2013 NFL Draft

[GoSox05]

I wouldn't use a WR in round 1 for value reasons (considering there's not any real reason to doubt Jeffery yet) but I wouldn't exactly be upset if they did that. Still I'd rather take someone like Ryan Swope later on who'd accomplish the exact same thing. i'm guessing Swope would be there in the 3rd because... you know... he's white. Same speed as Tavon Austin though.

 

If the Bears have Patterson ranked as by far the best player on the board when they draft, I bet they would take him.

 

They have lots of needs, but if they think Patterson is the next Julio Jones, they will probably take him.

Edited April 24, 2013 by GoSox05

[Soxbadger]

Or you could end up like the Packers. Who I think take a WR in the second round almost every year.

 

 

I said second round and Greg Jennings was a second round pick.

 

Since 2006 the Packers have drafted 2 Wrs in the 2nd round, how is that "almost every year"?

 

Its not even every other year. Its twice since 2006, thats not very common.

[GoSox05]

Since 2006 the Packers have drafted 2 Wrs in the 2nd round, how is that "almost every year"?

 

Its not even every other year. Its twice since 2006, thats not very common.

 

I should of said 2nd or 3rd round.

 

2006- Greg Jennings

2007 James Jones

2008 Jordy Nelson

2009

2010

2011 - Randall Cobb

 

I also wouldn't be shocked if they took one early this year.

 

They also took Finley in the 3rd in 2008. Pretty much a WR.

 

 

 

[lostfan]

I think the point was how the Packers have drafted WR when it wasn't a "need" and ended up with a ridiculously stacked WR corps, and they lost their best receiver and haven't really missed a beat.

[GoSox05]

I think the point was how the Packers have drafted WR when it wasn't a "need" and ended up with a ridiculously stacked WR corps, and they lost their best receiver and haven't really missed a beat.

 

Exactly. You can draft the same position every year, if you really value that position and it is the best player available.

 

 

 

[lostfan]

If the Bears have Patterson ranked as by far the best player on the board when they draft, I bet they would take him.

 

They have lots of needs, but if they think Patterson is the next Julio Jones, they will probably take him.

I wouldn't say the Bears have a lots of needs as much as they have no glaring area that stands out among the others the way they have the last 5 years. So they could go any direction and take whoever they think is best, like you are suggesting.

 

Right now, I'd say their areas of need are

LB (depth, and hedging their bets on Williams and Anderson)

DT (razor-thin depth)

Interior OL (Garza is old and bad)

LT (perennial need, but not a priority in this draft for a change, only depth/competition)

WR (missing the vertical dimension that Knox brought, should be easy to fill in this draft)

QB (need a backup, and also a project for Trestman, though this is a very weak QB class)

 

The rest of the areas like CB, DE, and TE would just be luxuries to have and if there are quality players there, great.

[Soxbadger]

What the Packers are doing is exactly what Im saying the Bears should do, not draft wrs high because good ones will fall.

 

There is no way to argue that drafting a WR in the first round this year is somehow comparable to what the packers have been doing.

 

I think the point was how the Packers have drafted WR when it wasn't a "need" and ended up with a ridiculously stacked WR corps, and they lost their best receiver and haven't really missed a beat.

 

That is fine if you arent using 1st and 2nd round picks. But he is arguing for the bears to draft a wr in the 1st, exactly opposite of how the Packers have done it.

 

Its 2 different concepts.

[lostfan]

Yeah the first round isn't for taking chances, second round either. You can do that in the third round and later.

[Balta1701]

If the Bears have Patterson ranked as by far the best player on the board when they draft, I bet they would take him.

 

They have lots of needs, but if they think Patterson is the next Julio Jones, they will probably take him.

A lot of Patterson's value ought to be in the fact that he's a kick returner as well. The Bears already have substnantial cap invested in that spot.

[lostfan]

A lot of Patterson's value ought to be in the fact that he's a kick returner as well. The Bears already have substnantial cap invested in that spot.

Just for this year barring the unlikely occurrence Hester suddenly "finds it" again and becomes the ridiculously explosive guy we knew from 2006-early 2011.

[witesoxfan]

You should almost always take best player available. There are very, very, few circumstances where drafting for need should outweigh best player available.

 

The Packers and Ted Thompson have stuck to this pretty religiously for however long he's been there - 10 years or something - and the best example I can think of was drafting Aaron Rodgers 24th overall. Favre was still "young" then and had quite a few years left - I think he ended up playing like another 6 or 7 seasons - and they stuck with BPA and it worked out.

 

If you draft for need, you end up busting on a wide receiver in Charles Rogers, then have to draft another wide receiver in Roy Williams, and then feel that Mike Williams is a perfect fit, and then you see Calvin Johnson fall into your lap. 2 mega busts, 1 decent player, 1 GOAG. The ironic thing is that, in the case of Calvin Johnson, the Lions finally decided to take BPA rather than drafting for need.

 

(this is also why I've changed my tune on the Bills taking Nassib or any other QB at 8 - they have about a zillion different needs and waiting to draft a QB in this draft is fine, even if the Jets end up with him (I don't see how Rex Ryan can afford to take a QB that early) - so they should draft whoever the BPA is at 8, especially if it's a guy like Tavon Austin)

[GoSox05]

What the Packers are doing is exactly what Im saying the Bears should do, not draft wrs high because good ones will fall.

 

There is no way to argue that drafting a WR in the first round this year is somehow comparable to what the packers have been doing.

 

 

 

That is fine if you arent using 1st and 2nd round picks. But he is arguing for the bears to draft a wr in the 1st, exactly opposite of how the Packers have done it.

 

Its 2 different concepts.

 

 

Yeah some positions have better value later in a draft. Running back, WR and safety.

 

I was just trying to make the point that if a player falls to a team and that team has that player rated as the best player available by far, sometimes that can out weigh need or later round value.

[Soxbadger]

Witesoxfan,

 

That is to simplistic of a view.

 

Its not just about "need", its about scarcity of resources.

 

If there are 10 wrs who I value between 9.9 and 9.5 as compared to only 2 CBS that I value between 9.8 and 9.5, it would be shortsighted to draft the 9.9 receiver because even though technically the best value right then, it does not account for best overall value, which accounts for all draft selections.

 

Since not every player can play every position, scarcity must count.

 

You cant draft 7 of the same position, even if they are best player available.

[witesoxfan]

Yeah some positions have better value later in a draft. Running back, WR and safety.

 

I was just trying to make the point that if a player falls to a team and that team has that player rated as the best player available by far, sometimes that can out weigh need or later round value.

 

I would include guard, center, middle linebacker, and tight end to those as well.

[Soxbadger]

Yeah some positions have better value later in a draft. Running back, WR and safety.

 

I was just trying to make the point that if a player falls to a team and that team has that player rated as the best player available by far, sometimes that can out weigh need or later round value.

 

I agree which is why I said if a Calvin Johnson type fell to the Bears you draft him.

 

But that is not the case here, Patterson is an extreme risk type of player. Only 1 season at division 1 level. He had 46 receptions.

 

CJ was more productive as a frosh...

 

So its more about wrs in this draft and why it makes no sense to draft risks like that high. Its just bad strategy.

[GoSox05]

I would include guard, center, middle linebacker, and tight end to those as well.

 

I mentioned safety, but with the modern NFL, safety if becoming a bigger need.

 

I think there could be 4 safeties taken in the first two rounds.

[Jake]

This is supposed to be a deep draft for WR and most drafts are. You can always find that "extra element" type of WR in later rounds. We are not in bad shape when healthy at this point. Hell, I'd rather find a way to get Eifert (seems like he may not fall that far now) at that spot than a WR. I don't love anyone that is likely to be around at 20, but I will be pretty damn disappointed if it is a WR. A LB makes perhaps the most sense. We can't draft guys who will sit on the bench and develop like Shea for two years in a row, so I'm not fond of grabbing a CB either.

[GoSox05]

This whole draft is weird and hard to predict. I think there is gonna be a lot of trades in the first day.

 

[lostfan]

Of course teams draft for need, what team lets good players fall to them at random without some sort of strategy involved while they ignore needs on their roster? The thing is you can't get too wedded to this concept or you'll end up reaching.

 

You draft "best player" in the NBA where the rosters are smaller and you figure out a way to make it work (with exceptions - obviously the Bulls wouldn't use the Bobcats lottery pick to draft a point guard you project to start). Guy looks like an All-Star power forward, but you were already stable at that position... make that work somehow because the idea is to stock assets and develop them. MLB is like that too, you take the best player on the board and don't draft for need because it just doesn't f***ing matter since you're not playing these guys on the major league club for a minimum of 2 years, 9 times out of 10, and it's a crapshoot where it's also relatively easy to make trades.

 

(I have this exact same debate pretty much every April btw)

[GoSox05]

I personally like the Browns strategy during the draft. Take the worst player available at all times. Draft 30 year old qb's at all times.

[lostfan]

One more day until some poor bastard has to play for Cleveland!

[Kyyle23]

I personally like the Browns strategy during the draft. Take the worst player available at all times. Draft 30 year old qb's at all times.

 

It works 100 percent of the time, 0 percent of the time

[2nd_city_saint787]

This is supposed to be a deep draft for WR and most drafts are. You can always find that "extra element" type of WR in later rounds. We are not in bad shape when healthy at this point. Hell, I'd rather find a way to get Eifert (seems like he may not fall that far now) at that spot than a WR. I don't love anyone that is likely to be around at 20, but I will be pretty damn disappointed if it is a WR. A LB makes perhaps the most sense. We can't draft guys who will sit on the bench and develop like Shea for two years in a row, so I'm not fond of grabbing a CB either.

 

You kinda contradicted yourself there depending on how you view DJ Williams and James Anderson. I think a CB would see the field much more in nickle situations, whereas a LB will probably only see time if there is an injury (or suspension).

 

Like I stated earlier in this thread I am on board with the Eifert idea though.

[Kyyle23]

You kinda contradicted yourself there depending on how you view DJ Williams and James Anderson. I think a CB would see the field much more in nickle situations, whereas a LB will probably only see time if there is an injury (or suspension).

 

Like I stated earlier in this thread I am on board with the Eifert idea though.

 

Honestly i think if the Bears draft a LB that is better than Williams or Anderson right off the bat, he will play over them immediately.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Honestly i think if the Bears draft a LB that is better than Williams or Anderson right off the bat, he will play over them immediately.

 

Perhaps, but Williams and Anderson both look like pretty good LBs...At least going off of their # of tackles they put up. Not sure how they are in coverage which is probably a key if they stick with the cover 2.