Image Image Image Image

2017 Draft

Moderators: chitownsports4ever, emperorjones

patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,256
And1: 472
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

2017 Draft 

Post#1 » by patryk7754 » Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:28 pm

Got a notification from Bleacher Report saying there's an expectation that Sheldon Richardson will be traded during the draft. If Sherman will be trade it'll probably be ddurning the draft as well.

We have a big need for DE and Richardson is top notch. I forgot who mentioned it but a poster suggested we swap 1st with the jets plus a 3rd was involved. That works for me. If we could couple that with a fuller and a 2nd for Sherman, we'd be a top defense.
User avatar
johnnyvann840
RealGM
Posts: 24,013
And1: 9,815
Joined: Sep 04, 2010

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#2 » by johnnyvann840 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:56 pm

Bears are trading down
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,256
And1: 472
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#3 » by patryk7754 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:32 pm

Apparently The 49ers bears and jets are the "most antsy" to trade down. That probably means that a swamp of picks between the jets and bears is unlikely.

Maybe if the bears neutralize what the jets would have to give up to get the third by giving up more than the real value for Richardson
Axxo
Starter
Posts: 2,264
And1: 362
Joined: Jun 28, 2016

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#4 » by Axxo » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:39 pm

patryk7754 wrote:Apparently The 49ers bears and jets are the "most antsy" to trade down. That probably means that a swamp of picks between the jets and bears is unlikely.

Maybe if the bears neutralize what the jets would have to give up to get the third by giving up more than the real value for Richardson


Does t matter who makes the deal to trade down 1st?
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,256
And1: 472
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#5 » by patryk7754 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:07 pm

Axxo wrote:
patryk7754 wrote:Apparently The 49ers bears and jets are the "most antsy" to trade down. That probably means that a swamp of picks between the jets and bears is unlikely.

Maybe if the bears neutralize what the jets would have to give up to get the third by giving up more than the real value for Richardson


Does t matter who makes the deal to trade down 1st?

I think it does. I don't think there aren't many teams that want to move up. The team most likely to move, i think, is the Browns. they got the 12 plus a bunch of 2-6 round picks. If they do trade up i think it'll be for Watson so that means they probably try to trade with the jets first since watson most likely won't go top 5. They might try to trade in front of the Jets if the browns think the jets will take watson.

I think the titans might try to trade down as well.
fleet
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 42,571
And1: 9,594
Joined: Dec 23, 2002
     

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#6 » by fleet » Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:52 am

If they traded back for OJ Howard, that would be a great move.
JackFinn wrote:I see you're back from a trip at the smarty pants store.
Chi town
RealGM
Posts: 11,687
And1: 1,258
Joined: Aug 10, 2004

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#7 » by Chi town » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:43 am

johnnyvann840 wrote:Bears are trading down


Link?

If so it will be to take a QB w extra pick or after moving back.
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,256
And1: 472
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#8 » by patryk7754 » Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:32 pm

fleet wrote:If they traded back for OJ Howard, that would be a great move.

Id rather get one of the top defensive guys. If we want a TE the one from Ole Miss would be almost just as good and might be available in the 2nd
User avatar
CjayC
RealGM
Posts: 10,170
And1: 370
Joined: Mar 02, 2005
Location: Hoiball
   

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#9 » by CjayC » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:04 am

fleet wrote:If they traded back for OJ Howard, that would be a great move.


Love Howard's game, he would be a huge addition especially as a blocker BUT this is possibly the deepest class of TE's ever. If our secondary wasn't garbage I would do it because Howard is one of the few blue-chip talents in the draft. That's a real BPA kind of pick. We should still be able to get a good TE going into the 3rd round though.
User avatar
IWannaGoHIGHER
Veteran
Posts: 2,884
And1: 270
Joined: Jun 07, 2010
Location: McBuckets + Jimmy Buckets = Stacey King Aneurysm
       

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#10 » by IWannaGoHIGHER » Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:25 pm

Just in case any of you guys were looking for something Bear focus to listen to on the draft. I just put out a new podcast. Put a lot of work into being an "armchair scout" this year. Let me know what you think.

https://soundcloud.com/bearcastradiopodcast
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,256
And1: 472
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#11 » by patryk7754 » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:30 pm

i just read a CBS article saying that a lot of execs expect the bears to draft a QB in the first 2 rounds.
User avatar
Susan
RealGM
Posts: 14,044
And1: 1,551
Joined: Jan 25, 2005
Location: jackfinn & Scott May appreciation society
     

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#12 » by Susan » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:19 am

Don't mind them trading back a bit to still pick up one of Thomas/Allen/Hooker/Adams and then trading back up into the 1st to pick up Mahomes so we can live through a gunslinger all over again!
heir_jordan22
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,840
And1: 180
Joined: Jul 16, 2008
   

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#13 » by heir_jordan22 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:24 am

I don't think Mahomes is the guy. Fox likes QBs who control clock and possession more than guys who make big plays

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
chitownsports4ever
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 18,798
And1: 575
Joined: Jan 30, 2002
Location: southside of chicago
       

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#14 » by chitownsports4ever » Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:27 pm

fleet wrote:If they traded back for OJ Howard, that would be a great move.


I agree if they traded down and got extra picks and ended up with Howard in the first I would :o :clap:

But I wont even get my hopes up for something like that . :(
Got a Gold Name Plate that says "I wish you would"
fleet
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 42,571
And1: 9,594
Joined: Dec 23, 2002
     

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#15 » by fleet » Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:24 pm

Rueben Foster failed the urinalysis at the combine. Some are saying he could fall out of the 1st round. Oh man.
JackFinn wrote:I see you're back from a trip at the smarty pants store.
User avatar
City of Trees
RealGM
Posts: 10,306
And1: 1,878
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#16 » by City of Trees » Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:38 am

Everything I'm seeing says Bears take Watson at 3. Gotta admit 3 months ago I did not see that coming

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
City of Trees
RealGM
Posts: 10,306
And1: 1,878
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
Location: Roseville, CA
   

Re: RE: Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#17 » by City of Trees » Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:39 am

fleet wrote:Rueben Foster failed the urinalysis at the combine. Some are saying he could fall out of the 1st round. Oh man.

Wasn't he kicked out of the combine as well? Red flags emerging. Randy Gregory ?

Sent from my SM-J700T using RealGM mobile app
fleet
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 42,571
And1: 9,594
Joined: Dec 23, 2002
     

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#18 » by fleet » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:53 am

City of Trees wrote:Everything I'm seeing says Bears take Watson at 3. Gotta admit 3 months ago I did not see that coming


Check this out
Read on Twitter

Bears putting or letting lots of people think they want a QB at 3. Maybe this is the Bears trying to get Garrett to fall to them. Let me explain.

I did see the Bears taking a QB, and have said so in the beginning. But since then the Bears signed Glennon. Not saying this precludes a QB at 3, but I had thought the Glennon move was to done to allow themselves to take a QB later in the draft, and that they probably had one in mind that would be there. If that guy was Watson (or Trubisky), then you may be right, but the Bears had to believe, at least I did, that Watson' or Trubisky was always not gonna get to the second round. If they wanted Watson/Trubisky for sure, they had to plan on taking him at 3 to get him, so the Glennon move is puzzling. I could be wrong, but since the Bears have also been liked to Trubisky, this Watson/Trubisky rumor is possibly the Bears hoping Garrett falls to Bears at #3, by trying to bait the Browns into taking a QB #1, and making the Browns worried about getting their QB with their second 1st rounder. I will be surprised at this point if the Bears actually followed through drafting a QB #3. Otherwise, I don't get the Glennon move. Why not just draft Watson and not sign Glennon? This team didn't need to worry about winning in 2017/18.
JackFinn wrote:I see you're back from a trip at the smarty pants store.
fleet
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 42,571
And1: 9,594
Joined: Dec 23, 2002
     

Re: RE: Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#19 » by fleet » Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:02 am

City of Trees wrote:
fleet wrote:Rueben Foster failed the urinalysis at the combine. Some are saying he could fall out of the 1st round. Oh man.

Wasn't he kicked out of the combine as well? Red flags emerging. Randy Gregory ?

Oh yeah, that was him? Forgot about that. I gotta say, if he is the next Ray Lewis, hard to pass on him in the second round despite red flags. The sample was a diluted sample, so maybe it was just trying to hide weed. Not a deal breaker for me if so. Hard to make this call as a fan without the detailed background research on him and the sample.
JackFinn wrote:I see you're back from a trip at the smarty pants store.
patryk7754
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,256
And1: 472
Joined: Jan 22, 2012

Re: 2017 Draft 

Post#20 » by patryk7754 » Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:17 pm

I refuse to believe that the Bears will take a QB with the third.

Return to Chicago Bears