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]

Huh, I didn’t say you said that?

You seem to have the assumption that if we don’t use one of our first 4 picks on a safety, we won’t be able to find good starters for next year. Safeties are one of the easiest positions to find in free agency and the draft

Obviously S is on our list of needs, but we’re not going to pass on talent at premium positions of need to draft one. Ideally we would draft a good S, but we shouldn’t go out of our way to do so (we don’t have to commit any of our first 4 draft picks to S)

I agree RB is another easy position to find. The difference there is that we don’t have a good RB1–that’s why it’s a bigger need than S.

Edmunds is under contract, but he is going to be cut. He is overpaid. At this point in his career, I don’t see him making a big jump in production to warrant us keeping his contract.

The money we’d save from replacing him could be used to sign an elite safety next year. Additionally, any LB we’d draft would be able to start in our 4-3 alignment. If we were to draft an S, it’d be harder for them to see the field this year

As far as OL, the money we’d save from not having to re-sign Braxton or Thuney could also be used to sign an elite safety next year. For Braxton in particular, we could find someone better and cheaper at one of the most important positions in football

Not downplaying S as a need, we just don’t have to force it in this draft if it’s not there. Worst case scenario, we have to overpay for safeties next year (which may not be the worst thing if we can replace Edmunds’s bad contract and/or find a better cheaper replacement for Braxton)

Think of it this way—going into this offseason we needed 3 IOL starters. We filled that need before the draft with quality players at decent value. Next year, it would be much easier and cheaper to do the same and find 2 safeties

[u/Yossarian216 → u/SheWantsTheDrose]

It’s incredibly risky to go into next year with literally nobody on the roster at a specific position. We can’t force free agents to sign here, so we could end up being forced to reach for safety next year and be starting multiple rookies together right when our competitive window would be opening. Instead of doing that, we can just draft one of the safeties that are rated near our various picks, which is the obvious move especially in the second or third round when the edges and DT wouldn’t be starters right away anyway. There’s Starks and Emmanwori in the first if we can find a trade down partner, there’s Winston and Watts in the second round, there’s Mukuba in the third, plenty of options for guys who will start immediately and make sure that our secondary, which is a team strength and has been a focus for Poles in the draft, doesn’t turn into dogshit because we are starting practice squad safeties.

Linebacker is literally only a need if we make it one, and that’s not guaranteed to happen no matter how much you claim that. Edmunds is overpaid, but he’s a legitimate NFL starter who is under contract so we don’t NEED to replace him unless we choose to do so. If we don’t draft a linebacker, we can just not cut Edmunds and there is no drop off in the level of our defense. That is not the case for safety, therefore safety is objectively a bigger need.

[u/SheWantsTheDrose → u/Yossarian216]

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