Chicago Bears Mock Draft

The Bears have glaring needs at two position groups: linebacker and offensive line.  Losing long-time great Brian Urlacher certainly hurts emotionally.  Sending Nick Roach away to the Raiders of all teams is simply a punch in the gut.  Although DJ Williams and James Anderson are solid signings, neither can be looked upon as much more than a stopgap considering a contract duration of only one year.  Chicago MUST address this in the first two days of the draft.

Do not forget about the offensive line, or lack there of.  The signing of Jermon Bushrod certainly gives Chicago some flexibility assuming he takes the role of left tackle.  Hopefully J'Marcus Webb will thrive at a more 'natural' right tackle position given his physical attributes.  Gabe Carimi should be able to establish himself as a decent guard provided he stays healthy.  Roberto Garza appears to be the starting center for another year.  Will he visit the 'fountain of youth'? A second concern revolves around the second starting guard spot.  Will Johnathan Scott move inside to start?  As of today it appears recently acquired Matt Slauson will take the job.  The Bears desperately need to address the offensive line early in the draft.

The Monsters of the Midway certainly need to add depth at a select few spots.  Running back, wide receiver and defensive back are definite possibilities.  I foresee a selection of at least one skilled offensive player in 2013.  Mark Trestman and his staff will begin to influence certain aspects as a new offensive system is introduced.  Depending on various factors, these selections could be impact rookies.  The Bears will have the opportunity to select five players barring any draft day trades.  Round three and seven are owned by other NFL teams.  Here are my projections:

FIRST ROUND

20. OG Chance Warmack (University of Alabama) - Most interior linemen are beginning to slide down draft boards for various reasons.  The Bears can't go wrong selecting Cooper here either if he is available, but Dallas clearly has interest in the Tar Heel.  Warmack will be an instant start on the offensive line.  A prominent player with multiple national championships, Chance certainly has the pedigree that Emery appreciates.  He will likely begin as a guard as Garza assists in Warmack's transition into a 10-year starter at center.

SECOND ROUND

50. LB Arthur Brown (Kansas State University) - Brown is rising up draft boards with a strong showing at his pro day.  Chicago must clearly fill multiple voids at linebacker, and Arthur can fit into any of them.  He is fast enough to be the sideline-to-sideline play maker that the Bears lose in Urlacher.  He is strong and big enough to fit in the middle.  At times he has difficulty in coverage, but his quickness should make up for that.  This pick will change if the Bears select Ogletree in round one.  Bears fans are praying the franchise avoids a certain defensive Golden Domer.

FOURTH ROUND 

117. DB Brandon McGee (University of Miami) - The Bears are losing some depth in the defensive backfield in the next two seasons.  A young corner is an absolute necessity despite the availability of two starting Pro-Bowlers in Tillman and Jennings.  McGee won the Captain's Award and Plumer Award for Leadership, Motivation and Spirit in his final year at Miami.  Trestman can only hope he has an immediate impact in locker room camaraderie and team chemistry.

FIFTH ROUND

153. OT Reid Fragel (Ohio State University) - Chicago continues to solidify the leaky offensive line with the selection of a very athletic tackle.  A converted tight end, Fragel started all 12 games while playing the position for less than a year.  He began to show his work ethic by adding more than 20 pounds in a season.  Bushrod will likely dominate the left tackle position.  The opposite side should be wide open.  The Bears will find excellent value in Fragel as a fifth round pick as long as he is available.

SIXTH ROUND

188. WR Ryan Swope (Texas A&M University) - With two big receivers on the outside the bears need a play maker in the slot receiver position.  Swope proved last year that he has the capability to become a go-to receiver.  He made Manziel look incredible on some plays.  He reads blocks well and may have a future as a return man.  Hester has shown he simply is not the answer and Bennett tends to play hide-and-seek from week to week.  Ideally the Bears address this need with their final pick of the 2013 draft.

What Does a 4 Team College Football Playoff Really Solve?

A playoff has finally arrived for college football fans everywhere, but what will really change?  Does this give Boise state a greater chance to play for a national championship? Doubtful. After all, a selection committee will be involved creating a scenario eerily similar to what we currently have in major college basketball; the dreaded bubble.  However, a college football playoff will likely leave out most of the best teams while the current college college basketball bubble boots teams that would be considered barely above average.   Do we, as fans, really believe that Boise state would make a national championship playoff if it were in place when the team was rattling off undefeated seasons and shocking some of the best teams we have seen? I do not believe it for one moment.

The new playoff system is not truly focused on creating fairness and equality amongst all teams, rather it's focus lies on the big picture.  And by big picture, I mean money.  Although I never agreed, at least the BCS has a partially mathematical system in place to determine the two best teams at the conclusion of the season.  A selection committee allows for far too much bias and human error in the decision making process.  Sure, the NCAA basketball selection committee can make a few mistakes when choosing and seeding 68 (and growing) teams.  There is zero room for error when selecting teams for such an elite football postseason event.  What will happen when 3 of the top 4 teams lie in one conference, say the SEC.  The committee will, without a doubt, feel pressure from other power conferences such as the BIG10, BIG12, and PAC12 to exclude one of those three teams.  

The tournament is set to begin in 2014 carrying a contract through 2023.  I certainly hope that the contract is renegotiated sooner rather than later.  The NCAA should take a considerable look at expanding the playoff as soon as possible.  Not only will it generate more revenue, but is also instills a much fairer approach.  I have never felt particularly compelled to keep non-conference games on the schedule, especially with major conferences seemingly headed to 16 total members in the near future.  Here is a simple solution: limit the non-conference schedule to 1 game per team.  This would free up a minimum of two weeks at the end of the season to add to a playoff.  The tree would easily be expandable to 16 total teams, thus less likely to make "bubble" mistakes.  The single out-of-conference game will allow storied programs to continue any rivalries that they see fit.  Eliminate bowl games and conference championships altogether. Begin a tiered playoff system (for example, 3 flights of 16 teams each).  This set-up allows 48 total teams to participate in a playoff that can conclude in 4 weeks, yet 5 weeks is much more likely considering the necessity of a bye before the championships.  

But wait, we forgot about the big picture: profitability.   No, this system will not make the most money.  No, this does not always mean the most talented team will even make the final game.  It does create an atmosphere of equality while satisfying all the requirements of amateur sport.  Again I pose the question: What does a 4 team playoff really solve?  Who honestly believes that Oklahoma State or Stanford would have had a snowball's chance in hell against Alabama or LSU?  Now I completely understand that games are not played on paper, but from a non-delusional point of view the cowboys and cardinal should be happy they played each other.  At least a larger pool of teams allows for more parity and, hopefully, more exciting games.  Not to mention the incredible amount of exposure that all of the teams involved will receive which certainly assists in leveling the astonishingly uneven recruiting 'playing field'.  When it comes to the total number of teams involved in a postseason playoff, why accept less when you can have more?