Raiders, Bears Reach Agreement on Khalil Mack Trade

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Well, now think about it from the Raiders perspective. 

I would also assume that the fact the Bears are willing to give up 2 1st rounders and a player for Mack gives his agents more leverage, not less. Same reason car dealerships add the fees on after you've been haggling with them for an hour - you're pot committed and more likely to go over the original budget you set.

[bucsfan333]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Well I mean this is going to be a franchise QB size deal, so essentially they'll have a QB sized contact on the cap. A team like Chicago I would've sprinkled that money around to lots of FAs and used what should be a top 15 pick again this year.

Like I said in the Packer forum, had he gone to a contender, a Mack deal is like pushing all your chips in with suited face cards. For the Bears feels like they pushed their chips in with 6-8 off suited.

I think they can be .500 this year, but I still don't see that defense anywhere near as good as Minny. That offense is no where near as good as GB.

The point was that they can afford it because they're not also paying a QB. Like the Seahawks were able to do with Russ. Now they've got three or four years to sort out everything else before the cap becomes an issue, assuming Trubisky pans out.

It's hard to flip a roster overnight. But getting one of the best defenders in the NFL certainly helps. They might not win the NFCN but they just became a much better defense (and team) with this move.

[VigilantZombie]

6 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Nope, I'll take that Vikings front seven by a landslide. Not even close. Yuck I can't believe I'm defending the Vikings....

With Kirk Cousins at the helm of Minnesota, I'll give the Bears the nod.

[MKnight82]

So the Bears Nickle and dimed Roquans Smiths contract negotiations for months how is this Mack extension going to get done?

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, bucsfan333 said:

If you want a top five defensive player in the NFL, you've gotta pay him. That's the whole point of the rookie scale. If not, trade him and hope your draft picks can even sniff that level of play.

You didnt answer me. The Raiders arent paying their QB "peanuts". 

And remind me again, didnt Von sign his mega deal AFTER the superbowl? And the same with some of the seahawks? And the Pats have no top 5 paid defensive players. The Eagles might have 1. 

I got in a huge debate about this on Reddit. Which led to the guy doing a whole lot of research. if the #2 and #3 players on your team account for more 20% of your cap, you have 0% chance of winning the superbowl. <== Assuming the QB is #1, obviously

[Flounch]

So Mack will play at what position in the Bears defense ? 

[Bobikus]

Just now, MKnight82 said:

So the Bears Nickle and dimes Roquans Smiths contract negotiations for months how is this Mack extension going to get done?

Yeah good point.  A team that can't even get a current CBA rookie deal figured out for months wouldn't give me a lot of faith in giving an all-star second contract player fair market value.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Apparently the Packers, Bills, and Browns also made strong pushes. Chicago was the only team willing to part with two firsts. 

[VigilantZombie]

8 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Well I mean this is going to be a franchise QB size deal, so essentially they'll have a QB sized contact on the cap. A team like Chicago I would've sprinkled that money around to lots of FAs and used what should be a top 15 pick again this year.

Like I said in the Packer forum, had he gone to a contender, a Mack deal is like pushing all your chips in with suited face cards. For the Bears feels like they pushed their chips in with 6-8 off suited.

I think they can be .500 this year, but I still don't see that defense anywhere near as good as Minny. That offense is no where near as good as GB.

Let me hit you with a hypothetical that I truly hope doesn't come to pass.

Khalil Mack comes around the edge untouched and nails Aaron Rodgers.  He ends up holding a clipboard for multiple weeks.  Still like GB's offense better?  Do you see where I'm going with this?  Khalil Mack is a dangerous and legitimate game changer.  GB gets the nod offensively, but i don't think GB's defense gets the nod.  Khalil Mack gives the Bears an untamed ability to completely disrupt these power house offenses you're talking about.

[ACO]

The NFC is going to be so much fun

[VigilantZombie]

6 minutes ago, Bobikus said:

Yeah good point.  A team that can't even get a current CBA rookie deal figured out for months wouldn't give me a lot of faith in giving an all-star second contract player fair market value.

Something tells me Chicago is gonna give Mack whatever he wants.

[rob_shadows]

2 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

With Kirk Cousins at the helm of Minnesota, I'll give the Bears the nod.

The original post was claiming that the bears have the best front 7 in the nfcn, that's what we're saying we'd take the Vikings over bears on...QB is irrelevant in that conversation.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, wwhickok said:

Let me hit you with a hypothetical that I truly hope doesn't come to pass.

Khalil Mack comes around the edge untouched and nails Aaron Rodgers.  He ends up holding a clipboard for multiple weeks.  Still like GB's offense better?  Do you see where I'm going with this?  Khalil Mack is a dangerous and legitimate game changer.  GB gets the nod offensively, but i don't think GB's defense gets the nod.  Khalil Mack gives the Bears an untamed ability to completely disrupt these power house offenses you're talking about.

Would have been far cheaper for the Bears to trade for Gregg Williams in that case tbh.

[ACO]

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

Apparently the Packers, Bills, and Browns also made strong pushes. Chicago was the only team willing to part with two firsts. 

Mack on the Packers would have just been ridiculous. I can see why they would be hesitant to give up 2 firsts though. 

[bucsfan333]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

You didnt answer me. The Raiders arent paying their QB "peanuts". 

And remind me again, didnt Von sign his mega deal AFTER the superbowl? And the same with some of the seahawks? And the Pats have no top 5 paid defensive players. The Eagles might have 1. 

I got in a huge debate about this on Reddit. Which led to the guy doing a whole lot of research. if the #2 and #3 players on your team account for more 20% of your cap, you have 0% chance of winning the superbowl. <== Assuming the QB is #1, obviously

The Pats are an anomaly. You can't really talk about them when it comes to contracts and everything. As long as Brady and BB are there, they're the favorites in the AFC. It doesn't seem to matter who else is on the roster.

And I did. If the Raiders don't want to pay a top five defender, they trade him and hope their new draft picks can come close to the impact that Mack has in games.