Something to play for: A lower pick

Something to play for: A lower pick

There are 32 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Dec 27, 2007, titled Something to play for: A lower pick. In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The Bears will play a "meaningless" game Sunday against the New Orleans Saints, but the outcome could have major ramifications on the future of the franchise.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Sister Jean Kenny

West Lebanon, IN

#1 Dec 28, 2007
After thrashing the division winning Packers at Soldier Field last Sunday one can only imagine what the boorisah Bears have in store for the struggling Saints, even on a Sunday. go Bears!
MDK

Mount Pleasant, SC

#2 Dec 28, 2007
I believe the Bears should always play to win. Besides, none of their higher picks have worked out thus far!!
Patrick

United States

#3 Dec 28, 2007
This is a very compelling argument but when he defines a "failure rate of 67%" as anyone who hasn't made a pro bowl; that seems to be a very rigid definition.

It all depends on your scouting and ability to identify talent. If you can't do it then picking high is an albatross.
Tony

Tampa, FL

#4 Dec 28, 2007
Is the season over yet?
Bill

United States

#5 Dec 28, 2007
.

When it is pointed out that teams such as the Ravens have a much better record of drafting in the higher rounds,---- doesn't THAT just come down to them being far better talent evaluators ??

Angelo and crew,--- are you listening ??

.
A little drafty

Chicago, IL

#6 Dec 28, 2007
Patrick wrote:
This is a very compelling argument but when he defines a "failure rate of 67%" as anyone who hasn't made a pro bowl; that seems to be a very rigid definition.
It all depends on your scouting and ability to identify talent. If you can't do it then picking high is an albatross.
Agreed. I understand the logic of Pompei's argument but I wouldn't necessarily agree with it all the time. In a way, Pompeii makes Cardinals tackle Levi Brown a sacrificial lamb because Arizona passed on Adrian Peterson to "satisfy a need" at a certain position. What he doesn't point out is that it's worked out quite well for Arizona. Thus far, an aged Edgerrin James has rushed decently for 1,120 yards and 6 TDs and the Cards have only given up 24 sacks with an immobile Kurt Warner steering the ship. That ranks them 10th in the league, just behind stalwart pass-protecting clubs Dallas, San Diego and Indianapolis.
I'd say picking Brown worked out fine, even if he hasn't made the Pro Bowl.
jon

Lincolnshire, IL

#7 Dec 28, 2007
If the Bears get a top 10 pick, they'll just trade down like they always do. I don't see the downfall of getting a higher pick, except the disappointment I'll feel on Sunday. But then it's 4 months of Mel Kiper talking about what the Bears will do with their top 10 pick

Since: Oct 07

Chicago, IL

#8 Dec 28, 2007
The Bears wouldn't know what to do with a top 10 pick. If they were smart, they would draft an offensive lineman, just like Arizona did with Brown. But is Angelo smart enough to do that? That is the biggest risk for the Bears. Arizona's scouts and GM were smart enough to pass on Peterson because they filled a "need" and what the Bears need is an offensive line. However, Angelo would probably burn the pick on QB or RB or WR if he could and hope that he pans out. O-Line is the biggest priority for this team ... then on to the rest of this abortion.
MDK

Mount Pleasant, SC

#9 Dec 28, 2007
Maybe Lovie and Angelo should just start thinking:

WHAT WOULD NEW ENGLAND DO????
Cliff

Wasco, IL

#10 Dec 28, 2007
However meaningless the game is, and however higher a pick the Bears would get by losing, it would make me happier to win two-games in a row, to win the last game of the season, and to keep Reggie Bush out of the playoffs. There is no "sure thing" for a Bear pick, and other bloggers are right: Angelo will just trade down.
Frayzon

AOL

#11 Dec 28, 2007
As long as Angelo's making the pick, any top 10 pick will be a bust... especially if he attempts to pick an offensive player. Why does he trade down so often? Because he can't handle the pressure. Tell us again, Jerry, about "floors and ceilings" and please remind us where your ceiling is. We haven't seen it.
Dirk

Midlothian, IL

#12 Dec 28, 2007
Fred Taylor from the Jacksonville Jaguars was the #9 pick in 1998 and has never made the Pro Bowl. Yet for some reason he's rushed for over 10,000 yards. Is he a failed pick by these standards?
Skippy Funpants

United States

#13 Dec 28, 2007
I'd like to see some statistics on what percentage of picks 11-20 have made the Pro Bowl in recent years. I think the draft in general is a crap shoot. The more important issue to me is that they win out this year and carry the momentum into next season. Didn't hurt the Packers any.

Since: Oct 07

Chicago, IL

#14 Dec 28, 2007
MDK wrote:
Maybe Lovie and Angelo should just start thinking:
WHAT WOULD NEW ENGLAND DO????
New England is going to draft McFadden and beat the tar out of everybody again next year ... that's what they're going to do. It's because that team is smart, well coached, well paid, loved and hated by all ... They can scout talent, get the talent and make it even better ...

Since: Oct 07

Chicago, IL

#15 Dec 28, 2007
Dirk wrote:
Fred Taylor from the Jacksonville Jaguars was the #9 pick in 1998 and has never made the Pro Bowl. Yet for some reason he's rushed for over 10,000 yards. Is he a failed pick by these standards?
He just made the Pro Bowl this year ... but as an alternate. And no, he is not a failed pick because he can run like hell ... he's just oft-injured.
Sharp Shooter

Midlothian, IL

#16 Dec 28, 2007
boonasty51 wrote:
<quoted text>
He just made the Pro Bowl this year ... but as an alternate. And no, he is not a failed pick because he can run like hell ... he's just oft-injured.
So if he's an "alternate" he wasn't voted to the Pro Bowl, was he. He's getting in because somebody else who was voted to the Pro Bowl backed out.
NostraTomas

United States

#17 Dec 28, 2007
Patrick wrote:
This is a very compelling argument but when he defines a "failure rate of 67%" as anyone who hasn't made a pro bowl; that seems to be a very rigid definition.
It all depends on your scouting and ability to identify talent. If you can't do it then picking high is an albatross.
I agree completely that the author's definition of "failure rate" is absolutely bizzare. This a typicall writer's attempt at bending the truth to make themselves sound more convincing, nice try. The fact is wether or not you make the pro-bowl has very little to do with the calibur of the player selected. Every year the pro bowl selections prove this point that the most talented players, with the best stats, are not always selected for they're specific positions. For example this year Brian Urlacher collected better statistics then both nominations at his position and did not make the final cut.
Patrick

United States

#18 Dec 28, 2007
Cliff wrote:
However meaningless the game is, and however higher a pick the Bears would get by losing, it would make me happier to win two-games in a row, to win the last game of the season, and to keep Reggie Bush out of the playoffs. There is no "sure thing" for a Bear pick, and other bloggers are right: Angelo will just trade down.
Angelo's ability to actually trade down is pretty solid. It's what he does with the picks that troubles me. He pulled off some nice trades with Buffalo and San Diego in the last few years and then fumbled the picks. Dan Bazuin?? Are you kidding me? We were stacked at DE. Wolfe would have been a stretch even in the 4th rd.

Since: Oct 07

Chicago, IL

#19 Dec 28, 2007
Sharp Shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
So if he's an "alternate" he wasn't voted to the Pro Bowl, was he. He's getting in because somebody else who was voted to the Pro Bowl backed out.
No ... he wasn't voted in. Is that your point? He also ran for over 1,200 yards this year.
mark k

Glendale, AZ

#20 Dec 28, 2007
I could careless about the money, draft high and get the best player!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ernie Sims Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cowboys begin planning for life without Sean Lee (May '14) May '14 Darkness Falls 2
News Dallas Cowboys Should Stay Away From Rolando Mc... (Apr '13) Apr '13 Haleys Commet 2
News If The Price Is Right: 5 Affordable Free Agents (Mar '13) Mar '13 Cowboy fan 1 4
News Dallas Cowboys Add Veteran Depth to Defense (Mar '13) Mar '13 cornelius boulard 2
News Status of Tony Romo's contract extension (Mar '13) Mar '13 Brownie 1
News Dallas Cowboys Looking To Make More Meaningless... (Mar '13) Mar '13 Gstspkr 1
News Vick nestles into third-string QB role (Dec '12) Dec '12 genevalove 6
More from around the web