- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 37,894
- Liked Posts:
- 43,086
I'd be okay with this. But based on these criteria, it looks like we'd be better off potentially trading out of the top 10.
I think it's very likely they trade down.
I think it's very likely they trade down.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,202
- Liked Posts:
- 38,208
This presumes Howard doesn't improve which I think is dubious. I think he gets a lot of catches in this offense because that is a part of the offense in a way it wasn't before.
Let me put it like that. Even if Barkely has Bell or LT potential, I think more than likely he ends up in the Matt Forte range as a dual threat RB. Still a great back but not someone I give up Howard and a top pass rusher for. I just don't see the physicality as a runner for me to say that Bell or LT potential will be realized as it doesn't show up on tape like it does in the weight room but to each his/her own.
- Joined:
- Jan 11, 2014
- Posts:
- 6,752
- Liked Posts:
- 4,137
- Location:
- Chicago
I really don't get the Nelson haters. Is it at #8 or in general? Everything I've seen says he's elite.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,202
- Liked Posts:
- 38,208
In general, I would say. OG, S, and RB are probably the 3 least valuable positions when you talk about the top 10 IMO. That just happens to be the spots where there are a few supposedly sure fire elite talents.
Myk
85in25
- Joined:
- Sep 27, 2010
- Posts:
- 11,327
- Liked Posts:
- 4,618
I would think QB protecting would be as big as a elite need as QB sacker.
gwharris2254
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Nov 6, 2012
- Posts:
- 6,556
- Liked Posts:
- 1,967
My favorite teams
JUST don't pullaSheaMac on us Ryan
TL1961
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 24, 2013
- Posts:
- 32,927
- Liked Posts:
- 19,278
Well, this thread was humming along until the two man (?) argument derailed it.
I do not agree that Barkley should be off the table at #8.
In general, trading up for Chubb would be OK with me, but this year, I don't care to outbid teams looking for a QB. The flip side is we sit back and allow one extra QB to go top 5 and see what falls.
As for trading down - absolutely it should be on the table, depending on the deal. Into the 20's? Yes, taht's a long way, but that is why the price would be higher. (A second first rounder vs. a 2nd, for example. It evens out.) I have seen a few mocks that have Davenport going at #25. I don't think he'll fall that far, but if we traded down to the 20's, added a first rounder (and more), and walked away with Davenport, that would be a grand slam.
So...what three things NOT to do:
1. Draft a QB.
2. Draft a WR.
3. Draft a TE.
EVERYTHING else is on the table.
I do not agree that Barkley should be off the table at #8.
In general, trading up for Chubb would be OK with me, but this year, I don't care to outbid teams looking for a QB. The flip side is we sit back and allow one extra QB to go top 5 and see what falls.
As for trading down - absolutely it should be on the table, depending on the deal. Into the 20's? Yes, taht's a long way, but that is why the price would be higher. (A second first rounder vs. a 2nd, for example. It evens out.) I have seen a few mocks that have Davenport going at #25. I don't think he'll fall that far, but if we traded down to the 20's, added a first rounder (and more), and walked away with Davenport, that would be a grand slam.
So...what three things NOT to do:
1. Draft a QB.
2. Draft a WR.
3. Draft a TE.
EVERYTHING else is on the table.
bears5150
Active member
- Joined:
- Aug 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,041
- Liked Posts:
- 359
- Location:
- Colorado
My favorite teams
I don't know why people on this board want @8 a player with a high ceiling, or potential, when you have Nelson who would go in the top 3 if not for QB hungry teams. If the Bears are lucky Nelson will be there at @8 and they will take him. He is as polished as they come but people on here want to settle for projects and potential.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 37,894
- Liked Posts:
- 43,086
No, people just want impact play makers with a premium pick. There are plenty of good guards on day two. Guard simply doesn't have the positional impact of a pass rusher.
If the greatest long snapper in the history of long snapping was in the draft I wouldn't want them at 8 either. Not that guard isn't more important than long snapper, but it's not as important as a pass rusher or corner, for example.
If it was a LT everyone would be all about it, I'm sure. Mike McGlinchey may end up being a more valuable player than Nelson even if his grade isn't as high.
theOHIOSTATE!
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Nov 9, 2014
- Posts:
- 3,591
- Liked Posts:
- 1,218
- Location:
- ND is horrible.
What should they not do....
They should NOT reach for a pass rusher that isn't a bonafide stud who will get production at the NFL level. I am not commenting on any particular athlete with this comment, but I think with guys like Nelson and Ward and dude from FSU being pretty much plug and play at a good level, I wouldn't risk it.
Just my 2 cents.
They should NOT reach for a pass rusher that isn't a bonafide stud who will get production at the NFL level. I am not commenting on any particular athlete with this comment, but I think with guys like Nelson and Ward and dude from FSU being pretty much plug and play at a good level, I wouldn't risk it.
Just my 2 cents.
Luke
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 25, 2016
- Posts:
- 2,153
- Liked Posts:
- 1,602
GG was saying that Lovie would have down graded Ward due to his poor ball skills and small hands
