ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, rob_shadows said: 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. GET OFF THE STAGE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_shadows Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: GET OFF THE STAGE You're just upset I said it before you could Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, PapaShogun said: 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. I would have traded Ware for 2 first + a player if it had meant we get all that cap space back. Do you not remember what happened? He hurt his back with us, was a shell of himself for multiple years, eventually leading to us cutting him. He then went to Denver were he didnt have to be THE GUY, which allowed him to heal up and play at a high level again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, game3525 said: Because drafting a Mack is easier said then done. Did I say it was easy? Its still an all in move for a non franchise QB. What if Trubisky isn't good? The Bears are done, with no 1st round pick for 2 more seasons to do anything to fix it. Probably the end of the line for their GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 6 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. Easy peasy! Every team should do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACO Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 16 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said: Cleveland and Tampa have had a whole lotta players not on Mack's level for years. This. The Bears have had a solid offseason. They have a very young team right now. If they had a Khalil Mack on their team they would be paying him to stay, so why the hell not pay him to play there? This team was already on many's list at going from worst to 1st this season. I can see them thinking they might be a 8 win team. Now they can easily be in the 10+ column with great defensive play. And if they make the playoffs then the Raiders are drafting low. Bears don't care about that if their team is solid. This is nothing but a win for the Bears. No the Raiders need to prove all their moves since giving Gruden $100M+ has been worth it because so far they just seem drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodo Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, INbengalfan said: Imagine being a Raiders fan and waking up to this crap. It's still not 6 am on the left coast I checked my phone in bed out of curiosity and now I'm too pissed to go back to bed lol Gut reaction is that this ain't gonna work out for either party. Gruden's in charge and unless he's massively changed I don't trust him with sole player management. Mack is my favorite player since I've started following the team and seeing him in another jersey will be disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaiderX Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I hate this. You got a guy who could be potentially a HOFer for the franchise and you trade him for potential. Hes the first beast this team has had in decades. 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: 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. That's fair. I mean, you're right if Mack were to miss those games and have 0 impact then I'd be among those of you questioning if they made the right decision. I'll also extend another point which I said in favor of the Browns NOT making this trade. Did the Bears just mortgage their future? They're eventually going to have to pay the rookies that they drafted if they pan out. The team, by those who follow the division more closely, is the 3rd best in a competitive division. Khalil Mack, reasonably so, could be enough to make the defense great but not enough to make the team good enough to overcome the internal divisional obstacles. Is this, giving up these picks, going to be the 'doom and gloom' for the Bears moving forward? Did they possibly do more harm than good by completing this trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Did I say it was easy? Its still an all in move for a non franchise QB. What if Trubisky isn't good? The Bears are done, with no 1st round pick for 2 more seasons to do anything to fix it. Probably the end of the line for their GM. Are you trolling or just reallllly salty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: I would have traded Ware for 2 first + a player if it had meant we get all that cap space back. Do you not remember what happened? He hurt his back with us, was a shell of himself for multiple years, eventually leading to us cutting him. He then went to Denver were he didnt have to be THE GUY, which allowed him to heal up and play at a high level again. Mack doesn't have injury problems though. Ware still started the majority of games when he was with the Cowboys, and got his sacks. And you don't know what the first rounders will be. If they are complete flops is the trade still a good one? What you know right now, is that you're trading a HOF pass rusher without injury problems, for two bags of hope, and a player that certainly isn't going to be on the same level you're giving away. The cap boost is nice, but all the additional players that will be acquired could just be completely forgettable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattVikings Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 The NFC continues to grow more dominant. Hate this trade for the vikings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, Dodo said: I checked my phone in bed out of curiosity and now I'm too pissed to go back to bed lol Gut reaction is that this ain't gonna work out for either party. Gruden's in charge and unless he's massively changed I don't trust him with sole player management. Mack is my favorite player since I've started following the team and seeing him in another jersey will be disgusting. Might wanna change your avi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: I would have traded Ware for 2 first + a player if it had meant we get all that cap space back. Do you not remember what happened? He hurt his back with us, was a shell of himself for multiple years, eventually leading to us cutting him. He then went to Denver were he didnt have to be THE GUY, which allowed him to heal up and play at a high level again. So it's good that Oakland traded Mack because he might get injured. Got it. 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: That's fair. I mean, you're right if Mack were to miss those games and have 0 impact then I'd be among those of you questioning if they made the right decision. That's a bad decision making process. We can know that buying a lottery ticket for $1 that only pays out an average of $0.80/ticket is bad decision making without scratching it off. Khalil Mack is worth some dollar amount today. It's based on the value he might provide over the next few seasons, scaled to the likelihood he provides that value. If the Bears exceeded that price, this is a bad deal. If they didn't, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.