Jump to content

Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack


cooters22

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I have to disagree with this assessment. Guys like Reggie White, Lawrence Taylor and Bruce Smith so tilted the field to one side, other guys became pro-bowl players because they were on the field with those great players. Mack is that dude. He potentially turns a good Bears defense into a force. Fortunately, Trubisky sucks. 

Ok... but is Mack Lawrence Taylor? Like he is great but why hasn’t the Raiders defense been a force if one guy truly tilts the field?

Like I get your point... I just challenge is Mack that? He didn’t do that for Oakland. Maybe for Chicago, but he is 27, maybe the next 3 years he will do that...

** also those 3 players you mentioned, all had other hofers at every level of their defense. My point still kinda stands. They are the Crown Jewels of a bigger treasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Green19 said:

Also at some point I agree with the Raiders... defense is more about the collection of players, not the greatness of one. On offense you can be just one great player. Defense you can’t.

Thats a lot to give up for one defensive player. Like if the bears aren’t great these next 2 years they are giving up 2 top 15ish picks. And next year is a huge year for pass rushers anyways. Like you could give up less to get Bosa and have him longer.

It’s a pretty sweet payday for the Raiders. Mack is great, but Mack is going to receive a huge contract from someone.  If the Bears are who we think they are, then those draft picks the Raiders just got are early round picks ... guys who might be able to play immediately, and on the cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PACKRULE said:

Seems odd pft keeps pulling moving the headline. Not a done deal yet with the bears I wonder. 

It might be conditional on him signing an extension. I heard something somewhere that his agent was given the okay to talk turkey with CHI about numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, PACKRULE said:

Seems odd pft keeps pulling moving the headline. Not a done deal yet with the bears I wonder. 

Shefter said this morning on ESPN it was an agreement in principle, not final, and still had significant issues to overcome - which I interpreted as the deal doesn't go unless the Bears can work out a long term deal with Mack.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crap, Bears are getting closer! The jury is still out on Trubisky but let's remember he is basically a rookie. Rodgers had 3-years playing behind Favre before he was ready. And then it was in year two as a starter that he got it. Im seeing two 1's and a 3rd for Mack, that is a no brainer deal for Pace to make. WOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Shefter said this morning on ESPN it was an agreement in principle, not final, and still had significant issues to overcome - which I interpreted as the deal doesn't go unless the Bears can work out a long term deal with Mack.

Right - which would make all the sense in the world eh? The guy wasnt gonna report to OAK under the existing contract - why would he report to CHI under the same terms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

In what world is two first round picks, a second round pick and a player basically a 1st and 3rd round pick? 

Well, the first 1st rounder is essentially Mack, they just get the pick a year early and a guarantee that he is a stud. They really only lose the other two picks, which from what I am reading is a 1st and 3rd and no other players involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dafreak said:

Well, the first 1st rounder is essentially Mack, they just get the pick a year early and a guarantee that he is a stud. They really only lose the other two picks, which from what I am reading is a 1st and 3rd and no other players involved.

Lol.  This makes the least amount of sense of anything ever.  That's like saying the Saints traded Brandin Cooks to the Patriots for free, and like saying the Patriots traded Cooks to the Rams for free. 

That's worse than the Adrian Peterson is overrated because he might get hurt and the McCarthy didn't monitor Montgomery's stamina, which is why Montgomery got hurt arguments.

Traded for a first and a third because the first first doesn't count. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dafreak said:

Well, the first 1st rounder is essentially Mack, they just get the pick a year early and a guarantee that he is a stud. They really only lose the other two picks, which from what I am reading is a 1st and 3rd and no other players involved.

I do not think you can say "they got X for a player" and tabulate the net and not the gross as X, since the original statement already balances the player versus X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...