bmags Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 I am incredibly nervous about Watson. But I really don't think trading down is an option, at least not until the 2nd round. Everyone will want to trade down in this draft, nobody is desperate for any of these players to trade up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 I want the Bears to draft Joshua Dobbs, pretty much solely because he's my best friend's cousin and a genuinely nice guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 NICE GUYS FINISH LAST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) I think the Bears will draft Watson #3. Greg Gabriel had a tweet the other day indicating that Trubisky was not on the Bears draft board or at least not high and had the same statement about Jonathan Allen. I kind of hope so. I don't know how well he will make it in the NFL, but I just want a young QB to watch and give me hope for. Forget Mike Glennon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevo880 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 I think it's Watson or Thomas at #3, unless Garrett unexpectedly slips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 12:44 PM) I kind of hope so. I don't know how well he will make it in the NFL, but I just want a young QB to watch and give me hope for. Forget Mike Glennon. Watching a young qb sounds nice unless they are terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 12:58 PM) Watching a young qb sounds nice unless they are terrible. Young terrible QB > Old terrible QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (kevo880 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 12:53 PM) I think it's Watson or Thomas at #3, unless Garrett unexpectedly slips. If it's not a QB (which I don't think it is) it will be Lattimore or Adams. Impact DB at #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boogua Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 01:12 PM) If it's not a QB (which I don't think it is) it will be Lattimore or Adams. Impact DB at #3. If Thomas is there and is tops on their board they should take him. They shouldn't draft for need. I'm not sure what their board looks like and they might have Adams or Lattimore above Thomas, but I'm just saying. Secondaries look a lot better when the quarterback has no time to throw the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 25, 2017 Author Share Posted April 25, 2017 670 The ScoreVerified account @670TheScore 2m2 minutes ago Agent: Jay Cutler wants to play in 2017, isn't considering retirement http://cbsloc.al/2oH4M5Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 25, 2017 Author Share Posted April 25, 2017 As to the Bears drafting a QB, I have to imagine this is all a smoke screen to try to get someone trade up for their QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 01:12 PM) If it's not a QB (which I don't think it is) it will be Lattimore or Adams. Impact DB at #3. Disagree. That's too high for Adams. I think it's Solomon Thomas or a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevo880 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (ptatc @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 12:12 PM) If it's not a QB (which I don't think it is) it will be Lattimore or Adams. Impact DB at #3. While I don't think that would be a bad play, with the depth at DB in this year's class, I think they will choose to address that position later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 It's a very deep draft and I don't see a desperate team that will trade up, especially to 3. I like Watson, I'm a sucker for the great winning and productive college qb (steve walsh era was amazing!), but it really is a knock against him that David Haugh wants him. I just know he can't be successful with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 12:29 PM) I hope the Bears trade down. Such a value in doing so. How does this draft compare to drafts of years' past? Seems to be below average to me but admittedly I am not that learned in this area. The draft is actually very deep, especially loaded at DB and TE. QB is debatable and the top has a good number of above average players. You might say the top isn't quite as strong as some past drafts, but the quality and depth is very strong. I also argue that there are some intriguing QB options and I still believe we see 3 QB's picked in the 1st round (and I've been pretty adamant about this for months). I will be dissapointed if the Bears don't select a QB with one of its first two picks. I still think San Fran is taking a QB. No clear day 1 starter, but quite a few QB's with NFL talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevo880 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 03:00 PM) The draft is actually very quite, especially loaded at DB and TE. QB is debatable and the top has a good number of above average players. You might say the top isn't quite as strong as some past drafts, but the quality and depth is very strong. I also argue that there are some intriguing QB options and I still believe we see 3 QB's picked in the 1st round (and I've been pretty adamant about this for months). I will be dissapointed if the Bears don't select a QB with one of its first two picks. I still think San Fran is taking a QB. No clear day 1 starter, but quite a few QB's with NFL talent. Didn't the 49ers already come out and say they are going after Cousins next offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (Boogua @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 01:27 PM) If Thomas is there and is tops on their board they should take him. They shouldn't draft for need. I'm not sure what their board looks like and they might have Adams or Lattimore above Thomas, but I'm just saying. Secondaries look a lot better when the quarterback has no time to throw the ball. I'm not saying they are drafting for need. They should never do that. i think those will be the top impact players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (kevo880 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) While I don't think that would be a bad play, with the depth at DB in this year's class, I think they will choose to address that position later. There is depth both those two are impact talent. I know DBs especially safeties don't usually go that high but they are outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) I hope the Bears trade down. Such a value in doing so. How does this draft compare to drafts of years' past? Seems to be below average to me but admittedly I am not that learned in this area. I agree. But as others have said, it takes two for a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) I hope the Bears trade down. Such a value in doing so. How does this draft compare to drafts of years' past? Seems to be below average to me but admittedly I am not that learned in this area. agreed, the draft has depth but few elite prospects IMO. I want them to accumulate picks if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 Here's my 7 Round Bears Mock if anyone is interested: https://www.bagadonutssports.com/blog/2017/...ound-mock-draft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 09:58 AM) Here's my 7 Round Bears Mock if anyone is interested: https://www.bagadonutssports.com/blog/2017/...ound-mock-draft Every pick seems totally feasible and yet none may happen, good job. I love the NFL draft, I have felt the butterflies of excitement for it since last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 QUOTE (shipps @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 10:34 AM) Every pick seems totally feasible and yet none may happen, good job. I love the NFL draft, I have felt the butterflies of excitement for it since last week. I'm the same way about the draft. Unfortunately, I have a track meet and a lacrosse game for the kids on Thursday. My data plan will be maxed out just tomorrow night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) Here's my 7 Round Bears Mock if anyone is interested: https://www.bagadonutssports.com/blog/2017/...ound-mock-draft I really can't see a QB going at #3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Greg Gabriel @greggabe 2m2 minutes ago More 1- @AdamSchefter has reported that Browns may select Trubisky at 1. There is a growing belief around the league that it may be true Greg Gabriel @greggabe 41s42 seconds ago More 3- to further the belief Browns may take Trubisky, last night they called teams about moving down from 12. Greg Gabriel @greggabe 27s27 seconds ago More 4- if Browns were taking Garrett, they would need 12 to move up and to select Trubiskey Greg Gabriel @greggabe 56s57 seconds ago More 5- if Browns in fact take Trubisky, SF wins Powerball and gets Garrett. Greg Gabriel @greggabe 34s34 seconds ago More 6- Bears would live to move down from 3 but if Browns take the QB, chances of moving down have become slimmer Greg Gabriel @greggabe 4s5 seconds ago More 7- if Bears can't move down from 3 they will select from Thomas and Adams. My guess would be Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts