Raiders, Bears Reach Agreement on Khalil Mack Trade

[Heinz D.]

1 minute ago, 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.

Fair enough, but you're backtracking on most of the points you made and--whoops!--left Russell Wilson out of your rebuttal. Also, Nick Foles just won the Super Bowl, didn't he? Seems a little weird to figure it's impossible to did it again. But as far as this post goes, you're still essentially right that the Bears will need better quarterback play to win the Super Bowl, or even a playoff game. But, as I've already said, the Bears believe in Trubisky, and teams generally aren't run with the front office assuming that they have made horrendous mistakes drafting quarterbacks with the second pick of a draft--even if they have. So none of what you've stated makes the Mack trade a bad idea. If you want to criticize, going at his salary makes a lot more sense. 

[JAF-N72EX]

I'm not gonna get into this debate as to which team is better and why. I'm just glad to see that this even worthy of a debate. 

[Heinz D.]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

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.

The rest of the post is pure garbage, but you essentially agree with me about the skill players (although you boil down the TE comparison to one TE on each team, which is odd), and you flub the OL argument by forgetting the Bears drafted James Damiels (a first tound talent) and throwing a "healthy Bulaga" my way?

Okay...

[Pool]

2 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I'm not gonna get into this debate as to which team is better and why. I'm just glad to see that this even worthy of a debate. 

Agreed. Been far too long. Game 1 is going to be intense!

[Heinz D.]

34 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I'm not gonna get into this debate as to which team is better and why. I'm just glad to see that this even worthy of a debate. 

Aaron Rodgers is one of the greatest quarterbacks in the history of professional football, and as long as he has a decent team around him, he's a threat to win a championship every single season he continues to play at a prime or near-prime level. I find it odd CWood kind of went into team makeup in the first place...

[SteelKing728]

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

That contract for Mack.  Yikes.   It's getting completely ridiculous.  We're not longer talking about real "performance-based contracts" and basically just handing out "prestige contracts" now.  When it was mostly just QBs, it was at least somewhat understandable from the position with the most breadth of impact on the field and the greatest ability to elevate the play of so many others.  Now we're just doing it for everyone?  Next man up just automatically gets the most money ever now?

Not for Danielle Hunter. ?

[fortdetroit]

2 hours ago, Tugboat said:

That contract for Mack.  Yikes.   It's getting completely ridiculous.  We're not longer talking about real "performance-based contracts" and basically just handing out "prestige contracts" now.  When it was mostly just QBs, it was at least somewhat understandable from the position with the most breadth of impact on the field and the greatest ability to elevate the play of so many others.  Now we're just doing it for everyone?  Next man up just automatically gets the most money ever now?

that's kind of how it works when the salary cap keeps rising every year.  the cap is 177 million this season, in 2011 (for example) the cap was 120 million. So a cap hit now for Mack of 24M is equivalent to a 16M cap hit in 2011.  I't's going to keep happening as long as the cap keeps rising as it has.

[Jeezla]

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

Howard's undoubtedly in the top five.

1 Bell

2 Gurley

3 Zeke/David Johnson

5 Hunt/Kamara

7 Devonta

8 Barkley (Hasn't proven anything yet, but every fan outside of Chicago would pick Barkley over Howard to be their RB)

9 Fournette/Jordan Howard/Shady (Would be higher if he was younger)

I have him barely top 10. Dalvin Cook will be above him in my ranks once I see he's healthy.

Howard is good, but he's definitely not top 5 until he improves as a pass catcher. Kareem Hunt is basically what Jordan Howard hopes to be if he can improve his hands.

 

[BayRaider]

1 hour ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I'm not gonna get into this debate as to which team is better and why. I'm just glad to see that this even worthy of a debate. 

Sorry but it's not. Packers are a much better team. Bears are definitely not a playoff team. 

[JAF-N72EX]

4 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Sorry but it's not. Packers are a much better team. Bears are definitely not a playoff team. 

Obviously the Packers are a perennial playoff team, no doubt. But talent wise, side by side, they match-up well enough to warrant a legit argument. The Packers are just the more proven team at this point. 

[El Ramster]

[Pool]

14 minutes ago, Jeezla said:

1 Bell

2 Gurley

3 Zeke/David Johnson

5 Hunt/Kamara

7 Devonta

8 Barkley (Hasn't proven anything yet, but every fan outside of Chicago would pick Barkley over Howard to be their RB)

9 Fournette/Jordan Howard/Shady (Would be higher if he was younger)

I have him barely top 10. Dalvin Cook will be above him in my ranks once I see he's healthy.

Howard is good, but he's definitely not top 5 until he improves as a pass catcher. Kareem Hunt is basically what Jordan Howard hopes to be if he can improve his hands.

 

You can easily make the argument for Howard as top 5. I don't personally think he is but you can definitely make that argument. But point being he is far more than a "solid starter" like that other posted suggested.

[BayRaider]

2 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Obviously the Packers are a perennial playoff team, no doubt. But talent wise, side by side, they match-up well enough to warrant a legit argument. The Packers are just the more proven team at this point. 

I'm sorry but Green Bay, Minnesota, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Atlanta, Carolina, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, and arguably Dallas, Washington, and Detroit are all better than Chicago... you guys are startin to drink the Mack koolaid. 

[fortdetroit]

4 minutes ago, Pool said:

You can easily make the argument for Howard as top 5. I don't personally think he is but you can definitely make that argument. But point being he is far more than a "solid starter" like that other posted suggested.

Howard is damn good, just a bit limited in that he's not nearly as good of a receiver as the other top tier backs.  That brings his value down comparatively. 

[Pool]

1 minute ago, BayRaider said:

I'm sorry but Green Bay, Minnesota, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Atlanta, Carolina, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, and arguably Dallas, Washington, and Detroit are all better than Chicago... you guys are startin to drink the Mack koolaid. 

I'll agree with you that I do think its unlikely the Bears make the playoffs but it's not that far fetched. And you have to understand that this is probably the best offseason the Bears have ever had and their fans are pretty excited.