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

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6645
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 361 times
Been thanked: 636 times

wab wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:19 pm
The Cooler King wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:15 pm

Obviously, yes. Tank for Mannings is the one true guaranteed team building method 🀣
2026 here we come.

That's not good.

We can't be giving up on Caleb until the 2027 draft, at the earliest.
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
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7156
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 510 times
Been thanked: 828 times

Moriarty wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:56 pm
wab wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:19 pm

2026 here we come.

That's not good.

We can't be giving up on Caleb until the 2027 draft, at the earliest.
Praying another global pandemic comes along and grants him an extra year of eligibility.
Image
User avatar
The Cooler King
Head Coach
Posts: 4906
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 1112 times
Been thanked: 319 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:59 pm
Moriarty wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:56 pm


That's not good.

We can't be giving up on Caleb until the 2027 draft, at the earliest.
Praying another global pandemic comes along and grants him an extra year of eligibility.
Last time we had a 49ers Chiefs super bowl...
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5602
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1533 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.
But then the Chiefs would have stuck with Alex Smith (3 playoff appearances in 4 seasons) rather than drafting Mahomes and the Bears would have stuck with Trubisky (2 playoff appearances in 4 years).

Of course you have to make the playoffs in order to reach the Super Bowl and the more regularly you can do that the better, but the aim has to be to win a championship not just to be a contender.

Getting to the Super Bowl certainly didn't prove to be incredibly difficult for the Patriots for many years and isn't proving difficult for the Chiefs in recent years. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to talk about the Bears alongside those teams? Even if they never hit those heights another 11 teams in the last 25 years have played in multiple Super Bowls (40% of the league):
  • Ravens
    2 Super Bowls (2000, 2012)
    2 Wins
  • Giants
    3 Super Bowls (2000, 2007, 2011)
    2 Wins
  • Patriots
    9 Super Bowls (2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019)
    6 Wins
  • Rams
    3 Super Bowls (2001, 2018, 2021)
    1 Win
  • Buccaneers
    2 Super Bowls (2003, 2020)
    2 Wins
  • Panthers
    2 Super Bowls (2003, 2015)
    0 Wins
  • Eagles
    3 Super Bowls (2004, 2017, 2022)
    1 Win
  • Steelers
    3 Super Bowls (2005, 2008. 2011)
    2 Wins
  • Seahawks
    3 Super Bowls (2005, 2013, 2014)
    1 Win
  • Colts
    2 Super Bowls (2007, 2010)
    1 Win
  • 49ers
    3 Super Bowls (2012, 2019, 2023)
    0 Wins*
  • Broncos
    2 Super Bowls (2013, 2015)
    1 Win
  • Chiefs
    4 Super Bowls (2019, 2020, 2022, 2023)
    2 Wins*
* Pending the outcome of this year's game

This should not be considered beyond the Bears. We Bears fans have suffered for long enough. 2 Super Bowls in 58 years with just one in the last 39 is simply pathetic as we all know only too well. Poles has a golden opportunity to change that and his decision on what to do with the first overall pick this year is going to be crucial.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11619
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1108 times
Been thanked: 1921 times

Rusty, have you considered there might be more than 2 outcomes? In the example you gave, the trade down didn't bring a championship to the Titans, but neither would them drafting Jared Goff (if we're being realistic about it, of course we will never know for certain, but 99.999% odds?). And so what's best for the franchise, who got more value out of the deal - this is what most likely matters in these cases, not the extreme outcome on one end or the other.

This is why I literally thought you were just goofing around with the post, I didn't think you were actually drawing a conclusion from that one data point which even when viewed in isolation doesn't tell a compelling story.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29361
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 104 times
Been thanked: 1752 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:27 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.
But then the Chiefs would have stuck with Alex Smith (3 playoff appearances in 4 seasons) rather than drafting Mahomes and the Bears would have stuck with Trubisky (2 playoff appearances in 4 years).

Of course you have to make the playoffs in order to reach the Super Bowl and the more regularly you can do that the better, but the aim has to be to win a championship not just to be a contender.

Getting to the Super Bowl certainly didn't prove to be incredibly difficult for the Patriots for many years and isn't proving difficult for the Chiefs in recent years. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to talk about the Bears alongside those teams? Even if they never hit those heights another 11 teams in the last 25 years have played in multiple Super Bowls (40% of the league):
  • Ravens
    2 Super Bowls (2000, 2012)
    2 Wins
  • Giants
    3 Super Bowls (2000, 2007, 2011)
    2 Wins
  • Patriots
    9 Super Bowls (2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019)
    6 Wins
  • Rams
    3 Super Bowls (2001, 2018, 2021)
    1 Win
  • Buccaneers
    2 Super Bowls (2003, 2020)
    2 Wins
  • Panthers
    2 Super Bowls (2003, 2015)
    0 Wins
  • Eagles
    3 Super Bowls (2004, 2017, 2022)
    1 Win
  • Steelers
    3 Super Bowls (2005, 2008. 2011)
    2 Wins
  • Seahawks
    3 Super Bowls (2005, 2013, 2014)
    1 Win
  • Colts
    2 Super Bowls (2007, 2010)
    1 Win
  • 49ers
    3 Super Bowls (2012, 2019, 2023)
    0 Wins*
  • Broncos
    2 Super Bowls (2013, 2015)
    1 Win
  • Chiefs
    4 Super Bowls (2019, 2020, 2022, 2023)
    2 Wins*
* Pending the outcome of this year's game

This should not be considered beyond the Bears. We Bears fans have suffered for long enough. 2 Super Bowls in 58 years with just one in the last 39 is simply pathetic as we all know only too well. Poles has a golden opportunity to change that and his decision on what to do with the first overall pick this year is going to be crucial.
I think in your hurry to list out whatever all that is, I think you missed the part where I articulated that the #1 overall pick has a better than average chance to at least get you to the playoffs. Can’t be in the Super Bowl unless you get to the playoffs.

Everyone constantly using Mahomes as the benchmark is tiresome. Just like when Brady was used as the benchmark for being able to find a QB in later rounds.

They are both complete and total outliers.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7156
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 510 times
Been thanked: 828 times

dplank wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:56 pm Rusty, have you considered there might be more than 2 outcomes?
if i considered more than 2 options, my post would be a lot less funny to me.
Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:36 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:23 pm

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.
It's been one season and that mediocrity is off a basis of having the worst record in football.

Then in the second part of the season we were a playoff team.

So........
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

Moriarty wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:56 pm
wab wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:19 pm

2026 here we come.

That's not good.

We can't be giving up on Caleb until the 2027 draft, at the earliest.
I'm expecting the balls, feet, and sack fixation to be in full bloom sometime around halftime of game 1.
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15927
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Arkansasbear wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:36 pm
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>
yeah ok ... delete the player to be named in my scenario and replace it with a future #1
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5602
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1533 times

wab wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 4:14 pm
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:27 pm

But then the Chiefs would have stuck with Alex Smith (3 playoff appearances in 4 seasons) rather than drafting Mahomes and the Bears would have stuck with Trubisky (2 playoff appearances in 4 years).

Of course you have to make the playoffs in order to reach the Super Bowl and the more regularly you can do that the better, but the aim has to be to win a championship not just to be a contender.

Getting to the Super Bowl certainly didn't prove to be incredibly difficult for the Patriots for many years and isn't proving difficult for the Chiefs in recent years. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to talk about the Bears alongside those teams? Even if they never hit those heights another 11 teams in the last 25 years have played in multiple Super Bowls (40% of the league):
  • Ravens
    2 Super Bowls (2000, 2012)
    2 Wins
  • Giants
    3 Super Bowls (2000, 2007, 2011)
    2 Wins
  • Patriots
    9 Super Bowls (2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019)
    6 Wins
  • Rams
    3 Super Bowls (2001, 2018, 2021)
    1 Win
  • Buccaneers
    2 Super Bowls (2003, 2020)
    2 Wins
  • Panthers
    2 Super Bowls (2003, 2015)
    0 Wins
  • Eagles
    3 Super Bowls (2004, 2017, 2022)
    1 Win
  • Steelers
    3 Super Bowls (2005, 2008. 2011)
    2 Wins
  • Seahawks
    3 Super Bowls (2005, 2013, 2014)
    1 Win
  • Colts
    2 Super Bowls (2007, 2010)
    1 Win
  • 49ers
    3 Super Bowls (2012, 2019, 2023)
    0 Wins*
  • Broncos
    2 Super Bowls (2013, 2015)
    1 Win
  • Chiefs
    4 Super Bowls (2019, 2020, 2022, 2023)
    2 Wins*
* Pending the outcome of this year's game

This should not be considered beyond the Bears. We Bears fans have suffered for long enough. 2 Super Bowls in 58 years with just one in the last 39 is simply pathetic as we all know only too well. Poles has a golden opportunity to change that and his decision on what to do with the first overall pick this year is going to be crucial.
I think in your hurry to list out whatever all that is, I think you missed the part where I articulated that the #1 overall pick has a better than average chance to at least get you to the playoffs. Can’t be in the Super Bowl unless you get to the playoffs.

Everyone constantly using Mahomes as the benchmark is tiresome. Just like when Brady was used as the benchmark for being able to find a QB in later rounds.

They are both complete and total outliers.
I think in your hurry to post a reply to "whatever all that is", I think you missed the part where I articulated that of course you have to make the playoffs in order to reach the Super Bowl and the more regularly you can do that the better, but the aim has to be to win a championship not just to be a playoff team which nearly half the teams in the league are each year now the field has been expanded to 14.

You stated that it's incredibly difficult to get to the Super Bowl yet 2 out 5 teams in the league have managed to do so more than once in the last 25 years and 1 in 5 have won it more than once in that timeframe. Shouldn't the Bears be trying to emulate that level of success rather then just hoping to get to the playoffs?

If Poles is in Chicago for the next decade and the Bears don't win a championship then I for one won't consider his tenure a success no matter how many times the team makes the playoffs.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7156
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 510 times
Been thanked: 828 times

The Cooler King wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:04 pm
Rusty Trombagent wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:59 pm

Praying another global pandemic comes along and grants him an extra year of eligibility.
Last time we had a 49ers Chiefs super bowl...
Image
Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29361
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 104 times
Been thanked: 1752 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:31 pm
wab wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 4:14 pm

I think in your hurry to list out whatever all that is, I think you missed the part where I articulated that the #1 overall pick has a better than average chance to at least get you to the playoffs. Can’t be in the Super Bowl unless you get to the playoffs.

Everyone constantly using Mahomes as the benchmark is tiresome. Just like when Brady was used as the benchmark for being able to find a QB in later rounds.

They are both complete and total outliers.
I think in your hurry to post a reply to "whatever all that is", I think you missed the part where I articulated that of course you have to make the playoffs in order to reach the Super Bowl and the more regularly you can do that the better, but the aim has to be to win a championship not just to be a playoff team which nearly half the teams in the league are each year now the field has been expanded to 14.

You stated that it's incredibly difficult to get to the Super Bowl yet 2 out 5 teams in the league have managed to do so more than once in the last 25 years and 1 in 5 have won it more than once in that timeframe. Shouldn't the Bears be trying to emulate that level of success rather then just hoping to get to the playoffs?

If Poles is in Chicago for the next decade and the Bears don't win a championship then I for one won't consider his tenure a success no matter how many times the team makes the playoffs.
Ok fine. It's incredibly difficult to get to the super bowl unless you have Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes. There's your definition of success.

Draft a QB at 1, and he's statistically likely to get you at least the playoffs. From there...yolo. Or shall we just continue to argue about nothing?
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5602
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1533 times

No, that's not my definition of success. That's the point. Excluding the Patriots and Chiefs, a third of the teams in the league have played in more than one Super Bowl in the past 25 years. Getting to the Super Bowl has proven incredibly difficult for the Bears (and other teams) but not so for others.

I have a friend who's a 49ers fan. He'll shortly be enjoying watching his team play in their third Super Bowl since the Bears last appeared in one and each time they have been led by a different QB. I have another friend who's a Broncos fan. He's seen his team in the Super Bowl twice since the Bears last made one. Both have seen their teams play in the big game half a dozen times or more since they started following the sport. It's ruddy infuriating that we Bears fans have only had that experience twice in all that time (and boy don't they like to remind me of that!).

Whether he drafts a QB or trades that number 1 pick for a haul Poles is well-positioned to put the Bears into the group of teams for whom making the Super Bowl is not incredibly difficult. This is the best opportunity the Bears have had in over 3 decades to do that. (It certainly helps that Mahomes isn't in their conference although neither was Brady for most of his career either.) In my opinion prioritising making the playoffs, which nearly half of teams do each year anyway, rather than shooting for the stars and seeking players who can get the team to the Super Bowl lacks the ambition Poles should have.
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5329
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 544 times
Been thanked: 439 times

Here's one that has began floating a few days ago: Justin Herbert to the Bears for the #1 pick. Harbaugh drafts J.J. McCarthy with the #1 pick. I'd imagine the Bears would jump all over that deal.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 24888
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 793 times

Grizzled wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 10:26 am Here's one that has began floating a few days ago: Justin Herbert to the Bears for the #1 pick. Harbaugh drafts J.J. McCarthy with the #1 pick. I'd imagine the Bears would jump all over that deal.
I would love if Herbert was a Bear, but that's not going to happen. Herbert isn't worth the top pick, and I'm sure part of the allure of Harbaugh joining the Chargers was to coach Herbert.

JJ McCarthy is going to go, if he's lucky, in the last few picks of round one. That would take a desperate team and a very impressive pre-draft from McCarthy.
"None of us are in the board room, locker room, or on the sideline, so in a way, we don't know shit."
- Otis Day
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10890
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 458 times

The question that I have is this. Do you have a better chance of getting to the playoffs and a Super Bowl with an above average QB and great skill players, or a great QB and above average skill players? Historically I think it's the latter. There have been great QB's that can't seem to lift their teams up high enough to get past the first round, and then there have been above average QB's that have won the Super Bowl. I think of Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brian Johnson, Nick Foles, Jay Hostetler. All of these guys were average at best, and yet they went to and won as many Super Bowls as Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young. Getting a great QB does not ensure success if you don't have the right pieces around them. This team is still rebuilding, and if they want sustained success, they need more of those pieces. With a top WR, C, and TE from this draft the Bears can absolutely turn the corner with their offense. They aren't going to with just a QB. We have two 1st round picks, but you can bet that one of those is going to be an EDGE player.
Image


Getsy responding to a question about adjustments
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 1:28 pm The question that I have is this. Do you have a better chance of getting to the playoffs and a Super Bowl with an above average QB and great skill players, or a great QB and above average skill players? Historically I think it's the latter. There have been great QB's that can't seem to lift their teams up high enough to get past the first round, and then there have been above average QB's that have won the Super Bowl. I think of Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brian Johnson, Nick Foles, Jay Hostetler. All of these guys were average at best, and yet they went to and won as many Super Bowls as Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young. Getting a great QB does not ensure success if you don't have the right pieces around them. This team is still rebuilding, and if they want sustained success, they need more of those pieces. With a top WR, C, and TE from this draft the Bears can absolutely turn the corner with their offense. They aren't going to with just a QB. We have two 1st round picks, but you can bet that one of those is going to be an EDGE player.
Getting the 1 pick wrong on a QB sets the franchise back half a decade and stops the forward momentum we have dead in it's tracks.

Even if Caleb Williams winds up being good, 2024 is a lost season because we're developing a QB. That means one year of Sweat / JJ / Moore / Kmet's contract is wasted.

In 2H23 we had the runrate of a playoff team. That's before any upgrades we get from Trade Down 2.0, the 9 pick, FA, and having Waldron instead of Dufus Getsy.

Finish the job. Sign a veteran C who can lead the line. DE2 in FA is gravy. Then in the draft, trade down, get the star player, draft Nabers or Odunze with the highest of the two first round picks after the trade down, with the other go BPA DL or Kinchens the S depending on how FA and the star player via trade down shakes out.

Then we're golden. There's no need to add the risk of having a rookie QB.

When we do the trade down, send the 1 to the AFC and maroon Williams behind Mahomes, Burrow and Allen for the next 10 years.
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15927
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 1:28 pm The question that I have is this. Do you have a better chance of getting to the playoffs and a Super Bowl with an above average QB and great skill players, or a great QB and above average skill players? Historically I think it's the latter. There have been great QB's that can't seem to lift their teams up high enough to get past the first round, and then there have been above average QB's that have won the Super Bowl. I think of Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brian Johnson, Nick Foles, Jay Hostetler. All of these guys were average at best, and yet they went to and won as many Super Bowls as Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young. Getting a great QB does not ensure success if you don't have the right pieces around them. This team is still rebuilding, and if they want sustained success, they need more of those pieces. With a top WR, C, and TE from this draft the Bears can absolutely turn the corner with their offense. They aren't going to with just a QB. We have two 1st round picks, but you can bet that one of those is going to be an EDGE player.
it strikes me that you could have made this post in previous years or perhaps in a future year and it would still ring true ... and your question is kind of akin to the chicken/egg scenario ... great QB (the egg) or great team (the whole chicken) as being most important to success ... and since we have all witnessed both scenarios holding Super Bowl trophies, I don't think this is a question/discussion that has a truly definitive answer one way or the other

and it was Jeff Hostetler by the way who was the suckwad chump of a QB who bought some magic beans for a while to get the Giants to the Super Bowl
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15927
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 6:40 pm
The Cooler King wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:04 pm
Last time we had a 49ers Chiefs super bowl...
Image
The Happening was such a shitty movie but the gif of Wahlberg is certainly a good fit for this
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
User avatar
LacertineForest
MVP
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 1444 times
Been thanked: 263 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 3:19 pm
Bears Whiskey Nut wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 1:28 pm The question that I have is this. Do you have a better chance of getting to the playoffs and a Super Bowl with an above average QB and great skill players, or a great QB and above average skill players? Historically I think it's the latter. There have been great QB's that can't seem to lift their teams up high enough to get past the first round, and then there have been above average QB's that have won the Super Bowl. I think of Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brian Johnson, Nick Foles, Jay Hostetler. All of these guys were average at best, and yet they went to and won as many Super Bowls as Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young. Getting a great QB does not ensure success if you don't have the right pieces around them. This team is still rebuilding, and if they want sustained success, they need more of those pieces. With a top WR, C, and TE from this draft the Bears can absolutely turn the corner with their offense. They aren't going to with just a QB. We have two 1st round picks, but you can bet that one of those is going to be an EDGE player.
Getting the 1 pick wrong on a QB sets the franchise back half a decade and stops the forward momentum we have dead in it's tracks.

Even if Caleb Williams winds up being good, 2024 is a lost season because we're developing a QB. That means one year of Sweat / JJ / Moore / Kmet's contract is wasted.

In 2H23 we had the runrate of a playoff team. That's before any upgrades we get from Trade Down 2.0, the 9 pick, FA, and having Waldron instead of Dufus Getsy.

Finish the job. Sign a veteran C who can lead the line. DE2 in FA is gravy. Then in the draft, trade down, get the star player, draft Nabers or Odunze with the highest of the two first round picks after the trade down, with the other go BPA DL or Kinchens the S depending on how FA and the star player via trade down shakes out.

Then we're golden. There's no need to add the risk of having a rookie QB.

When we do the trade down, send the 1 to the AFC and maroon Williams behind Mahomes, Burrow and Allen for the next 10 years.
A lot of assumptions in the statement that you automatically take a step back with a rookie QB but not Fields with a new offense.

If you keep Fields and he still can't deliver, then you're looking at drafting a QB next year, even further delaying your team's progress. I don't see drafting Caleb as an automatic step back this coming year or for the future of the team. It could be, but I think there's a reasonable chance it won't be.

There's a reason the offensive jobs were (repeatedly) highly conveted this offseason and I don't think it was the chance to work with Fields.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

LacertineForest wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 4:28 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 3:19 pm

Getting the 1 pick wrong on a QB sets the franchise back half a decade and stops the forward momentum we have dead in it's tracks.

Even if Caleb Williams winds up being good, 2024 is a lost season because we're developing a QB. That means one year of Sweat / JJ / Moore / Kmet's contract is wasted.

In 2H23 we had the runrate of a playoff team. That's before any upgrades we get from Trade Down 2.0, the 9 pick, FA, and having Waldron instead of Dufus Getsy.

Finish the job. Sign a veteran C who can lead the line. DE2 in FA is gravy. Then in the draft, trade down, get the star player, draft Nabers or Odunze with the highest of the two first round picks after the trade down, with the other go BPA DL or Kinchens the S depending on how FA and the star player via trade down shakes out.

Then we're golden. There's no need to add the risk of having a rookie QB.

When we do the trade down, send the 1 to the AFC and maroon Williams behind Mahomes, Burrow and Allen for the next 10 years.
A lot of assumptions in the statement that you automatically take a step back with a rookie QB but not Fields with a new offense.

If you keep Fields and he still can't deliver, then you're looking at drafting a QB next year, even further delaying your team's progress. I don't see drafting Caleb as an automatic step back this coming year or for the future of the team. It could be, but I think there's a reasonable chance it won't be.

There's a reason the offensive jobs were (repeatedly) highly conveted this offseason and I don't think it was the chance to work with Fields.
We could easily take a step back with JF1 and a new offense. I do not deny that. What I will say to that is Waldron has a better record of success than Getsy.

The same can be said for a rookie QB. Given that the 1 pick is the greater cost for that type of risk I do not want to spend the 1 pick on that.

If a rookie QB comes here, and it comes at the cost of us not addressing our needs (because there's no trade down), he's going to inherit some or all of the problems we had last year.

I think we disagree on whether or not JF1 is "delivering". What is the hurdle rate of success? I think our definitions differ here.
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5602
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1533 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 4:47 pm If a rookie QB comes here, and it comes at the cost of us not addressing our needs (because there's no trade down), he's going to inherit some or all of the problems we had last year.
Not trading down doesn't negate opportunities to address some if not all of the problems the team had last year. Poles still has ample cap space to sign new players in free agency as well as the 9th overall pick in the draft plus other lower picks and, if he uses the first overall pick on a QB, whatever he can acquire in a trade for Fields.

With almost all the core players under contract plus new additions, a rookie QB should inherit a better situation than Fields had.

The defense in particular should be up to speed quickly unlike last year when a slew of new players had to be integrated.

If Poles does opt to trade the first overall pick it very much depends on how far he trades down and what he receives in return. A lot of the draft assets will likely be in future years which won't immediately improve the team.

Even if you use last year's trade down as a model Poles only added 2 immediate additions. DJ Moore had a big impact and was a clear and obvious upgrade. Tyrique Stevenson though had a pretty torrid time during the first half of the season and so didn't really begin to resolve the problem he was drafted to address until late on.

The trade down option is more about the opportunity to keep adding talent (or replacing talent with cheaper options) over the next several years than it is about a significant immediate upgrade of the talent around the QB.
User avatar
LacertineForest
MVP
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 1444 times
Been thanked: 263 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 4:47 pm
LacertineForest wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 4:28 pm

A lot of assumptions in the statement that you automatically take a step back with a rookie QB but not Fields with a new offense.

If you keep Fields and he still can't deliver, then you're looking at drafting a QB next year, even further delaying your team's progress. I don't see drafting Caleb as an automatic step back this coming year or for the future of the team. It could be, but I think there's a reasonable chance it won't be.

There's a reason the offensive jobs were (repeatedly) highly conveted this offseason and I don't think it was the chance to work with Fields.
We could easily take a step back with JF1 and a new offense. I do not deny that. What I will say to that is Waldron has a better record of success than Getsy.

The same can be said for a rookie QB. Given that the 1 pick is the greater cost for that type of risk I do not want to spend the 1 pick on that.

If a rookie QB comes here, and it comes at the cost of us not addressing our needs (because there's no trade down), he's going to inherit some or all of the problems we had last year.

I think we disagree on whether or not JF1 is "delivering". What is the hurdle rate of success? I think our definitions differ here.
Delivering to me, at least for next year, means the offense is a top 10-ish unit and the team has to make the playoffs (barring some kind of massive collapse by the defense). I also think it matters how they get in to the playoffs - it can't be like Nagy's 3rd year where they kind of backed into the 7 seed and weren't really even competitive against the Saints.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 7:14 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 4:47 pm If a rookie QB comes here, and it comes at the cost of us not addressing our needs (because there's no trade down), he's going to inherit some or all of the problems we had last year.
Not trading down doesn't negate opportunities to address some if not all of the problems the team had last year. Poles still has ample cap space to sign new players in free agency as well as the 9th overall pick in the draft plus other lower picks and, if he uses the first overall pick on a QB, whatever he can acquire in a trade for Fields.

With almost all the core players under contract plus new additions, a rookie QB should inherit a better situation than Fields had.

The defense in particular should be up to speed quickly unlike last year when a slew of new players had to be integrated.

If Poles does opt to trade the first overall pick it very much depends on how far he trades down and what he receives in return. A lot of the draft assets will likely be in future years which won't immediately improve the team.

Even if you use last year's trade down as a model Poles only added 2 immediate additions. DJ Moore had a big impact and was a clear and obvious upgrade. Tyrique Stevenson though had a pretty torrid time during the first half of the season and so didn't really begin to resolve the problem he was drafted to address until late on.

The trade down option is more about the opportunity to keep adding talent (or replacing talent with cheaper options) over the next several years than it is about a significant immediate upgrade of the talent around the QB.
By definition it actually does.

If you have more picks plus a star player you will have more opportunity to fill those needs.
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8128
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 820 times
Been thanked: 1132 times

LacertineForest wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 10:16 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 4:47 pm

We could easily take a step back with JF1 and a new offense. I do not deny that. What I will say to that is Waldron has a better record of success than Getsy.

The same can be said for a rookie QB. Given that the 1 pick is the greater cost for that type of risk I do not want to spend the 1 pick on that.

If a rookie QB comes here, and it comes at the cost of us not addressing our needs (because there's no trade down), he's going to inherit some or all of the problems we had last year.

I think we disagree on whether or not JF1 is "delivering". What is the hurdle rate of success? I think our definitions differ here.
Delivering to me, at least for next year, means the offense is a top 10-ish unit and the team has to make the playoffs (barring some kind of massive collapse by the defense). I also think it matters how they get in to the playoffs - it can't be like Nagy's 3rd year where they kind of backed into the 7 seed and weren't really even competitive against the Saints.
OK, a top 10-ish unit is fair. There are other factors that go into whether or not an offense is top 10-ish, but your stance is substantially more reasonable than others who want some type of Mahomes / Brady / All Pro or perpetual search. Or the people who automatically assume that Caleb Williams will be some kind of perfect QB from the get go.

For me, I want to see why we win or lose games. That's a deeper dive than looking at the numbers because stats are flawed. Are we winning because of or in spite of JF1?
I Take The Field With Fields

Image
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29361
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 104 times
Been thanked: 1752 times

UOK wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 10:29 am
Grizzled wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 10:26 am Here's one that has began floating a few days ago: Justin Herbert to the Bears for the #1 pick. Harbaugh drafts J.J. McCarthy with the #1 pick. I'd imagine the Bears would jump all over that deal.
I would love if Herbert was a Bear, but that's not going to happen. Herbert isn't worth the top pick, and I'm sure part of the allure of Harbaugh joining the Chargers was to coach Herbert.

JJ McCarthy is going to go, if he's lucky, in the last few picks of round one. That would take a desperate team and a very impressive pre-draft from McCarthy.
I think the #9 pick might do it though...
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29361
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 104 times
Been thanked: 1752 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 3:19 pm
Bears Whiskey Nut wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 1:28 pm The question that I have is this. Do you have a better chance of getting to the playoffs and a Super Bowl with an above average QB and great skill players, or a great QB and above average skill players? Historically I think it's the latter. There have been great QB's that can't seem to lift their teams up high enough to get past the first round, and then there have been above average QB's that have won the Super Bowl. I think of Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brian Johnson, Nick Foles, Jay Hostetler. All of these guys were average at best, and yet they went to and won as many Super Bowls as Aaron Rodgers or Steve Young. Getting a great QB does not ensure success if you don't have the right pieces around them. This team is still rebuilding, and if they want sustained success, they need more of those pieces. With a top WR, C, and TE from this draft the Bears can absolutely turn the corner with their offense. They aren't going to with just a QB. We have two 1st round picks, but you can bet that one of those is going to be an EDGE player.
Getting the 1 pick wrong on a QB sets the franchise back half a decade and stops the forward momentum we have dead in it's tracks.

Even if Caleb Williams winds up being good, 2024 is a lost season because we're developing a QB. That means one year of Sweat / JJ / Moore / Kmet's contract is wasted.

In 2H23 we had the runrate of a playoff team. That's before any upgrades we get from Trade Down 2.0, the 9 pick, FA, and having Waldron instead of Dufus Getsy.

Finish the job. Sign a veteran C who can lead the line. DE2 in FA is gravy. Then in the draft, trade down, get the star player, draft Nabers or Odunze with the highest of the two first round picks after the trade down, with the other go BPA DL or Kinchens the S depending on how FA and the star player via trade down shakes out.

Then we're golden. There's no need to add the risk of having a rookie QB.

When we do the trade down, send the 1 to the AFC and maroon Williams behind Mahomes, Burrow and Allen for the next 10 years.
If the Bears go 7-10 again next year, isn't that another year wasted on those contracts? Signing guys in FA or drafting Odunze doesn't move the needle of the QB doesn't progress.

And I want the Bears to keep Fields. I just think it's unfair to completely dismiss the other side of the argument, when the other side of the argument is perfectly logical.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5602
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 1533 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:09 am
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 7:14 pm

Not trading down doesn't negate opportunities to address some if not all of the problems the team had last year. Poles still has ample cap space to sign new players in free agency as well as the 9th overall pick in the draft plus other lower picks and, if he uses the first overall pick on a QB, whatever he can acquire in a trade for Fields.

With almost all the core players under contract plus new additions, a rookie QB should inherit a better situation than Fields had.

The defense in particular should be up to speed quickly unlike last year when a slew of new players had to be integrated.

If Poles does opt to trade the first overall pick it very much depends on how far he trades down and what he receives in return. A lot of the draft assets will likely be in future years which won't immediately improve the team.

Even if you use last year's trade down as a model Poles only added 2 immediate additions. DJ Moore had a big impact and was a clear and obvious upgrade. Tyrique Stevenson though had a pretty torrid time during the first half of the season and so didn't really begin to resolve the problem he was drafted to address until late on.

The trade down option is more about the opportunity to keep adding talent (or replacing talent with cheaper options) over the next several years than it is about a significant immediate upgrade of the talent around the QB.
By definition it actually does.

If you have more picks plus a star player you will have more opportunity to fill those needs.
No, by definition it doesn't. It just means you don't have an extra bite or two at the cherry this year, not that you can't address your needs with all the other resources you have.

A trade down won't make much difference for next season because most of the additional picks will be in future years and other rookie picks will likely need time to become effective in the NFL. You also keep assuming a trade down will include a "star player", i.e. a veteran like DJ Moore, but there's no guarantee one would be included in a deal.

Again, the trade down option won't move the needle much for next season. The benefits would be realised in the medium term. The huge question facing Ryan Poles is whether those benefits outweigh the opportunity of landing a potential franchise QB. If Justin Fields had clearly demonstrated he was that calibre of QB then the decision would be easy but he didn't.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29361
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 104 times
Been thanked: 1752 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 9:50 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:09 am

By definition it actually does.

If you have more picks plus a star player you will have more opportunity to fill those needs.
No, by definition it doesn't. It just means you don't have an extra bite or two at the cherry this year, not that you can't address your needs with all the other resources you have.

A trade down won't make much difference for next season because most of the additional picks will be in future years and other rookie picks will likely need time to become effective in the NFL. You also keep assuming a trade down will include a "star player", i.e. a veteran like DJ Moore, but there's no guarantee one would be included in a deal.

Again, the trade down option won't move the needle much for next season. The benefits would be realised in the medium term. The huge question facing Ryan Poles is whether those benefits outweigh the opportunity of landing a potential franchise QB. If Justin Fields had clearly demonstrated he was that calibre of QB then the decision would be easy but he didn't.
That last line is important. There is so much swirl around what the Bears will do because Fields didn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's the guy. There are still enough questions about him that Williams is being considered an option.

I think the Bears can be a playoff team with Fields, but I don't believe he's ever going to progress as a passer much beyond what he is right now. There is no doubt that Williams has talent, I just don't think that he has the characteristics that will make him great. Leadership, work ethic, love of the game...the intrinsic traits that every great QB has. Fields has this and that's why I prefer him over Williams, even with his limitations as a passer.
Post Reply