Watson will be moved

[Perspective]

It doesn't have nearly as much effect as you think. See the Mack deal. Factor in teams will be bidding for his services. It drives the price. Never in the history of the NFL has a legitimate premier franchise QB been traded entering his prime. It will cost a metric ton both financially and in terms of compensation. Houston will laugh at two firsts as an offer.

I don't think houston takes the #1 on its own. They have holes everywhere.

Not true.... same thing was said when cutlerwas traded

 

[Wild_x_Card]

Not true.... same thing was said when cutlerwas traded

Wat? Watson is far more proven than Cutler was coming from denver. Cutler had one good season. He also costs the bears two firsts, a 3rd and Orton. Stop the stupid.

 

[Bust]

I was thinking if I was Watson... what are the positives of going to the Bears....

He is turning down a chance to become a walking Pope in Chicago.

 

[nc0gnet0]

It doesn't have nearly as much effect as you think. See the Mack deal. Factor in teams will be bidding for his services. It drives the price. Never in the history of the NFL has a legitimate premier franchise QB been traded entering his prime. It will cost a metric ton both financially and in terms of compensation. Houston will laugh at two firsts as an offer.

I don't think houston takes the #1 on its own. They have holes everywhere.

You are failing to take into account the uniqueness of this season and cap implications, making approximately only ten teams in a reasonable financial position to take on his contract. Subtract the teams that already have their QB in place, or have a high enough draft pick to be better served drafting a QB, and that cuts the pool of teams bidding for his services even more.

You also need to factor in the fact Watson is not on a rookie contract, and has a no trade clause. Every time you lower the number of bidders for his services, you potentially lower his value.

You seem to be missing the point. All first round picks do not have the same value. a number 3-7 overall pick has a lot more value than a number 20-28 pick. If you think that the Texans would not take that into account when considering a trade offer, and speculate where the 2022 or 2023 number 1 pick they might acquire from a trade partner might fall, then your are a fool.

two top 10 first round picks > 3 mid round number one picks.

game/set/match

 

[fx1718]

Your failing to take into account the uniqueness of this season and cap implications, making approximately only ten teams in a reasonable financial position to take on his contract. Subtract the teams that already have their QB in place, or have a high enough draft pick to be better served drafting a QB, and that cuts the pool of teams bidding for his services even more.

You also need to factor in the fact Watson is not on a rookie contract, and has a no trade clause. Every time you lower the number of bidders for his services, you potentially lower his value.

You seem to be missing the point. All first round picks do not have the same value. a number 3-7 overall pick has a lot more value than a number 20-28 pick. If you think that the Texans would not take that into account when considering a trade offer, and speculate where the 2022 or 2023 number 1 pick they might acquire from a trade partner might fall, then your a fool.

So you're saying the Lions are so bad they would have the projected 20th pick in 2022 even with Watson?

 

[Milky]

Your failing to take into account the uniqueness of this season and cap implications, making approximately only ten teams in a reasonable financial position to take on his contract. Subtract the teams that already have their QB in place, or have a high enough draft pick to be better served drafting a QB, and that cuts the pool of teams bidding for his services even more.

You also need to factor in the fact Watson is not on a rookie contract, and has a no trade clause. Every time you lower the number of bidders for his services, you potentially lower his value.

You seem to be missing the point. All first round picks do not have the same value. a number 3-7 overall pick has a lot more value than a number 20-28 pick. If you think that the Texans would not take that into account when considering a trade offer, and speculate where the 2022 or 2023 number 1 pick they might acquire from a trade partner might fall, then your a fool.

two top 10 first round picks > 3 mid round number one picks.

game/set/match

*you're a fool

 

[nc0gnet0]

So you're saying the Lions are so bad they would have the projected 20th pick in 2022 even with Watson?

no, I actually was saying they might project higher than that, to a top 10 pick in 2022. And so would the Bears.

 

[dennehy]

Your failing to take into account the uniqueness of this season and cap implications, making approximately only ten teams in a reasonable financial position to take on his contract. Subtract the teams that already have their QB in place, or have a high enough draft pick to be better served drafting a QB, and that cuts the pool of teams bidding for his services even more.

You also need to factor in the fact Watson is not on a rookie contract, and has a no trade clause. Every time you lower the number of bidders for his services, you potentially lower his value.

You seem to be missing the point. All first round picks do not have the same value. a number 3-7 overall pick has a lot more value than a number 20-28 pick. If you think that the Texans would not take that into account when considering a trade offer, and speculate where the 2022 or 2023 number 1 pick they might acquire from a trade partner might fall, then your a fool.

two top 10 first round picks > 3 mid round number one picks.

game/set/match

Watson's cap hit is $10.5mil this year. The cap hit for a top 10 pick is half of that or more, meaning Watson would cost only $5mil or so more than the rookie. You're also not factoring in that a number of teams will easily be able to get to a comfortable number by releasing or restructuring players. Also a disproportionate number of teams who are the market for a QB have more cap space than average.

Also the post you're responding to doesn't make the argument that the Texans wouldn't take into account where the 2021 first round pick is going to be.

Finally the Texans aren't going to be able to say definitively that the team they trade Watson to will be giving them two top 10 picks or 3 mid round picks.

In short, you need to get a recharge of smarts for your brain and try again.

 

[dennehy]

no, I actually was saying they might project higher than that, to a top 10 pick in 2022. And so would the Bears.

So they'd be worse with Watson?

 

[fx1718]

no, I actually was saying they might project higher than that, to a top 10 pick in 2022. And so would the Bears.

So doesn't that blow up your whole the Lions 2 #1 picks are better argument?

 

[dabears70]

Bears can create plenty of cap space......as i've been saying.

Chicago Bears: 5 Offseason moves that must be made to improve in 2021

Now that the offseason is underway, the Chicago Bears need to improve the roster. Here are five moves they need to make to get that done.

email.fansided.com

 

[nc0gnet0]

Watson's cap hit is $10.5mil this year. The cap hit for a top 10 pick is half of that or more, meaning Watson would cost only $5mil or so more than the rookie. You're also not factoring in that a number of teams will easily be able to get to a comfortable number by releasing or restructuring players. Also a disproportionate number of teams who are the market for a QB have more cap space than average.

Also the post you're responding to doesn't make the argument that the Texans wouldn't take into account where the 2021 first round pick is going to be.

Finally the Texans aren't going to be able to say definitively that the team they trade Watson to will be giving them two top 10 picks or 3 mid round picks.

In short, you need to get a recharge of smarts for your brain and try again.

2021 isn't the only year they have to account for Watson's contract. Although I understand Bears fans seem to operate in a one year window. 2022 Cap hit is 35 mil, 2023 cap hit is 37 mil. Put that in your rookie pipe and smoke it.

You are a fool if you don't think teams project out the value of future draft picks and where they expect to fall.

 

[fx1718]

2021 isn't the only year they have to account for Watson's contract. Although I understand Bears fans seem to operate in a one year window. 2022 Cap hit is 35 mil, 2023 cap hit is 37 mil. Put that in your rookie pipe and smoke it.

You are a fool if you don't think teams project out the value of future draft picks and where they expect to fall.

Once again why do you keep projecting high draft picks for the Lions if they traded for him. You are literally arguing in a circle.

In 2022 the Bears have the ability to cut a lot more big contracts. You smoking doobies at 9am?

 

[nc0gnet0]

So they'd be worse with Watson?

Possibly, because it's not quite as simple as a trade Stafford for Watson scenario, other roster moves have to be made, they no longer get a number 7 overall pick that could help upgrade the roster in 2021, etc etc. You can't look at trades like this in a vacuum.

 

[Leomaz]

2021 isn't the only year they have to account for Watson's contract. Although I understand Bears fans seem to operate in a one year window. 2022 Cap hit is 35 mil, 2023 cap hit is 37 mil. Put that in your rookie pipe and smoke it.

You are a fool if you don't think teams project out the value of future draft picks and where they expect to fall.

Seriously, why do you care?
still not sure why you come on a Bears message board and say anything about the Bears when you are a lions fan.
is there not a message board that you can go to and circle jerk with fans from your own team?
Or do you just do this on the Bears, Vikings and green bay sites?

 

[nc0gnet0]

Once again why do you keep projecting high draft picks for the Lions if they traded for him. You are literally arguing in a circle.

In 2022 the Bears have the ability to cut a lot more big contracts. You smoking doobies at 9am?

Great, you have the ability to cut a lot of big contracts in 2022, but have traded away all your draft capital, so you get to take on more bad contracts for aging vets in FA.

 

[Leomaz]

Bears can create plenty of cap space......as i've been saying.

Chicago Bears: 5 Offseason moves that must be made to improve in 2021

Now that the offseason is underway, the Chicago Bears need to improve the roster. Here are five moves they need to make to get that done.

email.fansided.com

The problem is we still have to have a 53 man roster.
we have to replace the people that get cut.
It’s not as simple as you think.

 

[Leomaz]

So they'd be worse with Watson?

Yeah, we would be worse with a top 5 quarterback.?
This is why he is here and not on a Lions message board.. he is probably banned from all of them.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Seriously, why do you care?
still not sure why you come on a Bears message board and say anything about the Bears when you are a lions fan.
is there not a message board that you can go to and circle jerk with fans from your own team?
Or do you just do this on the Bears, Vikings and green bay sites?

Because it is an interesting conversation. Why does it matter if I am a Lions fan, a KC fan, or a Bears fan? Doesn't change a thing.....

The Lions trade Stafford for Watson conversation in this thread wasn't started by me, so if you have issue with it, take it up with the guy that brought it up in the first place, cry baby......

 

[nc0gnet0]

Yeah, we would be worse with a top 5 quarterback.?
This is why he is here and not on a Lions message board.. he is probably banned from all of them.

Again, moves like this don't happen in a vacuum, like you seem to think. Watson isn't joining the 2018 Bears, or the 2020 Bears......................

The conversation isn't "would the 2020 Bears have been better if they had Watson"?

I mean, no shit Sherlock.

The question is, Are the Bears (or Lions) better off with Watson, or the draft capital and Cap space (projected throughout the length of the contract) they would lose to acquire him?