Jump to content

What it would take to move up from #20 to each spot in the draft


JAF-N72EX

Recommended Posts

On 3/1/2021 at 1:21 AM, AZBearsFan said:

Dismissive and condescending? You must be fun at parties.

Take care, bud. 

At fun parties, yes, I am.  The type of parties that you attend? Not sure.

I'm not gonna continue going back and forth with you on this.  If twisting my words and making snarky comments helps you sleep better at night then rest well my friend.

Imagine being so dismissive and condescending yourself that you feel the need to push that label on someone else before they can use it against you?  MirrorforAZ.gif

Your definition of the word dismissive seems to mean if someone uses any sort of logic to disagree with you then they are automatically being dismissive. That sounds like a 'you' problem.

Nothing I have said has come off as dismissive.  This is you getting into your feelings just because everything you have suggested so far has been shot down using logic and facts (which you seem to coincidentally dismiss),  and since you have nothing else to offer you have to resort to these type of responses.

You are treating every pick in every round as if they have the same equal value, and they don't.

You are also using the Rams as a [poor] example as to why the Bears could move up, while also ignoring the fact that we don't have the same amount of ammo as they did.

Furthermore, you are also choosing to ignore the fact that no other team in history, with a similar amount of capital as the Bears, has ever moved up that far in the draft.  Your response to this was literally...."Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen this year". That was what you said, verbatim.  Which is ridiculous on so many levels. 

That's worse than saying we could find the greatest QB of all time this year in the 6th round because the Patriots did it with Brady.  Could it happen? Yeah, I guess. But the probability is less than 1%.

But whatever, If you wanna believe every pick in every round is equal then we have nothing more to discuss here.  If you wanna believe that we realistically could move up to #2 (even though it's never been done and the Jets are in dire need of QB) then continue with your Madden like fantasy.  If you wanna believe the Bears' organization are capable of breaking new ground and winning the lottery then I laugh at you.  But, hey, thanks for playing. Come again.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, WindyCity said:

The Eagles traded from 16 to 2 to take Carson Wentz.

They moved to 8 initially and then to 2.

Philly traded from 13th, not 16th. It cost them the 13th overall + 2 sub par players to move up 5 spots.

It would be nearly equivalent to the Bears giving up #20 and a 5th round pick this year to move up 5 spots to get the Chargers 13th pick. (Edit: Not the Chargers 13th but 15th. I'm still stuck on moving up to past the Patriots.)

 

Edited by JAF-N72EX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this goes without saying but just to reiterate it..if Bears are going to trade multiple 1sts + some other picks then they are better off doing it for a known and proven player i.e. a Wilson or Watson vs moving up for a wild card in Fields or Wilson 

I'm sorry but I just don't see a rookie coming in and saving the day and getting this team where it needs to be regardless of who or how talented they are. There's always a learning curve

We have an aging defense and the window isn't going to be open forever plus Pace & Nagy are surely thinking short term here.

I don't think rookie QB should be the play unless it's as a developmental player and not someone who you're relying on to win you games in 2021

Edited by topwop1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, topwop1 said:

I know this goes without saying but just to reiterate it..if Bears are going to trade multiple 1sts + some other picks then they are better off doing it for a known and proven player i.e. a Wilson or Watson vs moving up for a wild card in Fields or Wilson 

I'm sorry but I just don't see a rookie coming in and saving the day and getting this team where it needs to be regardless of who or how talented they are. There's always a learning curve

We have an aging defense and the window isn't going to be open forever plus Pace & Nagy are surely thinking short term here.

I don't think rookie QB should be the play unless it's as a developmental player and not someone who you're relying on to win you games in 2021

i was thinking this too. What would be better, trading 20 and another 1st, plus likely more, for a QB that may pan out (Lance, Jones) or trade 3 1sts for potentially Wilson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

At fun parties, yes, I am.  The type of parties that you attend? Not sure.

I'm not gonna continue going back and forth with you on this.  If twisting my words and making snarky comments helps you sleep better at night then rest well my friend.

Imagine being so dismissive and condescending yourself that you feel the need to push that label on someone else before they can use it against you?  MirrorforAZ.gif

Your definition of the word dismissive seems to mean if someone uses any sort of logic to disagree with you then they are automatically being dismissive. That sounds like a 'you' problem.

Nothing I have said has come off as dismissive.  This is you getting into your feelings just because everything you have suggested so far has been shot down using logic and facts (which you seem to coincidentally dismiss),  and since you have nothing else to offer you have to resort to these type of responses.

You are treating every pick in every round as if they have the same equal value, and they don't.

You are also using the Rams as a [poor] example as to why the Bears could move up, while also ignoring the fact that we don't have the same amount of ammo as they did.

Furthermore, you are also choosing to ignore the fact that no other team in history, with a similar amount of capital as the Bears, has ever moved up that far in the draft.  Your response to this was literally...."Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen this year". That was what you said, verbatim.  Which is ridiculous on so many levels. 

That's worse than saying we could find the greatest QB of all time this year in the 6th round because the Patriots did it with Brady.  Could it happen? Yeah, I guess. But the probability is less than 1%.

But whatever, If you wanna believe every pick in every round is equal then we have nothing more to discuss here.  If you wanna believe that we realistically could move up to #2 (even though it's never been done and the Jets are in dire need of QB) then continue with your Madden like fantasy.  If you wanna believe the Bears' organization are capable of breaking new ground and winning the lottery then I laugh at you.  But, hey, thanks for playing. Come again.

You said this in the OP:

Picks #1 and #2: N/A
I'm not even going to entertain the idea of moving up this far.  There is nothing to suggest this is even possible.

All I suggested was that, if the team were so inclined, they could go into 2023 assets to try to facilitate a deal. I never said nor suggested our trade assets mirrored those from the LA/TEN trade (they don’t, which is why getting to 2 would require 2023 assets or a picks + player(s) trade) nor did I say or imply that all picks are worth equal values as assets (I said I usually use the JJ chart over the Hill one - both place different specific values on every individual draft slot). I didn’t say a trade using 2023 assets to get a higher ranking prospect was a great idea either, or even a preferred one. It would be incredibly high risk, and unprecedented without question, and I pointed out the LA/TEN trade only as a potential guide for how such an unprecedented deal might need to be structured if it didn’t include players in the deal. You said it wasn’t possible to go from 20 to 2 - I simply suggested it was if Pace was willing to to further than anyone has before him.

We certainly agree that the potential for such a deal happening given what we would have to surrender to acquire an unknown commodity is incredibly, incredibly low. I did say that I’d be ok with such a trade because being bold is far more appealing to me than accepting mediocrity, but at that cost (and probably less) we could certainly land Dak, and possibly Wilson or Watson and get an established asset rather than a variable one which is far more appealing if we’re making a holy **** type of move. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only hope the Bears have of a massive trade up is

3-Miami, they have needs that can be addressed in the mid 1st and they are not top 3 bad in terms of overall talent.

5-Cincinnati, if Sewell is gone they may want to move back and add multiple players to their OL in a more value conscious spot. I am also read they have never traded down in round 1.

 

Outside of that I cannot see many teams in the top 5-8 picks interested in bypassing the top end talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

You said this in the OP:

Picks #1 and #2: N/A
I'm not even going to entertain the idea of moving up this far.  There is nothing to suggest this is even possible.

All I suggested was that, if the team were so inclined, they could go into 2023 assets to try to facilitate a deal.

Then you apparently didn't bother reading the rest of the OP, the disclaimer, or even the main point of this thread in the first place.  I think we finally got to the real reason for this debate to begin with.

The point of this thread wasn't to debate about whether any team could or couldn't move up to get the #1 or #2 pick.  This thread was the about the Bears and the amount of assets they have available to them right now.

Feel free to read the OP again.

Spoiler

Just out of curiosity, I wanted to find out what it would cost to move up to each spot in the draft based on history. I started with the 1st overall pick and worked my way down to the 19th pick in the draft.

This is based on past history and draft value chart using the Rich Hill model scale as a reference. 

Just to quickly explain the process. First I looked at all recent trades in which any team traded down from exactly the #20 spot and how much it costs them to do so. (I.e X team had the 20th pick and traded Y team to move down to the 14th pick, and it costs them Z amount in draft value). 

If I could not find any trades made with the 20th pick then I would look at draft positions as close to #20 as I could, and I would improvise.

Some examples used are for more than 1 draft pick.

To keep things even and unbiased, the value of future draft picks are equal to the 16th pick of each relative round.

Disclaimer: For those who may nitpick at the smallest of things. I am not saying this is perfect. I am well aware that there is more that go into draft trades than just history and charts. This is only an attempt to get as close to reality as possible, as opposed to throwing out random guesses. If you feel as if this is trash then you are welcome to ignore it and come up with your own way.

As I said in the OP.  The entire point of this thread was to find out what it would realistically cost for the Bears to move up to each draft position based on two main sets of criteria (draft history and draft value), mixed with a realistic standpoint (see my reasoning for the Lions), and nothing else.  This was me trying to separate any biased opinions or ideas from myself, you, or anyone else.

No team in history has ever moved from 20 down to 1, 2, or 3 (or even close), so these picks fell under all criteria.  Hence, why I said I wasn't even going to entertain it. Although I said this thread that 3 isn't necessarily out of question.

Furthermore, when setting these criteria I assumed that we would all agree the #1 pick (Jags) were taking Trevor, so that pick was out of the question for this reason alone.  Am I wrong on this?

I also assumed that we all agreed the Jets would take Wilson or Fields, and they would NOT be willing to give up the #2 pick.  Am I wrong on this as well?

 

22 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

We certainly agree that the potential for such a deal happening given what we would have to surrender to acquire an unknown commodity is incredibly, incredibly low. I did say that I’d be ok with such a trade because being bold is far more appealing to me than accepting mediocrity, but at that cost (and probably less) we could certainly land Dak, and possibly Wilson or Watson and get an established asset rather than a variable one which is far more appealing if we’re making a holy **** type of move. 

I personally wouldn't be okay with either choice, but I agree 100% that if we were to make a big move that would cost us alot of assets then I would rather them being spent on Wilson or Watson and not an unknown rookie for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...