RealGM

Sorry guys, I couldn't include signing Mike Glennon.

I'm going to have to go with the 2017 draft. If Shaheen can stay healthy and Mitch continues to develop, we'll have 4 monsters from that draft at key positions.

yeah, the 2017 draft was epic. Foundational. The Mack trade was just as huge, but to hit multiple times on so many levels in a draft like 2017 is a franchise changer indeed.

johnnyvann840 wrote:yeah, the 2017 draft was epic. Foundational. The Mack trade was just as huge, but to hit multiple times on so many levels in a draft like 2017 is a franchise changer indeed.

I think this years draft can be equally great. Smith looks like he'll be here for a decade and I think the world of Anthony Miller. If one of those other guys pans out, this last draft will be equally great.

I dislike trying to pull one moment out, because the success has truly been the sum of multiple critical moments and decisions. With that said, if you do force me to choose 1 it's the Mack trade. It takes a lot of risk to invest that much draft capital in a team that was allegedly still building, and opportunities to trade for a Mack caliber player are few and far between. But Pace took the risk, and it paid off: it sent a message that the FO is all-in on this team and these players. And they have responded very positively to it.In hindsight, I see this as Pace's version of Thibs "We have enough to win". But instead of saying it, Pace showed it.

HearshotKDS wrote:I dislike trying to pull one moment out, because the success has truly been the sum of multiple critical moments and decisions. With that said, if you do force me to choose 1 it's the Mack trade. It takes a lot of risk to invest that much draft capital in a team that was allegedly still building, and opportunities to trade for a Mack caliber player are few and far between. But Pace took the risk, and it paid off: it sent a message that the FO is all-in on this team and these players. And they have responded very positively to it.In hindsight, I see this as Pace's version of Thibs "We have enough to win". But instead of saying it, Pace showed it.

To me, that moment was the anti-Bulls moment. The Bulls have sat on their hands and let things pass them by so many times in the past 15 years whereas Pace saw one of the best pass rushers in the history of the game available and made it happen.

Susan wrote:

HearshotKDS wrote:I dislike trying to pull one moment out, because the success has truly been the sum of multiple critical moments and decisions. With that said, if you do force me to choose 1 it's the Mack trade. It takes a lot of risk to invest that much draft capital in a team that was allegedly still building, and opportunities to trade for a Mack caliber player are few and far between. But Pace took the risk, and it paid off: it sent a message that the FO is all-in on this team and these players. And they have responded very positively to it.In hindsight, I see this as Pace's version of Thibs "We have enough to win". But instead of saying it, Pace showed it.

To me, that moment was the anti-Bulls moment. The Bulls have sat on their hands and let things pass them by so many times in the past 15 years whereas Pace saw one of the best pass rushers in the history of the game available and made it happen.

Completely agree. Didn't want to type it out, but was definitely thinking along those lines.

For this season, which has been spectacular no matter what happens from here, trading for Mack is the defining moment. My hope is that, in a year or so, I hope this changes to drafting Trubisky.

it's all about the drafting and the coaching hire. if he had spent the mack money on other FA defensive players the defense would not only have seen similar improvement, but those draft picks wouldn't have been pissed away. reasons for team's improvement this season:

#1 with a bullet - trubisky's improvement
#2 - secondary making big plays
#3 - nagy hire, which it seems is a significant part of #1
#4 - having mack on a value contract for this season rather than spend the money on market value FAs
#5 - other front 7 improvements

unfortunately, it is the major moves that will prevent the team from fully realizing its potential. setting aside the perfomance of mahomes, who nobody had as the #1 QB in that draft, trubisky is very likely still there at #3 had no picks been traded away. and the future cost to obtain mack was irrational

dice wrote:it's all about the drafting and the coaching hire. if he had spent the mack money on other FA defensive players the defense would not only have seen similar improvement, but those draft picks wouldn't have been pissed away. reasons for team's improvement this season:

#1 with a bullet - trubisky's improvement
#2 - secondary making big plays
#3 - nagy hire, which it seems is a significant part of #1
#4 - having mack on a value contract for this season rather than spend the money on market value FAs
#5 - other front 7 improvements

unfortunately, it is the major moves that will prevent the team from fully realizing its potential. setting aside the perfomance of mahomes, who nobody had as the #1 QB in that draft, trubisky is very likely still there at #3 had no picks been traded away. and the future cost to obtain mack was irrational

What available FAs at what positions would have brought similar improvement?

Susan wrote:

dice wrote:it's all about the drafting and the coaching hire. if he had spent the mack money on other FA defensive players the defense would not only have seen similar improvement, but those draft picks wouldn't have been pissed away. reasons for team's improvement this season:

#1 with a bullet - trubisky's improvement
#2 - secondary making big plays
#3 - nagy hire, which it seems is a significant part of #1
#4 - having mack on a value contract for this season rather than spend the money on market value FAs
#5 - other front 7 improvements

unfortunately, it is the major moves that will prevent the team from fully realizing its potential. setting aside the perfomance of mahomes, who nobody had as the #1 QB in that draft, trubisky is very likely still there at #3 had no picks been traded away. and the future cost to obtain mack was irrational

What available FAs at what positions would have brought similar improvement?

doesn't matter. pace obviously could have spent that $14 mil on any random defensive FAs and it would have significantly improved the defense. even if it was just to add depth. but he could have optimized that improvement by shuffling a couple of pieces through trades. that's the job of a GM, particularly in a hard-capped league - to optimize your resources. now, trading for mack obviously was more beneficial for THIS season because he's not a $14 mil player. market value has him at a $22 mil player, which he will start making next season. problem is, pace effectively gave up $32 mil per year or whatever to get him given the additional value of assets traded. you don't spend $32 for a $22 asset when you're on a fixed budget. it simply doesn't make sense. fuller will be getting a big raise next season as well. and a couple of other guys get significant raises. the cap doesn't go up enough to offset that, so given the reduced potential for value contracts going forward (traded draft picks), the roster will have to be trimmed to offset that. pace has to hit on lower round draft picks to offset that. and that's just to maintain the quality of team that the bears are this season. all bets are off once guys like jackson, the RBs and trubisky are off their dirt cheap deals

dice wrote:

Susan wrote:

dice wrote:it's all about the drafting and the coaching hire. if he had spent the mack money on other FA defensive players the defense would not only have seen similar improvement, but those draft picks wouldn't have been pissed away. reasons for team's improvement this season:

#1 with a bullet - trubisky's improvement
#2 - secondary making big plays
#3 - nagy hire, which it seems is a significant part of #1
#4 - having mack on a value contract for this season rather than spend the money on market value FAs
#5 - other front 7 improvements

unfortunately, it is the major moves that will prevent the team from fully realizing its potential. setting aside the perfomance of mahomes, who nobody had as the #1 QB in that draft, trubisky is very likely still there at #3 had no picks been traded away. and the future cost to obtain mack was irrational

What available FAs at what positions would have brought similar improvement?

doesn't matter. pace obviously could have spent that $14 mil on any random defensive FAs and it would have significantly improved the defense. even if it was just to add depth. but he could have optimized that improvement by shuffling a couple of pieces through trades. that's the job of a GM, particularly in a hard-capped league - to optimize your resources. now, trading for mack obviously was more beneficial for THIS season because he's not a $14 mil player. market value has him at a $22 mil player, which he will start making next season. problem is, pace effectively gave up $32 mil per year or whatever to get him given the additional value of assets traded. you don't spend $32 for a $22 asset when you're on a fixed budget. it simply doesn't make sense. fuller will be getting a big raise next season as well. and a couple of other guys get significant raises. the cap doesn't go up enough to offset that, so given the reduced potential for value contracts going forward (traded draft picks), the roster will have to be trimmed to offset that. pace has to hit on lower round draft picks to offset that. and that's just to maintain the quality of team that the bears are this season. all bets are off once guys like jackson, the RBs and trubisky are off their dirt cheap deals

So your thought is that it doesn't matter who they spend that $14m on? That's absurd dude. You only play 11 guys, depth does **** for you when you don't have elite talent leading the way.

The Bears have $20m in cap room next year. What position do they need to spend big on to improve?

Pace has proven he can draft and then develop talent. He's done it in every round.

You're talking about 2021 (when Trubisky gets off his deal), it's 2018-19 and this team has a legit shot to get to the Super Bowl. Maybe Pace has done a good job?

To me pace is still at best middle of the pack gm.
He's had one great year if he can start stacking great year then I'll come around. (This year is good so far). I'll never forgive him for trading up to fetch mitch when we could have just took him for free, or we could have had mahomes for free.
The mack trade saved him from being the worst gm. But I voted for Nagy, dude ran some beautiful plays last year.

Susan wrote:

dice wrote:

Susan wrote:
What available FAs at what positions would have brought similar improvement?

doesn't matter. pace obviously could have spent that $14 mil on any random defensive FAs and it would have significantly improved the defense. even if it was just to add depth. but he could have optimized that improvement by shuffling a couple of pieces through trades. that's the job of a GM, particularly in a hard-capped league - to optimize your resources. now, trading for mack obviously was more beneficial for THIS season because he's not a $14 mil player. market value has him at a $22 mil player, which he will start making next season. problem is, pace effectively gave up $32 mil per year or whatever to get him given the additional value of assets traded. you don't spend $32 for a $22 asset when you're on a fixed budget. it simply doesn't make sense. fuller will be getting a big raise next season as well. and a couple of other guys get significant raises. the cap doesn't go up enough to offset that, so given the reduced potential for value contracts going forward (traded draft picks), the roster will have to be trimmed to offset that. pace has to hit on lower round draft picks to offset that. and that's just to maintain the quality of team that the bears are this season. all bets are off once guys like jackson, the RBs and trubisky are off their dirt cheap deals

So your thought is that it doesn't matter who they spend that $14m on? That's absurd dude. You only play 11 guys, depth does **** for you when you don't have elite talent leading the way.

what i said, and you clearly didn't process it, is that a GM should optimize their resources. if you don't have a specific slot to plug a FA in, you make trades and/or add depth. MAKE spots to spend that money on. if you've painted yourself into a corner where you feel compelled to trade draft picks for a freshly signed market value free agent, you've planned poorly

because, you see, market value is what the player is worth. the raiders didn't even think he was worth the money he signed for. mack and his agent thought he was. the bears apparently thought that he was worth significantly MORE than what mack and his agent thought he was worth!

is a player worth:

A) what he's negotiated to be paid (which happens to be the largest contract for a defensive player ever), OR
B) what he's negotiated to be worth...plus additional assets

the mack trade was like some nobody desperate to get into the hottest restaurant in town. the doorman (gruden) says he'll let him in in exchange for his jacket (draft picks). the schlub agrees and gives up his jacket to pay a huge menu price for a great steak (mack). he doesn't get to replace his jacket later because he's on a fixed budget (hard salary cap)

the GM equivalent of the ego boost associated with getting into the restaurant is the marketing boost gained from making a splashy trade for a big name player. his wallet is much lighter and he's jacket-less, "but it was a great steak!" meanwhile, gruden is thinking "damn, i know the steak is great, but i wouldn't have even paid menu price"

and by the way, depth is absolutely important in the game of football. particularly on defense. because in football, you'll notice that players get injured all the time. and players get rotated in regularly to keep fresh bodies on the field. the bears got real lucky this past season on the injury front

Pace has proven he can draft and then develop talent. He's done it in every round.

You're talking about 2021 (when Trubisky gets off his deal), it's 2018-19 and this team has a legit shot to get to the Super Bowl. Maybe Pace has done a good job?

never said pace doesn't do a good job, did i? he's drafted great. which is maybe why, i dunno, he shouldn't TRADE AWAY DRAFT PICKS FOR A MARKET VALUE FA!

you're right about trubisky's contract. as i've said, pace was going all in on 2018, 2019 and 2020. year 1 produced excellent results, but the price of those trades manifests itself more in 2019 and more yet in 2020 as the loss of draft picks is felt. of course, if pace continues to hit on mid-round picks, which is largely luck, the traded picks won't matter as much. and the unexpected excellent season in 2018 made the loss of the first rounder he gave up in this year's draft much less painful

i have merely said the mack trade was bad logic. and apparently others are finally seeing that too:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/analytics-conference-says-raiders-trading-mack-bears-was-best-transaction-2018

captain green wrote:To me pace is still at best middle of the pack gm.
He's had one great year if he can start stacking great year then I'll come around. (This year is good so far). I'll never forgive him for trading up to fetch mitch when we could have just took him for free, or we could have had mahomes for free.
The mack trade saved him from being the worst gm. But I voted for Nagy, dude ran some beautiful plays last year.

trubisky was the highest ranked QB, so we can't knock him much for not taking mahomes. but trading what he did for a guy who was hardly a sure thing...when he probably didn't even have to...was another major bad logic move. but fortunately for pace trubisky looks to at least be a solid long-term starting QB. was his fringe pro bowl year a fluke? is he a product of nagy's system? time will tell

in the long term, a football GM's worth (much more so than basketball) comes down to results on the field. because the roster is so large and contracts only partially guaranteed. so many decisions to be made that the luck component largely evens out over time. the biggest luck component is whether you fall into a franchise QB. excluding his first season on the job (6-10), pace has put 3 teams on the field with a combined record of 20-28. and that record will be juiced over the next couple of seasons (as it was this past season) by having a solid starting QB on a rookie contract, which is that largest luck component. had trubisky been a total bust, which was of course a legitimate possibility, last year's team is maybe 8-8 rather than 12-4. the offense went from awful to above average largely on the strength of trubisky's individual improvement. and offense is more important than defense (larger variation amongst teams)

as for nagy, hopefully he'll get that clock management thing under control

dice wrote:

Susan wrote:

dice wrote:doesn't matter. pace obviously could have spent that $14 mil on any random defensive FAs and it would have significantly improved the defense. even if it was just to add depth. but he could have optimized that improvement by shuffling a couple of pieces through trades. that's the job of a GM, particularly in a hard-capped league - to optimize your resources. now, trading for mack obviously was more beneficial for THIS season because he's not a $14 mil player. market value has him at a $22 mil player, which he will start making next season. problem is, pace effectively gave up $32 mil per year or whatever to get him given the additional value of assets traded. you don't spend $32 for a $22 asset when you're on a fixed budget. it simply doesn't make sense. fuller will be getting a big raise next season as well. and a couple of other guys get significant raises. the cap doesn't go up enough to offset that, so given the reduced potential for value contracts going forward (traded draft picks), the roster will have to be trimmed to offset that. pace has to hit on lower round draft picks to offset that. and that's just to maintain the quality of team that the bears are this season. all bets are off once guys like jackson, the RBs and trubisky are off their dirt cheap deals

So your thought is that it doesn't matter who they spend that $14m on? That's absurd dude. You only play 11 guys, depth does **** for you when you don't have elite talent leading the way.

what i said, and you clearly didn't process it, is that a GM should optimize their resources. if you don't have a specific slot to plug a FA in, you make trades and/or add depth. MAKE spots to spend that money on. if you've painted yourself into a corner where you feel compelled to trade draft picks for a freshly signed market value free agent, you've planned poorly

because, you see, market value is what the player is worth. the raiders didn't even think he was worth the money he signed for. mack and his agent thought he was. the bears apparently thought that he was worth significantly MORE than what mack and his agent thought he was worth!

is a player worth:

A) what he's negotiated to be paid (which happens to be the largest contract for a defensive player ever), OR
B) what he's negotiated to be worth...plus additional assets

the mack trade was like some nobody desperate to get into the hottest restaurant in town. the doorman (gruden) says he'll let him in in exchange for his jacket (draft picks). the schlub agrees and gives up his jacket to pay a huge menu price for a great steak (mack). he doesn't get to replace his jacket later because he's on a fixed budget (hard salary cap)

the GM equivalent of the ego boost associated with getting into the restaurant is the marketing boost gained from making a splashy trade for a big name player. his wallet is much lighter and he's jacket-less, "but it was a great steak!" meanwhile, gruden is thinking "damn, i know the steak is great, but i wouldn't have even paid menu price"

and by the way, depth is absolutely important in the game of football. particularly on defense. because in football, you'll notice that players get injured all the time. and players get rotated in regularly to keep fresh bodies on the field. the bears got real lucky this past season on the injury front

Pace has proven he can draft and then develop talent. He's done it in every round.

You're talking about 2021 (when Trubisky gets off his deal), it's 2018-19 and this team has a legit shot to get to the Super Bowl. Maybe Pace has done a good job?

never said pace doesn't do a good job, did i? he's drafted great. which is maybe why, i dunno, he shouldn't TRADE AWAY DRAFT PICKS FOR A MARKET VALUE FA!

you're right about trubisky's contract. as i've said, pace was going all in on 2018, 2019 and 2020. year 1 produced excellent results, but the price of those trades manifests itself more in 2019 and more yet in 2020 as the loss of draft picks is felt. of course, if pace continues to hit on mid-round picks, which is largely luck, the traded picks won't matter as much. and the unexpected excellent season in 2018 made the loss of the first rounder he gave up in this year's draft much less painful

i have merely said the mack trade was bad logic. and apparently others are finally seeing that too:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/analytics-conference-says-raiders-trading-mack-bears-was-best-transaction-2018

Ha-Ha Clinton Dix took a below market value deal to play here. Not happening if we didn't have Mack.

I think people underestimate the likelihood that Trubisky could have gone 2nd. The 49ers traded for Garoppolo mid-season, and their #1 need during the draft was QB. They publicly stated that Solomon Thomas was their guy. Personally I thought they were going to take Trubisky at 2 and Pace would be happy taking Thomas at 3 since we signed Glennon to that big deal.

I think Pace ***ked Lynch in that trade. Pace has balls. and he has produced results. Obviously he has to maintain that, but 12 wins doesn't just happen.

I also think Mack was the biggest move for Pace. His arrival changed the perception of what the team will do. I think people underrate that. Sure he gave up 2 1st round picks. But the defense went from really good to downright terrifying.

dice wrote:

Susan wrote:

dice wrote:doesn't matter. pace obviously could have spent that $14 mil on any random defensive FAs and it would have significantly improved the defense. even if it was just to add depth. but he could have optimized that improvement by shuffling a couple of pieces through trades. that's the job of a GM, particularly in a hard-capped league - to optimize your resources. now, trading for mack obviously was more beneficial for THIS season because he's not a $14 mil player. market value has him at a $22 mil player, which he will start making next season. problem is, pace effectively gave up $32 mil per year or whatever to get him given the additional value of assets traded. you don't spend $32 for a $22 asset when you're on a fixed budget. it simply doesn't make sense. fuller will be getting a big raise next season as well. and a couple of other guys get significant raises. the cap doesn't go up enough to offset that, so given the reduced potential for value contracts going forward (traded draft picks), the roster will have to be trimmed to offset that. pace has to hit on lower round draft picks to offset that. and that's just to maintain the quality of team that the bears are this season. all bets are off once guys like jackson, the RBs and trubisky are off their dirt cheap deals

So your thought is that it doesn't matter who they spend that $14m on? That's absurd dude. You only play 11 guys, depth does **** for you when you don't have elite talent leading the way.

what i said, and you clearly didn't process it, is that a GM should optimize their resources. if you don't have a specific slot to plug a FA in, you make trades and/or add depth. MAKE spots to spend that money on. if you've painted yourself into a corner where you feel compelled to trade draft picks for a freshly signed market value free agent, you've planned poorly

because, you see, market value is what the player is worth. the raiders didn't even think he was worth the money he signed for. mack and his agent thought he was. the bears apparently thought that he was worth significantly MORE than what mack and his agent thought he was worth!

is a player worth:

A) what he's negotiated to be paid (which happens to be the largest contract for a defensive player ever), OR
B) what he's negotiated to be worth...plus additional assets

the mack trade was like some nobody desperate to get into the hottest restaurant in town. the doorman (gruden) says he'll let him in in exchange for his jacket (draft picks). the schlub agrees and gives up his jacket to pay a huge menu price for a great steak (mack). he doesn't get to replace his jacket later because he's on a fixed budget (hard salary cap)

the GM equivalent of the ego boost associated with getting into the restaurant is the marketing boost gained from making a splashy trade for a big name player. his wallet is much lighter and he's jacket-less, "but it was a great steak!" meanwhile, gruden is thinking "damn, i know the steak is great, but i wouldn't have even paid menu price"

and by the way, depth is absolutely important in the game of football. particularly on defense. because in football, you'll notice that players get injured all the time. and players get rotated in regularly to keep fresh bodies on the field. the bears got real lucky this past season on the injury front

Pace has proven he can draft and then develop talent. He's done it in every round.

You're talking about 2021 (when Trubisky gets off his deal), it's 2018-19 and this team has a legit shot to get to the Super Bowl. Maybe Pace has done a good job?

never said pace doesn't do a good job, did i? he's drafted great. which is maybe why, i dunno, he shouldn't TRADE AWAY DRAFT PICKS FOR A MARKET VALUE FA!

you're right about trubisky's contract. as i've said, pace was going all in on 2018, 2019 and 2020. year 1 produced excellent results, but the price of those trades manifests itself more in 2019 and more yet in 2020 as the loss of draft picks is felt. of course, if pace continues to hit on mid-round picks, which is largely luck, the traded picks won't matter as much. and the unexpected excellent season in 2018 made the loss of the first rounder he gave up in this year's draft much less painful

i have merely said the mack trade was bad logic. and apparently others are finally seeing that too:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/analytics-conference-says-raiders-trading-mack-bears-was-best-transaction-2018

The problem with this analogy is you're not including the bargains Pace has gotten on other players, and the bargains he continues to get (like Haha) in part, because of how amazing Mack makes the defense. Wouldn't you pay menu price for the steak if you pay 25% for the appetizer and the drinks and the salad and the dessert? If not, then I hope you enjoy your macaroni and cheese dinner at home.

heir_jordan22 wrote:

dice wrote:

Susan wrote:
So your thought is that it doesn't matter who they spend that $14m on? That's absurd dude. You only play 11 guys, depth does **** for you when you don't have elite talent leading the way.

what i said, and you clearly didn't process it, is that a GM should optimize their resources. if you don't have a specific slot to plug a FA in, you make trades and/or add depth. MAKE spots to spend that money on. if you've painted yourself into a corner where you feel compelled to trade draft picks for a freshly signed market value free agent, you've planned poorly

because, you see, market value is what the player is worth. the raiders didn't even think he was worth the money he signed for. mack and his agent thought he was. the bears apparently thought that he was worth significantly MORE than what mack and his agent thought he was worth!

is a player worth:

A) what he's negotiated to be paid (which happens to be the largest contract for a defensive player ever), OR
B) what he's negotiated to be worth...plus additional assets

the mack trade was like some nobody desperate to get into the hottest restaurant in town. the doorman (gruden) says he'll let him in in exchange for his jacket (draft picks). the schlub agrees and gives up his jacket to pay a huge menu price for a great steak (mack). he doesn't get to replace his jacket later because he's on a fixed budget (hard salary cap)

the GM equivalent of the ego boost associated with getting into the restaurant is the marketing boost gained from making a splashy trade for a big name player. his wallet is much lighter and he's jacket-less, "but it was a great steak!" meanwhile, gruden is thinking "damn, i know the steak is great, but i wouldn't have even paid menu price"

and by the way, depth is absolutely important in the game of football. particularly on defense. because in football, you'll notice that players get injured all the time. and players get rotated in regularly to keep fresh bodies on the field. the bears got real lucky this past season on the injury front

Pace has proven he can draft and then develop talent. He's done it in every round.

You're talking about 2021 (when Trubisky gets off his deal), it's 2018-19 and this team has a legit shot to get to the Super Bowl. Maybe Pace has done a good job?

never said pace doesn't do a good job, did i? he's drafted great. which is maybe why, i dunno, he shouldn't TRADE AWAY DRAFT PICKS FOR A MARKET VALUE FA!

you're right about trubisky's contract. as i've said, pace was going all in on 2018, 2019 and 2020. year 1 produced excellent results, but the price of those trades manifests itself more in 2019 and more yet in 2020 as the loss of draft picks is felt. of course, if pace continues to hit on mid-round picks, which is largely luck, the traded picks won't matter as much. and the unexpected excellent season in 2018 made the loss of the first rounder he gave up in this year's draft much less painful

i have merely said the mack trade was bad logic. and apparently others are finally seeing that too:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/analytics-conference-says-raiders-trading-mack-bears-was-best-transaction-2018

The problem with this analogy is you're not including the bargains Pace has gotten on other players, and the bargains he continues to get (like Haha) in part, because of how amazing Mack makes the defense. Wouldn't you pay menu price for the steak if you pay 25% for the appetizer and the drinks and the salad and the dessert? If not, then I hope you enjoy your macaroni and cheese dinner at home.

P.s. analytics tell us that we should trade back from top picks for multiple draft picks. It's good because you get multiple bites at the apple. The Browns traded back instead of taken Wentz in 2016 and Watson in 2017. Their GM was fired at the end of the 2017 season because they only won one game in those two years. It's about getting the right players.

I'd say Mack trade, but hiring Nagy was up there too. I'm not high on Shaheen like the rest of the collective is. So i would separate that out from drafting Jackson then it would be number 3. I'd be on the same page as the rest if it were G.Kittle he drafted.