Race for the #1 pick

[Ty21]

55 minutes ago, BearsFanForever said:

Kevin white gives me nightmares.  Cant believe he became a bust after we got him.

His highlights were mortifying to watch cause he fully looked the part. Just shows how much confidence and injuries can destroy you 

[AZBearsFan]

1 hour ago, StLunatic88 said:

we mostly got the best case scenario here, the Cardinals winning and the Falcons losing were really the only other things I was rooting for.

Looking at some precedence, we can obviously use the Mitch deal as what we should be talking to Houston about. That would net us a High 3rd (#65) and a 5th, plus they have a bunch of 6th rounders and a bad front office, so maybe we steal one of those too?

After that, the precedence gets alittle wonky, as it seems like Miami didnt get enough for the Lance trade, but that was also for the #3 QB and done so early, it was weird, so was ther corresponding trade up for Wadle. Then we traded nearly the same (or more) to go get Fields). But then you go back alittle further to the Darnold deal where they got 3 2nd rounders to move down 3 spots. So if we were to make a deal with Atlanta (currently the lowest Im comfortable moving to) I think a Return for Dropping to #8 might look something like a 2024 1st, a 2nd (#39), one of their 4th rounders, and possibly even one of their 5th rounders.

 

If we can make multiple moves to go from #1 to #8 and rack up a '24 1st, 2nd (#39), 3rd (#65), a 4th, a 5th (maybe two) and maybe a 6th... Id sign up for that all day every day. And were still likely getting Myles Murphy, Tyree Wilson or Bryan Bresee, worst case scenario it would be Peter Soronski (or the last  QB is still there for another Trade, but unlikely).

That would be like adding an entire extra draft class to this roster, Id even be OK if some of these are future picks (obviously would need to be increased a round) but we can use those assets to get some Vets from other teams.

I think trading down twice is probably unlikely, though it would be awesome. At some point getting (arguably) the top prospect in the draft is more important than volume, which is why IND makes the most sense IMO because we still almost surely get Anderson or Carter.

I really like the idea of us not just getting draft capital in a swap though. Say we do trade with IND, for instance. Instead of going from 1-1 to 1-4 for, say their 2023 2 and 2024 1 and 3 or something like that, maybe we trade down in exchange for, say:

1-4, their 2023 3 (pick 79), their 2024 1, Braden Smith and Kwity Paye

Smith would leave them $9M in dead cap and would bring a $10M 2023 salary for 2023 which is well below current market for his level of play. He’s under contract thru 2025. Paye has 2 years left plus the 5th year option on his rookie deal and would cost about $8M combined for the next 2 years for a clear upgrade, with still a great deal of upside. Less draft capital in our return, but we still get a future 1 but also fill RT with a 26-year old really good player and get a 1st round talent at DE that Flus himself was involved in selecting in 2021. Established good starters > The Mystery Box in this scenario IMO, especially when the established talent is young. Plus, in this scenario we are potentially pairing Paye with Anderson and a pass rushing 3T from FA. That’s transformational. 

Would IND rather part with the picks than the players? Maybe, but ultimately we have what they want too and could sell it to someone else instead and they get left out in the cold. I don’t see Irsay letting that happen after the cluster they’ve had at QB since Luck retired. I think he wants to take variables out of the equation. 

[StLunatic88]

2 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

I think trading down twice is probably unlikely, though it would be awesome.

I dont think its unlikely in this scenario, because the Texans trade could be completed way before the draft, thats why getting #1 was so important. Then its down to teams making a move for the #2 QB in the draft. ESPECIALLY if the Texans are the dummies who really like Will Levis.

3 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

I really like the idea of us not just getting draft capital in a swap though.

You want to talk "unlikely". You guys can like those deals all you want, but so much goes into a player trade (value, contract, medical, extensions) that they dont happen all that often, are rarely happen as a part of a package to move up in the draft. And when you are talking the level of player most are bringing up, it gets even more complicated.

Again, I think we made deals for veteran players this offseason, but I think they are in conjunction with a deal (or deals) for our Pick at the top of the draft. Stand alone deals, possibly even for our future picks, not whats going down on draft day.

9 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

At some point getting (arguably) the top prospect in the draft is more important than volume,

That all depends on how you evaluate these guys. Is Will Anderson Myles Garrett? Is Jalen Carter Ndamukong Suh? If they are closer to the other prospects (Murphy, Wilson, Bresee) then its definitely more advantageous to drop down.

Just for comparison sakes, we are able to sign the guys in the fallowing scenarios, Is it better to have Jalen Carter (at #4) with Yannick Ngakaue with an extra 2nd and maybe a 3rd/4th? Or if we can sign Darron Payne and Draft Myles Murphy (at #8) while adding double(?) the Draft Capital?

Its not an easy answer

[HuskieBear]

1 hour ago, AZBearsFan said:

I think trading down twice is probably unlikely, though it would be awesome. At some point getting (arguably) the top prospect in the draft is more important than volume, which is why IND makes the most sense IMO because we still almost surely get Anderson or Carter.

I really like the idea of us not just getting draft capital in a swap though. Say we do trade with IND, for instance. Instead of going from 1-1 to 1-4 for, say their 2023 2 and 2024 1 and 3 or something like that, maybe we trade down in exchange for, say:

1-4, their 2023 3 (pick 79), their 2024 1, Braden Smith and Kwity Paye

Smith would leave them $9M in dead cap and would bring a $10M 2023 salary for 2023 which is well below current market for his level of play. He’s under contract thru 2025. Paye has 2 years left plus the 5th year option on his rookie deal and would cost about $8M combined for the next 2 years for a clear upgrade, with still a great deal of upside. Less draft capital in our return, but we still get a future 1 but also fill RT with a 26-year old really good player and get a 1st round talent at DE that Flus himself was involved in selecting in 2021. Established good starters > The Mystery Box in this scenario IMO, especially when the established talent is young. Plus, in this scenario we are potentially pairing Paye with Anderson and a pass rushing 3T from FA. That’s transformational. 

Would IND rather part with the picks than the players? Maybe, but ultimately we have what they want too and could sell it to someone else instead and they get left out in the cold. I don’t see Irsay letting that happen after the cluster they’ve had at QB since Luck retired. I think he wants to take variables out of the equation. 

If i did something with indy, i'd try and get buckner if i was getting players plus picks, but a ton of the draft depends on what happens in FA

[HuskieBear]

if we try and trade back with houston for #2, the package starts with their 2nd rounder. we traded a 3rd to move from 3 to 2 for a qb - having #1 with potential leverage starts with the #33 pick

[Ty21]

2 minutes ago, HuskieBear said:

if we try and trade back with houston for #2, the package starts with their 2nd rounder. we traded a 3rd to move from 3 to 2 for a qb - having #1 with potential leverage starts with the #33 pick

The Texans f up negating the cost of the Claypool trade seems like enough compensation for me to move down a pick. 

[AZBearsFan]

3 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

I dont think its unlikely in this scenario, because the Texans trade could be completed way before the draft, thats why getting #1 was so important. Then its down to teams making a move for the #2 QB in the draft. ESPECIALLY if the Texans are the dummies who really like Will Levis.

The hard part of that hypothetical trade down deal with HOU is that you really need to figure out what you can get in return in the second deal before you can make the first one, because you don’t want to end up with less overall. If the process plays out that the candidate trade teams all like the same one QB WAY more than the others and figure HOU takes him at 1, then 1 holds a ton of value but 2 far less. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore it - we absolutely should - but it’s complicated. IMO you’d almost have to get an overpay from HOU just to be sure, especially because AZ at 3 themselves aren’t likely a threat to draft a QB (though they’d be a prime trade spot for anyone looking to get ahead of IND).

9 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

You want to talk "unlikely". You guys can like those deals all you want, but so much goes into a player trade (value, contract, medical, extensions) that they dont happen all that often, are rarely happen as a part of a package to move up in the draft. And when you are talking the level of player most are bringing up, it gets even more complicated.

Again, I think we made deals for veteran players this offseason, but I think they are in conjunction with a deal (or deals) for our Pick at the top of the draft. Stand alone deals, possibly even for our future picks, not whats going down on draft day.

IMO the only thing that makes this more plausible in our scenario is because we have the 1st pick, for the reasons you point out. Like you said, any trade to 1 is probably not a draft day deal. We’d have time to look into medicals for the involved players. As to the money parts, at least for the 2 players I mentioned, Paye can’t be extended yet just entering year 3, and Smith just got extended July of 2021 and has 3 years left at good money, so an immediate extension probably isn’t needed. That would be far different if Pittman were involved since he’s a UFA after 2023 and we probably would require an extension of some sort to consummate the deal. IND would also need to factor in the immediate replaceability of the departing players either by draft or FA. Certainly a lot of moving parts in any deal like that which as you point out is why they aren’t common. Don’t get me wrong - it’s very clearly significantly less likely than a trade involving draft compensation only. I’m just saying Poles would be doing a disservice by not thoroughly exploring the possibility. 

[Sugashane]

19 minutes ago, Ty21 said:

The Texans f up negating the cost of the Claypool trade seems like enough compensation for me to move down a pick. 

Yep. There will be a number of calls for the top QB, Poles will need to see who is graded out on his board and how far he is willing to go. I can dream of a trade like what CLE got from PHI for Wentz or what the Rams got from the Redskins I think that will be harder to get than not.

 

I think if Chicago can get their 2023 2nd then it is worth swapping picks, then maybe IND wants to swap. With them the Bears should be able to get a 2nd and 3rd, or even a mid pick in 2023 and their 2024 1st.

[AZBearsFan]

37 minutes ago, HuskieBear said:

if we try and trade back with houston for #2, the package starts with their 2nd rounder. we traded a 3rd to move from 3 to 2 for a qb - having #1 with potential leverage starts with the #33 pick

For me personally to trade down from 1 to 2 I’m not taking less than their second 1st rounder (1-12) at minimum. I think the value drop from 1 to 2 may be that significant this year.

You’re always going to get more for QB1 than QB2. Plus, you know someone is willing to go up for their QB1. There’s at least a somewhat of a possibility that teams won’t blow your doors off to get their QB2, especially in a draft like this where there’s gonna be a decent amount of question who QB1 and QB2 are. None of Young/Stroud/Levis are Manning or Luck or Lawrence as a prospect, let alone two of them. If I get stuck picking at 2 and getting the best defender on the board because QB2-3 are the same for everyone and are seen far lesser than QB1 to potential trade candidates I’m not doing so without a top 12 pick in my pocket. I think Stroud and Levis are fine QB prospects and certainly worthy 1st round picks, but I also see Young as ahead of them. If Young were 6’3” he’d be the clear consensus #1 pick IMO.

It’s really interesting to me, because the ambiguity in order amongst the top QB prospects could potentially both help and hurt our trade options. If everyone likes the same one way more than the others, and we move down from 1 to 2 (that guy going 1) thinking we can move again from 2 to 4/7/9 we might have played ourselves. But, the top 2 or 3 are looked at very evenly by one of the candidate teams for the hypothetical 2nd trade, we might hit two grand slams with someone coming up for their QB1 at 2. But to make this game more fun, we almost certainly won’t know which scenario is afoot until after a hypothetical trade from 1 to 2 is made and the pick is turned in, which then gives Poles 10 minutes or less to work it all out. Being a GM sounds stressful! 😂

I think you have to make Houston make it worth your while to not trade down further with someone else for more draft capital, or else you move the pick to someone else. If they’re convicted on their one guy they need to pony up, because someone will, and HOU has the most to offer.

And FWIW, HOU may not even want to pick a QB this year. They have 2 1s next year and if they significantly prefer Williams or Maye to any of this year’s guys they may prefer to load up everywhere else with their 1s (or trade down themselves), sign a tank worthy stop gap (Mayfield or Darnold?) and then go after their guy in 2024. It’s a very reasonable assumption they want a QB at the top of this draft, but an assumption nonetheless. 

[AZBearsFan]

This is all so exciting right now, but by draft day we’re all gonna be EXHAUSTED. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by AZBearsFan

[HuskieBear]

11 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

This is all so exciting right now, but by next week we’re all gonna be EXHAUSTED. 

FIFY

[Ty21]

11 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

And FWIW, HOU may not even want to pick a QB this year. They have 2 1s next year and if they significantly prefer Williams or Maye to any of this year’s guys they may prefer to load up everywhere else with their 1s (or trade down themselves), sign a tank worthy stop gap (Mayfield or Darnold?) and then go after their guy in 2024. It’s a very reasonable assumption they want a QB at the top of this draft, but an assumption nonetheless

Solid point. That team makes a likely top 5 pick next year for them in a draft with Caleb Williams, who some view as Mahomes lite. But with 2 former HC’es on the payroll for 5 years worth of HC payments, do they really wanna add one more in the meantime?

[HuskieBear]

14 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

For me personally to trade down from 1 to 2 I’m not taking less than their second 1st rounder (1-12) at minimum. I think the value drop from 1 to 2 may be that significant this year.

You’re always going to get more for QB1 than QB2. Plus, you know someone is willing to go up for their QB1. There’s at least a somewhat of a possibility that teams won’t blow your doors off to get their QB2, especially in a draft like this where there’s gonna be a decent amount of question who QB1 and QB2 are. None of Young/Stroud/Levis are Manning or Luck or Lawrence as a prospect, let alone two of them. If I get stuck picking at 2 and getting the best defender on the board because QB2-3 are the same for everyone and are seen far lesser than QB1 to potential trade candidates I’m not doing so without a top 12 pick in my pocket. I think Stroud and Levis are fine QB prospects and certainly worthy 1st round picks, but I also see Young as ahead of them. If Young were 6’3” he’d be the clear consensus #1 pick IMO.

It’s really interesting to me, because the ambiguity in order amongst the top QB prospects could potentially both help and hurt our trade options. If everyone likes the same one way more than the others, and we move down from 1 to 2 (that guy going 1) thinking we can move again from 2 to 4/7/9 we might have played ourselves. But, the top 2 or 3 are looked at very evenly by one of the candidate teams for the hypothetical 2nd trade, we might hit two grand slams with someone coming up for their QB1 at 2. But to make this game more fun, we almost certainly won’t know which scenario is afoot until after a hypothetical trade from 1 to 2 is made and the pick is turned in, which then gives Poles 10 minutes or less to work it all out. Being a GM sounds stressful! 😂

I think you have to make Houston make it worth your while to not trade down further with someone else for more draft capital, or else you move the pick to someone else. If they’re convicted on their one guy they need to pony up, because someone will, and HOU has the most to offer.

And FWIW, HOU may not even want to pick a QB this year. They have 2 1s next year and if they significantly prefer Williams or Maye to any of this year’s guys they may prefer to load up everywhere else with their 1s (or trade down themselves), sign a tank worthy stop gap (Mayfield or Darnold?) and then go after their guy in 2024. It’s a very reasonable assumption they want a QB at the top of this draft, but an assumption nonetheless. 

your second point is part of the reason i don't think we get a HUGE haul from HOU. they could be content to not take a QB and choose to attack next year at the position - they're gonna be bad next year too. or maybe they don't think #12 is worth the difference between the first and second best QB in the draft

value-wise, and i know everyone looks at the value differently, but the difference in most conservative charts between 1 and 2 is about 400 pts. using the same chart, that's #50. again, i know everyone goes off different things, but getting #33 to move back and not draft a player we were gonna draft works for me.

[AZBearsFan]

37 minutes ago, HuskieBear said:

your second point is part of the reason i don't think we get a HUGE haul from HOU. they could be content to not take a QB and choose to attack next year at the position - they're gonna be bad next year too. or maybe they don't think #12 is worth the difference between the first and second best QB in the draft

value-wise, and i know everyone looks at the value differently, but the difference in most conservative charts between 1 and 2 is about 400 pts. using the same chart, that's #50. again, i know everyone goes off different things, but getting #33 to move back and not draft a player we were gonna draft works for me.

Agreed, but in that scenario we’re probably looking to trade back from 2 as well, right? What’s the difference in compensation between trading down from 1 to 4 and 2 to 4 (assuming an option)? We’d need to know that too. If IND in that scenario wants Young but doesn’t really like Stroud or Levis, maybe they don’t want to trade with us at all now, and we won’t know that until HOU makes their pick, so to me unless the comp to go from 1-2 is A LOT I think making the move from 1 to 2 on assumptions is really risky and requires lining up a lot of moving parts. The goal of whatever trade back(s) we do is to get max value. It’s entirely possible that comes from a single trade and not 2 trades. Especially if both moves are smaller ones in the multi-trade scenario. If we go from 1-2 then 2-8 or 9 we’re gonna get a big haul in the 2nd one regardless, but we also don’t know if Poles will want to move back that far. 

[StLunatic88]

58 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

For me personally to trade down from 1 to 2 I’m not taking less than their second 1st rounder (1-12) at minimum. I think the value drop from 1 to 2 may be that significant this year.

Come back to reality if were going to have this conversation

The Value at the Top is the QBs, theres more than 1, but like 7 teams with that need. Before the Texans screwed up and won yesterday we were all still talking Trade Down scenarios and that was AFTER thy already took one of the QBs

The Mitch Swap from 1 to 2 just puts us right back into that same scenario while also collecting a few more picks.