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.

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.

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?

I'm starting to have too much fun with the PFF mocks. I burned out last year in mid April and that was without the Bears having a first. I'm gonna burn out before FA even begins this year. Had some real spicy ones last night. One was where I trade down to 4 and still got Anderson and then Addison at 35. The other I traded all the way down to 16, but got 47, 98 and all of Washington's 1st, 2md, and 3rd rounders in 2024 and 2025. Then got Mike's Murphy at 16 as JSN at 47. You had random set up pretty high, then. I've been obsessed with their mock, too. Nah, I went back to default because when I played with sliders I wasn't getting trade offers. Interestingly those were my first 2, then the good deal and big player drops slowed down. It would actually be pretty smart if the mock was designed to give a favorable result or two before normalizing. Get people on a high early so they keep playing (assuming they have some way to monetize your clicks?)

I'm starting to have too much fun with the PFF mocks. I burned out last year in mid April and that was without the Bears having a first. I'm gonna burn out before FA even begins this year. Had some real spicy ones last night. One was where I trade down to 4 and still got Anderson and then Addison at 35. The other I traded all the way down to 16, but got 47, 98 and all of Washington's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounders in 2024 and 2025. Then got Miles Murphy at 16 as JSN at 47.

On the flat-top note, that I think is a reasonable propane grill trade off as well. If you had a charcoal/kamodo and a flat top propane, you really don't need the justification of the propane grill. But I expect my Weber to last basically forever so I'll probably never justify not having it. But if it did die on me one day, I could see a setup without it.

I got rid of my charcoal once I got my pellet smoker because I really didn't want to dedicate backyard/deck space to all 3. Covers the flavor angle, but I can't do the charcoal sear. If I have a large yard one day I'll have all the cooking toys Charcoal Pellet smoker Propane grill Flat top grill Camp stove Missing any? Edit- oh I also have my portable pizza oven (pellet) but you could add a built in wood pizza oven to the wish list too I just got a 22" Blackstone and my spring project is going to be building a table I can drop the kamado into and have the Blackstone on the other end to have a sweet setup. What do you want the camp stove for? I can get my kamado up to around 550F and it does a great job on pizzas. Camp stove for 1. Fish fry/fish boil 2. Any sort of basic side dish cooking that I would otherwise do on the indoor burners (I hate the side burners on propane grills and got mine without it, but I guess you can argue a upgraded Weber could provide similar utility without an extra tool) So yea, just for extremely excessive reasons, haha. They also make camp stoves with a flat top attachment that can basically let you combo the two, which would be a more reasonable combo. As for pizzas, yea other grill methods are good, but my portable Ooni one can get to 900+ and do 90 second Neopolitan style pizzas. It's my goal to use that a lot more this year in the spring and summer.

I got rid of my charcoal once I got my pellet smoker because I really didn't want to dedicate backyard/deck space to all 3. Covers the flavor angle, but I can't do the charcoal sear. If I have a large yard one day I'll have all the cooking toys Charcoal Pellet smoker Propane grill Flat top grill Camp stove Missing any? Edit- oh I also have my portable pizza oven (pellet) but you could add a built in wood pizza oven to the wish list too

Those are some nice looking nachos.

Okay apparently I misspoke, but most people enjoy cooking on a propane grill and you can't beat the longevity and quality of a Weber among propane grills (at least for a non-built in grills)

I'm sure Justin makes a mean grilled portabella too

You can't really get a nicer grill except for ones that are way more niche. Like no one is gonna not like using a Weber propane.

Well in non overdone Fields talk, the press conference for Warren crashed hard on twitter for me. But in the 5 minutes I saw, Warren is about 100x more personable than Ted. So there's that I guess. Any actual good Q and As happen?

Probably going to end up much ado about nothing, the Bears will end up keeping the #1 pick taking Will Anderson. Wouldn't be too bad ending up with the best player in the draft. At the very least, they'll have a great deal being offered by the Colts. I don't doubt he'll get offers, but I could imagine a scenario where he's not moved enough if he REALLY likes Anderson. I think the near certainty most fans have is probably still a bit optimistic.

It's more like a Venn diagram where they have overlapping skill sets, but not necessarily with all of them at the same spot. Same with each player's weak spots. But, I agree it just depends on what the team's front offices key on. Young has the highest "football IQ"/game awareness, but he's not the most gifted physically. If he were five inches taller there wouldn't be any question that he is the clear #1. Yea certainly more nuanced than my chart. And, yea, I think if he had better size, he'd be a clear #1. What's he actually expected to come in at? He's listed at 6'0" 194, but seems like consensus is he's gonna measure smaller on both, by a lot. If he somehow measured at that height/weight he may clear the hurdle just enough for some teams who would be out if he's 5'10" 180.

My DAL-KC SB bet hopes so

I know conventional thoughts are that this is bad for Bears, but I think it could have a chance of offsetting some new demand with the increased supply. Stroud could be a goldilocks candidate for some teams: Simplified, but basically: Player Prod Tools Size Age Young x x - x Stroud x x x x Levis - x x - Richardson - x x x None of these guys are really similar in their profile and teams create preferences on certain traits. Like car buyers shopping between cars/trucks and foreign/domestic. It's not just "car supply"

Just realized we're in for a week of Cincy fans complaining (incorrectly) that they deserve a neutral site game against Buffalo.

I mean you have to be close enough to do it.

Doesn’t he have til Thursday technically? Isn’t there a 3 day period where a player can reconsider after the deadline? So he can declare he’s staying at OSU today for the deadline, but then change his mind on Weds if he wanted. Friday is the “official” day. Or am I wrong? Thought I saw this in an article recently. Does it only go the other way? You can declare and then retract within the grace period?

I like Staley, but yea, no way he can stay.

Watch Stroud be the QB Ballard was willing to move heavens for and this actually hurts the Bears trade back packages. #OnlyMyTeams

Hey some might call that vet leadership for a young QB :lol:

Well the point of the analogy was certainly not about personnel change, but rather quality of information that we make valuations off of.

If they're that close than moving on sounds like an extremely dumb "I over thought it" risk. That's the cognitive bias called loss aversion, and it skews our ability to make rational decisions If you pick a new QB, it feels like you've "lost" on the time and emotional investment in fields, whereas with you've never had a new QB so it can't be a loss, only an unrealized gain. Unrealized gains feel less bad than tangible losses, even though from a value perspective they are identifical. Only if these were strictly investments and not humans. But even treating it like an investment, it certainly wouldnt be investments like selling and buying a stock with very low transaction costs. This would be like buying and selling two private companies who do the same thing except I've worked day to day with one for ome and have done a 6 month due diligence on the other. The transaction costs on flipping these assets is very high and I have way more info about the other. I know first hand EVERYTHING about it, and the other I have a bunch of info that the seller, being led by an inveatmemt bank, is feeding me.