Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Not really thinking Davis looking like a real big positive from Rosie. Trading up so high for him hasn’t been looking very wise. Surely not if you expect high picks to not be very developmental. Hopefully Davis can play half of each game and still have any effective play on the second half of the season…dare to think about postseason even.

How much was " so high"?  

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Not really thinking Davis looking like a real big positive from Rosie. Trading up so high for him hasn’t been looking very wise. Surely not if you expect high picks to not be very developmental. Hopefully Davis can play half of each game and still have any effective play on the second half of the season…dare to think about postseason even.

But we need to trade up to 9 next week

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

Why stack #1 picks??    Idk maybe we get offered next year's #1 pick from a team in the mid 30s...should we turn it down because we don't need a QB?  Makes no sense.  Team offers you a trade that benefits you...you take it. 

You can even were mentioning utilizing the picks to move on from our no starting level running QB. I’d go back and quote you saying all this but unfortunately all those posts are lost now.

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

How much was " so high"?  

13th pick of the first round. That high. Real real high. Especially for a guy we are looking to try and develop still in 2024.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

You can even were mentioning utilizing the picks to move on from our no starting level running QB. I’d go back and quote you saying all this but unfortunately all those posts are lost now.

Yes..please go back.   I absolutely said it's two great trades regardless of the QB.   Please please go back. 

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

13th pick of the first round. That high. Real real high. Especially for a guy we are looking to try and develop still in 2024.

Which pick did we have originally to trade up so high?

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

But we need to trade up to 9 next week

Not for a Jordan Davis.

But Davis was a positional need. Hard to run our D without a Nose. So I do cut a bit of slack over that.

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

You can even were mentioning utilizing the picks to move on from our no starting level running QB. I’d go back and quote you saying all this but unfortunately all those posts are lost now.

See..the problem is...you try to read everyone's thoughts...you don't pay attention to what other people say...what's that word I use again..starts with an N.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Not for a Jordan Davis.

You don't think he was top 5 on the Eagles board?  The way they value linemen?

4 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

But we need to trade up to 9 next week

Never said need. I did admit to I’d pull the trigger in that rumored trade proposal with the ninth pick that’s supposedly on the trade block. I’ve been on record as believing pretty strong in this draft class. Should be a quality player(based historically at the 22spot No Mas) if we stay at our spot.

4 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Yes..please go back.   I absolutely said it's two great trades regardless of the QB.   Please please go back. 

You said we need the picks to move on from Hurts to get a QB. Endless preaching from you about Hurts not being of starter level and only a running QB. Hasn’t changed that much from you even today really.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

You said we need the picks to move on from Hurts to get a QB. Endless preaching from you about Hurts not being of starter level and only a running QB. Hasn’t changed that much from you even today really.

But believe it or not…you were even more against Hurts at that point.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Never said need. I did admit to I’d pull the trigger in that rumored trade proposal with the ninth pick that’s supposedly on the trade block. I’ve been on record as believing pretty strong in this draft class. Should be a quality player(based historically at the 22spot No Mas) if we stay at our spot.

Right it's a strong draft class,why would you give up draft assets in a strong draft class?? I only do it if I'm big time fleecing someone,otherwise I want the picks in a deep talented class at every position(except RB)

5 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Which pick did we have originally to trade up so high?

Is the 13th overall pick not considered a high draft choice to you now?

4 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

See..the problem is...you try to read everyone's thoughts...you don't pay attention to what other people say...what's that word I use again..starts with an N.

I’m not black. The N word isn’t appropriate any which way though.

I have no clue why the Bears would give up the 9 pick when they are rebuilding and need foundational players everywhere. The 9 pick will be a key cog in their rebuild. You may or may not get that at 22

7 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

You don't think he was top 5 on the Eagles board?  The way they value linemen?

Clearly higher than S Hamilton I considered should have been the obvious choice. Not sure they were as high on Sauce as I was. Do think they liked a couple of those WR. Think that was Garrett Wilson I really liked in that draft at WR. But gave Saints the ammo to go get Olave to put top WR out of reach. Had missed out on the FA WR options. 

If I'm the Bears I am taking Caleb Williams at 1 and Brock Bowers at 9

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I have no clue why the Bears would give up the 9 pick when they are rebuilding and need foundational players everywhere. The 9 pick will be a key cog in their rebuild. You may or may not get that at 22

Think your statement almost answers itself. Grab more ammo while rebuilding with trading back at 9. Especially since they have the top overall pick they are going to use. They have that luxury.

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

If I'm the Bears I am taking Caleb Williams at 1 and Brock Bowers at 9

Their O line stinks,but you gotta start somewhere

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Think your statement almost answers itself. Grab more ammo while rebuilding with trading back at 9. Especially since they have the top overall pick they are going to use. They have that luxury.

They could trade the 9 back a little,I just don't see them dropping to 22. Brock Bowers could be there at 9. If so, the phone will be ringing off the hook with trade offers

14 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

If I'm the Bears I am taking Caleb Williams at 1 and Brock Bowers at 9

Wouldn’t be bad for them. To nitpick: are you so sure a Cal kid that played at Georgia can thrive in cold windy Chicago? I listed Bowers as my top tier elite prospect. But cold weather and wind is a factor. Several players don’t adapt well. Just look at Tua. I don’t think Tua has won a game with the weather under 50 degrees. Tua is a good QB. Lit it up last year. But…don’t see him translating as well here of in Chi- Town…or anywhere cold. Fell off to end the season for sure. Just not a cold weather QB. Will the cold wind hurt Bowers game? Not sure we have enough of any proof to show it wouldn’t. 
  Probably stretching things here a bit I admit. But is something to consider and question. More than just athletic traits come into play. Many here seem to not understand these other factors.

Chicago Bears Draft Picks by Round in 2024

• Round 1, Pick 1 (from CAR)
• Round 1, Pick 9
• Round 3, Pick 75
• Round 4, Pick 122 (from PHI)      Yeah they need more picks in a stacked draft

16 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Right it's a strong draft class,why would you give up draft assets in a strong draft class?? I only do it if I'm big time fleecing someone,otherwise I want the picks in a deep talented class at every position(except RB)

And you could be just like the Giants. Love a draft class. Love DeVonta. But let us trade up in front of you to grab him. Then draft Toney instead. I’d say that one draft situation has made a difference between us and the giants.