Raiders, Bears Reach Agreement on Khalil Mack Trade

[showtime]

Here's how I'm feeling if I was a Raider fan:

The AFC West is full of solid teams, but I don't see an elite team in there.  Every team in that division has a legit chance to win it.  However, the Raiders just traded away their best player and got absolutely nothing in return that will help them this year.  To me, the Raiders just conceded their chance to win the AFC West because an already mediocre defense just became a lot worse with the loss of Mack.

 

If I were a Bears fan, this would be the most pumped for a season to start since the Urlacher/Briggs days.

[El Ramster]

20 minutes ago, Gannon12 said:

Was poopy

Raider nation stand up 

[RaidersAreOne]

15 minutes ago, showtime said:

To me, the Raiders just conceded their chance to win the AFC West because an already mediocre defense just became a lot worse with the loss of Mack.

Honestly our D has improved from last season to now through the draft/FA/getting healthy, even without Mack. The biggest difference is Guenther >>>>>> KNR. That can not be explained enough. As far as players: 

Out:

• Khalil Mack
• TJ Carrie
• David Amerson
• Sean Smith
• Reggie Nelson
• Mario Edwards Jr
• Novarro Bowman
• Jihad Ward

In:

• Rashaan Melvin
• Gareon Conley
• Tahir Whitehead
• DRC
• PJ Hall
• Darrell Worley
• Maurice Hurst
• Arden Key
• Michael Gilchrist
• Derrick Johnson
• Emmanuel Lamar
• Tank Carradine
• Erik Harris

Our CB's are much better and deeper. Out DT's are much better and deeper. Our edge got worse (Losing Mack is HUGE but moving Bruce to DE full-time and adding Key/Carradine helps a lot). Our S's have not improved. Our LB have slightly improved. Our pass-rush was honestly one of the brightest units throughout camp and preseason, without Mack. Not to say we wont miss him (we will no matter what), but overall the talent level has improved on D and the coaching is exponentially better.

[Gannon12]

13 minutes ago, El ramster said:

Raider nation stand up 

Rams will finish 3-13

[showtime]

18 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Honestly our D has improved from last season to now through the draft/FA/getting healthy, even without Mack. The biggest difference is Guenther >>>>>> KNR. That can not be explained enough. As far as players: 

Out:

• Khalil Mack
• TJ Carrie
• David Amerson
• Sean Smith
• Reggie Nelson
• Mario Edwards Jr
• Novarro Bowman
• Jihad Ward

In:

• Rashaan Melvin
• Gareon Conley
• Tahir Whitehead
• DRC
• PJ Hall
• Darrell Worley
• Maurice Hurst
• Arden Key
• Michael Gilchrist
• Derrick Johnson
• Emmanuel Lamar
• Tank Carradine
• Erik Harris

Our CB's are much better and deeper. Out DT's are much better and deeper. Our edge got worse (Losing Mack is HUGE but moving Bruce to DE full-time and adding Key/Carradine helps a lot). Our S's have not improved. Our LB have slightly improved. Our pass-rush was honestly one of the brightest units throughout camp and preseason, without Mack. Not to say we wont miss him (we will no matter what), but overall the talent level has improved on D and the coaching is exponentially better.

I don't agree.  All those additions are nice and with Khalil Mack they would be even better.  Losing a player like Mack is going to make every single player on that defense worse.  There's nobody on that team now that demands constant double teams.  Honestly, that list of players isn't very impressive.  Melvin and Conley are good.  DRC?  Derrick Johnson has been a really good player in this league for a long time, but he's nothing all that great right now.  Tank Carradine is meh.

That list of players is pretty mediocre, IMO, and their defense is going to be bad.

[RaidersAreOne]

30 minutes ago, showtime said:

I don't agree.  All those additions are nice and with Khalil Mack they would be even better.  Losing a player like Mack is going to make every single player on that defense worse.  There's nobody on that team now that demands constant double teams.  Honestly, that list of players isn't very impressive.  Melvin and Conley are good.  DRC?  Derrick Johnson has been a really good player in this league for a long time, but he's nothing all that great right now.  Tank Carradine is meh.

That list of players is pretty mediocre, IMO, and their defense is going to be bad.

Compare the new players to the ones they replaced. It is a very noticeable improvement. And obviously keeping Mack would have been better. But for 2 firsts and $20+ M in cap space, we can add even more pieces. Our D has horrendous even with the MVP Mack. We had to make a change.

[Pool]

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

You've been approaching this topic from the get-go with posting fueled by a trifecta of sour grapes, blatant Packer homerism, and thinly veiled panic. You continually flip arguments, deny you've posted things you actually have, move argumentative goal posts, and refuse to address a lot of specific questions thrown your way. It's unbecoming, IMO. Especially for a moderator. 

Nailed it.

[Pool]

1 hour ago, showtime said:

If I were a Bears fan, this would be the most pumped for a season to start since the Urlacher/Briggs days.

Exactly how I feel. And I'm not expecting much from them this year either. Any successes this year is just icing on the cake.

[tab]

how good/bad of a deal will this have been if the Raiders use the money saved from the Mack deal to get Lev Bell next year in addition to the 2 bears picks

[RaidersAreOne]

8 minutes ago, tab said:

how good/bad of a deal will this have been if the Raiders use the money saved from the Mack deal to get Lev Bell next year in addition to the 2 bears picks

I wish we could have traded that 3rd and something else for him instead of freaking Bryant. 

[showtime]

5 minutes ago, Pool said:

Exactly how I feel. And I'm not expecting much from them this year either. Any successes this year is just icing on the cake.

I'm really excited to see Mack on the Bears defense.  Mack is the type of player that will elevate the play of everyone because he's demands constant double teams and teams have to scheme against him.  The Bears already have a lot of talent in their front seven and the secondary is looking really solid.  The defense could be great as a whole.  I'm a fan of Trubisky and I like the Bears weapons offensively.  The team has some talent and they just got a lot better with the addition of Mack.  They're going to win some games and be a very tough out for a lot of teams this year.

[Scoundrel]

Happy I can root for Mack now.

[Dr LBC]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

I've got no dog in this show, but frankly, you take away ARod, the Bears are clearly a more talented roster on D, and a similarly talented roster on O.    I'd spot them a 2W+ difference on D talent, and frankly, McCarthy loses a W over any decent HC staff (and I'm probably being generous - and yeah, I know, VJ is probably a -2, so not throwing stones in glass houses).

Having said that, ARod is a 4W+ QB in his own right, so I think GB & CHI are pretty close overall now, but GB gets the edge, but only because of the impact A-Rod has, and because we don't know if Trubisky is league-average or better yet.    And I looooooove what GB did in this draft FWIW - so I think GB is going to be really better...in 2019.   NO's 2017 draft impact is the outlier.    

Legit question here, are you looking at just starters or at depth as well?  Because I feel like people get way too wrapped up in looking at starters-only when comparing teams which isn't appropriate.  Injuries are going to happen; it's the most certain thing in football,  so that depth is going to play and going to matter.  The other edge to the sword of the Packers being the PackIRs is that we end up seeing the depth on their roster.  Just one example, but at this point I find myself trusting the depth of the Packers' OL more than I do the depth of the Bears'.

[Broncofan]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I think that the Bears' D looks a LOT better with Mack, but the rest of the defense as a whole isn't that overly better IMO.  I keep hearing about how great the Bears' DL is, but the Packers DL is no slouch.  I'd personally take the Packers DL over the Bears, but I don't hate the argument that you'd prefer the DL.  Probably is tied to how far you think Muhammad Wilkerson bounce back.  A DL unit of Kenny Clark, Mike Daniels, and Wilkerson is just as good (if not better) Akiem Hicks, Eddie Goldman, and Jonathan Bullard.  Mack is clearly better than Clay, but I'd argue Nick Perry is better than Leonard Floyd.  The Bears' ILB is deeper and more talented.  In the secondary, the Bears are probably safer at the CB position but I don't think they offer the upside that the Packers corners do.  And they certainly don't have the depth the Packers do, which is incredibly important.  They're definitely more talented at safety, and safer bets to play at a high level given the regression we saw from HHCD last year.  There's no doubt that the Packers' D is worse than the Bears' D, but I don't think its this canyon of a difference.

I just hope the Pack hired a driver for Wilkerson so he can get to games & meetings on time.   (I kid)

I see the DL's as very similar.  I see the ILB's as significantly better.  I absolutely love the GB draft, but I have to give the secondary for CHI the nod...for now.  2019, different story.   

The one element I should have expanded on why I see a GB/CHI D difference - speed/disruptive ability.  I see 2 guys on GB who have it (Daniels/ and healthy Nick Perry).   I see 3 guys now on CHI who have it (Hicks, Mack & Floyd).   It used to be a wash, but Mack really changes the dynamic there.  O's can counter 1 guy pretty easily (see OAK & Mack alone).  2? Tough.  3?  Pretty near impossible.  That's a huge difference (and even before you get to the health issues Perry's had - negated by Floyd's, but then it's 2 vs. 1 rather than 3 vs. 2).   Then you add in what Roquan can do in the middle of that field, it really changes the tiers in which CHI's D can bring heat/disruption vs. what GB can do, and Roquan changes what the run D looks like (both DL's play well when healthy).  And as I prefaced in the Comp Forum, I really think Mack's run D is incredibly underrated - he and Von are 2 game-changing EDGE run defenders.    Mack and Roquan upgrade the run D an insane amount.

Don't get me wrong, I think GB had a fantastic offseason.  Truly epic, especially when you add in the extra 1st for 2019.   They are going to upgrade that D and O so much it's scary.  But it's more of a 2019+ effect for the Pack, given how most drafts work.  For this year, it's all about how much A-Rod can carry that team.

P.S.  The personal callouts are COMPLETELY unnecessary, guys.  I don't share @CWood21's opinion, but it doesn't mean he gets to be called out being a Mod when a disagreement breaks out.  We're supposed to disagree - hopefully we can learn from each other, but we don't all have to agree in the end.  If he's insulting others, or breaking Webby's rules, that's one thing.   But, a Mod is still entitled to disagree.    We can be better than the "expect better from a Mod" angle if it's just a disagreement no one is willing to concede.  It's about as uncalled for as the "he could get injured" angle.  My 2 cents.  

P.S.S.  I'm guilty for fostering the debate and hijacking the thread from Mack-trade itself, so mea culpa there.  I hope it brought something new to the discussion.  When it doesn't, we should stop.   On that note, I'll stop now myself lol.

 

[Broncofan]

21 minutes ago, The LBC said:

Legit question here, are you looking at just starters or at depth as well?  Because I feel like people get way too wrapped up in looking at starters-only when comparing teams which isn't appropriate.  Injuries are going to happen; it's the most certain thing in football,  so that depth is going to play and going to matter.  The other edge to the sword of the Packers being the PackIRs is that we end up seeing the depth on their roster.  Just one example, but at this point I find myself trusting the depth of the Packers' OL more than I do the depth of the Bears'.

What scares me for CHI in 2018 are 2 things:

1.  Their OL depth.

2.  Trubisky's learning a new system year 1 (yes, Fire-Fox is awful.  But the rule is year 1 involves growing pains, it's year 2 that the light comes on for most teams, even with good to great OC-type HC's).

I love their RB combo, their WR's have depth, Burton was a great pickup, and I like CHI's plan with their OL (even though I probably wouldn't have taken Daniels myself).  I think CHI is 1 year removed from true playoff contention - unless Trubisky is awful.  Even if he's league-average, next year, it might be enough.

I think CHI is likely to be the best 8-8 team this year.  Next year, I think they will be a 10W team - but GB & MIN might both be, as well.  Still, that's pick #20 territory (above or below), and if they miss, they'll be the best/2nd best team to miss the playoffs IMO, barring catastrophic injury, or Trubisky being the 2nd coming of Jake Locker (which to me, he's already shown he should be better than - bad comp, since Locker was a great athlete with zero actual QB skills).  The only thing that prevents me from saying they're a 2019 playoff lock is that the NFCN looks far and away the strongest division in an already-tough NFC (NFCS having that award now).