Chisoxfn

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.

I'm totally okay with Davenport. Nice upside potential. I really think we are going LB of some sort. With this passing league if you can get an elite pass rusher, you do it. All depends on how you grade Davenport out. Seems like of all the guys likely to be there at 8, Davenport is near the top side in terms of ability to become an elite pass rusher, but he comes with a lot more risk given small school, etc. Pair that with Floyd and you are talking about a pretty dynamic combination.

Oh I agree, I don't see him falling to the Bears. Impossible.

While I think Barkley is a great pick...we already have a very good running back so I really have zero desire of Barkley falling to us. Odd to say and maybe famous last words...I just think we have a lot more areas of need and getting a really really good defensive player would be quite nice (as would getting an all pro type of guard).

Thoughts and prayers to the Renteria family and friends.

I really can't see Gar and him making it work. I could see Paxson making it work. I think Pax/Buckets are pretty similar. They just want to win and if that is the best path forward, they'll ignore the rest.

Interesting report from Cowley indicating Butler may want to finish his career in Chicago. While I haven't posted it here, he would be on my list of guys to get when he became a free agent. I just assumed it would never happen given the friction, but Butler had a lot of nice things to say about Reinsdorf and as the youth continues to gel, someone like Jimmy Buckets would be a nice fit (albeit likely not working with Hoiberg). Heck, half of the reason we traded him in the first place was because we didn't think he was worthy of a supermax in two years and now he isn't even eligible for a super max deal. https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/jimmy-butler-back-in-a-bulls-uniform-someday-not-as-far-fetched-as-it-sounds/

I completely agree with you. They essentially took the strategy of let everyone else pick last year, ended up with Kizer (who fell) and they took him. Now they are looking for a QB again. Just sack up and take the QB that you best believe in.

Yeah - I would not even think about taking Barkley at #1. That is crazy talk. If Browns don't want to take a QB, they should trade down.

I disagree. Take your QB. Do not gamble on your QB. You have the #1 pick, take who you like the most at that position. Than take best position player at 4 or move down.

Fantastic thread Jimmy. I think one other key point to highlight, beyond all the excellent points you make, is the fact that we are talking about a catcher, which is the one position whose development curve is entirely different. Catchers flat out require the most development of any position and when you counter in the amount of work they have to do to get big league ready behind the plate as well as hone their craft at calling a game, etc, in addition to the pure development of the bat and than add in the natural wear and tear that comes from being a catcher, and you really have to be extremely patient. Very rarely do you see catchers who have the more typical linear progression that you see out of other top position prospects and it is because of the facts above that I listed (among other things).

If Cousins was healthy, I'd be all over him. With where he stands, I presume he is going to go with a shorter-term deal. That said, Boogie is just not a guy I'd bet against. For all the knocks on him, he works hard.

He's incredible. Will be interesting to see where he goes this off-season.