Why did Ryan Poles and Ben Johnson draft two slot receivers with the first two picks?

Toast88

Well-known member
Joined:
May 10, 2014
Posts:
14,882
Liked Posts:
15,046
People just screaming they should've traded down in 1 are clueless. There was reports all week that teams wanted to trade down, yet there was no trade downs between 3 and 24 I believe. Maybe those teams just stopped trying to trade down?
How were there no trade down opportunities when “everyone wanted Loveland”?

Plus, I didn’t “scream” that they should trade down. I said get your best OL or DL on your board or trade down if that margin is too great for the spot.

That’s not some wild suggestion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Myk

modo

Based
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
30,261
Liked Posts:
25,021
Location:
USA
I think the Bears could have traded down, but they didn't. I think they believe he is a really good player.

If other teams wanted to trade up to get him, other teams felt the same way as the Bears.
 

Discus fish salesman

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2018
Posts:
16,611
Liked Posts:
21,879
How were there no trade down opportunities when “everyone wanted Loveland”?

Plus, I didn’t “scream” that they should trade down. I said get your best OL or DL on your board or trade down if that margin is too great for the spot.

That’s not some wild suggestion.
It's a ridiculous suggestion. Everyone knew going into the draft that trading down in round 1 was going to be challenging. Turns out that was accurate. You can't just want things into existence
 

Toast88

Well-known member
Joined:
May 10, 2014
Posts:
14,882
Liked Posts:
15,046
It's a ridiculous suggestion. Everyone knew going into the draft that trading down in round 1 was going to be challenging. Turns out that was accurate. You can't just want things into existence
How were there no trade down opportunities when “everyone wanted Loveland” when he “fell to the Bears,” as so many in this thread have said?

Again, I never said trade down or GTFO. I don’t like picking an injured backup guy at 10 when there are other glaring needs. It’s as simple as that.
 

Toast88

Well-known member
Joined:
May 10, 2014
Posts:
14,882
Liked Posts:
15,046
Your projecting other dumb statements on me. Don't be a moron
So people weren’t scrambling for Loveland at 10?

Sorry, just trying to figure out why it’s not ok to not love an injured backup slot receiver at 10?

You’re extremely fixated on this trade down stuff. Again, I never said trade down or GTFO. I don’t like picking an injured backup guy at 10 when there are other glaring needs. It’s as simple as that.
 

playthrough2001

Monday Morning QB
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
15,534
Liked Posts:
18,256
Location:
United Club
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Central Florida Knights
  2. TCU Horned Frogs
How were there no trade down opportunities when “everyone wanted Loveland” when he “fell to the Bears,” as so many in this thread have said?

Again, I never said trade down or GTFO. I don’t like picking an injured backup guy at 10 when there are other glaring needs. It’s as simple as that.

However, the new coach that is considered the best candidate available through the last three cycles, wanted this player. He forgot to ask Toast88 his opinion before having Poles pull the trigger. That is why they didn’t explore a trade down option. The Rap Sheet was the source of the trade interest for Loveland. Is he credible enough for you?
 

Discus fish salesman

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2018
Posts:
16,611
Liked Posts:
21,879
So people weren’t scrambling for Loveland at 10?

Sorry, just trying to figure out why it’s not ok to not love an injured backup slot receiver at 10?

You’re extremely fixated on this trade down stuff. Again, I never said trade down or GTFO. I don’t like picking an injured backup guy at 10 when there are other glaring needs. It’s as simple as that.
I miss the yawn emoji for posts like these

@bamainatlanta can we get that back?
 

Toast88

Well-known member
Joined:
May 10, 2014
Posts:
14,882
Liked Posts:
15,046
However, the new coach that is considered the best candidate available through the last three cycles, wanted this player. He forgot to ask Toast88 his opinion before having Poles pull the trigger. That is why they didn’t explore a trade down option. The Rap Sheet was the source of the trade interest for Loveland. Is he credible enough for you?
Another strange take.

“We should just trust every move because these guys are better than us.”

This is a fan message board. I do trust Ben Johnson.

At the same time, I do not trust Ryan Poles.

But whether we trust or don’t trust guys who are certainly doing a job none of us here can do, fans give their honest assessment of team moves to each other. What’s wrong with that?
 

Discus fish salesman

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 31, 2018
Posts:
16,611
Liked Posts:
21,879
You guys are losing it, man. Someone doesn’t love a Bears offseason move, and it’s time to pull out the personal insults and rage, lol
I didn't even like the draft. I just thought the trade down comment was stupid. If it was based off another stupid comment, then my apologies.

Your characterization of Loveland is wrong though. He's obviously going to be TE1. He can play inline, slot, or out wide. He's going to be a better weapon than they've had at TE since Greg Olsen. It wasn't my top choice there at all. I wanted nolen. I was probably in favor of mykel over Loveland too. The OL value wasn't there anymore and I'd have been more disappointed in conerly or Simmons than Loveland.
 

Toast88

Well-known member
Joined:
May 10, 2014
Posts:
14,882
Liked Posts:
15,046
I didn't even like the draft. I just thought the trade down comment was stupid. If it was based off another stupid comment, then my apologies.

Your characterization of Loveland is wrong though. He's obviously going to be TE1. He can play inline, slot, or out wide. He's going to be a better weapon than they've had at TE since Greg Olsen. It wasn't my top choice there at all. I wanted nolen. I was probably in favor of mykel over Loveland too. The OL value wasn't there anymore and I'd have been more disappointed in conerly or Simmons than Loveland.
I hope we can look back and laugh when he’s a stud. Yes, absolutely
 

playthrough2001

Monday Morning QB
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
15,534
Liked Posts:
18,256
Location:
United Club
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Central Florida Knights
  2. TCU Horned Frogs
Another strange take.

“We should just trust every move because these guys are better than us.”

This is a fan message board. I do trust Ben Johnson.

At the same time, I do not trust Ryan Poles.

But whether we trust or don’t trust guys who are certainly doing a job none of us here can do, fans give their honest assessment of team moves to each other. What’s wrong with that?

That’s not exactly what I said. My point is the offensive minded head coach they hired wanted this player. I think he has a much better idea of what he needs than you do.

I was a trenches guy. I said it many times. That would have been my preference but I don’t know better than Ben Johnson or Ryan Poles.
 

TL1961

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 24, 2013
Posts:
36,044
Liked Posts:
19,909
How were there no trade down opportunities when “everyone wanted Loveland” when he “fell to the Bears,” as so many in this thread have said?

Again, I never said trade down or GTFO. I don’t like picking an injured backup guy at 10 when there are other glaring needs. It’s as simple as that.
So....you wanted them to trade down and still take the same guy and their trade partner should have been a team that wanted the same guy?

You're just acting like a monkey at the zoo throwing shit.
You're not just unhappy with whatever they did. You're literally contradicting yourself in the alternatives.

"They should not have picked Loveland" coupled with "trade down and pick Loveland" followed by "trade with a team wanting to come up for Loveland."
 

Toast88

Well-known member
Joined:
May 10, 2014
Posts:
14,882
Liked Posts:
15,046
So....you wanted them to trade down and still take the same guy and their trade partner should have been a team that wanted the same guy?

You're just acting like a monkey at the zoo throwing shit.
You're not just unhappy with whatever they did. You're literally contradicting yourself in the alternatives.

"They should not have picked Loveland" coupled with "trade down and pick Loveland" followed by "trade with a team wanting to come up for Loveland."
Nope.

I said pick the top OL or DL on your board or trade down.

If Loveland was as sought after as so many in this thread say, that shouldn’t have been a problem.

I’m not the one who said everyone was scrambling for Loveland when he “fell” to the Bears.

I also never said trade down was my preferred move, or trade down or GTFO.

The trade down suggestion was only if the gulf is too great between the position you’re in and the top OL or DL on your board, and it was IN RESPONSE to the people saying everyone wanted Loveland when he fell to the Bears.
 

LIBlue

Active member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
393
Liked Posts:
418
Your projecting other dumb statements on me. Don't be a moron
Too late for Toadt88. Arguing with somebody with the intellectual agility of a small soap dish is futile. “Why did they not trade down from 10 if all these wanted Loveland?” Well, if teams did want him, he was worth the spot. I get it, you believe in reaching for need instead of talent. And Loveland fits the Bear system, but why should that matter.
 

Toast88

Well-known member
Joined:
May 10, 2014
Posts:
14,882
Liked Posts:
15,046
Too late for Toadt88. Arguing with somebody with the intellectual agility of a small soap dish is futile. “Why did they not trade down from 10 if all these wanted Loveland?” Well, if teams did want him, he was worth the spot. I get it, you believe in reaching for need instead of talent. And Loveland fits the Bear system, but why should that matter.
You’re not being intellectually honest.

I don’t give a shit about trading up or trading down. I said draft the best OL or DL on your board, or trade down if the gulf is too big between those guys and where you’re drafting.

You all are obsessed with the trade down option. I only suggested it in response to those saying everyone wanted to trade up for Loveland.

Take trade up/trade down out of the equation. I’ve been very consistent that I don’t like drafting an injured backup slot receiver at 10. I disagree that he’s got a skillset not seen since Greg Olsen. I see a guy who doesn’t do anything great that translates to the next level, but does everything good. To me, that’s not worth 10 when you have other needs.

If it’s worth 10 to others, that’s fine. ARGUE LOVELAND’S MERITS, not “Well, sorry they didn’t run it past you, message board guy!” So lazy.
 

MakeMyDay

VISIONARY
Donator
Joined:
Aug 25, 2012
Posts:
2,422
Liked Posts:
1,783
So here is the clown88 suggestion

Trade down in the first and take either Ozzy Trapilo or Shemar Burden

Brilliant!! Why didn't Poles or Johnson think of that?
 

Top