TecmoSuperJoe Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: David Bahktiari laughs at this scenario. Because if he wasn't laughing, he'd be crying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Danger said: Any word on the compensation yet? All I’ve seen is two firsts and a player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, PapaShogun said: Apparently the Packers, Bills, and Browns also made strong pushes. Chicago was the only team willing to part with two firsts. I just don't get why non contenders with QBs in rookie deals coveted Mack. Draft a Mack yourself with your high picks over the next year or 2 and control him cheaply over the next four years, while having FA money to continue to make splashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INbengalfan Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, PapaShogun said: Don't the Packers have two first round picks in 2019? Yeah. i was thinking of the saints move up for the DE. The Packers got the pick next year, not this year. Got them reversed. Still waking up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Matts4313 said: They hope the two 1st rounders + the player they got + the 3-4 more players they are going to be able to sign will be able to make that impact. ~7 starters/role players vs 1 Cleveland and Tampa have had a whole lotta players not on Mack's level for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargers Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 15 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: You remember when the raiders had a losing season 3/4 years with Mack? It only takes one little injury to negate Mack completely. On the otherhand 2 first rounders and the other 3-4 mid range players you can get with $20m are much harder to neutralize. The number of players in the NFL worth 2 first + a player + $20m in cap space that arent a QB is 0. Why would anyone go to the Raiders now when they know they don't take care of their own. Carr getting a contract that huge was a bad idea. 18 minutes ago, PapaShogun said: Raiders spend $100 million on a coach, but not their cornerstone player. They thought their cornerstone player was Carr but they'll find out soon that was a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: To actually respond, your logic throughout the thread has been circular. "If the Bears win the SB, they won this trade" "If Mack injures the other team's best player, then the impact makes the trade worth it." Neither of those are likely scenarios. Um.. no I didn't say if Mack injuries a teams best player it makes the trade worth it. I used the injury as a 'exaggerated point' of how dangerous Khalil Mack hititng QBs can be. It's unlikely Mack actually injuries Rodgers, however it's not unlikely that he makes a major impact in those games. I also don't expect the Bears to make it to the SB. I was saying in response to a "we'll see who the Raiders get with those picks" that if the Bears made it deep in the playoffs it wouldn't matter. It was all in context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I just don't get why non contenders with QBs in rookie deals coveted Mack. Draft a Mack yourself with your high picks over the next year or 2 and control him cheaply over the next four years, while having FA money to continue to make splashes. You can't just draft a player like Mack every year. Even if you had a boatload of picks. Mack is in the mold of a Bruce Smith or DeMarcus Ware. Those kind of players are extremely rare to find. There are teams that have gone years, and years without finding that kind of edge rusher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, bucsfan333 said: Cleveland and Tampa have had a whole lotta players not on Mack's level for years. You also had crap to mediocre QB play + crap coaches + crap runningbacks + crap depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
game3525 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I just don't get why non contenders with QBs in rookie deals coveted Mack. Draft a Mack yourself with your high picks over the next year or 2 and control him cheaply over the next four years, while having FA money to continue to make splashes. Because drafting a Mack is easier said then done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, rob_shadows said: 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. Yes I know, I'm aware of that. What I was saying is as a team, I'd give the Bears a nod because I don't trust Cousins against the Bears Defense with Mack on it and like the Bears D better. I was simply extending my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, wwhickok said: Um.. no I didn't say if Mack injuries a teams best player it makes the trade worth it. I used the injury as a 'exaggerated point' of how dangerous Khalil Mack hititng QBs can be. It's unlikely Mack actually injuries Rodgers, however it's not unlikely that he makes a major impact in those games. I also don't expect the Bears to make it to the SB. I was saying in response to a "we'll see who the Raiders get with those picks" that if the Bears made it deep in the playoffs it wouldn't matter. It was all in context. Yeah, that's circular. "If the Bears win enough that this trade would have been worth it, it will have been worth it." You have to factor in the probability of each event occurring. The odds of the Bears winning the SB are slim. The odds of Mack specifically injuring Aaron Rodgers are slim. There is a much higher relative likelihood that Mack misses one or both of the games against the Packers and this trade has zero impact on those games. You have to be honest and include the lower percentile outcomes too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, game3525 said: Because drafting a Mack is easier said then done. Agreed. Khalil Mack level players are not commonly drafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_shadows Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, game3525 said: Because drafting a Mack is easier said then done. Yeah... It's not a very common surname... Now if it was a Williams or a Johnson or a Smith.. You could get one just about any year... But Macks are rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.