft I'd rather get more picks in this draft where you know it's stacked as oppose to more next year which might be a huge question mark

Roquan isn't going anywhere. Just hired a defensive coach and he's young. Montgomery might be a casualty, but if he has a strong season then I'd say he gets resigned as well. He's a luxury we can afford while Fields is on a rookie deal.

 

[Spitta Andretti]

Yes, Trade Monty and Roquan. Bears can get at least a low 1st round or 2nd round picks for these plug and play position guys

This guy is getting dumber over the offseason

 

[Kurtosis]

This guy is getting dumber over the offseason

There’s certainly no glass floor for him.

 

[Noonthirtyjoe]

You guys act like draft pics are so important. I would trade them for proven players all day. Most picks bust.

 

[Bust]

Roquan isn't going anywhere. Just hired a defensive coach and he's young. Montgomery might be a casualty, but if he has a strong season then I'd say he gets resigned as well. He's a luxury we can afford while Fields is on a rookie deal.

Roquan's agent is going to want top 5 salary. He not worth it.

 

[Kurtosis]

You guys act like draft pics are so important. I would trade them for proven players all day. Most picks bust.

Is your contention that they are not?

 

[rawdawg]

He isn’t chase…..

Short, but important. I'd love pairing Fields with Olave because a big part of the struggles he had was the timing with WRs (mainly due to not practicing with them in camp). So getting Olave would take away the timing issues and we saw Fields start to get that relationship with Mooney as well (and they're working out together this offseason).

But Cincy didn't just benefit because Burrow and Chase had a good rapport together. It was also in a large part because JaMarr Chase was the best WR prospect the league has seen since AJ Green/Julio Jones came into the league, maybe since Megatron honestly. To go 5th and not be overdrafted after sitting out a year is ridiculous.

 

[napo55]

I echo the sentiment about not giving up draft picks. The Bears need as many chances as possible to start hitting on talent. With the WR class looking pretty deep I’m sure they can land someone that can be an impact player without giving up draft capital to do so.

Simply put there are too many roster holes to be giving up picks.

Trading away so many draft picks has resulted in a mediocre (at best) team with no depth. Time to change philosophy and value and conserve draft picks.

 

[rawdawg]

My 2 cents:

There's nothing wrong with trading picks, per se. I know the Rams are a popular example. But they also drafted 13 of their 22 starters. If you are going to trade picks for players, the players better sure as hell be very good (Ramsey, Mack good). If you are going to trade picks for higher draft picks, there'd better be a clear fit/need and no comparable talent at any position on the board.

So trading up from 39 for Olave when there are several other WRs in a loaded class on the board is probably a bad idea. Maybe wouldn't be a bad idea for Zion Johnson, who has an argument for top interior OL. Considerable gap IMO, after Linderbaum, Kenyon Green and Zion so if the Bears think Zion is as sure of a prospect as possible, that would make sense than Olave

 

[BNB]

Nah. When you look over the last 10 years, there have been so many good receivers drafted after the 1st round.

Keenan Allen - 3rd
TY Hilton - 3rd
Stefon Diggs - 5th
Michael Thomas - 2nd
Devonte Adams - 2nd
Tyreke Hill - 5th
Tyler Boyd - 2nd
Tyler Lockett - 3rd
Cooper Kupp -3rd
Chris Godwin - 3rd
DK Metcalf - 2nd
Terry Mclaurin - 3rd

And several more..

Point is... You can get great production from WR's drafted outside of the 1st round, so there is no point in trading up for one imo.