Tee Higgins on Block?

[csx]

1 minute ago, Smithers said:

We could have traded Burns to Chi and kept Moore, who was already under a bargain long term contract.  But nope - now we gotta trade Burns for a WR who we will pay 25M per year.  Fitt is legit on the hot seat now.

You aware that a message board suggestion isn't reality?

[tukafan21]

1 minute ago, Smithers said:

We could have traded Burns to Chi and kept Moore, who was already under a bargain long term contract.  But nope - now we gotta trade Burns for a WR who we will pay 25M per year.  Fitt is legit on the hot seat now.

We turned down 2 firsts for Burns, we weren't going to then turn around and trade him along with 2 of our own firsts to move up for Bryce.

Plus, I don't think the Bears wanted Burns, they knew they needed WR help for Fields and there wasn't anyone close to as good as him available in free agency this offseason.

[PappyMay]

I can't imagine it being an in season trade while they're contenders. Would love to have him here, but maybe Mingo can be the next Ole Miss WR like DK or AJ in recent years and we wont have to. Add someone like Tyler Boyd or maybe Van Jefferson takes a discount to come play for his dad. Also Curtis Samuel hasnt been great in D.C. maybe he can come back relatively cheap and do some of the gadget stuff Laviska has been doing.

[Smithers]

Just now, tukafan21 said:

We turned down 2 firsts for Burns, we weren't going to then turn around and trade him along with 2 of our own firsts to move up for Bryce.

Plus, I don't think the Bears wanted Burns, they knew they needed WR help for Fields and there wasn't anyone close to as good as him available in free agency this offseason.

It was reported that they said they wanted Burns or Moore, and our FO said Burns was a no go. 

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, csx said:

You aware that a message board suggestion isn't reality?

It's my understanding that the Bears basically told us the player was gonna be Moore, Burns, or Brown. We chose Moore because we saw WR being the easier position to replace.

[csx]

1 minute ago, Smithers said:

It was reported that they said they wanted Burns or Moore, and our FO said Burns was a no go. 

Which is the obvious choice to keep.

Teams build around QB, LT, and edge. Not decent receivers

[Smithers]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's my understanding that the Bears basically told us the player was gonna be Moore, Burns, or Brown. We chose Moore because we saw WR being the easier position to replace.

Yeah that’s what has been reported.  Chi was def interested in Burns.  

[Wolfcop]

10 minutes ago, trucpfan said:

Tee Higgins isn't a number one WR it's similar to the Brian Burns arguments you guys wouldn't want us to pay him and he's looking to get paid as well. Its very similar he's not a top tier WR but a step below Burns is not a Bosa level DE but a step below. 

look at his stats. He is a #1 on this team and immediately adds a needed weapon. 

[csx]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's my understanding that the Bears basically told us the player was gonna be Moore, Burns, or Brown. We chose Moore because we saw WR being the easier position to replace.

He is judging the FO for trading burns for Higgins slready. It's a hypothetical proposed on a message board and he's getting angry about it

[PantherKyle]

12 minutes ago, Smithers said:

We could have traded Burns to Chi and kept Moore, who was already under a bargain long term contract.  But nope - now we gotta trade Burns for a WR who we will pay 25M per year.  Fitt is legit on the hot seat now.

You simply cannot keep the low end WR1 over a 25 year old pass rusher entering his prime. 

[trucpfan]

13 minutes ago, Rags said:

he had 908 Receiving yards his rookie season and he was the #1. He's maintained similar numbers to his #1 production as the clearcut #2. 

Sure he could be "just another #2" but both his tape and production leaves one to think he can at least be the same tier Moore was.

Upon further review he definitely could be someone's number one I don't know if we're willing to pay the price to keep or obtain elite talents at the peak of their careers the way we've handled the last three we've had.

[csx]

3 minutes ago, PantherKyle said:

You simply cannot keep the low end WR1 over a 25 year old pass rusher entering his prime. 

This seems obvious when you think rationally. 

[Smithers]

8 minutes ago, PantherKyle said:

You simply cannot keep the low end WR1 over a 25 year old pass rusher entering his prime. 

Even if we have no intent on signing him long term? 

[tukafan21]

25 minutes ago, trucpfan said:

Tee Higgins isn't a number one WR it's similar to the Brian Burns arguments you guys wouldn't want us to pay him and he's looking to get paid as well. Its very similar he's not a top tier WR but a step below Burns is not a Bosa level DE but a step below. 

There are 32 teams in the NFL, to think that Higgins isn't one of the 32 best WRs in the game is just asinine.

He might not quite be a Fantasy #1 WR right now, only just a high end #2 there, but that doesn't mean he's not a real life #1.

Same way Moore isn't/wasn't a fantasy #1 but was in real life, huge difference between the two that too many fans fail to recognize these days with how everything is viewed through a fantasy lens.

It's also not like Higgins is asking for or expecting to get Jefferson/Chase type of money like Burns is trying to do.  Burns is trying to be paid like one of the Top 2-3 pass rushers, I'm sure Higgins is just looking to be paid like a top 15 WR, big big big difference.

Edited September 8, 2023 by tukafan21