bmags

Then next year if they are terrible they can trade back and get 2 first round picks and everyone will be so happy. If they pick Adams, he may be great, but he'd immediately be one of the highest paid safeties in the league. So when we are talking about value, that's also an issue. It's like taking a 1b in the top tfive of the baseball draft.

Is anyone driving Robles back?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 04:00 PM) Why not start with his teammate Nate Jones? Again, I would give him a break. It's a chat, someone is asking trade value, and he's talking about a 100 mph right hander who is striking everyone out with fastballs, and Chapman was traded at the deadline last year. He's not creating a draft comp for the guy.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 03:42 PM) I like how instead of actually looking at the facts, we just say "lots of QBs get drafted in the first round." As I pointed out, in Vick's draft only 1 QB was drafted, Brees went in the 2nd. In Peyton's draft class only 2 were picked (1/2). In Rodgers draft, only 3 went in the 1st. Last years draft 3 went. The idea that 5 QBs are getting picked in the first round every year is pretty unusual. Even in Luck's year (what was considered a deep class) only 4 were selected. I think right now Bears fans are talking themselves into Trubisky. Not saying that Trubisky may not turn out to be a HOF, just (imo) he wasnt even the best prospect in college last year. Unfortunately for the Bears those QBs arent available this year. I'm not saying "Qbs get drafted in the first round" I'm saying first round graded qbs get drafted in the first round. If there are 10 1st round graded offensive lineman, I would say that it is likely 3-4 drop to the 2nd. But QBs are different. They don't fall out of the first just because they are in a deep class. Teams have a way of making room for them.

It should be mentioned that this was a chat, and I agree that the only reason he mentioned Chapman is that he was second in velocity to him, and is right handed. I think he probably ran into same situation i'm in, where you struggle to right now think of a high-velo RH bullpen piece...easier to just say RH chapman. edit: Kimbrel!

Well, I mean if he keeps striking out 55% of the batters he sees then...

5-8 teams every year "could take" a QB, and when they have a first round grade on them, they get very antsy to get them before the second. Tall athletic males with strong arms and good accuracy in a power 5 conference who succeeded in non-super-gimmicky offenses, and have no character concerns, tend to go in the first round. Many that fail at one or two of those but have a strong arm go in the first anyway. But if you check all of those boxes you are certainly going first round. A reminder that Tim Tebow was a first round pick! If there is a deep QB draft with 5 first round grades and seemingly only 3 teams looking, 5 will get drafted. I'm sure there is an outlier but QBs people expect to go in the first go in the first, and QBs people expect to go in the second also often go in the first.

Well said.

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.