Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[raw]

the Anthony Richardson as a first rounder stuff is a joke that no one wants to admit is a joke, right

 

This feels like a good place for that Star Wars meme.

[UMFan83]

Do you think the lack of a consensus number 1 QB helps or hurts the Bears? Seemed like Young was atop almost everyone’s mocks until recently now I see more Levis than Young. Like if Trevor Lawrence was coming out this year and the Bears were sitting on the number 1 pick (assuming they don’t draft Lawrence there), I’d expect teams to throw everything they can at drafting a seemingly no doubt star QB. But with no obvious home run pick waiting there at the top, it might affect what the Bears can get from a desperate team.

 

I guess that if that doesn’t help us, it at least helps that the Texans are sitting at 2 and a virtual lock to take a QB. That means if you want your choice of the top 3 you have to trade up with the Bears. If you don’t trade up you are left with the 3rd choice or no 1st round QB at all.

[WrigleyField 22]

Do you think the lack of a consensus number 1 QB helps or hurts the Bears? Seemed like Young was atop almost everyone’s mocks until recently now I see more Levis than Young. Like if Trevor Lawrence was coming out this year and the Bears were sitting on the number 1 pick (assuming they don’t draft Lawrence there), I’d expect teams to throw everything they can at drafting a seemingly no doubt star QB. But with no obvious home run pick waiting there at the top, it might affect what the Bears can get from a desperate team.

 

I guess that if that doesn’t help us, it at least helps that the Texans are sitting at 2 and a virtual lock to take a QB. That means if you want your choice of the top 3 you have to trade up with the Bears. If you don’t trade up you are left with the 3rd choice or no 1st round QB at all.

I mean if there was a consensus prospect on the level of Lawrence we probably would be having a real trade Fields conversation.

 

But if we presume something a little less generational, but still consensus, like a Stafford?

 

I think I'd rather have a clear consensus #1.

 

Without benefit of hindsight is this the 2018-lite draft class?

 

That one didn't have a clear consensus #1. Had a couple of college studs (two former Heisman winners), but valuations were all over the place on guys.

 

5 ended up in the first round with 4 in the first 10, and 4 of the 5 involved trades. Of course the first pick wasn't traded being it was the QB needy Browns.

 

Or even 2017 with three non-consensus QBs, and all 3 were traded up for.

 

Soo you don't need consensus to get lots of trade activity, but do you need it to drive trade activity all the way up to 1?

 

Edit maybe it's like 2016-heavy which also lacked a clear consensus, but was shallower with only 2 FR QBs but both were traded up 1-2. Did lack of supply help there? Is 3 (maybe 4?) too much supply?

Edited January 19, 2023 by WrigleyField 22

[bukie]

Do you think the lack of a consensus number 1 QB helps or hurts the Bears? Seemed like Young was atop almost everyone’s mocks until recently now I see more Levis than Young. Like if Trevor Lawrence was coming out this year and the Bears were sitting on the number 1 pick (assuming they don’t draft Lawrence there), I’d expect teams to throw everything they can at drafting a seemingly no doubt star QB. But with no obvious home run pick waiting there at the top, it might affect what the Bears can get from a desperate team.

 

I guess that if that doesn’t help us, it at least helps that the Texans are sitting at 2 and a virtual lock to take a QB. That means if you want your choice of the top 3 you have to trade up with the Bears. If you don’t trade up you are left with the 3rd choice or no 1st round QB at all.

Sometimes teams just have "their guy" and will trade almost anything to get him, even if it means trading up just one spot.

[UMFan83]

Do you think the lack of a consensus number 1 QB helps or hurts the Bears? Seemed like Young was atop almost everyone’s mocks until recently now I see more Levis than Young. Like if Trevor Lawrence was coming out this year and the Bears were sitting on the number 1 pick (assuming they don’t draft Lawrence there), I’d expect teams to throw everything they can at drafting a seemingly no doubt star QB. But with no obvious home run pick waiting there at the top, it might affect what the Bears can get from a desperate team.

 

I guess that if that doesn’t help us, it at least helps that the Texans are sitting at 2 and a virtual lock to take a QB. That means if you want your choice of the top 3 you have to trade up with the Bears. If you don’t trade up you are left with the 3rd choice or no 1st round QB at all.

Sometimes teams just have "their guy" and will trade almost anything to get him, even if it means trading up just one spot.

 

:banghead:

[raw]

Do you think the lack of a consensus number 1 QB helps or hurts the Bears? Seemed like Young was atop almost everyone’s mocks until recently now I see more Levis than Young. Like if Trevor Lawrence was coming out this year and the Bears were sitting on the number 1 pick (assuming they don’t draft Lawrence there), I’d expect teams to throw everything they can at drafting a seemingly no doubt star QB. But with no obvious home run pick waiting there at the top, it might affect what the Bears can get from a desperate team.

 

I guess that if that doesn’t help us, it at least helps that the Texans are sitting at 2 and a virtual lock to take a QB. That means if you want your choice of the top 3 you have to trade up with the Bears. If you don’t trade up you are left with the 3rd choice or no 1st round QB at all.

I mean if there was a consensus prospect on the level of Lawrence we probably would be having a real trade Fields conversation.

 

But if we presume something a little less generational, but still consensus, like a Stafford?

 

I think I'd rather have a clear consensus #1.

 

Without benefit of hindsight is this the 2018-lite draft class?

 

That one didn't have a clear consensus #1. Had a couple of college studs (two former Heisman winners), but valuations were all over the place on guys.

 

5 ended up in the first round with 4 in the first 10, and 4 of the 5 involved trades. Of course the first pick wasn't traded being it was the QB needy Browns.

 

Or even 2017 with three non-consensus QBs, and all 3 were traded up for.

 

Soo you don't need consensus to get lots of trade activity, but do you need it to drive trade activity all the way up to 1?

 

Edit maybe it's like 2016-heavy which also lacked a clear consensus, but was shallower with only 2 FR QBs but both were traded up 1-2. Did lack of supply help there? Is 3 (maybe 4?) too much supply?

 

The biggest factor is the Texans being at #2, and the Bears being obvious sellers. I think the Bears clearly selling in general lowers the value of the #1 pick. It should still be a decent haul though, because it's still the #1 pick. Maybe more if there is a consensus, but I think that would actually mean fewer candidates because the cost would be more prohibitive.

[WrigleyField 22]

Do you think the lack of a consensus number 1 QB helps or hurts the Bears? Seemed like Young was atop almost everyone’s mocks until recently now I see more Levis than Young. Like if Trevor Lawrence was coming out this year and the Bears were sitting on the number 1 pick (assuming they don’t draft Lawrence there), I’d expect teams to throw everything they can at drafting a seemingly no doubt star QB. But with no obvious home run pick waiting there at the top, it might affect what the Bears can get from a desperate team.

 

I guess that if that doesn’t help us, it at least helps that the Texans are sitting at 2 and a virtual lock to take a QB. That means if you want your choice of the top 3 you have to trade up with the Bears. If you don’t trade up you are left with the 3rd choice or no 1st round QB at all.

I mean if there was a consensus prospect on the level of Lawrence we probably would be having a real trade Fields conversation.

 

But if we presume something a little less generational, but still consensus, like a Stafford?

 

I think I'd rather have a clear consensus #1.

 

Without benefit of hindsight is this the 2018-lite draft class?

 

That one didn't have a clear consensus #1. Had a couple of college studs (two former Heisman winners), but valuations were all over the place on guys.

 

5 ended up in the first round with 4 in the first 10, and 4 of the 5 involved trades. Of course the first pick wasn't traded being it was the QB needy Browns.

 

Or even 2017 with three non-consensus QBs, and all 3 were traded up for.

 

Soo you don't need consensus to get lots of trade activity, but do you need it to drive trade activity all the way up to 1?

 

Edit maybe it's like 2016-heavy which also lacked a clear consensus, but was shallower with only 2 FR QBs but both were traded up 1-2. Did lack of supply help there? Is 3 (maybe 4?) too much supply?

 

The biggest factor is the Texans being at #2, and the Bears being obvious sellers. I think the Bears clearly selling in general lowers the value of the #1 pick. It should still be a decent haul though, because it's still the #1 pick. Maybe more if there is a consensus, but I think that would actually mean fewer candidates because the cost would be more prohibitive.

Its pretty crazy that the number 1 has only moved twice* since 2002. Obviously it's just often worked out that QB needy teams were at one, so it's a unique circumstance.

 

Chart of the value generated.

 

*this chart doesn't show the Manning-Rivers trade. While it was not made until after the picks were made, seems like it would be worth while to include.

[CubinNY]

Do you think the lack of a consensus number 1 QB helps or hurts the Bears? Seemed like Young was atop almost everyone’s mocks until recently now I see more Levis than Young. Like if Trevor Lawrence was coming out this year and the Bears were sitting on the number 1 pick (assuming they don’t draft Lawrence there), I’d expect teams to throw everything they can at drafting a seemingly no doubt star QB. But with no obvious home run pick waiting there at the top, it might affect what the Bears can get from a desperate team.

 

I guess that if that doesn’t help us, it at least helps that the Texans are sitting at 2 and a virtual lock to take a QB. That means if you want your choice of the top 3 you have to trade up with the Bears. If you don’t trade up you are left with the 3rd choice or no 1st round QB at all.

I mean if there was a consensus prospect on the level of Lawrence we probably would be having a real trade Fields conversation.

 

But if we presume something a little less generational, but still consensus, like a Stafford?

 

I think I'd rather have a clear consensus #1.

 

Without benefit of hindsight is this the 2018-lite draft class?

 

That one didn't have a clear consensus #1. Had a couple of college studs (two former Heisman winners), but valuations were all over the place on guys.

 

5 ended up in the first round with 4 in the first 10, and 4 of the 5 involved trades. Of course the first pick wasn't traded being it was the QB needy Browns.

 

Or even 2017 with three non-consensus QBs, and all 3 were traded up for.

 

Soo you don't need consensus to get lots of trade activity, but do you need it to drive trade activity all the way up to 1?

 

Edit maybe it's like 2016-heavy which also lacked a clear consensus, but was shallower with only 2 FR QBs but both were traded up 1-2. Did lack of supply help there? Is 3 (maybe 4?) too much supply?

 

The biggest factor is the Texans being at #2, and the Bears being obvious sellers. I think the Bears clearly selling in general lowers the value of the #1 pick. It should still be a decent haul though, because it's still the #1 pick. Maybe more if there is a consensus, but I think that would actually mean fewer candidates because the cost would be more prohibitive.

 

My hope is that the Bears don't trade down too far regardless of the draft pick enticements.

[WrigleyField 22]

I was also down a draft rabbit hole last night and reminded myself of the time the Bears traded from 7 to 12. Not only to watch a HOF get picked at 7, but to watch a divisional rival pick a much better QB at 11, while they settled for Cade McNown.

 

Trading down: not always what it's cracked up to be.

[Bertz]

The biggest factor is the Texans being at #2, and the Bears being obvious sellers. I think the Bears clearly selling in general lowers the value of the #1 pick. It should still be a decent haul though, because it's still the #1 pick. Maybe more if there is a consensus, but I think that would actually mean fewer candidates because the cost would be more prohibitive.

 

Nah. Leverage is clearly there in other teams so the Bears attitude doesn't matter. Poles could emphatically declare he won't pick first and it wouldn't matter one iota, because there's at least 3 and probably closer to 6 or 8 teams who want that pick.

[UMFan83]

I was also down a draft rabbit hole last night and reminded myself of the time the Bears traded from 7 to 12. Not only to watch a HOF get picked at 7, but to watch a divisional rival pick a much better QB at 11, while they settled for Cade McNown.

 

Trading down: not always what it's cracked up to be.

 

That draft was insane. 5 QBs drafted in the first round, 3 of them being historic busts (Couch at 1, Akili Smith at 3, McNown at 12), 1 being a solid pro (Culpepper at 11) and one being HOF caliber (McNabb at 2). McNown was a complete disaster but I'd argue that Smith was an even bigger bust and worse pro QB.

[WrigleyField 22]

I was also down a draft rabbit hole last night and reminded myself of the time the Bears traded from 7 to 12. Not only to watch a HOF get picked at 7, but to watch a divisional rival pick a much better QB at 11, while they settled for Cade McNown.

 

Trading down: not always what it's cracked up to be.

 

That draft was insane. 5 QBs drafted in the first round, 3 of them being historic busts (Couch at 1, Akili Smith at 3, McNown at 12), 1 being a solid pro (Culpepper at 11) and one being HOF caliber (McNabb at 2). McNown was a complete disaster but I'd argue that Smith was an even bigger bust and worse pro QB.

And Bengals turned down a very similar package to the one Washington eventually accepted from Mike Ditka, trading his whole draft AND the 2000 1+3 for Ricky Williams. Of course then Washington used that extra capital to move back up to 7 in the aformentioned Bears trade.

 

If there was ever a real life Draft Day movie, that was probably the one.

[WrigleyField 22]

For very dumb reasons, I'm cheering for SF to make the SB.

 

[UK]

Stupid hypothetical draft questions....

 

Does Levis as a potential #1 overall pick help or hurt the value of the #1 pick?

 

Do you think there is any difference in value going from #1 to #4 or going from #1 to #2 then to #4?

 

Based on Rich Hill draft value, it's a +25 net gain going from 1 to 2 to 4 (equivalent gain of an early 5th based on the +25).

[raw]

Stupid hypothetical draft questions....

 

Does Levis as a potential #1 overall pick help or hurt the value of the #1 pick?

 

Do you think there is any difference in value going from #1 to #4 or going from #1 to #2 then to #4?

 

Based on Rich Hill draft value, it's a +25 net gain going from 1 to 2 to 4 (equivalent gain of an early 5th based on the +25).

 

I think Levis #1 could help the value, it really depends if teams see an issue with Young's size. Granted, there is Stroud in the draft as well.

 

Second question is pretty interesting. We saw first hand what it took to move up 1 spot for Trubisky. I would think 2 to 1 would require a little more than 3 to 2, simply because it's the #1 pick and there is value in taking whoever you want and the value of each pick diminishes with 1 fewer player to pick from. But we also saw the Niners make a huge trade up to get to 3 a couple years ago. Granted, they came up from further away (12), but there's also value in demand increase as the supply of 1 QB goes off the board.

 

I think if the Texans did move up from 2 to 1, if the Bears wanted to trade down again, it'd probably be more like trading beyond the 4th pick. I think the Texans moving up to presumably stop the Colts from getting their guy would mean teams after the Colts would also look to trading ahead of them. Of course, the Colts could move up to ensure it doesn't happen again. So, I do think there is more value in trading down twice in general. You'd get a little less from the Colts from 4 to 2, but I think what you'd get from the Texans would put the double trade down over the top.

 

I think you can get 4 top 100 picks from the Colts. Even if that goes down to 3 picks, if they're now going to 2 instead of 1. I think you get 2-3 picks from Houston in the top 100 as well. Instead of all 1sts and 2nds, maybe they're 3rds mixed in as well. But I do think the package would be greater.

[WrigleyField 22]

Just based on these factors:

 

1. Rumors that Levis is the Colts guy

2. Uneasiness that Houston could actually prefer Anderson and wait for QB next year or trade from 12

 

Then Levis gaining steam as clear #1 would be good and hopefully force Ballard into moving heaven and earth to get his guy. If there's a wide range of opinions and Houston is somehow not perceived as a threat to Colts, it kills the Bears best trade partner.

 

But this is also where the Bears need to employ a team of pysops to run interference on other teams until they're so jittery they trade up a haul from pure paranoia. Get on it Poles.

[CubinNY]

Just based on these factors:

 

1. Rumors that Levis is the Colts guy

2. Uneasiness that Houston could actually prefer Anderson and wait for QB next year or trade from 12

 

Then Levis gaining steam as clear #1 would be good and hopefully force Ballard into moving heaven and earth to get his guy. If there's a wide range of opinions and Houston is somehow not perceived as a threat to Colts, it kills the Bears best trade partner.

 

But this is also where the Bears need to employ a team of psyops to run interference on other teams until they're so jittery they trade up a haul from pure paranoia. Get on it Poles.

 

What kind of psyops can they run?

[WrigleyField 22]

Just based on these factors:

 

1. Rumors that Levis is the Colts guy

2. Uneasiness that Houston could actually prefer Anderson and wait for QB next year or trade from 12

 

Then Levis gaining steam as clear #1 would be good and hopefully force Ballard into moving heaven and earth to get his guy. If there's a wide range of opinions and Houston is somehow not perceived as a threat to Colts, it kills the Bears best trade partner.

 

But this is also where the Bears need to employ a team of psyops to run interference on other teams until they're so jittery they trade up a haul from pure paranoia. Get on it Poles.

 

What kind of psyops can they run?

I'm kidding about the pysop part lol

[jersey cubs fan]

Poles should have been horsefeathers talking Fields in front of Cunningham all season in preparation for his interviews

[Tryptamine]

These mock offseason and mock drafts from sports writers are so bad. Trade Fields for Lamar Jackson? In what way is that a positive for the Bears. Take Quentin Johnston at #4 with Will Anderson still on the board? Are you kidding me?

[jumbo]

These mock offseason and mock drafts from sports writers are so bad. Trade Fields for Lamar Jackson? In what way is that a positive for the Bears. Take Quentin Johnston at #4 with Will Anderson still on the board? Are you kidding me?

 

That’s the MO

Says dumb horsefeathers, get outrage clicks

[UMFan83]

These mock offseason and mock drafts from sports writers are so bad. Trade Fields for Lamar Jackson? In what way is that a positive for the Bears. Take Quentin Johnston at #4 with Will Anderson still on the board? Are you kidding me?

 

That’s the MO

Says dumb horsefeathers, get outrage clicks

 

I wish people would realize this more. There are many people out there in the media whose sole purpose is to generate outrage

[WrigleyField 22]

These mock offseason and mock drafts from sports writers are so bad. Trade Fields for Lamar Jackson? In what way is that a positive for the Bears. Take Quentin Johnston at #4 with Will Anderson still on the board? Are you kidding me?

 

That’s the MO

Says dumb horsefeathers, get outrage clicks

 

I wish people would realize this more. There are many people out there in the media whose sole purpose is to generate outrage

Emmanuel Acho.

[Tim]

Skip Bayless

[bukie]

Honest question, if the Bears don't end up finding a trade package they like, and end up just taking Carter or Anderson with the #1 pick, is that a successful use of draft capital at the top?