Raiders, Bears Reach Agreement on Khalil Mack Trade

[JAF-N72EX]

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. 

Not me man. My whole argument against this trade was built around the fact that we were not just a pass rusher away from being a SB contender and I don't believe that any team should make a trade like this unless they are already a PO team looking to take that next step.

I have serious doubts about this backfiring on us like it did with the Cutler trade but I'm not gonna dwell on it either. What's done is done. All I can hope now is that I was wrong.  

 

[BayRaider]

Just now, Pool said:

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.

You guys should be excited. However, I'm looking at this from a non Bear fan perspective. I think 8 wins is your ceiling, not your floor. The NFC is incredibly talented, and that is the toughest division in football, and all of those teams I listed in the NFC look more solid than the Bears, great off season or not. Finishing 4th to last in the NFC ahead of Arizona, Tampa Bay, and New York is definitely not out of the realm of possibility. 

[Superman(DH23)]

17 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

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

Are you sure?  I mean Aaron Rodgers is the great equalizer no doubt, but outside of the starting QBs, you can make a strong case that the Bears roster is considerably better.  I honestly dont know if you can find more than a handful of Packers starters you would take over their Bears counterpart.

[JAF-N72EX]

7 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

You guys should be excited. However, I'm looking at this from a non Bear fan perspective. I think 8 wins is your ceiling, not your floor. The NFC is incredibly talented, and that is the toughest division in football, and all of those teams I listed in the NFC look more solid than the Bears, great off season or not. Finishing 4th to last in the NFC ahead of Arizona, Tampa Bay, and New York is definitely not out of the realm of possibility. 

This is a fair take. I had us going 7-9 before the trade and I don't think Mack adds more than two to that.

The problem with the Bears are the amount of question marks surrounding the team as a whole. It's just too hard to predict at this point. Was last year an anomaly for Mitch? Is Nagy everything people said he was? Are some of the players who played well last year going to continue to get better or were they just a one hit wonder? 

That said, it's hard not to look at the roster and not be excited after years of torment. I'm cautiously optimistic and will remain so until proven otherwise.

[Heinz D.]

47 minutes ago, Jeezla said:

Howard is good, but he's definitely not top 5 until he improves as a pass catcher. 

That's a reasonable post, but keep in mind this all came about because of a discussion of the different skill position players on the Bears and Packers--a sort of amusing offshoot from the Mack trade.

But as far as Howard's slotting goes, for both of us:

28 minutes 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. 

Carolina, San Francisco, Washington, Seattle? Dunno, dude. Not sure you're looking at this situation very clearly...

19 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Are you sure?  I mean Aaron Rodgers is the great equalizer no doubt, but outside of the starting QBs, you can make a strong case that the Bears roster is considerably better.  I honestly dont know if you can find more than a handful of Packers starters you would take over their Bears counterpart.

[MrOaktown_56]

1 hour ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Are you sure?  I mean Aaron Rodgers is the great equalizer no doubt, but outside of the starting QBs, you can make a strong case that the Bears roster is considerably better.  I honestly dont know if you can find more than a handful of Packers starters you would take over their Bears counterpart.

Even if the Bears roster is better than the Packers, Rodgers can still shred them. That's the value of an all time great quarterback. And he's been shredding good to great defenses for years now.

[Superman(DH23)]

7 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Even if the Bears roster is better than the Packers, Rodgers can still shred them. That's the value of an all time great quarterback. And he's been shredding good to great defenses for years now.

He hasn't really shredded a great defense in a long time.  Especially a great Fangio defense.  But I didn't argue that Rodgers isn't great.  You said they aren't even close.  Personally I had the Bears as a playoff team before the Mack trade but my homerism aside if they have a better roster, then to say they aren't close is a laughable fallacy.  Would anybody in the forum truly be shocked of the Bears won 10 games this year with the talent they have on both sides of the ball? I highly doubt it. You (and certain other posters) are operating under the assumption that we know who the best teams at the end of the year are going to be.  That is also a major fallacy. And that has been proven time and time again when the NFL flips 1/2 - 2/3 of the playoff teams every year. 

The question that should be asked is really quite simple.  Does this move make the Bears better and bring them closer to a championship than they were? My answer would be absolutely.

[MrOaktown_56]

5 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

He hasn't really shredded a great defense in a long time.  Especially a great Fangio defense.  But I didn't argue that Rodgers isn't great.  You said they aren't even close.  Personally I had the Bears as a playoff team before the Mack trade but my homerism aside if they have a better roster, then to say they aren't close is a laughable fallacy.  Would anybody in the forum truly be shocked of the Bears won 10 games this year with the talent they have on both sides of the ball? I highly doubt it. You (and certain other posters) are operating under the assumption that we know who the best teams at the end of the year are going to be.  That is also a major fallacy. And that has been proven time and time again when the NFL flips 1/2 - 2/3 of the playoff teams every year. 

The question that should be asked is really quite simple.  Does this move make the Bears better and bring them closer to a championship than they were? My answer would be absolutely.

4

Wait where did I say they weren't close? That's a strawman at its best. 
Mack absolutely makes them better right now. I didn't argue that. I love Mack. I always will love him, even though I know him and Segal could have taken a little less and didn't want to.

I would be shocked if the Bears win 10 games. Their offense is all new pieces that haven't gelled. The coach is a good offensive coach, but he's implementing a system with new players and that can take time. Your quarterback is talented, but unheralded.

You're expecting them to compete like teams like Minnesota and Green Bay, who have made the playoffs for the last few years, both have proven qbs, and also have talented rosters, and have gone deep in the playoffs in recent years. Even if Trubisky makes the leap, I can't see 10 games. They have 4 games against the Pack and Vikings. Even the Lions were 9-7 last year and Stafford isn't going anywhere. Don't forget the Patriots and Rams are also on the schedule. It's no cakewalk, that's for sure.

[vikesfan89]

I'm confused by this thread. Most people think the bears for a great deal but then a lot of people are saying the Mack's deal is crazy and a non qb shouldn't get that. Which one is it?

Also it's nice to have a respectable division again but I still think the Packer fans are overrating their talent

[chris00cm]

Just throwing people under the bus now. Turning into a toxic situation.

[Malik]

2 minutes ago, chris00cm said:

Just throwing people under the bus now. Turning into a toxic situation.

Why would he even come out and say that?

[chris00cm]

1 minute ago, Malik said:

Why would he even come out and say that?

We saw this in Cleveland for several years. HC vs. GM. Gruden trying to lay the blame onto McKenzie.

Only one will survive, and I have a feeling it's the one who will be paid 100mil over 10 years.

[Heinz D.]

8 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Wait where did I say they weren't close? That's a strawman at its best. 

Don't hold me to it, but I'm pretty sure Superman was thinking of the other Raiders fan without an avatar when he replied to you.

4 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

I'm confused by this thread. Most people think the bears for a great deal but then a lot of people are saying the Mack's deal is crazy and a non qb shouldn't get that. Which one is it?

Also it's nice to have a respectable division again but I still think the Packer fans are overrating their talent

It's obvious, to most us, that some are, yes. But there isn't a lot of consensus as to just what the trade means and how things will shake out. Keeps it interesting. 

2 minutes ago, chris00cm said:

Just throwing people under the bus now. Turning into a toxic situation.

That's unfortunate. The second round pick isn't that big of a deal, really. It's a swap of a third for a second. The Raiders still get two firsts. Anyone expecting the Raiders to receive a lot more than they got doesn't really follow the NFL closely. Or are delusional. 

[Superman(DH23)]

28 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Wait where did I say they weren't close? That's a strawman at its best. 
Mack absolutely makes them better right now. I didn't argue that. I love Mack. I always will love him, even though I know him and Segal could have taken a little less and didn't want to.

I would be shocked if the Bears win 10 games. Their offense is all new pieces that haven't gelled. The coach is a good offensive coach, but he's implementing a system with new players and that can take time. Your quarterback is talented, but unheralded.

You're expecting them to compete like teams like Minnesota and Green Bay, who have made the playoffs for the last few years, both have proven qbs, and also have talented rosters, and have gone deep in the playoffs in recent years. Even if Trubisky makes the leap, I can't see 10 games. They have 4 games against the Pack and Vikings. Even the Lions were 9-7 last year and Stafford isn't going anywhere. Don't forget the Patriots and Rams are also on the schedule. It's no cakewalk, that's for sure.

They came close to splitting with the division last year with the archaic run, run, pass offense with no wr capable of beating man coverage.  They had Pitt and Baltimore on the schedule last year and beat both.  They now have arguably a top 5 defense (on paper) maybe even top 3.  The offense regardless of the fact that these guys haven't played meaningful football together is now loaded with talent.  The new coach has shown an ability to beat good teams with scheme.  And if you would be shocked by 10 wins, I question how much you have been paying attention to football, bc history has shown us time and again that playing great defense and running the football will get you 10 wins.  Even in the Packers forum a few of their more truthful members will willingly admit that before the Mack trade they saw a team that was not going to be fun to play.  One poster even noted that the Pack fans are hanging their hopes on "Trubisky sucks" and that if he doesn't that the Bears are going to be really good.

Truthfully I dont know what the outcome is going to be, none of us do.  Bit I do know that I have a gm who is not afraid.  Whose goal is championships not playoffs, not playoffs.  This thing may turn into a dynasty, it may turn into an epic disaster, but nobody can deny that it's going to be more fun than the last near decade of football in the windy city.

Edit And Heinz is right, I had you confused with BayRaider who did in fact say that it wasn't close

[Broncofan]

38 minutes ago, chris00cm said:

Just throwing people under the bus now. Turning into a toxic situation.

 

35 minutes ago, Malik said:

Why would he even come out and say that?

At this point the only theory that doesn't paint Gruden as throwing McKenzie under the bus Hue Jackson-style is that Gruden and Chucky are 2 personalities occupying the same body.