Irish Boy wrote:
OK, but that still leaves you with a seven year gap. You were acting flummoxed that someone would consider a QB to be so much more valuable than a WR in terms of trade value. Well, it's obvious that, all things being equal, a QB is more important than a WR, but even more importantly, a good QB that's younger is better than a good WR that's older. We can argue about how much of a difference there is, but it's patently clear that there's a difference in value.
Of course there is a difference in value. That is why I think that if you set your baseline that a pro bowl QB is worth 2 first round picks and a third round pick then the curve is set that a pro bowl WR is worth a second round pick. I'm not flummoxed that someone considers a QB to be so much more valuable. I am flummoxed that a pro bowl WR is not worth when the price is significantly lower.
Irish Boy wrote:
People smarter than me have done the research on when players at different positions tend to decline. (
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/articles/age.htm) The research is a bit dated, but wide receivers tend to decline once they hit 30. that'll be the 2010 season for Boldin. You're wanting to pencil Boldin in as "very good" at 33 is a huge leap of faith. On the other hand, QBs tend to decline after their age 32 seasons, and the decline is more graceful.
I would make a bet that Boldin, barring season or career ending injury, will be better than anyone on the Bears roster for the next 3 years. He'll be more productive than Hester or Olsen or Bennet or Iglesias.
Irish Boy wrote:
How much of a difference is two years of a WR at peak performance vs. seven years of a QB at peak performance? You seem to think not much, but even by your analysis, you're ignoring:
The point you ignore: 2nd round pick vs. two 1st round picks and a 3rd round pick is a major difference. I'm saying what you are giving up for what you are getting back would be comparable. This is a very basic analysis, but it illustrates my point. Give 3 points for a first round pick, 2 points for a second round pick, 1 point for a third round pick. The Bears paid 7 points to get Cutler. They would be paying 2 points to get Boldin. I would think it would be fair to say that Cutler would be 3.5 times more valuable to the Bears. That is why my initial point is that if Cutler is worth what they paid so is Boldin.
Irish Boy wrote:
-Cap space allocated: Any team that trades for Boldin will need to agree to a massive, massive contract. That's true of Cutler as well, of course, but what percentage of cap should be allotted to the #1 receiver in proportion to the starting QB in proportion to the rest of the pieces of the team? As one goes up, the others necessarily go down.
I worry less about cap space for a bonafide #1 WR, QB, and RB. I don't believe my initial concerns about the Cutler trade had anything to do with cap space but it does concern me a little that he is only signed for three years. The Bears can find a way to survive.
Irish Boy wrote:
-Opportunity costs: how much less costly is the second-best solution at WR in comparison to the second-best solution at QB? You'd argue that the second-best solution at QB would be without cost, because it would have been Kyle Orton. That's fine as far as it goes, but factor in the uncertainty as to whether he'll ever be anything more than a league-average starter (if even that) and the cost grows. Decent WRs are simply easier to find, whether it be though the draft, or the summer scrap heap, or wherever.
I am not ignoring that. I am using Rashied Davis to Anquan Boldin. That would be the biggest upgrade the Bears made all season as Boldin would be knocking Davis out of the starting lineup.
Irish Boy wrote:
Even granted a set of unrealistic assumptions that are unfavorable to your point, you're still getting about twice as much value out of the QB.
Just to have a standard measure, the Bears aren't paying 1/2 as much for Boldin. They are paying significantly less. If you want, use the Jimmy Johnson draft chart and tell me the value of a second round pick as compared to a first, a third, and a first the next year. I bet it's not 50% less.
Irish Boy wrote:
Finally, you continue making a fundamental error about measuring the value of NFL players. You can't take a players stats and transpose them over from team to team like you (basically) can for baseball players. A TEs value isn't only in receiving, but also in blocking and even more in getting other receivers open. A WR can be negatively effected by poor receivers around him, while he can be positively effected by good receivers that take attention away.
Olsen is not a good blocker. He may be average but he's not a blocking tight end.
I understand that you can't make exact transfers of stats but I feel that Boldin will outperform Olsen next year. Boldin will go around or over 1000 yards unless he misses half the season that Olsen won't get anywhere close to a 1000 yards. Do you disagree?
Irish Boy wrote:
In my opinion, you give the game away here:
Quote:
Just like how the season ended, the WR core of the Bears is the biggest problem they have. To solve it for the next 2-3 years with a second round pick seems like a no brainer to me.
2-3 year solutions are a shitty allocation of resources via the draft. The whole reason draft picks have value is that you can get players cheap for a long time. You're taking a valuable commdity- the chance at a good cheap player for an extended stretch- and turning it into the certainty of a good, expensive player for a short amount of time. This isn't a team that needs to sell everything away for the next two years. As long as you have a great QB, the window is open. There's no beat the clock at work here.
Where exactly are the Bears getting this long term wide receiver solution? They are hoping a third round WR will be good and cheap for an extended stretch? They don't have a first round pick next year. The 2nd round WR they could pick next year probably wouldn't be better than Boldin until his third year anyways. The Bears can always still draft a WR to groom for the future or hold off the field some of the young ones they have now.
I just don't think the Bears or any NFL team has the luxury of planning past 5 years. Even 3 years might be the limit. I look at how different things were 3 years ago in the NFL. Every team should have a 3 year plan to be a Super Bowl contender. The league is filled with parity.
That is more my opinion than anything else, but 5 years from now is an eternity in the NFL.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
