Bears seriously interested Brock Bowers (2024)

Les Grossman said:

I would be meh on drafting Bowers, mainly because we have Kmet and Everett already and have bigger more important holes to fill.

As for WR, you MUST know what the WR position on average fields more players than TE on any given play, right? You need more WRs on your team than TEs.

Having 3 TEs on the field happens A LOT less than 3 WRs on the field, not mention 4 and 5 WR sets.

You guys must know this, right? Like wth?

Click to expand...

You’re hung up on the label of TE. Several posters have tried to explain how he can be utilized including being deployed as a WR.

Like WTH?

cameronkrazie86 said:

The Bears can always cut Everett after this year if they do take Bowers. It would only be a $1 million dead cap hit according to spotrac. I understand the resource argument but if you think he's a guy that could potentially become an all-pro caliber player, then I think you take him. Just think his overall versatility allows a lot more freedom than a traditional tight end prospect.

Click to expand...

Are you taking Bowers over Fashanu or JC Latham?

Or over the first DE off the board??

Les Grossman said:

Guys get injured at all the other positions as well. What happens when a a WR or OT gets hurt?

Fans are just being obsessed with the player Bowers and aren't really thinking about the actual team.

Click to expand...

Bunch of Bowers fan boys here!

I’ll take some trenches personally. (Assuming Nabers is long gone)

playthrough2001 said:

You’re hung up on the label of TE. Several posters have tried to explain how he can be utilized including being deployed as a WR.

Like WTH?

Click to expand...

Maybe, but it sure sounds like some of you are describing a gadget player. Bowers need to succeed at playing TE before he can succeed at being a RB or otherwise.

I understand the positional flexibility, but at the same time his "bread and butter" should be TE. He's NOT Deebo Samuel.

Black Rainbow said:

Are you taking Bowers over Fashanu or JC Latham?

Or over the first DE off the board??

Click to expand...

Latham is a RT. He wouldn’t fill a need and isn’t the BPA by a wide margin.

Black Rainbow said:

Are you taking Bowers over Fashanu or JC Latham?

Or over the first DE off the board??

Click to expand...

Would you take Latham? Would you be concerned about how Jonah Williams, Alex Leatherwood, and Evan Neal have struggled getting acclimated to the NFL compared to their pre-draft projections?

bamainatlanta said:

Latham is a RT. He wouldn’t fill a need and isn’t the BPA by a wide margin.

Click to expand...

I’ve seen it said several places now he may end up at LT eventually.

Brugler has him 13 overall I think so who knows where Poles has him.

What about dumping Davis and having some combo of Latham and Wright on the right side?

Or picking Fautanu and putting him at LG with TJ going back to RG?

If the goal is to help Caleb isn’t a stud OL who plays every snap more important than a WR or TE that plays part time? I just think a lot of people here are dismissive of the OL route when it seems just as viable IMO. (And the Bears have two OL running the show)

Just some thoughts I really have no clue where they go with this pick which is good I guess

playthrough2001 said:

Bowers isn’t a traditional TE. He’s a big slot. He can play out of the backfield as an H back. You could line him up outside.

I’d think of him more as a Chess piece than a traditional TE.

Anyway, I prefer they draft Odunze but I’m certainly not going to be upset with a player like Bowers.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's the way i would look at it as well that i'd rather draft one of the top 3 WR's but damn sure wouldn't be mad at drafting a talent like Bowers and without looking at Everett's contract i think we can get out of it pretty cheap after the first year.

I do think it's just a smokescreen though.

BaBaBlacksheep said:

I’ve seen it said several places now he may end up at LT eventually.

Brugler has him 13 overall I think so who knows where Poles has him.

What about dumping Davis and having some combo of Latham and Wright on the right side?

Or picking Fautanu and putting him at LG with TJ going back to RG?

If the goal is to help Caleb isn’t a stud OL who plays every snap more important than a WR or TE that plays part time? I just think a lot of people here are dismissive of the OL route when it seems just as viable IMO. (And the Bears have two OL running the show)

Just some thoughts I really have no clue where they go with this pick which is good I guess

Click to expand...

I'd love having Jenkins back at RG playing next to D.Wright.

Black Rainbow said:

Are you taking Bowers over Fashanu or JC Latham?

Or over the first DE off the board??

Click to expand...

I'm an admitted idiot but I would take Bowers over Latham and any defensive player in the draft. When Flus was hired, a lot was made that he could field a top 10 defense with fewer high end draft picks. However, the Bears have used the vast majority of their top 3 round picks on defense in his tenure. Because of that, I'd prefer they go offense-offense this year (especially with a new QB) with their first two picks. Whoever the front office feels like is the best offensive game changer available is who I want them to draft.

I would not be disappointed if they went LT if they thought Fashanu was better than Jones. I don't know if they'll get that chance though. Given how Harbaugh's teams have played in the past, it wouldn't stun me if they drafted an OT despite badly needing WRs. Could also see the Titans going OT.

playthrough2001 said:

Would you take Latham? Would you be concerned about how Jonah Williams, Alex Leatherwood, and Evan Neal have struggled getting acclimated to the NFL compared to their pre-draft projections?

Click to expand...

Weren’t Ohio State QBs busts until Stroud? I think you scout the player and not the helmet.

(And I’m not saying Latham is great or anything I’ve barely watched him. Just saying I don’t think the school is an issue)

dabears70 said:

I'd love having Jenkins back at RG playing next to D.Wright.

Click to expand...

Get another ass kicker up front. Think that helps CW way more than a 3rd WR or TE.

BaBaBlacksheep said:

Weren’t Ohio State QBs busts until Stroud? I think you scout the player and not the helmet.

(And I’m not saying Latham is great or anything I’ve barely watched him. Just saying I don’t think the school is an issue)

Click to expand...

They all played under the same coaching staff and there could be a correlation there.

The Ohio State QB issue stemmed decades.

I get you scout the player but all those guys were as heralded or more than Latham.

bamainatlanta said:

Latham is a RT. He wouldn’t fill a need and isn’t the BPA by a wide margin.

Click to expand...

My bad. Thought he was LT.

Black Rainbow said:

Are you taking Bowers over Fashanu or JC Latham?

Or over the first DE off the board??

Click to expand...

Kinda funny you haven't uttered a word about your pick at 9, f*ckly. What's up with that?

Makes you think!

Black Rainbow said:

My bad. Thought he was LT.

Click to expand...

Of course you did

nc0gnet0 said:

Gaylib needs a good ̶C̶o̶c̶k̶ ̶B̶l̶o̶w̶e̶r̶ .............Brock Bowers

Click to expand...

Idiot

I

Les Grossman said:

Having Kmet, Everett, and Bowers would be pouring too much resources into the TE position. It'd be kinda dumb. I get that Bowers is a great TE prospect, but Everett would be the odd man out and CHI just signed him for $6M/year (which isn't the end of the world).

it just wouldn't be an efficient use of resources. No team needs that type of TE depth, I'm sorry,

Click to expand...

think Bowers would also take on the wr3 roll plus H back that actually gets carries besides blocking. With Bowers he covers a lot of rolls and has value added.
Everett may only be here a year anyway.

playthrough2001 said:

You’re hung up on the label of TE. Several posters have tried to explain how he can be utilized including being deployed as a WR.

Like WTH?

Click to expand...

Per Brugler and the Beast for his career he was lined up: 52% slot, 37% inline and 10% wide.