Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Bears spoke to 3 teams at the combine about the first overall pick: know they can get 1sts in 2024 and 2025

Varking

By Varking,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Varking Grand Master

Varking

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, stan786 said:

We are definitely the one that would offer them the 24 1 and 25 1 hahaha. They better take it before we sign Carr and kill their leverage.

I think the Bears have to project the three teams on where they are today, and where they think they will be the best two years after. If you drop to 9 and miss out on Anderson and Carter, and they think we are playoff bound the next two years, it makes more sense to take another teams offer because our picks will be low value. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Varking Grand Master

Varking

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Tbe said:

Us, Indy, Texans?

I’d guess us, Indy, and then a team like the Raiders or Falcons. I don’t think the Texans need to give all that up to move up one spot. If they did the Bears would be announcing the trade right now and getting ready to flip pick 2 for a haul. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tbe Grand Master

Tbe

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Varking said:

I’d guess us, Indy, and then a team like the Raiders or Falcons. I don’t think the Texans need to give all that up to move up one spot. If they did the Bears would be announcing the trade right now and getting ready to flip pick 2 for a haul. 

It depends on what the Bears want. It also depends on what the Texans want.

If the Texans really want first dibs, they need to keep another team from jumping in front of them. That means competing for the pick and giving the bears what they want.

It’s about competition now, not just pick value.

I do agree the Raiders could be one of the three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Varking Grand Master

Varking

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I wouldn't bet on that.

It's possible we're one of the teams that spoke to them to gauge the price, but I don't believe we'd give that up.

I believe we would. But why would the Bears take our #9 and our future picks should be playoff picks. 
 

A team like Indy is projected to be further away from the playoffs so it’s better value and they would only drop to 4 this year to get their top end defensive player. 
 

We would be the team that has to offer something else to close the door now because we offer the worst value of picks now plus the future. We aren’t far away from the playoffs now and we play in a bad division. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
Just now, Tbe said:

It depends on what the Bears want. It also depends on what the Texans want.

If the Texans really want first dibs, they need to keep another team from jumping in front of them. That means competing for the pick and giving the bears what they want.

It’s about competition now, not just pick value.

I do agree the Raiders could be one of the three.

Rumor is the Raiders are looking at Jimmy G.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Varking said:

I believe we would. But why would the Bears take our #9 and our future picks should be playoff picks. 

A team like Indy is projected to be further away from the playoffs so it’s better value and they would only drop to 4 this year to get their top end defensive player. 

We would be the team that has to offer something else to close the door now because we offer the worst value of picks now plus the future. We aren’t far away from the playoffs now and we play in a bad division. 

I don't, primarily because Scott Fitterer has yet to show any willingness to trade away first rounders. He puts a lot of value on those picks.

It's also been said that we like nearly all of the top prospects so a trade to #1 wouldn't be necessary to get a guy we want. Going to #3 or #5 would probably be enough.

Mind you, all this is pending whether we pursue Derek Carr or not.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tbe Grand Master

Tbe

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I don't, primarily because Scott Fitterer has yet to show any willingness to trade away first rounders. He puts a lot of value on those picks.

It's also been said that we like nearly all of the top prospects so a trade to #1 wouldn't be necessary to get a guy we want. Going to #3 or #5 would probably be enough.

Mind you, all this is pending whether we pursue Derek Carr or not.


Didn’t he offer 2 future firsts for Watson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mike2.0
      Can we get to 9-8?

      By Mike2.0 · Posted

      A winning record would be nice, but I still have us winning around the 6 to 8 game mark. Realistically we should beat the Jets and Saints, that gets us to 5 wins. After that, we have to face a lot of potential play off teams and our divisional opponents. I think we’ll win 1 or 2 of those games to take us to 6 or 7 wins, perhaps 8 wins if we can spring a further surprise.  Is that enough progress for head coach and QB? I’m not sure, it will depend on performances and output. That said, it’s nice to be back in a position where we are thinking about the play offs.
    • Mike2.0
      Eight of Bryce Young's nine wins have come off game-winning drives

      By Mike2.0 · Posted

      I would tend to agree about not falling into the trap and paying a below average QB, but sometimes situations can “force” a team to pay that QB. For example, if we play ourselves into a 9-8 like record, then what options will we have in the draft? Or do we avoid the draft and trade for or sign someone in free agency?  I’m not convinced by the 2026 QB draft class. There’s some intriguing prospects but no one that really screams “draft me”. I’m not sure we’ve got anyone really that stands out as a trade candidate or free agent signing. So although we might not want to commit a big money contract to Young, him playing well and showing progress might force the team’s hand. 
    • Mike2.0
      Trade Chuba?

      By Mike2.0 · Posted

      Realistically we would be looking at no more than a mid round pick for Dowdle or Chuba. Are we really that desperate for a mid round pick? Not really. I would much prefer us utilise the two RBs in a 1-2 punch similar to how we used D-Will and Stewart. After all, Bryce is not Drew Brees. He won’t throw for 300+ yards and carry the team consistently as a passer. So having a strong running game with a 1-2 punch will be beneficial to him, and it will also be beneficial to the RBs because we can spell them and not overwork them.
×
×
  • Create New...