Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About 1of10Charnatives

  • Birthday 07/14/1974

Recent Profile Visitors

10,386 profile views

1of10Charnatives's Achievements


Mentor (12/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. The only thing I disagree with in this post is the notion that a lack of intelligent insight and analysis by national pundits is shocking. If you've been paying attention over time, and NAS I'm pretty sure you have, it's not shocking. It's expected.
  2. but with meaningfully fewer assets than yesterday.....
  3. it is what it is has to be the most quintessential bit of coachspeak of all time. i'm opening my mouth, and noises are coming out, and the noises even form words, but i'm not saying anything.
  4. The thing to keep in mind is that while your statement is true, any QB will not be stepping into an offense dripping with talent and needing only himself as the last piece. A quality O-line appears to be in place, but offensive weapons are hard to point to, thus how much we gave up in trade matters in whether we hit on the qb or not, becuase that qb's long term success will depend to some degree on surrounding him with talent, and the more you give up in trade, the fewer assets you have to do that with.
  5. Yeah, honestly I just hate giving up that much draft capital no matter what, but i'll admit, it's not nearly as bad as it could have been, and if the pick pans out, it'll be completely worth it. Cautious optimism might be a bridge too far to describe my reaction, but i'm at least hopeful, and the quality of the assembled coaching staff bolsters that hope to make good on this move.
  6. I agree with this idea in the sense that this weird notion of "true number one WR" doesn't seem to correlate very strongly at all with deep playoff success, wheras qb play correlation is so obvious even Jerome Boger couldn't get it wrong. Okay it's Boger, he'd probably still find a way to screw it up despite all evidence to the contrary, but you get my point.
  7. I suspect the reason we didn't have to pay through the nose to move up is twofold: 1. Chicago was in the unusual position of having the first pick while having recently drafted a qb prospect they still have some confidence in. 2. The league wide consensus view is none of the QB prospects in this draft project as perennial pro bowlers. There's just not the excitement over them as a group or any one of them as an individual that creates a bidding war for that top pick.
  8. i'm comfortable saying that not even Stroud or Young is any kind of guarantee. The reality is we just traded up to give ourselves better odds of filling the most important position by far with talent. Not guaranteed success. Better odds. How much better is really anyone's guess.
  9. i'm talking about the long term outlook for the drafted QB's success, which looks beyond merely this year's FA crop. I'd agree there is no immediate upgrade to DJ, but that does not mean quality FA WR's won't be available in the next couple of years. I don't think anyone could reasonably expect whoever we draft to lead us to immediate SB glory next year, so thinking in terms of the next few years seems valid. in that regard, i'm concerned that we just gave away a substantial chunk of our assets that could help put offensive weapons in place, but acknowledging that there are still avenues to doing so. it's just that the margin for error got smaller. Miss on a FA next year, or first round WR the year after, and the risk you leave the QB you traded up to get with poor offensive weapons gets a lot bigger a lot faster.
  10. For the record, I don't think we got fleeced, but I don't like the deal because history says it's unlikely to be worth it in the end. The price was to move up was low to reasonable given what one might have expected Chicago to demand, but I am not optmisitic that Stroud or Young or whomever will now be in a great position to succeed long term. They do seem to be able to step into throwing behind a decent offensive line, but with both DJ and CMC gone now, who is the offensive weapon that will make a young QB's job easier? Oh and over the next 3 drafts including this one, we just gave up several of the most valuable picks we might use to acquire such weapons. Devil's advocating my own post, most years quality WR's can be had in FA, just not this year, and solid RB's do not require first or second round picks, so all is not lost. I'd love to see them use one of their highest remaining picks this year to get a promising TE prospect if one is available.
  11. Personally I think we need a top flight midfielder, or maybe even a solid bowler. Why do basketball commentators insist on using the term quarterback to describe point guards, while football commentators go on about point guard like quarterbacks? My theory is a lame attempt to mask their limited abillity to describe the position using the actual terms for the game their commenting on, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, the thing they are actually paid to do and largely suck at.
  12. Emphasis added. I just wanted to repeat this post because it seems vaguely important somehow. fug you and your refs Roger Goodell. You blatantly allowed headhunting on our QB while at the same time blatantly enforcing unspoken don't touch rules on other QB's.
  13. Given that Julio is no longer with the team and they never won anything of substance with him (one nightmare sb appearance), it's fair to question that move. he was a great wr, but what did the falcons give up to trade up? i think that one could be argued either way, since to be fair jones did have a solid career with the falcons. let's talk about the chiefs traded up for mahomes, but did they really mortgage the future in doing so? i'm not just talking about trading up, i'm talking about a trade up that causes the trading up team to have to give up a boatload. in mahomes case the price of moving up was a third and one future first rounder. That's not peanuts but i wouldn't consider it mortgaging the future. You're gonna pay at least a first to move up double digit spots in the first, but that trade still left the Chiefs very capable of drafting plenty of talent in the next few years to put around Mahomes. Ravens trading up for Lamar: was a great move, but did they mortgage the future? in hindsight ozzie newsome's last move as a drafting gm was a steal. The Ravens gave up only their current 2nd rounder, and the next year's second rounder plus a late round pick in order to move into the end of the first and get a slightly lower late round pick in return. given what they got in jackson, they gave up very little. In summary, of the three examples you gave, julio is the only one i'd agree might be an example of giving up the farm to move up and it working out, but even that one is iffy. The Chiefs moving up for Mahomes and the Ravens moving up for Lamar were savy moves, but I don't think the teams doing so gave up a eyepopping bevy of picks to trade up.
  14. Question: when has a team ever given a boatload of picks to move up and it worked out for them? not saying it hasn't happened, i just don't recall any instance of anyone mortgaging the farm to get a single player and it looking good in hindsight.
  15. Good idea from fan's perspective but players would hate it and bail more than they do already.
  • Create New...