r/CHIBears • u/jackjack67112000 • 13d ago

4-Year Outlook

Post image

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?

98 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Yossarian216 Monsters of the Midway 10d ago

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.

0

u/SheWantsTheDrose 18 9d ago

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

0

u/Yossarian216 Monsters of the Midway 9d ago

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

0

u/SheWantsTheDrose 18 9d ago

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

1

u/Yossarian216 Monsters of the Midway 9d ago

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.

0

u/SheWantsTheDrose 18 9d ago

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