The best teams in the league don't do desperate trade up moves very often, more often they trade down which is the safer bet as you get more attempts to land good players. We've seen Pace trade up repeatedly during his tenure, and it has NOT helped us. It has hurt us. I get you want the HR, but you have nearly as good a chance at hitting that home run WITHOUT TRADING UP - the delta is minor and you allow yourself more shots on goal if you don't squander draft picks all the time. i.e. I'll take 3 tries at a 1:50 shot over 1 try at a 1:40 shot. The trade up for Mitch was a terrible move, forget the missed eval he should have waited and taken his guy at 3 and we'd have had a couple extra pretty high picks at our disposal. The trade up for Leonard Floyd was a terrible move. You keep swinging for the fences and you're going to strike out a lot - too much and in too critical a situation. If it's bases loaded and we're down by 3, sure, swing away. But you seem to be advocating a guy swing for the fences when the bases are empty and we're down by 3 - that's selfish play, you need base runners first.The Cooler King wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:19 pm I'm not strawmanning anything dplank. You keep bringing up the historical fail rate of QBs. But we all know that. Basically to find a QB who's just as safe as a comparable BPA OL you are looking at a top 3 pick, and even then the QB is more often still risker. You have to take a risk to increase your QB odds unless you just plan to count on nearly 100% luck. You brought up this magic 8 ball 1000% certainty when I claimed no such thing in fact
I disagree with the aversion to trading up, but I get it. Trading up is a good way to create your own odds when your record doesn't put you in the position, though. And you can help your OL other ways like in FA or in future years.
As to the development of an average QB v great QB, I'm not really sure I buy that an averag QB needs total certainty right when they come in. I don't think anyone in this board, including me doesn't want line upgrades, but if you were absolutely banking on that second rounder to be a specific position you're doing it wrong IMO. But it all goes back to the eval and risk assessment. Of course there's risk there, but I'm not focused on the low to mid range in a QB, I'm playing for the HR. For someone who apparently doesn't like the middle ground of outcomes I still find it odd you seem more risk averse in this matter. But as always, YMMV on risk assessments/comfort. That's seemingly the biggest difference.
Zack Wilson
Moderator: wab
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12025
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1201 times
- Been thanked: 2138 times
-
- Pro Bowler
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
- Location: Atlantic City, NJ
I want Dustin Crum.
Because I like the name. Lol
Because I like the name. Lol
AC 46Blitz
-
- Pro Bowler
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
- Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Two things that make those trades terrible, the fact that they would probably have fallen to the Bears anyway and that they were somewhat swings anyway. They didn’t swing for Joe Burrow, a guy that not only looked the part but proved it. Mitch showed some things that we all liked (or at least most of us). But he still had a little “project” in him. A guy like him you don’t trade up for. You sit and hope. At the time I liked the pick, but at the moment of the trade I was pissed. Trubisky was my guy The Whole time, but would have been ok if we ended up with maholmes instead.dplank wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:39 pmThe best teams in the league don't do desperate trade up moves very often, more often they trade down which is the safer bet as you get more attempts to land good players. We've seen Pace trade up repeatedly during his tenure, and it has NOT helped us. It has hurt us. I get you want the HR, but you have nearly as good a chance at hitting that home run WITHOUT TRADING UP - the delta is minor and you allow yourself more shots on goal if you don't squander draft picks all the time. i.e. I'll take 3 tries at a 1:50 shot over 1 try at a 1:40 shot. The trade up for Mitch was a terrible move, forget the missed eval he should have waited and taken his guy at 3 and we'd have had a couple extra pretty high picks at our disposal. The trade up for Leonard Floyd was a terrible move. You keep swinging for the fences and you're going to strike out a lot - too much and in too critical a situation. If it's bases loaded and we're down by 3, sure, swing away. But you seem to be advocating a guy swing for the fences when the bases are empty and we're down by 3 - that's selfish play, you need base runners first.The Cooler King wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:19 pm I'm not strawmanning anything dplank. You keep bringing up the historical fail rate of QBs. But we all know that. Basically to find a QB who's just as safe as a comparable BPA OL you are looking at a top 3 pick, and even then the QB is more often still risker. You have to take a risk to increase your QB odds unless you just plan to count on nearly 100% luck. You brought up this magic 8 ball 1000% certainty when I claimed no such thing in fact
I disagree with the aversion to trading up, but I get it. Trading up is a good way to create your own odds when your record doesn't put you in the position, though. And you can help your OL other ways like in FA or in future years.
As to the development of an average QB v great QB, I'm not really sure I buy that an averag QB needs total certainty right when they come in. I don't think anyone in this board, including me doesn't want line upgrades, but if you were absolutely banking on that second rounder to be a specific position you're doing it wrong IMO. But it all goes back to the eval and risk assessment. Of course there's risk there, but I'm not focused on the low to mid range in a QB, I'm playing for the HR. For someone who apparently doesn't like the middle ground of outcomes I still find it odd you seem more risk averse in this matter. But as always, YMMV on risk assessments/comfort. That's seemingly the biggest difference.
Floyd also felt like a reach. I forgot the profile on him, but I remember not being too excited about him. If I recall I wanted to see a OL pick. Got to look back, my memory is getting worse. Lol
AC 46Blitz
-
- Pro Bowler
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
- Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Ahh, shit.... didn’t realize that was the same draft as Tunsil was in. Pretty sure I wanted either Tunsil, Decker or Hargreaves.... And the bears took Floyd.... smh
AC 46Blitz
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1203 times
- Been thanked: 346 times
You know that's kind of an interesting analogy. I mean it's obviously not perfect because building a team doesn't have 9 set inning you have to work within. But theres this kind of sequencing fallacy I think you fall into. It's a nice story and quite elegant when you're down in a baseball game and string together a couple base hits and RBI and then the batter comes through with the walkoff HR to win it. But from a pure odds perspective its just as valuable to hit that first solo dinger and cut that lead from 4 to 3. And as to the selfishness or what have you it's very circumstancial driven by the order, the pitcher, the weather, etc. But I'd say there's times where it's okay to swing for the fences, absoutely. In fact that's where baseball has moved towards because the data backs up that changes to the swing like launch angle work well for scoring at large.dplank wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:39 pmThe best teams in the league don't do desperate trade up moves very often, more often they trade down which is the safer bet as you get more attempts to land good players. We've seen Pace trade up repeatedly during his tenure, and it has NOT helped us. It has hurt us. I get you want the HR, but you have nearly as good a chance at hitting that home run WITHOUT TRADING UP - the delta is minor and you allow yourself more shots on goal if you don't squander draft picks all the time. i.e. I'll take 3 tries at a 1:50 shot over 1 try at a 1:40 shot. The trade up for Mitch was a terrible move, forget the missed eval he should have waited and taken his guy at 3 and we'd have had a couple extra pretty high picks at our disposal. The trade up for Leonard Floyd was a terrible move. You keep swinging for the fences and you're going to strike out a lot - too much and in too critical a situation. If it's bases loaded and we're down by 3, sure, swing away. But you seem to be advocating a guy swing for the fences when the bases are empty and we're down by 3 - that's selfish play, you need base runners first.The Cooler King wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:19 pm I'm not strawmanning anything dplank. You keep bringing up the historical fail rate of QBs. But we all know that. Basically to find a QB who's just as safe as a comparable BPA OL you are looking at a top 3 pick, and even then the QB is more often still risker. You have to take a risk to increase your QB odds unless you just plan to count on nearly 100% luck. You brought up this magic 8 ball 1000% certainty when I claimed no such thing in fact
I disagree with the aversion to trading up, but I get it. Trading up is a good way to create your own odds when your record doesn't put you in the position, though. And you can help your OL other ways like in FA or in future years.
As to the development of an average QB v great QB, I'm not really sure I buy that an averag QB needs total certainty right when they come in. I don't think anyone in this board, including me doesn't want line upgrades, but if you were absolutely banking on that second rounder to be a specific position you're doing it wrong IMO. But it all goes back to the eval and risk assessment. Of course there's risk there, but I'm not focused on the low to mid range in a QB, I'm playing for the HR. For someone who apparently doesn't like the middle ground of outcomes I still find it odd you seem more risk averse in this matter. But as always, YMMV on risk assessments/comfort. That's seemingly the biggest difference.
So it's similar to the team building I think. There's seemingly a "natural order" you seem to prefer, whether it's risk related or positional related, but I don't see any actual evidence for it other than, and I'm serious here, it does make for the more elegant and nice storyline where you honed the basics and start at square one and build the "right" way. But I reject the existence of a right way out of hand, at least as it relates to any proper positional/risk order in which you build the team.
The Bears past failures also play zero role here to me. Pure sunk cost. As to the great franchises on their behavior. I'm not aware of any actual evidence of this supposed trade down risk behavior. There are certain things they've exploited in the market, but absent any serious evidence I think it's more than likely just a nice story that the prioritize the trade down. (did a quick search ans there's a few scant antectodal articles on QB trade ups and that seems to be it). I know theres been some good articles on the traditional trade value chart verse new analytical charts, but that doesn't quite capture any true story to say which teams use trades most successfully and whether there's a pattern of behavior. Antectodally I can find both instances. And there's time seemingly neither side wins if they both use the picks poorly.
If the odds are really 3 @ 1:50 verse 1 @ 1:40 of course that's an easy trade. I suspect the risk assessment is much closer and messy in all reality.
- Z Bear
- MVP
- Posts: 1656
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 141 times
Not the best in his class, that would be Mahomes. I was just randomly listing QBs I thought were the top 10 in the league right now and only 1 was the first QB taken in his class. My main point is it is more likely the 3rd or 4th QB off the board will end up with the better career. I was trying to dispute the notion that you have to trade up in the top 10 to get the best QB.The Cooler King wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 pm u count Watson as the best QB in his class (point still stands, but you missed an MVP there).
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1203 times
- Been thanked: 346 times
Gotcha. Well you still missed your best data point in Mahomes!Z Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:26 pmNot the best in his class, that would be Mahomes. I was just randomly listing QBs I thought were the top 10 in the league right now and only 1 was the first QB taken in his class. My main point is it is more likely the 3rd or 4th QB off the board will end up with the better career. I was trying to dispute the notion that you have to trade up in the top 10 to get the best QB.The Cooler King wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 4:31 pm u count Watson as the best QB in his class (point still stands, but you missed an MVP there).
Also fwiw I did the 4th pick analysis for dplank recently in another thread. It oddly kinda sucked. 3 and 5 were much better. Just the nature of somewhat small sample sizes combined with the generally high failure rate of QBs at any spot, I think.
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12025
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1201 times
- Been thanked: 2138 times
I like the analogy too, fun even if meaningless lol...but I disagree that there is a sequencing fallacy. You are correct that the solo HR is just as valuable as the base hit or a walk; however, the batter has a greater chance of getting a single or a walk vs taking a big cut for a HR which often leads to a strikeout. In this specific example, abwalk is equally valuable as a HR, so your strategy goes after the one that yields a higher probability of success. I agree there are times to swing for the fences, this just isn't it.The Cooler King wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:19 pm
You know that's kind of an interesting analogy. I mean it's obviously not perfect because building a team doesn't have 9 set inning you have to work within. But theres this kind of sequencing fallacy I think you fall into. It's a nice story and quite elegant when you're down in a baseball game and string together a couple base hits and RBI and then the batter comes through with the walkoff HR to win it. But from a pure odds perspective its just as valuable to hit that first solo dinger and cut that lead from 4 to 3. And as to the selfishness or what have you it's very circumstancial driven by the order, the pitcher, the weather, etc. But I'd say there's times where it's okay to swing for the fences, absoutely. In fact that's where baseball has moved towards because the data backs up that changes to the swing like launch angle work well for scoring at large.
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1203 times
- Been thanked: 346 times
Without derailing too much, a HR swing can lead to other positive non HR hits. A swing for the fences isnt an automatic two outcome swing. It's just a slightly different leveraged swing as far as outcomes.dplank wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:45 pmI like the analogy too, fun even if meaningless lol...but I disagree that there is a sequencing fallacy. You are correct that the solo HR is just as valuable as the base hit or a walk; however, the batter has a greater chance of getting a single or a walk vs taking a big cut for a HR which often leads to a strikeout. In this specific example, abwalk is equally valuable as a HR, so your strategy goes after the one that yields a higher probability of success. I agree there are times to swing for the fences, this just isn't it.The Cooler King wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 5:19 pm
You know that's kind of an interesting analogy. I mean it's obviously not perfect because building a team doesn't have 9 set inning you have to work within. But theres this kind of sequencing fallacy I think you fall into. It's a nice story and quite elegant when you're down in a baseball game and string together a couple base hits and RBI and then the batter comes through with the walkoff HR to win it. But from a pure odds perspective its just as valuable to hit that first solo dinger and cut that lead from 4 to 3. And as to the selfishness or what have you it's very circumstancial driven by the order, the pitcher, the weather, etc. But I'd say there's times where it's okay to swing for the fences, absoutely. In fact that's where baseball has moved towards because the data backs up that changes to the swing like launch angle work well for scoring at large.
-
- Pro Bowler
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
- Location: Atlantic City, NJ
These analogies are killing me. Lol
AC 46Blitz
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12025
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1201 times
- Been thanked: 2138 times
It can Bill but in this instance we know we have roughly a 90% chance of a whiff. No thx. I’ll be happy to take a QB in the 3rd, with a 95% chance of a whiff, less lost opportunity cost. And I’d certainly not trade up and give away our second!!! Puts all your eggs in one long shot basket!The Cooler King wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:02 pmWithout derailing too much, a HR swing can lead to other positive non HR hits. A swing for the fences isnt an automatic two outcome swing. It's just a slightly different leveraged swing as far as outcomes.dplank wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 8:45 pm
I like the analogy too, fun even if meaningless lol...but I disagree that there is a sequencing fallacy. You are correct that the solo HR is just as valuable as the base hit or a walk; however, the batter has a greater chance of getting a single or a walk vs taking a big cut for a HR which often leads to a strikeout. In this specific example, abwalk is equally valuable as a HR, so your strategy goes after the one that yields a higher probability of success. I agree there are times to swing for the fences, this just isn't it.
- HisRoyalSweetness
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5901
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 1716 times
-
- Pro Bowler
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:37 pm
- Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Too early to know where he will go, but at the moment it wouldn’t be a bad guy to target in the middle of draft. Prob stuck with Foles another year depending of what direction the team goes. But if they fix the line and run with Foles with Crum on bench it wouldn’t be terrible.
AC 46Blitz
- Grizzled
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5552
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 485 times
3 year starter in a pro style offense. Excellent completion percentage with good yards per completion, not just a dinker. Very good TD:INT ratio. He has mobility. Had a down year in 2019, bounced back this year although against lessor competition. Even first round QBs have a 50% failure rate but I'd say the team has to seriously consider him if he's available when they're on the clock. Don't, however, trade the future, no giving up draft picks to move up and take him.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
- crueltyabc
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5119
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 7:36 pm
- Location: Dallas TX
- Has thanked: 79 times
- Been thanked: 226 times
Today BYU vs. unbeaten Coastal Carolina.
but it appears that CC is another Offense Power not so much Defense.
BYU easy schedule is telling
Zach Wilson sacks two good opp. BSU 3, Houston 2 (and vs. Troy 1 CB blitz)
all other 6 games = 0
but it appears that CC is another Offense Power not so much Defense.
BYU easy schedule is telling
Zach Wilson sacks two good opp. BSU 3, Houston 2 (and vs. Troy 1 CB blitz)
all other 6 games = 0
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1203 times
- Been thanked: 346 times
And he probably carries the most trade value of anyone on the Bears? Maybe Mack still has more, but the contract makes a dofference here.crueltyabc wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:29 pmI think people consider a high-priced elite safety to be a luxury for a contending team, not a necessity for a rebuilding team.
I want nothing to do with trading him, fwiw.
- Otis Day
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8061
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:43 pm
- Location: Armpit of IL.
- Has thanked: 120 times
- Been thanked: 306 times
Coastal was out to just kick Wilson's ass. they got away with a lot of post whistle shit in that game, bordered on dirty IMO. They were just wanting to hit him now matter when or where. He handled it pretty well. Sad to see his team didn't stick up for him more.
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5005
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1203 times
- Been thanked: 346 times
Hm. His teammates not sticking up for him is a bad sign.Otis Day wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:49 pm Coastal was out to just kick Wilson's ass. they got away with a lot of post whistle shit in that game, bordered on dirty IMO. They were just wanting to hit him now matter when or where. He handled it pretty well. Sad to see his team didn't stick up for him more.
Has Pace looked into how well attended his birthday party was this past year?
(bonus points for whoever understands this reference)