I don't see Vea as the #8 overall pick but if Nelson is off the board I'm leaning towards Smith or Vea either of whom we may be able to take a few picks later and get a 3rd round pick back.
A DL of Vea, Goldman, and Hicks all of whom are somewhat versatile position wise would look pretty damn good as would an ILB rotation of Trevathan, Kwiatkoski, and Smith.
I disagree. I see a 10+ sack capable five tech in him as well as a top not NT pig. He creates an awful lot pressure, even against double teams he moves the pocket.
Man if you are right I hope the bears get him, and 10 sacks is nice but 4 of watts 5 healthy years were 17 20 and 20, 10 was fairly low on end of his sack figures. Vea even at 10 sacks is not watt.
Post by GrizzlyBear on Apr 21, 2018 8:10:12 GMT -6
I love the idea of Nelson protecting Mitch for multiple years but Vea is a very intriguing player imo.
Can you imagine LE Goldman (320) - NT Vea (340) - RE Hicks (332) playing together and what it would mean for AR, Stafford and Cousins? That's basically a 1,000 lbs DL!
I love the idea of Nelson protecting Mitch for multiple years but Vea is a very intriguing player imo.
Can you imagine LE Goldman (320) - NT Vea (340) - RE Hicks (332) playing together and what it would mean for AR, Stafford and Cousins? That's basically a 1,000 lbs DL!
As much as I like Edmunds and believe we desperately need to upgrade our LB corps, I honestly think Vea should be considered at #8. If only Bullard could finally turn into the stud we all thought he would be, than maybe Vea wouldn't be a need.
There are so many options at #8 but we only have one pick. -_- Sucks we don't have two inside the top 10 like the Browns.
As much as I like Edmunds and believe we desperately need to upgrade our LB corps, I honestly think Vea should be considered at #8. If only Bullard could finally turn into the stud we all thought he would be, than maybe Vea wouldn't be a need.
There are so many options at #8 but we only have one pick. -_- Sucks we don't have two inside the top 10 like the Browns.
As much as I like Edmunds and believe we desperately need to upgrade our LB corps, I honestly think Vea should be considered at #8. If only Bullard could finally turn into the stud we all thought he would be, than maybe Vea wouldn't be a need.
There are so many options at #8 but we only have one pick. -_- Sucks we don't have two inside the top 10 like the Browns.
I could see Vea being the pick as no one really seems to talk about him as a Bear.
I like Nelson, but I still struggle w/ the idea of OG that high, i'd be fine w/it, just not sure it's ever the best value, especially in a really good OG class.
I love Edmunds, but if he's only seen as an ILB, I struggle to see how you take him top 10 for the same reason as Nelson, not sure the value is there for a 3-4 ILB, same w/Smith if he's seen only as an ILB. If Edmunds can go to OLB, even if only on situational plays it's a decent move.
Not sure there is the need for WR at 8 anymore, Arob, Gabriel, Burton killed that need.
Chubb is the only pure edge rusher that could be valued at 8, but he won't be there(neither will Nelson for that matter imo).
Vea is going to be there, and can be an everydown player for the Bears; the question is how the team really feels about Bullard and RRH, and if the rotation will happen enough to justify Vea at 8.
As much as I like Edmunds and believe we desperately need to upgrade our LB corps, I honestly think Vea should be considered at #8. If only Bullard could finally turn into the stud we all thought he would be, than maybe Vea wouldn't be a need.
There are so many options at #8 but we only have one pick. -_- Sucks we don't have two inside the top 10 like the Browns.
I could see Vea being the pick as no one really seems to talk about him as a Bear.
I like Nelson, but I still struggle w/ the idea of OG that high, i'd be fine w/it, just not sure it's ever the best value, especially in a really good OG class.
I love Edmunds, but if he's only seen as an ILB, I struggle to see how you take him top 10 for the same reason as Nelson, not sure the value is there for a 3-4 ILB, same w/Smith if he's seen only as an ILB. If Edmunds can go to OLB, even if only on situational plays it's a decent move.
Not sure there is the need for WR at 8 anymore, Arob, Gabriel, Burton killed that need.
Chubb is the only pure edge rusher that could be valued at 8, but he won't be there(neither will Nelson for that matter imo).
Vea is going to be there, and can be an everydown player for the Bears; the question is how the team really feels about Bullard and RRH, and if the rotation will happen enough to justify Vea at 8.
About the only prospect predicted to the Bears I don't have an issue with is Vea. He fills a need and if he's as predicted, improves the front 7 to the point where risks can be taken later in the draft on an ILB.
I don't mind taking Nelson. I don't struggle with positional value as much as others do. By and large I think it's a by product of the mock draft industry. There are positions I wouldn't draft high but I think how the NFL is looking at Gs is starting to change .I think that is a function of the increasing emphasis put on the passing game . But I don't think Nelson improves the OFF as much as Vea improves the DEF.
I don't want anyone taken at 8 who gets talked about needing a position change. I don't want anyone at 8 who is described as 'raw.' Pick a player who is a ready to go as possible.