We Need Another ILB In 2022

[JAF-N72EX]

13 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Get dominant monsters up front and ILBs will look good.  Don’t waste high picks on ILBs.  

Raheem Morris (Rams), Butler (Steelers), and Staley (Chargers) would like a word with you. All 3 teams have dominant fronts but are still very weak over the middle and have been looking replacements at ILB since seemingly forever. The Steelers in particular. Their defense took a dive when they lost Shazier(a high pick) a few years ago and Devin Bush has been terrible this year despite the DL dominating.

Having a rangy ILB can do alot for your team in both facets of the game --see Warner, Davis, White, David etc. And I can't imagine what our defense would look like these last 2 years without Roquan. He got snubbed big time last year. Defense was the only reason we made the playoffs last year and Roquan was arguably our best player.

Yes, a dominant IDL can do wonders for ANY defense but it's hard enough to find just one dominant D-lineman, much less multiple. It's like playing the lotto. The Aaron Donald's of the world don't grow on trees. This isn't a video game people...you can't have all-pros at every position.

[JAF-N72EX]

12 hours ago, G08 said:

Agreed. Question is where do we attack in FA/draft to address these issues?

Tough question.

The OL may need 2 new OTs and a C. (Borom has been fine but we said the same thing about Mustipher last year and we still dont know what we have in Jenkins).

Fields is about to lose his #1 WR (robinson) with not much depth beyond Mooney.

Kmet is a good blocking TE but he is hard to judge as a pass catcher because of this elementary offense he plays in. Outside of that we don't have much depth. Graham is old. He was a good 1 year stop gap but not a 2 year "hold-me-over-until-I-can-figure-it-out" so he can go. Holtz and James are expendable. James is terrible. Holtz is a solid blocker for a backup player but him being in the game alone tips the defense because they dont fear him at all as a pass catcher. They know he is only there to block. 

The defense is going to need to be revamped. Alot of the key players are all getting old and we don't have any sure-fire replacements either.  Mack is about to be what 31 years old and he's not going to be the same Mack thru Fields 4 year contract. Same with Hicks, Trevathan, and Quinn. THAT IS THREE of our best pass rushers that need to be replaced and I don't think I need to tell anyone here how important the pass rush is in todays era. I'm all for trading Mack this offseason. Moreso Quinn if anyone bites.

We need a boundary CB. The secondary would be OKAY IF they brought someone in that could tell Desai to put Vildor back at NB and keep Shelley as a backup. But even that still wouldn't hide the issues at safety. Gipson is getting old and is often banged up and Bush is a solid replacement but he isn't getting any younger either. Eddie has semed to lost his nerve and while DHC is a solid backup he isn't made to be a starter....for sure.

RCB: DRAFT PICK/Vildor <---I'm good with this
LCB: Jaylon/cheap FA/late rd addition <----I'm good with this
NB: Vildor/Shelley <---I'm good with this
S: Jackson/DHC <---I'm good with this
S: DRAFT PICK/Cheap FA addition/Bush <---I'm good with this
 

[JAF-N72EX]

2 hours ago, soulman said:

The game is also much different.  An ILB/MLB is far more involved in pass coverage now than one was in the 80s.  In a 4-3 I believe Smith would be an ideal weak side OLB much like Briggs.

This.

But to Heinz point. There are some 4-3 defenses in today's game that Roquan could do well at the MLB position too IMO.

To your point, Singletary played in a different time, different scheme, with different responsibilities. A WIL's responsibilities in a 4-6 bear front are much different than those in a current 4-3. Alot different in fact. 

Roquan has the skillset to fit in any 4-3 now, but his position would depend alot on the type of base scheme to get the most out him.

He's more of a sideline-to-sideline player than a downhill. He has fast first step, is rangy, can read offenses/snap counts well, is a sure tackler, and can shed blocks at relatively high level.  Those are all texbook traits for a WILL in most tampa-2 base schemes where he can cover TEs/Rbs in man coverage and WR/TEs entering his zone and also lined up close enough to the LOS to stop a run (think Lance Briggs in Lovie's scheme). But those are also good traits for a MLB to have in a cover-2 base scheme too (think Demario Davis in Allen's scheme).

Now put Roquan in a defensive scheme like Bowles and I bet he shines. Lavonte David doesn't just play MIKE, SLB, WLB ....he plays all over the place for TB depending on the offense personnel, field position, down and distance, etc...and I bet if you switched him with Roquan right now you wouldn't see any difference.

That said though, changing to a 4-3 isn't going to make any difference here.

In fact, scheme doesn't even really matter anymore (4-3 or 3-4). It's more about play calling, personnel, and putting the right guys in the best positions to succeed than anything else. Even most 4-3 defenses in the modern era run a hybrid nickel/dime scheme to counter the "passing era" and the ever so important usage of the slot......  just like 3-4 bases do. Alot of them run 4-2, 3-3, 4-4, etc....and so do we..... just like every other "3-4" defense.

Even Bowles' heavy 4-3 blitz scheme utilizing a bit of  a "3-4" nuances. The same as Desaia, Fangio, and Pagano did here.

 

 

[abstract_thought]

6 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

RCB: DRAFT PICK/Vildor <---I'm good with this
LCB: Jaylon/cheap FA/late rd addition <----I'm good with this
NB: Vildor/Shelley <---I'm good with this
S: Jackson/DHC <---I'm good with this
S: DRAFT PICK/Cheap FA addition/Bush <---I'm good with this

It’s going to be tough to fit 3 DBs into a draft with only 5 picks. I think the upcoming FA is going to be really important.

Tough to name players without knowing the DC, but there are plenty of young DBs that will become FA: JC Jackson, Marcus Williams, Carlton Davis, Jessie Bates.

Hopefully they bring in competition at NB because Vildor has potential there but he’s still pretty unproven.

Edited November 17, 2021 by abstract_thought

[dll2000]

6 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Raheem Morris (Rams), Butler (Steelers), and Staley (Chargers) would like a word with you. All 3 teams have dominant fronts but are still very weak over the middle and have been looking replacements at ILB since seemingly forever. The Steelers in particular. Their defense took a dive when they lost Shazier(a high pick) a few years ago and Devin Bush has been terrible this year despite the DL dominating.

Having a rangy ILB can do alot for your team in both facets of the game --see Warner, Davis, White, David etc. And I can't imagine what our defense would look like these last 2 years without Roquan. He got snubbed big time last year. Defense was the only reason we made the playoffs last year and Roquan was arguably our best player.

Yes, a dominant IDL can do wonders for ANY defense but it's hard enough to find just one dominant D-lineman, much less multiple. It's like playing the lotto. The Aaron Donald's of the world don't grow on trees. This isn't a video game people...you can't have all-pros at every position.

And when Dline stinks or is injured Roquan isn’t very good.  Bush is a high pick everyone would theoretically want.   

you can’t have good players everywhere.   Given choice I would rather have all pro d line and secondary.   Give me tall smart ILBs who are a pain to throw over. 

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

Roquan is an amaing player, but the positional value is always going to make his selection a bit funny, especially now that we're going to have to pay him or watch him leave. The truism about never taking running backs in the first round applies almost as well to the lower value positions on defense.  Looking back at that draft you can make a pretty good argument that the Bears would be in a better place with one of the OTs, DLs or other premium players that went after Smith. 

[abstract_thought]

2 minutes ago, RunningVaccs said:

Roquan is an amaing player, but the positional value is always going to make his selection a bit funny, especially now that we're going to have to pay him or watch him leave. The truism about never taking running backs in the first round applies almost as well to the lower value positions on defense.  Looking back at that draft you can make a pretty good argument that the Bears would be in a better place with one of the OTs, DLs or other premium players that went after Smith. 

I think if you have a contending team and you're picking 25-32, you can afford those picks with lower positional value. You're not worried about the 2nd contract because you're trying to win right now.

For a team like the Bears, this is a 2-3 year rebuild so current team needs are less important than adding talent at the most impactful spots.

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

5 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

I think if you have a contending team and you're picking 25-32, you can afford those picks with lower positional value. You're not worried about the 2nd contract because you're trying to win right now.

For a team like the Bears, this is a 2-3 year rebuild so current team needs are less important than adding talent at the most impactful spots.

Good point about the team's trajectory at the time of the pick.   If there is one thing this team is consistent on, it's assuming it's a contender nearly every year. It's like the fat divorced dad that walks up to a bunch of 20 somethings at a bar with a big grin thinking he's about to start a great night. 

[soulman]

18 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

This.

But to Heinz point. There are some 4-3 defenses in today's game that Roquan could do well at the MLB position too IMO.

To your point, Singletary played in a different time, different scheme, with different responsibilities. A WIL's responsibilities in a 4-6 bear front are much different than those in a current 4-3. Alot different in fact. 

Roquan has the skillset to fit in any 4-3 now, but his position would depend alot on the type of base scheme to get the most out him.

He's more of a sideline-to-sideline player than a downhill. He has fast first step, is rangy, can read offenses/snap counts well, is a sure tackler, and can shed blocks at relatively high level.  Those are all texbook traits for a WILL in most tampa-2 base schemes where he can cover TEs/Rbs in man coverage and WR/TEs entering his zone and also lined up close enough to the LOS to stop a run (think Lance Briggs in Lovie's scheme). But those are also good traits for a MLB to have in a cover-2 base scheme too (think Demario Davis in Allen's scheme).

Now put Roquan in a defensive scheme like Bowles and I bet he shines. Lavonte David doesn't just play MIKE, SLB, WLB ....he plays all over the place for TB depending on the offense personnel, field position, down and distance, etc...and I bet if you switched him with Roquan right now you wouldn't see any difference.

That said though, changing to a 4-3 isn't going to make any difference here.

In fact, scheme doesn't even really matter anymore (4-3 or 3-4). It's more about play calling, personnel, and putting the right guys in the best positions to succeed than anything else. Even most 4-3 defenses in the modern era run a hybrid nickel/dime scheme to counter the "passing era" and the ever so important usage of the slot......  just like 3-4 bases do. Alot of them run 4-2, 3-3, 4-4, etc....and so do we..... just like every other "3-4" defense.

Even Bowles' heavy 4-3 blitz scheme utilizing a bit of  a "3-4" nuances. The same as Desaia, Fangio, and Pagano did here.

 

 

Fair enough.  That may be a much better way of looking at it seeing Roquan as being more scheme dependent if we shift to a 4-3.

I'm not certain that will happen but surely a player like Roquan Smith would start somewhere in a 4-3 and do just as well.

[dll2000]

On 11/17/2021 at 8:32 AM, RunningVaccs said:

Roquan is an amaing player, but the positional value is always going to make his selection a bit funny, especially now that we're going to have to pay him or watch him leave. The truism about never taking running backs in the first round applies almost as well to the lower value positions on defense.  Looking back at that draft you can make a pretty good argument that the Bears would be in a better place with one of the OTs, DLs or other premium players that went after Smith. 

Yup.

I think Roquan was seen as safest player at time and Pace couldn't afford another first round bust on his resume.

Even Pace said in one of his early interviews on draft strategy and player acquisition (which I agreed with):   You need the rare positions of:   QB, OT, Edge, CB and ball hawking S.    It is hard to find good players at those positions.   

He needs to follow his own philosophy more.

Following Pace's own stated philosophy he had his choice of:

OT McGlinchey who went 9.

S Fitzpatrick at 11.

OT K. Miller at 15

S D. James at 17

CB J. Alexander at 18 (the best hindsight pick)

Etc.  

If he really played the game using his own philosophy he could have traded down for Alexander and recouped valuable picks lost in other trades.  

OTs, WRs, CBs and even S's are simply more valuable.   Even looking than the first round ILBs that went:  Smith, Edmunds and Vander Esch.   Good players.  Just don't move the needle all that much comparatively to replacement cost/supply.

 

 

 

 

 

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

El Abstracto made a really good point about contending teams having a different outlook though;  if you're a solid complete team with QB, both lines in place, then yeah, maybe you take whoever the biggest star is regardless of position.  Interesting to think about and makes sense. You get a top 5 guy at an position and they'll make plays.  Your point on Pace needing a safe pick has merit as well.  The dumb thing remains that the Bears were not a contender, and now have a top 5 ILB that they have to pay or wave goodbye to, and the team has a ton of needs at those premium positions that are going to take more resources to fill.   Imagine if we were arguing over what to pay Kolton Miller, or Alexander, instead of debating whether we should keep a top guy at his position. 

[dll2000]

20 minutes ago, RunningVaccs said:

El Abstracto made a really good point about contending teams having a different outlook though;  if you're a solid complete team with QB, both lines in place, then yeah, maybe you take whoever the biggest star is regardless of position.  Interesting to think about and makes sense. You get a top 5 guy at an position and they'll make plays.  Your point on Pace needing a safe pick has merit as well.  The dumb thing remains that the Bears were not a contender, and now have a top 5 ILB that they have to pay or wave goodbye to, and the team has a ton of needs at those premium positions that are going to take more resources to fill.   Imagine if we were arguing over what to pay Kolton Miller, or Alexander, instead of debating whether we should keep a top guy at his position. 

Right, but who ever has a solid team with a QB, 2 complete lines, edge and secondary?  I think you stay with your philosophy generally.

And even if you do, one of those guys is one play from getting hurt or is old.

Still if you think a guy is a super star all pro - you can consider him high regardless of position (outside special teams).   I guess best most recent example is Q. Nelson at G.

You would develop a system for it.   Let's say you invented a 0-100 scale for rating prospects.    Lets say you rated Q. Nelson is a 100 on scale of a 100 for his position

You would take him over any of the rare positions you have rated lets say 85 and lower or where ever you want to draw the line.   

But any guys above your rating you would pass on the G and take the rare position.  

You have to have a philosophy and stay with your philosophy.   Pace panics and trades up too much.   Let the draft come to you in most cases.

 

 

[soulman]

On 11/17/2021 at 7:46 AM, RunningVaccs said:

Good point about the team's trajectory at the time of the pick.   If there is one thing this team is consistent on, it's assuming it's a contender nearly every year. It's like the fat divorced dad that walks up to a bunch of 20 somethings at a bar with a big grin thinking he's about to start a great night. 

Hey now!  I wasn't fat but at least I was smart enough to pass on the 20 somethings for the 30 somethings.  Much easier to hunt.  😏

[soulman]

On 11/17/2021 at 7:39 AM, abstract_thought said:

I think if you have a contending team and you're picking 25-32, you can afford those picks with lower positional value. You're not worried about the 2nd contract because you're trying to win right now.

For a team like the Bears, this is a 2-3 year rebuild so current team needs are less important than adding talent at the most impactful spots.

Decidedly a BPA pick that year and it's paid off so I won't ding Pace for this pick.  We should also consider the fact that MLB/ILB is also a traditionally strong position for any Bears team and those teams who have not had one were not all that good.  Roquan has earned a nice extension.

If I'm gonna ding Pace over any of his higher draft picks it would be over having to draft WR and TE as often as he has due to his misses at those two positions in rounds one and two.  Those are picks that might have been used on an OT or another DL.

[soulman]

1 hour ago, dll2000 said:

Right, but who ever has a solid team with a QB, 2 complete lines, edge and secondary?  I think you stay with your philosophy generally.

And even if you do, one of those guys is one play from getting hurt or is old.

Still if you think a guy is a super star all pro - you can consider him high regardless of position (outside special teams).   I guess best most recent example is Q. Nelson at G.

You would develop a system for it.   Let's say you invented a 0-100 scale for rating prospects.    Lets say you rated Q. Nelson is a 100 on scale of a 100 for his position

You would take him over any of the rare positions you have rated lets say 85 and lower or where ever you want to draw the line.   

But any guys above your rating you would pass on the G and take the rare position.  

You have to have a philosophy and stay with your philosophy.   Pace panics and trades up too much.   Let the draft come to you in most cases.

 

 

I can recall quite clearly that when Nelson was ranked far and away as the best OL in his draft quite a few still believed an OG, no matter how good, should ever be taken as a top ten draft pick.  What would those some people say to that now?  The guy is a super-stud OL.

I see Roquan Smith much the same way.  His size may have been the only factor one might have argued with as a reason for lowering his draft ranking yet he's likely to be an All Pro ILB this year and quite possibly should have been even last year.  We need more of him and not less.

As for Pace's draft day trades.

I can't honestly say they're "panic induced" nor can anyone else without first knowing who he chose to vault over to get a player he badly wanted to draft.  In most cases that I can think of he didn't misjudge the player either.  He's scored more often than not on those he did trade up for.

What he had to give up to makes those trades is tough to criticize as well.  We can make that claim but it isn't as easy as we may think it is.  First you have to find a team willing to trade.  If there's only one who is then you either have to pay the price or risk losing that player.

We also don't know what other teams ahead of us may also have ranked that player as we did and may have drafted him ahead of us had we not made the trade.  We saw this happen under JA and we also saw it happen under Phil Emery with Aaron Donald going to LA two picks earlier.

Pace is more aggressive than both of those two GMs combined and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.