This--and trade down clown ideas where teams just give up young, impact offensive playmakers like DJ Moore, Tee Higgins, *insert name of young WR here* or an all-pro DT like Deforest Buckner (impact playmakers in general) as a throw-in in a trade up/bears trade down because…reasons that make zero fucking sense to the other team unless the bears’ 1st rounder is on the table (and that is NOT a move they should make.)
I am a bit confused by this post. All of the trade down scenarios are about trading down with the 1st round pick to potentially get multiple impact players vs just one. Now, if you truly think Carter or Anderson are generational HOF talents that are can't miss, then I understand not wanting to trade down.
However, if the gap between those two guys and then next 3-4 guys is not that significant (ie, they are all really talented), then I think you have to explore the idea of the trade down. IMO, if the bears can trade down and get an impact defensive lineman and an impact WR in next year's draft...they have to do that. They are not just one player away from being a great team. They are many players away from being a great, consistent playoff team. Best case scenario, imo, is that they can trade back and stay in the top 10 for their first pick and then get at least 1, maybe 2 extra 1st round picks. It all depends on the extra stuff whether that is other picks or players and if they also throw in any more picks (ie, get a 1st next year while giving back a 2nd/3rd).
And for the teams that only have the one 1st round pick to give up this year, like Indy, it is more likely that they would need to include a player like Buckner to make it work for the Bears. Obviously, it depends on whether or not there is a bidding war, or if Poles can convince someone there is a bidding war. If Pace is involved in Atlanta for any trade negotiations, then he loves to bid against himself - maybe they can leverage that into something really nice.