Jump to content

Khalil Mack traded to the Bears (Page 19)


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

we traded our Hall of Famer... when Mack goes into Canton, it will be as a Bear not a Raider... I don't see him playing just 4 years for Chicago, they won't make the same mistake

 

just seems like the other day 2016 was the magical year. seemed like we were going be a force for years to come... Carr looking like MVP, two unstoppable #1 wideouts in Cooper and Crabtree, Murray was looking good, OLine dominant, Mack just crushing guys and DPOY.... seems so long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t see an issue trading Mack given his contract is pricey. Oak has a lot of holes to fill. Using Mack for draft picks plus spreading the money you would have paid him (QB money) could make the team better than he has while there. Time will tell. I don’t think the move is as bad as some think. It could look bad down the road if the free agent signings, draft picks flop. But if you make some smart moves it could pay off vs if Mack stayed long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Silver&Black88 said:

This whole deal is hard to get my head around. Like. I get that it would be difficult to pay Mack with the other deals on our books. And we definitely could use help at more than a few spots. But the thing is we traded a proven commodity for unknowns. And I take exception to not paying a HOF talent at a premium position in his prime. Especially one who works hard, has a great attitude, puts the team first and is one of the most important players in the locker room for morale and leadership. Even more so when the team had ALL of the leverage in the world. THEN manage to not even get good value because of how poorly you played it out. AND you deflate the players and fans RIGHT before the season? Timing is impeccably bad.  Players might not want to play for our team and I would understand. Particularly if we could afford to pay him like the local writers said.

The timing is what really bothers me. If we were going to trade Mack we should've either traded him during the draft in May or had him play this season, tagged him, and then looked for a deal during the draft next year. It's mind-boggling that we traded our only All-Pro level player on defense 10 days before the season for assets that won't help us at all this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, dante9876 said:

@BayRaider you are selling bears way short. They wont be a top 5 pick team. We might not even get a top 10 pick out of it. Vegas already moved them from 100 to 1 to 45 to 1 to win the superbowl. 

Before Mack, they are a 5-6 win team. With Mack a 7-8 win team. NFC has a lot of good teams. Packers, Vikings, Eagles, Rams, 49ers, Seahawks, Saints, Falcons, Panthers, and arguably Cowboys, Redskins, and Lions are better than the Bears. Even with Mack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Humble_Beast said:

we traded our Hall of Famer... when Mack goes into Canton, it will be as a Bear not a Raider... I don't see him playing just 4 years for Chicago, they won't make the same mistake

 

just seems like the other day 2016 was the magical year. seemed like we were going be a force for years to come... Carr looking like MVP, two unstoppable #1 wideouts in Cooper and Crabtree, Murray was looking good, OLine dominant, Mack just crushing guys and DPOY.... seems so long ago.

I was hoping that the steelers would have traded bell, dupree and a RD1 for Mack. Our HOF for yours and then some, but it never happened of course.  I thought the Raiders were going to be 1 of the 3 teams from the West that got into the playoffs  but now am along the lines of what you said and not sure.  I can't believe they traded him, because I always thought a HOF player in their prime would stay unless they really wanted out or were a locker room cancer. From what I gathered, Mack wasn't any of those, he just wanted a new deal.  Is this Gruden or McKenzie to blame?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SimonGruber said:

I just read the Raiders have the oldest roster......welp that didn’t take long

lets see if warren sapp has remarks about this targeted at his old coachO.o Experience is good on the OL, where some loss of speed isn't as much of a problem but on defence it usually isn't a good idea for LB's or DB's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, justwinbaby81 said:

If you really believe they are making the playoffs, which of the Packers/Vikings are missing it?

Trading Mack was a shock, we know. But people pegging the Bears as a playoff team is just overreacting. It would take a Rodgers injury to make that possible. They were at 6-7 wins thru Vegas before the trade. Mack doesnt jump them 3 wins.

Trubisky and Nagy are inexperienced in their roles and bring a lot of uncertainty. Everything needs to fall right for them to make playoffs coupled with some injury misfortunes for others. 

If the Bears made the playoffs, why would Minnesota or Green Bay have to miss the playoffs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

If the Bears made the playoffs, why would Minnesota or Green Bay have to miss the playoffs?

It happens where 3 teams from a division makes the playoffs, so in this scenario it would mean that only 1 team from the other divisions make the post season:

East - Eagles

West - Rams

South - Saints

North - Packers, Bears, Vikings

I think 10-6 will be required, because the 49ers could get to 10-6 or better, some expect them to be there.  NFC north is a strong division or so it seems as of now on paper

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...