Raiders, Bears Reach Agreement on Khalil Mack Trade

[CWood21]

17 hours ago, Pool said:

Reggie White? Might not fit your criteria 100% but its pretty damn close.

I'll give it to you, although I'd argue that Favre made the bigger impact.  So we're talking about 20+ years since a major non-QB made that kind of impact.  That's not exactly great logic.

[Pool]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Nobody is saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying I think people are overestimating the impact a non-QB is going to have on a roster.  And the Reggie White comparison was 20+ years ago, that's really the last time that a non-QB really changed a teams' fortune, and I'd make the argument that the Packers' fortune changed more because of Brett Favre than Reggie White.  Not trying to downplay the impact Reggie White had on the Packers, but Brett Favre was the reason why the Packers became good again.

You would be so so so wrong on that Favre/White take. So wrong.

[Pool]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I'll give it to you, although I'd argue that Favre made the bigger impact.  So we're talking about 20+ years since a major non-QB made that kind of impact.  That's not exactly great logic.

20+ years because it is that rare that a player like White or Mack gets traded. It just doesn't happen.

[CWood21]

17 hours ago, Pool said:

So if the Bears 1st round picks are in the 15 to 20 range and Oaklands 2nd rd pick is 40 that would mean the Bears got Kahlil Mack (instead of using next years first on a DE) and then swapped pick 15 for pick 35 the next year. Seems like a pretty plausible scenario and a good deal for the Bears. And fwiw the Bears don't need Trubisky to be Aaron Rodgers to win and compete. There is too many talented players on this team for the entire success to depend on Trubisky playing like an All Pro.

Again, your post seems to exclude the 3rd round pick the Bears dealt the Raiders in 2020.  And my argument is that the Raiders' 2nd is more likely to be closer in value to the Bears' 3rd round pick than 1st round pick unless Chicago gets exponentially better or Oakland becomes a bottom 5 team, neither of which I think will happen.  And you're right, Trubisky doesn't have to be Aaron Rodgers, but he does need to be quite a bit better than he was last year.  He's still young, so there's enough room for hope but the comparison to Jacksonville are ridiculous considering the NFC North appears to be exponentially tougher than the AFC South was last year.

[Kip Smithers]

12 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Because that's never happened before in the history of ever.  Every blockbuster trade ALWAYS works out.  Every huge contract ALWAYS works out.  Every player who has three great years ALWAYS has five more great years.  Right?

Mack is an elite player, there is no legit reason to expect his play to decline. So unless proven otherwise you assume his level of play continues. Simple. This what if game is pointless

[Pool]

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Of the four, I'd really only argue that Jordan Howard is more than a solid starter.  Maybe in a few years, but right now none of them are players I'd argue are at the top of their positions by any means.

Howard is easily top ten and it wouldn't be a tough argument to argue top 5. Same for Amos. Saying they are nothing more than solid starters is significantly undervaluing their abilities.

[JAF-N72EX]

12 minutes ago, The LBC said:

Speaking just within the LA market, Donald is bringing in more revenue (individually and likely via licensing-payouts for the Rams/NFL as well) than Goff is.  We'll see what and how things go with DeShaun Watson, but JJ Watt is the most marketable and marketed guy on that Houston team.  Other than when they had Peyton - who brought his marketing and sponsorships with him - Von Miller is Denver's most marketable player.  It's not the case with ALL pass-rushers, but all the guys who have broken the $100M threshold among pass-rushers have most definitely been bringing QB-level, or thereabouts, revenue to their respective teams.

Fair point LBC. I was speaking more in terms of league wide and how these large contracts are being to given to elite pass-rushers also set a precedent those who are a tier below. But you make a fair point because so far those who have seen those large contracts have also generated the same or more revenue.

[Heinz D.]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Nobody is saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying I think people are overestimating the impact a non-QB is going to have on a roster.  And the Reggie White comparison was 20+ years ago, that's really the last time that a non-QB really changed a teams' fortune, and I'd make the argument that the Packers' fortune changed more because of Brett Favre than Reggie White.  Not trying to downplay the impact Reggie White had on the Packers, but Brett Favre was the reason why the Packers became good again.

 

Just now, CWood21 said:

I'll give it to you, although I'd argue that Favre made the bigger impact.  So we're talking about 20+ years since a major non-QB made that kind of impact.  That's not exactly great logic.

As to the first thing I bolded--I'm pretty sure that you've been one of the posters repeatedly claiming it's a bad thing. Weren't you saying the Bears were stupid for doing it because they were going to need their first round picks to replace Trubisky? 

As to the second bolded--I've read every page of this thread, and I don't believe I've seen one person who's claimed that acquiring Mack makes the Bears a for-sure Super Bowl team. Even us Bears fans.

[Pool]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Again, your post seems to exclude the 3rd round pick the Bears dealt the Raiders in 2020.  And my argument is that the Raiders' 2nd is more likely to be closer in value to the Bears' 3rd round pick than 1st round pick unless Chicago gets exponentially better or Oakland becomes a bottom 5 team, neither of which I think will happen.  And you're right, Trubisky doesn't have to be Aaron Rodgers, but he does need to be quite a bit better than he was last year.  He's still young, so there's enough room for hope but the comparison to Jacksonville are ridiculous considering the NFC North appears to be exponentially tougher than the AFC South was last year.

It's far more likely that the Bears are a middle of the road team and Oakland is one of the worst. I think most would agree with that. As for the 3rd rd pick etc those are not exactly hard to get. I mean, the Raiders just took a flier on Bryant for a 3rd like it was nothing.

[Heinz D.]

2 minutes ago, Pool said:

Howard is easily top ten and it wouldn't be a tough argument to argue top 5. .

Howard's undoubtedly in the top five.

[Uncle Buck]

17 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Because that's never happened before in the history of ever.  Every blockbuster trade ALWAYS works out.  Every huge contract ALWAYS works out.  Every player who has three great years ALWAYS has five more great years.  Right?

I'd say the chances of Mack working out are pretty good.  He isn't just a knucklehead with talent.  He has good character, and I'd be surprised if he just decided to start coasting now that he signed a big contract.  Other than a major injury, the rest of us in the NFC North will just have to deal with him, and that won't be easy.

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

So, apparently you do think that the Bears would have drafted a Trubisky replacement in the first round in '19 or '20 if he stinks it up this year? Odd. No, they drafted him #2 overall, so they were basically stuck with him for the foreseeable future no matter what.

The rest of that is, frankly, laughable. Even Russell Wilson or Drew Brees couldn't take them to a Super Bowl, huh? You also conveniently forget that Nick Foles will most likely go to another team after this season. You're stating they won't make the Super Bowl, and your logic as to why breaks down like this:

a) Because they're the Bears

b) They don't have Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers on their team.

That's...kinda crazy. Also, you are aware that the Bears defense is superior to that of the Packers, right? And outside of QB, there's a pretty good chance their offensive skill players will be superior, as well. Heck, overall the Bears' offensive line will probably be better, too. Teams don't have to have Aaron Rodgers to go to a Super Bowl. In fact, Rex Grossman has as many Super Bowl appearances as Rodgers. 

No.  My argument was that if they decided after this season that Trubisky was a lost cause (which is possible, but unlikely), they're stuck with him.  Next year's FA class has nobody whose going to be a clear upgrade over him, unless you're incredibly high on Bridgewater.  They maybe start to look beyond him after next year if things don't progress, at which point they're either back to the drawing board with the draft armed without a FRP or they're searching in FA.  Drew Brees will likely be retired at that point, and even if he isn't taking him out of the Saints' offense isn't going to fix the issue.  And if you want to latch your wagon to Nick Foles, go right ahead.  I'll appreciate you for handing the Packers and Vikings the division for however long you sign Foles to.

And no, my argument has nothing to do with them being the Bears or not having an elite QB.  My argument is that you look at the last decade and who the winning Super Bowl teams' QB was and overwhelmingly the team who had the better QB won.  Obviously, last year we had the exception when Nick Foles playing out of his mind.  But if Trubisky doesn't improve by a significant margin, they're not winning the Super Bowl.

[MrOaktown_56]

Just now, CWood21 said:

No.  My argument was that if they decided after this season that Trubisky was a lost cause (which is possible, but unlikely), they're stuck with him.  Next year's FA class has nobody whose going to be a clear upgrade over him, unless you're incredibly high on Bridgewater.  They maybe start to look beyond him after next year if things don't progress, at which point they're either back to the drawing board with the draft armed without a FRP or they're searching in FA.  Drew Brees will likely be retired at that point, and even if he isn't taking him out of the Saints' offense isn't going to fix the issue.  And if you want to latch your wagon to Nick Foles, go right ahead.  I'll appreciate you for handing the Packers and Vikings the division for however long you sign Foles to.

And no, my argument has nothing to do with them being the Bears or not having an elite QB.  My argument is that you look at the last decade and who the winning Super Bowl teams' QB was and overwhelmingly the team who had the better QB won.  Obviously, last year we had the exception when Nick Foles playing out of his mind.  But if Trubisky doesn't improve by a significant margin, they're not winning the Super Bowl.

4

Don't forget that philly has one of the most talented rosters in the NFL top to bottom. Their offense is absolutely stacked with talent.

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

That's...kinda crazy. Also, you are aware that the Bears defense is superior to that of the Packers, right? And outside of QB, there's a pretty good chance their offensive skill players will be superior, as well. Heck, overall the Bears' offensive line will probably be better, too. Teams don't have to have Aaron Rodgers to go to a Super Bowl. In fact, Rex Grossman has as many Super Bowl appearances as Rodgers. 

Yes.  I don't think anyone would argue Green Bay's D over Chicago's, especially after the Mack acquisition.  But the rest of this post is pure garbage, and quite frankly a really awful take.  I'd give Chicago the nod at RB, since their backs are more proven at this point.  But Green Bay will never rely on their running game like Chicago does.  As for their WRs, Allen Robinson (assuming healthy) and Davante Adams are relatively comparable.  Randall Cobb despite being paid more than Taylor Gabriel is better, but I'd take Anthony Miller over Geronimo Allison.  But the Packers have a bevy of young WRs, just not as much of a sure thing as Miller.  As for the OL, I think the only OL that the Bears I'd have that I'd take over the Packers is Kyle Long.  But Bakh is light years better than Leno, and a healthy Bulaga is clearly better than Massie.  Lane Taylor is better than Eric Kush although I'd say it's a minimal difference.  I could see an argument for Whitehair over Linsley, but I don't think it's overly one way or the other.  The TE part is mind-boggling.  Trey Burton is a glorified H-Back, and he is awful compared to Jimmy Graham.  The Packers are better and deeper here too.

[CWood21]

19 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Hence, wait and see with this one. For what it's worth, I think the NFC North is the toughest division in the NFL. This bears team could be the best its been in years and still finish 3rd or 4th because of the quality of GB and MIN. I wouldn't sleep on Detroit either. 

No doubt the NFC North is probably the toughest division.  You've got Minnesota and Green Bay whose probably in that 10-12 win territory, Chicago probably is in that 9-7 win territory, and Detroit can probably muster 6ish wins.  Detroit isn't very good, but if they're going to let Matthew Stafford throw the ball 40+ times a game, they'll be in the mix.