2018 Draft Prospects

[TB 1]

7 hours ago, WindyCity said:

I won’t complain if they go all in on Trubisky and draft Nelson. Trubisky taking a huge step this year is more important than anything that may happen on the defense.

That being said the menu of defenders at 8 is really intriguing.

Go all in on Trubisky is fine but Pace will have to win games to keep his job someday. The problem still is you don't need a great defense to win in today's NFL but you need pass rushers. The Bears are very weak at the most important position on defense in the modern NFL.

[WindyCity]

3 hours ago, TB 1 said:

Go all in on Trubisky is fine but Pace will have to win games to keep his job someday. The problem still is you don't need a great defense to win in today's NFL but you need pass rushers. The Bears are very weak at the most important position on defense in the modern NFL.

Quickest way to win games, and win meaningful game, is to have the best QB on the field.

Grinding out wins with the defense and having an offense that sputters is going to get him fired faster than anything.

[WindyCity]

8 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

Drafting Nelson isn’t the only way to be all in on Trubisky. Hell, drafting Ridley would be more all in on Trubisky IMO. Ridley at 8 then the BPA interior OL at 39 would be peak all in for Mitch. Or maybe a trade down, then McGlinchey and THEN a guard at 39. 

It’s not really quantifiable because the trajectory of every player’s career each have so many unrelated variables, but who was the last OL as hyped up as Nelson is who actually lived up to it? Talking top 10 here. Joe Thomas? He was drafted ELEVEN years ago. How many before and since him? How many fell woefully short? The hype train on Nelson is outrageous and out of control, and really sets him up for failure or at least perceived failure. If he doesn’t become Larry Allen then it’s a crappy pick even if he’s a solid 10-year pro, and even if he is the next Larry Allen he won’t have the impact on wins and losses that a hit on a pass rusher or playmaking DB will. Give me a 20% shot at a top tier pass rusher or DB over a 50% shot at an elite interior OL every damn day, and more importantly, twice on Sundays. 

The hype is justified.

The expectations are what you want to set them at. But if you are taking an OG at 8 he needs to be a dominant player. I am not concerned about perceived failure.

I think the argument is what if the percentages are more 70% and 10%?

 

The problem with the Ridley scenario is that he is a horrible value at 8, Nelson might be the best player in the draft. I would pick defense, but it would not shock me if Pace decided to invest in a dominant OL and try and maximize what he has invested in Trubisky and Nagy.

Edited April 24, 2018 by WindyCity

[beardown3231]

Again, would you rather have:

a) a 10x Pro Bowl OG
b) a CB who notches 60 career INT's
c) a pass rusher who ends his paying career at 105 sacks?

This is why, despite all of the "Nelson is a future All Pro" noise, I'd rather take a corner, S or pass rusher. Those guys have a more direct correlation to wins and losses. Just because Nelson seems like a sure thing, he's far from it. He carries the exact same amount of risk as Ward, James, Davenport, Chubb, Barkley and everyone else.

Nobody knows about Nelson. Robert Gallery went #2 in 2004. He was a bust, but what if he wasn't? What if he was great? I bet Oakland would have still rather had guys like Larry Fitzgerald or Sean Taylor, who went after Gallery.

I won't be pissed if Nelson is the pick, because it would be nice to see a Bears GM truly surround his QB with talent (unlike protecting Cutler with Webb and Omiyale and giving him Knox and Hester as his 2 top receivers), but again I just think there's too much value there to pick an OG.

[WindyCity]

7 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

Again, would you rather have:

a) a 10x Pro Bowl OG
b) a CB who notches 60 career INT's
c) a pass rusher who ends his paying career at 105 sacks?

This is why, despite all of the "Nelson is a future All Pro" noise, I'd rather take a corner, S or pass rusher. Those guys have a more direct correlation to wins and losses. Just because Nelson seems like a sure thing, he's far from it. He carries the exact same amount of risk as Ward, James, Davenport, Chubb, Barkley and everyone else.

Nobody knows about Nelson. Robert Gallery went #2 in 2004. He was a bust, but what if he wasn't? What if he was great? I bet Oakland would have still rather had guys like Larry Fitzgerald or Sean Taylor, who went after Gallery.

I won't be pissed if Nelson is the pick, because it would be nice to see a Bears GM truly surround his QB with talent (unlike protecting Cutler with Webb and Omiyale and giving him Knox and Hester as his 2 top receivers), but again I just think there's too much value there to pick an OG.

Assuming that the make those marks, then of course OG is the least valuable. No one is arguing that.

The argument is not about taking similar prospects, it is about taking wildly different prospects because of positional value.

If the debate is between Chubb and Nelson, then it is a no brainer, you take Chubb.

But if the debate is between Davenport and Nelson, my guess is the Nelson will win that debate, even more so when you consider the incredible investment and risk that the GM has made/taken on offense.

Edited April 24, 2018 by WindyCity

[WindyCity]

What if the choice is between Kyle Fuller and Zack Martin?

[beardown3231]

1 minute ago, WindyCity said:

Assuming that the make those marks, then of course OG is the least valuable. No one is arguing that.

The argument is not about taking similar prospects, it is about taking wildly different prospects because of positional value.

If the debate is between Chubb and Nelson, then it is a no brainer, you take Chubb.

But if the debate is between Davenport and Nelson, my guess is the Nelson will win that debate, even more so when you consider the incredible investment and risk that the GM has made/taken on offense.

Honestly, I'd still take Davenport. His potential is through the roof, and I take the risk of his potential over the risk of Nelson's any day of the week.

[beardown3231]

Just now, WindyCity said:

What if the choice is between Kyle Fuller and Zack Martin?

Fuller is a good corner. Martin's a great OG. In hindsight, I'd take Martin. At the time, Fuller was absolutely the right pick, imo, because again they each had the same amount of risk, and the risk is better assumed for a corner than a guard.

[WindyCity]

1 minute ago, beardown3231 said:

Honestly, I'd still take Davenport. His potential is through the roof, and I take the risk of his potential over the risk of Nelson's any day of the week.

What is the risk of Nelson?

I do not think the Bears are in the position where they need to take wild swings at a position of need. I think the Bears need to add good football players and do whatever they can to ensure that Trubisky is good.

[WindyCity]

1 minute ago, beardown3231 said:

Fuller is a good corner. Martin's a great OG. In hindsight, I'd take Martin. At the time, Fuller was absolutely the right pick, imo, because again they each had the same amount of risk, and the risk is better assumed for a corner than a guard.

All draft picks do not have the same amount of risk.

[beardown3231]

1 minute ago, WindyCity said:

What is the risk of Nelson?

I do not think the Bears are in the position where they need to take wild swings at a position of need. I think the Bears need to add good football players and do whatever they can to ensure that Trubisky is good.

Every guy is a complete coin flip. He could get hurt, he might flat out stink. Robert Gallery, Jonathan Cooper, Chance Warmack, Tommie Harris. They all had no risks coming out...and then Gallery stunk, Cooper is slow, Warmack is fat and slow and Harris got severely injured. Who knows with any of these guys, and again, that's why I'm going to take my chances with a corner or rusher than a guard.

If Hiestand truly is the second coming, he should be able to coach up a 2nd, 4th or 5th round guard, in the exact way he coached up McGlinchey and Nelson into top 32 NFL draft picks.

[G08]

This is such a frustrating draft for me because EVERYTHING is tied into what Pace does in round 1. I can't say one player who should be there at 8 is night and day better than another (save for Nelson but I've made it pretty clear how much I don't value guards in the top 10, let alone the top 8).

So then my mind looks at pockets of talent, which is what I was told GMs and your directors/scouts do when setting their board, the key as was explained to me was to not drop down a tier in level of player. So going from Quenton Nelson to Billy Price is a drop in talent (potentially elite to very good) but look at the drop in EDGE when you go from Chubb/Davenport/Landry to Carter/Nwosu/Hubbard. It's staggering to me to not see a glaring hole on your roster and decide to ignore it in round 1 when the talent level arguably is there.

It's so frustrating and I just am sick and tired of thinking about it. Thursday can't get here soon enough so I can be put of my misery (as my dear friend once told me, Ryan Pace never takes G08 picks in the first round [save for Mitch but I was bamboozled on us loving Watson]). The trade up at the time did piss me off, I won't deny that.

Edited April 24, 2018 by G08

[WindyCity]

5 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

Every guy is a complete coin flip. He could get hurt, he might flat out stink. Robert Gallery, Jonathan Cooper, Chance Warmack, Tommie Harris. They all had no risks coming out...and then Gallery stunk, Cooper is slow, Warmack is fat and slow and Harris got severely injured. Who knows with any of these guys, and again, that's why I'm going to take my chances with a corner or rusher than a guard.

If Hiestand truly is the second coming, he should be able to coach up a 2nd, 4th or 5th round guard, in the exact way he coached up McGlinchey and Nelson into top 32 NFL draft picks.

Disagree that they are all the same.

Some players are more risky than others. Outcome bias can be applied on either side. No one on this board would take Davenport over Chubb, because one is far more risky that the other as we stand here today.

[beardown3231]

3 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

All draft picks do not have the same amount of risk.

Agree to disagree. In 2016, there were 32 first round picks. By my count, 9 are truly good, difference making players. The rest stink. I have absolutely no way of knowing if Nelson will be one of those 9 or not.

[WindyCity]

3 minutes ago, G08 said:

This is such a frustrating draft for me because EVERYTHING is tied into what Pace does in round 1. I can't say one player who should be there at 8 is night and day better than another (save for Nelson but I've made it pretty clear how much I don't value guards in the top 10, let alone the top 8).

So then my mind looks at pockets of talent, which is what I was told GMs and your directors/scouts do when setting their board, the key as was explained to me was to not drop down a tier in level of player. So going from Quenton Nelson to Billy Price is a drop in talent (potentially elite to very good) but look at the drop in EDGE when you go from Chubb/Davenport/Landry to Carter/Nwosu/Hubbard. It's staggering to me to not see a glaring hole on your roster and decide to ignore it in round 1 when the talent level arguably is there.

It's so frustrating and I just am sick and tired of thinking about it. Thursday can't get here soon enough so I can be put of my misery (as my dear friend once told me, Ryan Pace never takes G08 picks in the first round [save for Mitch but I was bamboozled on us loving Watson]). The trade up at the time did piss me off, I won't deny that.

The problem is that in our opinion, who knows what they think, they have left themselves pretty exposed at OLB.

If they are going into the draft feeling that way then if they pass on OLB at 8 they almost have to come back to it at 39.