Any scenario where CHI keeps #1 pick?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kccrow

If they think Fields is their guy then they still have every reason in the world to stay at #1 and grab Will Anderson. It's literally a no-brainer.

They'd still be wise to leverage that pick.

Try to coax a 2 out of the Texans to move down a spot. Work the phones to convince them that Seattle is looking to get ahead of them to grab Stroud.

But yes, Will Anderson should be their guy.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

They'd still be wise to leverage that pick.

Try to coax a 2 out of the Texans to move down a spot. Work the phones to convince them that Seattle is looking to get ahead of them to grab Stroud.

But yes, Will Anderson should be their guy.

Yeah, I think they could try but it's not something that usually happens. The price isn't historically steep for the team moving up, especially if you're going for a QB, but it's only happened 4 times in the NFL and not in the past 20 years.

In the end, you need to be in the top 5 and it's going to cost a 2nd or the equivalent thereof. That can also be the reason teams tend to stay at #1 and just get their guy. You're not going to get a king's ransom to move off of it.

2001: ATL to SD for 2001 1st #5, 2001 3rd #67, 2002 2nd, WR Tim Dwight
1997: LAR to NYJ for 1997 1st #6, 1997 3rd #67, 1997 4th #102, 1997 7th #201
1995: CIN to CAR for 1995 1st #5, 1995 2nd #38
1990: IND to ATL for 1990 5th #121, 1991 1st, OT Chris Hinton, WR Andre Rison and receive back 1990 4th #83 and conditional pick not exercised.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It's not about 2023.

It's not about 2024.

It's about the next 10 years. And you probably need a better QB for the job.

Fields has gotten the short end of the stick in Chicago, but teams know that. You can probably trade him for a couple nice picks and build around the QB you know gives you the best chance.

I'd trade him, and use to pick to take a QB.

It should be, but it is most certainly not. Ever.

Even here, where we have Mahomes, Reid doesn't have 10 years left, that puts him at 74, I don't think he lasts that long.

Veach? Hell there was an argument or two made that Veach should be fired last offseason. No chance he should be looking past more than 3 or 4 years. Dorsey got shitcanned after turning us around after the Scott Franchise Killer Pioli Days.

Who else?

A decade ago you could say Belicheat, but he's over 70 now and won't be around a decade. He sure as shit isn't going to do anything that will set him up for more than 2 years at most.

Newsome in Balt? Maybe.

The crew in Pitt? They're probably the closest.

Nobody else has any slack more than 1-3 years. Especially if shit gets heavy.

We all like to think that we should have a 10 year horizon, but everybody is looking out for #1. And why shouldn't they? Every single franchise has shown that nobody is working out their contract. You either get extended or fired.

The smart money is try to find something that you can do to win with Fields, or convince ownership they need someone new BEFORE you lose them and they want to shitcan your ass.

That's not what we'd like to think but that's the reality of the situation.