Virgil Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I would love to have watched an insider camera into the 49ers and Bears war room tonight. How do you convince a team to trade two 3rd round picks to move up one spot? Seriously, what's the thought process here? The ONLY thing I can assume is that the 49ers somehow convinced the Bears that another team was trying to trade ahead of them for Trubisky. If not that, I just don't get it. You just gave that money to Glennon, knowing you had the 3rd overall pick. The Bears never even setup a meeting with Trubinsky before the draft. It was just Senior Week and Combine I believe. And no one, absolutely no one, saw them as wanting a QB. Long story short, someone has pics of someone's wife. That's the only thing I can figure out. And the Browns also didn't look like morons tonight. Congrats to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilcoam Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Great post, I concur 100%, a horrible trade, and the move and money to Glennon makes no financial sense I think the Browns did really really well today jc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 at least we got an SEC guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Now if Trubisky is what they believe a 20 year franchise QB does it really matter that they gave up a couple of 2nds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) While we are at it: DOES SOMEBODY STILL WANT TO TELL ME THAT THE VALUE CHART IS NOT USED? Depending on chart, the Bears trade, which I agree is awful, is STILL based on the value chart, to an average(grabbed 4 value charts and did a regression) precision of ~50 pts. For literally years: one excuse after the next at draft time has been based on the "fact" that nobody uses DVCs anymore. Well, horseschit. Every trade this evening was within 1 standard deviation of the value chart. I can't wait until I hear all the excuses for why the the DVC is "obsolete" yet, validated, again, this year. Edited April 28, 2017 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 While we are at it: DOES SOMEBODY STILL WANT TO TELL ME THAT THE VALUE CHART IS NOT USED? Depending on chart, the Bears trade, which I agree is awful, is STILL based on the value chart, to an average(grabbed 4 value charts and did a regression) precision of ~50 pts. For literally years: one excuse after the next at draft time has been based on the "fact" that nobody uses DVCs anymore. Well, horseschit. Every trade this evening was within 1 standard deviation of the value chart. I can't wait until I hear all the excuses for why the the DVC is "obsolete" yet, validated, again, this year. I don't argue that no one uses it, I just don't quite understand the logic of following it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Murica Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Their fan reactions on social media were great, made me think of several posters here as the QBs started coming off the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) The trade may seem kinda dumb, but there was a good chance the Browns were trying to move right into #2 and they had no choice - we don't know that. You shouldn't fault or criticize them taking a chance on a QB who could turn their entire franchise around; you should envy them.... Edited April 28, 2017 by Reed83HOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan692 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) Its more like guide lines rather then hard fast rules. There is room to wiggle=P We have our QB for this year, and we have needs to address. If we were going to draft high QB we would not have resigned taylor. Nobody pegged us to take a QB in round 1, so I dont understand your expectations Edited April 28, 2017 by BillsFan692 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 The trade may seem kinda dumb, but there was a good chance the Browns were trying to move right into #2 and they had no choice - we don't know that. You shouldn't fault or criticize them taking a chance on a QB who could turn their entire franchise around; you should envy them.... So I should envy every QB pick no matter the cost or how the player projects to perform in the NFL. So I should envy the Jaguars for taking Blaine Gabbert in 2011 instead of the numerous incredible players they missed out on. Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 So I should envy every QB pick no matter the cost or how the player projects to perform in the NFL. So I should envy the Jaguars for taking Blaine Gabbert in 2011 instead of the numerous incredible players they missed out on. Okay. Would the jags be in a better place overall with those other numerous great players they missed on (We missed on them to btw)? No their record would more or less be the same. If Gabbert worked out and was developing such as a Mariaota, Winston where would the Jags be heading? The problem is if you don't take these players, you end up right where we have been. If you take these QBs and they don't bust - congrats you are on your way to a SB contender; if they bust you are in the same damn spot as you were if you took the top CB,S LB, RBs in the draft. It is a fact, do a little research over the past 15 years (I am not doing that for you and I already have btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 So I should envy every QB pick no matter the cost or how the player projects to perform in the NFL. So I should envy the Jaguars for taking Blaine Gabbert in 2011 instead of the numerous incredible players they missed out on. Okay.No but you should not bash the team for giving up a couple of picks on unproven players either. If Trubisky is even close to Matt Ryan let alone the true top tier QB's no one will care how much they gave up. Would I have made the trade? No. My guy is Kizer and I hope he falls 10 more spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) Would the jags be in a better place overall with those other numerous great players they missed on (We missed on them to btw)? No their record would more or less be the same. If Gabbert worked out and was developing such as a Mariaota, Winston where would the Jags be heading? The problem is if you don't take these players, you end up right where we have been. If you take these QBs and they don't bust - congrats you are on your way to a SB contender; if they bust you are in the same damn spot as you were if you took the top CB,S LB, RBs in the draft. It is a fact, do a little research over the past 15 years (I am not doing that for you and I already have btw) I don't know, Andrew Luck is working out pretty darn well but the Colts aren't because they neglected every other position. You can't literally just draft for QB all the time no matter what, that's absurd. Lately the big successes have been QBs found in the 2nd and later if they're not taken in the top 2. The Jaguars would be in a better place if they had correctly scouted Blaine Gabbert and taken a franchise player instead. It makes no sense to blindly take a 1st round QB every year. And it especially makes no sense to criticize them for not taking a QB at 10 when you consider that QBs taken between 10-32 have an abysmal success rate. The last success story from that range was Joe Flacco. Edited April 28, 2017 by HappyDays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 I don't know, Andrew Luck is working out pretty darn well but the Colts aren't because they neglected every other position. You can't literally just draft for QB all the time no matter what, that's absurd. Lately the big successes have been QBs found in the 2nd and later if they're not taken in the top 2. The Jaguars would be in a better place if they had correctly scouted Blaine Gabbert and taken a franchise player instead. It makes no sense to blindly take a 1st round QB every year. And it especially makes no sense to criticize them for not taking a QB at 10 when you consider that QBs taken between 10-32 have an abysmal success rate. The last success story from that range was Joe Flacco. And then don't miss on taking a chance with a QB bc that will be forever stuck to you even when you weren't technically the GM. #manuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) I don't know, Andrew Luck is working out pretty darn well but the Colts aren't because they neglected every other position. You can't literally just draft for QB all the time no matter what, that's absurd. Lately the big successes have been QBs found in the 2nd and later if they're not taken in the top 2. The Jaguars would be in a better place if they had correctly scouted Blaine Gabbert and taken a franchise player instead. It makes no sense to blindly take a 1st round QB every year. And it especially makes no sense to criticize them for not taking a QB at 10 when you consider that QBs taken between 10-32 have an abysmal success rate. The last success story from that range was Joe Flacco. Andrew Luck is a poor example. He was the number 1 pick and they didn't have to give up anything for him. He was also the highest rated prospect since Manning. The colts problem was an awful GM who had no business being in that position. Every draft the whiffed after they took Luck... Taking a QB is a risk, but you have to do it. Every team who doesn't have one wants one and that drives the price up. I never said take one every year, you will never develop anyone that way. The bust rate gets worse as you move down the rounds and overall the bust rate is well just bad. Gil Brandt for instance has 4 QBs in his top 50 this past year. Turbisky at 8, Watson at 9, Mahomes at 18 and Kizer at 33 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000800363/article/hot-150-gil-brandts-topranked-prospects-for-2017-nfl-draft Edited April 28, 2017 by Reed83HOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Andrew Luck is a poor example. He was the number 1 pick and they didn't have to give up anything for him. He was also the highest rated prospect since Manning. The colts problem was an awful GM who had no business being in that position. Every draft the whiffed after they took Luck... I know, my point is that QB isn't everything. This must be the biggest fallacy in all of sports, that great QBs can win a Super Bowl without any help. Super Bowl teams are loaded with talent, usually they have at least 1 or 2 players that were top 10 picks. If you spend all your high picks on a QB, even in years where the top QBs all have major flaws, you'll end up in a horrible position. Plus the Bills didn't just stay put, they set themselves up for a possible trade up in next year's QB class. I don't envy the Bears, the Bears should be envying us. We gained extra picks instead of throwing picks away and we are still in a good position to get QB if that is the big need next year. I mean if Trubisky ends up a top 15 QB then the Bears won the trade no questoon, it's just way too early to say either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Bad trade, but I guess if you're the Bears and you haven't had a good QB since Jim McMahon was slammed to the turf against Green Bay in the mid-80s, you're probably getting a little desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsGospel Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 If he becomes a franchise QB for the bears I wonder how bad the 49ers will regret making the trade for only a pair of 3rd rounders, the argument has to go both ways right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) I know, my point is that QB isn't everything. This must be the biggest fallacy in all of sports, that great QBs can win a Super Bowl without any help. Super Bowl teams are loaded with talent, usually they have at least 1 or 2 players that were top 10 picks. If you spend all your high picks on a QB, even in years where the top QBs all have major flaws, you'll end up in a horrible position. Plus the Bills didn't just stay put, they set themselves up for a possible trade up in next year's QB class. I don't envy the Bears, the Bears should be envying us. We gained extra picks instead of throwing picks away and we are still in a good position to get QB if that is the big need next year. I mean if Trubisky ends up a top 15 QB then the Bears won the trade no questoon, it's just way too early to say either way. Except that nobody has ever said that, ever. Edited April 28, 2017 by GoBills808 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 (edited) I don't argue that no one uses it, I just don't quite understand the logic of following it.ALl Fine. So we agree that the RG3 trade was absolutely retarded, as I said when it happened, not only because it didn't come close to following the chart, but, it was a Dan Snynder deal. See, that's the one situation where I know the chart is right, but meaningless, because Dan Snyder is an unmitigated moron. The chart has no relation to his idiocy. There could be a gypsie who can tell him exactly who will make the Pro-Bowl 4 years from now, and he'd still ignore them, and draft others, because he knows better, and, just to spite the gypsie(kinda like the people who "knew' what was gonna happen this past election) Somehow the DVC got thrown overboard...because the RG3 trade was "genius". Here's what really happened: big media will say anything to get clicks, and if that includes lying, stealing, or cheating so be it. Telling us all that the RG3 trade was awesome? No. Telling a massive media market in the DC area...exactly what they want to hear == big money. At some point people are going to realize that the media is now 100% in the bag for clicks/supporting themselves via supporting policy/work product that benefits them/their agenda. Actually, we have empirical results that prove it's already started. See: EPSN laying off 100 on-air talent people. Edited April 28, 2017 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts