- Joined:
- Aug 17, 2011
- Posts:
- 41,631
- Liked Posts:
- 23,966
- Location:
- Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
Not the point but dream your dreams.
With the First overall pick the Chicago Bears...(First pick discussion only)
- Thread starter iueyedoc
- Start date
RacerX
Silicon Valley CA Bears H
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,885
- Liked Posts:
- 9,972
- Location:
- Silicon Valley, CA
Fair point but the top QBs define the supply, not the demand. Yes, more supply could potentially generate more demand, but it's not going to provide any transactional premium (read: desperation) which is what usually prevents overall #1 picks from getting traded.
I am fairly certain the Bears will trade down to #4 but the haul is going to look something like a 2023 3rd round pick and 2023 5th round pick + 2024 2nd rounder, there is no way this market looks like it will yield any 1st round picks let alone multiple 1st rounders.
RacerX
Silicon Valley CA Bears H
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,885
- Liked Posts:
- 9,972
- Location:
- Silicon Valley, CA
Your statement and mine are not in conflict, both are true. You just cited the reason most #1 overalls do not get traded, because all of the following elements must be in place to get multiple 1st round picks for a trade down:
1. A team desperate for a QB.
2. That same team has draft and personnel capital available to trade.
3. That same team will likely get shut out from drafting any of their QB targets in the draft position they are currently in.
4. That same team cannot move up in the draft by trading with a different partner at more favorable terms to them.
Myk
85in25
- Joined:
- Sep 27, 2010
- Posts:
- 11,314
- Liked Posts:
- 4,609
Look at the history of trying to trade the #1 overall. Some of those trades were well under value.
History of Trading The First Overall Pick In The NFL Draft
Since 1970, there have been just nine times where two teams agreed on a trade knowing that it was for the first overall draft pick. Will a trade up for Jameis Winston make number ten? Let’s go in reverse chronological order and look at every instance since the AFL-NFL merger when the first...www.footballperspective.com
The history that hasn't been updated since 2015, is written poorly (the players taken have nothing to do with it other than offering a reason for the trade) and most of which is before the draft pick value charts came out.
May as well go back to the complete history of getting players on teams in the NFL to throw even more useless noise into the mix.
I've always said if you get a chance to upgrade a position you do it. If no other team thinks the QBs are worth moving up for I'm completely willing to see if one is an upgrade to Fields. I'd rather trade down and fix the whole team but if the CCS Chicken Littles are convinced the sky is actually falling and we'd have to pay someone to take the #1 I guess we can get a QB instead.
If the trade offered isn't up to the floor the charts have laid out there is absolutely no reason to make the trade and nobody is able to force such a trade.
Myk
85in25
- Joined:
- Sep 27, 2010
- Posts:
- 11,314
- Liked Posts:
- 4,609
Exactly.
And for your above "a 2023 3rd round pick and 2023 5th round pick + 2024 2nd rounder" to go from #4 to #1 that's at best a $580 offer for a $1200 value. You laugh in their face and don't answer any more calls from them for this draft or any other trade in the future. That ridiculous low ball offer just made you a trade enemy in the NFL and that was their intention in making such an offer.
That would have to be the Lions who were trying to hurt the Bears just like the Bears should be trying to hurt the Lions' future draft capital as part of the price to get a QB.
We're not hurting for cap space. There is no reason for us to need to move off the first where we should consider ripping ourselves off. This is the seller's market.
- Joined:
- Jan 11, 2014
- Posts:
- 6,741
- Liked Posts:
- 4,130
- Location:
- Chicago
The value from #1 (3000) to #4 (1800) is 1200. Which is the 1.12 pick. So, if we are moving to #4 from #1 it will take AT LEAST an extra 1st. More likely there will be a bidding war, and I think the #4, 2024 1st, and a 2023 2nd. At least.
Myk
85in25
- Joined:
- Sep 27, 2010
- Posts:
- 11,314
- Liked Posts:
- 4,609
You have no idea what a strawman argument is do you?
The picks have values since the charts. If a team offers half the value of your pick and you have no reason to move off the pick except to get an equal value of picks you don't take the trade.
Myk
85in25
- Joined:
- Sep 27, 2010
- Posts:
- 11,314
- Liked Posts:
- 4,609
Except you don't know what position future picks are. That's why they are devalued 50%. It's not a #4 2024, it's just a 2024 1st rounder.
vabearsfan15
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 12, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,450
- Liked Posts:
- 5,264
Ted Phillips didn't announce his retirement until this past September, well after Poles was hired. And it probably had to do with a rift in being excluded from Football operations.
Also, do you really think the Bears are going to try to hire someone with a "football" background only to tell them they don't have control of the football side of operations? Sure the priority will be the new stadium for the new president. But these guys live and breathe football. They want to have influence and control into how the team is being run. And if it is being run by someone they didn't hire its natural to think that said individual is on a short leash.
And all because I say its a possibility doesn't mean I think it will happen. But it is possible. If I had to guess Poles will likely do enough this offseason with all the assetts he has to field a competitive team. The NFC is weak. It shouldn't be that difficult. But, its not like GMs and coaches haven't been fired in year 2. They don't have immunity. And if things go south and Fields is retained and regressess it could reflect poorly on the staff.
RacerX
Silicon Valley CA Bears H
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,885
- Liked Posts:
- 9,972
- Location:
- Silicon Valley, CA
Not saying you are wrong, just that I don't see it that way. What you described is simply a "Buyer's Market". I don't subscribe to the notion that there is such a thing as an insulting offer, it's a dynamic bidding situation and the four factors I listed will dictate the exchanged consideration.
IMO most NFL GMs don't give a crap what happened with Goff or any other prior trade, it's a complete reset for a #1 overall and if Indy knows there isn't another desperate team bidding against them, I full expect a lowball offer and will accept it without any dick-ripping.
vabearsfan15
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 12, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,450
- Liked Posts:
- 5,264
Yes, that is how the President's role was structured this past offseason for Ted. This after 20 years of managing the GM position. But do you really think we are going to hire a "football" guy to be told they have no control over the football operations or the GM? Maybe it will be limited or in partnership with George, but I highly doubt we are going to tell the Team President they have no say in the GM's job position.
I Just Want To Read
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 2, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,349
- Liked Posts:
- 689
Lmao what?
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 20,872
- Liked Posts:
- 29,657
- Location:
- Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
What matters are not these numbers but what teams value Young and Stroud at.
HOU has 9 picks in the first 3 rounds the next 2 seasons, If they really value Young, giving up 2 1sts and still having a 2,3,3 this season and 1,1,2,3 next season plus 11 more picks over the next 2 years, I don't think they bat an eye. But again it is more about the value they put one QB1 vs QB2.
RacerX
Silicon Valley CA Bears H
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 9,885
- Liked Posts:
- 9,972
- Location:
- Silicon Valley, CA
Do you disagree, or are you having trouble following the logic?
- Joined:
- Aug 17, 2011
- Posts:
- 41,631
- Liked Posts:
- 23,966
- Location:
- Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
The strawman is your misrepresentation of make believe scenarios. It's precisely what it means. No team is going to low ball to anything approaching that offer.
Last edited:
- Joined:
- Sep 11, 2014
- Posts:
- 4,514
- Liked Posts:
- 3,069
Don't you recall Bill Polian consulting George. George straight up asked what are we doing wrong here. Polian told George what he needs to do if he wants to make this team credible in football circles. That suggestion was to identify a guy (Poles) to give the reins to and handle the whole football side of things.
If you think George is going to abandon this plan after one season, when Poles has done everything up to this point that he said he would (tear it down) and risk any chance of trying to restore credibility to this franchise then I can't help you cuz you are too dense.
flabear
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 23, 2016
- Posts:
- 952
- Liked Posts:
- 547
My favorite teams
My trade-down would be the first for the Texan's 2nd and their 34th. the Texans would take this deal to get the QB without costing them too much. then I'd trade the 2 to the colts for their 4th and 36 plus whatever else they give us, and we still get either Anderson or Carter. At the least, we get a starting DL and multiple second-round picks. We would have 3-second rounders and can wheel and deal with them too. The 34 and 36 are just past the first round since Miami lost their first-rounder. that would be 4 picks in the top 60, that's how you build a team
Last edited:
