What does trading the 1st round pick actually look like?

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7176
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 518 times
Been thanked: 851 times

So, I've been thinking a lot about how people who want to trade our first pick are making that argument that historically taking a QB at 1.1 isnt any kind of sure fire thing. Nor is trying to win a superbowl with a QB on a rookie contract. Trade the pick and build around what you have, they say! Well, what's the historical precedent for that?

In the last 20 years? We've got one example, and once you dig into it, it's kind of eerie how applicable it is.

I'm of course talking about 2016's blockbuster Rams/Titans trade. The details, for those who've memory holed it:

Titans received: 2016 first-round pick (No. 15; subsequently traded, WR Corey Coleman), 2016 second-round pick (No. 43, DT Austin Johnson), 2016 second-round pick (No. 45, RB Derrick Henry), 2016 third-round pick (No. 76; subsequently traded, OT Shon Coleman), 2017 first-round pick (No. 5, WR Corey Davis) and 2017 third-round pick (No. 100, TE Jonnu Smith)

Rams received: 2016 No. 1 pick (Goff), 2016 fourth-round pick (No. 113; subsequently traded, LB Nick Kwiatkoski) and 2016 sixth-round pick (No. 177, TE Temarrick Hemingway)


The Titans were two years into the Marcus Mariota experiment. He'd just had an OK season as their starting QB, with a combined 3775 passing/rushing yards, and much more importantly, he had just been ranked 50th by his peers in the NFL top 100 players of 2017, which I have been assured is an extremely legitimate metric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Top_1 ... rs_of_2017

The Titans were eager to eschew the first pick in exchange for building their team around Marcus. That first year they hit on Derrick Henry! A future hall of famer for sure, and the perfect player to help take the pressure off their young QB.

They of course did do worse though, pretty much whiffing on every other pick they received in that trade, and were rewarded with three 9-7 seasons. Mariota of course never developed into the player they hoped, and ultimately wheels were spun that are still spinning to this day.

So what does history say? Trading away that 1.1 pick is a great idea if you have no aspirations of being anything other than a slightly above average franchise. You really cant argue with history.

Image
Image
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11676
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1122 times
Been thanked: 1948 times

And you think Goff to the Titans would have been a better outcome than Henry? Lmao….hoping this is a troll and not a serious post!
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8187
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 835 times
Been thanked: 1151 times

Yes let’s use one example that happened 8 years ago and make that the rule for everything.

(That was sarcasm.)
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29414
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 1779 times

I don't know how applicable, but it's definitely similar. It really comes down to how much you believe in your GM and scouting department. If you whiff on all the draft capital, then it doesn't matter.

It also depends on how you view the Rams success with Goff. They had two really good years with him and made the NFC Championship in 2018, but 2019 and 2020 were pretty average (9-7 both years).
User avatar
crueltyabc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5065
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 210 times

A point you're all missing: it's more fun to do mock drafts when you can trade the pick
xyt in the discord chats
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29414
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 1779 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:20 pm And you think Goff to the Titans would have been a better outcome than Henry? Lmao….hoping this is a troll and not a serious post!
Henry is an all-time great back, but that hasn't exactly translated to success for the Titans. If you apply the Titans example to the Bears...and say the Bears were to trade the #1 pick and get a HOF WR out of the deal, but never win more than 10 games with Fields...does it really matter?
User avatar
Hema2.0
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 892
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:24 pm
Has thanked: 577 times
Been thanked: 175 times

crueltyabc wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:33 pm A point you're all missing: it's more fun to do mock drafts when you can trade the pick
This. I've traded down, landed Caleb, Odunze and Newton. Plus I picked up one of the top centers in the 2nd.

If Poles doesn't pull this off, I got serious concerns.
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Caleb, and Hell followed with him.
User avatar
crueltyabc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5065
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 210 times

There is a serious underlying question here of whether the goal is to develop a team that is consistently competitive and fun to follow or if winning a ring is the only goal. Justin has certainly shown that he can be very entertaining and most fans love him. Given a million draft picks, I'm confident Poles could draft some stars to put around him and the Bears would be "in the mix" right away. Is it so bad to be a Ravens fan or a Bills fan? There's a decent chance that Williams busts because most of them do and he might be a diva that the Chicago fanbase hates.
xyt in the discord chats
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29414
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 1779 times

crueltyabc wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:43 pm There is a serious underlying question here of whether the goal is to develop a team that is consistently competitive and fun to follow or if winning a ring is the only goal. Justin has certainly shown that he can be very entertaining and most fans love him. Given a million draft picks, I'm confident Poles could draft some stars to put around him and the Bears would be "in the mix" right away. Is it so bad to be a Ravens fan or a Bills fan? There's a decent chance that Williams busts because most of them do and he might be a diva that the Chicago fanbase hates.
I think the goal is to build a team that can get to the playoffs on a consistent basis, because once you are in the playoffs anything can happen.

Another thing worth noting is that the Rams drafted Goff and then spent the next four years trading away premium picks for established vets in hopes that it would get them over the hump.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4633
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 415 times
Been thanked: 598 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:15 pm So, I've been thinking a lot about how people who want to trade our first pick are making that argument that historically taking a QB at 1.1 isnt any kind of sure fire thing. Nor is trying to win a superbowl with a QB on a rookie contract. Trade the pick and build around what you have, they say! Well, what's the historical precedent for that?

In the last 20 years? We've got one example, and once you dig into it, it's kind of eerie how applicable it is.

I'm of course talking about 2016's blockbuster Rams/Titans trade. The details, for those who've memory holed it:

Titans received: 2016 first-round pick (No. 15; subsequently traded, WR Corey Coleman), 2016 second-round pick (No. 43, DT Austin Johnson), 2016 second-round pick (No. 45, RB Derrick Henry), 2016 third-round pick (No. 76; subsequently traded, OT Shon Coleman), 2017 first-round pick (No. 5, WR Corey Davis) and 2017 third-round pick (No. 100, TE Jonnu Smith)

Rams received: 2016 No. 1 pick (Goff), 2016 fourth-round pick (No. 113; subsequently traded, LB Nick Kwiatkoski) and 2016 sixth-round pick (No. 177, TE Temarrick Hemingway)


The Titans were two years into the Marcus Mariota experiment. He'd just had an OK season as their starting QB, with a combined 3775 passing/rushing yards, and much more importantly, he had just been ranked 50th by his peers in the NFL top 100 players of 2017, which I have been assured is an extremely legitimate metric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Top_1 ... rs_of_2017

The Titans were eager to eschew the first pick in exchange for building their team around Marcus. That first year they hit on Derrick Henry! A future hall of famer for sure, and the perfect player to help take the pressure off their young QB.

They of course did do worse though, pretty much whiffing on every other pick they received in that trade, and were rewarded with three 9-7 seasons. Mariota of course never developed into the player they hoped, and ultimately wheels were spun that are still spinning to this day.

So what does history say? Trading away that 1.1 pick is a great idea if you have no aspirations of being anything other than a slightly above average franchise. You really cant argue with history.

Image
You are spot on - trading down and getting a ton of draft capital doesn't mean squat if you blow all / the majority of the picks. That's one reason I love the idea of a proven player. That decreases the likelihood of it being a busted trade. Or dare I say it - it raises the floor of what you receive back.

But you know what, if you blow the 1.1 pick you lose as well.

The 49ers gave up the 12th in 2021, the 29th and 102 pick in 2022, and pick 29 in 2023 to Miami.

Miami then traded up from 12 to 6 (giving up a '22 1st) and selected Waddle (Micah Parson went at 12).

Miami then traded pick 29 in 2022 (along with a second, 2 fourths and sixth) to acquire Hill. Pick 29 ended up with N.E. who drafted Cole Strange (I liked him in like the third round that year but he's been okay, just not a first round guy IMO).

Pick 102 ws Channing Tindall who has been a special teams guy for the most part for Miami.

Miami then traded the 29th pick in '23 (along with a 4th and Chase Edmonds) to Denver to land Bradley Chubb. Denver took Bryan Bresee.

So by trading down Miami ended up with Waddle, Hill, Chubb and Tindall. Had they stayed at #3 they likely take Waddle.

The 49ers basically end up with nothing. Had they not made the trade the could have had Parson (man he'd make them unreal), Strange (a mid level OG), a special teams LB and another player (given the would have Bosa and Parson I don't think Bresee is a reasonable pick, so maybe they take the guy who may be rookie of the year - Joey Porter).

So if we go by more recent history, I think it clearly shows you trade down if you can, and maybe shouldn't trade up if you feel that need.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11676
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1122 times
Been thanked: 1948 times

wab wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:36 pm
dplank wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:20 pm And you think Goff to the Titans would have been a better outcome than Henry? Lmao….hoping this is a troll and not a serious post!
Henry is an all-time great back, but that hasn't exactly translated to success for the Titans. If you apply the Titans example to the Bears...and say the Bears were to trade the #1 pick and get a HOF WR out of the deal, but never win more than 10 games with Fields...does it really matter?
There are two parts to the deal. Goffs value to the Rams and Henry’s value to the Titans. You are only looking at one side of it. The Titans rode Henry to a lot of wins and playoff appearances. Goff was good early then summarily shipped out to Detroit, and they won a SB without him.

Bottom line is Titans won that deal if anyone did - if the market is SB wins though, neither won. Henry will be in the HOF, Goff will not.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11676
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1122 times
Been thanked: 1948 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:15 pm So, I've been thinking a lot about how people who want to trade our first pick are making that argument that historically taking a QB at 1.1 isnt any kind of sure fire thing. Nor is trying to win a superbowl with a QB on a rookie contract. Trade the pick and build around what you have, they say! Well, what's the historical precedent for that?

In the last 20 years? We've got one example, and once you dig into it, it's kind of eerie how applicable it is.

I'm of course talking about 2016's blockbuster Rams/Titans trade. The details, for those who've memory holed it:

Titans received: 2016 first-round pick (No. 15; subsequently traded, WR Corey Coleman), 2016 second-round pick (No. 43, DT Austin Johnson), 2016 second-round pick (No. 45, RB Derrick Henry), 2016 third-round pick (No. 76; subsequently traded, OT Shon Coleman), 2017 first-round pick (No. 5, WR Corey Davis) and 2017 third-round pick (No. 100, TE Jonnu Smith)

Rams received: 2016 No. 1 pick (Goff), 2016 fourth-round pick (No. 113; subsequently traded, LB Nick Kwiatkoski) and 2016 sixth-round pick (No. 177, TE Temarrick Hemingway)


The Titans were two years into the Marcus Mariota experiment. He'd just had an OK season as their starting QB, with a combined 3775 passing/rushing yards, and much more importantly, he had just been ranked 50th by his peers in the NFL top 100 players of 2017, which I have been assured is an extremely legitimate metric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Top_1 ... rs_of_2017

The Titans were eager to eschew the first pick in exchange for building their team around Marcus. That first year they hit on Derrick Henry! A future hall of famer for sure, and the perfect player to help take the pressure off their young QB.

They of course did do worse though, pretty much whiffing on every other pick they received in that trade, and were rewarded with three 9-7 seasons. Mariota of course never developed into the player they hoped, and ultimately wheels were spun that are still spinning to this day.

So what does history say? Trading away that 1.1 pick is a great idea if you have no aspirations of being anything other than a slightly above average franchise. You really cant argue with history.

Image
I'm surprised I'm the first to mention this, but we just traded 1.1 last year so how is 2016 the only example?
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29414
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 1779 times

I honestly don't care about the hall of fame. The Bears have 30 players in the HOF and one Super Bowl win.

No one knows if Goff would have been successful with the Titans. Thats impossible to say. Neither team really benefited from the trade though…the Rams probably have a slight edge because they at least made the playoffs 3 out of 5 years. The Titans did nothing by keeping Mariota and drafting Henry.

I think that’s the parallel here. Is keeping Fields and trading down for MHJ going to yield similar results to the Titans keeping Mariota over opting for a QB at #1.

The OP is kind of a bad example regardless because the Bears didn’t QB their way to the #1 pick like the Titans did.
User avatar
The Cooler King
Head Coach
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1114 times
Been thanked: 320 times

The other "fun" parallel of Mariota/Fields is he likewise underwent a GM/staff upheaval after his rookie year. Parallels galore.

But yea, with the Bears trade down result still TBD the best trade down haul result is Miami who mostly turned their haul into expensive vets. If that's the route, it probably doesn't come without issues (Miami itself is asking big questions about a Tua extension given where they are at - which appears to still be too short of great and heavily cap leveraged as is)

RG3 haul, Darnold haul, Goff haul, Trey Lance haul... None are slam dunks. That's fine as long as you don't pretend a Caleb haul is either.
Last edited by The Cooler King on Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7176
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 518 times
Been thanked: 851 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:42 pm
wab wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:36 pm

Henry is an all-time great back, but that hasn't exactly translated to success for the Titans. If you apply the Titans example to the Bears...and say the Bears were to trade the #1 pick and get a HOF WR out of the deal, but never win more than 10 games with Fields...does it really matter?
There are two parts to the deal. Goffs value to the Rams and Henry’s value to the Titans. You are only looking at one side of it. The Titans rode Henry to a lot of wins and playoff appearances. Goff was good early then summarily shipped out to Detroit, and they won a SB without him.

Bottom line is Titans won that deal if anyone did - if the market is SB wins though, neither won. Henry will be in the HOF, Goff will not.
Is trading up to 1.1 an option for the bears? Why are you bringing up the rams, they traded a bunch of assets to get to 1.1, and hamstrung themselves in the process. Is that an option for our beloved? Are we considering trading away picks to get to 1.1, or do we already have the pick? Did I miss something here?

I'm talking about the team that's actually in the Bear's shoes: The Titans, who tried to build a team around a wildly inconsistent QB by trading down and aquiring picks.
Image
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11676
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1122 times
Been thanked: 1948 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:00 pm
dplank wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:42 pm

There are two parts to the deal. Goffs value to the Rams and Henry’s value to the Titans. You are only looking at one side of it. The Titans rode Henry to a lot of wins and playoff appearances. Goff was good early then summarily shipped out to Detroit, and they won a SB without him.

Bottom line is Titans won that deal if anyone did - if the market is SB wins though, neither won. Henry will be in the HOF, Goff will not.
Is trading up to 1.1 an option for the bears? Why are you bringing up the rams, they traded a bunch of assets to get to 1.1, and hamstrung themselves in the process. Is that an option for our beloved? Are we considering trading away picks to get to 1.1, or do we already have the pick? Did I miss something here?

I'm talking about the team that's actually in the Bear's shoes: The Titans, who tried to build a team around a wildly inconsistent QB by trading down and aquiring picks.
I'm bringing up the Rams because if you want to look at the deal the Titans made, what they gave up matters a whole lot. Like, a WHOLE lot. The Titans gave up Goff to get Henry is how that deal worked out. Win for the Titans.

Also, last year the Bears were in the Bears shoes - literally. And we chose to trade down, which looks like a great deal for us and was universally lauded as a heist of a deal - how do you think Carolina feels about it right now?
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7176
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 518 times
Been thanked: 851 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:35 pm
Rusty Trombagent wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:00 pm

Is trading up to 1.1 an option for the bears? Why are you bringing up the rams, they traded a bunch of assets to get to 1.1, and hamstrung themselves in the process. Is that an option for our beloved? Are we considering trading away picks to get to 1.1, or do we already have the pick? Did I miss something here?

I'm talking about the team that's actually in the Bear's shoes: The Titans, who tried to build a team around a wildly inconsistent QB by trading down and aquiring picks.
I'm bringing up the Rams because if you want to look at the deal the Titans made, what they gave up matters a whole lot. Like, a WHOLE lot. The Titans gave up Goff to get Henry is how that deal worked out. Win for the Titans.

Also, last year the Bears were in the Bears shoes - literally. And we chose to trade down, which looks like a great deal for us and was universally lauded as a heist of a deal - how do you think Carolina feels about it right now?
Again though, none of these scenarios are relevant to the bears. We're either picking or trading down. Rams and Panthers traded up.

Why are you trying to change the subject, are you trolling me?
Image
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7574
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 485 times
Been thanked: 533 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:35 pm
Rusty Trombagent wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:00 pm

Is trading up to 1.1 an option for the bears? Why are you bringing up the rams, they traded a bunch of assets to get to 1.1, and hamstrung themselves in the process. Is that an option for our beloved? Are we considering trading away picks to get to 1.1, or do we already have the pick? Did I miss something here?

I'm talking about the team that's actually in the Bear's shoes: The Titans, who tried to build a team around a wildly inconsistent QB by trading down and aquiring picks.
I'm bringing up the Rams because if you want to look at the deal the Titans made, what they gave up matters a whole lot. Like, a WHOLE lot. The Titans gave up Goff to get Henry is how that deal worked out. Win for the Titans.

Also, last year the Bears were in the Bears shoes - literally. And we chose to trade down, which looks like a great deal for us and was universally lauded as a heist of a deal - how do you think Carolina feels about it right now?
Your odds of getting the Carolina deal again - quite low though IMHO

Cardinals are the other side of that coin - traded with the Texans for a future pick thinking it's gonna be real good - Pick 16 wasn't what they were hoping for

Admittedly Poles is better than the Cardinals GM though:)

Derrick Henry also shows why certain positions like QB matter more than others. You can have a bonafide HOFer (none of this Roquon is a HOF nonsense there) and basically it's "well that's nice - at least you won't go 4-12 - but you also aren't gonna be a serious contender either"
User avatar
The Cooler King
Head Coach
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1114 times
Been thanked: 320 times

The other thing with teams trading up for QBs to top 3 is its not totally shocking to me that there aren't great results from the trade up team. I wouldn't expect the Venn diagram of elite QB prospects and teams willing to trade out of that prospect to have a huge overlap. It's obviously prone to selection bias.

RG3 was the strongest prospect that a team traded out of. Like in the Titans example it was a team with a year 2 QB (Bradford). Oh they also had a GM change (the parallels are uncanny). And RG3 is still a huge what if guy to me. That looked like it was gonna be worth it after his rookie campaign. Between the injury and the mess of Washington though...
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5639
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

I looked into trade downs from the number 1 overall pick a few weeks back and did a breakdown of the 4 times it's occurred in the last 25 years:
viewtopic.php?p=360072#p360072

The Titans trade didn't work out very well for them as RustyTrombagent has pointed out.

Aside from the Bears last year, the other two were the Chargers in 2001 and 2004, with the latter effectively being a trade of the first pick because they picked Eli Manning who wouldn't sign for them and was therefore immediately traded to the Giants. Given their close proximity to one another those trades might be considered more akin to the Bears potentially trading the first overall pick two years in a row.

From those trades the only player of note the Chargers netted from the first was LaDanian Tomlinson but from the second they acquired Philip Rivers, kicker Nate Kaeding and linebacker Shawn Merriman who all had excellent careers.

It did not however result in the Chargers playing in, let alone winning, a Super Bowl.

On the other hand, drafting a QB first overall hasn't resulted in many championship wins either. In the last 25 drafts a QB has been taken first overall 18 times. Only Eli Manning has won a Super Bowl with the team that drafted him and he was a mediocre QB with a career passer rating of 84.1 and a career season high of 93.6. He won his first Super Bowl in his 4th year when his rating was a miserable 73.9 in the regular season but he played much better in the playoffs.

Of the others Stafford won with Rams and Newton, Goff and Burrow lost with their teams.

It's not a great hit rate is it?

The Browns had back-to-back 1st overall picks in 2017 and 2018 and took Myles Garrett and Baker Mayfield. They never sniffed a Super Bowl.

The Jaguars were in the same situation in 2021 and 2022 and chose Trevor Lawrence and Travon Walker. They won their division last year with a 9-8 record, had that amazing rally from 27-0 down to beat the Chargers in the Wild Card round then lost to the Chiefs. This year they also finished 9-8 but it was only good enough for 2nd place in the division and they didn't qualify for a wild card.

So whether you take a QB first overall or trade down your odds of making let alone winning a Super Bowl are low. There have however been a lot more instances of the former than the latter and no team has traded away the first pick twice in a row so maybe it's a strategy worth trying. Being loaded with multiple first and second round picks plus at least one player (Moore) is getting awfully close to Herschel Walker trade territory and the Cowboys built a dynasty on the back of that.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29414
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 1779 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:13 pm I looked into trade downs from the number 1 overall pick a few weeks back and did a breakdown of the 4 times it's occurred in the last 25 years:
viewtopic.php?p=360072#p360072

The Titans trade didn't work out very well for them as RustyTrombagent has pointed out.

Aside from the Bears last year, the other two were the Chargers in 2001 and 2004, with the latter effectively being a trade of the first pick because they picked Eli Manning who wouldn't sign for them and was therefore immediately traded to the Giants. Given their close proximity to one another those trades might be considered more akin to the Bears potentially trading the first overall pick two years in a row.

From those trades the only player of note the Chargers netted from the first was LaDanian Tomlinson but from the second they acquired Philip Rivers, kicker Nate Kaeding and linebacker Shawn Merriman who all had excellent careers.

It did not however result in the Chargers playing in, let alone winning, a Super Bowl.

On the other hand, drafting a QB first overall hasn't resulted in many championship wins either. In the last 25 drafts a QB has been taken first overall 18 times. Only Eli Manning has won a Super Bowl with the team that drafted him and he was a mediocre QB with a career passer rating of 84.1 and a career season high of 93.6. He won his first Super Bowl in his 4th year when his rating was a miserable 73.9 in the regular season but he played much better in the playoffs.

Of the others Stafford won with Rams and Newton, Goff and Burrow lost with their teams.

It's not a great hit rate is it?

The Browns had back-to-back 1st overall picks in 2017 and 2018 and took Myles Garrett and Baker Mayfield. They never sniffed a Super Bowl.

The Jaguars were in the same situation in 2021 and 2022 and chose Trevor Lawrence and Travon Walker. They won their division last year with a 9-8 record, had that amazing rally from 27-0 down to beat the Chargers in the Wild Card round then lost to the Chiefs. This year they also finished 9-8 but it was only good enough for 2nd place in the division and they didn't qualify for a wild card.

So whether you take a QB first overall or trade down your odds of making let alone winning a Super Bowl are low. There have however been a lot more instances of the former than the latter and no team has traded away the first pick twice in a row so maybe it's a strategy worth trying. Being loaded with multiple first and second round picks plus at least one player (Moore) is getting awfully close to Herschel Walker trade territory and the Cowboys built a dynasty on the back of that.
It's incredibly difficult to get to the super bowl. I think you have to prioritize getting to the playoffs over shooting for the stars and basing your pick on who can get you to the super bowl.

If you look at every QB drafted #1 overall since 2000, the majority of them not only get to, but win a playoff game. 2004 was a weird year, so I included both Manning and Rivers. Out of 19 quarterbacks all but 5 have made the playoffs with their original teams (including Young, but I don't know if year one should count). Winston made it with the Saints and Carr made it with the Giants (although not as a starter).

Tim Couch – 2000
Playoff record: NA

Mike Vick – 2001
Playoff record (Falcons): 2-2

David Carr – 2002
Playoff record (Texans): NA

Carson Palmer 2003
Playoff Record (Bengals): 0-2

Eli Manning /Phillip Rivers – 2004
Playoff Record – Manning: 8-4
Playoff Record – Rivers (Chargers): 5-6

Alex Smith – 2005
Playoff record (Niners): 1-1

JaMarcus Russell – 2007
Playoff record: NA

Matt Stafford – 2009
Playoff record (Lions): 0-3

Sam Bradford – 2010
Playoff record (Rams): NA

Cam Newton – 2011
Playoff record (Panthers): 3-4

Andrew Luck – 2012
Playoff record: 4-4

Jameis Winston – 2015
Playoff record (Bucs): NA

Jared Goff – 2016
Playoff record (Rams): 2-3

Baker Mayfield – 2018
Playoff record (Cleveland): 1-1

Kyler Murray – 2019
Playoff record: 0-1

Joe Burrow – 2020
Playoff record: 5-2

Trevor Lawrence – 2021
Playoff record: 1-1

Bryce Young – 2023
Playoff record: NA
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15930
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 89 times

I know what I want it to look like for the Bears :

* (team to be named) gets Bears 1st round pick

* Bears get - other team's 1st round pick, other teams next 3 second round picks, a starting LT, another player to be named

I think that would do it for me and provide needed capital to actually build and improve
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4633
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 415 times
Been thanked: 598 times

Boris13c wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:51 pm I know what I want it to look like for the Bears :

* (team to be named) gets Bears 1st round pick

* Bears get - other team's 1st round pick, other teams next 3 second round picks, a starting LT, another player to be named

I think that would do it for me and provide needed capital to actually build and improve
If you are trading 1.1 you almost must get a future first in the trade IMO>
User avatar
The Cooler King
Head Coach
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1114 times
Been thanked: 320 times

wab wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:44 pm
It's incredibly difficult to get to the super bowl. I think you have to prioritize getting to the playoffs over shooting for the stars and basing your pick on who can get you to the super bowl.
Yea I really hate the #1 pick or super bowl qualifiers for this exact reason. With the number of repeats for each criteria you'll find hardly any crossover of this list, let alone find meaningful correlation of what that #1 pick meant to those teams.

Giants and Manning (even though it's a weird one with the reads) were the only team to go #1 to SB in just a few years in modern salary cap era. The other few examples took at least 7 years. And then the rest of the SB champs in the past 30 years haven't held a #1 pick at any point in recent memory.

The others who took about 7-8 years to win a SB...
Rams - Goff
Colts - Manning
Chiefs - Fischer (only played half that year in their first SB win)
Patriots - Bledsoe

I mean it's a hilarious list really. Also teams who opt to trade down don't make any appearances on the SB list either. So the correlative lesson is apparently this:

Unless it's a Manning it doesn't matter what you do at #1, you ain't making the SB anytime soon and if you do it won't be on the back of that player!

(the actual lesson is broaden the qualifiers and take more generic lessons from historic data)
HurricaneBear
Head Coach
Posts: 2080
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:56 am
Has thanked: 1673 times
Been thanked: 311 times

The Cooler King wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:00 pm
wab wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:44 pm
It's incredibly difficult to get to the super bowl. I think you have to prioritize getting to the playoffs over shooting for the stars and basing your pick on who can get you to the super bowl.
Yea I really hate the #1 pick or super bowl qualifiers for this exact reason. With the number of repeats for each criteria you'll find hardly any crossover of this list, let alone find meaningful correlation of what that #1 pick meant to those teams.

Giants and Manning (even though it's a weird one with the reads) were the only team to go #1 to SB in just a few years in modern salary cap era. The other few examples took at least 7 years. And then the rest of the SB champs in the past 30 years haven't held a #1 pick at any point in recent memory.

The others who took about 7-8 years to win a SB...
Rams - Goff
Colts - Manning
Chiefs - Fischer (only played half that year in their first SB win)
Patriots - Bledsoe

I mean it's a hilarious list really. Also teams who opt to trade down don't make any appearances on the SB list either. So the correlative lesson is apparently this:

Unless it's a Manning it doesn't matter what you do at #1, you ain't making the SB anytime soon and if you do it won't be on the back of that player!

(the actual lesson is broaden the qualifiers and take more generic lessons from historic data)
So is the lesson keep trading down until Arch Manning comes out, sell all those picks to get him, profit?
User avatar
The Cooler King
Head Coach
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1114 times
Been thanked: 320 times

HurricaneBear wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:13 pm
So is the lesson keep trading down until Arch Manning comes out, sell all those picks to get him, profit?
Obviously, yes. Tank for Mannings is the one true guaranteed team building method 🤣
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29414
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 1779 times

The Cooler King wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:15 pm
HurricaneBear wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:13 pm
So is the lesson keep trading down until Arch Manning comes out, sell all those picks to get him, profit?
Obviously, yes. Tank for Mannings is the one true guaranteed team building method 🤣
2026 here we come.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8187
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 835 times
Been thanked: 1151 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:51 pm
Rusty Trombagent wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:15 pm So, I've been thinking a lot about how people who want to trade our first pick are making that argument that historically taking a QB at 1.1 isnt any kind of sure fire thing. Nor is trying to win a superbowl with a QB on a rookie contract. Trade the pick and build around what you have, they say! Well, what's the historical precedent for that?

In the last 20 years? We've got one example, and once you dig into it, it's kind of eerie how applicable it is.

I'm of course talking about 2016's blockbuster Rams/Titans trade. The details, for those who've memory holed it:

Titans received: 2016 first-round pick (No. 15; subsequently traded, WR Corey Coleman), 2016 second-round pick (No. 43, DT Austin Johnson), 2016 second-round pick (No. 45, RB Derrick Henry), 2016 third-round pick (No. 76; subsequently traded, OT Shon Coleman), 2017 first-round pick (No. 5, WR Corey Davis) and 2017 third-round pick (No. 100, TE Jonnu Smith)

Rams received: 2016 No. 1 pick (Goff), 2016 fourth-round pick (No. 113; subsequently traded, LB Nick Kwiatkoski) and 2016 sixth-round pick (No. 177, TE Temarrick Hemingway)


The Titans were two years into the Marcus Mariota experiment. He'd just had an OK season as their starting QB, with a combined 3775 passing/rushing yards, and much more importantly, he had just been ranked 50th by his peers in the NFL top 100 players of 2017, which I have been assured is an extremely legitimate metric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Top_1 ... rs_of_2017

The Titans were eager to eschew the first pick in exchange for building their team around Marcus. That first year they hit on Derrick Henry! A future hall of famer for sure, and the perfect player to help take the pressure off their young QB.

They of course did do worse though, pretty much whiffing on every other pick they received in that trade, and were rewarded with three 9-7 seasons. Mariota of course never developed into the player they hoped, and ultimately wheels were spun that are still spinning to this day.

So what does history say? Trading away that 1.1 pick is a great idea if you have no aspirations of being anything other than a slightly above average franchise. You really cant argue with history.

Image
I'm surprised I'm the first to mention this, but we just traded 1.1 last year so how is 2016 the only example?
Because it blows up the narrative.
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7176
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 518 times
Been thanked: 851 times

oops
Last edited by Rusty Trombagent on Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7176
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 518 times
Been thanked: 851 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:23 pm
dplank wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:51 pm

I'm surprised I'm the first to mention this, but we just traded 1.1 last year so how is 2016 the only example?
Because it blows up the narrative.
Not really, last year is actually a better analogue to the Titans trading down, since Fields was going into his 3rd season, much like Mariota. I get that it's not perfect, because at this point Mariota is actually a better QB than Justin. But it's close!

https://stathead.com/football/versus-fi ... d=MariMa01

The Titans were rewarded with years of mediocrity, and so far the Bears have been rewarded with... mediocrity.
Image
Post Reply