Chisoxfn

Haha

This is actually the first year where we didn’t accumulate picks. In other years I feel we would trade up early but trade down later and largely stay net neutral in terms of picks. But yes...you trade down in general a few times...build draft capital and in future years and drafts you are always starting with a head count to be flexible (to move up or down as value emerges).

I don’t disagree but we are basically losing the 4th pick to move up one round (since next yrs 3rd is the equivalent of this years 2nd). I presume, given how aggressive they were for wideouts (trying for Ridley) was more about Bears only having a few wideouts they really liked and they decided the grade combined with the needs (and relative drop off in their ways) made it worthwhile.

Miller would seem to be a stellar fit for this offense.

My view was the price was somewhat fair. Future 2nd less valuable than this years so we basically gave up a 4th to get a pick a year earlier. In general I don’t like trading future draft capital (unless I’ve already accumulated assets from other trades) but I like the wideout we got.

Reports are the Bears tried to trade up yesterday to get Ridley. I presumed that was the case, but someone on the score reported that a little while ago.

Yes - Armstrong was on a bad team, but he put up 15.5 sacks in 3 seasons at Kansas. Landry did that and than some in 1 season at boston college. That said, just 5 last year which is concerning. That said, those 5 sacks happened in his first 6 games of last season (prior to him injuring his ankle). Basically he started to suck after his so called ankle injury.

The reason I think he might be a great buy low candidate is he was both slowed down by an ankle injury (yet played through it) and got more attention than any other dlinemen in college. Both because of his ability but also because he was by far the best player on a lousy defense. When you put those together, you could see a guy who could be due for a major breakout because from a pass-rushing perspective he supposedly has tremendous bend and a really good first step. Not a great run defender, but the guy can get to the QB. Now if you don't think the double-teams / ankles are the reason his production was down and it is a more permanent issue, than that is another story.

He is a no doubt hall of famer, imo. One of the most productive TE's ever and a guy who did everything the right way. Checks all the boxes.

If that is the case, I could see him sliding pretty far. Specifically around the back.

I will be fair and transparent. The Arizona trade would not have been enough for me to move down. I would have needed more and I don't think the Raiders got enough. I think the Raiders did it because the guy they had atop their board wasn't necessarily slotted overall where they wanted and thus they could take a "reduced" value in their own eyes because they were still going to get the guy they wanted.

Do people think Landry's ankle injury was permanent? Or is there something else?

What badger said. I was not saying we should have traded out of the 1st round. Tampa Bay flat out got a haul. They moved down 5 spots and got 2 2nd round picks. You are going to still have impact players on the board with your 1st pick, plus get a shot at 2 2nd round picks. If the proposals were we trade entirely out of the 1st round or way back, I might have a different answer (albeit that answer ultimately depends on the entirety of the value proposition).

Haha.

So if I follow your logic, if 1st round is historically 25% and that compared to the 2nd round at 15% (historically). Just using the metrics you shared, if I were to keep my 1st round pick (just moving down 5 slots) and add 2 2nd round picks...your statistics would seem to back up the fact that I should make that trade every single time. I'm over-simplifying since stats vary based upon when you are picking in the draft, but even with some form of distribution to front load top-picks and weaken back end picks, when you get to 8 vs. 12, you aren't talking about a significant difference in percentage and adding in 2 2nd rounders would be a massive upgrade.

By the way, it is all relative value. When you see someone you really like and they are the right fit and can alter your franchise, you absolutely do it. I'm arguing for a trade down this year but I was entirely supportive of moving up a year ago. I also recognize it takes 2 to tango and the offer has to be statistically powerful. I.e., you are walking away feeling you are going to get better value on your picks (and that needs to be reflective/based of your draft board and what talent you think you are going to get at the positions you are swapping).

What percent of 1st rounders pan out? I think that is a valid statistic so you can compare an apples-to-apples of wherever your stat is coming from.

It isn't just a Bears fan thing. Look at Bill Belliceck's history of drafting. I'd say its largely worked out well for him. It takes a GM who is comfortable in his skin to move down, with some of the times, the moves being to accumulate future draft capital (i.e., picks in the following year). Bottom line, if you statistically have guys who are all closely graded and you can move down a few picks and add additional quality players without much degredation in talent, you do it. I also generally believe numbers play into it, so the more quality picks you have, the better the overall chances. If an elite player was sitting there who you had a #3 overall type grade on, than I'm not trading down, unless I get paid the draft capital to make it worthwhile. My view was the probability you get much different of a player within those couple picks was minimal. Might be true / might not. In terms of who we picked, I have zero problem with who we took. He also very well might have been there had we been able to move down with the Bills (who knows). Of course that is a major hypothetical since it was the Bucs who made the offer with the Bills and they picked ahead of us and I presume Bills were under the impression that if they didn't move up with the Bucs, the Cardinals were moving up to the Bucs spot.

I’ll be first two picks are defense, especially if Jackson, Landry, Georgia backer and Davenport are on the board. If we go offense, I trade down in 2nd and take that lsu wideout.

I wonder who Pace was trying to trade up for? Chubb or Nelson?

Yeah - That was a haul to move down 5 picks.

That would irritate me. I want to know what Arizona was offering and whether Bills tried to move with Bears before going to Bucs? Presume Bucs were in the driver seat with offers from AZ and Buffalo.

Maybe they were trying to get Ridley?

I wonder if it is for Landry or Jackson or the other Georgia backer?

Exactly this. I would be stunned if Moncada doesn't have the higher WAR. I have never wavered on Yoan's talent, but I was skeptical on his average and still him, that said, over time, he's going to become just a total monster when you put it all together. It's going to be fun. If the pace of this rebuild gets sped up next year, I think he is going to be a huge reason why. Such a dynamic skill-set.