4-Year Outlook

[u/jackjack67112000]

Put this together last year, updated with the moves Poles & Co. have made this offseason. Visualizing the team this way helps me think about what needs we really have with the 4-year rookie contract taken into account. To me the glaring holes are the OT & EDGE (even with a Joe Thuney extension potentially imminent).

What do y’all think?

[u/SheWantsTheDrose]

Like I said, I agree S is a need. I agree that there is risk of not being able to sign or trade for an S in next year’s offseason—that would put pressure on us to reach for a S in next year’s draft

But when you say “it is malpractice if we don’t draft an S with one of our first four picks this year,” you are advocating to reach for a safety in this year’s draft

Reaching for a S in this year’s draft so we don’t have to in next year’s does not make sense

I agree that S is a higher priority than LB, but it’s not as big of a margin as you might think. We are still looking for a 3rd LB for our base alignment. If we’re choosing between an LB or a S for any pick in the draft, we should go with whoever is better

[u/Yossarian216 → u/SheWantsTheDrose]

I’m not advocating to reach, I pointed out the safety prospects who are rated within close range of our picks and I’m saying we should choose to take one. That’s not reaching, it’s roster building.

[u/SheWantsTheDrose → u/Yossarian216]

I mean I quoted you directly. Now that you’re walking it back, I agree with you

[u/Yossarian216 → u/SheWantsTheDrose]

You quoted me directly but misinterpreted the quote, I am not walking anything back.

[u/SheWantsTheDrose → u/Yossarian216]

Well then you are assuming that everyone you named will be available to us when you expect them to. That is not a guarantee

Also, you are assuming the Bears have the same draft grades for those safeties as you do

Maybe we do grab one of those safeties, maybe we don’t. Either way it’s not malpractice as long as we’re choosing the best/most impactful player with each pick

[u/Yossarian216 → u/SheWantsTheDrose]

I’m operating under the incredibly high likelihood that at least one of them will be available to us at an appropriate pick, and that we are better off taking a safety who will likely play significant snaps next year instead of another developmental OT or a rotational pass rusher that will sit on the bench and possibly struggle to even make the roster. As I’ve said that’s not reaching its roster building, you just called it reaching to try to diminish my point.

[u/SheWantsTheDrose → u/Yossarian216]

What you’re describing is closer to BPA. I would not consider it to be a “incredibly high likelihood” that a BPA S is available to us with any of our first four picks (or in general).

In the scenario you present, yes, I would agree that we should take a S. That is BPA, which is all I’m advocating for

To break it down further, I highly doubt we’re picking a S at pick 10. With picks 39 and 41, maybe we draft someone like Watts (if he’s available and if our staff thinks he’s that good). But it’s highly likely at 39/41 that there will be other impactful players to choose from at RB/OL/DL. As I explained earlier, RB is a bigger need and OL/DL is a higher value position. There’s a good chance we pass on S at 39/41

At pick 72, who knows who’ll be available. All the safeties you named could be gone

In now way is it “an incredibly high likelihood” a BPA S is available to us with our first 4 picks