Notice: Trying to get property 'post_title' of non-object in /home/ofzfvenynm4q/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-rss-feed-to-post/includes/wprss-ftp-display.php on line 109
We’re only eight days from the centerpiece event of a significant Chicago Bears offseason: the NFL draft on April 27-29 in Kansas City, Mo.
Who will the Bears pick at No. 9, or will they trade down again — or even back up? And where does Kansas City’s famed barbecue rank among NFL cities? The Tribune’s Brad Biggs tries to answer them all in his weekly Bears mailbag.
What are the pros and cons of the Bears trading down in the first round? — Kenny B., Peoria
The most obvious motivation for trading down would be to add more depth to this draft class and potentially to the cache of 2024 picks, depending on how far down the board Ryan Poles is willing to slide. The Bears have a pretty big gap from their first pick at No. 9 and their next selection at No. 53, the pick they received from the Baltimore Ravens in the Roquan Smith trade. If Poles can trade down and feel confident about the player he can land and bridge that gap before the second pick, that might be an appealing option.
The Bears currently own 10 picks, with five in the top 103:
- Round 1: No. 9
- Round 2: Nos. 53 and 61
- Round 3: No. 64
- Round 4: Nos. 103 and 133
- Round 5: Nos. 136 and 148
- Round 7: Nos. 218 and 258
You have to go back 20 years for the last time the Bears had five selections in the first 103. Cornerback Charles Tillman and linebacker Lance Briggs were two of the players they drafted that year.
In the last seven drafts, the Bears haven’t had more than three picks in the top 103, and that happened only three times:
- 2022: Nos. 39, 48 and 71
- 2018: Nos. 8, 39 and 51
- 2016: Nos. 9, 56 and 72
The Bears also have had big gaps because they’ve used draft capital to trade up to select quarterbacks Mitch Trubisky (2017) and Justin Fields (2021) and to trade for edge rusher Khalil Mack in 2018. Last year their third pick was No. 71 and their next pick didn’t come until No. 168. In 2021 their second pick was No. 39 and the next pick didn’t come until No. 151. In 2020 their second pick was No. 50 and their third was No. 155. In 2019 their second pick was No. 126 and their third didn’t come until No. 205.
One result is the Bears have a shortage of drafted and developed players who figure to be key players in the future. So trading down to add draft capital makes sense early in the rebuild.
The flip side of trading down is a 3-14 team that earned the No. 1 pick (with an assist from the Houston Texans) would have to wait even longer to make its first selection. The Bears need an impact player — truthfully, impact players — from this draft, and the lower you go, in theory the lower your chances of hitting. At No. 9, the Bears could have the first or second pick of offensive linemen. Move down and they might be staring at the third or fourth lineman to come off the board.
If an impact defensive player isn’t available at No. 9, maybe there’s an edge rusher they feel comfortable with a little later. But when the Bears moved from the first pick to the ninth, they risked missing out on the top defensive players — a move they can justify by the addition of wide receiver DJ Moore to give Fields a prime target.
Financially or strategically, which position would the Bears, with their first pick, most like to see on a fifth-year rookie deal? Do you think this could be much of a factor in the decision? Might it, for example, lead them to take a closer look at one of the cornerbacks? — Damian W., Missoula, Mont.
I get where you are going with this, considering the value of the position and the cost and forecasting long range. I don’t think it can be a factor in this case at all. The Bears are looking to knock it out of the park with this pick. If successful, they would be signing that first-round pick to a lucrative extension before he gets to the fifth-year option in his rookie deal. They need bona fide difference makers who can become building blocks for a return to winning ways. Calculating what the fifth-year option might be in 2027 can’t be a consideration.
Scale of 1 to 10: How confident are you in the Bears selecting Jalen Carter next Thursday? — @just_acy
Just spitballing here, I would say 25%. Some believe there’s a chance Carter will remain on the board at No. 9. Others are relatively confident his floor is No. 6 to the Detroit Lions with the Seattle Seahawks at No. 5 looming as a real possibility. Carter reportedly made pre-draft visits to every team picking between No. 5 and No. 10, including the Bears. If he falls to No. 9, it would be fair to assume multiple teams removed Carter from their draft boards. As I wrote recently, the risk Ryan Poles would have with Carter is making an error in character evaluation with his first first-round pick on a player with widely known makeup concerns.
We have seen all sorts of discussion about the Bears trading back from No. 9. What about the possibility of them moving up a few spots to draft an impact defensive player that starts to slide? — Roger S., Channahon, Ill.
I like the way you are going against the grain there. I’m not sure the odds of that are very high, but I wouldn’t rule it out. Trading up to No. 3 with the Arizona Cardinals would be very costly, so that seems like a no-go. The Seahawks at No. 5 and Lions at No. 6 both own two first-round picks, so they’re in a good spot to stay put and take the guys they want. That leaves the Las Vegas Raiders at No. 7 and Atlanta Falcons at No. 8. The Bears could move up to one of those spots without paying an arm and a leg. The argument against that would lie in the answer I provided to the first question: Ryan Poles might be driven to acquire more picks, especially early in this draft. Good question and definitely something to ponder.
Players likely to be June 1 cuts? Cody Whitehair? Eddie Jackson? — @canuckboy670am
The Bears won’t cut Whitehair unless they clearly replace him with a center via the draft. That’s a possibility, but the team has expressed confidence in Whitehair returning to center. They wouldn’t be doing him any favors if they released him after the draft.
The team also has expressed confidence in Jackson returning from his Lisfranc ligament injury. He played well last year and there isn’t a clear replacement on the roster. It’s not like the Bears are in a salary-cap crunch and need to create space by shedding a high-paid veteran. Right now, it looks like both players will be with the team this season. They can’t cut either one unless a clear starter is added.
Some respected draft analysts have Darnell Wright as the best OT in the draft even though he’s a right tackle. The Bears have an acute need at that position. Should they just pick him? Seems like if they picked him they’d have a pretty complete line that could be a tough run block unit. — @themaxconnor1
The Bears were pretty good run blocking last season and likely would be even better with Wright and free-agent addition Nate Davis. I think Wright has a chance of being selected in the teens. He might loom as a target in a potential trade-down scenario. It depends on when the run on tackles begins. If the Raiders (No. 7) and/or Falcons (No. 8) pick one, they could be snapped up pretty quickly.
[ [Don’t miss] Who will the Chicago Bears select at No. 9? Brad Biggs’ NFL mock draft 2.0. ]
Which player, if available at No. 9, is a MUST DRAFT vs. trade back? — @snoman1983
I imagine the Bears would waste no time turning in their card if edge rushers Will Anderson of Alabama or Tyree Wilson of Texas Tech somehow fell to No. 9. That seems unlikely. By now the Bears probably have a pretty good handle on how they feel about Georgia defensive tackle Jalen Carter. If he provided satisfying answers during his pre-draft visit, you probably could put him in that category as well. It just depends on how the team feels about him. Is there less risk at No. 9 than there would be at No. 1 or even No. 4? Sure. But it’s still the first first-round pick for Ryan Poles.
This year’s draft is hosted in Kansas City, known for their BBQ. As a fellow lover of BBQ, please rank the five best NFL cities based upon their BBQ joints. — @gridassassin
Before the closure of Dr. BBQ’s in St. Petersburg, Fla., after the building that housed the restaurant was closed, I would have placed Tampa Bay atop the list. Regular mailbag reader Ray Lampe, aka @DrBBQ, is as good as it gets. With that joint no longer an option, I would stack up the top five as Kansas City, Dallas, Houston, Nashville, Tenn., and Charlotte, N.C.
