The analysis of Smith's weakness is exactly my worry about taking Smith. If all opponents have to do is run at Smith to negate his tremendous speed and quickness, that is exactly what they will do.
IMO to exploit the skills of Smith, we will need another DE like Hicks so we have the ability to keep Smith clean in the LB space behind the DL.
And I agree with Kollmann's analysis ... "Is his ceiling as high as Edmunds? No." Which is why my hope was we would have taken Edmunds if we were faced with taking a LB at #8. We can build out DL around Smith but with who we have at the other DE (opposite Hicks), I don't think we have all the pieces needed to make Smith successful in the NFL.
Think the Bills traded up to 16 to get Edmunds
Pace didn't go with the expected "ceiling" guy this time. I thought he would take Edmunds if I had to bet. Instead he took the "for sure, right now" guy in Smith. I think Fangio is a pragmatic guy that does not see as much value in potential as Pace. He is a guy that wants a sure thing - at least that is my perception of him. We got a heck of a player regardless.
The analysis of Smith's weakness is exactly my worry about taking Smith. If all opponents have to do is run at Smith to negate his tremendous speed and quickness, that is exactly what they will do.
IMO to exploit the skills of Smith, we will need another DE like Hicks so we have the ability to keep Smith clean in the LB space behind the DL.
And I agree with Kollmann's analysis ... "Is his ceiling as high as Edmunds? No." Which is why my hope was we would have taken Edmunds if we were faced with taking a LB at #8. We can build out DL around Smith but with who we have at the other DE (opposite Hicks), I don't think we have all the pieces needed to make Smith successful in the NFL.
Think the Bills traded up to 16 to get Edmunds
Pace didn't go with the expected "ceiling" guy this time. I thought he would take Edmunds if I had to bet. Instead he took the "for sure, right now" guy in Smith. I think Fangio is a pragmatic guy that does not see as much value in potential as Pace. He is a guy that wants a sure thing - at least that is my perception of him. We got a heck of a player regardless.
I think Fangio has had a say in all the def picks so far, just like I think Gase had a say in the O picks...Fox had a say in the picks also. Pace isn't a power monger from how he talks, he wants colaberation.
I definitely think Fangio had a say in this pick, I think he also had a say in Floyd and Jackson and Bullard etc.
Pace didn't go with the expected "ceiling" guy this time. I thought he would take Edmunds if I had to bet. Instead he took the "for sure, right now" guy in Smith. I think Fangio is a pragmatic guy that does not see as much value in potential as Pace. He is a guy that wants a sure thing - at least that is my perception of him. We got a heck of a player regardless.
I think Fangio has had a say in all the def picks so far, just like I think Gase had a say in the O picks...Fox had a say in the picks also. Pace isn't a power monger from how he talks, he wants colaberation.
I definitely think Fangio had a say in this pick, I think he also had a say in Floyd and Jackson and Bullard etc.
There was some buzz when they were trying to sign him that going forward there would be more input. If so, he might have had a say previously but not as much say as he has today.
I think Fangio has had a say in all the def picks so far, just like I think Gase had a say in the O picks...Fox had a say in the picks also. Pace isn't a power monger from how he talks, he wants colaberation.
I definitely think Fangio had a say in this pick, I think he also had a say in Floyd and Jackson and Bullard etc.
There was some buzz when they were trying to sign him that going forward there would be more input. If so, he might have had a say previously but not as much say as he has today.
I think he got more say the minute Fox left. Maybe that was part of it, but when the def minded HC left I think it went w/outsaying that the DC was going to have more say, just not sure how much more he was going to get b/c again everything you hear from Pace is collaberation.
The analysis of Smith's weakness is exactly my worry about taking Smith. If all opponents have to do is run at Smith to negate his tremendous speed and quickness, that is exactly what they will do.
IMO to exploit the skills of Smith, we will need another DE like Hicks so we have the ability to keep Smith clean in the LB space behind the DL.
And I agree with Kollmann's analysis ... "Is his ceiling as high as Edmunds? No." Which is why my hope was we would have taken Edmunds if we were faced with taking a LB at #8. We can build out DL around Smith but with who we have at the other DE (opposite Hicks), I don't think we have all the pieces needed to make Smith successful in the NFL.
That was my issue. He is not going to be bad. And if we had 3 stud DL in front of him he will be great. But we have 2 stud DL, and his ceiling is not great.
This is a 15-30 pick safe solid but not exceptional. If you are picking top 10 you have a team in need of studs not safe and solid. I also don't want my top 10 pick to be reliant on everyone around him, or the other side not knowing to run right at him.
Not a bad pick. He will be good, just not sure he can be special with what the bears have around him.
You are waaayyyyyy undervaluing Smith. He will be a great mlb for us, regardless who is on the D line.
That was my issue. He is not going to be bad. And if we had 3 stud DL in front of him he will be great. But we have 2 stud DL, and his ceiling is not great.
This is a 15-30 pick safe solid but not exceptional. If you are picking top 10 you have a team in need of studs not safe and solid. I also don't want my top 10 pick to be reliant on everyone around him, or the other side not knowing to run right at him.
Not a bad pick. He will be good, just not sure he can be special with what the bears have around him.
You are waaayyyyyy undervaluing Smith. He will be a great mlb for us, regardless who is on the D line.
No he won't. if the DL falls apart he will to. He cannot, and b/c he cannot he won't, take on OL and that will create holes in the def that the rest of the def will have to cover, which creates problems when each other person has their own responcibilities. Watch Kollmans breakdown he perfectly breaks down his downside, and it's acute.
He's a good pick, he's a safe pick, nothing wrong w/the pick. I think 670 just broke it down perfectly. He's a better player right now then Edmunds, but Edmunds is probably the better player down the line. See w/a top 10 pick, I want the higher ceiling; I want the guy that has all pro potential, espeically as an OLB. I want the safe pick, the ilb only pick at 15-30 when I already have studs on the def that can get after the qb. It's why you rarely see 3-4 ilb's go in the top 10(rarely not never).
We'll just have to wait and see how he performs. One writer mentioned that the problem shedding blocks was Urlacher's weakness too, and one he never did overcome. But he still turned out to be a good LB for us. Like others have pointed out, Smith is probably a great fit for Fangio's defense, so undoubtedly this played a role in drafting him. I'm always wanting to gamble and draft a high-ceiling guy, but all too often the Bears players we've gambled on, never hit that mythical "ceiling" which pretty much sucks for us. People are calling this Smith pick a "safe" pick. Maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Scouts Inc. had Roquan graded out as tied as the 4th best player in this draft. They had him graded 1 point lower than Chubb and Nelson, who were tied as the #2 graded players in this draft. I don't know if that has any validity. But we're always clamoring here to go BPA. Well. Maybe Roquan Smith was the BPA at #8 this year, and to top that off he fits our D scheme well. So, I'm not losing any sleep over the pick. For that matter, it might be nice to have an All-Pro level LB here in Chicago again. This could be that guy. Time will tell.
p.s. I was hoping for Nelson last night. It broke my heart to see him go off the board :-)
We'll just have to wait and see how he performs. One writer mentioned that the problem shedding blocks was Urlacher's weakness too, and one he never did overcome. But he still turned out to be a good LB for us. Like others have pointed out, Smith is probably a great fit for Fangio's defense, so undoubtedly this played a role in drafting him. I'm always wanting to gamble and draft a high-ceiling guy, but all too often the Bears players we've gambled on, never hit that mythical "ceiling" which pretty much sucks for us. People are calling this Smith pick a "safe" pick. Maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Scouts Inc. had Roquan graded out as tied as the 4th best player in this draft. They had him graded 1 point lower than Chubb and Nelson, who were tied as the #2 graded players in this draft. I don't know if that has any validity. But we're always clamoring here to go BPA. Well. Maybe Roquan Smith was the BPA at #8 this year, and to top that off he fits our D scheme well. So, I'm not losing any sleep over the pick. For that matter, it might be nice to have an All-Pro level LB here in Chicago again. This could be that guy. Time will tell.
p.s. I was hoping for Nelson last night. It broke my heart to see him go off the board :-)
Yeah... I saw that sad face in chat... when you think about it, since we have coach H, maybe we dont need to draft G this high, maybe he can turn a 2nd rounder into a pro-bowler
Don't get too caught up in his size. Danny Trevathan is only 230, Freeman was 235, Willis was 240 when he was drafted I believe. Reuben Foster was 229, Ryan Shazier was 235, so was CJ Mosely. Myles Jack and Bendarick McKinney were only 245. I'm really not worried about his weight.
We'll just have to wait and see how he performs. One writer mentioned that the problem shedding blocks was Urlacher's weakness too, and one he never did overcome. But he still turned out to be a good LB for us. Like others have pointed out, Smith is probably a great fit for Fangio's defense, so undoubtedly this played a role in drafting him. I'm always wanting to gamble and draft a high-ceiling guy, but all too often the Bears players we've gambled on, never hit that mythical "ceiling" which pretty much sucks for us. People are calling this Smith pick a "safe" pick. Maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Scouts Inc. had Roquan graded out as tied as the 4th best player in this draft. They had him graded 1 point lower than Chubb and Nelson, who were tied as the #2 graded players in this draft. I don't know if that has any validity. But we're always clamoring here to go BPA. Well. Maybe Roquan Smith was the BPA at #8 this year, and to top that off he fits our D scheme well. So, I'm not losing any sleep over the pick. For that matter, it might be nice to have an All-Pro level LB here in Chicago again. This could be that guy. Time will tell.
p.s. I was hoping for Nelson last night. It broke my heart to see him go off the board :-)
Yeah... I saw that sad face in chat... when you think about it, since we have coach H, maybe we dont need to draft G this high, maybe he can turn a 2nd rounder into a pro-bowler
Alex, I was thinking the exact same thing even prior to draft night.