Jump to content

Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade


MacReady

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

How much more room for improvement do you think Matt Nagy?  Part of the benefit with Nagy was there was very limited tape in terms of his play calling.  How is he going to adapt when defenses adapt?  Defenses will eventually adapt, and we have yet to see how Nagy adapts.  How much more room for improvement does Roquan Smith have?  He's in the running for DROY as it is.  He's going to be good, and that's the value in taking LBs early.  They're usually pretty damn high floors.  They may not have tremendous upside, but they're usually pretty damn good as rookies.  And OG (if that's where James Daniels plays long term) doesn't really lend itself to being a huge impact position.  It's usually only as good as the guys next to him.  Your OL is only as good as your weakest OL.  If Whitehair doesn't do his job, then Daniels has to pick up the slack.  To me, there really isn't much room for improvement.  They might win 12 games next year, but we saw a near ideal scenario for the Bears happen this year.  I just don't see it happening again.

If you honestly don't think a rookie LB and rookie G who both played great this year can improve in their second year then I reallllllllly need to stop responding to you because that take makes zero sense. I do like your take though that COY candidate Nagy will just magically get figured out next year and be ineffective. I mean, c'mon man. Take off the homer glasses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pool said:

If you honestly don't think a rookie LB and rookie G who both played great this year can improve in their second year then I reallllllllly need to stop responding to you because that take makes zero sense. I do like your take though that COY candidate Nagy will just magically get figured out next year and be ineffective. I mean, c'mon man. Take off the homer glasses. 

What happened to the Jags this year? And the Vikings? And Falcons? Not saying it will happen to the Bears, but it's a little naive to assume you will be better next year than you were this year. The Bears had basically no serious long term injuries, something that is not exactly sustainable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JBURGE said:

What happened to the Jags this year? And the Vikings? And Falcons? Not saying it will happen to the Bears, but it's a little naive to assume you will be better next year than you were this year. The Bears had basically no serious long term injuries, something that is not exactly sustainable 

Jags were injured while Bortles and Fournette were ineffective. They also don't have nearly as good of coaching as the Bears.

Vikings, I really don't know what happened to them. Cousins being Cousins?

Falcons have a bad defense and I beleive had some injuries as well.

You can't predict injuries. If you're going to say well the Bears will win 8 games because of injuries that's just dumb. You are not basing your opinion on anything other than "well it happened to team x y z". And the Bears had missed games by very significant players in Jackson, Trubisky, and Mack. Not to mention Callahan. They got lucky with injuries but it's not like they were completely unaffected by them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pool said:

Jags were injured while Bortles and Fournette were ineffective. They also don't have nearly as good of coaching as the Bears.

Vikings, I really don't know what happened to them. Cousins being Cousins?

Falcons have a bad defense and I beleive had some injuries as well.

You can't predict injuries. If you're going to say well the Bears will win 8 games because of injuries that's just dumb. You are not basing your opinion on anything other than "well it happened to team x y z". And the Bears had missed games by very significant players in Jackson, Trubisky, and Mack. Not to mention Callahan. They got lucky with injuries but it's not like they were completely unaffected by them either.

"regression to the mean"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

"regression to the mean"

"The Bears won't be as good next year because reasons". That's exactly how that sounds. State your reasons for believing it instead of just throwing it out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pool said:

Jags were injured while Bortles and Fournette were ineffective. They also didn’t have nearly as good of coaching as the Bears.

Vikings, I really don't know what happened to them. Cousins being Cousins?

Falcons have a bad defense and I beleive had some injuries as well.

You can't predict injuries. If you're going to say well the Bears will win 8 games because of injuries that's just dumb. You are not basing your opinion on anything other than "well it happened to team x y z". And the Bears had missed games by very significant players in Jackson, Trubisky, and Mack. Not to mention Callahan. They got lucky with injuries but it's not like they were completely unaffected by them either.

FIFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, incognito_man said:

he did. It's very true that avoiding injuries is unsustainable. 

regression to the mean

Then I guess it's a good day if that's all you have as to why the Bears won't be as good. It's still a dumb argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, incognito_man said:

yeah, math is a dumb argument. good call.

Math is based off hard numbers etc. This is all just speculation. Ohhhh the Bears will get injured more. I mean, really? Will they face more injuries? Probably. Is it going to keep them from contending? Definitely not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pool said:

Zing!

Well, “don’t” and “didn’t” imply very different meanings. You can’t be sure you’ll have “nearly as good” coaching on defense moving forward.  The two best DC candidates are gone - off the market (Vangio and Poole, and possibly Donatello).  Not saying your defense will suffer from it, but learning a possibly new system from a new coach does have its challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pool said:

Math is based off hard numbers etc. This is all just speculation. Ohhhh the Bears will get injured more. I mean, really? Will they face more injuries? Probably. Is it going to keep them from contending? Definitely not. 

Quantitative analysis suggests a regression to the mean.  A very simple regression equation can prove this, as does Monte Carlo Theory and other predictive modeling.  Math works amigo, and yes, with hard numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...