**OFFICAIL** Bears 2024 Regular Season News & Schleisse - FTO Preferred - No ALTS! Derailing Is Discouraged!

dentfan

dentfan

No gods! No Masters!
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
5,330
Liked Posts:
4,539
iueyedoc said:
This. I have been saying for awhile that Murphy as much more physically suited to be a 4-3 DE than Wilson. I could see the Bears dropping back to 7, gather up some picks and players and taking Murphy there.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t be mad at Murphy. I think there are dudes with more bend that I like more, but he’d be a good get on a trade back to 10 or more to get more picks.
 
Last edited:
gallagher

gallagher

Ave Atque Vale
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
7,894
Liked Posts:
6,996
Location:
Of Semi-Fixed Address
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
dentfan said:
Bro, let’s explain why this was the dumbest fucking pick I’ve seen in years, the faulty hive mind ideology behind it, and why.

Let’s be scientists and start with a question: what is the one position we can’t get in FA this off season?

Did you answer a playmaker on offense? Good. We are going to probably end up spending way more than we’d like to on the FA WR from NE.

Back to minimiski for a bit. He, being a technician, is not a dude that wins with power, so not my idea of a top 20 G, let alone drafting a C in the top 10. What he is is an OL and the hive mind see positional value like nimrods scout helmets. There’s not much of a difference between positional value based scouting and helmet scouting. You need to see the dudes play, understand the context, and apply your understanding to specific and malleable situations. Apparently, sports writers don’t have the time to do this.

The latest draft dudes has Bijan going 7 and they were clear he could have gone 5. ‎Draft Dudes – Daily Podcast On The NFL Draft And College Football on Apple Podcasts

Now, even if you don’t want the most explosive player in the draft, the top WRs were on the board. Addison would have been a better pick. For D, Christian Gonzalez was on the board and these idiots didn’t even draft Trenton Simpson.

As far as OL help, you don’t use a top 10 pick for “OL help”. A top 10 pick is for irreplaceable talent that directly affects the game. There aren’t any OL in this draft that fit that description and that’d fit on our O scheme.

There are plenty of FA OL this year. We have two OL that have been developing. We need the most replaceable parts of the OL in a C and RT. But, hive mind ideology points to value metrics and claims a win. **** that. Give me a difference maker like Brian Branch. Fucking scrappydooski is a laughable wasted pick.
Click to expand...
Soooo the bolded bit is 100% of why I dont like the term "draft capital." I am of the opinion that draft picks are land, like a natural resource that self replicates and which you use to create capital. I wont get into the nerdy crap that nobody else cares about, especially because we are here to talk football (and also because it is a debatable point). The reason why I am agnostic about positional value with draft picks is that draft picks save money, especially first rounders with a fifth year option. So the wisest use of a draft pick is to maximize chances of success with each draft pick.

Sometimes that ideal has to go out the window - drafting a QB is the highlighted circumstance - but if the OL in the first round is more likely to succeed (you mention that you dont think there is one for a likely Bears pick, which is a point on its own) then I think it is wise to select that player while this team is still building itself up. Eventually you either resign these successful picks at market rates or you let them go get a payday and recover comp picks.
 
dabears70

dabears70

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 31, 2013
Posts:
35,833
Liked Posts:
11,096
Location:
Orlando
My favorite teams
  1. New York Mets
  1. New York Knicks
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. New York Rangers
  1. Syracuse Orange
gallagher said:
I would expect you to not be so homophobic. This is not the place for that behavior.
Click to expand...
How was that homophobic? You were angry about pics of a hot chick so i took a stab at what you'd rather see is all.

Now back to football.................
 

bears51/40

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
4,799
Liked Posts:
3,800
iueyedoc said:
This. I have been saying for awhile that Murphy as much more physically suited to be a 4-3 DE than Wilson. I could see the Bears dropping back to 7, gather up some picks and players and taking Murphy there.
Click to expand...
Though I don't agree with you on Wilson, this is a really good take on a trade down I think we fans could all get behind.
 
gallagher

gallagher

Ave Atque Vale
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
7,894
Liked Posts:
6,996
Location:
Of Semi-Fixed Address
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
dabears70 said:
How was that homophobic? You were angry about pics of a hot chick so i took a stab at what you'd rather see is all.

Now back to football.................
Click to expand...
I wasnt angry at all. I pointed out that you constantly come off as some sort of creep. And then you followed up with added homophobia.

Do you really not see how you come across to everyone? Genuinely asking.
 
dentfan

dentfan

No gods! No Masters!
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
5,330
Liked Posts:
4,539
gallagher said:
Soooo the bolded bit is 100% of why I dont like the term "draft capital." I am of the opinion that draft picks are land, like a natural resource that self replicates and which you use to create capital.
Click to expand...

Cool. Let’s play around with this analogy. Two centuries ago, land in what is now Saudi Arabia was worthless because oil was under the sand instead of water. Mcdonalds made his fortune by selling the land to build the franchise, not necessarily the franchise. In other words, location is key. The value of land is a determinant commodity relative to utility and use.
gallagher said:
I wont get into the nerdy crap that nobody else cares about, especially because we are here to talk football (and also because it is a debatable point). The reason why I am agnostic about positional value with draft picks is that draft picks save money, especially first rounders with a fifth year option. So the wisest use of a draft pick is to maximize chances of success with each draft pick.
Click to expand...
We agree.
gallagher said:
Sometimes that ideal has to go out the window - drafting a QB is the highlighted circumstance - but if the OL in the first round is more likely to succeed (you mention that you dont think there is one for a likely Bears pick, which is a point on its own) then I think it is wise to select that player while this team is still building itself up.
Click to expand...
Agree.
gallagher said:
Eventually you either resign these successful picks at market rates or you let them go get a payday and recover comp picks.
Click to expand...
And getting an explosive playmaker here is the most valuable pick possible. Playmakers that cause the opposing coordinator to have to scheme for them and allow for a team to impose its will are as rare as white elephants on the Serengeti.

I know, it seems crazy I’m putting Trent Simpson as a key playmaker, but he really can be. If we trade with Washington or a team in that range, he should be a target. Either way, I digress. The point I have is we agree, but the abstraction of positional value is interfering with the reality of onfield production and potential.
 
gallagher

gallagher

Ave Atque Vale
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
7,894
Liked Posts:
6,996
Location:
Of Semi-Fixed Address
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
dentfan said:
Cool. Let’s play around with this analogy. Two centuries ago, land in what is now Saudi Arabia was worthless because oil was under the sand instead of water. Mcdonalds made his fortune by selling the land to build the franchise, not necessarily the franchise. In other words, location is key. The value of land is a determinant commodity relative to utility and use.
Click to expand...
Okay, we are now officially friends. I dont even care if we come to disagreement, it is refreshing to see someone with whom I would love to share a bookshelf!

dentfan said:
And getting an explosive playmaker here is the most valuable pick possible. Playmakers that cause the opposing coordinator to have to scheme for them and allow for a team to impose its will are as rare as white elephants on the Serengeti.
Click to expand...
If it pays out, sure. Here we are copacetic, but it comes down to evaluation and risk (which we would have a back and forth over, but neither of us get paid for this so now wouldnt be the time, right?). The OL might just be the guy with the highest potential to pay out - that is why a lineman who is not an LT (who's positional value would then be considered low, no?) can legitimately be a top ten pick for a team that has holes all over the place. Or why RB, who have a shorter shelf life than WR, could be drafted above a really good receiver in the first round. I would accept drafting Bijan Robinson with a first gained from a trade down with Atlanta or Carolina, even if Addison is on the board and could be a stud here too.

dentfan said:
I know, it seems crazy I’m putting Trent Simpson as a key playmaker, but he really can be. If we trade with Washington or a team in that range, he should be a target. Either way, I digress. The point I have is we agree, but the abstraction of positional value is interfering with the reality of onfield production and potential.
Click to expand...
I will have to watch some games showing Trent Simpson. Do you have an example of a high water mark and low water mark that I can watch? I like to watch college games that I missed (since there are so many) on Sundays during the offseason.
 
Moses Moreno

Moses Moreno

they're gunna mess this up
Joined:
Jan 20, 2023
Posts:
2,935
Liked Posts:
3,576
Listening to the Sirius XM show with Charlie Weis and they're talking about Houston giving up 2 + 12.

Personally I'd prefer Houston's 2024 pick. Give me more lottery tickets in 2024 and keep being ahead of the game with regard to draft capital.
 
Montucky

Montucky

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 21, 2020
Posts:
9,955
Liked Posts:
4,231
Moses Moreno said:
Listening to the Sirius XM show with Charlie Weis and they're talking about Houston giving up 2 + 12.

Personally I'd prefer Houston's 2024 pick. Give me more lottery tickets in 2024 and keep being ahead of the game with regard to draft capital.
Click to expand...
Second and twelfth is such a ridiculous overpay that I cannot imagine possibly saying no. From there the Bears could accumulate just as many 2024 draft picks as they would trading down from first while staying in range of some of the more quality talent from this draft. Houston can only take one quarterback and there are lots of teams who are needy at the position, the market to trade up to second overall probably will not be much less vibrant than it is for first overall.

The Colts might have to still part with fourth overall, thirty-sixth overall and a 2024 first just to move to second and ensure nobody else deals with Chicago or Arizona.

I just don't see Houston offering second and twelfth though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,926members
95,504threads
4,523,403posts
429online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 429 (members: 40, guests: 389)

Staff online NOW

Top