bmags

QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 01:20 PM) I'm a Titans fan but have family who are Bears fans... If you're getting an undisputed stud QB -- polished, experienced, intangibles, great arm, etc. -- by all means, trade up at any cost to get a guy you can say with >85% certainty will be AT LEAST a serviceable QB for years to come. Mitch Trubisky is not, in any way, that player. We're talking about a guy who is a 2nd or 3rd rounder in most draft years who was the SECOND OVERALL PICK! That's insane. Much less that the Bears traded 4 valuable picks to have the honor of getting a guy with a ceiling of mediocrity and the floor of a career third-string journeyman. I'm not a UNC fan but saw plenty of Trubisky last season to form a reasonable opinion of his abilities. This justification with statements like, "IF he becomes a franchise QB, blah blah blah..."......look, this guy does not have the talent to be a "franchise QB". Awful, awful, awful move. Yeah, no. He would be a first rounder in every draft. My reasoning: every previous NFL Draft.

Just goes to show, developing pitchers takes time and as they work through it the most incremental change can suddenly make them dominant.

This s*** always happens after there is a supposed "reach" in the draft, and then years later it comes out that so and so was about to take them. When the other teams sense backlash, they aren't going to volunteer themselves to take heat for no reason.

Didn't we trade for him? Says we picked him up after DFA

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 10:49 AM) Because in general that statement can be true for just about any pick or any trade. To me it's just a lazy statement to try and get your point across. And like I said I'm not a Bears fan so I personally don't care either way, I just don't like that kind of logic. That's fair but I get equally annoyed by fans at draft time knowing that a player is a reach or that "no one else was going to take them". If the Bears were going to get a QB, I'm glad they got this QB, not just "a" QB. Strategically, I knew the 3 spot had a lot less leverage than 2, really only good for fournette jumpers. But we had to win against the 49ers. I would always prefer trading down, but it becomes a lot easier when you have a great QB and don't need every position "perfect" as the Bears need right now to win. Minnesota/Oakland told me all I need to know about building the perfect roster without the QB. Soon as the QB position was unsettled, all the talent in the world suddenly looked pretty average.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 09:11 AM) My #1 crush haha I think he was implying that it was the top guy he wanted. I've had all the guys I wanted the Sox to take in the first round get drafted. Granted, a lot of us likely wanted all of those guys but still. A lot were definitely not into the Collins pick at first. I wanted Corey Ray but I also never watch college baseball and it's mostly about just liking the idea of the certain position or type of player.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1925877...es-recent-years This was very good and highlights why experience matters in evaluating a QB (the good looking junior QBs who stayed and fell after defenses adjusted).

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) I was under the impression the BCA changed the rules of what can be passed with 50 votes in reconciliation. I'm fairly certain I am making this up at this point. There was some patty murray thing in the Ryan/Murray bill that I cannot find now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 09:28 AM) But there's the constitutional idea that a "past Congress can't bind the current Congress." If they pass a bill that goes against the sequester, then they've implicitly overturned at least that part of the sequester. I was under the impression the BCA changed the rules of what can be passed with 50 votes in reconciliation.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 10:01 AM) They moved back 25 spots and acquired 3 4th's actually. And still got Cody Whitehair. Then I have zero hope of acquiring a 3rd at this point unless we move back into the 3rd round.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 09:41 AM) Gruden seemed to think he was not particularly accurate. Although Gruden forgave all of Watson's interceptions saying they were "easily correctable." That's nuts, didn't know that was a knock. SO it's simplistic, but while I've rarely been right in predicting QB success, I have been better (in my own personal estimation) at predicting bad ones. I knew Gabbert would suck because at Missouri he would crumble under pressure. Also knew Freeman would suck. So this is one stat courtesy of PFF that I have latched onto. It's why I liked Bridgewater, though he may not be that good: Stats to know: Adjusted completion percentage when pressured was 66.7 percent, tied for No. 1 in the draft class among quarterbacks with at least 80 attempts This is what I'm latching onto. When it fails I'll have nothing left.

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 09:39 AM) I don't hate the pick. I hate trading 3 picks to move up one spot to get him. Me too. Here's one thing holding me up. The teams that have good drafts where they trade back all the time and get assets usually have the luxury of having a great QB that papers over their weaknesses. If the bears finally get that, then they can at last just use their pick as leverage. Truth be told I'm not such a big trubisky fan that I wouldn't have taken whatever was rumored to be offered to bears. But, Browns/Niners, I'm kinda out on that. I was big on that last year, but by the time they'll get a QB good enough to win, it will be 3-4 years from now and these players will be already on an nfl decline.

I like this format. I know Spencer getting 10ks kind of catches him up, but surprised to see his k/9 not that far off from Fulmer.

I don't like having to lose picks to get him, just wondering if there's something beyond the experience. Everything on him I saw/read was positive except for "how did he lose out twice to start in college"

Is there a reason people don't like Trubisky? I thought he was the favored QB on here. I would have been terrified of Watson even if supportive of the "well he wins and he seems nice".

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 09:14 AM) Also filibuster. That's why we'll end of getting Bush Tax Cuts v2.0 that sunset in 10 years via reconciliation imo. eta: I don't think the sequaestration bill can actually bind future Congresses though? I think it lasts to 2021, but you might be right. I was thinking it would make it difficult for them to make it "cheaper".

Republican senators have to be so happy the house and WH are too incompetent to share the burden on them.

It will be difficult for republicans to push a tax plan like that in the Senate because of some of the parts of the sequestration bill.

QUOTE (shipps @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 09:03 AM) Its likely the Bears can swap spots with someone in the second for another third isnt it? I think it's possible where they are at, will just require a big leap. Luckily they are in that position where a team who has a first round grade on someone may be ambitious to get them. But last year they moved back like 12 spots and got 2 4ths and a 5th. I think that is a more likely trade.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 08:43 AM) The last 3 drafts, my draft crush got taken in each draft. I'll let you know who I've settled on a few days before lol won't really read up on anything until about within a week up to the draft. Is that particularly impressive with 20+ rounds?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 08:35 AM) You don't need to find gems, you need to find competent starters in those rounds. The Bears are really, really lacking in nearly every position, and now they have two fewer opportunities to hit on a pick. Pointing out that past Bears GMs were bad at drafting so it doesn't matter if they don't have 3/4th round picks sort of ignores that that's exactly how the Bears got into the position they're in now. I don't think Bears have a depth problem anymore they have an impact playernproblem

QUOTE (scs787 @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 08:05 AM) He may or may not have been there at 3 anyway, but if you think he's a franchise guy, ya gotta make the move. 2nd round I'm looking at Budda Baker or Malik McDowell. Cam Robinson is interesting, but from what I've read, he might not be all that great. At OT I like Antonio Garcia more. I would like them to trade down. Bulk up on 4th round picks.

I don't like Keizer, any Qb under 60% in college is too risky.

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 07:28 AM) My main issue is, that most likely, Trubisky would have been there at #3. The 49ers didn't want to move too far down in the draft, so they wouldn't have traded down with just anyone; so why waste three picks on someone that you could have selected without having to do anything? Plus, Trubisky is not an immediate starter, so why be concerned if you are forced to shore up your porous secondary instead of him? Kizer is still out there and, honestly, he's not much different from Trubisky. I don't buy that Trubisky would be there at 3. But unfortunately for Pace, no team will claim to have wanted to move up to 2, 49ers will want to seem like the biggest geniuses possible, unless Mitch is real. Then it all won't matter.

The scariest thing to me is only if he succeeds. With this much invested he gets time. And the worst part about cutler trade wasn't losing 2 firsts etc, it was losing 7 years. That said Trubisky had the traits I favor most and when I heard the price I would have been much more pissed if it A) was not for a QB and B) was for watson.