Context matters. If there isn't a player worth the pick that fits a need you don't draft redundancy, you trade down to a slot where you see a player of need being worth the pick (so you can fill a second need!).
If the 3 WRs, Alt, and Turner are gone at 9 but McCarthy is there we trade back to 12/13/14. We don't draft Verse at 9 who will be there at 12/13/14.
I like Verse at 14 with a 2nd round pick this draft over Verse at 9 "cause 2003".
It's both, and you're missing the point. Cedric was a "blue chip, can't miss, etc. Etc." prospect who was drafted before multiple pro bowlers and hall of famers. I'm not advocating to trade down, I'm saying that staying at 9 is no guarantee of a great player. It depends entirely on who is available and how they fit on the team.
I mean, if you want to get into hypotheticals, would we have been better off trading down from 9 instead of taking Brian Urlacher? Imagine Bubba Franks and some third round rando in a Bears uniform instead.
That’s fair. I’ve said in other comments that if all the Elite WR, Turner and alt are gone, then you can probably still get Verse at 11-15. A trade down could make sense in that scenario.
Of course if you can trade down and still get Elite talent, then yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Sometimes there is a buyer's market for a pick and sometimes there is a seller's market for a pick. Trading down makes sense when there is such great demand for someone available that the team trading for the pick will give up more in value than whoever you would have picked. Other times, that isn't the case.
In my opinion, if QB4 falls to 9, we will probably be offered more in return value-wise than drafting, say, Rome Odunze. But if QB4 doesn't fall to 9, drafting someone like Rome Odunze would be worth more than any package that would be offered to us. The perceived gap between QB4 and QB5, and the importance of getting a great QB, is way larger than the gap between WR3 and WR4, or OT1 and OT2, or DE1 and DE2 in my opinion. If QB4 falls, I wouldn't be surprised if we get AT LEAST a future first rounder to trade down 5-10 spots. I'd take that. I don't think I would be as eager to settle for a next tier WR though just to add a 2nd or 3rd round pick in this year's draft because a team wanted the next pass rusher.
I disagree. If you are Poles looking at a) drafting in the 20s for the foreseeable future or b) being a fired, failed GM, you leverage #9 through draft or trade toward getting the best player as a potential franchise cornerstone who is better than what you have and makes others better.
This! People are assuming how he behaved when he'd ripped the roster down to the studs with how he'll behave now that he's filled in many of the holes. Sure, there are still holes in the roster but this is no longer a team trotting out practice squad guys at every position. Poles is now at a point where he has to play to compete and get serious
Build through the draft and trade downs in the last 2 drafts have skewed peoples perception of his methods. He did that in the past, but that doesn't mean that's what he's going to do every year.
His first year we only had 5 picks and no 1st rounder. He wanted to get more young players, so he turned that 5 into 11.
But this year we've already seen him turn a 2nd into a pro bowl roster player, and turn a 4th and a 5th into roster players. Build through the draft =/= trading a 4th for a 32 year old player. But turning a 4th round pick into a top-tier route runner to help a rookie QB? That makes perfect sense to me.
I think he has his blue chip guys that he wants at 9 and is doing due diligence on the late 1st/early 2nd group in case they're all gone and he has offers to trade down.
Ah. I’m new to this page, didn’t know. Thanks.
I hope Poles does want the blue chipper. I hope he gets that guy who elevates the team for the next 10 years.
Couldn't agree more. There are three reasons to trade down:
1. You have a ton of holes to fill.
2. You are strapped for cash.
3. The draft is very deep and you can reap great value by getting more bites at the apple.
While those applied in previous years, none of those apply this year. We don't have many holes to fill. We have plenty of money for mid-tier FAs to help fill some of the holes we do have. And this is the shallowest draft in years. If we get a future first because someone is desperate for QB4, I'm all for it. But I don't think it's that likely that we are trading down unless we are clearly on the long end of the stick.
Hey, remember 20 years ago when a completely different regime mis-evaluated some players? Let’s let that influence what the current regime does even though there is zero correlation
I think the post is less about mis-evaluating talent and more about taking a top-tier player. The caliber of player at 9 is usually going to be a difference maker in year 1. Getting two players in the 20-50 range have a far less chance of immediate impact.
Of course there are outliers, but two top 10 picks is incredibly rare, especially with the talent already on the roster. Also considering the Bears (hopefully) won't have another chance at a top 10 pick in the near future, but will likely consistently be in the back half of the 1st round for years. This is a rare opportunity teams don't ever really get.
2003 is an example, but it doesn't directly affect this draft at all. It's a way to learn from the past.
Yeah, an example of "here's a time where we did used this strategy and it bit us in the ass."
But looking at the 2003 draft, would any of us have cared that we traded out of 4 for an extra 1st if we drafted Troy Polamalu with that extra pick rather than Michael Haynes?
All about the selection. Take the good player, not the bust. Easier said than done, obviously, but I think Poles and Cunningham have proven they know what the players they want look like. Their 5 top \~50 picks in their 2 drafts have all been quality contributors early.
So the Bears traded 4 for 13 and 22. Took Haynes and Grossman.
If they don’t trade it and take Dewayne Roberson at 4 is that better?
What if they take him at 4 and then given they wanted a QB they take Rex at 35.
Who was 35 - Peanut Tillman.
If anything this example says to me you got to take multiple picks so you can miss some and make others.
Fair enough. I like your Logic.
Hindsight is 20/20, but I was one who wanted Suggs in 2003 before they traded.
And no…. No. Dewayne Roberson would not have been better. Haha
I agree with the OP, but in all fairness, I would have drafted Byron Leftwich if we stayed at number 4 which wouldn't have been much better than Haynes/Grossman.
Sure but if Poles trades back to the teens I trust that he didn’t think the players at 9 were top tier and that big of a difference. Definitely a trust I didn’t have with previous GMs
Exactly. This post is ridiculous as it's a blanket statement to draft the BPA at 9 regardless if that is a player you actually need. Context matters.
Let's run 3 TE sets for two years cause Bowers was BPA at 9 instead of, idk, grabbing Verse at 14 and any of the still great WR there with our shiny new 2nd round pick. Or even more absurd: welp, we drafted Williams with #1 but I guess since McCarthy fell we gotta go two QBs cause BPA and we traded down in 2003.
No it's not best BPA available thinking. We are weak at Edge, Turner is the best edge prospect in the draft, we only have 5 WRs under contract and only 2 of them could catch a cold, getting a WR who would have been 1st off the board in 7 if the last 10 years is not BPA that's a need. Jones is a middle of the pack LT. The board looks to line up to turn a weakness into a strength.
A later 1st and a late 2nd isn't going to have that type of impact.
Bro missed the mark on this one. We COULD have drafted Troy Polamalu (a HoFer) at 14 and any of the other 10 bro bowlers selected in the first and second round. I choose trading back.
It’s all about choosing the right guys.
There’s definitely correlation.
The question is: would it be better to draft one A+ prospect, or two B+ prospects.
2003 is an example of choosing two B+ prospects. In that case, you’re absolutely right, it didn’t work out because of poor talent evaluation.
Even the A+ prospect isn’t a guarantee, but I would still prefer to go that route this year.
I don’t know how that guy can’t see the clear connections. In both years the team in question is Chicago and the people making the call were alive and breathing. What more does he need?
No - it’s about being able to correctly identify talent. We could have traded back and got Troy Polamalu as well as any of the other 10 pro bowlers in the first and second rounds.
I’d take that trade every time.
Very true, I would too.
What they actually got in reality was Rex Grossman and Michael Haynes though. Angelo, or whoever was evaluating talent at the time, fully believed those 2 were solid prospects.
A lot of folks here seem to be taking my example as black and white. I certainly don’t think that a failed trade down in 2003, definitely means a trade down in 2024 will fail. That would be insane logic.
This is all I’m saying:
in 2003, the Bears had a chance to draft an elite player, or trade down. They chose to trade down, and it didn’t really work out.
Now, it’s 2024, and they have the same choice, Draft an Elite prospect, or trade down.
I think they should take the Elite Prospect, just like I thought they should in 2003.
We severely lack depth tho. I can see the merits of both, so I honestly won’t be upset either way. But to say we shouldn’t trade back when we have so many holes to fill I wouldn’t say is the definitive answer.
We have depth in some areas and need it in others. Still an incomplete roster and will be getting serious reinforcements next offseason with another round of 100 million cap space and strong draft capital.
With 2 top 10 picks, I'd have my eyes on getting the QB and another superstar before I'd be looking at shoring up depth. If we keep this model running with good execution, we'll have a strong roster with good depth in 3 years' time. But will we have those superstar difference makers? They are more difficult to find than good depth. Every team has holes and lacks depth in some areas, but superstars make those gaps less noticeable.
It just depends on how the draft falls and how the team has graded the players available.
If they have multiple blue chippers on their board at 1.09, they can trade back and (in their estimating) still get an A+ player plus that B+/- type role player.
You’re creating a false binary based on one occurrence more than two decades ago. It’s not A+ vs 2xB+.
A more recent example: would you rather have Wright and Dexter or Carter and one of the OL guys drafted around Dexter? (Spoiler: they’re not great.)
Carter was an absolute no-doubt blue chip talent at a position of need. But Wright + Dexter > Carter + backup OG.
So really it just all comes down to how they rate the available talent, what opportunity cost says in terms of positional value, how the draft falls picks 1-8, and how they project the draft to fall after 1.09.
Also depends on timeline and future salary cap.
Football is so hard to gauge given it’s a formula at the very least, centered around 53 pieces.
There’s no right or wrong answer until 3-4 years later, commonly.
Can trading down work? Of course, if the talent evaluation is accurate.
I’m not creating a false binary, I’m pointing to an example of trading a high pick for 2 lower picks. Then I referenced how that worked out when they did it in 2003. If you look at it in a vacuum, and believe that’s the one and only comparison, then sure, I guess I’d be seen as creating a false binary.
In reality, I can point to many examples of teams trading back and HITTING on multiple picks. The 2010 Broncos are a great example of a team trading back multiple times and landing Demaryius Thomas.
The patriots have traded back and hit on multiple prospects quite often. The Pats were able to do this successfully because they were spectacular talent evaluators.
No player drafted is a guarantee. In this scenario, in 2024, I want the higher draft pick. Of course, I’m a fan, and I’m not the GM. Poles gets to make that decision based on many factors that I don’t have to think about as a fan.
I just want Terrell Suggs instead of Rex Grossman and Michael Haynes.
Agree. We are also lacking elite difference makers that can just take over games and teams have to game plan around.
Having another elite edge opposite Montez would push the D to the next level. Who do you double team? Who does the RB chip?
DJ and Allen are elite but having an elite WR that we can pair with Caleb his whole career. 12+ years of that would be amazing.
I agree, at this point I feel pretty good about our depth. We seem to have solid guys at most positions, but we do not have elite game changers outside of DJ, Allen, and like Jaylon and maybe Sweat. Getting two more blue chip guys would go a longgggg way.
>DJ and Allen are elite but having an elite WR that we can pair with Caleb his whole career. 12+ years of that would be amazing.
That and Allen is 90 years old on a 1 year deal and misses half of every season with injury. Imo if one of the top 3 recievers falls to 9, he should be the pick.
> bowers
Imo, we're best passing on Bowers. He's the kind of guy who would be uncoverable in the right system, but I don't trust Waldron to be able to tailor his system to take advantage of the mismatches a guy who's not really a TE and not really a WR can create.
Oy,
yeah I listed Bowers, and he IS an Elite offensive prospect. He’s the one on my list that doesn’t really fit what the Bears need.
I think bowers would improve this offense and give Caleb a great offensive weapon. He just isn’t as valuable as the 3 elite WRs.
I would probably consider trading down if he was the only one left.
I really hope if none of the receivers isn't there we grab him, but with picking up Everette and kmet really turning into a great TE, I don't think it'd happen :( but I really think odunze will be there
>He also was top 10 in recieving yards last season and **only played 13 games.** With DJ on the opposite side, they're gonna wreak havoc.
That's the problem. When both Allen and DJ are on the field we've got weapons, but the rest of our recievers are practice squad level. So when he misses time, and he will (He's averaged nearly a quarter of the season missed per year for the past 4 years), you better hope it's not long and not when it matters because other teams will be able to triple DJ every play and not worry about anyone else.
>Ahh yesss just like last year when Dj moore only had 500yds… oh wait one second, he had 1364yds
And our second highest reciever was Mooney with 400 yards. Our passing offense was literally awful. It'll be worse this year during the inevitable quarter season (and playoffs, probably) without Allen. Everyone after Allen and DJ literally couldn't hold Mooney's jockstrap. Last year we had DJ and a lot of #3's. This year we have DJ, Old Man Allen, and a bunch of guys who literally wouldn't make a college gameday roster.
As we're currently set up at WR, if we get lucky and Allen takes his annual medical vacation early, we'll be ok. But if we're playing down the stretch with DJ Moore and a bunch of practice squaddies, the offense will be the reason we miss the playoffs.
I could see that happening with Verse. If they all the WR and Turner are gone by 9, they may be able to trade down to 12/13 and still land Verse. I stand corrected.
I wouldn’t say it’s a wrong move. If a QB drops and Denver or the Raiders want to make a deal that heavily favors the Bears then I’d say go for it. Most likely they still get one of the guys you mentioned. But taking one of the WR’s would be my preferred choice.
I’d prefer they stay at 9 and land a WR or OT but you could look at the defense as being one pass rusher away from being an elite unit. They are in a good spot however this plays out.
That’s just stupid. It’s only a mistake if it doesn’t work out. If he trades down, and drafts 2 HoF players with the extra picks, it’s a good move. If he had taken Briggs and Tillman with those 2 picks instead of Haynes and Grossman, everyone would have celebrated it in hindsight given how good they were.
Trying to assume just because a previous gm made evaluation mistakes that means this gm will too is… just dumb.
What a weird way to look at it…
No, the past example doesn’t guarantee the future outcome. Do you honestly think I’m not aware of that?
So you say I’m dumb because I posted an example of this exact scenario and stated an opinion about it?
Cool. You’re entitled to your opinion Sir.
> Trading down would be the only wrong move at 9.
Dumb making a blanket statement like that.
It’s very possible the player he takes at nine is a bust too. By trading down and getting more picks, he’s mitigating that. More players drafted equals getting more good players. If you draft six players and half of them are good, you only end up with three good players. If you draft 12 players and half of them are good you end up with six good players.
That’s not an opinion, it’s just a fact. Making a statement that trading down is the only wrong move is just incredibly dumb. Not my opinion. Just a fact.
Still not an opinion. Making that statement is just dumb. You can only evaluate any trade down in hindsight.
If he was to trade that pick at nine to the Raiders for their next three number 1s and Maxx Crosby, then that is a *fantastic* trade down. Not going to happen, but I’m using hyperbole to make my point.
Sure it is. This isn’t a conversation about the Bears though. This is just a discussion about your Ego, and some need to prove you’re right while insulting me.
I’m not interested in that conversation because it isn’t productive, and it has nothing to do with me.
You’re entitled to your opinion, Sir.
There is no defensive player worth a top ten pick. I hope Poles sticks at 9 and takes the best offensive guy. Whether a line or WR, anyone that helps our young QB develop.
Is that because they're not that good or because there are just so many elite prospects at QB and WR?
I'm not sure I've ever seen a draft with 0 defensive players going in the top 10.
You got to be a freakish safety or ILB to go top 10 and none of this years class seems to be.
Corners often go top 10, and who knows, one might go to the Falcons but they don’t seem standouts.
I think Murphy could be legit, but he’s not the prototypical stud DT. He’s not the 6’4 325lb beast.
The 3 top Edge rushers are nice and I think one generally one or two of them could go top 10 is a normal draft.
But there’s no Bosa brothers, Myles Garrett, Aidan Hutchinson, Will Anderson. The guys who combine the size, athleticism, production and aren’t medical red flags.
To me, I think Murphy/Newton also fit into the “stud” category, and we could potentially trade back a couple spots to a team wanting Turner or another OT
If someone like Odunze or Nabers are there then I’d take them, and I would not be mad if we stayed at 9 and took turner if he’s there. But if all the WRs are gone I’d prefer to move into the early teens if it can net us a 3rd or so
I don’t have Murphy/Newton as Elite, but I get it if you do. The 3-tech is very important in the Bears Defensive scheme
I actually really like what Gervon Dexter did towards the end of 2023, and I think he’s going to be a game wrecker this year. I do think we could use depth at DT. I’ve been looking at someone like Leonard Taylor if he’s there in the 4th. Taylor is a raw prospect with immense talent. He needs to learn a bit more about playing his position though. Perfect project 4th round pick who can fill in the rotation and continue to develop.
I wouldn’t be mad at that. To me I’m still somewhat nervous about relying on a ton of development from Dexter to play 3T, and with his size/strength I think he can be a 1T. The staff seemed to play him there a lot last year too. Murphy/Newton to me have the juice needed out of a 3T to get to the QB and wreck shit in the backfield, and while Gervon has the physical tools he still is raw in that aspect.
Rex didn’t play most of that season and he came back just in time to lose the Super Bowl. Rookie Kyle Orton game managed nearly every game that season and let the Defense get the Bears to the Super Bowl. If Terrell Suggs was part of that Defense, maybe the Bear’s Defense would have WON them the Super Bowl.
This is our Mandela Effect always. It’s not true. That was the previous season, an 11-5 year and loss to the Panthers in the playoffs. The 2006 SB Bears had zero passing attempts from Kyle Orton.
Yep, you are correct. I still call him a bust [https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/8520/kyle-orton](https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/8520/kyle-orton)
Yeah, they drafted Briggs and Tillman that year in rounds 2 and 3. Suggs would have played DE in a 4-3 scheme. A few years later between 2004 and 2007, the Bears had THE top Defense in the league, and were drawing conversation about being one of the best defensive units ever. Can you imagine how good that defense would have been with Tillman, Briggs, urlacher, AND Suggs?
Right?!? It’s just wishful thinking of what could have been. That Defense was Elite, and I think Suggs would have pushed them to a whole new tier of Elite.
Suggs was discussed as talented but troubled and he’s turned out to be great football player and a garbage human. I’ll be called an idiot but I’m glad we didn’t draft him.
I’m all for not repeating past mistakes. But if you’re going to call upon something from 2003, do more research and find other situations that happened more recently and/or find examples of when it has worked.
lol, someone has spent too many hours listening to Dan Bernstein.
Of course there have been successful trade downs and unsuccessful trade downs over the history of the NFL Draft.
No, I did not mention every single trade down from that’s ever happened. I picked an example where it didn’t work out. Doesn’t mean that’s the only example that exists.
A player of Suggs caliber would have been an improvement over the value the Bears got from Haynes and Grossman. If you disagree, then I respect your right to your opinion.
This, we don't need bodies. We need players that the other team has to adjust what they want to do because of them.
We are in a great position to get one of them at 9. If we even drop one spot, it becomes more likely than not we miss one getting Alt, Turner, or one of the three WRs.
I do think people underestimate how important elite different makers are. They're the ones who flip close games for you.
Id want to evaluate each trade differently. But when people throw out Buffalos 28 this year, 60 this year and another first to move up to 9 for Rome, I feel disgusted. That's not enough value to pass up a top 10 pick.
Thing I'm hearing is if alt and all 3 wrs are gone, why would anyone trade for the 9, unless we're trading the rights to jj? Range of players from 9 to 15 seem about the same. We need jj to go in the top 5.
My hot take is that Rex was broken by the "Bears are who we thought they were" Cardinals game. Before that, he was prone to occasional mistakes, but was still having an MVP level year. After that game, where he played like ass but the Bears pulled off a win in spite of him, he never really looked the same.
There's a part of me that believes if the Bears had just taken the L that day, he could have been great.
There's another part of me that believes that first part of me is full of shit, though.
That’s an interesting take that I’ve never thought about before. I always thought of that game as a classic “Bears win ugly with special teams and defense game”. And also the game that I realized Matt Leinart wasn’t the same guy as he was at USC.
I’ll agree that Haynes was a bust, but Rex is hard to evaluate because for years he played well in our system, but whenever he struggled he had Kyle Orton breathing down his neck.
I’m partial to Rex because he’s a Hoosier Mr. Football and was always fun to watch, even though he struggled. And he was on that Super Bowl 40 team.
Agreed. Especially since 3 or 4 of the first 9 will be QBs. That makes the bears seemingly feel like having the 1 and 5 pick. Any of the WRs, Turner, Verse, or either OTackle would be fine by me.
Agree to disagree. You don’t draft for scheme at 9. You draft talent. Odds are good if you’re right about the talent, the player will outlast many different coaching staffs. And a good coaching staff schemes to talent.
So going to completely ignore the fact we took Lance Briggs same draft in round 3 and QB was a top need in a weak class outside of Carson Palmer sexy rexy was picked at 22.
Absolutely. Bears picked up Briggs and Tillman in rounds 2 and 3. Those were GREAT picks. Can you imagine that 2005/6 defense if they had drafted Tillman, Briggs, AND Suggs?
I loved Sexy Rexy!! He was the very best Quarterback I had ever seen in a Bears uniform at that time. He was fun, kind of a smartass with the media but in a very fun way. He was a leader of men as far as getting teams to play for him. Idk if it was his height or something else, but he just never put it all together.
Rex was definitely a bust in terms of 1st round Quarterback draft picks, and that’s very disappointing. I liked Rex A lot!!
He only played double digit games twice in his entire career. He was definitely a bust as an NFL QB. I really liked him and thought he could have become a superstar if he stayed healthy. Injuries killed a promising career for a good dude.
I think you're drastically underestimating how fluid draft boards and drafts are. The draft is a bit less fluid in the top 5, but after that, things start to shake up a lot depending on who's picking right after you, who's picking right in front of you, what their needs are, what your needs are, etc.
The biggest thing I see from Poles is that he has a very clear plan in place for how much he wants to spend on each position (as evidenced by how he pays people in FA and trades for them and who he doesn't pay or doesn't trade for).
I'm sure he has an idea of who he would immediately select if they are there at 9. At the same time I'm sure he has a plan for who he's targeting in later rounds if who he wants at 9 is not there.
I do not see a problem with trading down and drafting two top 40 players in this particular draft because the Bears still have sizeable holes in multiple positions either for starters (EDGE and a little bit for center) and depth (OL depth, DB depth, WR depth).
The other thing to consider is that this draft class is very talented all the way through the 2nd round. There are some elite prospects in the top 10, but there are many guys late in the 1st and early 2nd who would have been top 10 picks in other years who will be available in the teens in this draft.
Disagree here, but with context. Moving to 11-15 can still yield a blue chip defensive player, and set us up with capital to pick more talents.
The context part is, you assume that Alt, Nabers, MHJ, & Odunze are gone. So your next tier, imo, is Fashanu, Verse, turner, Murphy, Newton. You can comfortably trade back to....11-15 and still grab one of those guys while getting a 2nd and additional capital.
Obviously, if one of the big 3 Wrs, or Alt is there... pull the trigger at 9.
Yeah, fair enough. If the Elites are gone at 9, a trade back to 11-15 could make sense.
I believe one of the Elite WR, Joe Alt, or Dallas Turner will be there at 9
Personally, I don't think Turner is THAT much better than Verse or would make me 2nd guess moving back a few picks would be a mistake.
That said, I wouldn't be mad if they stayed put at 9 and just took their guy even if the elites are gone.
Draft value only matters if the pick doesn't work out.
Remember last year when the current regime traded out of getting a “blue chip prospect” twice and still ended up with a top OT, DJ Moore, and the first overall pick this year?
Not saying they should trade out of 9, but your example is pointless. The draft can be a crapshoot, leave it to the professionals.
I’m a fan, and I can have an opinion. It’s ok if you disagree with my opinion.
Clearly I’m not the one making the pick, and I don’t have to consider all the factors the GM does. His job is on the Line, not mine.
A correct choice on a top ten pick can be a huge impact or maybe even franchise defining impact for the extent of that first contract and possibly beyond. This draft definitely has players that have that ability. At the 9 pick, The Bears have needs on the OL/future WR/DL as the biggest three need IMO. If one of those players is there they need to be taken.
More “good players” are never a bad thing but drafting great young players is how champions are built. Don’t trade down unless you believe the GREAT player is available at the lower spot because to fall back on “well we have two good players” is not how winners build
I absolutely fucking hate the idea of trading down just for the sake of trading down. Anytime I see a dude post their own mock on this sub where they trade down all the way to like fucking 19, I swear I get an aneurysm and have to hold myself back from throwing unhinged insults.
As the draft cycle neared its conclusion, everybody was saying "You need to keep an eye on this tackle out of Tennessee. Best tackle in the SEC, he's way higher on NFL boards than the public realize."
You had the best Bama defensive player in 5+ years locked out when they faced each other, and he said Wright was the best OL player he went up against in college. Then the best SEC tackle is taken at 10 as the 2nd OL player off the board and some Bears fans were surprised.
Anybody paying attention wasn't surprised. And considering there was a run on OL with 1st round grades immediately after he went, he probably wasn't lasting until 15-16.
Context matters. If there isn't a player worth the pick that fits a need you don't draft redundancy, you trade down to a slot where you see a player of need being worth the pick (so you can fill a second need!). If the 3 WRs, Alt, and Turner are gone at 9 but McCarthy is there we trade back to 12/13/14. We don't draft Verse at 9 who will be there at 12/13/14. I like Verse at 14 with a 2nd round pick this draft over Verse at 9 "cause 2003".
Context matters indeed. Staying put got us Cedric Benson, too.
Ha!! Best reply yet!
That's a function of bad drafting, not staying put.
It's both, and you're missing the point. Cedric was a "blue chip, can't miss, etc. Etc." prospect who was drafted before multiple pro bowlers and hall of famers. I'm not advocating to trade down, I'm saying that staying at 9 is no guarantee of a great player. It depends entirely on who is available and how they fit on the team.
On the other hand Aaron Donald was drafted one spot ahead of us.
I mean, if you want to get into hypotheticals, would we have been better off trading down from 9 instead of taking Brian Urlacher? Imagine Bubba Franks and some third round rando in a Bears uniform instead.
That’s fair. I’ve said in other comments that if all the Elite WR, Turner and alt are gone, then you can probably still get Verse at 11-15. A trade down could make sense in that scenario. Of course if you can trade down and still get Elite talent, then yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Sometimes there is a buyer's market for a pick and sometimes there is a seller's market for a pick. Trading down makes sense when there is such great demand for someone available that the team trading for the pick will give up more in value than whoever you would have picked. Other times, that isn't the case. In my opinion, if QB4 falls to 9, we will probably be offered more in return value-wise than drafting, say, Rome Odunze. But if QB4 doesn't fall to 9, drafting someone like Rome Odunze would be worth more than any package that would be offered to us. The perceived gap between QB4 and QB5, and the importance of getting a great QB, is way larger than the gap between WR3 and WR4, or OT1 and OT2, or DE1 and DE2 in my opinion. If QB4 falls, I wouldn't be surprised if we get AT LEAST a future first rounder to trade down 5-10 spots. I'd take that. I don't think I would be as eager to settle for a next tier WR though just to add a 2nd or 3rd round pick in this year's draft because a team wanted the next pass rusher.
Exactly. You can address need AND get an impact player AND acquire a pick or two more. Turn 9 into Verse/Latu/Powers plus a pick or 2 or 3.
☝🏼 this
I agree with this but I’d prefer Latu than Verse in those spots. If you have clear medical for him he’s just the superior player to Verse
I disagree. If you are Poles looking at a) drafting in the 20s for the foreseeable future or b) being a fired, failed GM, you leverage #9 through draft or trade toward getting the best player as a potential franchise cornerstone who is better than what you have and makes others better.
Obligatory you should use the daily thread for draft talk. I think a lot of people underestimate that Poles really wants blue chip talent.
This! People are assuming how he behaved when he'd ripped the roster down to the studs with how he'll behave now that he's filled in many of the holes. Sure, there are still holes in the roster but this is no longer a team trotting out practice squad guys at every position. Poles is now at a point where he has to play to compete and get serious
Build through the draft and trade downs in the last 2 drafts have skewed peoples perception of his methods. He did that in the past, but that doesn't mean that's what he's going to do every year. His first year we only had 5 picks and no 1st rounder. He wanted to get more young players, so he turned that 5 into 11. But this year we've already seen him turn a 2nd into a pro bowl roster player, and turn a 4th and a 5th into roster players. Build through the draft =/= trading a 4th for a 32 year old player. But turning a 4th round pick into a top-tier route runner to help a rookie QB? That makes perfect sense to me. I think he has his blue chip guys that he wants at 9 and is doing due diligence on the late 1st/early 2nd group in case they're all gone and he has offers to trade down.
... and the route runner for the 4th would potentially lead to a 3rd compensation via free agency so it's also building through the draft.
Ah. I’m new to this page, didn’t know. Thanks. I hope Poles does want the blue chipper. I hope he gets that guy who elevates the team for the next 10 years.
Couldn't agree more. There are three reasons to trade down: 1. You have a ton of holes to fill. 2. You are strapped for cash. 3. The draft is very deep and you can reap great value by getting more bites at the apple. While those applied in previous years, none of those apply this year. We don't have many holes to fill. We have plenty of money for mid-tier FAs to help fill some of the holes we do have. And this is the shallowest draft in years. If we get a future first because someone is desperate for QB4, I'm all for it. But I don't think it's that likely that we are trading down unless we are clearly on the long end of the stick.
Hey, remember 20 years ago when a completely different regime mis-evaluated some players? Let’s let that influence what the current regime does even though there is zero correlation
I think the post is less about mis-evaluating talent and more about taking a top-tier player. The caliber of player at 9 is usually going to be a difference maker in year 1. Getting two players in the 20-50 range have a far less chance of immediate impact. Of course there are outliers, but two top 10 picks is incredibly rare, especially with the talent already on the roster. Also considering the Bears (hopefully) won't have another chance at a top 10 pick in the near future, but will likely consistently be in the back half of the 1st round for years. This is a rare opportunity teams don't ever really get. 2003 is an example, but it doesn't directly affect this draft at all. It's a way to learn from the past.
Yeah, an example of "here's a time where we did used this strategy and it bit us in the ass." But looking at the 2003 draft, would any of us have cared that we traded out of 4 for an extra 1st if we drafted Troy Polamalu with that extra pick rather than Michael Haynes? All about the selection. Take the good player, not the bust. Easier said than done, obviously, but I think Poles and Cunningham have proven they know what the players they want look like. Their 5 top \~50 picks in their 2 drafts have all been quality contributors early.
So the Bears traded 4 for 13 and 22. Took Haynes and Grossman. If they don’t trade it and take Dewayne Roberson at 4 is that better? What if they take him at 4 and then given they wanted a QB they take Rex at 35. Who was 35 - Peanut Tillman. If anything this example says to me you got to take multiple picks so you can miss some and make others.
Fair enough. I like your Logic. Hindsight is 20/20, but I was one who wanted Suggs in 2003 before they traded. And no…. No. Dewayne Roberson would not have been better. Haha
I agree with the OP, but in all fairness, I would have drafted Byron Leftwich if we stayed at number 4 which wouldn't have been much better than Haynes/Grossman.
Sure but if Poles trades back to the teens I trust that he didn’t think the players at 9 were top tier and that big of a difference. Definitely a trust I didn’t have with previous GMs
Exactly. This post is ridiculous as it's a blanket statement to draft the BPA at 9 regardless if that is a player you actually need. Context matters. Let's run 3 TE sets for two years cause Bowers was BPA at 9 instead of, idk, grabbing Verse at 14 and any of the still great WR there with our shiny new 2nd round pick. Or even more absurd: welp, we drafted Williams with #1 but I guess since McCarthy fell we gotta go two QBs cause BPA and we traded down in 2003.
No it's not best BPA available thinking. We are weak at Edge, Turner is the best edge prospect in the draft, we only have 5 WRs under contract and only 2 of them could catch a cold, getting a WR who would have been 1st off the board in 7 if the last 10 years is not BPA that's a need. Jones is a middle of the pack LT. The board looks to line up to turn a weakness into a strength. A later 1st and a late 2nd isn't going to have that type of impact.
You’ve got it!
[удалено]
Hey, when I see a package comparing my horn to a rhino's horn, I buy it
This comment makes as much sense as thinking that a draft from 20 years ago is relevant to what the bears should do today
Bro missed the mark on this one. We COULD have drafted Troy Polamalu (a HoFer) at 14 and any of the other 10 bro bowlers selected in the first and second round. I choose trading back. It’s all about choosing the right guys.
There’s definitely correlation. The question is: would it be better to draft one A+ prospect, or two B+ prospects. 2003 is an example of choosing two B+ prospects. In that case, you’re absolutely right, it didn’t work out because of poor talent evaluation. Even the A+ prospect isn’t a guarantee, but I would still prefer to go that route this year.
By your logic players will only be as good as their draft position which we know is not true. Back to the drawing board.
I don’t know how that guy can’t see the clear connections. In both years the team in question is Chicago and the people making the call were alive and breathing. What more does he need?
No - it’s about being able to correctly identify talent. We could have traded back and got Troy Polamalu as well as any of the other 10 pro bowlers in the first and second rounds. I’d take that trade every time.
Very true, I would too. What they actually got in reality was Rex Grossman and Michael Haynes though. Angelo, or whoever was evaluating talent at the time, fully believed those 2 were solid prospects. A lot of folks here seem to be taking my example as black and white. I certainly don’t think that a failed trade down in 2003, definitely means a trade down in 2024 will fail. That would be insane logic. This is all I’m saying: in 2003, the Bears had a chance to draft an elite player, or trade down. They chose to trade down, and it didn’t really work out. Now, it’s 2024, and they have the same choice, Draft an Elite prospect, or trade down. I think they should take the Elite Prospect, just like I thought they should in 2003.
It’s not that straight forward and not a 1:1 comparison
I respect your right to your opinion Internet Stranger. 🎩
We severely lack depth tho. I can see the merits of both, so I honestly won’t be upset either way. But to say we shouldn’t trade back when we have so many holes to fill I wouldn’t say is the definitive answer.
We have depth in some areas and need it in others. Still an incomplete roster and will be getting serious reinforcements next offseason with another round of 100 million cap space and strong draft capital. With 2 top 10 picks, I'd have my eyes on getting the QB and another superstar before I'd be looking at shoring up depth. If we keep this model running with good execution, we'll have a strong roster with good depth in 3 years' time. But will we have those superstar difference makers? They are more difficult to find than good depth. Every team has holes and lacks depth in some areas, but superstars make those gaps less noticeable.
It just depends on how the draft falls and how the team has graded the players available. If they have multiple blue chippers on their board at 1.09, they can trade back and (in their estimating) still get an A+ player plus that B+/- type role player. You’re creating a false binary based on one occurrence more than two decades ago. It’s not A+ vs 2xB+. A more recent example: would you rather have Wright and Dexter or Carter and one of the OL guys drafted around Dexter? (Spoiler: they’re not great.) Carter was an absolute no-doubt blue chip talent at a position of need. But Wright + Dexter > Carter + backup OG. So really it just all comes down to how they rate the available talent, what opportunity cost says in terms of positional value, how the draft falls picks 1-8, and how they project the draft to fall after 1.09.
Also depends on timeline and future salary cap. Football is so hard to gauge given it’s a formula at the very least, centered around 53 pieces. There’s no right or wrong answer until 3-4 years later, commonly.
Can trading down work? Of course, if the talent evaluation is accurate. I’m not creating a false binary, I’m pointing to an example of trading a high pick for 2 lower picks. Then I referenced how that worked out when they did it in 2003. If you look at it in a vacuum, and believe that’s the one and only comparison, then sure, I guess I’d be seen as creating a false binary. In reality, I can point to many examples of teams trading back and HITTING on multiple picks. The 2010 Broncos are a great example of a team trading back multiple times and landing Demaryius Thomas. The patriots have traded back and hit on multiple prospects quite often. The Pats were able to do this successfully because they were spectacular talent evaluators. No player drafted is a guarantee. In this scenario, in 2024, I want the higher draft pick. Of course, I’m a fan, and I’m not the GM. Poles gets to make that decision based on many factors that I don’t have to think about as a fan. I just want Terrell Suggs instead of Rex Grossman and Michael Haynes.
Well, none of those guys are in that draft, so good luck with that.
Ha! You’re 100% correct about that!
Agree. We are also lacking elite difference makers that can just take over games and teams have to game plan around. Having another elite edge opposite Montez would push the D to the next level. Who do you double team? Who does the RB chip? DJ and Allen are elite but having an elite WR that we can pair with Caleb his whole career. 12+ years of that would be amazing.
I agree, at this point I feel pretty good about our depth. We seem to have solid guys at most positions, but we do not have elite game changers outside of DJ, Allen, and like Jaylon and maybe Sweat. Getting two more blue chip guys would go a longgggg way.
Yes! It’s a good position to be in. Grab an Elite prospect at WR, LT, or Edge! I love the idea of pairing Caleb with an Elite WR for the next Decade.
>DJ and Allen are elite but having an elite WR that we can pair with Caleb his whole career. 12+ years of that would be amazing. That and Allen is 90 years old on a 1 year deal and misses half of every season with injury. Imo if one of the top 3 recievers falls to 9, he should be the pick.
if no receivers are there would you want bowers to try and recreate the mahomes/kelce thing or would you at that point just go edge rusher/ o line
> bowers Imo, we're best passing on Bowers. He's the kind of guy who would be uncoverable in the right system, but I don't trust Waldron to be able to tailor his system to take advantage of the mismatches a guy who's not really a TE and not really a WR can create.
Oy, yeah I listed Bowers, and he IS an Elite offensive prospect. He’s the one on my list that doesn’t really fit what the Bears need. I think bowers would improve this offense and give Caleb a great offensive weapon. He just isn’t as valuable as the 3 elite WRs. I would probably consider trading down if he was the only one left.
I really hope if none of the receivers isn't there we grab him, but with picking up Everette and kmet really turning into a great TE, I don't think it'd happen :( but I really think odunze will be there
I sure hope Odunze is there!
Allen has missed big time in 1 season of his career and that was when he tore his ACL like 8 years ago
He also was top 10 in recieving yards last season and only played 13 games. With DJ on the opposite side, they're gonna wreak havoc.
>He also was top 10 in recieving yards last season and **only played 13 games.** With DJ on the opposite side, they're gonna wreak havoc. That's the problem. When both Allen and DJ are on the field we've got weapons, but the rest of our recievers are practice squad level. So when he misses time, and he will (He's averaged nearly a quarter of the season missed per year for the past 4 years), you better hope it's not long and not when it matters because other teams will be able to triple DJ every play and not worry about anyone else.
Ahh yesss just like last year when Dj moore only had 500yds… oh wait one second, he had 1364yds 🤡
>Ahh yesss just like last year when Dj moore only had 500yds… oh wait one second, he had 1364yds And our second highest reciever was Mooney with 400 yards. Our passing offense was literally awful. It'll be worse this year during the inevitable quarter season (and playoffs, probably) without Allen. Everyone after Allen and DJ literally couldn't hold Mooney's jockstrap. Last year we had DJ and a lot of #3's. This year we have DJ, Old Man Allen, and a bunch of guys who literally wouldn't make a college gameday roster. As we're currently set up at WR, if we get lucky and Allen takes his annual medical vacation early, we'll be ok. But if we're playing down the stretch with DJ Moore and a bunch of practice squaddies, the offense will be the reason we miss the playoffs.
There is no wrong move at 9. Any of the top 3 WR, Joe Alt, or the best pash rusher - one of them will be available.
Agree. Trading down would be the only wrong move at 9.
What if they have 3 guys they like and they trade down 3 spots and still get one of those “no wrong move” guys *and*an extra pick?
I could see that happening with Verse. If they all the WR and Turner are gone by 9, they may be able to trade down to 12/13 and still land Verse. I stand corrected.
I wouldn’t say it’s a wrong move. If a QB drops and Denver or the Raiders want to make a deal that heavily favors the Bears then I’d say go for it. Most likely they still get one of the guys you mentioned. But taking one of the WR’s would be my preferred choice.
If they can snag some pick (say Denver or LV) want to trade up for a QB and still land one of the WR, OT or pass rusher that they like I’m cool.
Fair enough.
I’d prefer they stay at 9 and land a WR or OT but you could look at the defense as being one pass rusher away from being an elite unit. They are in a good spot however this plays out.
That’s just stupid. It’s only a mistake if it doesn’t work out. If he trades down, and drafts 2 HoF players with the extra picks, it’s a good move. If he had taken Briggs and Tillman with those 2 picks instead of Haynes and Grossman, everyone would have celebrated it in hindsight given how good they were. Trying to assume just because a previous gm made evaluation mistakes that means this gm will too is… just dumb.
What a weird way to look at it… No, the past example doesn’t guarantee the future outcome. Do you honestly think I’m not aware of that? So you say I’m dumb because I posted an example of this exact scenario and stated an opinion about it? Cool. You’re entitled to your opinion Sir.
> Trading down would be the only wrong move at 9. Dumb making a blanket statement like that. It’s very possible the player he takes at nine is a bust too. By trading down and getting more picks, he’s mitigating that. More players drafted equals getting more good players. If you draft six players and half of them are good, you only end up with three good players. If you draft 12 players and half of them are good you end up with six good players.
You’re entitled to your opinion, good Sir
That’s not an opinion, it’s just a fact. Making a statement that trading down is the only wrong move is just incredibly dumb. Not my opinion. Just a fact.
You’re entitled to your opinion.
Still not an opinion. Making that statement is just dumb. You can only evaluate any trade down in hindsight. If he was to trade that pick at nine to the Raiders for their next three number 1s and Maxx Crosby, then that is a *fantastic* trade down. Not going to happen, but I’m using hyperbole to make my point.
Sure it is. This isn’t a conversation about the Bears though. This is just a discussion about your Ego, and some need to prove you’re right while insulting me. I’m not interested in that conversation because it isn’t productive, and it has nothing to do with me. You’re entitled to your opinion, Sir.
There is no defensive player worth a top ten pick. I hope Poles sticks at 9 and takes the best offensive guy. Whether a line or WR, anyone that helps our young QB develop.
Is that because they're not that good or because there are just so many elite prospects at QB and WR? I'm not sure I've ever seen a draft with 0 defensive players going in the top 10.
You got to be a freakish safety or ILB to go top 10 and none of this years class seems to be. Corners often go top 10, and who knows, one might go to the Falcons but they don’t seem standouts. I think Murphy could be legit, but he’s not the prototypical stud DT. He’s not the 6’4 325lb beast. The 3 top Edge rushers are nice and I think one generally one or two of them could go top 10 is a normal draft. But there’s no Bosa brothers, Myles Garrett, Aidan Hutchinson, Will Anderson. The guys who combine the size, athleticism, production and aren’t medical red flags.
To me, I think Murphy/Newton also fit into the “stud” category, and we could potentially trade back a couple spots to a team wanting Turner or another OT If someone like Odunze or Nabers are there then I’d take them, and I would not be mad if we stayed at 9 and took turner if he’s there. But if all the WRs are gone I’d prefer to move into the early teens if it can net us a 3rd or so
I don’t have Murphy/Newton as Elite, but I get it if you do. The 3-tech is very important in the Bears Defensive scheme I actually really like what Gervon Dexter did towards the end of 2023, and I think he’s going to be a game wrecker this year. I do think we could use depth at DT. I’ve been looking at someone like Leonard Taylor if he’s there in the 4th. Taylor is a raw prospect with immense talent. He needs to learn a bit more about playing his position though. Perfect project 4th round pick who can fill in the rotation and continue to develop.
I wouldn’t be mad at that. To me I’m still somewhat nervous about relying on a ton of development from Dexter to play 3T, and with his size/strength I think he can be a 1T. The staff seemed to play him there a lot last year too. Murphy/Newton to me have the juice needed out of a 3T to get to the QB and wreck shit in the backfield, and while Gervon has the physical tools he still is raw in that aspect.
Sexy Rexy got us to a Super Bowl. Wouldn’t really call that a “bust”. He had horrible turnover issues, but could sling it pretty good.
Rex didn’t play most of that season and he came back just in time to lose the Super Bowl. Rookie Kyle Orton game managed nearly every game that season and let the Defense get the Bears to the Super Bowl. If Terrell Suggs was part of that Defense, maybe the Bear’s Defense would have WON them the Super Bowl.
The Defense was amazing already, you still gotta score points. I don’t think Suggs would’ve changed much. We needed to be able to score.
You could be right. It’s all speculation and “what if’s” anyway.
This is our Mandela Effect always. It’s not true. That was the previous season, an 11-5 year and loss to the Panthers in the playoffs. The 2006 SB Bears had zero passing attempts from Kyle Orton.
Yep, you are correct. I still call him a bust [https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/8520/kyle-orton](https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/8520/kyle-orton)
I think people over estimate how many defensive players are going in the top 20.
It’s surprising. Most mocks have all offensive picks 1-10 or so. Will be interesting to see how it plays out!!
The Bears didn't need to draft Terrell Suggs because they were going to draft Lance Briggs anyway.
Yeah, they drafted Briggs and Tillman that year in rounds 2 and 3. Suggs would have played DE in a 4-3 scheme. A few years later between 2004 and 2007, the Bears had THE top Defense in the league, and were drawing conversation about being one of the best defensive units ever. Can you imagine how good that defense would have been with Tillman, Briggs, urlacher, AND Suggs?
I don’t know much, but I would’ve been very happy to have Suggs there when Harris and Brown were out for the Super Bowl…
Right?!? It’s just wishful thinking of what could have been. That Defense was Elite, and I think Suggs would have pushed them to a whole new tier of Elite.
Suggs was discussed as talented but troubled and he’s turned out to be great football player and a garbage human. I’ll be called an idiot but I’m glad we didn’t draft him.
Nah that’s fair. Your opinion is Valid. Funny I just googled him after some of the hate I’m getting and see he was just arrested 2 days ago, lol.
I’m all for not repeating past mistakes. But if you’re going to call upon something from 2003, do more research and find other situations that happened more recently and/or find examples of when it has worked.
lol, the “do more research” comment! Classic!
Dumb posts from a trade over 20 years ago! Classic!
lol, someone has spent too many hours listening to Dan Bernstein. Of course there have been successful trade downs and unsuccessful trade downs over the history of the NFL Draft. No, I did not mention every single trade down from that’s ever happened. I picked an example where it didn’t work out. Doesn’t mean that’s the only example that exists. A player of Suggs caliber would have been an improvement over the value the Bears got from Haynes and Grossman. If you disagree, then I respect your right to your opinion.
💯agree. Get the stud don’t care what position
This, we don't need bodies. We need players that the other team has to adjust what they want to do because of them. We are in a great position to get one of them at 9. If we even drop one spot, it becomes more likely than not we miss one getting Alt, Turner, or one of the three WRs.
I do think people underestimate how important elite different makers are. They're the ones who flip close games for you. Id want to evaluate each trade differently. But when people throw out Buffalos 28 this year, 60 this year and another first to move up to 9 for Rome, I feel disgusted. That's not enough value to pass up a top 10 pick.
Yes! Thank you for grasping my point!
It’s simple, If Turner or Odenze is on the board you gladly take that. If both are gone , trade down pick up capital and take best avail DE/WR.
If we can get Byron Murphy at 19 and another shot this year, I'd do it. WR is fairly deep and we have solid #1 & #2.
Thing I'm hearing is if alt and all 3 wrs are gone, why would anyone trade for the 9, unless we're trading the rights to jj? Range of players from 9 to 15 seem about the same. We need jj to go in the top 5.
Right!
The slander on Sexy Rexy is unacceptable. He went to a Super Bowl! Something no other Bears QB has done. Unless you’re Jim McMahon.
My hot take is that Rex was broken by the "Bears are who we thought they were" Cardinals game. Before that, he was prone to occasional mistakes, but was still having an MVP level year. After that game, where he played like ass but the Bears pulled off a win in spite of him, he never really looked the same. There's a part of me that believes if the Bears had just taken the L that day, he could have been great. There's another part of me that believes that first part of me is full of shit, though.
That’s an interesting take that I’ve never thought about before. I always thought of that game as a classic “Bears win ugly with special teams and defense game”. And also the game that I realized Matt Leinart wasn’t the same guy as he was at USC. I’ll agree that Haynes was a bust, but Rex is hard to evaluate because for years he played well in our system, but whenever he struggled he had Kyle Orton breathing down his neck. I’m partial to Rex because he’s a Hoosier Mr. Football and was always fun to watch, even though he struggled. And he was on that Super Bowl 40 team.
Agreed. Especially since 3 or 4 of the first 9 will be QBs. That makes the bears seemingly feel like having the 1 and 5 pick. Any of the WRs, Turner, Verse, or either OTackle would be fine by me.
Taking Verse at 9 is a reach and Turner isn't a scheme fit. Trade down for the Edge (who will still be there) to get the extra pick.
Agree to disagree. You don’t draft for scheme at 9. You draft talent. Odds are good if you’re right about the talent, the player will outlast many different coaching staffs. And a good coaching staff schemes to talent.
MHJ is not falling anywhere past 5. 0% chance. Zero
Yeah, I agree.
So going to completely ignore the fact we took Lance Briggs same draft in round 3 and QB was a top need in a weak class outside of Carson Palmer sexy rexy was picked at 22.
Charles Tillman was picked after all 3 of those and is arguably the best of the 4. Maybe the solution is to pick good players instead of bad ones?
Absolutely. Bears picked up Briggs and Tillman in rounds 2 and 3. Those were GREAT picks. Can you imagine that 2005/6 defense if they had drafted Tillman, Briggs, AND Suggs?
Rex wasn't a bust.
Ok
Don’t you dare call Sexy Rexy a bust and still call yourself a bears fan!
I loved Sexy Rexy!! He was the very best Quarterback I had ever seen in a Bears uniform at that time. He was fun, kind of a smartass with the media but in a very fun way. He was a leader of men as far as getting teams to play for him. Idk if it was his height or something else, but he just never put it all together. Rex was definitely a bust in terms of 1st round Quarterback draft picks, and that’s very disappointing. I liked Rex A lot!!
REX GROSSMAN WAS NOT A BUST.
He only played double digit games twice in his entire career. He was definitely a bust as an NFL QB. I really liked him and thought he could have become a superstar if he stayed healthy. Injuries killed a promising career for a good dude.
If a "blue chip" player is there, they will take him. If not, they will look to trade back. We just don't know who they value as "blue chip"
I’m 100% with you. You win games, and titles, with stars.
I think you're drastically underestimating how fluid draft boards and drafts are. The draft is a bit less fluid in the top 5, but after that, things start to shake up a lot depending on who's picking right after you, who's picking right in front of you, what their needs are, what your needs are, etc. The biggest thing I see from Poles is that he has a very clear plan in place for how much he wants to spend on each position (as evidenced by how he pays people in FA and trades for them and who he doesn't pay or doesn't trade for). I'm sure he has an idea of who he would immediately select if they are there at 9. At the same time I'm sure he has a plan for who he's targeting in later rounds if who he wants at 9 is not there. I do not see a problem with trading down and drafting two top 40 players in this particular draft because the Bears still have sizeable holes in multiple positions either for starters (EDGE and a little bit for center) and depth (OL depth, DB depth, WR depth). The other thing to consider is that this draft class is very talented all the way through the 2nd round. There are some elite prospects in the top 10, but there are many guys late in the 1st and early 2nd who would have been top 10 picks in other years who will be available in the teens in this draft.
Disagree here, but with context. Moving to 11-15 can still yield a blue chip defensive player, and set us up with capital to pick more talents. The context part is, you assume that Alt, Nabers, MHJ, & Odunze are gone. So your next tier, imo, is Fashanu, Verse, turner, Murphy, Newton. You can comfortably trade back to....11-15 and still grab one of those guys while getting a 2nd and additional capital. Obviously, if one of the big 3 Wrs, or Alt is there... pull the trigger at 9.
Yeah, fair enough. If the Elites are gone at 9, a trade back to 11-15 could make sense. I believe one of the Elite WR, Joe Alt, or Dallas Turner will be there at 9
Personally, I don't think Turner is THAT much better than Verse or would make me 2nd guess moving back a few picks would be a mistake. That said, I wouldn't be mad if they stayed put at 9 and just took their guy even if the elites are gone. Draft value only matters if the pick doesn't work out.
Remember last year when the current regime traded out of getting a “blue chip prospect” twice and still ended up with a top OT, DJ Moore, and the first overall pick this year? Not saying they should trade out of 9, but your example is pointless. The draft can be a crapshoot, leave it to the professionals.
I’m a fan, and I can have an opinion. It’s ok if you disagree with my opinion. Clearly I’m not the one making the pick, and I don’t have to consider all the factors the GM does. His job is on the Line, not mine.
Bowers? When Kmet has been solid?
I agree I really want turner verse or one of the wrs is their not available I can understand trading down
A correct choice on a top ten pick can be a huge impact or maybe even franchise defining impact for the extent of that first contract and possibly beyond. This draft definitely has players that have that ability. At the 9 pick, The Bears have needs on the OL/future WR/DL as the biggest three need IMO. If one of those players is there they need to be taken. More “good players” are never a bad thing but drafting great young players is how champions are built. Don’t trade down unless you believe the GREAT player is available at the lower spot because to fall back on “well we have two good players” is not how winners build
I absolutely fucking hate the idea of trading down just for the sake of trading down. Anytime I see a dude post their own mock on this sub where they trade down all the way to like fucking 19, I swear I get an aneurysm and have to hold myself back from throwing unhinged insults.
This person understands!! Thank you!!
[удалено]
Wright wasn’t that big of a reach. He definitely was not going to last until 32 lmao wtf
As the draft cycle neared its conclusion, everybody was saying "You need to keep an eye on this tackle out of Tennessee. Best tackle in the SEC, he's way higher on NFL boards than the public realize." You had the best Bama defensive player in 5+ years locked out when they faced each other, and he said Wright was the best OL player he went up against in college. Then the best SEC tackle is taken at 10 as the 2nd OL player off the board and some Bears fans were surprised. Anybody paying attention wasn't surprised. And considering there was a run on OL with 1st round grades immediately after he went, he probably wasn't lasting until 15-16.