Bradley Chubb discussion

College football and the NFL Draft

Moderator: wab

Post Reply
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

I am enamored with this guy. Guy's motor never stops. Has size and strength although not exceptional length. Can beat an OT inside or outside. Terrific inside move. Have heard that he has backed into coverage a bit, but haven't done enough work to find it on tape.

He looks like a prototypical 4-3 DE. But at the same time, nobody can convince me that Fangio wouldn't put this guy at OLB and create havoc for QBs. The dude is an exceptional football player.

A big question is... Will he last until #8. Most mocks would say no. But maybe. I can't imagine a team ahead of us wouldn't pull the trigger on this guy. But I'm biased and we've all been wrong before, right?

From my way of thinking, a starting pass rusher is a monster need for us. (Can you imagine our defense that's already top 10 and top 10 in sacks, wth an even more formidable run defense and pass rush with this guy?!?) And until we fill both CB spots, that's also a giant need as well.

It seems like the most likely outcome is that was bring back one of our starting CBs via FA or tag (Fuller will be expensive in either case) and picking a CB at #8. Signing Amukamara or another starting CB is also possible and filling in starters pre-draft is consistent with Pace's past approach. But I don't see pass rushers like Chubb being available in FA. I think Pace would take him at #8 and be happy. Or just as likely, he's dangle him as trade down bait and try to incite a bidding war.

Do you see Chubb as a guy you think would be a good fit in our defense? As a DE or OLB? Or do you view him as more of a tweener that you'd look to move or pass on if he were there at #8?
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
cblaz11
MVP
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:02 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 111 times

In today's day and age, most 3/4 OLBs can play 4/3 DE. Most, not all. Chubb, can play both with ease.

I'm with you, this guy is amazing. What makes him even more of a need, is his locker room leadership. He's the tone setter our team needs especially if we move on from McPhee.
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

I just don't think we have the ammo to move up, and I think Edmunds and Davenport are solid alternatives.

Not to change topics but Josh Jackson is a freaking stud. Dude has WR hands and is unbelievably smooth in his movements.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

G08 wrote:I just don't think we have the ammo to move up, and I think Edmunds and Davenport are solid alternatives.

Not to change topics but Josh Jackson is a freaking stud. Dude has WR hands and is unbelievably smooth in his movements.
Without a R3 pick, it seems to me that trading up is rather unlikely. But I've thought that before and been wrong. As I said though, taking a CB at #8 is the most likely option. I'd just be juiced if we covered up those CB needs in FA (particularly by bringing back our own Fuller and Amukamara) and somehow managed to have Chubb fall into our laps.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

McCblaz wrote:In today's day and age, most 3/4 OLBs can play 4/3 DE. Most, not all. Chubb, can play both with ease.
It depends on what you're asking your 3/4 OLB to do. I don't think Chubb would do well "with ease"
at coverage out of the backfield as Leonard Floyd does a surprising percentage of the time. But they're almost opposites of body type and skill set for playing the same position. If Fangio asked him to play like Leonard Floyd, it wouldn't work out nearly as well as if they just played him more like Lovie played his DEs. I could see them playing Chubb a lot on the strong side, too. But of course, Fangio knows all that and would have to adjust what he does to put his guys in their best position to be successful. And with this guy... Wow... The possibilities...........
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

Considering the Bears spend 70% of their time in sub packages, Chubb would be fine. I just don't think he's got the lateral agility or overall athleticism to play OLB.

He reminds me a lot of Chris Long/Joey Bosa.
User avatar
mmmc_35
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 98 times

That's a good comp wab. I am a big fan of Chubb (ha). He has a great motor, uses his strength, and agility well in combination. He won't be an edge bender but he has enough that in combination with his physicality to be a problem. I figure if McPhee had that one fantastic season, Chubb can be a great replacement.
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

wab wrote:Considering the Bears spend 70% of their time in sub packages, Chubb would be fine. I just don't think he's got the lateral agility or overall athleticism to play OLB.

He reminds me a lot of Chris Long/Joey Bosa.
So is that how you would play him? Would you not start him and just bring him in in nickel? That seems crazy for a top 10 pick, doesn't it? Or start him at 5T and move him around in passing situations? In college they moved him inside some on passing downs.

I'm trying to think this through. :-P
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

Mikefive wrote:
wab wrote:Considering the Bears spend 70% of their time in sub packages, Chubb would be fine. I just don't think he's got the lateral agility or overall athleticism to play OLB.

He reminds me a lot of Chris Long/Joey Bosa.
So is that how you would play him? Would you not start him and just bring him in in nickel? That seems crazy for a top 10 pick, doesn't it? Or start him at 5T and move him around in passing situations? In college they moved him inside some on passing downs.

I'm trying to think this through. :-P
Personally, I wouldn't draft him. Not because he isn't good, I just don't think he's a great fit for the Bears overall.

But for argument's sake, if the Bears did draft him, I think they'd ideally play him like a combo of McPhee and Young. Stand him up in the base defense and on 1st and 2nd downs like they do with McPhee, and drop him to DE on 3rd downs, sub packages, and obvious passing downs like they do with Young.

I just think the Bears have a similar guy already in Bullard and need a better pure LB/Pass rusher.
YOGABBA
Rookie
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:41 pm

Are Davenport or Edmunds worth the #8, or are they just flavors of the week?
User avatar
Mikefive
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA
Has thanked: 340 times
Been thanked: 278 times

wab wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
wab wrote:Considering the Bears spend 70% of their time in sub packages, Chubb would be fine. I just don't think he's got the lateral agility or overall athleticism to play OLB.

He reminds me a lot of Chris Long/Joey Bosa.
So is that how you would play him? Would you not start him and just bring him in in nickel? That seems crazy for a top 10 pick, doesn't it? Or start him at 5T and move him around in passing situations? In college they moved him inside some on passing downs.

I'm trying to think this through. :-P
Personally, I wouldn't draft him. Not because he isn't good, I just don't think he's a great fit for the Bears overall.

But for argument's sake, if the Bears did draft him, I think they'd ideally play him like a combo of McPhee and Young. Stand him up in the base defense and on 1st and 2nd downs like they do with McPhee, and drop him to DE on 3rd downs, sub packages, and obvious passing downs like they do with Young.

I just think the Bears have a similar guy already in Bullard and need a better pure LB/Pass rusher.
You're convincing me. I don't know. Part of me says that Fangio would know what to do with the guy. Another part says that some 4-3 team (hopefully more than one) will be justifiably in love with the guy and willing to trade up (bidding war?) for him. :evilgrin:
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
Mr.Irrelevant
Player of the Month
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:46 pm
Been thanked: 11 times

Chubb is a very similar player to Pernell McPhee. Physically they compare well:

McPhee (when drafted): 6' 2.5"/ 274 lbs / 4.97 40 time
Chubb (pre-combine): 6'4" / 275 lbs / good but not great speed
Both are noted by scouts to have very long arms and great tenacity.

I think Chubb will fit our system just fine. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a mock draft where he falls to #8. Of course, at this time last year Jonathan Allen was a can't miss top 3 prospect too.

P.S. - McPhee was graded as a mid-round pick due to being very limited in understanding the game. PFW said it would take several years to get him up to speed and reach his potential. They were right.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

I wouldn't hate the pick, because you are replacing two guys with one, but you aren't going to get out of him what you would in a 4-3. That's why I draw the Bosa and Long comparisons. He was super stiff as an OLB, then they moved to a 4-3 and he flourished.

When Long was in the draft, the prevailing thought was that he was the best fit as a 4-3 DE, but should he fall to the Jets at 6, they could probably make it work with him at OLB.

I just think it's a square peg/round hole situation. Chubb is talented enough to make it work, but I don't think his potential would be maximized.
User avatar
DaSuperfan
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:44 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 9 times

I'm sticking with Harold Landry as an edge rusher that would be a great complement to Floyd. I think Davenport is too raw to take at 8 and Edmunds to me is a 4-3 OLB.

I also think Chubb is long gone before 8, I have him going at 3 to Indy.
Never Die Easy
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

DaSuperfan wrote:I'm sticking with Harold Landry as an edge rusher that would be a great complement to Floyd. I think Davenport is too raw to take at 8 and Edmunds to me is a 4-3 OLB.

I also think Chubb is long gone before 8, I have him going at 3 to Indy.
Edmunds is like 6’5 260.
User avatar
DaSuperfan
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 996
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 2:44 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 9 times

wab wrote:
DaSuperfan wrote:I'm sticking with Harold Landry as an edge rusher that would be a great complement to Floyd. I think Davenport is too raw to take at 8 and Edmunds to me is a 4-3 OLB.

I also think Chubb is long gone before 8, I have him going at 3 to Indy.
Edmunds is like 6’5 260.
Interesting, I didn't know was THAT big. I thought I saw somewhere that he was 235 pounds and around 6'3. But nowI see he's listed at 6'5 250. The problem I have with Edmunds is that we don't know how he'll fare as a 3-4 OLB, rushing the QB off the edge since he wasn't asked to do that in college. I see Edmunds as an inside 3-4 ILB more than a pass rushing 3-4 OLB, but maybe that's just me.

As a pure pass rusher I still like Landry over Edmunds in a 3-4. Landry has the unique ability to bend and dip under Tackles with speed off the edge. He also has a nice counter inside move which he uses effectively. Hes also decent against the run.
Never Die Easy
User avatar
mmmc_35
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6113
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 98 times

I think Edmunds will be fine as a pass rusher. Ideally you could line him up in numerous positions. Athletically the kid is a freak. He has the ability to be pretty damn good.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

Edmunds is a more physical Leonard Floyd. They both played similar hybrid positions - people forget how much Floyd played inside at Georgia.

He's also like 19/20 years old. His job at Tech isn't "follow your assignment". It's "go get the ball".
Post Reply