2023 Draft - Bears Edition

[BsGenius]

Me: Apples.

The Genius: Oranges!

Run Forest run!

Texans should of tanked because the #1 pick is more valuable than the #2 pick. What happened after is irrelevant to that FACT. Congratulations to the Texans for making the best out of their hand given, but their hand could and should have been much better to begin with. The fact you don't understand this shows you have real issues understanding basic logic.

Keep running pubes.

 

[BearsWillWin]

Packers should have tanked in 2004 and gotten the #1 pick so they could have drafted Alex Smith.

What happened after is irrelevant.

 

[BearsWillWin]

Chiefs could have tanked and gotten Deshaun Watson or Mitch Trubisky. Instead they were forced to trade up and settle on Mahomes.

What happened after that draft is irrelevant.

 

[BearsWillWin]

If only the Chiefs had tanked. They could have drafted a sex offender instead of having two Lombardis in their trophy cabinet.

Results don’t matter. Tanking does.

 

[BearsWillWin]

“Base Logic” says the Colts won the league when they tanked and drafted Andrew Luck.

And just look at how stocked their trophy case is since that happened. Amazing.

Imagine thinking wins and losses don’t matter. How utterly retarded do you have to be?

 

[BearsWillWin]

You wanna know what team is smart? Cleveland Browns.

Tanked and got Baker Mayfield. Could have not tanked and gotten Josh Allen or Lamar Jackson. But they stuck to it and tanked for #1. And now look at them.

Results don’t matter.

 

[BsGenius]

The #1 is pick is more valuable than the #2 pick.

You're confused. You're simply too old. A higher pick doesn't guarantee you the better player, a team still has to do their homework. It just gives you the best chance.

Now name all the instances in NFL history where a #1 pick turned out better than the #2 pick. Your ramblings are all irrelevant.

 

[BearsWillWin]

The #1 is pick is more valuable than the #2 pick.

Before the draft, yes.

But that doesn't mean the team with the #2 pick regrets picking #2.

You're confused. You're simply too old. A higher pick doesn't guarantee you the better player, a team still has to do their homework. It just gives you the best chance.

And Houston proved you can get the players you want without tanking.

Now name all the instances in NFL history where a #1 pick turned out better than the #2 pick. Your ramblings are all irrelevant.

I'm willing to bet any amount of money your simple brain can think of that in the history of the NFL draft the times the #1 pick is better than anyone else drafted that year is a very low number in comparison to how many drafts have taken place. We can go back to 1936 or we can start in the modern era if you prefer....but the times the #1 ended up, in hindsight, being the best player in that draft is most definitely low. Hell...we can even do the last 10. Joe Burrow is probably the only guy drafted in the last decade that is definitely the best player in his draft class. Maybe Myles Garrett too. But that would be 20%.

Tanking ain't what it's all cracked up to be. But you keep beating that dead horse.

 

[BsGenius]

Before the draft, yes.

And that's the timeframe we are talking about. BEFORE the draft, you know the time when you decided not to tank. Duh.

But that doesn't mean the team with the #2 pick regrets picking #2.

How they'll end up feeling is different from how they felt at the time of the draft. You're using foresight to make your argument. And since no one has a crystal ball, you can't do that. You judge GMs for the trades they make and who they end up drafting. Two different things.

And Houston proved you can get the players you want without tanking.

How do you know who Houston wanted? How do you know they didn't want Bryce Young? How do you know they couldn't move up and down the draft board with the #1 pick and still have surplus? Weak argument.

the times the #1 pick is better than anyone else drafted that year is a very low number

Who said this? Are you arguing the #2 pick is better than anyone else drafted that year?

Tanking ain't what it's all cracked up to be. But you keep beating that dead horse.

Sure it is. Look at the haul we got because the Texans didn't tank. You think we would have gotten this same haul with the #2 pick?

You said before Poles gets an A+ for trading our #1. How do you know? All of our picks could be duds so by your dumb logic, this trade could END UP being an F right? How do you possibly give a grade now w/out having a crystal ball? This is where your argument breaks down. You are getting the time of the trade confused with how the traded ended up. Two separate things.

 

[BearsWillWin]

And that's the timeframe we are talking about. BEFORE the draft, you know the time when you decided not to tank. Duh.

Means nothing in reality though. Because you can build through the draft and be a winning team without having the #1 pick. See any recent SB winner or runner up.

The #1 pick is not what you think it is.

Anything else you say is moot because the results don't say what you want and need them to say.

 

[BearsWillWin]

You judge GMs for the trades they make and who they end up drafting.

You judge GMs by what their teams do on the field.

As usual you are short sided.

Wins and losses are the only things that matter. If you make a "good" trade and lose it doesn't matter. If you make a "bad" trade and win it doesn't matter.

The Rams roster is a mess right now. They are getting old and they have injuries all over and they have a lack of draft capital. You know why it doesn't matter? They have a SB trophy recently and everything they paid to get it is completely 100% worth it.

The Cleveland Browns have the opposite problem. They made trades and wasted picks and they have absolutely nothing to show for it.

Results are all that matters.

How do you know who Houston wanted? How do you know they didn't want Bryce Young? How do you know they couldn't move up and down the draft board with the #1 pick and still have surplus? Weak argument.

If they wanted Bryce Young they would have traded for the #1 pick. They were content not doing so. Logic dictates they knew who their guy was. Because it wasn't a lack of aggression. They proved that when they traded for the #3 pick.

Houston knew who was likely going #1 once the Bears moved off the pick and they put their draft plan in place based around that. And anyone that doesn't have their head up their ass sees that.

Sure it is. Look at the haul we got because the Texans didn't tank. You think we would have gotten this same haul with the #2 pick?

QBs went 1 and 2. If Houston had the #1 pick Carolina can still make the same trade with the Bears because they wanted a QB.

So yes....I do.

Again...your failure to understand logic just completely dooms you.

You said before Poles gets an A+ for trading our #1. How do you know? All of our picks could be duds so by your dumb logic, this trade could END UP being an F right? How do you possibly give a grade now w/out having a crystal ball? This is where your argument breaks down. You are getting the time of the trade confused with how the traded ended up. Two separate things.

Poles gets his grade because he improved the roster right away with that trade by getting Moore. And he spun it into more draft capital. If the picks flop his grade declines. But unless Moore doesn't produce at all, which I think is probably a low percentage shot, there's probably no way that it's dipping to an F.

You can grade things now and then change the grade later. Right now I think Poles is doing a decent to good job as our GM. Two years from now that opinion can change. He might be great. Or he might be awful.

Opinions and grades in sports are fluid. It's amazing that you, a genius, can't grasp that.

You can grade a trade at the time of the trade and then you can grade it later when results are in. Both can be true.

 

[BearsWillWin]

Who said this? Are you arguing the #2 pick is better than anyone else drafted that year?

And holy fucking shit....are you actually this dumb?

Jesus man. Making justanidiot look like a literal fucking Einstein.

 

[BearsWillWin]

The genius when he is forced to talk about football...

 

[Jiddy]

No matter what the condition the world is in...

Nuclear apocalypse...

Aliens invade and kill everyone...

Massive disease wipes out the population...

No matter what...

Genius will be on his deathbed yammering on about tanking and the Chase Claypool trade.

 

[BsGenius]

Means nothing in reality though. Because you can build through the draft and be a winning team without having the #1 pick. See any recent SB winner or runner up.

Who said you can't be a winning team w/out the #1 pick? Stop putting words in my mouth please.

The #1 pick is not what you think it is.

Absolutely it is. The value you get with the number 1 pick is greater than any other pick on the board. If you don't know this, then you're just dumb. No other way to put it.

Anything else you say is moot because the results don't say what you want and need them to say.

The results absolutely say what I mean. You just don't understand.

You judge GMs by what their teams do on the field.

Bullshit. The GM largely builds the team, the coach is responsible for the wins and losses. Assuming Poles drafted well, if the Bears end up with the worst record in the league again next year Poles will not get fired, Eberflus might though.

If they wanted Bryce Young they would have traded for the #1 pick.

Wrong. This is just dumb. Carolina wanted Young, they were not going to get moved off of Young unless it was an absurd offer, an offer too absurd for the Texans to make. Just because you want a specific player doesn't mean you give up the entire draft to get him. Duh.

Houston knew who was likely going #1 once the Bears moved off the pick and they put their draft plan in place based around that

Of course.

QBs went 1 and 2. If Houston had the #1 pick Carolina can still make the same trade with the Bears because they wanted a QB.

So yes....I do.

Carolina would not have given up the same haul for the #2 pick. Because you know, common sense.

Again...your failure to understand logic just completely dooms you.

You're an idiot.

Poles gets his grade because he improved the roster right away with that trade by getting Moore. And he spun it into more draft capital. If the picks flop his grade declines. But unless Moore doesn't produce at all, which I think is probably a low percentage shot, there's probably no way that it's dipping to an F.

Wrong the grade does not change. There are two grades: When GMs make a trade and who GMs draft. It doesn't change you dimwit. Again, if Poles trades Fields for a 7th round pick and that 7th round pick turns into a stud. Poles would grade highly for the pick but would grade terribly for the trade bordering on him getting fired.

You can grade a trade at the time of the trade and then you can grade it later when results are in. Both can be true.

So if DJ Moore gets hit by a bus tomorrow your A+ goes to a F? You're an idiot. Giving Poles an F under this scenario is completely unfair for obvious reasons.

lmao. Why would you use the same grade to judge two different things? I mean how stupid are you exactly.

And holy fucking shit....are you actually this dumb?

You read my mind.

 

[BsGenius]

The genius when he is forced to talk about football...

This is what grey pubes does when losing an argument. Posts pictures. Happens every time.

 

[BearsWillWin]

This is what grey pubes does when losing an argument. Posts pictures. Happens every time.

The genius thinks a gif is a picture.

 

[BearsWillWin]

Who said you can't be a winning team w/out the #1 pick? Stop putting words in my mouth please.

When did I say anyone said that? Stop putting words in my mout please.

Absolutely it is. The value you get with the number 1 pick is greater than any other pick on the board. If you don't know this, then you're just dumb. No other way to put it.

If you were correct more teams that have the #1 would have immediate success more often. But the data does not support your argument.

Perceived value isn't the same as actual value.

The results absolutely say what I mean. You just don't understand.

The results in no way support your argument. They, in fact, do the opposite.

Bullshit. The GM largely builds the team, the coach is responsible for the wins and losses. Assuming Poles drafted well, if the Bears end up with the worst record in the league again next year Poles will not get fired, Eberflus might though.

If a team loses consistently year after year...does the GM keep his job?

Wrong. This is just dumb. Carolina wanted Young, they were not going to get moved off of Young unless it was an absurd offer, an offer too absurd for the Texans to make. Just because you want a specific player doesn't mean you give up the entire draft to get him. Duh.

Texans had a chance to trade to #1. They didn't. And I'm sure, being an NFL GM, Poles made one last call to the Texans and said "Hey, I have a deal in place with Carolina....would you like to beat that deal before I say yes?". And obviously Houston said no.

Again....logic. You don't have any.

Houston was willing to pick #2 and trade up to #3....they were super aggressive. Clearly they got exactly what they wanted.

Carolina would not have given up the same haul for the #2 pick. Because you know, common sense.

In terms of point value that GMs apply to draft picks....#2 overall is very, very close to #1 overall. And Carolina still needed to jump ahead of other teams that may have wanted to take a QB or wanted to trade up to #2 themselves.

It's highly likely the trade is the same or at least close to it.

You're forgetting that Houston had to give Arizona #'s 12 and 33 in this years draft when they moved to #3. Along with a first and 3rd next year. For #3. So why would the trade for #2 be significantly less than what the Bears already got?

You know shit about fuck.

So if DJ Moore gets hit by a bus tomorrow your A+ goes to a F? You're an idiot. Giving Poles an F under this scenario is completely unfair for obvious reasons.

lmao. Why would you use the same grade to judge two different things? I mean how stupid are you exactly.

Why would a death off the field play any role? Why do you grasp at the straw that is furthest away to try to assist your already completely bullshit argument? It's sad.

Again....let me remind you of the only thing that matters. ON FIELD RESULTS.

Lack of production due to untimely death can't be pinned on a GM. But nice try. I bet you felt smart when you were typing that. Which is, again, sad.

You read my mind.

Easier than reading Dr. Suess.

 

[BsGenius]

The genius thinks a gif is a picture.

you got me (rolls eyes) lol. you finally won an argument, congrats!

 

[BearsWillWin]

you got me (rolls eyes) lol. you finally won an argument, congrats!

Tell me again how GMs aren't responsible for wins and losses.