1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

I would trade Devonta Smith for 2- firsts, a 5th and a 4th  EVERY BLEEPING DAY OF THE WEEK!!!!

In a vacuum this seems like a good idea. However there's some gambling involved maybe the Bears have a good season and you traded a top 10 pick for two bottom 20 picks. It's debatable which is worth more. If Smith becomes our #1 WR for 7+ years I'll take Smith Everytime. Again if we were low on draft capital in 2021 then that changes things too.

1 minute ago, thedanone82 said:

In a vacuum this seems like a good idea. However there's some gambling involved maybe the Bears have a good season and you traded a top 10 pick for two bottom 20 picks. It's debatable which is worth more. If Smith becomes our #1 WR for 7+ years I'll take Smith Everytime. Again if we were low on draft capital in 2021 then that changes things too.

No way bro, I trade him for 2 firsts every day of the week

4 minutes ago, greend said:

No way bro, I trade him for 2 firsts every day of the week

....

1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

If we were 1 or 2 players away sure. I would take the player.  But we're realistically 11 guys away including the QB

 

You have no idea about Ertz, Cox is old, Hargrave is a mess, Wr2, wr3 and wr4 are terrible. your new Center may be your left tackle, then be the center after your center retires *if the kid you drafted is healthy. Dont think you can name your back up FS. You may have the worst line backer room in the league. 

flip flopping our 12 for the bears 20th, and getting a 3rd. No thanks. Getting another 1st, a 4th and a 5th. yea, I'm in on that

What? 

34 minutes ago, greend said:

 

I

I'm kinda cute too, no?

 

I spared you a shirtless picture

You were good on West Wing

23 minutes ago, thedanone82 said:

....

There is a mystery box with a transparent side panel on the table... or you could trade that one mystery box in for two different mystery boxes... and a few smaller ones as well. 

The discussion by some about DaVonta Smith or taking the Bears deal implies that DaVonta Smith is a 'known' quantity.  That's not true.  He is more known than the picks that would have been pushed into 2022.  Taking him ensured that you got a highly touted WR, but he's by no means a sure thing.  Even signing Free Agent WRs often comes with a bit of uncertainty as many over the years have flopped, usually when a #2 WR gets big money to become a #1.  

 

There is an argument to be made that the Eagles might not have had a shot at a prospect like Smith in 2022 if they make the deal, and we know that they wouldn't have ended up with as good a prospect at #20.   But, please remember that Smith, at this stage is still a 'prospect'.  There are no guarantees when it comes to the NFL draft.   

 

I would have made the trade with Dallas, then traded back with the Bears.  Dallas gets what they want... a bit more draft capital and likely still gets Parsons.  The Bears get what they want, which is Fields.  The Eagles get what I want, which is more draft capital in 2022 which is a draft with more prospects, more information.   And the Giants get Smith.   

 

Someone asked about the Bears being good this year... that's funny.  What has anyone seen from the Bears with Nagy that would make you think that they would be better this year?

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

There is a mystery box with a transparent side panel on the table... or you could trade that one mystery box in for two different mystery boxes... and a few smaller ones as well. 

The discussion by some about DaVonta Smith or taking the Bears deal implies that DaVonta Smith is a 'known' quantity.  That's not true.  He is more known than the picks that would have been pushed into 2022.  Taking him ensured that you got a highly touted WR, but he's by no means a sure thing.  Even signing Free Agent WRs often comes with a bit of uncertainty as many over the years have flopped, usually when a #2 WR gets big money to become a #1.  

 

There is an argument to be made that the Eagles might not have had a shot at a prospect like Smith in 2022 if they make the deal, and we know that they wouldn't have ended up with as good a prospect at #20.   But, please remember that Smith, at this stage is still a 'prospect'.  There are no guarantees when it comes to the NFL draft.   

 

I would have made the trade with Dallas, then traded back with the Bears.  Dallas gets what they want... a bit more draft capital and likely still gets Parsons.  The Bears get what they want, which is Fields.  The Eagles get what I want, which is more draft capital in 2022 which is a draft with more prospects, more information.   And the Giants get Smith.   

 

Someone asked about the Bears being good this year... that's funny.  What has anyone seen from the Bears with Nagy that would make you think that they would be better this year?

Absolutely nothing. I'm happy we ended up with Smith, but I can definitely see the argument you've laid out. We'll see how it all plays out I guess.

I wasn't high on Fields coming into the draft, and I know you shouldn't base evaluations on something as silly as where a guy played. But, Ohio State has never produced a good NFL QB (or at least not in the last 30 years or so). The Bears have never had a good QB, which is kind of insane. To me, Fields going there is almost a double whammy of badness. Of course, it could be spun that as it's a double negative, it will turn into a positive situation. Again, time will tell obviously. 

58 minutes ago, greend said:

 

I

I'm kinda cute too, no?

 

I spared you a shirtless picture

You have more hair than I do.

25 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

You were good on West Wing

Thanks, it was one of my easier roles.

2 minutes ago, justrelax said:

You have more hair than I do.

So you have negative hair?

So it sounds like some of us are willing to legitimately be the browns for the next few seasons and just collect picks hoping that eventually we'll assemble enough talent to maybe make the playoffs. I'd rather take blue chip prospects when we can get them.

37 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

There is a mystery box with a transparent side panel on the table... or you could trade that one mystery box in for two different mystery boxes... and a few smaller ones as well. 

The discussion by some about DaVonta Smith or taking the Bears deal implies that DaVonta Smith is a 'known' quantity.  That's not true.  He is more known than the picks that would have been pushed into 2022.  Taking him ensured that you got a highly touted WR, but he's by no means a sure thing.  Even signing Free Agent WRs often comes with a bit of uncertainty as many over the years have flopped, usually when a #2 WR gets big money to become a #1.  

 

There is an argument to be made that the Eagles might not have had a shot at a prospect like Smith in 2022 if they make the deal, and we know that they wouldn't have ended up with as good a prospect at #20.   But, please remember that Smith, at this stage is still a 'prospect'.  There are no guarantees when it comes to the NFL draft.   

 

I would have made the trade with Dallas, then traded back with the Bears.  Dallas gets what they want... a bit more draft capital and likely still gets Parsons.  The Bears get what they want, which is Fields.  The Eagles get what I want, which is more draft capital in 2022 which is a draft with more prospects, more information.   And the Giants get Smith.   

 

Someone asked about the Bears being good this year... that's funny.  What has anyone seen from the Bears with Nagy that would make you think that they would be better this year?

I agree to a point but we know who we could get this year, next year we can't know where we will pick or who will be available. Again if we didn't have the draft ammo we currently do in 2022 I would want the Bears trade.

Also about the Bears I'm just saying you never know. I wouldn't bet on them having a good season but it could happen.

Bears won't be "good" but I wouldn't be so surprised if they are just average. 3 straight years with Mitch Trubisky and no losing record seasons. They could also implode and be one of the worst teams this season. Hard to say. 

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Bears won't be "good" but I wouldn't be so surprised if they are just average. 3 straight years with Mitch Trubisky and no losing record seasons. They could also implode and be one of the worst teams this season. Hard to say. 

I think that team is destined to give up on Nagy at any moment.  And when the players are lost... the losses pile up quickly.

11 minutes ago, thedanone82 said:

I agree to a point but we know who we could get this year, next year we can't know where we will pick or who will be available. Again if we didn't have the draft ammo we currently do in 2022 I would want the Bears trade.

Also about the Bears I'm just saying you never know. I wouldn't bet on them having a good season but it could happen.

That point was conceded.   And we do have some nice draft capital in 2022.   But, I'd like to push one of those picks to 2023, because that is how you really build a foundation, with multiple years of multiple first round picks.   And, I will also add that my opinion is clouded by my distrust in Hurts being able to really elevate his game, so I would be mitigating the cost of 'overpaying' for another QB in 2022's draft.  I could burn two picks for the QB, save 1 pick to add a player around the new QB, and still potentially push a first to 2022, still bringing back a late first in 2022, or an early 2nd in 2022, depending on what teams are looking to move up, and I'd be fine with that.    Does having Smith really give the team that much of an advantage over that?   I don't think it does.   It's nice to get top talent.    But, a good drafting team can actually find top talent outside of the top 10.   It happens less frequently, but that's the reality.  Of course, this is not a top drafting team by any stretch.  

36 minutes ago, devpool said:

So it sounds like some of us are willing to legitimately be the browns for the next few seasons and just collect picks hoping that eventually we'll assemble enough talent to maybe make the playoffs. I'd rather take blue chip prospects when we can get them.

Agreed

we need foundation players not volume

43 minutes ago, devpool said:

So it sounds like some of us are willing to legitimately be the browns for the next few seasons and just collect picks hoping that eventually we'll assemble enough talent to maybe make the playoffs. I'd rather take blue chip prospects when we can get them.

Well, I guess that all depends on how you view the 'known' of DaVonta Smith.   I see him as a very good player, but I wouldn't have considered him a 'blue chip' prospect.  

So, yeah, in that case, I'd go with volume.   There will be more blue chip prospects available in next year's draft than this year, and having more ammunition makes landing those blue chip prospects more possible.    

10 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Agreed

we need foundation players not volume

I think this team needs a volume of foundation players.   

 

If Devonta had the exact same college career but weighed 190 lbs, he'd be considered a hands down blue chip prospect.

Yet it's doubtul that at 190 lbs he'd been any better as a player, certainly not more durable, or more YAC.

Basically it comes down to whether you trust the film or the measurements.

I've given a list of small WRs (180 lbs or less) who thrived in the "headhunter" days, probably 15% or so of the career top 100 yardage guys. So it's not like it can't be done. And it's easier for a small WR to thrive in today's NFL with the rules against targeting and spearing.

24 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

I hope he didn't mean literally.

23 minutes ago, austinfan said:

If Devonta had the exact same college career but weighed 190 lbs, he'd be considered a hands down blue chip prospect.

Yet it's doubtul that at 190 lbs he'd been any better as a player, certainly not more durable, or more YAC.

Basically it comes down to whether you trust the film or the measurements.

I've given a list of small WRs (180 lbs or less) who thrived in the "headhunter" days, probably 15% or so of the career top 100 yardage guys. So it's not like it can't be done. And it's easier for a small WR to thrive in today's NFL with the rules against targeting and spearing.

D Jax was 169 at the combine and he did some punt returning as we all know, hopefully Smith isn’t doing that.  Besides he may not be the same WR at 185 that he is at 166, especially off the line of scrimmage. When Smith turns his hips slightly he’s difficult as hell to block because there isn’t anything to block. 

32 minutes ago, austinfan said:

If Devonta had the exact same college career but weighed 190 lbs, he'd be considered a hands down blue chip prospect.

Yet it's doubtul that at 190 lbs he'd been any better as a player, certainly not more durable, or more YAC.

Basically it comes down to whether you trust the film or the measurements.

I've given a list of small WRs (180 lbs or less) who thrived in the "headhunter" days, probably 15% or so of the career top 100 yardage guys. So it's not like it can't be done. And it's easier for a small WR to thrive in today's NFL with the rules against targeting and spearing.

Let me put it another way... very few blue chip WRs make a difference to their team's success.   

Best WRs of the last 10 years or so... Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, Deandre Hopkins, Davante Adams.... add whomever you'd like.   How many playoff wins were they a part of?   How many Super Bowls?      Maybe the WR position isn't a 'blue chip' position or a foundational piece.   That doesn't mean that they can be as terrible at finding decent WRs as they have over the past few years, but let's not put the cart before the horse.   The WR position is a position highly dependent on others, specifically OL and QB.   If you don't have that foundation, your All-Pro WR doesn't mean much of anything.

11 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Let me put it another way... very few blue chip WRs make a difference to their team's success.   

Best WRs of the last 10 years or so... Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, Deandre Hopkins, Davante Adams.... add whomever you'd like.   How many playoff wins were they a part of?   How many Super Bowls?      Maybe the WR position isn't a 'blue chip' position or a foundational piece.   That doesn't mean that they can be as terrible at finding decent WRs as they have over the past few years, but let's not put the cart before the horse.   The WR position is a position highly dependent on others, specifically OL and QB.   If you don't have that foundation, your All-Pro WR doesn't mean much of anything.

Taking Megatron out of the equation because of Detroit. Otherwise, WR is clearly more important than ever. Bucs had a legit #1 (Evans) and a top 5 WR core. Chiefs had a top 3 WR (Hill) and a top 2 TE (Kelce). Even teams like the Pats/Eagles had solid WRs cores with their run, that were significantly augmented by a top 3 TE (Gronk, Ertz). In today's NFL, you're not winning 3 playoff games without a premium pass-catcher. If you want that to be a TE instead of a WR, sure. However, it has to be someone.

6 minutes ago, RLC said:

Taking Megatron out of the equation because of Detroit. Otherwise, WR is clearly more important than ever. Bucs had a legit #1 (Evans) and a top 5 WR core. Chiefs had a top 3 WR (Hill) and a top 2 TE (Kelce). Even teams like the Pats/Eagles had solid WRs cores with their run, that were significantly augmented by a top 3 TE (Gronk, Ertz). In today's NFL, you're not winning 3 playoff games without a premium pass-catcher. If you want that to be a TE instead of a WR, sure. However, it has to be someone.

 

 

To counter, what were the Bucs and Chiefs with those same skill players when they had Winston and Smith instead of the two all time great QBs that they have now? 

 

I agree completely that WR is not a building block position.  It just isn't. Smith was the best player available though and it addressed a need on the team and he absolutely is a blue chip talent. But the rest of the roster still needs a lot of work. 

3 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

Saints took two guys on my Do Not Want list with their first two selections.  Turner was a late riser on draft boards and the Saints spent their first round pick on him, after supposedly trying to trade up from 28 into the top 10 for a CB?  Then they took Pete Werner in the second round -- heard an interview with him yesterday, and he doesn't even sound bright.  Took Ian Book in the 4th round, which was odd as well.

Hopefully that classless team is headed in the wrong direction, fast.

 

That would be more sweeter than anything right now. Fing hate that team more than any other (yes even our div)

3 minutes ago, RLC said:

Taking Megatron out of the equation because of Detroit. Otherwise, WR is clearly more important than ever. Bucs had a legit #1 (Evans) and a top 5 WR core. Chiefs had a top 3 WR (Hill) and a top 2 TE (Kelce). Even teams like the Pats/Eagles had solid WRs cores with their run, that were significantly augmented by a top 3 TE (Gronk, Ertz). In today's NFL, you're not winning 3 playoff games without a premium pass-catcher. If you want that to be a TE instead of a WR, sure. However, it has to be someone.

You know what those teams have in spades?   A top tier QB.   Bucs: Brady.   Until Brady got there, the 'legit #1 WR' in Evans didn't matter.   Same with Godwin.  They were also rans.  Counting backwards... 7-9, 5-11, 5-11, 9-7...   Shall I count all the way back to where Evans entered the picture? 

 

Or the Chiefs?   What would they be without Mahomes?  What would those WRs look like with Mahomes, but no OL?  Oh, we got to see that in the Super Bowl.    The NFL has changed... but it still depends on the QB and the OL.  If you don't have that... you don't have anything.