It was a terrible trade but not because of Bryce

[tukafan21]

2 minutes ago, Varking said:

The trade was a bust because of what was given, not what was gained. 
 

Panthers got Bryce Young. 

Bears got a #1 WR, used the pick swap to gain a first round Left Tackle Wright, used the other pick for their #2 corner in Stevenson, have a 2024 pick from the eagles and a round 2 2025 from us. 
 

That pick from us could be Caleb Williams or Marvin Harrison Jr. or they could flip it for even more picks if it’s the first overall pick. 
 

But I’m not mad we went with Bryce. The reason I hate the trade is we could have given up Brown, Burns or DJ and our franchise said “so we are going with a young QB at 1…. Let’s not move our defenders to keep our best weapon to support him, let’s trade away DJ Moore”. 
 

If Fields doesn’t continue developing then they have ammo to go after Williams or Maye while also having DJ Moore on their roster… 

I still think people keep getting the "we should have given Burns or Brown instead of DJ" analysis incorrectly.

If I remember right, including Burns instead of either of the other two is what allowed us to give them a 2nd in 2025 instead of another 1st, that if it was either of the other two, we'd have needed to include that extra 1st rounder as well.

The Bears knew they needed to get Fields a #1 WR and there wasn't one available in Free Agency and there wasn't any worthy of a Top 10 pick this year, it was their only way to get one.

And as bad as it was giving up DJ, I think giving up Burns or Brown while also adding in ANOTHER 1st rounder would have been even worse.

[tukafan21]

2 minutes ago, NAS said:

Can’t disagree with him being better, he’s balling right now. But I don’t think he would look very good behind this offensive line and these receivers. I think we would see more completions downfield but he wouldn’t have enough time to do it very often.

Our OL, even with it's struggles, is MILES better than what Houston is throwing out there so far this year.

For much of their season so far, they haven't had any of their pre-season expected starters and some of their current starters were the backups of the backups in training camp.  

Their OL injuries are a literal worst case scenario and he's still balling.

[Cpt slay a ho]

12 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

They haven't and I pointed that out on here many times before we made the trade.

A big trade up to take a QB has never worked as far as I'm aware, main reason is because if the available QB's were THAT good, the team who finished with the #1 pick would take that QB and trade their current QB instead of trading away the pick, like the Colts did with Luck/Manning.

So teams are trading away far too many assets, whether they be picks or players, to take a prospect who wouldn't be the top QB taken in most years.

It's a bad recipe that doesn't work out

And before anyone points out the Mahomes trade, that is VERY different.  First is that they didn't really give up a haul, they only gave up a 3rd and a future first to move up 17 spots in the draft, that's kinda a steal.  Then Mahomes was anything but a can't miss prospect who landed with a team that was already contending in the AFC, with an elite coach, WR, and TE already in place while then letting him sit and learn for a year.

The closest to it working out would probably be the RG3 trade, which really only failed because their coaches were dumb enough to play him in the playoffs on an already injured knee and it ended up ruining his career when he totally tore it up.  So who knows how that would have played out, but when the closest time a trade like this has worked out is when the player won ROY and then fell off a cliff due to injuries, it's not something teams should keep trying to do.

Hence my point in this mess, guys getting paid millions and with unlimited resources on players profiles etc couldn’t see what a handful of bros on a Internet forum could 

almost malpractice at this point 

[NAS]

4 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Their OL injuries are a literal worst case scenario and he's still balling.

Their backups didn’t give up a single sack in some games.  Just because we thought we had good linemen doesn’t mean it’s true. 

[tukafan21]

Just now, Cpt slay a ho said:

Hence my point in this mess, guys getting paid millions and with unlimited resources on players profiles etc couldn’t see what a handful of bros on a Internet forum could 

almost malpractice at this point 

I think the "average die hard fan" is actually better at a lot of things than actual HC's and GM's

They put too much stock on studying the intricacies of film break down and trying to outsmart everyone instead of just reacting to what you're seeing in front of you.

No, I'm not suggesting anyone on here would ACTUALLY be a better GM, but with certain things like evaluating Bryce, they put way too much stock into non actual on-field production/ability because they're trying to outsmart everyone else.

They wanted to find the things that they could see turning him into a star instead of just seeing the glaringly obvious flaws that will keep him from being able to do that.

[tukafan21]

3 minutes ago, NAS said:

Their backups didn’t give up a single sack in some games.  Just because we thought we had good linemen doesn’t mean it’s true. 

Also could just be because Stroud has been getting rid of the ball before he can get sacked and/or is doing a better job at scrambling.

Bryce keeps doing the Cam move, waits for the rush to get right on him and tries to spin away from the LOS to get outside the pocket to try and make a move.  The problem is that Bryce is nowhere near as quick or strong as Cam, so he first can't get around the pass rusher before they get a hand on him (like Cam often could do) and then he's not strong enough to break the tackle (like Cam almost always could).

Honestly, how many times has he been sacked this year while literally running away from the LOS?

It's been far too many times for only being 4 games into his career.

[Varking]

16 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

I still think people keep getting the "we should have given Burns or Brown instead of DJ" analysis incorrectly.

If I remember right, including Burns instead of either of the other two is what allowed us to give them a 2nd in 2025 instead of another 1st, that if it was either of the other two, we'd have needed to include that extra 1st rounder as well.

The Bears knew they needed to get Fields a #1 WR and there wasn't one available in Free Agency and there wasn't any worthy of a Top 10 pick this year, it was their only way to get one.

And as bad as it was giving up DJ, I think giving up Burns or Brown while also adding in ANOTHER 1st rounder would have been even worse.

I’d rather have a known quantity in DJ Moore over a potential good WR when we haven’t drafted a good one since the previous regime got us DJ. Our second rounders have been swings and misses. 

[tukafan21]

Just now, Varking said:

I’d rather have a known quantity in DJ Moore over a potential good WR when we haven’t drafted a good one since the previous regime got us DJ. Our second rounders have been swings and misses. 

Huh?

I wasn't saying that in the sense of "we needed to keep that 2025 1st to take a WR"

My point was imagine if we still had DJ, but didn't have Burns or Brown, and in addition to not having our 2024 1st, we also didn't have our 2025 1st.

Burns, 3 Firsts, and a Second would be so much of a worse situation right now than DJ, 2 Firsts and 2 Seconds.

Honestly, mainly because it allows us the option in 2025 of either taking a new QB to move on from this mess, or getting a Top 10 pick at WR on a rookie deal to see if Bryce can fix it, and if not, then we use the 2026 1st on a new QB who comes in with an elite WR already on the squad.

I hated giving up DJ, but I still think it was better than also losing our 2025 First.  Especially if it was Burns in the deal, as he's likely to bring us back another First plus more in a trade.  So in a way it would have been like giving up 4 Firsts in the trade, unfathomable.

[Cpt slay a ho]

6 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

I think the "average die hard fan" is actually better at a lot of things than actual HC's and GM's

They put too much stock on studying the intricacies of film break down and trying to outsmart everyone instead of just reacting to what you're seeing in front of you.

No, I'm not suggesting anyone on here would ACTUALLY be a better GM, but with certain things like evaluating Bryce, they put way too much stock into non actual on-field production/ability because they're trying to outsmart everyone else.

They wanted to find the things that they could see turning him into a star instead of just seeing the glaringly obvious flaws that will keep him from being able to do that.

I see wha you mean but I don’t think many would have a problem with Bryce if we didn’t trade what we traded for him, the guy was never going to live up to the cost to trade up for him barring becoming the second coming of Mahomes, in which, like we’ve stated, he just doesn’t have that particular skill set.

 

[Varking]

5 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Huh?

I wasn't saying that in the sense of "we needed to keep that 2025 1st to take a WR"

My point was imagine if we still had DJ, but didn't have Burns or Brown, and in addition to not having our 2024 1st, we also didn't have our 2025 1st.

Burns, 3 Firsts, and a Second would be so much of a worse situation right now than DJ, 2 Firsts and 2 Seconds.

Honestly, mainly because it allows us the option in 2025 of either taking a new QB to move on from this mess, or getting a Top 10 pick at WR on a rookie deal to see if Bryce can fix it, and if not, then we use the 2026 1st on a new QB who comes in with an elite WR already on the squad.

I hated giving up DJ, but I still think it was better than also losing our 2025 First.  Especially if it was Burns in the deal, as he's likely to bring us back another First plus more in a trade.  So in a way it would have been like giving up 4 Firsts in the trade, unfathomable.

I don’t think you can give up on Bryce before he plays 3 full seasons. And I don’t think you can move on from Frank before then either because you want stability for your young passer. 

[Jackie Lee]

26 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Our OL, even with it's struggles, is MILES better than what Houston is throwing out there so far this year.

For much of their season so far, they haven't had any of their pre-season expected starters and some of their current starters were the backups of the backups in training camp.  

Their OL injuries are a literal worst case scenario and he's still balling.

 

[tukafan21]

Just now, Cpt slay a ho said:

I see wha you mean but I don’t think many would have a problem with Bryce if we didn’t trade what we traded for him, the guy was never going to live up to the cost to trade up for him barring becoming the second coming of Mahomes, in which, like we’ve stated, he just doesn’t have that particular skill set.

 

Ehhhhhh, yes and no

Yes, I think people would still have had an issue with Bryce had we been able to make the trade while giving up less assets.  

I personally never liked him as a prospect because I have eyes and a brain.  I never saw any film of him to where I looked at it and said, "now that's an NFL {insert attribute here}"  

He didn't have the speed, size, arm, strength.... nothing that screamed "he's an NFL player."

If we stayed put at 9 and he fell to us, would I have been upset at taking the chance on him there?  No, probably not, if a Heisman winner that many "experts" think has a mind that can overcome the rest of his issues falls to #9, sure, he's worth the risk at that point.

I think that's why he got rave reviews in training camp, why he looked good at Alabama, and why he's able to look halfway decent in the 4th quarter of these already decided games.  When he isn't facing a defense that is actively trying to attack him, he can make some magic happen.  But if he has to rely on his speed, strength or arm strength to make plays, he's so far below average that he just can't do it at this level.  

It's why I never understood the pick, you can coach up players mentally, but you can't coach a player to grow 4 inches and put on 30 lbs of muscle.

So in short, yes the trade is part of why people are so upset, but I don't think anyone would be happy with the player himself even if we were able to take him standing pat at #9.

[tukafan21]

11 minutes ago, Varking said:

I don’t think you can give up on Bryce before he plays 3 full seasons. And I don’t think you can move on from Frank before then either because you want stability for your young passer. 

If we had our 1st round pick next year, we'd be giving up on Bryce after 1 season, let alone 3.

Same reason the Cardinals dumped Josh Rosen after 1 year to take Kyler.

I'm clearly one of the bigger Bryce bashers on here at the moment, but even I'll admit that sure, there is still a chance he's able to salvage a decent career if things break the right way for him.

But outside of him showing that massive improvement before we have another high draft pick, you have to operate under the "if we have a chance to get an actual elite prospect, you take him."  He's been bad enough and has already showcased that all his pre-draft concerns are beyond legitimate real NFL issues that if the opportunity presents itself, you take it and run without thinking twice about it.

It's sunk cost in economics

No, we won't go out and try to replace him in the next 2 years through trade or FA, but if it can be done through our own draft pick in the 1st round, it will be.

Edited October 9, 2023 by tukafan21

[frankw]

It's ironic thinking that the reason the Panthers are in this mess is because even when they were bad the last few seasons they couldn't even lose right and because of a few wins for the "culture" we could never secure a top 3 pick so we had to pay dearly to move up. Suddenly now the Panthers can actually lose right and are likely backing their way into the top pick that we don't have. Almost makes you believe in a curse.