Jump to content

Bears could be interested in trading too much for Khalil Mack


cooters22

Recommended Posts

Just now, Outpost31 said:

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. 

Not sure why it wouldnt make sense, the Bears are getting Mack for giving up the picks, no? No way they get a guaranteed caliber player like Mack in the 1st round next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dafreak said:

Not sure why it wouldnt make sense, the Bears are getting Mack for giving up the picks, no? No way they get a guaranteed caliber player like Mack in the 1st round next year.

If you don't understand why it doesn't make sense now, you'll never understand why it doesn't make sense, but I'll try.

You have one penny.  You give that penny to bye a tootsie roll.  You have lost that penny. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

If you don't understand why it doesn't make sense now, you'll never understand why it doesn't make sense, but I'll try.

You have one penny.  You give that penny to bye a tootsie roll.  You have lost that penny. 

 

well, the penny is essentially the tootsie roll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

If you don't understand why it doesn't make sense now, you'll never understand why it doesn't make sense, but I'll try.

You have one penny.  You give that penny to bye a tootsie roll.  You have lost that penny. 

 

You do agree that next years 1st rounder the Bears traded away would result in a tootsie roll right? They just got their tootsie roll early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Malfatron said:

well, the penny is essentially the tootsie roll

Yes, but you still had to give that penny to get the tootsie roll.

I knew somebody would do this.  Don't confuse him anymore.

You have two dimes and a nickel.  You use those two dimes and nickel to bye a sucker.  You have lost those two dimes and nickel.  The dime did not become that sucker, BOTH dimes AND the nickel became that sucker. 

It was not giving up a dime and a nickel for the sucker, it was giving up all three coins for that sucker.

So saying that you gave up a dime and a nickel for a sucker when you gave up two dimes and a nickel for a sucker is not accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

That's why I'm a little excited about this.  It's only a good thing for the Packers in week one.  If they traded a player who has been playing and practicing all offseason for a player who can't possibly be ready by week one, it makes our game against them on the 9th that much easier.

Same exact thing happened to the Seahawks in week one last year.  They traded for Sheldon Richardson on September 1st and everybody thought he'd have a big impact on the game.  That was when he played the whole preseason and practiced for the Jets all year and was NFL fit.  He had 4 tackles, but he didn't have some huge impact.  I don't expect Mack to, either. 

I think Mack is far more professional than Sheldon.  My guess is that he is in excellent shape.

1 hour ago, Green19 said:

I wonder which starter. Maybe Floyd? Could be chase Daniels ( he is their backup QB right?)

No way Pace sends away Floyd.

This move gives the Bears one of the best players in the NFL.  They already had a very good defense and could end up with the best D in the NFL.  Top tier front seven, two very good safeties, and a solid CB group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Outpost31 said:

Yes, but you still had to give that penny to get the tootsie roll.

I knew somebody would do this.  Don't confuse him anymore.

You have two dimes and a nickel.  You use those two dimes and nickel to bye a sucker.  You have lost those two dimes and nickel.  The dime did not become that sucker, BOTH dimes AND the nickel became that sucker. 

It was not giving up a dime and a nickel for the sucker, it was giving up all three coins for that sucker.

So saying that you gave up a dime and a nickel for a sucker when you gave up two dimes and a nickel for a sucker is not accurate. 

We will agree to disagree. I think we all would agree that we would give up a 1st rounder for Mack. One player for another, simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dafreak said:

You do agree that next years 1st rounder the Bears traded away would result in a tootsie roll right? They just got their tootsie roll early.

No, it's not like that. 

You have three coins.  Two of those coins could be as high in value as a quarter, or as low in value as a dime.  The other one could be a nickel, or it could be a penny. 

They gave up those three coins for something that was good, could still be good, or could be nothing once it is paid 100 million dollars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Outpost31 said:

No, it's not like that. 

You have three coins.  Two of those coins could be as high in value as a quarter, or as low in value as a dime.  The other one could be a nickel, or it could be a penny. 

They gave up those three coins for something that was good, could still be good, or could be nothing once it is paid 100 million dollars. 

They got Mack for next years 1st rounder. In addition, they gave up another 1st and a 3rd. They traded a dime for a quarter and then gave up another dime and a penny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...