POLL: Would you like to see the Bears trade down for extra draft picks?

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by JustAnotherBearsFan99, Apr 13, 2014.

?

Would like to see the Bears trade down for extra draft picks?

  1. JustAnotherBearsFan99

    JustAnotherBearsFan99 Coordinator SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Ratings:
    +2,715 / 3 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,243ß
    Here's an interesting article about how Bill Belichick trades up and down in the draft. Last year he ended up with 4 extra draft picks by trading down. If we could find a trade partner, should we trade down?

    [​IMG]

  2. Grizzblue

    Grizzblue Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    428
    Ratings:
    +483 / 2 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    92ß
    Not unless we got a crazy good offer and we had a plan for a player to help us with the pick we moved down for. No JA trade downs just to try to spread out the gamble of top picks. Maybe if they are absolutely sold on Jernigan, Pryor or Fuller an were confident we could get the guy wherever we moved down to.

    But no, we will have a good player available to us at 14....no need to get cute.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. riczaj01

    riczaj01 DaBears Ditka DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    22,196
    Likes Received:
    2,774
    Ratings:
    +3,332 / 9 / -8
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,506ß
    hell yes, the strength of this draft is in it's depth, way to many people are over valuing anything the bears could possibly get at 14, there are NO future greats at 14, but all are REALLY, but the same could be said for the players in the latter 1/2 of the 1st also. It's also why it will be next to impossible to trade unless someone REALLY falls, ie top 3 qb, or stop 8 talent.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston Position Coach

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,695
    Likes Received:
    1,377
    Ratings:
    +1,895 / 7 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,222ß
    Not our first pick, but yes to 2nd or third (or both) picks
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Grizzblue

    Grizzblue Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    428
    Ratings:
    +483 / 2 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    92ß

    Would be more likely and maybe useful to move on our 2nd or 3rd pick. Can maybe net another later one if we don't have anyone that we like at the specific place we are drafting.
  6. Bearsinhouston

    Bearsinhouston Position Coach

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,695
    Likes Received:
    1,377
    Ratings:
    +1,895 / 7 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,222ß
    yeah. that's what I'm thinking. Use the 14 on an impact player. We won't see a pick that high for a while. There are lots of players in the tier below the top tier. Get as many of those as you can.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. BSBEARS

    BSBEARS Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    625
    Ratings:
    +829 / 4 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    879ß
    That can be said about round 1 as well, right now its the fan base that is hooked on Donald, we have no idea where Emery and the Bears are with all the players and if they rate anyone that much higher or lower than us as fans do. They have much better data to make a more informed decision.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. jackiejokeman

    jackiejokeman Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +215 / 2 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    521ß
    Trading down has worked so well for us in the past ...

    ummm ... how did we get Alshon Jeffery ?
  9. dachuckster

    dachuckster Veteran SuperFan

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    285
    Ratings:
    +341 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    174ß
    Just for speculation ... let's say there is an unexpected run on defensive players in picks 6-12 and a top 10 offensive player falls our way. Do we take an offensive player that we may not be able to immediately use or do we try to play "Let's Make a Deal"?
  10. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Ratings:
    +1,914 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß
    Not if we can draft a guy who can come in and play day one and make an impact and there are guys who will be on the board at #14 who can do that.

    Comparing this to Belichick isn't a true comparison. He's almost always trading picks at the back end of the first round where there is very little difference between most of those guys and the next player on the board. He also bends his defenses around the guys he has playing with variations of both 3-4 and 4-3 schemes so his picks are usually not rooted in only one scheme or the other.

    One other huge consideration is that when you're winning AFC titles and SBs with the horses he has his focus may be less on immediate starters than it is on adding youth and depth to phase in the following year or two. That's how he keeps his defense from aging right out from under him. He doesn't do that when he needs an impact player.

    I don't disagree with the basic idea of it but for us it's not time. We're short a couple of impact players and we need to take advantage of this pick while we still have one in this choice of a spot. So unless ALL of the top guys we could make immediate use of are gone no, I would not trade back. We have depth and now we need impact.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Ratings:
    +1,914 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß

    We traded up jackie.
  12. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Ratings:
    +1,914 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß
    Realistically I don't see that happening and even if it did it would be a WR, TE or QB and as it stands we don't have a need for any of those.

    There are three OTs almost 100% sure to go, one WR for sure and probably at least an 80% of two, and at least one QB. That's at least five or six of the top thirteen picks going got offensive players and still leaves a lot of top defensive guys still there at S, CB, OLB, and DT.

    I'm pretty much down with what Emery said earlier. It's really tough to get value for the pick. If you're trading away a spot where there are still top shelf impact players for a spot lower down where all there is left is mid shelf players then you deserve a premium for that pick but will you get it? If your guy or guys are there you take one or them.
  13. dachuckster

    dachuckster Veteran SuperFan

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    285
    Ratings:
    +341 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    174ß
    I agree that it isn't likely to happen. But sometimes strange things happen, and you have to be ready.
  14. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Ratings:
    +1,914 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß
    I'd still make my pick and let the next guys deal with it. IMHO the most exceptional players in that top ten are nearly all defensive players anyway. The only two exceptions may be Robinson/LT and Watkins/WR. We don't need either at the moment and have $$$ tied up in those we do have already so I have to pass and trading down means I'll lose my guy.
  15. jackiejokeman

    jackiejokeman Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +215 / 2 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    521ß
    Soul,

    Are you glad we traded up instead of trading down ?
  16. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Ratings:
    +1,914 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß
    For Jeffery? Sure. I'm far more in favor of it in the middle rounds where the cost is minimal if the perfect guy is there and won't last. It seldom works out well in the top of the first unless you can be sure you're getting a franchise QB. I don't think any other position is worth it unless you have picks to burn, and we never do.
  17. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Ratings:
    +1,914 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß
    I'd just emphasize again that trading out of a spot where you know you can get one of the top two or three players on your board in exchange for a lesser player and another pick who may be no more than depth if that makes very little sense to me. I wouldn't think it would make sense to most GMs either. There are only two exceptions I can think of.

    1) You get a huge premium for trading back just one or two spots because the other guy "thinks" you're gonna grab their guy.

    2) You're a bottom feeder who needs more core players to fill out your starting spots than you need one single impact player.
    • Like Like x 3
  18. jackiejokeman

    jackiejokeman Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +215 / 2 / -1
    ßearz ßuckz:
    521ß
    Do you put us in the #2 catagory ? Or the #0 catagory?

    In other words we make up the rules at #0.
  19. lklrlolnlilklsox

    lklrlolnlilklsox Position Coach

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    6,594
    Likes Received:
    270
    Ratings:
    +316 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    61ß
    Depends entirely on who is left on the board at 14.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,946
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Ratings:
    +1,914 / 7 / -3
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,760ß
    This year and in this case I'd say the zero category. We aren't a bottom feeder in need of a half dozen or more starters and the teams directly behind us may want who we actually do want. That said if for what ever reason Uncle Phil decided he didn't want Donald and Pitt or Dallas did would they actually give up picks to trade up with him? I suppose they could but it would take one hell of an acting job on Phil's part I'd think.

    I guess I could see one where it might. Phil decides he wants Pryor, not Donald and doesn't think Pitt will take Pryor but Dallas believes they may take the hometown boy right in front of them. JJ offers Phil his 2nd round pick worth 430 pts. to trade down two spots worth 100 pts. Of course you'd take advantage of JJs generosity but I doubt even JJ would be that dumb. LOL

    Sox makes a good point as well. I guess I was looking primarily at the Bears and this year but if there just wasn't a player you valued highly at that #14 (Chris cough Williams cough) then I'd consider trading down to where I like who I was getting and where. I probably shouldn't have made it an absolute but in general I would not give up a shot at an impact player for more second tier guys I didn't really need. But that's me.
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2014

Share This Page