MHS831

Why now? If we like 2 QBs, this gives us complete control to research them objectively and pick the one we want. we are not trading out...No early second round talent is worth missing out on the guy you want with such a critically important pick. I remember when the Colts had the first pick back in 1998 or so, and they (and the nation) were split between who the Alpha of the draft was --- Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf. A month before the draft, I bet the Colts did not know. They made the right call.

Then they would know we are taking Stroud and trading would not be smart--

Well, if the Panthers' pick goes on to outperform Fields, then the Bears will regret this move for decades--they had the option of trading Fields, and chose not to do so. On top of that, the Bears could select a few busts with their windfall of picks....

I would add this: If the Panthers liked 2 QBs in this draft, knowing that the Colts would be trading up and the Texans were going QB, moving up to #3 makes no sense. So it is possible they could be fine with either, if it means that a second round pick (#32, I think) is available--so I see it, I just do not think that 2 QBs will be even in a month--they will be developing a system, and that system will determine the type of QB they like.

I would say that there is no way 2 people this different (size) would be totally even after another month of research. The ONLY way I would do this is if I was willing to take the lesser of two with the early second rounder, and if I thought it was probable that the Texans would not take the player #1 on my board.

Does this help? Maybe contact Kansas City planners and not the NFL? Hope this helps....I imagine you may have seen it. https://www.visitkc.com/draft

I researched some of the others, and there are better values, imo, but you could say the same about Steve Smith. But it did cross my mind and never leave it (OBJ is out there).

Offensively, we have lost a lot in the pass catching ability of CMC and now Moore. That must be addressed, and I think it will. I would add this, and it probably should be its own thread (and will be if any rumors materialize) but OBJ has to be looking at Carolina as a place where he would be the Alpha #1 WR--the panthers could get him for about $16m per season, on a shorter contract. He would actually cost about $4m less than Moore and would not cost the team a draft pick. There were 11 teams at his workout, so the Panthers are competing with a third of the league, it seems. As aggressive as we are being, and as much as we need a #1 WR, I see this as a real possibility--and a draft pick at 37, possibly. Here is where I got the $16m figure: https://www.si.com/nfl/giants/news/odell-beckham-jr-has-his-workout-now-what

When have they have a good passing QB? Jim Harbaugh? Jim Miller? Jim McMahon? Jim Clausen?

I expect there to be growing pains, and some will be screaming "Bust!" after the first interception, but I think this is a giant first step. As you say, I think either of the top 2 QBs will be successful because they seem to demonstrate the skill set and decision-making a QB needs. We shall see.

Of course. The numbers are meaningless when the players hit the field. I am holding my breath, but that is better than holding my nose, which is what I have done for 5 years.

Read my other thread--when you consider the value of picks in future years, we came out on top. They may have got what they want, but the Panthers need a QB, and they will get their pick. Whether or not that pick works out is an opinion for now, but this trade has the potential to impact the Panthers more than the Bears--a QB is that important.

It still comes out to a good trade (and you have to factor in the value of getting the top QB in the draft when you need a QB--which i did not consider), but I disagree that giving someone their draft pick value when they are veterans on a second contract is an accurate way of determining that player's current value.

I think they had a ton of $$ to spend in free agency, and they wanted a veteran player now (on a good contract). Further, they wanted this done before free agency, for that same reason. If I were a Bear's fan, I would applaud the move, but I would not claim to have fleeced anyone. As a Panther fan, I am stoked.

I come here to get away from it, but when I see everyone bitching about getting fleeced, I decided to step into my alter ego and pull some Bill Nye out of my ass.

Not me, the conclusions. I don't take stuff personally--In research, if you quantify an unknown quantity, you have an obligation of determining how you arrived at that conclusion. I did that, so it really is not subject to an "attack" because it was fully disclosed. There is a degree of variation that the reader then applies to the findings--I would argue that if you polled people on this biased site to determine Moore's 2023 draft trade value, #30 overall would probably be very close--and you did not correct the math by interjecting numbers that are no longer applicable or valid to the evaluation of the player--you skewed it.

we didn't. According to the formulas and some interpretations of value (jeez) we actually came out on top by an estimated early third rounder. (See the other thread about Quantitative analysis...)

Come on. I don't know where to begin with this--if you think rating veterans value should be based on their draft status, then OK--go with that. I used the Darnold/Warner examples to show you how illogical that is--and you are attacking my conclusions because I explained my method for determining the value of an immeasurable variable. There are many variables that could have been considered, and what you do in research is you explain the determination of value to immeasurable quantities. Please understand that I realize what you are trying to say, and all research has various degrees of validity---so if you see an immeasurable quantity, take it into consideration, but do not apply an invalid quantity to the formula to attempt to make the math work. This is not really about the math, it is about painting as realistic picture as possible. Applying your suggestions does not increase the validity--please take that from a research professor who does this quite often.

Why would you assume a veteran with a proven resume should be given their draft value? Does that mean that Kurt Warner's trade value was "0"? Or that Sam Darnold's trade value is equal to that of the third overall pick (2200)? Moore was the 18th rated WR in 2022 (subjective rating, but he had 880 yards and 7 TDs) so by the end of the season, he was not worth a first rounder--I was being generous--giving him the benefit of the doubt. I doubt he would get more than a second rounder in a trade right now, which is when the trade took place.

Lotta emotions and speculative assumptive opinions flying around Huddle Nation--and it is not becoming of true scholars. For all you whiny babies and boo hooers, this is some "in your face" data. Let's take a look at the trade using the data we use to analyze trades in the NFL concerning Draft picks. First, the "one round per year" rule has been proven to be accurate (Do not let the formula discourage you--just to show how scientific this study was): From the research report: "Thaler & Massey (2012) measured the discount rate of future year draft picks to be 136% for all draft-day trades from 1983 to 2008. Remarkably, our results yield a discount rate of 135% for trades from 2009 to 2016. The consistency of these findings aligns with a well-known convention described as the one round per-year rule: The market for future year picks is defined by a one-round [current-year] devaluation in price." https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/2017/04/17133825/CapstonePaper_NFLDraft_March2017.pdf Now let's take a look at the trade with the Bears for DJ Moore and a windfall of picks from the perspective of the research data: Panthers Bears 3000 (#1 overall 2023) 1350 (#9 pick in 2023 draft) 292 (#61 pick in the 2023 draft) 420 (2024 first rounder - ave. 2nd rd valuation) 70 (2025 second rounder - ave. 4th rd. valuation) 620 (Pick #30, 2023-DJ Moore estimated value) TOTALS Panthers: 3000 points Bears: 2752 points DIFFERENCE Advantage Panthers +248 points DIFFERENCE VALUE 248 points is the equivalent of an early third round selection, between picks 68 and 69 CONCLUSION The Panthers did the Fleecing if anyone did--technically, the Panthers got a deal, and the Bears helped themselves tremendously. If the Panthers pick in the top 10 again in 2024, the advantage slides toward the Bears. If they pick in the top 20, then this advantage increases. If there is a criticism, I would say that they Bears traded down too far, taking themselves out of the conversation to get one of the three or four elite defensive players, but they have many needs. NOTE: If you are wondering where I came up with the late first round value for Moore, it was based on rumors when the Packers tried to trade for him--reporters from Milwaukee estimated his worth at a second and fourth; rumors suggest the Packers offered a first rounder. Now, you could argue that the Packers pick turned out to be 15th, but that was not the value at the time of the speculations; the Packers were 3-1 at the time and were expecting to make a Super Bowl run. So it is fair to give Moore a late first round valuation, from this view.

Moore was a good, solid WR. He did not instill fear in defenses--someone said it best, "He is a #2." His contract was team friendly as a #1. In an article from Green Bay after Rhule was fired, the writer suggested/estimated that a trade for Moore would cost: " If there is a deal to be done, it could be a for 2023 2nd-round pick and a 2024 4th-rounder." https://wisportsheroics.com/is-a-dj-moore-trade-feasible-for-the-packers/ So yes, instead of a 2025 first round selection, they basically got the 2023 equivalent of a second and fourth. This was worth it for the Bears because Fields needs veteran WR help now, and it was worth it for the Panthers, who probably did not want to go more than 1 year without a first round selection.

And on the seventh day, they rested.

Yeah, Aggie, you have been cursed with a brain that functions like mine. I just can't see passing on Stroud. If it is Young, I celebrate too.

I think Stroud, but the long tradition of Ohio State QB busts is bothering me.

Young is the best overall QB in this draft right now. However, with McCown, Reich, and Caldwell on this staff, Stroud can be better than Young in a season or two. Factor in that his college productivity was arguably better than Young, and his 6-3, 218 lbs. size is more ideal, I just think you have to go with Stroud because his ceiling might be higher. I hate to say this because this is the kind of post that gets brought up in 3 years, but I see the upside greater with Stroud and the risk (health) higher with Young.