Christian McCaffery

[Pakuni]

Top 10 picks are incredibly valuable assets, rewards for failure. If you're a GM in the top 10, more than likely you fall into one of two categories...new GM or on the brink of being fired. The NFL is a hard cap league, and the RB position clearly is devalued for two reasons: 1) Evolution of short passing game, and 2) RBs are easy to find. I didn't think I had to spell it out, it's clearly not a straw man argument, but the future missed opportunity costs in later seasons is what hurts you if you draft a RB early (unless you trade back to pick up assets in the process). Outside of the obvious in hitting on a QB, the best way for a lousy team to get better quick is to hit on drafting studs (on rookie contracts) at premium positions (Seahawks are perfect example). I've argued and shown you can get similar production at a cheaper cost by drafting a RB later. QB position is an outlier, that'll get any GM fired if they miss, but RB or even WR in the top 10 makes a GM very vulnerable. I'm deviating a bit here sure, but Kevin White will be Exhibit A if Ryan Pace is fired this offseason.

Enjoy the draft everybody.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying about the devaluation of the RB position in the draft, etc., but this is where you lose me. Why do you seem to believe that missing on a RB (or WR, it seems) in the top 10 is somehow a more grievous sin than missing on an OT or DE?

It's probably worth noting here that as the RB position has been devalued, teams are missing - and will continue to miss - less often on RB prospects. Because they're going to be really certain before investing a high pick in a back.
Just the opposite has occurred over the past couple of decades as the OT and DE positions have gained value. Teams are grabbing guys at those positions in the top 10 who have no business being top 10 picks, and thus we're seeing a lot of OTs in particular bust.
For every Trent Richardson, I'll give you a Greg Robinson, a Jason Smith, a Matt Kalil and a Luke Joeckel. For every CJ Spiller, I'll give you a Dion Jordan, Barkevious Mingo, Vernon Gholston and Gaines Adams.

[reinko]

Cool dude.

When two of your favorite posters are fighting 

[MU82]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying about the devaluation of the RB position in the draft, etc., but this is where you lose me. Why do you seem to believe that missing on a RB (or WR, it seems) in the top 10 is somehow a more grievous sin than missing on an OT or DE?

It's probably worth noting here that as the RB position has been devalued, teams are missing - and will continue to miss - less often on RB prospects. Because they're going to be really certain before investing a high pick in a back.
Just the opposite has occurred over the past couple of decades as the OT and DE positions have gained value. Teams are grabbing guys at those positions in the top 10 who have no business being top 10 picks, and thus we're seeing a lot of OTs in particular bust.
For every Trent Richardson, I'll give you a Greg Robinson, a Jason Smith, a Matt Kalil and a Luke Joeckel. For every CJ Spiller, I'll give you a Dion Jordan, Barkevious Mingo, Vernon Gholston and Gaines Adams.

This is a great point but you know as well as I do that most people fall asleep even thinking about linemen, especially offensive linemen and defensive tackles. RBs are "exciting" picks and, like QBs, get more attention. When one performs well, fans say, "Why didn't we draft him?" And when one is a bust, fans spew the hate.

[MU82]

When two of your favorite posters are fighting 

I didn't even know we were fighting.

[wadesworld]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying about the devaluation of the RB position in the draft, etc., but this is where you lose me. Why do you seem to believe that missing on a RB (or WR, it seems) in the top 10 is somehow a more grievous sin than missing on an OT or DE?

It's probably worth noting here that as the RB position has been devalued, teams are missing - and will continue to miss - less often on RB prospects. Because they're going to be really certain before investing a high pick in a back.
Just the opposite has occurred over the past couple of decades as the OT and DE positions have gained value. Teams are grabbing guys at those positions in the top 10 who have no business being top 10 picks, and thus we're seeing a lot of OTs in particular bust.
For every Trent Richardson, I'll give you a Greg Robinson, a Jason Smith, a Matt Kalil and a Luke Joeckel. For every CJ Spiller, I'll give you a Dion Jordan, Barkevious Mingo, Vernon Gholston and Gaines Adams.

That was my exact thought as well.  There will be bad picks made/busts in every round, at every position, and by every team over time.  Missing on first round picks, regardless of what position that pick was at, will hurt just the same.  Picking Derrick Sherrod in the first round is no better than picking Trent Richardson in the first round.

[MUBurrow]

So I actually subscribe a bit to the theory that its not as bad to miss on Sherrod as Richardson (the reasons the players were mis-evaluated being equal).  By and large, the success of a RB is seen as the effect, not the cause. Sure a RB can't be godawful and have a good year, but generally speaking, their success is the product of their environment.  If you're picking near the top of the draft, unless its due to a key injury the year before (Cowboys & Romo) or you traded up, chances are its because your environment isn't very good. You've got to build from the ground up, and unless you have a generational talent like Dickerson, Sanders or Peterson, your RB isn't going to save you and in fact, your crappy line will make it more difficult to evaluate what you have in him.

[DegenerateDish]

For the record, I'm really enjoying this discussion, I like the back and forth and perspective. If my thoughts on this go down in flames, I'll own it. I also happen to like this draft a lot, I think this one in particular (especially the top 12 picks) have a ton of smokescreens going on and a lot of intrigue. For fun's sake, if a RB goes top 10, I'll donate $20 to Ronald McDonald House Eastern Wisconsin. I'm happy to be wrong in that instance.

[Pakuni]

For the record, I'm really enjoying this discussion, I like the back and forth and perspective. If my thoughts on this go down in flames, I'll own it. I also happen to like this draft a lot, I think this one in particular (especially the top 12 picks) have a ton of smokescreens going on and a lot of intrigue. For fun's sake, if a RB goes top 10, I'll donate $20 to Ronald McDonald House Eastern Wisconsin. I'm happy to be wrong in that instance.

Same here.
I'm a total draft dork, especially NFL draft, and enjoy the (friendly, I think/hope) debate.
I'll match your donation if a RB doesn't go in the top 10. Though I'll like choose a RM House closer to home.

[DegenerateDish]

Same here.
I'm a total draft dork, especially NFL draft, and enjoy the (friendly, I think/hope) debate.
I'll match your donation if a RB doesn't go in the top 10. Though I'll like choose a RM House closer to home.

All in fun, and I apologize to MU82 if he took offense. Reading it back, I certainly see why that conversation went down the road it did, and it's my fault. He was just reading up on the draft and taking an interest in his team, zero fault there, and I took a sentence he stated, and I shouldn't have quoted him, I should have made it a side conversation.

I love the draft because it's an art of science meeting luck (I'm guessing that's the proper word here). A lot of sports is "what if?", and I love looking back at previous drafts to see where guys went, who passed them up, and the current state of that team today.

I have no clue at all what the Bears will do at 3. I think Solomon Thomas is my favorite player in this draft, I think Jamal Adams is the safest (in a good way) player in the draft. Also, I'm curious if the Jets trade out at 6 for a first rounder next year, as I think they're focused more on next year's draft (Darnold) than being good in 2017. I'm also interested to see if the stock I bought in Myles Garrett is a bad investment.

[Pakuni]

I have no clue at all what the Bears will do at 3. I think Solomon Thomas is my favorite player in this draft, I think Jamal Adams is the safest (in a good way) player in the draft. Also, I'm curious if the Jets trade out at 6 for a first rounder next year, as I think they're focused more on next year's draft (Darnold) than being good in 2017. I'm also interested to see if the stock I bought in Myles Garrett is a bad investment.

So, just to show you what a dork I am, me and a group of six other like-minded fans hold an NFL Draft party every year, including a mock draft competition (winner gets a case of beer of their choosing, paid for by everyone else).

Anyhow, I started work on my draft yesterday, but couldn't get past the Bears because there are so many logical ways they can go. Adams probably is the best and safest DB in the draft, but SS seems to be the only secondary position where the Bears are set. Lattimore to me is a huge boom-or-bust candidate, and while he fills a need, can Pace/Fox afford the risk? Hooker is  the best free safety and a much-needed ballhawk, but is he a reach at #3? Allen seems a logical pick, but how worried are the Bears about his shoulders?

[DegenerateDish]

So, just to show you what a dork I am, me and a group of six other like-minded fans hold an NFL Draft party every year, including a mock draft competition (winner gets a case of beer of their choosing, paid for by everyone else).

Anyhow, I started work on my draft yesterday, but couldn't get past the Bears because there are so many logical ways they can go. Adams probably is the best and safest DB in the draft, but SS seems to be the only secondary position where the Bears are set. Lattimore to me is a huge boom-or-bust candidate, and while he fills a need, can Pace/Fox afford the risk? Hooker is  the best free safety and a much-needed ballhawk, but is he a reach at #3? Allen seems a logical pick, but how worried are the Bears about his shoulders?

This is so spot on the money. I'm hoping Thomas falls to 3 for that reason (plus I love him). It might have been Stanford's bowl game (or a late season Pac 12 game), but I remember watching Thomas play and thinking holy $hit, that kid can play, where is he on draft boards?

The way out of left field pick for the Bears would be to take OJ Howard at 3. I realize it makes zero sense, and to my RB point, it's nuts to take a TE top 5 (let alone top 10). I personally think Howard is the best offensive player in the draft, and I believe whatever team drafts him will have traded up to get him. I don't think they'll take Howard at all at #3, but with where they are at as a team, and lacking playmakers, might they think about it?

[wadesworld]

This is so spot on the money. I'm hoping Thomas falls to 3 for that reason (plus I love him). It might have been Stanford's bowl game (or a late season Pac 12 game), but I remember watching Thomas play and thinking holy $hit, that kid can play, where is he on draft boards?

The way out of left field pick for the Bears would be to take OJ Howard at 3. I realize it makes zero sense, and to my RB point, it's nuts to take a TE top 5 (let alone top 10). I personally think Howard is the best offensive player in the draft, and I believe whatever team drafts him will have traded up to get him. I don't think they'll take Howard at all at #3, but with where they are at as a team, and lacking playmakers, might they think about it?

I love Howard.

[RJax55]

This is so spot on the money. I'm hoping Thomas falls to 3 for that reason (plus I love him). It might have been Stanford's bowl game (or a late season Pac 12 game), but I remember watching Thomas play and thinking holy $hit, that kid can play, where is he on draft boards?

The way out of left field pick for the Bears would be to take OJ Howard at 3. I realize it makes zero sense, and to my RB point, it's nuts to take a TE top 5 (let alone top 10). I personally think Howard is the best offensive player in the draft, and I believe whatever team drafts him will have traded up to get him. I don't think they'll take Howard at all at #3, but with where they are at as a team, and lacking playmakers, might they think about it?

It was the Sun Bowl against UNC that Thomas absolutely dominated. I'm with you guys on Thomas, would love to have him get past the 49ers. Bears were so close to having Leonard Williams and Aaron Donald fall to them in recent drafts.

I don't think picking Howard at #3 is crazy at all. In the top-10, especially top-5, teams should be looking for guys that have the traits/ability to become a top 2 or 3 play-maker at their position. Howard definitely has that. Now compare him to a guy like Adams.

While Adams looks like a safe pick, does he really have the ball-skills necessary to be a difference maker? I would say no.

[JWags85]

Dish, any truth to the rumors that the Bears really like Watson and may look to trade up to get him in the late first?

[DegenerateDish]

Dish, any truth to the rumors that the Bears really like Watson and may look to trade up to get him in the late first?

I don't know, I've heard for months they love Kaaya, and I just can't see Pace trading up (at least in rounds 1 or 2) for anyone. I have no idea what to make of where any of these QB's go, you could tell me four go in round 1 or zero go in round 1, and I'd buy into both.

[Pakuni]

I don't know, I've heard for months they love Kaaya, and I just can't see Pace trading up (at least in rounds 1 or 2) for anyone. I have no idea what to make of where any of these QB's go, you could tell me four go in round 1 or zero go in round 1, and I'd buy into both.

Yeah, between the Bears' many holes to fill and Glennon's signing, it makes little sense for them to give up picks move back into the first for a QB this year.
A developmental guy who might be there in the 3rd/4th (Kaaya, Webb, Peterman, Dobbs) might make sense, depending on how much they like him.

One of my draft surprises is Mahomes going in the top 20. I also think he'll be a bust. For some reason he reeks of JP Losman to me.

[RJax55]

Yeah, between the Bears' many holes to fill and Glennon's signing, it makes little sense for them to give up picks move back into the first for a QB this year.
A developmental guy who might be there in the 3rd/4th (Kaaya, Webb, Peterman, Dobbs) might make sense, depending on how much they like him.

I think Bears trade down at #36. Pace has talked a lot of the value of stock-piling picks and #36 will be much easier to move than #3.

Wildcard for the Bears is John Fox. What's he thinking and advocating? It seems that the family has given Pace a long leash and is willing to have some patience with him. But, is that the same for Fox?

If the Bears pick a QB #3 or trade-up into the first round for one, there will be pressure (a ton) to play him from the fans, media, etc. Does that jive with John Fox's desires? Does he need 7 wins or more to keep his job this season?

If so, Fox's best bet is on Glennon and an improved defense. If this is a make or break season for Fox, having a high pick breathing down Glennon's neck is hardily a recipe for success.

Also, the Bears' September schedule is brutal. They're looking at 1-3 start with 0-4 being very, very possible. Say they pick Watson at #3 and they are 0-4 ending September. The calls to play him will be deafening.

[DegenerateDish]

Yeah, between the Bears' many holes to fill and Glennon's signing, it makes little sense for them to give up picks move back into the first for a QB this year.
A developmental guy who might be there in the 3rd/4th (Kaaya, Webb, Peterman, Dobbs) might make sense, depending on how much they like him.

One of my draft surprises is Mahomes going in the top 20. I also think he'll be a bust. For some reason he reeks of JP Losman to me.

I think I saw Charlie Casserly had Webb going in round 1. I'm officially mock draft out after seeing that.

[MU82]

All in fun, and I apologize to MU82 if he took offense. Reading it back, I certainly see why that conversation went down the road it did, and it's my fault. He was just reading up on the draft and taking an interest in his team, zero fault there, and I took a sentence he stated, and I shouldn't have quoted him, I should have made it a side conversation.

I love the draft because it's an art of science meeting luck (I'm guessing that's the proper word here). A lot of sports is "what if?", and I love looking back at previous drafts to see where guys went, who passed them up, and the current state of that team today.

I have no clue at all what the Bears will do at 3. I think Solomon Thomas is my favorite player in this draft, I think Jamal Adams is the safest (in a good way) player in the draft. Also, I'm curious if the Jets trade out at 6 for a first rounder next year, as I think they're focused more on next year's draft (Darnold) than being good in 2017. I'm also interested to see if the stock I bought in Myles Garrett is a bad investment.

No offense taken, Dish.

Now go donate that 20 bucks regardless of who goes where in the draft!

[DegenerateDish]

We'll continue this as the draft talk thread, I assume that's cool with everyone.

I've heard the Browns are eyeing the #3 pick, a lot of people think the Browns will trade up from 12 to get a QB. Hypothetically it would typically cost the Browns 12, 33, 53 if you use the Jimmy Johnson trade chart. If that offer gets on the table to the Bears, I would sprint to the phone to call it in.

[DegenerateDish]

All night, I've heard Trubisky is going 1. The Schefter stuff from this week was all weird, McGinn has him going 1 too. Way too much smoke here.

[Pakuni]

All night, I've heard Trubisky is going 1. The Schefter stuff from this week was all weird, McGinn has him going 1 too. Way too much smoke here.

Cleveland will not take Trubisky #1.
At most, they're softening things up for a possible trade out of the #1 spot so they can claim they got the guy (Trubisky) they wanted all along and they would have taken him at #1 if they hadn't traded out.
Either that or they're laying the groundwork to give up a ton to move back into the top 10 after picking Garett first.

[DegenerateDish]

Cleveland will not take Trubisky #1.
At most, they're softening things up for a possible trade out of the #1 spot so they can claim they got the guy (Trubisky) they wanted all along and they would have taken him at #1 if they hadn't traded out.
Either that or they're laying the groundwork to give up a ton to move back into the top 10 after picking Garett first.

I don't disagree with you, but both Schefter and McGinn saying he goes 1 makes me go...hmm.

[DegenerateDish]

Betting markets are plummeting on Garrett going #1.

[RJax55]

Betting markets are plummeting on Garrett going #1.

Could Garrett fall past the 49ers? Wishful thinking of course.