Heinz D. Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 32 minutes ago, beardown3231 said: Can you provide a link of such? I haven't seen any of it https://sports.yahoo.com/is-joe-burrow-trying-to-avoid-being-drafted-by-the-cincinnati-bengals-213050680.html https://www.fox19.com/2020/02/05/joe-burrow-wouldnt-come-cincinnati-his-dad-says-thats-absolutely-not-true/ https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/02/08/does-joe-burrow-hope-the-bengals-dont-draft-him/ https://youtu.be/tj1aPTKW358 https://youtu.be/adwoFlcesjs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 7 hours ago, AZBearsFan said: Sure. Mahomes is a known commodity though. Burrows isn’t. If you believe Burrow will be you still make the move. Finding an elite QB is a bigger difference maker than the picks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Interesting thought exercise. Will never, ever happen, but always a minuscule chance. Lets think it through assuming its possible. Rams trade with Titans for number one pick: Tennessee gets: Rams' first-round pick (2016), two second-round picks (2016), a third-round pick (2016), a first-round pick (2017) and another third-round pick (2017). Rams get: Titans' first-overall pick (2016), a fourth-round pick (2016) and a sixth-round pick (2016). So Two 1s, two 2s and two 3s would be approximately the rate and then Bears get back lower rounders. Might be a bit more for Bears because of time value of picks. Four 1s might be better option. Especially for Pace who has been better at finding diamonds in rough than first round success. Bears only young tradeable asset is Roquan Smith, but his erratic behavior has taken some of sheen of that rose. Maybe Bengals haven’t been paying close attention and you can sneak that by them. Pretty doubtful they take Smith in lieu of a first round pick, but not impossible as he was so highly thought of coming out of college. If Bears made the Rams deal that we would have to build team for foreseeable future from free agents. Rams did it better than Titans did with all their draft picks getting to a Super Bowl and almost winning it. Titans looked a lot better with better QB though. Imagine that. Had Goff been better and Titans never benched Mariota this year the deal would look a lot better for Rams. I like idea of 4 ones better because you still can fill out your roster with young talent each season rather than losing nearly two whole drafts back to back which could be really crippling. My offer would be Roquan Smith and our next three one’s. Then I trade MT for like a 5th round pick or something to whoever. Whatever I can get because it isn’t fair to keep him around when we invested so much in Burrows. I would throw him in this deal, but that would just piss Bengals fans off as media would stupidly report that as MT for Burrows and Bengals fans would be apoplectic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 35 minutes ago, dll2000 said: My offer would be Roquan Smith and our next three one’s. Then I trade MT for like a 5th round pick or something to whoever. Whatever I can get because it isn’t fair to keep him around when we invested so much in Burrows. I would throw him in this deal, but that would just piss Bengals fans off as media would stupidly report that as MT for Burrows and Bengals fans would be apoplectic. According to the Tweeter, Mack would probably be part of the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 28 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: According to the Tweeter, Mack would probably be part of the deal. I don’t think Bears can do that with dead money. Much of their cap would be spent on a guy not here. Only young possibly trade-able asset Bears have is Roquan and he held out his first year after some questionable off field decisions and then had a slump for personal reasons this past season. I think if Burrows managed to force a deal ala Manning or Elway Bengals do it with someone who gives picks and or assets now, not later. And clean assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, dll2000 said: I don’t think Bears can do that with dead money. Much of their cap would be spent on a guy not here. They'd be, essentially, giving up $20 million as part of a deal for the first pick. Instead of further draft capital. 27 minutes ago, dll2000 said: I think if Burrows managed to force a deal ala Manning or Elway Bengals do it with someone who gives picks and or assets now, not later. And clean assets. The Bengals would get Mack for next to nothing, though. They'd be paying him like $9 million. They could get Trubisky, kick the tires on him. I'm not saying it's gonna happen. But it's not as bad a deal from a Bengals standpoint as a lot of us are making it out to be. Edited February 9, 2020 by Heinz D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted February 9, 2020 Author Share Posted February 9, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: They'd be, essentially, giving up $20 million as part of a deal for the first pick. Instead of further draft capital. The Bengals would get Mack for next to nothing, though. They'd be paying him like $9 million. They could get Trubisky, kick the tires on him. I'm not saying it's gonna happen. But it's not as bad a deal from a Bengals standpoint as a lot of us are making it out to be. Well it kind of is a bad deal for CIN, because the Bengals would still be quarterback-less Edited February 9, 2020 by beardown3231 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted February 9, 2020 Author Share Posted February 9, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, dll2000 said: I don’t think Bears can do that with dead money. Much of their cap would be spent on a guy not here. Only young possibly trade-able asset Bears have is Roquan and he held out his first year after some questionable off field decisions and then had a slump for personal reasons this past season. I think if Burrows managed to force a deal ala Manning or Elway Bengals do it with someone who gives picks and or assets now, not later. And clean assets. He held out to get as much money as he could and try to lessen his financial burden in the event of fines from illegal hits. The initial hold out had nothing to do with "questionable off field decisions." But you're right. Trading Mack is next to impossible, financially. Edited February 9, 2020 by beardown3231 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 24 minutes ago, beardown3231 said: Well it kind of is a bad deal for CIN, because the Bengals would still be quarterback-less They'd have Trubisky on a rent-to-own. Still have Ryan Finley, and would be in prime position to draft Lawrence next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted February 9, 2020 Author Share Posted February 9, 2020 20 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: They'd have Trubisky on a rent-to-own. Still have Ryan Finley, and would be in prime position to draft Lawrence next year. You never know, though. If they win 4-6 games next year, they aren't in position. Every offseason we always predict bad teams to be bad again and it doesn't always work out. Miami was "definitely" going to win 0-1 games this year.. until they didn't. You can't pass on Burrow because you'll suck again. You build in the offseason to ideally never be in the top 3 again. Pace said the same thing when he took Trubisky- there were other needs but the goal was to never pick that high again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 57 minutes ago, beardown3231 said: You never know, though. If they win 4-6 games next year, they aren't in position. Every offseason we always predict bad teams to be bad again and it doesn't always work out. Miami was "definitely" going to win 0-1 games this year.. until they didn't. You can't pass on Burrow because you'll suck again. You build in the offseason to ideally never be in the top 3 again. Pace said the same thing when he took Trubisky- there were other needs but the goal was to never pick that high again. What you're saying makes sense. This all hinges on whether Burrow wants to be a Bengal or not. If not, the Bengals could wrangle the Bear's first next year in such a (hypothetical) deal, most likely. And then they'd be more than ready to trade up for Lawrence (if need be). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 2 hours ago, beardown3231 said: He held out to get as much money as he could and try to lessen his financial burden in the event of fines from illegal hits. The initial hold out had nothing to do with "questionable off field decisions." But you're right. Trading Mack is next to impossible, financially. I wasn’t thinking of hold out, but that didn’t make anyone happy. Though Bears bear some responsibility for that. I think he was involved in some nonsense and then lost his playbook on an iPad or had it stolen or something. Then whatever happened last year. He hasn’t been the all football all the time leader they hoped for to date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Heinz D. said: They'd be, essentially, giving up $20 million as part of a deal for the first pick. Instead of further draft capital. The Bengals would get Mack for next to nothing, though. They'd be paying him like $9 million. They could get Trubisky, kick the tires on him. I'm not saying it's gonna happen. But it's not as bad a deal from a Bengals standpoint as a lot of us are making it out to be. Bears would be eating 45.5 million in dead cap space for one player if they did that deal. They can’t do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 If this was happening in 2021 they could eat the 21.4 for Mack. He has a 46 million dollar defacto no trade clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted February 10, 2020 Author Share Posted February 10, 2020 This idiot can't help himself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.