Comments on: Describe the Chicago Bears 2012 Draft in ONE Word

By: DavidFritch

DavidFritch — Tue, 01 May 2012 13:34:54 +0000

Should have at the very least attempted to get Eric Winston in free agency. I’m a KC fan but also love the Bears (weird combo I know). I was glad to see that KC picked him up but disappointed that Chicago didn’t even show an attempt for him…possibly the best RT in the NFL.

By: UCF_Bear

UCF_Bear — Tue, 01 May 2012 04:27:37 +0000

@BearGogglesOn Sure thing. Here are two basic definitions of prospective:

1. (of a person) Expected or expecting to be something particular in the future.

2. Likely to happen at a future date; concerned with or applying to the future

While this draft was about finding immediate impact players, the method of selecting and the player types selected speaks expectationally of how Emery will conduct his drafts in the future. The Bears won’t jump on the Mock Draft bandwagons or select players left in later rounds simply because they have high marks on them (i.e. Bobbie Massie). Down to the very last round Emery attacked positions he felt needed depth or reinvigoration. Next year’s draft may not go directly for immediate impact players, but don’t expect someone highly mocked (i.e. Michale Floyd) to a candidate swaying this front office’s opinions. I see this as a positive and I think the draft was prospective because these players are expected to distinctly hit that ceiling that Boomer talked about in the “Innocent until proven Angelo” article. This answer may sound generic because you always draft for a player’s potential, but I get a different sense of where Emery was going with these guys.

Prospective, we can expect certain things to happen on Emery’s watch now and in the future (getting necessary weapons – Marshall, Jeffrey, Bush, Weems; Pursuing depth – Bush, Campbell, Costanzo, Hayden, Hayes, McCown, Rachal, Thomas, and Whilhite). I really like how this GM is trying to sure up the team. He’s prospective, working now and taking the future (immediate or distant) into account with his actions. GO EMERY BEAR DOWN!

By: BearGogglesOn

BearGogglesOn — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 03:10:44 +0000

@hoonj81 I’ll allow it.

By: BearGogglesOn

BearGogglesOn — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 03:10:27 +0000

@dhunter Wanting as in reaching?

By: BearGogglesOn

BearGogglesOn — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 03:09:50 +0000

@UCF_Bear Could you elaborate on this one? I’m a little unsure if this is a good thing or bad thing.

By: BearGogglesOn

BearGogglesOn — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 03:09:05 +0000

@kengrad Bonus points for supporting your argument. Double bonus for taking a common sense approach. I think O-line won’t be as bad as we think, but with that said, they could have added some talent to help add some depth and healthy competition.

By: BearGogglesOn

BearGogglesOn — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 03:04:26 +0000

@flowermike Good word! I can’t hear that word and not think of Shawshank Redemption.

By: flowermike

flowermike — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:57:46 +0000

obtuse