Confused Why Some Seem to Think We Got Fleeced

[Carl Spackler]

1 minute ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

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.

There’s plenty of picks left. The problem is not one of them matters if the first one is the wrong one. 

[La Pantera]

Just now, Carl Spackler said:

Paying whatever you have to pay to swing for the fences never fails. Look at Coach of the Year Matt Rhule. 

By the way, I haven’t seen anyone advocating for signing a vet retread again. 

How the fug could you say Rhule swung for the fences!?!?

He literally tried to keep it in the park by trying to pick up retreads.

You need to stop! 

[cookinbrak]

2 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

He threw fine in college when he had weapons and protection?

Can't remember the last time a college team won the SB.

[MHS831]

we didn't.  According to the formulas and some interpretations of value (jeez) we actually came out on top by an estimated early third rounder.  (See the other thread about Quantitative analysis...)

[travisura]

3 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Paying whatever you have to pay to swing for the fences never fails. Look at Coach of the Year Matt Rhule. 

By the way, I haven’t seen anyone advocating for signing a vet retread again. 

Did I say it never fails? But it’s easily the best option over staying at 9 or signing a retread. 
 

And by the way, you haven’t seen anyone advocating for signing a retread? You must’ve missed the 42 different threads about Derek Carr. I’ve even seen folks on here say we should run it back with Darnold. 

[travisura]

Just now, La Pantera said:

How the fug could you say Rhule swung for the fences!?!?

He literally tried to keep it in the park by trying to pick up retreads.

You need to stop! 

He’s saying that hiring Rhule was a swing for the fences.

[Carl Spackler]

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

I would be extremely surprised if it’s Levis at 1. If we trade back down to 3 (don’t see this happening) then Levis is a real option.

That in itself means Reich and his coaching staff already failed and need to be fired. Trading your best player and future picks for the right to trade down and land Tim Couch is a sub-Rhulean move. 

[1of10Charnatives]

1 minute ago, Carl Spackler said:

Not necessarily. If it’s not Stroud or Young you can stop worrying about winning for the next 10 years. 

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.

[Carl Spackler]

1 minute ago, La Pantera said:

How the fug could you say Rhule swung for the fences!?!?

That’s easy, because I didn’t. Lmao

[Carl Spackler]

1 minute ago, travisura said:

Did I say it never fails? But it’s easily the best option over staying at 9 or signing a retread. 
 

And by the way, you haven’t seen anyone advocating for signing a retread? You must’ve missed the 42 different threads about Derek Carr. I’ve even seen folks on here say we should run it back with Darnold. 

I didn’t pay hardly any attention to the Carr threads, because it was never going to happen. 

[travisura]

Just now, Carl Spackler said:

I didn’t pay hardly any attention to the Carr threads, because it was never going to happen. 

So you missed the hordes wanting us to sign him lol

[Carl Spackler]

Just now, travisura said:

So you missed the hordes wanting us to sign him lol

Shoot them into the sun with Shittsmagic, then, because that would’ve been stupid 

But if Tepdaddy, Reich and Co. think Levis is their guy, they can join them. 

[tecc86]

3 hours ago, Varking said:

There are folks who believe DJ Moore isn’t a true #1. If they are correct then we haven’t had a true #1 since prime Steve Smith. Maybe finding receivers is easier than finding a QB but for our organization we’ve sucked at finding both. 
 

A first, two seconds, and a player worthy of additional firsts or seconds is a fair trade to move up 8 spots. 

Teams have proven you don't need a #1 receiver to win a superbowl

You do need a game changing franchise quarterback though.

[1of10Charnatives]

2 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

we didn't.  According to the formulas and some interpretations of value (jeez) we actually came out on top by an estimated early third rounder.  (See the other thread about Quantitative analysis...)

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.