2023 NFL Draft Prospects

[dll2000]

43 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

This isnt directed as you specifically, but the dream many on here have of just "trading down and getting an early 2nd" just isnt currently very realistic.

Mostly because, there arent many behind us in the first who also have an "early" 2nd.

If were looking at a pick in the 2nd between 32-40 our options are

• Pittsburgh - They obviously have our 32nd pick, but that is way too much on its own for an very uncharacteristic move up by the Steelers, it would have to be something like 9+64 for 17+32. So sure, doable, but un unlikely move overall
• Seattle - They have #20, but after getting a Top 5 talent with the Rams pick, who knows if they are looking to move up at all. But they do have #37, which lines up well with a move up from 20 to 9. Do we want to move that far back? Maybe
• New Orleans - They got #29 for Peyton, and they do have #40 too, Id imagine we'd be looking for more in a drop down that far, and a team with that much cap issues, a pair of Top 40 cost controlled rookies is probably a nice perk. If we would make that move, Id imagine we'd just take Wright at #29 (if hes even still there)

You don't necessarily have to trade for an early 2nd in a trade down.

It is just taking an OT at 9 is a little rich given prospects, however most of prospects are too good to last much into 2nd.

So ideally a move into teens or 20s provides more value if we are set on finding a good OT in draft.

Poles may want to just go BPA whole way and stand pat.   If that is case, according to sims, we aren't likely to get one of  Paris Johnson, Skronski, Anton Harrison, Broderick Jones or Wright before we pick again.

I also assume Poles is not interested in Skronski (at OT) due to arm length and Dawand Jones due to excessive weight. 

Though I personally think both players could probably be decent to good OTs in league in spite of those traits.    

Dawand Jones is an injury risk at that size.   Like the Jets OT.  

[Madmike90]

 

Typically not something this ownership would do.

[Madmike90]

 

 

[malagabears]

11 hours ago, Madmike90 said:

 

 

This is pretty much in line with what he has said and done, to the joy of some and disappointment of others. I expect he will be watching the cut wire & I think we should have the highest priority based on W-L record. That is why earlier tweets identifying Carl Lawson as a potential target might hold some water.

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

17 hours ago, dll2000 said:

You don't necessarily have to trade for an early 2nd in a trade down.

It is just taking an OT at 9 is a little rich given prospects, however most of prospects are too good to last much into 2nd.

So ideally a move into teens or 20s provides more value if we are set on finding a good OT in draft.

Poles may want to just go BPA whole way and stand pat.   If that is case, according to sims, we aren't likely to get one of  Paris Johnson, Skronski, Anton Harrison, Broderick Jones or Wright before we pick again.

I also assume Poles is not interested in Skronski (at OT) due to arm length and Dawand Jones due to excessive weight. 

Though I personally think both players could probably be decent to good OTs in league in spite of those traits.    

Dawand Jones is an injury risk at that size.   Like the Jets OT.  

It seems we're learnign that Poles has a lot of rules and criteria to satisfy before he makes a move.  Value seems pretty rigid, versatility in the groupand length/athleticism seem quite important as well.  I guess we'll see on character/distractions/baggage if Carter is available to him.  

Fair to say they also have some pretty tight plans in place for addressing position groups, although they are a bit inscrutable at times.  LB is probably the group we have the most data on this: they discarded a very good player as he didn't fit on value or their specific type of player. Plus he seems like he'd be very annoying to a front office.  Replaced with similar spending but on two players with different body types, play styles and personality fit/hassle factor, as well as versatility within the group.  I'm not sure how much of a model this approach is for what they'll do at other positions but it (and RB) are the groups they seem to be most complete at least as far as FA this year, when last years tight strings meant the moves were all one year throwaways.  

One player I find interesting is Skoronski, and where he fits Poles' decision making overlay.  He arguably played the best out of all the the available tackles BUT has some disqualifying dimensions to play the most premiuim position on the OL, at least we assume that's true for Poles.  BUT we have zero idea what their plan is for the OL.  Can you genuinely say Jenkins (easily our best player on the OL last year) is guaranteed a spot?  If he does play, what spot is he going to be playing? It's weird that we signed an RG when RG was our best spot last year, at least as far as play on the field.  You could argue our best spot for value was Jones at LT.  Didn't seem special, but when you ***** value getting average/competent LT play for a 5th rd rookie it's probably setting off happy alarms on Poles' dashboard.  So, Skoronski.  Not an option because of the short arms? Or could he be extra valuable because of versatility inside the group? 

A second trade back would be great, but I think with how little we've done for the OL it would be a risk to move back and have a run on OTs and miss out on the first round guys, and then possibly miss a second run at the top of the second and feel real desperate.  Remember when we though this team was a kicker and RB away from being good, and then there was that run on RBs in the third round? Ugh. 

[dll2000]

16 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

It seems we're learnign that Poles has a lot of rules and criteria to satisfy before he makes a move.  Value seems pretty rigid, versatility in the groupand length/athleticism seem quite important as well.  I guess we'll see on character/distractions/baggage if Carter is available to him.  

Fair to say they also have some pretty tight plans in place for addressing position groups, although they are a bit inscrutable at times.  LB is probably the group we have the most data on this: they discarded a very good player as he didn't fit on value or their specific type of player. Plus he seems like he'd be very annoying to a front office. 

Probably the main reason he got booted.  Which was purposeful by Roquan.  In end, he wasn't worth what he wanted to be paid.

16 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Replaced with similar spending but on two players with different body types, play styles and personality fit/hassle factor, as well as versatility within the group.  I'm not sure how much of a model this approach is for what they'll do at other positions but it (and RB) are the groups they seem to be most complete at least as far as FA this year, when last years tight strings meant the moves were all one year throwaways.  

One player I find interesting is Skoronski, and where he fits Poles' decision making overlay.  He arguably played the best out of all the the available tackles BUT has some disqualifying dimensions to play the most premiuim position on the OL, at least we assume that's true for Poles. 

Agreed.  Tape is really good by all accounts.  But GMs worry when guys don't fit their trait box for success in this case arm length.  I think there are exceptions to every rule with humans.  My deciding factor would always be tape over all.   I can't tell you how many great NFL players didn't get picked because of a slow 40.   But I am not one making the call.  

16 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

BUT we have zero idea what their plan is for the OL.  Can you genuinely say Jenkins (easily our best player on the OL last year) is guaranteed a spot?  If he does play, what spot is he going to be playing? It's weird that we signed an RG when RG was our best spot last year, at least as far as play on the field.

I can't do hard breaks anymore for some reason. sorry.  So I will type in red because everyone loves that.    It is weird.  It certainly seems going back to last offseason they have issues with Jenkins we don't know about.   It could also be fear of his back.  Could also be Davis was just a good perceived FA value.  Or all of above or some combination.  

You could argue our best spot for value was Jones at LT.  Didn't seem special, but when you ***** value getting average/competent LT play for a 5th rd rookie it's probably setting off happy alarms on Poles' dashboard. 

I didn't like Jones pick because I didn't like Utah game I watched him in.  He looked stiff to me in pass pro.   But when I later heard extensive interviews with him I changed my mind and did like him to improve.  Very smart guy and very coachable player, it jumps out at you when you hear him speak.   That is disadvantage of not having inside info on guys.  

He still has to take a step forward this year or Bears fans are going to be disappointed.   He looked really bad early in year and then again in 2nd Detroit game later in year.   I am optimistic he will.  But yes, 5th round draft pick that starts every game at LT is pretty nice get to say least.  

So, Skoronski.  Not an option because of the short arms? Or could he be extra valuable because of versatility inside the group? 

Skoronski is probably disqualified at 9 due to arm length since Poles likes his analytics, but we don't really know being on outside.  Skoronski is another guy who all accounts say is super smart and can play above his traits and has at collegiate level.   I have no idea if Poles will take him off early board on balance.   I wouldn't.  Not saying I would take him, I don't like to overly watch any player and fall in love because I get too disappointed when a guy I want isn't taken.   Arm length wouldn't disqualify him for me however.  

A second trade back would be great, but I think with how little we've done for the OL it would be a risk to move back and have a run on OTs and miss out on the first round guys, and then possibly miss a second run at the top of the second and feel real desperate.  Remember when we though this team was a kicker and RB away from being good, and then there was that run on RBs in the third round? Ugh. 

If we trade back to later in first there will be an OT we like there I believe.   My point is I just don't think we can wait until our current 2nd round pick to get one we would want.  At latest it would have to be very early 2nd.  

So we are kind of boxed into taking an OT with our first pick to get quality.  I don't think you can bank on finding good OTs later in draft.   

Poles may want to go BPA regardless of need.  If he goes corner or WR at 9 we will know that is case like when he passed on WR last year in 2nd.  Most Bear fans would be upset.  I am okay with going BPA.   I think you should always go BPA in draft unless you are taking a player to ride pine due to other good starters.   I guess we will see what happens.  Will be interesting.  

 

[malagabears]

Kapman says lot of smoke at owner's meeting about a Bears trade down.

 

 

[JibjeResearch]

20 hours ago, dll2000 said:

You don't necessarily have to trade for an early 2nd in a trade down.

It is just taking an OT at 9 is a little rich given prospects, however most of prospects are too good to last much into 2nd.

So ideally a move into teens or 20s provides more value if we are set on finding a good OT in draft.

Poles may want to just go BPA whole way and stand pat.   If that is case, according to sims, we aren't likely to get one of  Paris Johnson, Skronski, Anton Harrison, Broderick Jones or Wright before we pick again.

I also assume Poles is not interested in Skronski (at OT) due to arm length and Dawand Jones due to excessive weight. 

Though I personally think both players could probably be decent to good OTs in league in spite of those traits.    

Dawand Jones is an injury risk at that size.   Like the Jets OT.  

I agree about D-Jones and Skronski at OT.  A trade to late teens would be best.  But, I would be OK with Paris Johnson Jr. at #9.  And DT/DE at 53rd and 61st, and OC at 64th or 103rd.

Whitehair should be cut and sign Jaylon Johnson.  Let the TEs, WRs play for the contract.

[dll2000]

1 hour ago, JibjeResearch said:

I agree about D-Jones and Skronski at OT.  A trade to late teens would be best.  But, I would be OK with Paris Johnson Jr. at #9.  And DT/DE at 53rd and 61st, and OC at 64th or 103rd.

Whitehair should be cut and sign Jaylon Johnson.  Let the TEs, WRs play for the contract.

Whitehair is either center plan B or draft smoke screen or both. 

If we cut Whitehair now people will assume we are targeting a center and may jump in front of us for a favored prospect. 

Keeping him provides a little doubt.  Not much, but a little.  

If we draft an OT and Center in first two rounds Whitehair is probably leaving.  

 

[Epyon]

9 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

If we draft an OT and Center in first two rounds Whitehair is probably leaving.  

It's also entirely possible Teven Jenkins isn't being counted on in any capacity, and frankly he shouldn't be, given his already chronic health issues. Whitehair might be kept around because we legitimately need the guard.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Epyon

[StLunatic88]

9 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

If we draft an OT and Center in first two rounds Whitehair is probably leaving.  

Again... for what reason?

What are you getting that is better to the roster (that we would need to cut his money, that we still have to spend remember) than a reliable Lineman?

Not to mention, just assuming a rookie Center can walk in day one and command the line is quite the level of hubris

[dll2000]

22 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

Again... for what reason?

What are you getting that is better to the roster (that we would need to cut his money, that we still have to spend remember) than a reliable Lineman?

Not to mention, just assuming a rookie Center can walk in day one and command the line is quite the level of hubris

I didn't say I would do it.   For money of course.  A viable cheaper alternative is always the goal for NFL teams.

They don't think only in terms of just cap space.  They think in actual dollars spent and budgets.

They want to win of course, but they also like money.  The goal isn't always best possible team with no regard to cost.

Sometimes it's we are close to title - devil may care.  Spend!  

Other times not so much.

[StLunatic88]

51 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

They don't think only in terms of just cap space.  They think in actual dollars spent and budgets.

Except we still have to spend actual money this year, so it makes much more sense to spend it on a player who you know, who they seem to trust/like, and can fill a vital role, even if it is as a backup

There is not one single other veteran alternative out there that I would rather spend his money on right now, not to mention, we dont need to, as we have plenty of cap space left. and will still need to use to assist in spending actual dollars on the 3 year rolling floor.

[HuskieBear]

22 hours ago, Madmike90 said:

 

 

who are the potential cut candidates tho, besides maybe carl lawson

[Madmike90]

2 minutes ago, HuskieBear said:

who are the potential cut candidates tho, besides maybe carl lawson

Tough to say before the draft happens...some best guesses based on current rosters & cap space...

WR Corey Davis

WR Curtis Samuel

WR Quez Watkins

C Andre James

DE Carl Lawson

DE Za'Darius Smith

Far easier to project once we know who lands where.