2023 Draft - Bears Edition

[BearsWillWin]

Houston gave up two 1st round picks, a 2nd round pick, and a 3rd round pick for the #3 overall pick...

But there's absolutely no way the Bears could possibly get the same return for the #2 pick that they got for the #1 pick.

Genius.

 

[BsGenius]

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

Then stop bringing it up old fart.

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

Once again, a higher draft picks gives you higher percentage of chance of landing a better play but doesn't guarantee you the better player. I notice you consistently miss this. You are senile old man.

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

Depends on why they are losing. If the GM keeps loading a team with great talent but you have a bonehead coach not able to utilize that talent, yes the coach gets fired, not the GM. Did you just start watching football?

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.

There are MULTIPLE reports of Texans trying to trade for the #1 pick. Carolina threw in DJ which put them over the top which the Texans didn't want to match. Texans had every intention of trading with the Bears but Carolina simply outbid them. Why didn't the Texans want to match, sure they could have given them the entire 2023 draft to make the deal but that would be err stupid?

In terms of point value that GMs apply to draft picks....#2 overall is very, very close to #1 overall.

I argued the #1 pick is worth MORE THAN THE #2 therefore you would have to give up more to get the #1 over the #2--common sense. Now you are backpedaling saying "uhhh they are very close". Jeezus, it's like arguing with a retarded dog.

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.

But why not? Afterall we got a 7th round pick for a dead guy! Come on! We won that trade. See how stupid your position is? It doesn't hold water sporty.

Poles: We traded a 7th round pick for a 1st round pick!
Grey pubes: Great trade A+
(Poles drafts a bust with that 1st round pick)
Grey pubes: That was a very bad trade, i'm changing that grade to an F!
Genius: Umm those are two separate things and should be graded separately
Grey pubes: Posts a picture gif

 

[BsGenius]

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

didn't say that but keep trying.

 

[BearsWillWin]

Then stop bringing it up old fart.

Stop making you bring up and bitch about things I never said?

Okay, I'll try.

Once again, a higher draft picks gives you higher percentage of chance of landing a better play but doesn't guarantee you the better player. I notice you consistently miss this. You are senile old man.

Once again...meaningless. Because history and stuff.

Depends on why they are losing. If the GM keeps loading a team with great talent but you have a bonehead coach not able to utilize that talent, yes the coach gets fired, not the GM. Did you just start watching football?

Name a team in recent history where a GM kept loading up a team with talent but the coach couldn't win games. Or admit this was a stupid hypothetically made by a stupid, desperate man.

There are MULTIPLE reports of Texans trying to trade for the #1 pick. Carolina threw in DJ which put them over the top which the Texans didn't want to match. Texans had every intention of trading with the Bears but Carolina simply outbid them. Why didn't the Texans want to match, sure they could have given them the entire 2023 draft to make the deal but that would be err stupid?

Texans could have outbid. They didn't. Because they were comfortable with Carolina being #2. Clearly. Clear to anyone not you.

I argued the #1 pick is worth MORE THAN THE #2 therefore you would have to give up more to get the #1 over the #2--common sense. Now you are backpedaling saying "uhhh they are very close". Jeezus, it's like arguing with a retarded dog.

In terms of value that GMs put on the picks....because I'm sure you are aware there is a numerical value applied to picks when GMs are making deals....#1 is very close to #2.

Any normal person would accept this as fact. You're not normal but I'm sure you already knew that.

But why not? Afterall we got a 7th round pick for a dead guy! Come on! We won that trade. See how stupid your position is? It doesn't hold water sporty.

Well...he was presumably alive when the trade was made, right?

That should help you figure out your own completely bullshit hypothetical that doesn't even belong in a football discussion.

Like I said....when you're forced to actually discuss football....you fail miserably.

 

[BearsWillWin]

didn't say that but keep trying.

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

"Genius": 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.

Sure kid.

 

[BsGenius]

"Genius": 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.

Sure kid.

Does everything need to spelled out for you word for word? You don't think the GM who is largely responsible for building the team have any impact on how well the head coach does its job? HELLO? Of course the GM's job has a very indirect affect on winning but the main responsibility lies on the head coach provided the GM does his job. Geezus, like talking to a retarded dog.

The GM provides the ingredients, the head coach cooks the meal. -- Bill Parcells.

 

[BearsWillWin]

You don't think the GM who is largely responsible for building the team have any impact on how well the head coach does its job?

lol, what?

So I say the GM is responsible for wins and losses and you say no it's the coach. But now you say the GM has an impact on the coach which circles back to the GM being responsible for wins and losses, no?

So you disagree with me but you agree with me? Cool.

Of course the GM's job has a very indirect affect on winning

He signs and drafts the players that play the games. He signs the head coach that coaches the players.

He has a very DIRECT impact on all wins and all losses.

The GM provides the ingredients, the head coach cooks the meal. -- Bill Parcells.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/bill_watterson_383991?src=t_dumb
The genius is running around in circles of stupid and agreeing with things he thinks he's disagreeing with. - Me

 

[BsGenius]

Stop making you bring up and bitch about things I never said?

Stop bringing up points that are irrelevant.

Once again...meaningless. Because history and stuff.

Higher pick higher percentage. Doesn't mean guarantee. Can't seem to get that one through your thick skull. You tank for a greater chance of drafting the better player, whether that player ends up being better is not a guarantee.

Read is slow old fart and let that one soak in. This is where the problem lies.

Name a team in recent history where a GM kept loading up a team with talent but the coach couldn't win games. Or admit this was a stupid hypothetically made by a stupid, desperate man.

Name me this, name me that. Use your brain. Most NFL coaches are not completely incompetent. You give them talent and they'll likely win. But that doesn't change their roles.

I thought Wayne Fontes was a horrible coach. Detroit had a lot of talent including the games best RB, but Fontes used him all wrong. Herman Edwards was another coach that was horrible despite having talent on his team. Go look it up you clown.

Texans could have outbid. They didn't. Because they were comfortable with Carolina being #2. Clearly. Clear to anyone not you.

Texans didn't outbid because the price was too high. Did you move away from your original theory Texans didn't want the number 1 pick now? Moving the goal post much? That is what you were saying. Carolina put the bidding beyond what Houston was willing to pay when Carolina added DJ Moore. But make no mistake about it, Houston was trying to land the #1 pick.

In terms of value that GMs put on the picks....because I'm sure you are aware there is a numerical value applied to picks when GMs are making deals....#1 is very close to #2.

I said #1 is valued more than #2. I still remain right.

Like I said....when you're forced to actually discuss football....you fail miserably.

Says the guy i'm arguing. You have no clue what you are talking about and your dumb theory has put you in a corner you can't escape from.

Grey pubes theory in a nutshell:

Poles: We traded a 7th round pick for a 1st round pick!
Grey pubes: Great trade A+
(Poles drafts a bust with that 1st round pick)
Grey pubes: That was a very bad trade, i'm changing that grade to an F!
Genius: Umm those are two separate things and should be graded separately. Also then why isn't the Claypool trade an F?
Grey pubes: Umm because you have to give Claypool another uhh because i said so otherwise I look like an idiot. Posts a picture gif

 

[BsGenius]

So I say the GM is responsible for wins and losses and you say no it's the coach. But now you say the GM has an impact on the coach which circles back to the GM being responsible for wins and losses, no?

OMG. So are you saying the talent on the team doesn't have any impact on winning? Who's responsible for that talent? I said the GM. Put two and two together you blabbering moron.

 

[BearsWillWin]

OMG. So are you saying the talent on the team doesn't have any impact on winning?

The talent the GM acquires? It has all the impact. And the GM is responsble for it.

LOL....that's my argument. Hahahaha....you're so dumb.

 

[BearsWillWin]

I said the GM.

You're lost in a sea of your own stupidity.

I'm done with you kiddo. This has reached levels of embarrassment you're too ignorant to comprehend.

Laters.

 

[BsGenius]

The talent the GM acquires? It has all the impact. And the GM is responsble for it.

LOL....that's my argument. Hahahaha....you're so dumb.

You left this out to try to save face:
"Who's responsible for that talent? I said the GM. Put two and two together you blabbering moron."

 

[BearsWillWin]

If you want to

You left this out to try to save face:
"Who's responsible for that talent? I said the GM. Put two and two together you blabbering moron."

Didn't leave it out...I said it first. When I said GMs were responsible for wins and losses....did you think I meant GMs play in the games?

Keep tripping over your words kiddo. I'll be here to laugh at you.

 

[BearsWillWin]

I said #1 is valued more than #2. I still remain right.

Yeah but still waiting to hear why the Bears couldn't get the same return for #2 despite Houston giving up so much to get #3.

Like I said a few pages ago...

Me: Apples
You: Oranges!

 

[BsGenius]

If you want to


Didn't leave it out...I said it first. When I said GMs were responsible for wins and losses....did you think I meant GMs play in the games?

Keep tripping over your words kiddo. I'll be here to laugh at you.

This is what i said originally:

"If the GM keeps loading a team with great talent but you have a bonehead coach not able to utilize that talent, yes the coach gets fired, not the GM."

Why would I put that condition of the GM loading the team with talent, in there dummy? Put 2 and 2 together, obviously the coach being able to win is based on that condition. Therefore the coach being able to do his job is tied to the GM doing his job. DUUUUUHHHHHH

Every little thing has to be spelled out this old fart.

 

[BsGenius]

Yeah but still waiting to hear why the Bears couldn't get the same return for #2 despite Houston giving up so much to get #3.

Like I said a few pages ago...

Me: Apples
You: Oranges!

Because common sense. #1 is more valuable than #2

 

[BearsWillWin]

This is what i said originally:

"If the GM keeps loading a team with great talent but you have a bonehead coach not able to utilize that talent, yes the coach gets fired, not the GM."

That's not the original quote because we were talking about this subject before that.

I said GMs are responsible for wins and losses.

You said no, coaches are.

And you've been back pedaling ever since.

 

[BearsWillWin]

Because common sense. #1 is more valuable than #2

In theory, yes. In reality.....it's usually not.

Theories are cool. But reality is all that matters.

I have a theory that if the Bears keep drafting high they will eventually stumble upon a good team. In reality....that doesn't seem to work as often as you'd like.

So yeah....theorectically the #1 pick is better than any pick after it. But that doesn't matter because you can win without ever having the #1 pick.

You're arguing semantics just to argue semantics and you refuse to accept that the only thing that matters is results.

Keep spinning your wheels but you can't change history.

 

[BsGenius]

That's not the original quote because we were talking about this subject before that.

I said GMs are responsible for wins and losses.

You said no, coaches are.

And you've been back pedaling ever since.

Another post:

"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."

Again the condition. You just don't have the ability to put 2 and 2 together is the problem here. OMG you're so dumb.

 

[BsGenius]

So yeah....theorectically the #1 pick is better than any pick after it. But that doesn't matter because you can win without ever having the #1 pick.

No shit sherlock. Because you actually have to draft well with that pick to have a better team. SHOCKER!

Again, higher chance does not equal guarantee. You simply cannot grasp this concept. No one is saying a higher pick AUTOMATICALLY means you'll get the best player. In fact nobody has ever said that, EVER. But you so badly want me to have said that. But alas i did not.