Which positions should Bears address with 5 picks???

[seanbears]

Bears currently only have (5) picks; what positions do you believe they should address and when?

Here's my opinion:

ROUND 1 - DT
ROUND 2 - CB

ROUND 4 - MLB
ROUND 5 - C/G
ROUND 6 - G

Now if Phil is able to pull off a trade and pick up extra picks then pick up a TE or WR too.

[Hiphopopotamos]

Round 1: BPA
Round 2: BPA
Round 4: BPA
Round 5: BPA
Round 6: BPA

[Stay_Cool]

RD 1:MLB
RD 2:C
RD 4:WR
RD 5:G
RD 6:CB

[Gaytoe]

RD 1: G/C
RD 2: MLB
RD 4: BPA
RD 5: BPA
RD 6: BPA

[chet8503]

The Bears will end up trading down so they will have more than five picks and depending if they trade down more than once they could have eight to nine picks . My guess with those eight to nine picks we will take two offensive lineman ,two linebackers , a wide receiver , a defensive tackle , and two defensive backs , and maybe a quarterback .

[Stay_Cool]

The Bears will end up trading down so they will have more than five picks and depending if they trade down more than once they could have eight to nine picks . My guess with those eight to nine picks we will take two offensive lineman ,two linebackers , a wide receiver , a defensive tackle , and two defensive backs , and maybe a quarterback .

I'm on board with that

[DaDitka]

Personally, I think 20 is as good as gone.

I would unload 20 to pick up more top 100 picks and then take the fifth and sixth rounders and try to trade back up into the 4th.

Something like.....

2 second rounders (LB,CB)
1 third rounder (OG/C)
2 fourth rounders (1 -WR, then one of these CB,LB,QB)

Sure that's still only 5 picks, but that's 5 picks that all fall between 30 - 130 which is supposed to be the real 'sweet spot' of this draft.

I'm not a huge fan of having a lot of 5-7 round picks when less then 10% them end up on your roster in two or three years.

Just look at our 5th round and back picks the last three years...

2012:
Frey - cut, latter resigned
McCoy - cut

2011
Enderline - cut, latter resigned to futures contract
J.T. Thomas - 5 career tackles

2010
Joshua Moore - Cut
Dan LaFevour - Cut
J. Webb - most Bears fans wish he was cut, but actually a great value for a 7th round pick
Unga - - Been cut TWICE by the Bears

I'm sure Phil has more confidence in his ability to scout players and make picks in those latter rounds, but I'm just playing the odds.

[Hiphopopotamos]

[/b]Personally, I think 20 is as good as gone.[/b]

I would unload 20 to pick up more top 100 picks and then take the fifth and sixth rounders and try to trade back up into the 4th.

Something like.....

I hope so - I just don't know how much action there is going to be by teams looking to trade up. I guess maybe a QB needy team could look to grab Barkley or Nassib. Or maybe a team that needs a TE if Eifert is still there.

[o-pus #40 in B major]

Round 1 - Best Player Available between C/G, TE, WR

Round 2 - Best Player Available between C/G, TE, WR

Round 4, 5, 6 - BPA between LB, CB (add C/G, WR, TE if not addressed in Rnds 1 or 2)

Possibly a young QB prospect in rounds 4-6

[o-pus #40 in B major]

Personally, I think 20 is as good as gone.

I would unload 20 to pick up more top 100 picks and then take the fifth and sixth rounders and try to trade back up into the 4th.

Something like.....

2 second rounders (LB,CB)
1 third rounder (OG/C)
2 fourth rounders (1 -WR, then one of these CB,LB,QB)

Sure that's still only 5 picks, but that's 5 picks that all fall between 30 - 130 which is supposed to be the real 'sweet spot' of this draft.

I'm not a huge fan of having a lot of 5-7 round picks when less then 10% them end up on your roster in two or three years.

Just look at our 5th round and back picks the last three years...

2012:
Frey - cut, latter resigned
McCoy - cut

2011
Enderline - cut, latter resigned to futures contract
J.T. Thomas - 5 career tackles

2010
Joshua Moore - Cut
Dan LaFevour - Cut
J. Webb - most Bears fans wish he was cut, but actually a great value for a 7th round pick
Unga - - Been cut TWICE by the Bears

I'm sure Phil has more confidence in his ability to scout players and make picks in those latter rounds, but I'm just playing the odds.

Yep, you can handle the trades for my team. I like where you would end up with our five picks.

[G08]

I think we will be fielding calls... the VALUE may not be exactly what we want, but if we can stay in the first round or slip into the EARLY second and pick up an additional 3rd and 4th/5th then I'm all smiles.

I don't want to trade back just for the sake of getting one late 3rd and using it on a middle tier lineman.

[DaDitka]

Again.... I know I'm dreaming here, but by the old draft pick value chart #20 is worth 850 points and the Jags second and third are worth a combined 840.....and once you factor in the fact that Cleveland and NO won't pick in the second round that basically moves their value up to dead on 850 points.

We'd have the 33, 52 (50), and 66th (64)picks.

I think think the number of teams looking to move down will drive down value. Early I think teams will get a lot of return as teams come up to get the tackles and probably even the second guard once the first one goes, but after that I think you're going to have so many sellers that the value will go down (unless you're willing to take future picks, there are a lot of GMs on the hot seat.

[DaDitka]

BTW....for those who are wondering how 'valid' the old trade value chart is today,

HERE is a nice breakdown on how it worked out on trades in the first two rounds last year.

Two things I really took was #1 - teams trading down almost always lost value (a trend I expect to grow) #2 - on the write-ups were he reasons that the team trading back had to settle for what the team coming up had to offer, that proves that there wasn't as much interest in moving up (or these teams would have other options).

Again, according to the old chart pick 20 is worth 850 points. Based on last years numbers team that traded down took an average loss of -5.4 percent. If that trend were to continues this year, the Bears should expect approximately 804.1 points in return.

[Hiphopopotamos]

BTW....for those who are wondering how 'valid' the old trade value chart is today,

HERE is a nice breakdown on how it worked out on trades in the first two rounds last year.

Two things I really took was #1 - teams trading down almost always lost value (a trend I expect to grow) #2 - on the write-ups were he reasons that the team trading back had to settle for what the team coming up had to offer, that proves that there wasn't as much interest in moving up (or these teams would have other options).

Again, according to the old chart pick 20 is worth 850 points. Based on last years numbers team that traded down took an average loss of -5.4 percent. If that trend were to continues this year, the Bears should expect approximately 804.1 points in return.

I read on somesuch site that some of the newer/new school GM's (including Emery) use a new chart that have evened out some of the point values at the top of the first and through the second.

[DaDitka]

BTW....for those who are wondering how 'valid' the old trade value chart is today,

HERE is a nice breakdown on how it worked out on trades in the first two rounds last year.

Two things I really took was #1 - teams trading down almost always lost value (a trend I expect to grow) #2 - on the write-ups were he reasons that the team trading back had to settle for what the team coming up had to offer, that proves that there wasn't as much interest in moving up (or these teams would have other options).

Again, according to the old chart pick 20 is worth 850 points. Based on last years numbers team that traded down took an average loss of -5.4 percent. If that trend were to continues this year, the Bears should expect approximately 804.1 points in return.

I read on somesuch site that some of the newer/new school GM's (including Emery) use a new chart that have evened out some of the point values at the top of the first and through the second.

Yeah, that's the Meer's chart. HERE is an article that discusses the differences.

I would imagine each team tweeks theirs a little, but that history compiled from last year shows that Jimmy's old chart is still a fair gauge/map.