2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

The latest Bears news and talk

Moderators: wab, RING4CHI, Pagan

User avatar
spudbear
Rookie
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:32 pm

2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:50 pm

NFL.com ranked the 2019 draft classes for all 32 teams. SF was #1 with Bosa and Deebo being a powerful 1-2 punch, so much so it helped them get to the SB. The Bears rank? Not surprisingly a #27 with a generous "C" grade:
» Round 3: (No. 73 overall) David Montgomery, RB, 16 games/8 starts.
» Round 4: (No. 126) Riley Ridley, WR, 5 games/0 starts.
» Round 6: (No. 205) Duke Shelley, CB, 9 games/0 starts.
» Round 7: (No. 222) Kerrith Whyte, RB, 0 games/0 starts (now with Steelers); (No. 238) Stephen Denmark, CB, 0 games/0 starts.
Notable rookie FA signings: Jesper Horsted, TE, 6 games/1 start.

Filice: Beyond the well-documented quarterback issue, the biggest culprit behind Chicago's unexpectedly blah season was the offensive line. Bears GM Ryan Pace openly acknowledged the unit's shortcomings in his end-of-season press conference: "We struggled in that area this year -- that's real." And therein lies the problem in evaluating the rookie campaign of Montgomery, whose yards-per-carry mark (3.7) left a lot to be desired. But honestly, Chicago's O-line hung Montgomery out to dry pretty routinely -- and obviously, opposing defenses weren't too worried about getting burned by the Mitchell Trubisky-led passing game on a snap-by-snap basis. Montgomery did his best to overcome these adverse circumstances, breaking the eighth-most tackles in the NFL (47) -- which is how he finished second among all rookies in both rushing yards (889) and rushing touchdowns (6). Besides Montgomery's production, the Bears didn't get much of anything out of the rookie class. This isn't all that surprising, considering Chicago made just five selections last April, with Montgomery being the only player taken before Day 3 of the draft. Coming out of Georgia, Ridley was advertised as a polished route runner -- like his brother, Calvin -- but he couldn't even crack the game day roster until Week 13. Adding insult to ineffectiveness: The very next two wideouts selected after Ridley -- Hunter Renfrow and Darius Slayton -- provided significant Year 1 contributions.
Coming out of the draft the only picks I liked were Montgomery and Denmark (first and last). Yeah, there were reduced number of picks and Pace traded up to get Montgomery. Unfortunately Pace seemed to buy into the hype that the Bears were deep enough so that they could go just by player rankings rather than need.

This isn't a BPA vs Need debate, just that the picks between the first and last were poor. Ridley had to be the highest ranked player left on the board yet the Bears had someone very similar on the roster in Wims. Shelley is awright but I don't see starter potential in him yet. Was Whyte insurance in case Cohen was unavailable? He gone.

With Long coming back and supposedly healthy Burton/Shaheen ready for the season opener, the Bears were set and could draft for depth. It's hindsight but Pace could have chosen TE and OL in those middle picks. Hindsight, but now the Bears are missing another potential season of "cheap" rookie contracts.

Hope Pace can make some solid choices with the 2 second rounders.
San Francisco has always been my favorite booing city. I don't mean the people boo louder or longer, but there is a very special intimacy. Music, that's what it is to me. One time in Kezar Stadium they gave me a standing boo.

George Halas
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Assistant Coach
Posts: 749
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm

Re: 2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:34 am

The Bears got barely any contributions from the rookie class outside of Montgomery, but that was hardly unexpected given they had no picks in the first two rounds.

Given the chances of selecting a player who makes any significant impact diminishes the later you go in the draft, it makes little sense to try to fill positions of need with Day 3 picks rather than choosing the player you believe is the best available.

Also, it has to be expected that Day 3 picks are most likely going to need more time to develop. It's too early to reach any conclusions about the 2019 draft just yet.

The biggest disappointment was the fact that Montgomery was less effective than the guy he replaced, despite supposedly being a better fit for the scheme. That's not necessarily a knock on Montgomery, but RB was seen as the one position where a new starter would push the offense forward. Anything the team got out of the other rookies was always going to be bonus.

Losing Whtye to the Steelers was a bit of a head-scratcher given how ineffective the Bear's run game was. He didn't get many opportunities in Pittsburgh, but he did OK in the 6 games he played finishing with 24 carries, 122 yards, 5.1 ypc plus a single catch for 9 yards. If he'd put up those numbers with the Bears as 7th round pick we'd consider it a good selection by Pace.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 20295
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm

Re: 2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:22 am

It's pretty hard to comparatively grade a team that picked #2 overall vs a team that didn't pick until #73.

Within the context of the picks the Bears had, I'd say they did fine.
BR0D1E86
MVP
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:50 am

Re: 2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:53 am

wab wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:22 am
It's pretty hard to comparatively grade a team that picked #2 overall vs a team that didn't pick until #73.

Within the context of the picks the Bears had, I'd say they did fine.
I think even with context of where they picked they got minimal rookie contributions. But most of the players were seen as developmental guys, so it was to be expected.
Drone7
Journeyman
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 5:44 pm

Re: 2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:03 am

I would give them an Incomplete, because they had so few picks and acceptable reasons for why most didn't play. Haven't had time to look over whom they could have taken that appear to be earlier or better contributors.

Monty will be a good all-around back if not special because of lack of speed/burst. I question whether he was worth a trade-up but he looks like a contributor for the duration of his rookie contract. Mature, hard-working kid. I don't believe in large second contracts for non-superstar RBs.

Ridley kind of fell behind with an early hammy and lacked the special qualities to move up the depth chart. Rookie possession receivers have a lot to learn in this offense. So this year we'll see if he was worth his mid-round status. I want to see if he can push Miller who has questionable shoulder health. And of course, Wims. They still really need a speed receiver.

Given Skrine's pay, experience (and my impression he played fairly well) Shelley had very little chance of playing. Hoping he can supplant Skrine in time.

Time will tell if Whyte develops for the Steelers and whether it was a mistake to not elevate and protect him. They still need explosive players in the O.

Denmark wasn't mentioned; he was obviously a project, who never made it off the PS. We'll see.

Haven't been here long enough to know how much Pace's overall draft record has been discussed, but it seems several guys are impressed. I'm not. Was there ever a long thread on Pace? I believe he is the most significant question mark in the organization.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 6221
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am

Re: 2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:17 pm

I mean really. It seems like the biggest criticism of the draft was Pace not having a crystal ball and knowing in advance his previous 2nd round pick would suck so bad, Burton couldn't stay healthy and Long would fall off a complete cliff. Without the benefit of hindsight, those were fine picks.
Give me a real offensive coordinator, or give me death!
EricTighe
Assistant Coach
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: 2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:04 pm

You have to give every draft class 3 years to really get the true value of a draft class. Pace was trying to strike gold.
The fact we have Mack in this draft class as well he did very well.

The rest of the class is well documented. There are some notables that were missed by Pace that were brought up by guys in here. But obviously Pace doesn't visit us in here :)

To be fair to Pace. If last year didn't have that playoff run with us having the GM and Coach of the year who knows if either would still be here now? We need to quit settling for mediocrity.
Drone7
Journeyman
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 5:44 pm

Re: 2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:37 pm

Just as it makes sense to evaluate drafts 3 years later, trades also take on different light with time.

After 2018, Pace was praised for the deal even though he gave Mack a boatload of money and sent Oak a net of high picks. Great player that filled a pass rush hole. Many Bears' fans chortled about stealing him from the hapless Raiders.

A year later, it doesn't look as good not because of his diminished stats and age (29).

Rather, the deal made sense IF Trubisky became a QB good enough to get the Bears to multiple playoffs. Not as much if he doesn't pan out and the Bears don't quickly solve that position. What concerns is if they waste a good defense with a below average offense and settle into prolonged mediocrity.
User avatar
Xee
Site Admin
Location: Hoffman Estates, IL
Posts: 2509
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: 2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:45 pm

Drone7 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:37 pm
After 2018, Pace was praised for the deal even though he gave Mack a boatload of money and sent Oak a net of high picks. Great player that filled a pass rush hole. Many Bears' fans chortled about stealing him from the hapless Raiders.

A year later, it doesn't look as good not because of his diminished stats and age (29).
Fair enough but the Bears made that decision based on all the information they had available at the time, which is all you can expect from them. In that context, I still think it was a good decision.
Drone7
Journeyman
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 5:44 pm

Re: 2019 Bears Rookie Class Ranked

Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:10 pm

Xee wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:45 pm
Drone7 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 5:37 pm
After 2018, Pace was praised for the deal even though he gave Mack a boatload of money and sent Oak a net of high picks. Great player that filled a pass rush hole. Many Bears' fans chortled about stealing him from the hapless Raiders.

A year later, it doesn't look as good not because of his diminished stats and age (29).
Fair enough but the Bears made that decision based on all the information they had available at the time, which is all you can expect from them. In that context, I still think it was a good decision.
Xee, my point is that it would have made more sense if Trubisky had shown more evidence of being a franchise QB. That deal was done on faith more than information. Almost like a general over-extending his front, then finding out his supply lines are inadequate.

Also, the deal has to be evaluated for how much it betters the team (W/L) in the long run. The whole point of the regular season(s) is to get into the tournament(s) with legit shots for a deep run.

Another interesting deal was the Peppers' signing. Like Mack, they surrendered a boatload of money to regain a dominant D with a killer pass rusher. Unlike the Mack' deal, the signing was just money, not also a surrender of draft capital.

The jury is out on the deal. It needs to be evaluated in a team context.

Return to “Halas Hall”