BearFan PHX

this does sound like a real scenario. If it was accompanied by a trade down to picks 30 to 32, and take Mond with the 5 year option, while picking up an extra pick(s) it would seem like a good move. Then again, if he could get an OT at #20 and still get Mond, that would be better, even if it means no 5th year option - and from the "win now to save your job" point of view, that 5th year is probably worth less to Pace and Nagy than an OT - or SHOULD be. I lost an infamous bet last year betting that Pace and Nagy would understnad they have OT needs, and apparently they didnt see it, and it cost us last year.

I dunno if anyone can ruin a 50/50 shot. I agree that Pace does not give us a competitive edge in QB insight. And of course that is his job - to better our odds. But even as he is, 50/50 is still 50/50...

I hear ya, and I dont trust Pace to read the tea leaves on these guys at all. That said, it seems like top 15 QBs are about 50/50 anyway, so the odds Pace blows it are about as good as him hitting a home run. So from that point of view, it might not be as big a disaster as you think to trade up. Then again, this is hardly a ringing endorsement of Pace is it?

right,. the reason you take a flyer on a young up and coming coordinator as a head coach is not because you KNOW theyll be a decent a coach, but because you hope they will be a special one. And similarly, once you know they arent special, theres no reason to keep them, even if theyre OK.

Id love to see this draft. I dont think the trade down scenarios the game provides are often that easy to accomplish in reality, but I think everyone would have to say that was an amazing draft if a GM actually pulled it off.

QB, OT, OT, EDGE, CB

of course that is a video game draft, but if you managed to actually do that, it'd be a damn good draft.

I absolutely agree. If they choose well, or stumble into a good pick, that will be great. If they miss again, we will be hamstrung by their decision for several years. I dont understand why we dont have a new GM making that decision. That said, hitting on a good QB in the first 15 picks is 50/50, so Pace could accidentally pick an amazing QB just as easily as a bad one, so maybe it's OK. but he does not provide any competitive edge, and of course that is the only thing a GM is supposed to do.

this is a QBs game and a QBs league now.

lol well i DID say that. So they might KNOW, but still be wrong

exactly. they just chose the wrong one(s).

ah yeah, mI dont mean they KNOW how any of the QBs will pan out. Im saying they KNOW they want to draft one, and give him the keys to the offense, so they KNOW Darnold is trade-able. You are absolutely right that no one KNOWS if a QB will pan out. That's for sure.

I think that it isnt so much a negative on Darnold as it is that they KNOW they want a QB @ #2, and that guy is going to be awesome. So why not get the picks now as you rebuild?

totally

really cool analysis Adam. Thanks for doing all that work and sharing it. It's worth noting that one of the big point successes here is Leonard Floyd too. Pace has made some good picks and some bad picks, and as you say, a weighted random generator would have done no worse. That is no competitive edge.

Yup - I know we agree, and have for a long time. I get the idea that MT was bad and his choice wasn't Nagy's fault. But there is so much that Nagy has screwed up too. Either way, you're right, they did get this year. And one wonders whether they were told that they might get more than that if they "show improvement" To me, this is a clear indictment of the McCaskeys at this point. I've been a kool aid drinking optimistic Bears fan for many decades. In my regular life I am upbeat, positive, optimistic - Im not the kind to look on the dark side of things. But this has gotten so bad now, I want to give up on the team and pick a new one. In fact i have decided to do that, and I am finding that my heart won't let go. So I guess I'm stuck here. They don't deserve us, our interest etc. They really don't, but I don't think I can really walk away. Maybe I just won't watch. Eh thats a lie too. Dammit.

yeah I wont make the same mistake again this year. Im saying how it should be, and youre saying hoe McCaskey sees it. We are both right. Nagy is not going to get us a Super Bowl, and some incremental progress might well be enough for McCaskey to keep them around. Youre predicting whether they will keep their jobs, Im saying whether they SHOULD keep their jobs.

I dunno, safely being able to deliver a 9-8 season, and being able to ever deliver a Super Bowl are two really different things.

Yes. This is absolutely possible. The question that should be asked (and isnt being asked) isn't whether we are improving, but instead, does this group have a chance to win a Super Bowl? And the answer is no. For decades we have seen the cycle - the team goes 5-11, then has an easier schedule the next year, goes 9-7, maybe win some coaching awards for the big turnaround. THen with a stronger schedule, we are 6-10 again, and repeat. This is the life cycle of a mediocre team. An 8-8 team in the abstract, that can beat the bad teams, but cannot repeatedly defeat the good ones. And for decades we've seen Bears ownership reward it, and then after a second cycle, replace it with more mediocrity. Nagy, getting in as the 7th seed on an 8-8 record is not a reason to keep you around. Going 10-7 this year with an early playoff exit is NOT growth. grrrr

I'd love to see those bookend tackles, and I wouldnt be too upset that Nagy and Pace wont be the ones picking the QB of the future. But that said, if we can get any of the top 5 QBs, and it costs us this years 1st and next years 1st to do it, plus maybe a 3rd or something, I'd be down to do that too. Not becasue I trust Pace to pick the best out of the 5, but because I think any of the five are worth it, and we need a QB.

in general, given an average distribution of talent in a given draft, and given an average distribution of needs on a given team, this makes sense. Trading down gives you more players. You could for example draft two players for one position, buying insurance that one of them might pan out. Of course there is game changing talent available in the top of the first round every year that really cant be paralleled with other players either. And then there are need positions, like QB, where you need to have a guy that's one of the best 15 in the world to have a realistic shot at a Super Bowl. If you already have a Pat Mahomes, then trading down is often a very good strategy. and of course, when good players are falling because of positional needs over the previous ten picks, then you dont want to trade down, but to grab that guy when you can. So in general, as a rule, you're probably right. But in specific, I suppose it depends on each situation. If it was always good to trade down, then no one would ever agree to your trade, because theyd be trading up, and would need to think they were winning too. So I guess in the history of the NFL, every trade down trade ever made was accompanied by a trade up trade as well?

totally agree with your moneyball point of view.

I think they devalue future picks vs this year picks? And if you think the #3 QB is gonna be the guy, i guess hes worth almost anything. But can we know how any of these guys will actually be?

yeah wasnt his arm is incredible?!! but he looks like one of the keebler elves. then again, there is no logical reason why Kyler Murray should be able to play in the league, and yet...

true, but then substitute whoever the 5th QB taken is for my comment. I dont trust Pace to make a good decision between the five, but I feel like you cant really go wrong with any of them. Or rather, that the risk isnt easy to see at this point before they play in the NFL.