Which side of the fence are you on.... sell the farm to move up to #3 or sit tight at 9?

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, top dawg said:

IF we trade up, it has to be to one. Otherwise trading up really makes no sense unless we're doing it during the draft to get our guy. 

That's my take, and I'm sticking to it. 

We either stay at 9 and see how the draft unfolds or we say fug it and give the bears whatever they want?  Thats the way I see it as well.   Going to 3 doesnt do poo

[Varking]

2 hours ago, Htarnation4.0 said:

Completely agree. If we trade the farm for a guy turns out to be Trubisky or Zach Wilson, this franchise is on its heels for another 5+ years. 

Those franchises had the right idea just executed wrong. They could have drafted Mahomes or Fields in throes scenarios and been far better off. 
 

That’d why it’s important you get your guy and you are right. 

[bythenbrs]

8 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

We either stay at 9 and see how the draft unfolds or we say fug it and give the bears whatever they want?  Thats the way I see it as well.   Going to 3 doesnt do poo

At three, you have a 67% probability of getting either Stroud or Richardson at substantially less cost in draft capital than trading up to 1R1.  If both are taken before 1R3, your consolation prize is Young.  If the new administration doesn’t like Young, well, that’s a different matter.

Edited March 5, 2023 by bythenbrs

[mrcompletely11]

7 minutes ago, bythenbrs said:

At three, you have a 67% probability of getting either Stroud or Richardson at substantially less cost in draft capital than trading up to 1R1.  If both are taken before 1R3, your consolation prize is Young.  If the new administration doesn’t like Young, well, that’s a different matter.

Thats the point though, if you are moving up might as well move up for who your staff thinks is 1.  why settle?

[top dawg]

12 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

We either stay at 9 and see how the draft unfolds or we say fug it and give the bears whatever they want?  Thats the way I see it as well.   Going to 3 doesnt do poo

I don't even see how it's a question, unless you're willing to take the leftovers (whomever is left after one and two). I just don't see that as a viable or even realistic way to build your team, much less negotiate the draft. I kinda feel like that's only for Huddlers who are saying that we should just draft a QB for the sake of drafting a QB. I'll never agree with that. To me it's a nonsensical take, and a nonsensical, if not highly inefficient and risky approach. I call, "Balderdash!"

[bythenbrs]

4 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Thats the point though, if you are moving up might as well move up for who your staff thinks is 1.  why settle?

If you have about equal grades on Richardson and Stroud, i.e. if you are relatively indifferent to selecting either, you aren’t settling.  If the staff says that they ‘only’ want Stroud or ‘only’ Richardson then, yes, you have to go to 1R1.  I think you could win with either.  Stroud sooner but Richardson may have a higher ceiling but need a year of coaching up.

For me, the really nice part is that I trust the new administration to make that call correctly.  I’m just an anonymous JAG on the Huddle.

[CPF4LIFE]

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

#1 or bust. Settling for #3 would be dangerous.

 

 

And it makes no sense.

[CPF4LIFE]

Not moving up to 3 just for leftovers. 

[WhoKnows]

16 minutes ago, bythenbrs said:

If you have about equal grades on Richardson and Stroud, i.e. if you are relatively indifferent to selecting either, you aren’t settling.  If the staff says that they ‘only’ want Stroud or ‘only’ Richardson then, yes, you have to go to 1R1.  I think you could win with either.  Stroud sooner but Richardson may have a higher ceiling but need a year of coaching up.

For me, the really nice part is that I trust the new administration to make that call correctly.  I’m just an anonymous JAG on the Huddle.

I trust the coaches, not the scouting. Honestly, we had exactly what we needed to get to 1 in the trade if we traded Burns. Trading Burns before his gigantic contract to get your QB of the future is a no-brained. That shows me the lack of foresight and a GM playing it safe (Rhule was gone).

Imagine the flexibility of getting to #1 easily and still having 2 2nds this year. Heck we might have been able to give up 2 2nds and kept the 2024 or 2025 1st and had 2 1sts in either year along with the full set of picks.

[jfra78]

You don't trade to 3 and hope your guy will be there.  You trade up to 3 during the draft if your guy is there.  

Edited March 5, 2023 by jfra78

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, jfra78 said:

You don't trade to 3 and hope you're guy will be there.  You trade up to 3 during the draft if you're guy is there.  

this is the way

[Cdparr7]

Need to calm down and see how free agency pans out before we trade up. 

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, Cdparr7 said:

Need to calm down and see how free agency pans out before we trade up. 

"Hey derek, its not you its me"

[Growl]

4 hours ago, BerryLoMein said:

Gonna blow your mind here.......trade back. I am fine with taking someone in a latter round.

are you fine with losing too