2023 Draft Strategy

[IotaNet]

I'm not an "armchair GM" and I don't know the minutiae of the draft, but I just read a very interesting comment on the Interwebs.

In response to an article about the Bears having only one pick in each of the first three rounds, someone wrote:

"Don't be surprised if the Bears use some of their cap space to take on bad contracts in return for draft picks, like the Browns did with the Brock Osweiler trade several years ago. I could see them taking on the last two years of Ryan Tannehill's deal in return for a first or second round pick if the Titans are looking to make Willis QB1 next year. Plus it would give the Bears an actual decent backup in case (knock on wood) Fields gets injured."

That feels like a Ryan Poles move for sure.

[Grizzled]

I'm not an "armchair GM" and I don't know the minutiae of the draft, but I just read a very interesting comment on the Interwebs.

In response to an article about the Bears having only one pick in each of the first three rounds, someone wrote:

"Don't be surprised if the Bears use some of their cap space to take on bad contracts in return for draft picks, like the Browns did with the Brock Osweiler trade several years ago. I could see them taking on the last two years of Ryan Tannehill's deal in return for a first or second round pick if the Titans are looking to make Willis QB1 next year. Plus it would give the Bears an actual decent backup in case (knock on wood) Fields gets injured."

That feels like a Ryan Poles move for sure.

Interesting, haven't thought about that. Not a lot of free agent WRs to look at in the offseason but one that could fill a need is Jarvis Landry, who will be available and is a known productive slot receiver. His contract this year was for $3M, he can't be expecting anything appreciably higher.

[wab]

I think I'm pleased with the prospect of Claypool/Mooney/Harry as the top 3. I don't think the Bears have completely given up on VJJ, but he's clearly not ready for a large role.

Bring back one of Pringle/ESB/Pettis and draft a guy.

Plus, with the seemingly sudden emergence of Kmet, there's only going to be so many passes to go around.

[Moriarty]

I'm not an "armchair GM" and I don't know the minutiae of the draft, but I just read a very interesting comment on the Interwebs.

In response to an article about the Bears having only one pick in each of the first three rounds, someone wrote:

"Don't be surprised if the Bears use some of their cap space to take on bad contracts in return for draft picks, like the Browns did with the Brock Osweiler trade several years ago. I could see them taking on the last two years of Ryan Tannehill's deal in return for a first or second round pick if the Titans are looking to make Willis QB1 next year. Plus it would give the Bears an actual decent backup in case (knock on wood) Fields gets injured."

That feels like a Ryan Poles move for sure.

I've definitely been thinking about that sort of move.
Part of the reason they got what they did for Quinn, Roquan is the salary-eating end of it.
2023 Spring, prior to the draft would be a good time to offer to eat bad contracts for picks.
After 2023, I think the team will probably be too full on the cap and/or gearing up too much for a real run to do that.

[karhu]

You see it all the time in the NHL (except when Ron Francis is running an expansion team's first draft, I guess), but there's no reason why we can't buy some draft picks.

[dplank]

We kinda did with the Quinn trade - we ate a lot of $$ in exchange for the pick we received (I presume it would have been a lower pick without us eating that money).

As for draft strategy, I think QB is off the table now and WR need has diminished significantly (although I wouldn't rule it out if a special talent is there and we are picking high). But a trade down scenario is very plausible for a team needing a QB, many folks have been excited about this possibility and Fields emergence has made it a viable play now IMO.

We basically need an entire new front 7, so I suspect a lot of draft capital will go there along with some FA spending. OT is still a need as is C. Lots of options for us to go BPA within a really wide group of positions.

[karhu]

We basically need an entire new front 7, so I suspect a lot of draft capital will go there along with some FA spending. OT is still a need as is C. Lots of options for us to go BPA within a really wide group of positions.

I hear ya, but I wonder if it's quite that bad. Jones is doing some good work, and unless I'm seeing things wrong, he's doing it as our NT. Watts started at 3T last game, which was...interesting. Muhammad is the defense's Mustipher.

I've got my prejudices (pocket-collapsers instead of gap-shooters at DT, for one), so I might be expecting too much here. But I like Jones as a third DT at worst, and I think that everyone would benefit from a real NT and an upgrade at 3T. And from Robinson becoming a full-time starter next year. Shooting the moon here, but if we end up with Jalen Carter and a third-day/FA nose tackle, the line could be downright viable.

Morrow's not a WLB for this system, but I think Weatherford will get an audition there, too. Add Sanborn as a Sam when the dust settles, and that could be good enough--at least good enough that a single new face could bring the LB corps together.

[Moriarty]

[*] Edge is supposed to be very strong in this draft, and I would agree. I expect them to almost certainly hit that in R1 or 2 (unless a big FA landing).
[*] At LB, To'o To'o, Pappoe, and Overshown are great, but - we need 1 minimum, maybe 2, and we're not going be the only ones interested in them.
[*] DT is also supposed to be really strong. I'm not seeing that, particularly. Especially for our system. At 3T I like Carter, who won't get to us, and then...nothing much strikes me as an improvement over what we have. 1T I like Mazi and Keeanu, but again, that's 2 guys and 31 teams to contend with.



But you should be able to land at least 2 strong additions, maybe 3, to the front 6 (it really is only 6 for this system) and 2-3 out of 6 can be a pretty impactful overhaul.

[Heinz D.]

The Tanehill thing quoted in the OP is a pipedream--something like that simply isn't happening. (And hard to say if the Titans want to get rid of him anyway.)

It's possible that they could work out some salary "eating" in return for a good pick-to-pick exchange, but I wouldn't expect that.

If the defense continues to not be able to stop ANYBODY, we have to face the fact that there will be a crazy draft scenario ahead. The Bears will NOT be the .500 team I predicted them to be. They will probably win 1-2 more games (at best) unless the defense improves somewhat.

And that slots them in a prime position to trade down. Or...pick a stud non-QB.

[crueltyabc]

I look at what the Eagles have been doing and I want the Bears to take that approach. If the Bears can trade back later into the first and get a 2024 first that puts the team in total control going forward. You always have a pick you can flip or use both firsts to go up and get a QB if needed. Happily there is depth at OT and EDGE in this class that should make it possible to draft a good player at a premium position of need even into the middle of round where teams like ATL and IND will be looking to come up and get a QB. If there isn't a good option, I definitely see EDGE as the priority because it's so hard to buy good young edge help.

[Grizzled]

I look at what the Eagles have been doing and I want the Bears to take that approach. If the Bears can trade back later into the first and get a 2024 first that puts the team in total control going forward. You always have a pick you can flip or use both firsts to go up and get a QB if needed. Happily there is depth at OT and EDGE in this class that should make it possible to draft a good player at a premium position of need even into the middle of round where teams like ATL and IND will be looking to come up and get a QB. If there isn't a good option, I definitely see EDGE as the priority because it's so hard to buy good young edge help.

It's a quandry. The Bears might be in a position to draft a "generational" talent at DE or DT (Anderson, Alabama and Carter, Georgia) at 3. But they may be offered a king's ransom in draft picks including that #1 2024 pick. We all know that half the first round picks flame out, don't live up to their expectations but teams build for the long term drafting blue chippers at key positions (WR, OT, QB, DE, DT).

[Heinz D.]

It's a quandry. The Bears might be in a position to draft a "generational" talent at DE or DT (Anderson, Alabama and Carter, Georgia) at 3. But they may be offered a king's ransom in draft picks including that #1 2024 pick. We all know that half the first round picks flame out, don't live up to their expectations but teams build for the long term drafting blue chippers at key positions (WR, OT, QB, DE, DT).

Yeah...the last "generational talent" at DE has been a monumental disappointment, and may end up an outright bust.

I think Poles is "tanking for the tradedown"--and I don't foresee that changing...

[wab]

It's a quandry. The Bears might be in a position to draft a "generational" talent at DE or DT (Anderson, Alabama and Carter, Georgia) at 3. But they may be offered a king's ransom in draft picks including that #1 2024 pick. We all know that half the first round picks flame out, don't live up to their expectations but teams build for the long term drafting blue chippers at key positions (WR, OT, QB, DE, DT).

Yeah...the last "generational talent" at DE has been a monumental disappointment, and may end up an outright bust.

I think Poles is "tanking for the tradedown"--and I don't foresee that changing...

Chase Young is a bust?

[howitzers26]

Take on a 36.6 million dollar cap hit for 1 year to make Ryan Tannehill a 'back up quarterback' when you already have Simien under contract next year for 2.45 mil and Justin Fields? And the logic behind it is Tennessee will give up a higher draft pick to get rid of the money because they walk into the offseason needing to shed 20 mil in cap space just to get back in the black financially?

That's something a football-stupid team does.

Tennessee can cut Tannehill and the dead cap hit is 18.6 mil, meaning they'd save 18 mil (numbers per spot rac). They can spread that dead cap money around, provided they competently use void years. They can also cut Robert Woods and his robust 350 receiving yards to save another 12.5 mil and use the draft pick they wouldn't have to give a team to take on big $ for 1 year to draft another WR.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

So let's say we have the #2 pick.

Both Seattle and Detroit have two 1st round picks. Do you try and trade back with either. Right now you'd have to convince the Lions that Seattle is going to take their QB if they don't trade up. Could you get another NFC North team to give you two 1st round picks? It seems to me that would be a best case scenario. Maybe you can convince the Seahawks you're going to take Anderson, and to give us their 3rd and 20th?

[MACKSMACK]

So let's say we have the #2 pick.

Both Seattle and Detroit have two 1st round picks. Do you try and trade back with either. Right now you'd have to convince the Lions that Seattle is going to take their QB if they don't trade up. Could you get another NFC North team to give you two 1st round picks? It seems to me that would be a best case scenario. Maybe you can convince the Seahawks you're going to take Anderson, and to give us their 3rd and 20th?

This is the situation I'm really hoping for. My pipe dream is that we have the #2 pick and are able to trade back to 3, then to 4 and get Carter. It would take some big balls but if some team has a boner for Anderson or anyone not named Jalen Carter at 3 after we've traded back from 2..that would be just amazing. I've been doing some mocks on different websites and occasionally get some thing like SEA trading 3, 20, 35, 84 for #2 or DET trading 4, 15, 76 and a 2024 1st for #2. I guess I'm definitely in the camp for trading down multiple times and start building the draft capital bank that some teams just seem to do better than us. I realize they're just simulators but it's interesting to see what can happen.

[wab]

I guess it all depends on how the Lions feel about their offense with Goff. He's playing pretty well...aren't they among the top of the NFL in scoring?

I also don't see them wanting a rival to have both of their R1 picks.

[Grizzled]

Seattle's not going to take a QB, they'll re-sign Geno to be their QB. They would be looking at Anderson and Carter so they're direct competition for who the Bears are looking at also. The Seahawks are also notorious for trading back for more picks; that's the direction they would most likely be moving. Detroit is scoring with Goff so they might not be in the market for a QB and would also be looking at the 2 defensive guys. If the Bears end up at #2, the further they trade back, the higher the payback with future 1st rounders. They'll have to weigh the perceived benefits of adding a boatload of picks, albeit not the absolute blue chippers at certain positions.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

So here’s a question:

You’re sitting at number 2, you’re offered a haul, do you trade back in the following scenarios:

a) Anderson is on the board but Carter went #1 and your haul includes #3 pick
b) Carter is on the board but Anderson went #1 and your haul includes #3 pick
c) both Carter and Anderson are on the board and part of your haul includes #3 pick.
d) both are on the board but your haul doesn’t include a top 5 pick.

Me I’m going:
Yes to a,b and c but not sure about d

[duckherd50]

If its me, then I'm signing young productive players to good deals. I doubt we see many splash signings. Maybe 1 and maybe 2 fairly decent guys and then a lot of quality guys. With streaming deals coming, then I have heard that its even possible the cap could increase quite significantly. If that turns true, then can raise significant signing for sure. Then, I'm getting as many picks as I can for this years draft and next years draft. Accumulate picks. Upgrade immediate needs through free agency such as 1-2 OL, 1 DT, 1 DE, 1 LB, 1 CB, keep the option open for a big swing at a WR. Clearly, those are not all going to be top notch guys, but guys who are clearly better than the guys we have now in those spots. Hopefully, they know what they have in Claypool, because I sure do not know.

I'd try to keep Montgomery to something like 3 years 23.5 million. If not, then there are plenty of RB's out there. We need playmakers. A guy across the middle with some speed. That has to become a priority. I'm kind of hoping this is a guy in the lower part of round 1 that we accumulated through a couple trades by this point. Also hoping we had added a OL by now too (assuming we upgraded DL in FA).

I am excited. I kind of want the Bears to get a guy who can be Fields backup that will play like he plays.