Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by JustAnotherBearsFan99, Apr 13, 2014.
Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
We traded up jackie.
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.
I agree that it isn't likely to happen. But sometimes strange things happen, and you have to be ready.
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.
Are you glad we traded up instead of trading down ?
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.
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.
Do you put us in the #2 catagory ? Or the #0 catagory?
In other words we make up the rules at #0.
Depends entirely on who is left on the board at 14.
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.