Raiders, Bears Reach Agreement on Khalil Mack Trade

[JaguarCrazy2832]

39 minutes ago, chris00cm said:

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

Yea that’s not a good idea there Jon

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

Just now, RaidersAreOne said:

 

So the Raiders have no faith in Chicago. The plot thickens

[Broncofan]

Just now, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

So the Raiders have no faith in Chicago. The plot thickens

Mostly PR spin.  The Bears probably offered the best package....that Gruden didn't get to sign off on.  Even though Gruden is supposed to have final say.  M'kay. 

[Gannon12]

This is not the change I believe in! 

All joking aside the trade was a little more balanced to the bears with getting the second. There is no way we could afford what he wanted. And keep any decent players as well. 

If you watch The Reggie Mckenzie and Khalil Mack interviews all he wanted was the highest bidder. He wasn’t going to give any discount so I give a pass on the FO for that. The Bryant and McCarron deals are just flabbergasting bad. If Gruden wants me to die faster he is definitely doing it right.

I will try and be optimistic because of what can be but I will hold my judgement once I see what Gruden does.

Congratulations Bear fans! You got a star.

[MrOaktown_56]

1 hour ago, Superman(DH23) said:

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

7

The offense is talented, but there are question marks at the skill positions as well. Robinson is coming off an ACL and is two years removed from his big season. Gabriel is a decent slot who's never produced big numbers in an offense with a much better quarterback than Trubisky. I like Anthony Miller, but he's a rookie. I like Kevin White but he's perennially injured. Javon Wims has had an awesome preseason, but that's a small sample size. Trey Burton hasn't produced yet and Shaheen is coming off injury.

I think Jordan Howard is a good, not great running back. I think the OL is solid.

I see promise. I don't see an offense "loaded with talent". This isn't PIT. This isn't the Falcons. Unless you think that your coach will be McVay 2.0, which is quite rare in this league. Possible, but rare, I don't see an offense that's gonna tear up the league.

I didn't say that the Bears wouldn't be improved. The schedule is tough (6th hardest). I don't doubt that if the Bears were in a crappy division, they could make some serious noise this year. But you can't deny the talent of the teams in your division. But 10 wins against a near top 5 schedule is extremely tough to do, historically even.

[CWood21]

7 hours ago, Pool said:

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.

At this point, I'd take Kareem Hunt, Todd Gurley, Le'Veon Bell, Ezekiel Elliott, David Johnson, and Alvin Kamara pretty easily over Jordan Howard.  Then you get into that Fournette/Barkley tier, and I'd probably be inclined to take them over Howard.  Howard is pretty clearly towards the backend of that top 10 than he is being top 5.

[CWood21]

7 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

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.

No.  You continue to fail to read my posts, and continue to twist my words.  I've argued that every team should look to acquire Khalil Mack.  Every team would be dumb not to.  He's clearly a top 5 defensive player in the NFL.  My argument was that I thought it wasn't the greatest move given the uncertainty surrounding their QB situation.  Let me ask you this, do you feel more comfortable giving up multiple first round picks when you have Aaron Rodgers as your starting QB or Mitchell Trubisky?  The answer is pretty clear.  I don't mind if you're willing to gamble, but don't get offended when someone disagrees.

I'm pretty sure I've seen enough Bears' fans argue that they're a sure-fire playoff team.  Nor have I said that they were a Super Bowl-bound team.  Again, read my posts a little more closely.

[CWood21]

7 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

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. 

No.  I haven't backtracked.  You continue to fail to actually read my posts.  You pick and choose what you want to read, and then twist my words.  As I've mentioned, I anticipate Drew Brees to retire by the end of this contract, and I've been pretty vocal in the Saints/Bridgwater thread that I don't see him as anything more than a solid starting QB.  If that's what you want, go right ahead.  But he's always going to be a QB that leaves you wanting more.  As for Russell Wilson, I'm still skeptical that Seattle will let him walk, but that's probably the baseline for QB play they need from him.  But you're probably at worse getting a franchise tag or two with Wilson if they don't come to an extension.  As for Foles, if you can find ANYTHING that would suggest that the 6 game stretch is sustainable, I'd love to know.  Because his past says otherwise.  In the playoffs, he completed nearly 73% of his passes with a 6/1 TD/INT ratio with nearly 10 AY/A.  His career average is a completion percentage of 60%, a TD/INT ratio of 2/1 TD/INT, and a 7.0 AY/A.  He won't repeat it, I can pretty much guarantee you that.

[CWood21]

7 hours ago, Pool said:

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.

Ok.  Let's assume for a second that the Raiders are a bottom 10 team, the Bears would have to be picking within ~15 picks of the Raiders for the value of the second round pick to be closer to the Bears' first than the third they're sending.  The fact that you think a 3rd round pick can be acquired easily is unfounded, and if you can come up with more than just the Martavis Bryant where a team acquired a 3rd round pick that wasn't part of a trade down.  Even in trade downs, you're receiving a 4th in return most likely.

[CWood21]

7 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

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...

Says the same guy that David Bakhtiari is injury prone...  And no, James Daniels wasn't a 1st round talent.  If you're a C prospect and you want to be a 1st round talent, you need to be an Alex Mack or Nick Mangold-level of prospect.  Simply put, Daniel wasn't a first round talent.  I did admit I did forget about Daniels.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

 

Gruden's presser about the situation. At least he seems really transparent about the entire thing. He's never come off as a phony when he was a coach regarding anything. So he's got that going for him. 

There is an awkward moment at 8:17 during the video where Gruden makes a comment that wasn't involved with sending a second round pick to the Bears, and Reggie should be asked about that. 

 

[dosbox]

Might be a dumb take but I get why both teams did what they did.  Raiders prob felt paying Mack as much as a QB might not work - Bears felt adding an All Pro DE will do wonders for them.  Raiders get 2 1st rounders and dont have to spend $141 million on 1 guy.  Not saying Mack doesnt deserve it... just saying that if the NFL is a 'business' then you have to expect that teams will be making 'Business' decisions one way or another. 

[JAF-N72EX]

9 minutes ago, dosbox said:

Might be a dumb take but I get why both teams did what they did.  Raiders prob felt paying Mack as much as a QB might not work - Bears felt adding an All Pro DE will do wonders for them.  Raiders get 2 1st rounders and dont have to spend $141 million on 1 guy.  Not saying Mack doesnt deserve it... just saying that if the NFL is a 'business' then you have to expect that teams will be making 'Business' decisions one way or another. 

Disclaimer: I mean this respectfully.

To help save you from the immature people on this site. I just want to point out a few things before they do, but do it respectful manner. 

1) Mack is not DE in Chicago. He only a DE in Oakland during his rookie before they transitioned from a 4-3 defense to a 3-4 defense.

2) No team spent 141M on player and the Raiders didn't just decide to not pay him. I would suggest reading a little more about how the NFL cap works.

Here is a link to get you started. https://overthecap.com/a-guide-to-the-nfl-salary-cap/
  

[Jakuvious]

10 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not arguing whether or not they should to look to acquire Mack.  But would you view this trade in the same light if you thought Trubisky wasn't very good?  If you believed the Bears were handing a potential top-10 pick to the Raiders next year, I can pretty much guarantee you that we wouldn't be praising the Bears for this deal.

I don't think Trubisky is going to be good. But you have to operate under the belief that he will be, if you're the Bears.