thanks guys for providing the Links. I thought they were shared more than enough for everybody to know it.
I still wait for the prove from the guy that initially claimed it. Bears had to go to #2 to secure their QB and that is easily worth a 3rd round pick. You don't take the risk of losing out on your QB for a 3rd round pick. That'd look stupid for sure. Pace actually made a good call and SF blew their picks a bit. They made up for getting Jimmy G.
Those are just tbe links for 49rs side. Remember that pace was also fielding calls for the 3rd spot when it was understood sf if staying was likely going to grab thomas. So 2nd and 3rd were getting calld for trades up...and no other calls were recieved to trade up to the top 3 after trubs was selected.
They gave up 2 3s and a 4(which after a trade down really ended up being 2 3s) the trade numbers were right in order with the trading up team slightly at a disadvantage which is per usual.
At the time, I investigated the draft history of trading a #3 for a #2 and only found one other example in the last 25 years or so. We paid a lot less than the previous #3 for #2 transaction. It included a #1 from the next year as I recall.
I've been done with this whole thing a long time ago. It was a shrewd move by Pace to get what this team needed to move forward. I applaud the move. And I have moved on. If some can not move away from it, or see it for what it is, it's their issue. To continue to rejustify it is just a waste of time. I have been down that road with others and it is just a good waste of part of your life.
Those are just tbe links for 49rs side. Remember that pace was also fielding calls for the 3rd spot when it was understood sf if staying was likely going to grab thomas. So 2nd and 3rd were getting calld for trades up...and no other calls were recieved to trade up to the top 3 after trubs was selected.
They gave up 2 3s and a 4(which after a trade down really ended up being 2 3s) the trade numbers were right in order with the trading up team slightly at a disadvantage which is per usual.
At the time, I investigated the draft history of trading a #3 for a #2 and only found one other example in the last 25 years or so. We paid a lot less than the previous #3 for #2 transaction. It included a #1 from the next year as I recall.
This is not directed at you Chuck, but just a general response to your post.
Does it really matter if we did not get a bargain here? First, I think we did fine, but even if we paid more than the charts say (which is also arbitrary), does it matter? The goal was to secure a franchise QB to move forward. No one knows better than Bears fans that this can take decades. Personally, I think we are missing the forest for the trees. If we met our goal, I would happily have given up a first and not a third. We simply are not going anywhere without a franchise QB. We have proven that year after year for decades. It needed to be done, and almost no price is too great if we succeeded. If the Pats had not taken Brady with a 6th, but had instead had given 2 1sts, I think most Pats fans would still be extremely happy to have done it.
I don't even know why this is even a topic. I don't mean that in a bad way... I just don't get it. It seemed like a great move to me. A no brainer move that needed to happen. I don;t get why he is being criticized for it. There is stuff that he SHOULD be criticized for, but on this, I think he should be applauded.
At the time, I investigated the draft history of trading a #3 for a #2 and only found one other example in the last 25 years or so. We paid a lot less than the previous #3 for #2 transaction. It included a #1 from the next year as I recall.
This is not directed at you Chuck, but just a general response to your post.
Does it really matter if we did not get a bargain here? First, I think we did fine, but even if we paid more than the charts say (which is also arbitrary), does it matter? The goal was to secure a franchise QB to move forward. No one knows better than Bears fans that this can take decades. Personally, I think we are missing the forest for the trees. If we met our goal, I would happily have given up a first and not a third. We simply are not going anywhere without a franchise QB. We have proven that year after year for decades. It needed to be done, and almost no price is too great if we succeeded. If the Pats had not taken Brady with a 6th, but had instead had given 2 1sts, I think most Pats fans would still be extremely happy to have done it.
I don't even know why this is even a topic. I don't mean that in a bad way... I just don't get it. It seemed like a great move to me. A no brainer move that needed to happen. I don;t get why he is being criticized for it. There is stuff that he SHOULD be criticized for, but on this, I think he should be applauded.