Jump to content

Week 16 GDT: Chicago Bears at San Francisco 49ers


J-ALL-DAY

Recommended Posts

Just now, J-ALL-DAY said:

So then my question is how should we judge a move a team makes? Because every move a team makes can be justified when it comes down to "getting their guy" right? 

I think we have to judge it by the results and the thought process that went into the decision.

1. Was the thought process based on sound judgement? In the case of the trade it was not a lot to give up in that position.

2. What were the results? In the case of Pace he moved those picks, but still ended up having a sensational draft. Therefor the picks lost did not have the negative impact that you would expect.

It is somewhat impossible to totally separate the results from the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am 90% sure that Pace did not need to make the trade.

But I also look at it like insurance.

I pay 1000.00 to insure my house. It is a sunk cost if I do not use it, but it is worth it to mitigate the risk.

If I paid 10,000.00 for my home insurance I would not feel the same way because the cost would far exceed my avoiding of the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, J-ALL-DAY said:

So then my question is how should we judge a move a team makes? Because every move a team makes can be justified when it comes down to "getting their guy" right? 

For me personally i judge it on the players we end up with. If we picked Kittle with that Beathard pick for example nobody would even complain a second at this point. I understand wanting to judge everything about a pick and in some cases i 100% agree with roasting a trade just because the value given up is out of proportion. For Beathard we gave up 219 to move up from 109 to 104 which just in terms of trade value is a good trade. So to me that ain't a bad trade just a bad pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

I am 90% sure that Pace did not need to make the trade.

But I also look at it like insurance.

I pay 1000.00 to insure my house. It is a sunk cost if I do not use it, but it is worth it to mitigate the risk.

If I paid 10,000.00 for my home insurance I would not feel the same way because the cost would far exceed my avoiding of the risk.

This is the correct way to look at it. Especially given that pace can't know what the readers of that article now know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Forge said:

This is the correct way to look at it. Especially given that pace can't know what the readers of that article now know

If he had traded next years 1st or a 2nd and 3rd, I would have ripped him then and today, because that is 10k home insurance.

We got 2 4th round picks back by trading down and drafting Shaheen, who looks like he can play, and then used one of those picks to take Eddie Jackson.

 

You cannot exist in this NFL if you are afraid to move mid round picks. That fear kept our last GM from moving 2 spot and picking Aaron Donald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

Isn't that the goal though when making trades?  I mean...to get someone(s) that you perceive will add immense value to your team?  

Not always. The process and actual decision matter. Results are obviously a component, but just not the only one, and sometimes, luck can play a role in what the results are. For example, I would never bash the trade for Mack even if he had come in and stunk it up for you guys. Because I thought you got a great deal, he was well worth that kind of return, etc. 

And don't think that I'm saying this just about the Bears. I have completely bashed the 49ers free agency moves since Lynch took over. I am a hardcore opponent of what we have done. Even if McKinnon had come in and had a great season for this team, it was still a ludicrous contract to give him. Just because he would have come in and played lights out doesn't make it a good decision to give that contract out to him at the time. We are the family that sees our dream house listed at 100K and offers 250K just to make sure that we get it, which is a poor way to manage your assets in my opinion. 

Another example would be in poker. If I am invested $10 into a pot, call a bet of $70 on the flop to win $90 with only a gutterball (4 outs, roughly 8% chance of hitting it on the next card) and then hit my card and win the pot, that doesn't make it a good call. It was still a terrible call. So process definitely matters. Of course, if you're getting the result you want, people tend to forget or ignore the process, which I understand. But doesn't mean it's right. 

I wouldn't bash the move for Trubisky; as I said earlier, they had no way of knowing that we had no suitors for the pick or anything like that. We know that only because of the article, and it's pretty rare that's going to happen, obviously. They did what they thought they needed to do to secure their guy. I like the way Windy put it in that it was basically like having insurance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which article do you guys mean because the only article i remember is the Peter King one where he is inside the draft room. In this one it doesn't mention the Bears offer was the only one we got just that it was the one we negotiated with. And that when we where at 3 didn't receive any offers.

https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/05/11/nfl-john-lynch-san-francisco-49ers-draft-solomon-thomas-reuben-foster-bears-trade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Justone2 said:

Which article do you guys mean because the only article i remember is the Peter King one where he is inside the draft room. In this one it doesn't mention the Bears offer was the only one we got just that it was the one we negotiated with. And that when we where at 3 didn't receive any offers.

https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/05/11/nfl-john-lynch-san-francisco-49ers-draft-solomon-thomas-reuben-foster-bears-trade

If they are the only ones we are negotiating with, they are negotiating against themselves. As you said earlier, I think that the 49ers wanted Thomas, were reticent to move down, and actually only made the trade with the Bears because Shanny was convinced that they were moving up for a quarterback. Again, doesn't matter. No, the Bears probably didn't have to make that move as windy said, but you're also operating through a fog and there is no way for the Bears to know that, so why not just utilized a few mid round picks to basically act as insurance on the selection. I mean, it's still a pretty low percentage of third and 4th round picks that actually become anything of real substance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

If they are the only ones we are negotiating with, they are negotiating against themselves. As you said earlier, I think that the 49ers wanted Thomas, were reticent to move down, and actually only made the trade with the Bears because Shanny was convinced that they were moving up for a quarterback. Again, doesn't matter. No, the Bears probably didn't have to make that move as windy said, but you're also operating through a fog and there is no way for the Bears to know that, so why not just utilized a few mid round picks to basically act as insurance on the selection. I mean, it's still a pretty low percentage of third and 4th round picks that actually become anything of real substance. 

They where the only ones that where negotiated that Peter King wrote off. We went in the day with the Bears offer as our preferred offer but we could have had other offers on the table. Not saying we would have taken them or that they where seriously thinking about taking any of them but they could have been there. Once the Bears upped there offer we basically agreed on the trade and executed it once Garnett was gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Justone2 said:

They where the only ones that where negotiated that Peter King wrote off. We went in the day with the Bears offer as our preferred offer but we could have had other offers on the table. Not saying we would have taken them or that they where seriously thinking about taking any of them but they could have been there. Once the Bears upped there offer we basically agreed on the trade and executed it once Garnett was gone.

Could have, could have not. What we know is what we know, and thats what a lot of people will base their opinion on. When there is a documented source for the actions that played out that night, i don't know why anyone would just assume that there was something additional that wasn't documented, though given that narrators are untrustworthy in general, I wouldn't doubt that there may be (could have been removed / edited out because it just wasn't interesting, for example. especially if they were cursory calls that basically ended once they hung up). Generally, we just don't assume relevant data is omitted, though.

Given how rare it is to actually have intimate details on what goes on in a war room, people are always going to cling to this written word as something because it's far, far more information than we ever get.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...