Bitty 2.0 Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 6 hours ago, big_palooka said: He has no explosiveness to his game. Heavy footed plodder of a back. No team is filling the box to stop Warren. Just some more preseason fools gold IMO. Time to draft an actual back. Josh Jacobs has impressed me the more I've watched. Reminds me of Kamara who I was pounding the table for. Shifty, good pass catcher, quick and decisive. 6 hours ago, big_palooka said: He has no explosiveness to his game. Heavy footed plodder of a back. No team is filling the box to stop Warren. Just some more preseason fools gold IMO. Time to draft an actual back. Josh Jacobs has impressed me the more I've watched. Reminds me of Kamara who I was pounding the table for. Shifty, good pass catcher, quick and decisive. I’m not against drafting Bryce Love in the third, I think it bring more value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_palooka Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 10 minutes ago, Bitty 2.0 said: I’m not against drafting Bryce Love in the third, I think it bring more value. Love tore an ACL. You'll be able to buy very low on him. And he wasn't worth a 3rd based on this season as is. Also, he's not in the same league as JJ. Jacobs has speed, contract balance, vision and runs behind his pads. He's a complete ball carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitty 2.0 Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 25 minutes ago, big_palooka said: Love tore an ACL. You'll be able to buy very low on him. And he wasn't worth a 3rd based on this season as is. Also, he's not in the same league as JJ. Jacobs has speed, contract balance, vision and runs behind his pads. He's a complete ball carrier. You have to look at Love in 2017 not this year, it was rumored he was hurt all year. With that said if we can pick him up in the fourth or fifth round even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darbsk Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 On 10/01/2019 at 2:23 AM, Frankie2Gunz said: Once again I can see why Gruden traded Mack although I never was a fan of the compensation. Mack is an all world DE and one of the most dominant pass rushers in the game which I think no one will question. The issues were how cap strapped is our team when you have a QB and DE taking up a combined 50 million of your cap space. Combine that with having a roster that is so devoid of talent and by the time we are competitive Mack will be on the downside of his career and a shell of the player he is now. Mack will be 28 in 1 month and has a window or 3 or 4 years of elite play left. I think trading Mack was the right thing to do considering the state of our franchise but once again the compensation received for and all pro DE was disappointing. Just can't agree with this. Sorry to rehash all this again I understand the reasoning behind trading Mack for cap reasons but I think there are two huge holes in the logic. One is I don't think JG used that logic at all, more of move to assert his power and control over a player who didn't show up (for right or wrong) and then demanded much more than they initially thought. Also, if we did sign Mack to a huge number similar to the Bears, then we wouldn't feel that hit till next year when Carr's cap hit actually goes down, and is around $22m for the next couple years. So, we'd be looking at $45m not $50m and also now would absolutely be the best time to have these two locked in as the cap number continues to rise and both pass rushers and QBs get bigger and bigger pay days. By 2020 for example, when we should be able to retool and genuinely challenge, Carr would be at $21.5m and Mack at $24m and the cap should have increased by $30m (using less than average figures) to around $197m. I fear we'll still be looking back in years and wondering what good value it would be. Trading a HoF type pass rusher is such a rare move, I can't recall another trade like that (maybe there is one that escapes me) so to me, the compensation was very poor. Hall of fame players simply don't get traded at the height of their powers when they're still young. For those that say he wouldn't have made a huge difference I contend that he would have made all the difference - how many of us predicted the Bears would win the North? That was scoffed at and joked about pre-season, all our defensive players would have benefited from him on the team especially the rookies. It was quite literally the turning point in our season, Irvin would have played harder, guys wouldn't have quit and we would have had a positive vibe around us instead of the debacle that ensued. I think it mentally affected more than the DL too, the whole team looked shocked and rudderless. I do however think the Cooper trade was a good one for the player and both teams involved, he simply wasn't a good fit here. I'd replace him in the draft with a guy like Harry, Brown or DK Metcalf in the late 1st. Moving forward we have created two holes at pass rusher by getting rid of Irvin and Mack so we'll need a FA (Flowers is my best scenario) and also a draft pick, obviously hoping for Bosa but expecting a guy like Ferrell or Zach Allen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roninho Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 @Darbsk I think you made a good analysis of the situation. It is also clear that he had a massive impact on the Bears. And i still hate losing Mack. Having said that, i do think that it is very likely that Mack would not be the massive impact player by the time our roster would have had enough to talent to get in the playoffs by itself. Jared Allen went from 22 sacks at age 29 to not in the pro-bowl at 31, 5 sacks at 32 and retired at 33 and i would not be surprised to see Mack's ability drop off similar. It is obviously also the question if the 2 picks + the additional free agents from the cap savings will have an impact for us in 3 to 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true2form Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 30 minutes ago, Roninho said: @Darbsk I think you made a good analysis of the situation. It is also clear that he had a massive impact on the Bears. And i still hate losing Mack. Having said that, i do think that it is very likely that Mack would not be the massive impact player by the time our roster would have had enough to talent to get in the playoffs by itself. Jared Allen went from 22 sacks at age 29 to not in the pro-bowl at 31, 5 sacks at 32 and retired at 33 and i would not be surprised to see Mack's ability drop off similar. It is obviously also the question if the 2 picks + the additional free agents from the cap savings will have an impact for us in 3 to 5 years. Everyone has had an opinion on this from day one and it will continue for years. However, this is the right approach. Everything has been one sided up to this point. We have none of our return yet on the trade. Mack is a great player and may well end up in the Hall. I don't see him winning a Super Bowl with the Bears though. If he had stayed put, he makes a huge difference of course. However, what is that in terms of wins? 2 maybe 3? I'll continue to wait for our picks to come in and see what they become before completely judging the trade. I know others hate this, but I'll also be looking at who we sign with the $20+ we would have paid him each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_palooka Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 The timing of the Mack trade and giving them back what will be a high 2nd round pick is what made it so bad. If you want to trade a player and rebuild, that's fine and I can generally get behind that logic for what I thought was a terrible roster. But doing it without a guarantee of where that pick is was bad business. It was a panic move. Let him sit if he wants. If he's a "hall of fame" talent, his value would have been the same mid-season or after. But guess what.... he wouldn't have sat out the season. To much money at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roninho Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 Well i don't think he would have sat out, but the Steelers had a guy sit out so it can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roninho Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 1 hour ago, true2form said: Everyone has had an opinion on this from day one and it will continue for years. However, this is the right approach. Everything has been one sided up to this point. We have none of our return yet on the trade. Mack is a great player and may well end up in the Hall. I don't see him winning a Super Bowl with the Bears though. If he had stayed put, he makes a huge difference of course. However, what is that in terms of wins? 2 maybe 3? I'll continue to wait for our picks to come in and see what they become before completely judging the trade. I know others hate this, but I'll also be looking at who we sign with the $20+ we would have paid him each year. I'd say good shot at winning 3 or 4 games: The close losses at Broncos, at Dolphins,vs. Colts and at Bengals. In all games we were close in Q3. Winning 3 of them we would then actually be 3-1 after week 4 and 4-3 after week 8. And end up 7-9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darbsk Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 5 minutes ago, Roninho said: 1 hour ago, true2form said: Everyone has had an opinion on this from day one and it will continue for years. However, this is the right approach. Everything has been one sided up to this point. We have none of our return yet on the trade. Mack is a great player and may well end up in the Hall. I don't see him winning a Super Bowl with the Bears though. If he had stayed put, he makes a huge difference of course. However, what is that in terms of wins? 2 maybe 3? I'll continue to wait for our picks to come in and see what they become before completely judging the trade. I know others hate this, but I'll also be looking at who we sign with the $20+ we would have paid him each year. I'd say good shot at winning 3 or 4 games: The close losses at Broncos, at Dolphins,vs. Colts and at Bengals. In all games we were close in Q3. Winning 3 of them we would then actually be 3-1 after week 4 and 4-3 after week 8. And end up 7-9. I think it had a huge impact, not just the obviously close games but of course our other players like Key, Hurst, Hall on the DL would have had much better match ups, someone pushing them in practice and a total professional to learn from. Our secondary who actually played really well considering the almost complete lack of pass rush would have been much, much more effective and would have been able to create turnovers. It was clear that the trade psychologically affected the team and they went to pieces not knowing who was going to remain whilst the Bears were galvanised. We might still rise like a phoenix from the ashes and hopefully it will be sooner than later but I don't think we can over estimate the effect the Mack trade had on the team this year, it ripped the heart out of the team and the fight out of some veteran players even. Whilst we saved big dollars not signing Mack, we still have to replace him with at least 1 FA plus a top draft pick, the price of a decent FA pass rusher will not be cheap. IF the draft pick becomes a Pro Bowl talent, IF we get good play out of the FA, IF we save money overall and IF we spend it wisely elsewhere, say for example on a WR and a LB we may break even on the trade but there's so many what if's I'd much rather have the known quantity All pro pass rusher to front the move to Vegas. What's done is done and we have to hope that we will at least break even on the trade but to pretend it was a good move is just wishful thinking IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true2form Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Darbsk said: I think it had a huge impact, not just the obviously close games but of course our other players like Key, Hurst, Hall on the DL would have had much better match ups, someone pushing them in practice and a total professional to learn from. Our secondary who actually played really well considering the almost complete lack of pass rush would have been much, much more effective and would have been able to create turnovers. It was clear that the trade psychologically affected the team and they went to pieces not knowing who was going to remain whilst the Bears were galvanised. We might still rise like a phoenix from the ashes and hopefully it will be sooner than later but I don't think we can over estimate the effect the Mack trade had on the team this year, it ripped the heart out of the team and the fight out of some veteran players even. Whilst we saved big dollars not signing Mack, we still have to replace him with at least 1 FA plus a top draft pick, the price of a decent FA pass rusher will not be cheap. IF the draft pick becomes a Pro Bowl talent, IF we get good play out of the FA, IF we save money overall and IF we spend it wisely elsewhere, say for example on a WR and a LB we may break even on the trade but there's so many what if's I'd much rather have the known quantity All pro pass rusher to front the move to Vegas. What's done is done and we have to hope that we will at least break even on the trade but to pretend it was a good move is just wishful thinking IMHO. I can't disagree, but that's still one sided. You can play the IF game on a lot of things, but it's not reality. IF he stays.... No one knows for sure what would have happened IF he had not been traded. I believe we still would've been mediocre at best. Does 6-10 to 8-8 really make anyone happier? You could say yes, we are more attractive to free agents, we are so close to taking a step, etc. However, you also lose the cap space and draft picks so it's not going to be as easy to add talent. Even if all the vets didn't get cut, quit, or whatever they would still be getting released and replaced now. All of the older free agent vets were a bandaid on a broken arm. Anyone who thinks Gruden didn't know this is kidding themselves. With Mack, one playoff game. Now we'll get to see what happens without Mack. Results in 4 years. Wait and see is all we can do. We will never know what might have been. So it's best to let that go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCOUGHMAN Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 Do y’all think we can lure a big name fa ot? if so who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darbsk Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 2 hours ago, true2form said: I can't disagree, but that's still one sided. You can play the IF game on a lot of things, but it's not reality. IF he stays.... No one knows for sure what would have happened IF he had not been traded. I believe we still would've been mediocre at best. Does 6-10 to 8-8 really make anyone happier? You could say yes, we are more attractive to free agents, we are so close to taking a step, etc. However, you also lose the cap space and draft picks so it's not going to be as easy to add talent. Even if all the vets didn't get cut, quit, or whatever they would still be getting released and replaced now. All of the older free agent vets were a bandaid on a broken arm. Anyone who thinks Gruden didn't know this is kidding themselves. With Mack, one playoff game. Now we'll get to see what happens without Mack. Results in 4 years. Wait and see is all we can do. We will never know what might have been. So it's best to let that go. Good post and I totally understand. I would be happier finishing 6-10 or 8-8 and I'd be much happier thinking about a DL of Mack / Hurst / Hall / Rashan Gary (or Clellin ferrell or Zach Allen) moving forward. We'd obviously have less draft picks but we'd also obviously have less desperate needs too. I still think we should be able to challenge next year (maybe I'm in the minority there) but if we add a good FA DE, draft a young stud DE, add a playmaking LB and a good WR then we could be good IMO. I'll have to do a follow up with a few potential players I'd like.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_palooka Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 44 minutes ago, NCOUGHMAN said: Do y’all think we can lure a big name fa ot? if so who? FA on the whole is awful this year, especially at OT. Trent Brown, Donovan Smith are young but meh. Might as well develop what they have already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_palooka Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 What is strong in this FA class is safety: Thomas, Mathieu, Joyner, Collins, Amos, Reid, Ha-Ha, Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.