Maybe this was brought up already, but look at it like this.
This is Vikings-related, but, same idea:
Thoughts?
I've been saying that for some time. First round picks don't represent blue-chip future AP/BP players, they don't even represent future starters...they represent potential only. Your first round picks have the potential to be all those things above AND less. Would you trade Smith-Trublisky-Floyd for Watson straight up? What about Smith-Floyd-Trubisky-White? What about Smith-Mack (they represent our last three first round picks)? What about Smith-Montgomery-Kmet (our last three first picks in the draft)? I'm saying....yes, yes, yes and yes.
The point you need to settle for yourself is: Is Watson's value now worth more than the potential that 3 first rounders offer--all the good and bad outcomes. People are acting like 3 traded first round picks will result in the Bears missing out on 3 above-average starters. They also represent Solomon Thomas, John Ross, OJ Howard, Charles Harris and Gareon Conley (those last three are clustered around pick 20 in the 2017 NFL draft--to pick a recent year at random.)
Sounding like a broken record, here are a few things we all read on the forum these last few weeks: Because Mitch > Foles (1) The OL played better (2) The running game was better (3) The entire OFF was better
But now even though Watson >>>> Mitch none of those things are true?
What about this: top 5 receivers by yardage
Houston
Chicago
Cooks
Robinson
Fuller
Mooney
Cobb
Miller
Akins
Graham
Coutee
Montgomery
RBs
Houston
Chicago
D.Johnson
Montgomery
Watson still went 70%, 4823 yds, 33-7 TD-Int, 112.4 qb rating. And I'd rate the Bears skill position as better than Houstons (considering age especially)
How does Watson not make the Bears OFF better? I'd make a trade if Houston would take it.
Maybe this was brought up already, but look at it like this.
This is Vikings-related, but, same idea:
Thoughts?
I've been saying that for some time. First round picks don't represent blue-chip future AP/BP players, they don't even represent future starters...they represent potential only. Your first round picks have the potential to be all those things above AND less. Would you trade Smith-Trublisky-Floyd for Watson straight up? What about Smith-Floyd-Trubisky-White? What about Smith-Mack (they represent our last three first round picks)? What about Smith-Montgomery-Kmet (our last three first picks in the draft)? I'm saying....yes, yes, yes and yes.
The point you need to settle for yourself is: Is Watson's value now worth more than the potential that 3 first rounders offer--all the good and bad outcomes. People are acting like 3 traded first round picks will result in the Bears missing out on 3 above-average starters. They also represent Solomon Thomas, John Ross, OJ Howard, Charles Harris and Gareon Conley (those last three are clustered around pick 20 in the 2017 NFL draft--to pick a recent year at random.)
Sounding like a broken record, here are a few things we all read on the forum these last few weeks: Because Mitch > Foles (1) The OL played better (2) The running game was better (3) The entire OFF was better
But now even though Watson >>>> Mitch none of those things are true?
What about this: top 5 receivers by yardage
Houston
Chicago
Cooks
Robinson
Fuller
Mooney
Cobb
Miller
Akins
Graham
Coutee
Montgomery
RBs
Houston
Chicago
D.Johnson
Montgomery
Watson still went 70%, 4823 yds, 33-7 TD-Int, 112.4 qb rating. And I'd rate the Bears skill position as better than Houstons (considering age especially)
How does Watson not make the Bears OFF better? I'd make a trade if Houston would take it.
Well stated
It reinforces my point made earlier that there's no such thing as a bad time to get a great QB. And given Ryan Pace's less than stellar draft history in the early rounds, the "cost" might not be as high as some people think.
Yeah...of course the GM is going to say they aren't trading Watson...they have to try and regain whatever leverage they can. But this situation has become pretty toxic.
hou already has all the leverage. He is under a 4 yr contract, watson is doing what he is bc he has 0 and is trying to gain some leverage
He's got more leverage than you think. Yes he has a contract, but he can create a level of uncertainty around that team that could have levels of repercussions. You think if they play hardball with Watson other players won't take notice?
hou already has all the leverage. He is under a 4 yr contract, watson is doing what he is bc he has 0 and is trying to gain some leverage
He's got more leverage than you think. Yes he has a contract, but he can create a level of uncertainty around that team that could have levels of repercussions. You think if they play hardball with Watson other players won't take notice?
I would think things could get extremely toxic in that locker room if they force Watson to stay. With a new GM and HC it could be a nuclear option hurting their tenure there from day-1. It's being reported today that JJ Watt could be moving on too. Watson and Watt are the "faces of the franchise" there.
If this is true (2x 1sts, 2x 2nds and two young starters on D like Smith & Jackson), Pace really needs to stay away. This is beyond laughable.
How delusional is Houston's new GM Nick Caserio?
I just read that Lovie Smith is the Texans new defensive coordintor. Which means Nicols and Roquan Smith are better fits than Johnson. It also means the Texans judgement is severely impaired if Lovie is their DC. Hope is alive!
If the Texans want our first (20th) and second (52nd) this year, and whatever they are next year, Smith and Nicols, I'd say yes. In a heartbeat. Not blinking, and hope to get out of the room without someone realizing the robbery that just occurred.
But that's not going to happen. They Bears will wind up with Jimmy G and Foles. Or Foles and a draft pick. And sadness. Lots of sadness. Always sadness.