Broncofan Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 6 hours ago, TankWilliams said: So, two weeks in, what do people think so far of the impact? Mack has certainly been a wrecking ball for the Bears, but its still only kept them "close" with their offensive deficiencies plaguing them. Oakland on the other hand has not played well either, and while I think Mack is a superstar, I don't know if he would have tipped the scales for them, either. The only reason why OAK lost to DEN was the D got gassed in the 2H, they were up 12-0 and 19-7 on us. Mack on D would have certainly changed that. Having said all the above, it's not like we know OAK's return on this - 2 firsts and 23.5M in cap room does mean we don't know how OAK's return really looks. On the flip side, I will say CHI looks like a .500+ team (should have beaten the Pack, but for Nagy's incredible go-into-shell mode game calling in the 2H week 1, and Fuller's drop). That D is going to be fierce (SEA's O is bad, so let's not crown them 1985 D yet, though - let's do it against decent OL's for a few weeks and then we'll talk again). Trubisky is the main limit to their 2018 growth - he's got footwork and mechanical issues to straighten out, he was late on some key reads (Miller TD in 1H, instead got a FG), missed a TD a big play to ARob (that worse was a pick), and he's learning a new O. I mention the above because the concern with the trade return is that if OAK is a 4-12 or 5-11 team, and CHI is a .500 or better team this year - the real risk is that in 2019, the gap widens even more, given the age of the Raiders' roster, and the development of the O in year 2. And 2019 is where the 1st-for-2nd swap kicks in. It's a huge drop in return if OAK's 2nd rd pick in 2019 is a top 35-40 pick and CHI's in the 20's. Still, until we see the draft yield, can't judge the OAK side of it. On the other hand, we can see the impact it's having on CHI, and it's undeniable. Just if their QB can actually be OK long-term....that's the real 100M question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malak1 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 I’m happy with the way things turned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 Bears. Without a doubt. Josh Jacobs was WAY overdrafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 So Jacobs is the first pick. We get another first next year and consider this FA class pretty much for Mack too. The amount of money we saved we put to Brown, Brown, Williams, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble_Beast Posted April 26, 2019 Author Share Posted April 26, 2019 so far LT- Trent Brown RB- Josh Jacobs plus a 1st for Mack----- kinda even if Jacobs a stud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 Well I think the Raiders showed that if you are going to trade great players for draft picks it would help to know how to draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsooie5 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 On 9/2/2018 at 4:02 PM, BayRaider said: We won't know for 5 years honestly. It all depends how Mack does those 5 years, the Raiders first rounders do over the next 5 years, if having more cap space helped Oakland, and if either team wins the Super Bowl. Lmao no we already know. Raiders got fleeced. You’re trying so painfully hard to find a way to (barely) justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 9 minutes ago, pigsooie5 said: Lmao no we already know. Raiders got fleeced. You’re trying so painfully hard to find a way to (barely) justify it. Digging up an old thread? Pretty pathetic. Only one goal in NFL. Super Bowl. Whoever wins it wins the trade. Without trading Mack we also don’t have have AB, Trent Brown, Tyrell Williams, LaMarcus Joyner, and two first round picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomaxgrUK Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 26 minutes ago, BayRaider said: Without trading Mack we also don’t have have AB, Trent Brown, Tyrell Williams, LaMarcus Joyner, and two first round picks. Mack's avg salary - $23.5m AB's avg salary - $16.7m Trent Brown's avg salary - $16.5m Tyrell Williams' avg salary - $11m LaMarcus Joyner avg salary - $10.5m TOTAL = $54.7m Care to explain how you wouldn't have been able to sign any of those players with Khalil Mack onboard? Who would you rather be paying - Mack or Tyrell Williams and LaMarcus Joyner? I am sorry, but if you say anything other than the former then you're talking absolute nonsense. The extra draft picks is a legit reason for trading Mack (or at least the argument can be made); but don't try and make the argument that signing Mack would prevent the Raiders from getting better in FA. You had the room to both - of that there is zero doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 1 minute ago, lomaxgrUK said: Mack's avg salary - $23.5m AB's avg salary - $16.7m Trent Brown's avg salary - $16.5m Tyrell Williams' avg salary - $11m LaMarcus Joyner avg salary - $10.5m TOTAL = $54.7m Care to explain how you wouldn't have been able to sign any of those players with Khalil Mack onboard? Who would you rather be paying - Mack or Tyrell Williams and LaMarcus Joyner? I am sorry, but if you say anything other than the former then you're talking absolute nonsense. The extra draft picks is a legit reason for trading Mack (or at least the argument can be made); but don't try and make the argument that signing Mack would prevent the Raiders from getting better in FA. You had the room to both - of that there is zero doubt. Guaranteed money my friend. We have a poor owner and Macks guaranteed money was what, 90M? We wouldn’t of been able to sign any of those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomaxgrUK Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, BayRaider said: Guaranteed money my friend. We have a poor owner and Macks guaranteed money was what, 90M? We wouldn’t of been able to sign any of those guys. Pretty sure Mack's was $60m and I can't be bothered to go back through the other guys. That's a sad state of affairs if that is the reason Mack was traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 1 minute ago, lomaxgrUK said: Pretty sure Mack's was $60m and I can't be bothered to go back through the other guys. That's a sad state of affairs if that is the reason Mack was traded. Mack’s guaranteed money was 90M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malak1 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 7 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said: So Jacobs is the first pick. We get another first next year and consider this FA class pretty much for Mack too. The amount of money we saved we put to Brown, Brown, Williams, etc. Is there anything about the Raiders’ draft thus far that makes you confident in next year’s pick? I kinda like the players the Raiders drafted this year, just not at the slot they were taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSLCF04 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 At this moment Chicago won. Untill we see what the pics do and what success the Raiders have. I dont see it any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD4L Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 Right now it’s hard to say anything other than Chicago won the trade. You can make a real claim they underachieved by only reaching the wildcard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.