15 minutes ago, bmags said:

I dont' know who this person is but it confirms my priors so it must be spread.

 

 

Confirmation bias is the best kind of bias 

Just now, Kyyle23 said:

Confirmation bias is the best kind of bias 

It's missing "to the bears", which makes me skeptical.

 

FWIW, Jarrett Payton said his Seattle contacts said Wilson will be staying in Seattle. He is a media guy now, and you figure he has some decent sources.

2 hours ago, SoxAce said:

 

Five first round picks????

41 minutes ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

Five first round picks????

I think the most they can trade is 3. I might be wrong but think that is all they can do. 

1 minute ago, Chisoxfn said:

I think the most they can trade is 3. I might be wrong but think that is all they can do. 

You think it's 3 and Colin Cowherd thinks it's 5. Given Cowherd's long history in sports media, I'm 100% certain that you're right.

1 minute ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

You think it's 3 and Colin Cowherd thinks it's 5. Given Cowherd's long history in sports media, I'm 100% certain that you're right.

I read that somewhere. I know basketball has its rules around back to back 1st round picks and the like. Don’t know football as well but I read it at some point. 
 

There also have never really been a trade I can ever think of that is more than that either...but maybe I’m missing something. 

I do think it’s an asset for pace that the league will laugh at whatever the bears do that they can assure Schneider/Carroll that people will say they got great return

50 minutes ago, bmags said:

I do think it’s an asset for pace that the league will laugh at whatever the bears do that they can assure Schneider/Carroll that people will say they got great return

It is funny you say that - last week I have been hearing everyone ripping Eagles for giving away Wentz and just roaring about what a sweet deal it was for Colts.

I still am bummed they didn’t pull that move off. Seemed like such a slam dunk - minimal risk - real upside - and if it doesn’t work out a pretty quick out. 
 

Wilson is obviously a way better and more proven qb though. Really hoping they can land him but I assume this drags into April (much closer to the draft). 

3 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

I read that somewhere. I know basketball has its rules around back to back 1st round picks and the like. Don’t know football as well but I read it at some point. 
 

There also have never really been a trade I can ever think of that is more than that either...but maybe I’m missing something. 

I heard they can only trade three of them too, but on draft day, Danny Parkins said they could trade four. I’m not sure if that’s true or not.

 

On 3/12/2021 at 9:11 PM, The Beast said:

I heard they can only trade three of them too, but on draft day, Danny Parkins said they could trade four. I’m not sure if that’s true or not.

I suppose if you pick for the seahawks at 20, and trade that pick along with your 2022,23,24 that could be true.

Question for the board, but how much is too much for Wilson?  I’d do three firsts in a heartbeat, but including someone like Roquan on top of that seems like it would be real painful.  Not saying I would or wouldn’t do such a trade, just seems like removing a pivotal defensive player on top of all that draft capital would make building a championship caliber roster a challenge.

6 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Question for the board, but how much is too much for Wilson?  I’d do three firsts in a heartbeat, but including someone like Roquan on top of that seems like it would be real painful.  Not saying I would or wouldn’t do such a trade, just seems like removing a pivotal defensive player on top of all that draft capital would make building a championship caliber roster a challenge.

The 3 1sts is about the max I'd offer. If it was to take Smith, Johnson or both, then it makes trading for Wilson counterproductive. 

ÍBears freed up 23m in cap space restructuring Mack, EJax, and Whitehair. I believe they were 18m over before all that. Still some work to be done but definitely a good start. 

 

As far as including Smith or Johnson, if that's what it takes, I think you have to do it. Bears have had solid success with ILB play even beyond Smith/Trev. Joel Iyie-something is someone they've raved about in the past and are currently paying over a million dollars to. I feel like 3-4 ILBs can be found on the cheap or in the mid rounds. Definitely not saying they'd be as good as Roquan though. 

13 minutes ago, scs787 said:

ÍBears freed up 23m in cap space restructuring Mack, EJax, and Whitehair. I believe they were 18m over before all that. Still some work to be done but definitely a good start. 

 

As far as including Smith or Johnson, if that's what it takes, I think you have to do it. Bears have had solid success with ILB play even beyond Smith/Trev. Joel Iyie-something is someone they've raved about in the past and are currently paying over a million dollars to. I feel like 3-4 ILBs can be found on the cheap or in the mid rounds. Definitely not saying they'd be as good as Roquan though. 

Yes to this. ILB are nice no doubt but aren’t really expensive either.

On 3/12/2021 at 4:23 PM, Dick Allen said:

FWIW, Jarrett Payton said his Seattle contacts said Wilson will be staying in Seattle. He is a media guy now, and you figure he has some decent sources.

My friends who moved from Chicago to Seattle agree with this assessment. 

 

Honestly, no one who believes that Wilson will come here can answer:

1. Why, exactly Seattle would trade in conference,

2. Why a 70 year old Pete Carroll would want to go through a rebuild,

3. Why a team that is trying to compete would want to be the only team trying to compete, WITHOUT an established QB, and

4. Why Seattle would want to trade with a team (the BEARS), who do not have a QB to send back to them?

 

This all feels like offseason filler bullshit that will amount to exactly Jack and Shit. It feels like media hype to give the gullible something to think/talk about. It feels like a ginned-up story, without any real basis.

 

Sure, Wilson said he'd accept a trade here. But why would the holder of the asset (The Seattle Seahawks) want to trade him here?

 

(So far, its all been crickets.)

7 hours ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

My friends who moved from Chicago to Seattle agree with this assessment. 

 

Honestly, no one who believes that Wilson will come here can answer:

1. Why, exactly Seattle would trade in conference,

2. Why a 70 year old Pete Carroll would want to go through a rebuild,

3. Why a team that is trying to compete would want to be the only team trying to compete, WITHOUT an established QB, and

4. Why Seattle would want to trade with a team (the BEARS), who do not have a QB to send back to them?

 

This all feels like offseason filler bullshit that will amount to exactly Jack and Shit. It feels like media hype to give the gullible something to think/talk about. It feels like a ginned-up story, without any real basis.

 

Sure, Wilson said he'd accept a trade here. But why would the holder of the asset (The Seattle Seahawks) want to trade him here?

 

(So far, its all been crickets.)

This is all just skirting around a single issue of whether one thinks a QB in the nfl can force his way off the team.

Um, yeah, I don't think teams would want to trade "the asset" wilson for the returned value instead of holding wilson. But, yeah, I do think Pete Carroll, lover of culture, would be more likely to end up trading away his QB rather than fight with him every day for the rest of his career and poisoning "the culture" than Houston even though their QB seems more committed to playing chicken.

And how often do players put out agent releases saying "I haven't demanded a trade, but if I did I'd like the following teams"? That's not making up a story out of thin air, and the power structure of the Seahawks means this will be up to Pete Carroll - who may value a top 5 QB less than any coach in the NFL.

5 minutes ago, bmags said:

This is all just skirting around a single issue of whether one thinks a QB in the nfl can force his way off the team.

Um, yeah, I don't think teams would want to trade "the asset" wilson for the returned value instead of holding wilson. But, yeah, I do think Pete Carroll, lover of culture, would be more likely to end up trading away his QB rather than fight with him every day for the rest of his career and poisoning "the culture" than Houston even though their QB seems more committed to playing chicken.

And how often do players put out agent releases saying "I haven't demanded a trade, but if I did I'd like the following teams"? That's not making up a story out of thin air, and the power structure of the Seahawks means this will be up to Pete Carroll - who may value a top 5 QB less than any coach in the NFL.

And the Seahawks wouldn’t just be giving him away.  Pace will have to offer a ton to convince Schneider to offload Wilson, but the reality is Pace is incredibly desperate and will probably do just that.  And if the Seahawks like someone like Mac Jones, the 20th pick is a decent enough asset to give you the flexibility to go get him.  Yes, the Seahawks would be rebuilding to an extent, but Jones could be ready pretty fast and they’d have additional assets on top of him to build around.

Biggs is suggesting one possibility would be Wilson to Bears for a boatload of assets and then the Seahawks trading something like an early 2nd for Darnold.  Definitely makes some sense if the relationship with Wilson is truly repair, especially given the lack of draft capital the Seahawks have right now.

I feel like there's a weird, moralistic tone when it comes to team building in the NFL that I don't see in Baseball. Or maybe it's just the QB position has done this.

Like, getting a top 5 QB is so lucky, is such an advantage, that you should feel like bad if you pay to get one when you may not be "ready". The only right way to get one is by building the perfect team that may not even need one, then, only then, are you okay to have one.

4 hours ago, bmags said:

This is all just skirting around a single issue of whether one thinks a QB in the nfl can force his way off the team.

1. Um, yeah, I don't think teams would want to trade "the asset" wilson for the returned value instead of holding wilson.

2. But, yeah, I do think Pete Carroll, lover of culture, would be more likely to end up trading away his QB rather than fight with him every day for the rest of his career and poisoning "the culture" than Houston even though their QB seems more committed to playing chicken.

3. And how often do players put out agent releases saying "I haven't demanded a trade, but if I did I'd like the following teams"?

1. Thank you for agreeing with me. However, I asked those questions in the hope that someone could convince me otherwise.

2. Carroll is a lot of things, but he ain't stupid. He also knows that his time coaching is finite, and he knows that Darnold is probably not good at football. So I think its more likely that he will use his love of culture to smooth things over with future HOFer Wilson, than it is for him to go 3-13 with noted scrub darnold to finish off his career.

3. Players are egotistical, and they say a lot of things through their agents. Who really gives a rip, until he himself says it?

 

This still feels like a pile of media-ginned up bullshit. 

1 hour ago, bmags said:

A. I feel like there's a weird, moralistic tone when it comes to team building in the NFL that I don't see in Baseball. 

B. Like, getting a top 5 QB is so lucky, is such an advantage, that you should feel like bad if you pay to get one when you may not be "ready". 

A. No, I don't think its moralistic, I see it as realistic. When the SOX did the tear down, they sent 2 of their top 3 assets to the NL. And many times, teams send their top assets out of their league to the other one. 

IOW, its a competitive disadvantage to lose a HOF QB. Its an even bigger disadvantage to deal him within your conference.

 

B. Yes, we agree that a top 5 QB is a massive advantage. Why would Seattle give it up, when it looks like they're trying to compete? 

 

OTOH, if Seattle were backing up the truck, and firing everybody in the org, from Carroll down to the waterboy, sure: it might make a modicum of sense to Seattle to ship Wilson out, and accumulate future assets. But as things are today? I haven't read a cogent argument as to why Seattle would do this right now.

41 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

A. No, I don't think its moralistic, I see it as realistic. When the SOX did the tear down, they sent 2 of their top 3 assets to the NL. And many times, teams send their top assets out of their league to the other one. 

IOW, its a competitive disadvantage to lose a HOF QB. Its an even bigger disadvantage to deal him within your conference.

 

B. Yes, we agree that a top 5 QB is a massive advantage. Why would Seattle give it up, when it looks like they're trying to compete? 

 

OTOH, if Seattle were backing up the truck, and firing everybody in the org, from Carroll down to the waterboy, sure: it might make a modicum of sense to Seattle to ship Wilson out, and accumulate future assets. But as things are today? I haven't read a cogent argument as to why Seattle would do this right now.

I do think it's moralistic. I think the tone is that there is something bad and wrong with New Orleans stretching themselves each year and the rams trading out first round picks and being overcap, and something noble and just with the colts hoarding picks and cap. The teams performance? Very similar, but the rams and saints may have a down year in the future where they adjust, while the colts may be less likely to have a 4-12 year, and that's like pushing the payment onto...the children?!