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

[Varking]

3 minutes 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.

That could be him not tipping his hat. We like them all but does one stand out? The only way to make sure you get your specific target is to get to #1. 

[TheCasillas]

3 minutes ago, Tbe said:

Didn’t he offer 2 future firsts for Watson?

I think you are confusing Fit for Tepper in that question, haha.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Varking said:

That could be him not tipping his hat. We like them all but does one stand out? The only way to make sure you get your specific target is to get to #1. 

Doesn't seem too likely.

I know fans love the idea of being bold and trading up to #1, but being smart is more important than being bold.

[Jon Snow]

2 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

and Mac Jones

I doubt the Raiders are moving up for a qb. I doubt they go with a 1st round qb at all. I'm starting to doubt we will either unless one falls in our lap.

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, Tbe said:

Didn’t he offer 2 future firsts for Watson?

We never got confirmation of what the offer actually was but I do remember someone saying the offer wasn't as impressive as fans might have believed.

[ladypanther]

17 minutes ago, 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.

Agree.  is there a QB this year that is that good...that they really, really love to take that risk? As Fitt said, if you go get your QB you better be right.

[TheCasillas]

1 minute ago, Jon Snow said:

I doubt the Raiders are moving up for a qb. I doubt they go with a 1st round qb at all. I'm starting to doubt we will either unless one falls in our lap.

yeah, tons of team's names are going to get thrown into the hat by experts but we all know it ends being only a few teams really jockeying. Every has their own plan for that position and they arent the same plan either. When Poles mentions 3 teams have called about the 1 pick... thats pretty much telling us common folk that there is only 2-3 teams that are even interested. 

 

The more i think about it, the more I think teams mortgaging 3 1s for this crop of QBs would be boneheaded. Since there is clearly not a bonified number 1 pick in this draft.

[OldhamA]

19 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. 

Why would our future picks be Playoff picks?

We're more than just a QB away from being a consistently good team.

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, OldhamA said:

Why would our future picks be Playoff picks?

We're more than just a QB away from being a consistently good team.

I mean we were 500 under Wilks?  Granted it was an easy schedule, but add a QB and a better staff plus giving them an offseason to prepare...  I could see next year being a learning curve with new schemes and a rookie QB, but after that we should be in decent shape to compete.  

[WUnderhill]

23 minutes ago, Camp Fodder said:

Raiders. Not sure Texans would do that for one spot. 

I didn’t read it as 3 teams offered ‘24 and ‘25 firsts, just that they spoke to 3 teams and at least one team offered that.

[La Pantera]

22 minutes ago, Camp Fodder said:

Raiders. Not sure Texans would do that for one spot. 

You think they'd be OK with their divisional foe jumping them to possibly steal the QB they're looking at.

Jumping up a spot eliminates that.

[Sgt Schultz]

12 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

Why would our future picks be Playoff picks?

We're more than just a QB away from being a consistently good team.

While I agree with you, from the Bears perspective, they are going to see every team offering them picks as improving.  Of the teams who might be talking to them, we probably have more young pieces in place than most (if not all), so they are going to project us as a playoff team.

I think there is a difference between winning a division that was horrible last year and may not be dramatically better this year or next and being a consistently good team or in the running for an Owl.  A lot of people on this board don't seem to grasp that, and the Bears are not going to volunteer it in any trade discussions.  Case and point: Tampa was not a good team, but they won this lousy division and proved they were not good by getting smoked in the playoffs.  That could be us next year (although I would say because of youth, or trajectory looks better than that of an aging Bucs team this year).

But, projecting us to be a playoff team the next two years gives the Bears some leverage in the discussions, and I agree with @Varking that, compared to other teams in this discussion, we look pretty good.

[OldhamA]

1 minute ago, Sgt Schultz said:

While I agree with you, from the Bears perspective, they are going to see every team offering them picks as improving.  Of the teams who might be talking to them, we probably have more young pieces in place than most (if not all), so they are going to project us as a playoff team.

I think there is a difference between winning a division that was horrible last year and may not be dramatically better this year or next and being a consistently good team or in the running for an Owl.  A lot of people on this board don't seem to grasp that, and the Bears are not going to volunteer it in any trade discussions.  Case and point: Tampa was not a good team, but they won this lousy division and proved they were not good by getting smoked in the playoffs.  That could be us next year (although I would say because of youth, or trajectory looks better than that of an aging Bucs team this year).

But, projecting us to be a playoff team the next two years gives the Bears some leverage in the discussions, and I agree with @Varking that, compared to other teams in this discussion, we look pretty good.

You can't project us based on opponents standing still.

Let's say the Saints sign Carr and the Falcons trade for Jackson. Suddenly that "wide open division" is incredibly tough and Playoffs looks miles away.

[Sgt Schultz]

4 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

You can't project us based on opponents standing still.

Let's say the Saints sign Carr and the Falcons trade for Jackson. Suddenly that "wide open division" is incredibly tough and Playoffs looks miles away.

Atlanta is the reason I can't buy into the discussions about "we will dominate this division for the next ten years."  I'm not bullish on Tampa or the Saints (their bar tab is due), but the Falcons are about a year behind us in the rebuilding/retooling process, and they did not spend two seasons and three offseasons with a buffoon running the show.

But, the Bears will tell us we are their #1 pick away from dominating the division until the end of time.  They will tell the Falcons or Saints the exact same thing.  They'd probably tell the Texans that, too.