Ranking the new additions

[Arkansasbear]

So I don't put much stock into PFF grades (mainly because I don't under how they are generated), but it appears they give very little love to our new additions.

Pryor is the highest at 88.5 and Allen is right behind him at 86.3. No one else in the 80s and our big money signing, Swift, is at 66.7.

https://bearswire.usatoday.com/lists/be ... vin-byard/

[Moriarty]

So I don't put much stock into PFF grades (mainly because I don't under how they are generated), but it appears they give very little love to our new additions.

That's the problem, I think.

When looking at Chicago’s new additions, there’s one thing that stands out: Most of them were graded extremely well by Pro Football Focus last season.

Very, very roughly:
80s are stellar
70s are quite good
60s are fine/ok


(However, you also have to look at the snaps it's based on. Bates and someone else had less than 50, which is meaningless.)

[UOK]

My personal rankings:

1. Caleb Williams (TBD)
2. Keenan Allen
3. Coleman Shelton
4. Gerald Everett
5. D'Andre Swift
6. Kevin Byard
7. Ryan Bates

The rest I don't particularly care about.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

So I don't put much stock into PFF grades...

[RichH55]

My personal rankings:

1. Caleb Williams (TBD)
2. Keenan Allen
3. Coleman Shelton
4. Gerald Everett
5. D'Andre Swift
6. Kevin Byard
7. Ryan Bates

The rest I don't particularly care about.

Are you taking into account the potential loss of a Comp Pick with the Everett signing? That pushes him down for me (Though you could easily and plausibly argue that you could consider Swift the guy who cost the pick)

[UOK]

My personal rankings:

1. Caleb Williams (TBD)
2. Keenan Allen
3. Coleman Shelton
4. Gerald Everett
5. D'Andre Swift
6. Kevin Byard
7. Ryan Bates

The rest I don't particularly care about.

Are you taking into account the potential loss of a Comp Pick with the Everett signing? That pushes him down for me (Though you could easily and plausibly argue that you could consider Swift the guy who cost the pick)

I think it will be worth it for what Everett will contribute to the offense. The Bears have been badly in need of a TE2 that can be a relief valve for all of Kmet's targets and opens up the passing game immensely.

[RichH55]

Are you taking into account the potential loss of a Comp Pick with the Everett signing? That pushes him down for me (Though you could easily and plausibly argue that you could consider Swift the guy who cost the pick)

I think it will be worth it for what Everett will contribute to the offense. The Bears have been badly in need of a TE2 that can be a relief valve for all of Kmet's targets and opens up the passing game immensely.

That guy couldn't have been Jonnu Smith though?

[UOK]

I think it will be worth it for what Everett will contribute to the offense. The Bears have been badly in need of a TE2 that can be a relief valve for all of Kmet's targets and opens up the passing game immensely.

That guy couldn't have been Jonnu Smith though?

Splitting hairs, maybe? The team clearly honed in on him as a target. I wonder if Smith's agent even got a call from the Bears.

[Bearfacts]

When a rating outfit scores a backup OT whose working on a vet minimum deal the highest I'd go looking for someone else's ratings.

[dplank]

When a rating outfit scores a backup OT whose working on a vet minimum deal the highest I'd go looking for someone else's ratings.

Maybe he performed well in very limited action - data can behave that way sometimes. Particularly when the data set if very small.

[Bearfacts]

When a rating outfit scores a backup OT whose working on a vet minimum deal the highest I'd go looking for someone else's ratings.

Maybe he performed well in very limited action - data can behave that way sometimes. Particularly when the data set if very small.

I don't put all that much stock in PFF stuff especially when it comes to OL. I put more trust in Poles judgement that who he signs are upgrades at positions he felt needed it. But yeah, I agree about ratings based on a very limited set of data and their validity.

[wab]

When a rating outfit scores a backup OT whose working on a vet minimum deal the highest I'd go looking for someone else's ratings.

Maybe he performed well in very limited action - data can behave that way sometimes. Particularly when the data set if very small.

He was pretty bad in Indy as an LT, but was passable in SF as a pinch-hitting RT.

[Bearfacts]

Maybe he performed well in very limited action - data can behave that way sometimes. Particularly when the data set if very small.

He was pretty bad in Indy as an LT, but was passable in SF as a pinch-hitting RT.

And yet the Bears may see him as backup LT? They also signed Curhan who seems to a RT.

Poles added some vet depth all across the OL but is quality high enough to resist drafting another OL in round one?

[wab]

He was pretty bad in Indy as an LT, but was passable in SF as a pinch-hitting RT.

And yet the Bears may see him as backup LT? They also signed Curhan who seems to a RT.

Poles added some vet depth all across the OL but is quality high enough to resist drafting another OL in round one?

I see Curhan as more of a potential backup at guard.

[Bearfacts]

And yet the Bears may see him as backup LT? They also signed Curhan who seems to a RT.

Poles added some vet depth all across the OL but is quality high enough to resist drafting another OL in round one?

I see Curhan as more of a potential backup at guard.

Could be that as well. We know they like OL with some versatility.

It's these moves Poles has made to add vet depth all across the OL and not being willing to chase the market for a DE this year much like he refused to do so for an OT last year that lead me to believe he's more focused on a RDE pass rusher as his priority at #9. My only concern is not whether Jones is stable enough at LT, I believe he is, but who would replace him if he was injured and loses a lot of time. I also don't feel a rookie LT would supplant him Day One. But at the moment it's still hard to predict that pick.