Diehardblues
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 55,405
- Reaction score
- 36,572
Yep. The Bears trade with NY was huge part of us getting Parsons at #12. If NY stays at #11 they could have taken Parsons.So.....Chicago decided they wanted Fields but didn't pick up the phone until pick 11?
If thats what's needed to rationalize this mistake, have at it.
If I could convince myself that Chicago isn't about to have a very bad season I'd feel better about it as well.
I'm definitely a huge Bears fan next year, as I'd much rather be wrong and happy.
If that pick ends up being top 5 (think Houston 2020) and the Giants deal it off for a massive haul that continues to build their team....gonna be a tough one to swallow.....unless Parsons ends up delivering in a big way, which is definitely possible.
My real point is that turning down that Bears pick has to be factored in on the Parsons pick, because they obviously didn't want to risk losing him.
Really though....all fine....just that when people say that deal wasn't offered its only a way to attempt to rationalize the mistake, or not have that part of things tied to Parsons.
Again, hope I'm very wrong and Parsons is a force and the Bears win 10 games.
Let's see.
I think the Bears prob had QB on their priority list. And when they saw Fields who was probably high on their board not selected early felt the investment was much less than if he’d gone earlier. And since they were #20 figured he wouldn’t still be there with Pats at #15 also slated to take a QB.