Tee Higgins a Possibility? (Per The Athletic)

[pdxbearsfan]

Can we please just stop with the whole "Texans will give us their #2 and #12 for our #1). This is no world where Texas gives us both picks to move up 1 spot. Based on almost every Draft Value Chart available, that would be such a drastic over payment (almost a 30% over payment).

The most likely scenario from Texas would be to keep the #2 BUT offer up the #12, #33 and #103 for 2023 (1768 in value) and their 1st and 2nd rounder in 2024 (1412 is value). Based on most Draft Charts (and going with the concept that future picks are worth about 50% of the current value: example if the #5 pick this year is worth 1700, then the 2024 5th overall is only worth 850 today) that would be considered a fair trade with about a 10% premium paid.

My math above is assuming the Texans are picking in the top 5 next years as well so I averaged the Top 5 picks draft value.

Seems more realistic and then hopefully trade down to # 4 or 5.

 

[pdxbearsfan]

I'm not willing to write Claypool off yet. Would like to see him next season after a year in the system and working with Fields. The game Claypool got hurt, him and Fields were on the same page. The potential is there.

Claypool will be fine and prove all the doubters wrong.

 

[pdxbearsfan]

If Cincinnati is not willing to pay Tee Higgins then I'm pausing and wondering what they know that we don't. They aren't cap strapped at all and the Joe Burrow money won't hit for years. They are in the heat of a championship window, they shouldn't be looking for cheeky ways to score a first round pick by pawning off big contributors.

If he's available it's because Cincinnati thinks he's fairly easily replaceable and not worth the money. That's the only way rationale that makes sense, especially in a draft that seems as weak as this one.

Sounds right to me.

 

[Imabearsfan]

If Cincinnati trades him this year, which is unlikely imo, they will want capital for this year. Their window is now.

I know. My proposal was to trade 7 or 9 (assuming trade with LV or Car) this year (along with a 4th rounder, similar to the AJ Brown trade). Load up on future picks for ourselves giving us a greater shot at adding a Harrison Jr or another top WR talent.

 

[Imabearsfan]

Very low probability of that happening.

Low probability of getting a top tier WR in a loaded class when we’re more than likely picking high again AND have draft capital depth with a Raiders, Panthers 1st. Or if we’re lucky and able to trade down this year with HOU and obtain their #2 this year and their 2024 1st. How are we unlikely to be in position to draft a top tier WR in a loaded class? It doesn’t have to be Harrison Jr., but ideally it is.

 

[dennehy]

Low probability of getting a top tier WR in a loaded class when we’re more than likely picking high again AND have draft capital depth with a Raiders, Panthers 1st. Or if we’re lucky and able to trade down this year with HOU and obtain their #2 this year and their 2024 1st. How are we unlikely to be in position to draft a top tier WR in a loaded class? It doesn’t have to be Harrison Jr., but ideally it is.

Of getting Higgins and Harrison. They will likely be able to draft a WR with their first pick in 2024, yes. That doesn't seem debatable.

 

[dennehy]

I know. My proposal was to trade 7 or 9 (assuming trade with LV or Car) this year (along with a 4th rounder, similar to the AJ Brown trade). Load up on future picks for ourselves giving us a greater shot at adding a Harrison Jr or another top WR talent.

So you basically want to use two or three first round picks on WRs, and not have a first rounder this year to use on a rookie?

I am not a fan of that strategy.

 

[Imabearsfan]

So you basically want to use two or three first round picks on WRs, and not have a first rounder this year to use on a rookie?

I am not a fan of that strategy.

If you have multiple firsts, why not? For a generational talent like Harrison? Hell yeah. But I’m not saying you have to. If the WR class is as good as advertised and you have a plethora of picks and cap space, you can wait til the 2nd as well. Mix and match. You should never go into a draft thinking I can’t spend on this position. If you think you have a difference maker, draft the motherfucker and figure out the rest later. That’s how Baltimore ended up with Mark Andrews in the 3rd in 2018 after drafting Hurst in the 1st (25) in the same draft.

 

[dennehy]

If you have multiple firsts, why not? For a generational talent like Harrison? Hell yeah. But I’m not saying you have to. If the WR class is as good as advertised and you have a plethora of picks and cap space, you can wait til the 2nd as well. Mix and match. You should never go into a draft thinking I can’t spend on this position. If you think you have a difference maker, draft the motherfucker and figure out the rest later. That’s how Baltimore ended up with Mark Andrews in the 3rd in 2018 after drafting Hurst in the 1st (25) in the same draft.

Baltimore ended up with Andrews by using a third round pick on him. Not by trading massive draft capital for him.

If you use 3 first round picks on two guys who play the same position, and you have as many holes as the Bears have (esp on the lines), I'm not a fan of that strategy in general. I'd be ok using a first on a WR for sure. I don't think Tee Higgins is worth #9 or #7 and I wouldn't be a fan of that trade.

 

[Imabearsfan]

Baltimore ended up with Andrews by using a third round pick on him. Not by trading massive draft capital for him.

If you use 3 first round picks on two guys who play the same position, and you have as many holes as the Bears have (esp on the lines), I'm not a fan of that strategy in general. I'd be ok using a first on a WR for sure. I don't think Tee Higgins is worth #9 or #7 and I wouldn't be a fan of that trade.

The point is, Andrews was the 4th player chosen in their draft class. Two out of their first 4 picks were TE’s. With the plethora of picks the Bears will have (assuming g a trade down), it doesn’t matter what round we’re talking here. What matters is you choose the highest impact players. If you have guys graded similarly, then sure, you chose the guy that more fills your roster need. But if a guy is far and away rated higher, take him.

 

[dennehy]

The point is, Andrews was the 4th player chosen in their draft class. Two out of their first 4 picks were TE’s. With the plethora of picks the Bears will have (assuming g a trade down), it doesn’t matter what round we’re talking here. What matters is you chose the highest impact players. If you have guys graded similarly, then sure, you chose the guy that more fills your roster need. But if a guy is far and away rated higher, take him.

You were advocating for trading a top 10 pick for Tee Higgins and then 2 firsts for Marvin Harrison. I don't want three firsts to turn into two players, one who you have to pay $25m per year to right off the bat, who play the same position. I don't think that is a good use of resources.

Pick the best player, yes that I agree with.

 

[Imabearsfan]

You were advocating for trading a top 10 pick for Tee Higgins and then 2 firsts for Marvin Harrison. I don't want three firsts to turn into two players, one who you have to pay $25m per year to right off the bat, who play the same position. I don't think that is a good use of resources.

Pick the best player, yes that I agree with.

I wasn’t advocating trading 2 firsts for Harrison. My plan was this years first (7 or 9) and a 4th (if need be) for Tee, yes. Then next year if we get lucky with either our own or the LV/Car first m, to grab Harrison. If not, we wait til later OR if another impact WR is there for one of our 1st rounders, then why not if he’s highly graded on your draft board.

 

[dennehy]

I wasn’t advocating trading 2 firsts for Harrison. My plan was this years first (7 or 9) and a 4th (if need be) for Tee, yes. Then next year if we get lucky with either our own or the LV/Car first m, to grab Harrison. If not, we wait til later OR if another impact WR is there for one of our 1st rounders, then why not if he’s highly graded on your draft board.

As I said, I woudn't trade 7 or 9 for Higgins. He's not as good as Brown, and Brown went for #18 and a 4th, far less valuable that #7 or #9. He's also not really the type of guy that Fields likes, not a guy who creates lots of space. Plus the chances that Cincinnati is going to trade him ae low.

Not drafting a player in the first round would not be a good strategy. Having a first rounder on a cheap deal for potentially five years is very valuable, and its the way the majority of teams that start from the bottom are built. Plus the second round pick is essentially Claypool a guy who is kinds like Higgins.

 

[Raskolnikov]

I like Higgins, but he's not worth an early 1st round pick when he's never being the #1 guy before. That's too much of a gamble for me. I'd absolutely trade a 2nd for him, though.

Bengals have no real incentive to deal him, unfortunately. They'll probably just franchise him if they can't sign him to an extension.

Get back to us after the Burrow and Chase deals.

They also have other WRs to justify getting back value.

But I came here to talk value because while I love the player and balance his length provides this bears team in particular, the fit, I also see a 20-40 pick value given his contract needs.

If I can get 12 and 33, something or two mid round, and a trench player who needs new scenery from Houston

I would give up 33 but not 12 for Higgins and hope Carter or Witherspoon fall, but be cool with Shoronski or Mauch especially sliding down toward 20+ again for those two or jumping up from 33.

 

[Raskolnikov]

As I said, I woudn't trade 7 or 9 for Higgins. He's not as good as Brown, and Brown went for #18 and a 4th, far less valuable that #7 or #9. He's also not really the type of guy that Fields likes, not a guy who creates lots of space. Plus the chances that Cincinnati is going to trade him ae low.

Not drafting a player in the first round would not be a good strategy. Having a first rounder on a cheap deal for potentially five years is very valuable, and its the way the majority of teams that start from the bottom are built. Plus the second round pick is essentially Claypool a guy who is kinds like Higgins.

Higgins is a big body to block downfield and a true X physically to improve our red zone options.

 

[dennehy]

Higgins is a big body to block downfield and a true X physically to improve our red zone options.

That's what they got Claypool for.

 

[Raskolnikov]

That's what they got Claypool for.

But Claypool plays more like David Boston or Brandon Marshal and should switch often with Mooney to man the zebra slot, imo.

 

[Imabearsfan]

Plus the second round pick is essentially Claypool a guy who is kinds like Higgins.

What? Lol.

 

[dabears70]

Claypool will be fine and prove all the doubters wrong.

That should be the hope for all Bears fans. I hope he hears/sees all this talk about that trade looking like a bust as of now, which i'm sure he does, and he works hard this offseason, with Fields, to prove everyone wrong.

If Tee does come on the trade block, which i don't think he will, then there will be plenty of teams willing to trade a 1st round pick and maybe a 1st round pick+ for him IMO. For Poles to trade for him he would have to be on the block when the draft starts and after we make a trade down because i don't think there's any way Poles trades for him before that.

I'm not even sure what time of year they can even trade him. Does anyone have any answer on that?

 

[dennehy]

What? Lol.

He's that type of player, and they just traded their second rounder for him. Big, not great separation, big catch radius guy who you throw it to even when he's not open. You want to trade a top 10 pick plus more for a similar type of player who will immediately require $25mil per year.

You apparently have no limit for how many top picks you want the Bears to use on vet WRs.