A Rational Look at the Bears 1st Round Trade

Duchess
Follow Me

Duchess
Follow Me

Latest posts by Duchess (see all)

So, for the most part, folks are crapping on the Bears for moving up one spot from 3 to 2 in order to draft a franchise QB. The common consensus is that the Bears gave up a lot in order to move up one spot. But did they?

Now yes I do hate trading up in the draft and I hate the dumb draft chart. However, the draft chart is here and until more people act like Grumble Lord it will stick around. Well, the chart values the second overall pick at 2,600 and the third at 2,200. So right now the Bears needed to come up with 400 points of value to bridge that “gap” 67th Pick was 255 and pick 111 is valued at 72 which is 2,527 add in a 3rd round pick from next year which no matter where it falls gets heavily discounted for future picks. All in all, if you measure the trade by the value of the picks it was a good trade by the Bears.

Yet why do so many commentators and talking heads think the 9ers fleeced them? The Bears did not give up a 1st rounder nor a 2nd rounder to move up. The talking heads love the bullshit chart and the trade matches the chart. Yet, they are treating the Bears first round trade like they were the 2016 Eagles who traded their 13th and, DB Byron Maxwell, LB Kiko Alonso to get the 8th pick in order to trade the 8th, the 77tth, and the 100th, plus their first round in 2017  and the second round in 2018. So why all the hate? Could it be it went against the consensus? Talking heads thinking they are going defense and now they have to pretend to be SHOCKED SHOCKED that the Bears would trade within their gimmicky chart to pick what most said was the best QB in the draft? They couldn’t possibly ever be wrong it’s the BEARS WHO ARE WRONG NOT THEM. After all, they are always right.

Leave a Reply

Notify of
The Right Reverend Electric Mayhem
Member

Excellent resort to actual numbers (idiotic and outdated though we agree those number are) in the face of Media Taeks.

However, I would argue that just because the numbers “match” doesn’t mean anything when viewed in light of the likely counterfactual: Bears, sitting at 3, were poised to get a player they “valued” at 2600 without doing shit. In other words, they were “up” 400. Instead, they began unnecessarily throwing draft picks at SF, resulting in an effective 380+ loss compared with nonaction, i.e. a mid-second rounder equivalent.

The Bears got played. It’s like when you buy an unnecessary product for 50% off- sure, you got a deal, but you still spent money you otherwise wouldn’t have.

ballsofsteelandfury
Member

I’m just surprised someone thought enough of Mitch Kumstein to trade for him. I thought he would be there at the third pick. Even if the 49ers took him, there were other QBs in the draft. I don’t think Mitch is a sure fire future Hall-of-Famer-I-need-to-pick-him-NOW type of QB.

Moose -The End Is Well Nigh
Member
Moose -The End Is Well Nigh

Agreed; the risk seems much higher, of course R. Griffen III was a “sure thing.”

Moose -The End Is Well Nigh
Member
Moose -The End Is Well Nigh

It seems to me that it would be a trade that a GM that is very sure of his job and has a lot of good players on the team already would make. I don’t think it is a bad trade it is just VERY risky in a sense that Mitch will not be very good. I guess the strategy is to go with Glennon for two years while Mitch trains then see what they have.

I think most teams use the value chart as a guideline and make trades according to what they can afford or what the trading partner can afford. I agree with your premise though. If the commenTATORS were right more often they’d work for the teams….. wait, no, that would be too much work.

wpDiscuz