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.
Excellent resort to actual numbers (idiotic and outdated though we agree those number are) in the face of Media Taeks.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.
It’s a risky deal sure, but my biggest point is that it wasn’t a “bad,” deal. And folks saying “Pace is fired he just doesn’t know it yet” are just spewing bullshit. Because frankly, any GM could lose their job over what they did or didn’t do on day one of the draft. The Bears only got played if no one was working to move up for Mike. Because if no one was then the 9ers could have easily have traded the 3 pick to whoever was trying to jump up.
I get it- on an absolutely anonymized “draft value” basis, the Bears came out evenish by the lights of the League’s internal pseudologic.
But (and admittedly I stopped reading to avoid cerebral hemmorhaging) from PK’s article, it didn’t sound like anyone came close to offering the same value as the Bears put on the table. Accepting the logic of the Chart, SF would not have traded the pick to any of the other teams, as they would have been below-value. So Pace still (likely) gave up value unnecessarily.
Also, thank you for writing this article. This is why I love this site. We are having actual intelligent debate like real grown-ups.
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.
Agreed; the risk seems much higher, of course R. Griffen III was a “sure thing.”
Say Browns or someone else traded up to grab him or another QB then there would be a run on QB’s as you saw meaning that the Bears would have to settle for a QB at 3 because the pool would be depleted before reaching the 2nd round. So if you are going to be forced into it why not go after the guy you want?
I agree that it was the right move given that Mitch was the guy they wanted.
I’m questioning why Mitch is the guy they wanted.
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.
Glennon’s deal is a two-year deal masked as a 3 yr one. All the talk this whole offseason was to use Glennon as a stop gap QB for either the QB drafted this year or next year. So they made a risky trade yes but not a bad one. I just hope the Bears can keep it in their pants and not start their rookie QB if/when they go 0-3.
Especially since it will take Glennon a while in their offense to figure it out.
or god forbid the Trump sons go giraffe hunting
Counterpoint: at no time last year did we see evidence that Dowell Loggains has an offensive system, other than handing the ball off. Therefore, even Mike Glennon will be familiar with the offense by Game 2, if given every preseason snap.
Hand ball to Howard hand ball to Howard, toss up to White or Miller
Ah, the old “Our offensive coordinator is an idiot” whine.
Not my team.