Official: Bears trade 1st ovr pick to Panthers for WR DJ Moore & multiple future 1st rounders

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4817
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 457 times
Been thanked: 655 times

The Cooler King wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:10 am
Arkansasbear wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:01 am

Shouldn't Santos have at least been given the chance to "sell" the number and get a watch, shotgun or a chic-fil-et combo meal out of Moore?
If Moore is a good guy there's a present coming for Santos. Technically Santos needs to go buy up all his jerseys in order to make that change (I believe that's a standard NFL rule). Might be a pretty penny 😉
I think that rule was only for players who wanted to switch during the '21 season when more number became available to certain positions. If they did it in the off-season there was no cost. Additionally you only have to buy up the inventory they have. For Santos that might be 3 jerseys. So it would cost him less that #300. :rofl: :rofl:

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/new ... j1yluzqbxu
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5901
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 1716 times

From Mark Sessler's 'NFL trade grades' opinion piece over at nfl.com:
NO. 1 PICK TRADE

Carolina Panthers
Grade B+


Chicago Bears
Grade A+

Imagine a parallel universe where Carolina -- armed with the No. 8 pick back in 2021 -- chose Justin Fields over a cornerback (actual selection Jaycee Horn) who would go on to log 18 missed starts over his first two seasons.

In that reality, perhaps it's the Bears of today selling the farm to finally land a quarterback. Instead, Chicago's front office under Ryan Poles has laid the bricks for a rapid rebuild around Fields, selected three spots after Horn.

The cost for Carolina is no crime, considering what previous teams have given up to reach these heights of the first round. The Bears earn points, though, for pulling away D.J. Moore in an offseason featuring an unremarkable cast of free-agent and draftable wideouts.

"It hurt, but we had to do what we had to do to get in this position," general manager Scott Fitterer said of parting with Moore, who boasts three 1,000-yard campaigns in his first five seasons despite playing with 10 different signal-callers.

Mixing Moore with Darnell Mooney, 2022 midseason addition Chase Claypool and ascending tight end Cole Kmet gives Fields a more appropriate cast of weapons after a year in which no Bears wideout crossed 500 yards. Simply lining up to stop Fields on terra firma won't cut it. He's under pressure to make a leap through the air, but Chicago's starter improved more than some might want to acknowledge down the stretch.

I'm giving the Panthers a B+ based on the aggressiveness to hopscotch Houston, Indianapolis, Seattle, Detroit, Las Vegas and Atlanta in the draft order -- all could be targeting a passer -- to grab the apple of their eye. Whether the Panthers end up liking Bryce Young or C.J. Stroud more, they have time to build consensus.

As for Carolina's true grade? Ask the teams who sold it all to land Jared Goff, Carson Wentz and Robert Griffin III about the concept of hazy tomorrows.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-trade-grad ... cooks-more
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4817
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 457 times
Been thanked: 655 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:34 pm From Mark Sessler's 'NFL trade grades' opinion piece over at nfl.com:
NO. 1 PICK TRADE

Carolina Panthers
Grade B+


Chicago Bears
Grade A+

Imagine a parallel universe where Carolina -- armed with the No. 8 pick back in 2021 -- chose Justin Fields over a cornerback (actual selection Jaycee Horn) who would go on to log 18 missed starts over his first two seasons.

In that reality, perhaps it's the Bears of today selling the farm to finally land a quarterback. Instead, Chicago's front office under Ryan Poles has laid the bricks for a rapid rebuild around Fields, selected three spots after Horn.

The cost for Carolina is no crime, considering what previous teams have given up to reach these heights of the first round. The Bears earn points, though, for pulling away D.J. Moore in an offseason featuring an unremarkable cast of free-agent and draftable wideouts.

"It hurt, but we had to do what we had to do to get in this position," general manager Scott Fitterer said of parting with Moore, who boasts three 1,000-yard campaigns in his first five seasons despite playing with 10 different signal-callers.

Mixing Moore with Darnell Mooney, 2022 midseason addition Chase Claypool and ascending tight end Cole Kmet gives Fields a more appropriate cast of weapons after a year in which no Bears wideout crossed 500 yards. Simply lining up to stop Fields on terra firma won't cut it. He's under pressure to make a leap through the air, but Chicago's starter improved more than some might want to acknowledge down the stretch.

I'm giving the Panthers a B+ based on the aggressiveness to hopscotch Houston, Indianapolis, Seattle, Detroit, Las Vegas and Atlanta in the draft order -- all could be targeting a passer -- to grab the apple of their eye. Whether the Panthers end up liking Bryce Young or C.J. Stroud more, they have time to build consensus.

As for Carolina's true grade? Ask the teams who sold it all to land Jared Goff, Carson Wentz and Robert Griffin III about the concept of hazy tomorrows.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-trade-grad ... cooks-more
In that reality, we already would have the number 1 pick and wouldn't need to sell the farm to land a QB. In that reality we may have done worse than Tampa - we go 0-17.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:46 pm
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:34 pm From Mark Sessler's 'NFL trade grades' opinion piece over at nfl.com:

In that reality, we already would have the number 1 pick and wouldn't need to sell the farm to land a QB. In that reality we may have done worse than Tampa - we go 0-17.
In the Multiverse there is exists a space-time where:

1) JF1 does not make the leap forward and now we start arguing about moving on.
2) The Carolina pick is #1 overall because none of these QB prospects strike me as Day One Franchise Altering level guys. Good pros one day sure, just not now.
3) Because of Step 1 the Bears now have a top 5 pick again on their own accord.

Well guess what? Caleb Williams is The Guy in 2024. Then with their own top 5 pick the Bears might take Marvin Harrison Jr.

Or….

1) JF1 makes the next step forward. He’s Our Guy.
1a) We argue incessantly for six month about taking Caleb Williams or trading away the pick for the greatest haul of loot since The California Gold Rush because you’re effectively trading away the rights to a lockdown sure fire franchise QB.

2) Because of JF1’s step forward we now pick in the teens or low 20s with our own draft choice.

So what say you? It’s 2024, we have the #1 overall pick. Draft Caleb Williams or keep JF1?
Image
User avatar
Hema2.0
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 927
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:24 pm
Has thanked: 667 times
Been thanked: 186 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:59 pm
Arkansasbear wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:46 pm

In that reality, we already would have the number 1 pick and wouldn't need to sell the farm to land a QB. In that reality we may have done worse than Tampa - we go 0-17.
In the Multiverse there is exists a space-time where:

1) JF1 does not make the leap forward and now we start arguing about moving on.
2) The Carolina pick is #1 overall because none of these QB prospects strike me as Day One Franchise Altering level guys. Good pros one day sure, just not now.
3) Because of Step 1 the Bears now have a top 5 pick again on their own accord.

Well guess what? Caleb Williams is The Guy in 2024. Then with their own top 5 pick the Bears might take Marvin Harrison Jr.

Or….

1) JF1 makes the next step forward. He’s Our Guy.
1a) We argue incessantly for six month about taking Caleb Williams or trading away the pick for the greatest haul of loot since The California Gold Rush because you’re effectively trading away the rights to a lockdown sure fire franchise QB.

2) Because of JF1’s step forward we now pick in the teens or low 20s with our own draft choice.

So what say you? It’s 2024, we have the #1 overall pick. Draft Caleb Williams or keep JF1?
If Fields doesn't take the necessary leap in the passing game this year, Poles would almost have to move on if he has a shot at Williams or Maye. He's kinda put himself in a very good position with regards to this actual scenario.
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Caleb, and Hell followed with him.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Hema2.0 wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:29 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:59 pm

In the Multiverse there is exists a space-time where:

1) JF1 does not make the leap forward and now we start arguing about moving on.
2) The Carolina pick is #1 overall because none of these QB prospects strike me as Day One Franchise Altering level guys. Good pros one day sure, just not now.
3) Because of Step 1 the Bears now have a top 5 pick again on their own accord.

Well guess what? Caleb Williams is The Guy in 2024. Then with their own top 5 pick the Bears might take Marvin Harrison Jr.

Or….

1) JF1 makes the next step forward. He’s Our Guy.
1a) We argue incessantly for six month about taking Caleb Williams or trading away the pick for the greatest haul of loot since The California Gold Rush because you’re effectively trading away the rights to a lockdown sure fire franchise QB.

2) Because of JF1’s step forward we now pick in the teens or low 20s with our own draft choice.

So what say you? It’s 2024, we have the #1 overall pick. Draft Caleb Williams or keep JF1?
If Fields doesn't take the necessary leap in the passing game this year, Poles would almost have to move on if he has a shot at Williams or Maye. He's kinda put himself in a very good position with regards to this actual scenario.
Yeah I agree and I don't like making subversive comments about my QB.

QB is the most important position on the field. If you can upgrade it you have no choice whatsoever. You have to do it.

Then we'd have to discuss what we'd get for JF1 in a trade.
Image
User avatar
o-pus #40 in B major
Head Coach
Posts: 2777
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Earth
Has thanked: 2412 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Blatant trolling, 15 yards.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

Would be a nice option to have
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5901
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 1716 times

A little more detail about how the trade came about:
Ryan Poles expected Justin Fields to be more excited. Or at least to respond.

The Bears general manager texted his quarterback earlier this month upon deciding to trade the No. 1 overall pick to the Panthers for two first-round draft picks, two second-rounders and standout receiver DJ Moore. It was, Poles hopes, a franchise-changing haul, and by far the best offer he got from four different teams when he shopped the pick.

When the GM texted Fields the news, though, the quarterback didn’t write back right away.

“I said, ‘Are you sleeping?’” Poles said. “And then he actually was. He took a nap. He woke up and he was pumped up. He got to connect with DJ, and he’s fired up.”
...

“I think having [Fields] in the building and seeing the progress he made in this first year, getting familiar with our system — obviously there’s special and athletic traits,” he said “We’ve seen in college his ability to use his arm too. I believe when all that comes together, we can have something special.”

The Bears weren’t blown away by the quarterback crop. Poles said the NFL Scouting Combine was the “last step” that sealed his decision to trade the pick. His staff had watched game film leading up to the combine that they felt didn’t compare to Fields.

“It always starts with the tape,” he said.

Once Poles started shopping the No. 1 pick, he said that four teams presented him with offers. Others had clearly done their homework, too.

“Then there were a bunch where they were still thinking about it or still evaluating and it was, ‘Not for us right now,’” he said. “But I could tell they had done enough work where they were comfortable sitting it out for what we were asking.”
...

Poles played teams against each other, but not overtly. He didn’t return to each team daring them to beat someone else’s price.

“I’ve had that happen to me in negotiating settings with agents, so I really don’t do that — specifically shop deals around,” he said. “I just I don’t like that. But if I have something better, I have something better. And we can keep talking.”

The Panthers were “motivated — highly motivated,” Poles said. They had a deal.

“The fact that there was a young receiver who had consistent production who had been healthy and was a great person as well to add into the mix really kind of took it over the top for me,” he said. “Where we can improve the roster now, improve our quarterback, but also set us up for the future. Right now, we don’t talk about it that much, but I guarantee at this point next year, having those two 1s, we’re going to be excited about it.”
...

Full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2023 ... nthers-nfl
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4817
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 457 times
Been thanked: 655 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:59 pm
Arkansasbear wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 12:46 pm

In that reality, we already would have the number 1 pick and wouldn't need to sell the farm to land a QB. In that reality we may have done worse than Tampa - we go 0-17.
In the Multiverse there is exists a space-time where:

1) JF1 does not make the leap forward and now we start arguing about moving on.
2) The Carolina pick is #1 overall because none of these QB prospects strike me as Day One Franchise Altering level guys. Good pros one day sure, just not now.
3) Because of Step 1 the Bears now have a top 5 pick again on their own accord.

Well guess what? Caleb Williams is The Guy in 2024. Then with their own top 5 pick the Bears might take Marvin Harrison Jr.

Or….

1) JF1 makes the next step forward. He’s Our Guy.
1a) We argue incessantly for six month about taking Caleb Williams or trading away the pick for the greatest haul of loot since The California Gold Rush because you’re effectively trading away the rights to a lockdown sure fire franchise QB.

2) Because of JF1’s step forward we now pick in the teens or low 20s with our own draft choice.

So what say you? It’s 2024, we have the #1 overall pick. Draft Caleb Williams or keep JF1?
If Fiels flounders I’m all in on Williams and Harrison.

I posted about a Multiverse where we traded Field and drafted Hooker in this year’s draft. Hooker is drafted to be Williams backup when we draft him and Harrison in ‘24
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

If JF1 doesn't improve, I think you have to seriously consider moving him and then packaging picks to move up for a guy like Williams.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:28 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 12:59 pm

In the Multiverse there is exists a space-time where:

1) JF1 does not make the leap forward and now we start arguing about moving on.
2) The Carolina pick is #1 overall because none of these QB prospects strike me as Day One Franchise Altering level guys. Good pros one day sure, just not now.
3) Because of Step 1 the Bears now have a top 5 pick again on their own accord.

Well guess what? Caleb Williams is The Guy in 2024. Then with their own top 5 pick the Bears might take Marvin Harrison Jr.

Or….

1) JF1 makes the next step forward. He’s Our Guy.
1a) We argue incessantly for six month about taking Caleb Williams or trading away the pick for the greatest haul of loot since The California Gold Rush because you’re effectively trading away the rights to a lockdown sure fire franchise QB.

2) Because of JF1’s step forward we now pick in the teens or low 20s with our own draft choice.

So what say you? It’s 2024, we have the #1 overall pick. Draft Caleb Williams or keep JF1?
If Fiels flounders I’m all in on Williams and Harrison.

I posted about a Multiverse where we traded Field and drafted Hooker in this year’s draft. Hooker is drafted to be Williams backup when we draft him and Harrison in ‘24
Hooker is actually My Guy if we're looking at QBs in the draft which I think we should. It's just good to draft a QB every now and then even if the intent is for him to be a backup. It keeps you from spending $10M on a useless idiot like Chase Daniel or Trevor Siemian.

Every time I watched Hooker play I was impressed relative to his abilities.
Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

wab wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:47 pm If JF1 doesn't improve, I think you have to seriously consider moving him and then packaging picks to move up for a guy like Williams.
I know. It's so icky thinking like that now, but if we have the #1 and we aren't 100% sold on JF1, Williams is a no brainer. The guy is projecting as Mahomes 2.0.
Image
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

Yea when there was some chatter about Bears using #1 on a QB and still keeping Fields, but basically doubling their tracks I thought something like Hooker in Rd 2/3 is the actual use case for that type of move (but not wasting #1 overall which was always some dumb big-brain idea)
User avatar
Ditka’s dictaphone
Head Coach
Posts: 4000
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 694 times
Been thanked: 880 times

Fields will having you eating those words :thumbsup:
(26/09/2023) Winner of the inaugural

Image
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

wab wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:47 pm If JF1 doesn't improve, I think you have to seriously consider moving him and then packaging picks to move up for a guy like Williams.
It is indeed the definitive season for JF1. With upgraded weapons and full command of the offense in year 2, the full display of capabilities should be there - with reasonable consistency.

If there are serious questions I can't see Poles missing getting Williams and not doing whatever it takes to get him. That new QB would be stepping into a very well stocked and young offense.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

The Cooler King wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:57 pm Yea when there was some chatter about Bears using #1 on a QB and still keeping Fields, but basically doubling their tracks I thought something like Hooker in Rd 2/3 is the actual use case for that type of move (but not wasting #1 overall which was always some dumb big-brain idea)
Pretty much

Though as an aside - I feel like Hooker will be Pick 30 or 31 so a team can get the 5th year option
User avatar
The Cooler King
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1203 times
Been thanked: 346 times

RichH55 wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:12 am
The Cooler King wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:57 pm Yea when there was some chatter about Bears using #1 on a QB and still keeping Fields, but basically doubling their tracks I thought something like Hooker in Rd 2/3 is the actual use case for that type of move (but not wasting #1 overall which was always some dumb big-brain idea)
Pretty much

Though as an aside - I feel like Hooker will be Pick 30 or 31 so a team can get the 5th year option
Lots of helium on Hooker now that can't help but feel like the work of a great agent. A month ago first round seemed very unlikely.

5 first round QBs possible (though talks of Levis dropping too)
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

The Cooler King wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:18 am
RichH55 wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:12 am

Pretty much

Though as an aside - I feel like Hooker will be Pick 30 or 31 so a team can get the 5th year option
Lots of helium on Hooker now that can't help but feel like the work of a great agent. A month ago first round seemed very unlikely.

5 first round QBs possible (though talks of Levis dropping too)
It started early (and Im guessing hes a kid that exudes leadership in meetings) - He was interviewed more at the Senior Bowl weekend than many of the guys actually playing it seemed
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

Apparently Poles had a shopping list of guys to discuss with the Panthers GM in lieu of the 2025 1st rounder: D.J. Moore, Brian Burns, and DT Derrick Brown. I'm satisfied with the guy they ended up with although I wish he could have squeezed the 39th pick out of them.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4817
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 457 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Grizzled wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 12:05 pm Apparently Poles had a shopping list of guys to discuss with the Panthers GM in lieu of the 2025 1st rounder: D.J. Moore, Brian Burns, and DT Derrick Brown. I'm satisfied with the guy they ended up with although I wish he could have squeezed the 39th pick out of them.
When I saw the list Poles presented, I was kind of shocked they would have picked Moore off that list. You'd think if they are drafting a QB, they would want to keep a stud WR to help him.
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:44 pm
Grizzled wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 12:05 pm Apparently Poles had a shopping list of guys to discuss with the Panthers GM in lieu of the 2025 1st rounder: D.J. Moore, Brian Burns, and DT Derrick Brown. I'm satisfied with the guy they ended up with although I wish he could have squeezed the 39th pick out of them.
When I saw the list Poles presented, I was kind of shocked they would have picked Moore off that list. You'd think if they are drafting a QB, they would want to keep a stud WR to help him.
The old formula was a WR and RB to support the new QB. Have things changed?
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:44 pm
Grizzled wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 12:05 pm Apparently Poles had a shopping list of guys to discuss with the Panthers GM in lieu of the 2025 1st rounder: D.J. Moore, Brian Burns, and DT Derrick Brown. I'm satisfied with the guy they ended up with although I wish he could have squeezed the 39th pick out of them.
When I saw the list Poles presented, I was kind of shocked they would have picked Moore off that list. You'd think if they are drafting a QB, they would want to keep a stud WR to help him.
I'll guess it was because the Bears didn't value those guys all the same, and wanted DJ the most- demanding different players depending on the balance of the deal. If the Panthers just weren't going to budge and include 39.... then maybe it had to be DJ or no deal.

I agree because those other guys IMO aren't automatically worth a first rounder. That may be debatable but I don't think it is debatable that DJ is a WR1 and first round worthy. I would have been good with 39 and one of those other two guys if that was the trade instead. But then the Bears would still be #1 WR hunting and that would be a lesser deal for sure IMO.

Getting a #1WR is just huge. I don't think it is getting enough praise. Assuming DJ would not have been available if 39 was in play, I consider the deal with DJ to be superior to any other deal.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6806
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 688 times

IE wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:04 am
Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:44 pm

When I saw the list Poles presented, I was kind of shocked they would have picked Moore off that list. You'd think if they are drafting a QB, they would want to keep a stud WR to help him.
I'll guess it was because the Bears didn't value those guys all the same, and wanted DJ the most- demanding different players depending on the balance of the deal. If the Panthers just weren't going to budge and include 39.... then maybe it had to be DJ or no deal.

I agree because those other guys IMO aren't automatically worth a first rounder. That may be debatable but I don't think it is debatable that DJ is a WR1 and first round worthy. I would have been good with 39 and one of those other two guys if that was the trade instead. But then the Bears would still be #1 WR hunting and that would be a lesser deal for sure IMO.

Getting a #1WR is just huge. I don't think it is getting enough praise. Assuming DJ would not have been available if 39 was in play, I consider the deal with DJ to be superior to any other deal.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl- ... no-1-pick/

That doesn't come up at all when they talked through reasoning.
As for Burns and Brown, Fitterer said it's just too difficult to replace them -- even with Moore being a staple of Carolina's offense. Contracts also factored into this process, as Brown and Burns are on their rookie deals, while Moore inked a three-year extension just last offseason.

"There were certain players that we never really wanted to trade," Fitterer said. "It's so hard to replace a Derrick Brown or Brian Burns, a pass rusher (and) an interior, dominant young player on a (first) contract. D.J., we didn't want to move either. But it's a little bit easier to replace a receiver than it is a pass rusher or a three-tech."

They just straight-up valued the other guys more.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

Moriarty wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:11 am
IE wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:04 am

I'll guess it was because the Bears didn't value those guys all the same, and wanted DJ the most- demanding different players depending on the balance of the deal. If the Panthers just weren't going to budge and include 39.... then maybe it had to be DJ or no deal.

I agree because those other guys IMO aren't automatically worth a first rounder. That may be debatable but I don't think it is debatable that DJ is a WR1 and first round worthy. I would have been good with 39 and one of those other two guys if that was the trade instead. But then the Bears would still be #1 WR hunting and that would be a lesser deal for sure IMO.

Getting a #1WR is just huge. I don't think it is getting enough praise. Assuming DJ would not have been available if 39 was in play, I consider the deal with DJ to be superior to any other deal.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl- ... no-1-pick/

That doesn't come up at all when they talked through reasoning.
As for Burns and Brown, Fitterer said it's just too difficult to replace them -- even with Moore being a staple of Carolina's offense. Contracts also factored into this process, as Brown and Burns are on their rookie deals, while Moore inked a three-year extension just last offseason.

"There were certain players that we never really wanted to trade," Fitterer said. "It's so hard to replace a Derrick Brown or Brian Burns, a pass rusher (and) an interior, dominant young player on a (first) contract. D.J., we didn't want to move either. But it's a little bit easier to replace a receiver than it is a pass rusher or a three-tech."
He can say it all he wants - but that's just complete spin.

#1 WRs are WAY harder to find than "good" pass rushers or 3T. Bears picked up an adequate 3T on the cheap last year in Jones (and I believe he WOULD be with any sort of surrounding cast). This offseason and every offseason is full of rushers moving from place to place. When #1 WRs move it is a far bigger story because they're far fewer and farther in between.

The Bears didn't have a bad pass rush because those guys are hard to find - they had a bad pass rush because they had to purge the roster of expensive players and fix their financial situation, and also had a decent rationale that they wanted to evaluate some young players in a season where they weren't expecting to win. Not because they couldn't have gotten better ones easily.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4817
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 457 times
Been thanked: 655 times

IE wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:04 am
Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:44 pm

When I saw the list Poles presented, I was kind of shocked they would have picked Moore off that list. You'd think if they are drafting a QB, they would want to keep a stud WR to help him.
I'll guess it was because the Bears didn't value those guys all the same, and wanted DJ the most- demanding different players depending on the balance of the deal. If the Panthers just weren't going to budge and include 39.... then maybe it had to be DJ or no deal.

I agree because those other guys IMO aren't automatically worth a first rounder. That may be debatable but I don't think it is debatable that DJ is a WR1 and first round worthy. I would have been good with 39 and one of those other two guys if that was the trade instead. But then the Bears would still be #1 WR hunting and that would be a lesser deal for sure IMO.

Getting a #1WR is just huge. I don't think it is getting enough praise. Assuming DJ would not have been available if 39 was in play, I consider the deal with DJ to be superior to any other deal.
That's a good point, they Panthers may have need to throw in more draft value if they didn't include Moore. Maybe with Burns the '24 pick is a first rounder or the second round pick this year is #39. Panthers wanted to give more "player" value and keep more "draft value" so they have what they need to be in a better position when their QB is ready to lead them on a playoff run. Also, by the time they are ready to do that, Moor's contract is likely up.

Thanks.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

IE wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:18 am
Moriarty wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:11 am

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl- ... no-1-pick/

That doesn't come up at all when they talked through reasoning.

He can say it all he wants - but that's just complete spin.

#1 WRs are WAY harder to find than "good" pass rushers or 3T. Bears picked up an adequate 3T on the cheap last year in Jones (and I believe he WOULD be with any sort of surrounding cast). This offseason and every offseason is full of rushers moving from place to place. When #1 WRs move it is a far bigger story because they're far fewer and farther in between.

The Bears didn't have a bad pass rush because those guys are hard to find - they had a bad pass rush because they had to purge the roster of expensive players and fix their financial situation, and also had a decent rationale that they wanted to evaluate some young players in a season where they weren't expecting to win. Not because they couldn't have gotten better ones easily.
I agree with you.

Now explain the LB FAs.

Here’s my explanation of what Poles was doing.

Image
Image
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 2:07 pm
IE wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:18 am

He can say it all he wants - but that's just complete spin.

#1 WRs are WAY harder to find than "good" pass rushers or 3T. Bears picked up an adequate 3T on the cheap last year in Jones (and I believe he WOULD be with any sort of surrounding cast). This offseason and every offseason is full of rushers moving from place to place. When #1 WRs move it is a far bigger story because they're far fewer and farther in between.

The Bears didn't have a bad pass rush because those guys are hard to find - they had a bad pass rush because they had to purge the roster of expensive players and fix their financial situation, and also had a decent rationale that they wanted to evaluate some young players in a season where they weren't expecting to win. Not because they couldn't have gotten better ones easily.
I agree with you.

Now explain the LB FAs.

Here’s my explanation of what Poles was doing.

Image
LOL kinda - chasing his "type" with Edmunds for sure.

I think the LB signings were two different things. Edwards they just needed & got a ton of legit production for a really good price at a position where they literally only had a UDFA on the roster. That one was just upgrading Morrow with a more proven and younger guy.

But then with the Urlacher clone it wasn't just "any generic LB FA" type move. They want to run the Bear 2 defense and needed that freak athlete in the middle. They got him, and paid for it. But it wasn't just any old common LB signing. It was getting the man who can play deep center and cover the biggest best TEs man to man. That's something even most HOF-bound LBs can't do.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 2:07 pm
IE wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:18 am

He can say it all he wants - but that's just complete spin.

#1 WRs are WAY harder to find than "good" pass rushers or 3T. Bears picked up an adequate 3T on the cheap last year in Jones (and I believe he WOULD be with any sort of surrounding cast). This offseason and every offseason is full of rushers moving from place to place. When #1 WRs move it is a far bigger story because they're far fewer and farther in between.

The Bears didn't have a bad pass rush because those guys are hard to find - they had a bad pass rush because they had to purge the roster of expensive players and fix their financial situation, and also had a decent rationale that they wanted to evaluate some young players in a season where they weren't expecting to win. Not because they couldn't have gotten better ones easily.
I agree with you.

Now explain the LB FAs.

Here’s my explanation of what Poles was doing.

Image
I think Poles took Marshall's GF and then kicked sand in his face.

What led TMP to weight lifting.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

IE wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:18 am
Moriarty wrote: Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:11 am

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl- ... no-1-pick/

That doesn't come up at all when they talked through reasoning.

He can say it all he wants - but that's just complete spin.

#1 WRs are WAY harder to find than "good" pass rushers or 3T. Bears picked up an adequate 3T on the cheap last year in Jones (and I believe he WOULD be with any sort of surrounding cast). This offseason and every offseason is full of rushers moving from place to place. When #1 WRs move it is a far bigger story because they're far fewer and farther in between.

The Bears didn't have a bad pass rush because those guys are hard to find - they had a bad pass rush because they had to purge the roster of expensive players and fix their financial situation, and also had a decent rationale that they wanted to evaluate some young players in a season where they weren't expecting to win. Not because they couldn't have gotten better ones easily.
IE - I respectfully disagree with you here (At least as to Burns v. DJ Moore(*))

(*) And to be clear I am VERY Happy we got DJ Moore and then the Trade Down - Value Wise - was a Slam Dunk

If I had the option of Burns v. Moore - I would have taken Burns
Post Reply