JAF-N72EX Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, game3525 said: Oh, it makes sense for the Bears. They have Trubisky on a cheap contract for the next couple of years. If you are confident that he is good, then this is the time to go all in. Don't be like Dallas, where you waste that window. That's a key part here in terms of context because we don't really know yet. Also, Carr is a good QB. Did that make them a SB contender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, Matts4313 said: Wait, what the hell are you talking about? It's hilarious to see how many people think the salary cap isn't extremely easy to get around these days. This move isn't for salary cap reasons nor is it smart to think the Raiders did this to make sure "they're good" on that front in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
game3525 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: Wait, what the hell are you talking about? Dallas had Dak on a rookie deal and for a plethora of reasons (some out of their control), they didn't take advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, ET80 said: Given the track record of the Raiders, what are you thinking on this? Reggie McKenzie did a good job at building the roster, but he's got some misses in the 1st as well. Mack was a proven commodity. Let's hope the yet unnamed 1st rounders are as proven one day. Im not saying its necessarily a good move....but like I said, if they didnt foresee resigning him for the immense payday he wants, its a good deal. Mack is 27, and last time I checked, they went 6-10 WITH him last year. In no way am I saying that was Mack;s fault, but clearly the team has more building to do. The still have a young QB to build around for awhile, and this could go a long way. Bottom line...I dont hate the move as much as many seem to for the Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Ahh fair point. I owe you a football, don't let me forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, game3525 said: Dallas had Dak on rookie deal and for a plethora of reasons (some out of their control), they didn't take advantage of it. Dak is still on a rookie deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankWilliams Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I am both thrilled for Mack and scared by the compensation we will need to give up. To the people saying "I thought he would have gone to a contender" I think you may be undervaluing the Bears. They have seriously grown as a team and if Trubisky plays well, we are in great shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILoveTheVikings Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Supersuavesky said: Right, but Gruden doesn't make the final decision. So how's it his fault? Well if a coach is telling the FO to not trade someone under any circumstances and the FO does anyway, than that is a toxic situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
game3525 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, MKnight82 said: Dak is still on a rookie deal. They are going to have to pay him this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drd23 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: Have none of you learned anything from all the teams winning the superbowl lately? Its like I am in bizarro world. The philosophy in this thread is 100% the exact opposite of every team that has won lately. The SB winners lately have either had Tom Brady or a rookie at QB (and a broken down Peyton Manning). Should every team that doesn't have one of them just give up and trade all their good players for picks too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, drd23 said: The SB winners lately have either had Tom Brady or a rookie at QB (and a broken down Peyton Manning). Should every team that doesn't have one of them just give up and trade all their good players for picks too? Sabermetrics: by trying to trade for Tom Brady the Browns are the smartest franchise in the NFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 2019 we use a Top pick on a DE to replace Mack 2018 and 2019 Carr has two average seasons. 2020 we use our other 1st from the Bears on a QB. Back to square one. If this scenario played out I'd be outraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, game3525 said: They are going to have to pay him this offseason. He has two years left on his rookie deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketchup Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, TankWilliams said: I am both thrilled for Mack and scared by the compensation we will need to give up. To the people saying "I thought he would have gone to a contender" I think you may be undervaluing the Bears. They have seriously grown as a team and if Trubisky plays well, we are in great shape. The big thing is Trubisky. Mack or not, if Trubisky doesn’t hit, that teams goes nowhere. That’s why I think it’s a silly move without having a proven QB in place. Obviously they think they have their guy so we’ll see. I was very leary of GB sending two first rounders and paying Mack all that money and we have a top 2 QB in the league. It’s a lot of money and a lot of pick compensation for a non QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Getting a player who produces like a 1st round pick is expected to likely costs somewhere in the ~$8-10MM range on the free agent market, depending on the position. Let's say $9MM as a composite. The average 1st round pick makes somewhere around $3MM/year (again, this can vary). This means each first round pick is worth ~$6MM/year in value, so add $12MM to Mack's salary, and you're near $40MM. That's what I estimated it at anyway. You'd do the same general equation for the other player in the deal, if there is one. But CHI isn't paying both of those numbers, they are only paying Mack. What is the logic behind taking the value of the picks they gave up, and adding that value to Mack's salary? Having both was never an option. They could have one or the other, and they went with Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.