The best way to grade the draft (without knowing on the field performance):
* Did the Bears fill their needs?
* Who were the PERCEIVED "reaches, value, and expected" picks?
* Who are the players with high upside / can help now?
* Who are the picks of high character / risky off the field selections?
None of this matters if the draftees ball out on the field. Hence, we can only evaluate what we know now.
1. The Bears selected 2 fast ILBs, 1 edge rusher, 2 WRs, 1 Interior OL, 1 three technique DL. They filled their LB and WR needs, but missed on good edge rusher and more depth at DB. Daniels at guard/center fills a need with high level talent. For the most part, the Bears did a good job filling their needs. Next year they'll need OTs, DL depth, RBs, and CBs.
2. Daniels appears to be a value pick. Iggy (4th rounder) was a reach. Smith, Miller, Nichols, Fitts, and Wims appeared to be picked where they were supposed to. From a value stand point, it appears the Bears were okay. I don't think a lot of people had an issue trading for New England's mid 2nd round pick for next year's 2nd and this year's 4th. The Bears picked Miller. Present value is always at a premium vs. future value. A 4th round pick was the interest paid.
3. Smith, Miller, and Daniels all appear to have high upsides. They can all help now as well. Nichols and Fitts have high upside but also big risks (small school / injuries). Iggy and Wims appear to be depth / special team guys. The Bears did well picking players with upside while mitigating risk.
4. All the Bears draft picks are high character kids. Smith, Daniels, and Iggy all do well in the classroom AND are considered leaders on and off the field. Nichols and Fitts are considered high motor kids with no off the field issues. Both Miller and Wims had to work up the depth chart at their schools to succeed. Miller is a former walk on. Wims had to go to JC and had to work for a schollie at Georgia. The Bears are only selecting high character kids.
On the field performance is the MAJOR variable.