Jump to content

Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade


MacReady

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dll2000 said:

I go to all kinds of other forums.I go to yours and MN more than most because you are divisional teams.  

People really study their own teams.  You get better insight that way.  I see a comment and sometimes I respond.

Sometimes I ask a question.  Don't see what the big deal is.

 

 

 

Idk you seem to have all the answers already, especially with regard to Mathews and Perry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

I go to all kinds of other forums.I go to yours and MN more than most because you are divisional teams.  

People really study their own teams.  You get better insight that way.  I see a comment and sometimes I respond.

Sometimes I ask a question.  Don't see what the big deal is.

 

 

 

Just seems like you're saying things for the sake of saying things, which comes off as senseless.
 

Edited by Fl0nkerton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kepler said:

Idk you seem to have all the answers already, especially with regard to Mathews and Perry.

I just changed my mind after a more detailed response.

1 minute ago, Fl0nkerton said:

Just seems like you're saying things for the sake of saying things, which comes off senseless.
 

I was responding to Mack comment.  That it was a bad deal for Bears and would have been a bad deal for Packers.  I disagree.  I think Mack is worth the deal and would have been worth the deal for Packers.  

 You can disagree. That is what a forum is.  Just a discussion on various topics.   I guess it's senseless in a way.  

What fun is an echo chamber?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Raiders let Mack go, he must suck too.

Raiders traded Mack for high assets.  Ravens won't really get much back for Smith besides maybe a comp pick depending on what happens the rest of their FA period.

Plus the Raiders are known for doing dumb things and Ravens aren't.  Let's not forget that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Answering the red

-53 million is just a quick estimate of yearly cap hit of all players that were named.

-We didn't have a lot of space this year because we signed a bunch of FAs last year in addition to Mack.  

-Matthews didn't play that bad in games I watched.  Bears and MN games.  Maybe he was awful in others, definitely aging.  Perry was hurt I think.  Smiths are upgrade then, but not like they are top line NFL talent.  Haha was traded, but I would say Amos and Haha are comparable players with similar talent around them.   

-Troll seems to mean having a civil conversation or debate with someone whom you disagree these days.  I'll take it.  Don't cite me for hate speech.

 

Break down that "quick estimate" for me.  If GB is at $53M for them, they are over the cap.  Period.  End of story.  

Matthews was not awful, but he's below average.  As in way below average.  Perry wasn't hurt last year.  He's been hurt every year except one.

Ha/Ha wishes he was "still" Amos.  He had a really good year and a half.  Then regressed horribly.

Smiths are not top line NFL talent, especially compared to Mack.  But, there are two of them and they are considerably better than Matthews/Perry.  And they fit the scheme nicely.

Troll may be harsh, I apologize, but you came onto a GB thread with your Mack agenda.  And you cited things that are not true.  I don't visit the Bears forum, do Packer guys go on there and post like you did here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

I just changed my mind after a more detailed response.

I was responding to Mack comment.  That it was a bad deal for Bears and would have been a bad deal for Packers.  I disagree.  I think Mack is worth the deal and would have been worth the deal for Packers.  

 You can disagree. That is what a forum is.  Just a discussion on various topics.   I guess it's senseless in a way.  

What fun is an echo chamber?

 

 

For the record, I wish GB would have done the Mack deal, too.

But now we get to have the fun of comparing the picks we have to make versus Mack.  And the players we just signed in comparing to Mack's deal.

It is a fun game to play.  

I would have pegged GB as a "loser" in this, if it were a "win/lose" scenario, but it isn't that black and white.  Right now, I'll take the money, the players and the picks and see what happens.  I'm happier today about that non-trade than I was when it went down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

Raiders traded Mack for high assets.  Ravens won't really get much back for Smith besides maybe a comp pick depending on what happens the rest of their FA period.

Plus the Raiders are known for doing dumb things and Ravens aren't.  Let's not forget that.

Chargers let Drew Brees go. I bet he will suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Chargers let Drew Brees go. I bet he will suck.

Put some context into your posts before you try to make a point.

There were two big big reasons Chargers let Brees go. #1 he had a pretty bad and career threatening shoulder injury.  #2 they had a top-5 draft pick in Rivers waiting to take over.

#context

Again, I'm not bashing this signing, I like Zadarius Smith and Preston Smith too actually,  I'm just saying I don't see the "significant" upgrades that some of you are talking about.

Edited by topwop1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, topwop1 said:

Put some context into your posts before you try to make a point.

There were two big big reasons Chargers let Brees go. #1 he had a pretty bad and career threatening shoulder injury.  #2 they had a top-5 draft pick in Rivers waiting to take over.

#context

Again, I'm not bashing this signing, I like Zadraius Smith and Preston Smith too actually,  I'm just saying I don't see the "significant" upgrades that some of you are talking about.

I'm calling out a bad argument until you own it.

Saying someone isn't some level of "good" because they became a free agent is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

Put some context into your posts before you try to make a point.

There were two big big reasons Chargers let Brees go. #1 he had a pretty bad and career threatening shoulder injury.  #2 they had a top-5 draft pick in Rivers waiting to take over.

#context

Again, I'm not bashing this signing, I like Zadarius Smith and Preston Smith too actually,  I'm just saying I don't see the "significant" upgrades that some of you are talking about.

"Green Bay's four main edge rushers, Clay, Perry, Fackrell and Gilbert created 87 QB pressures last season. The two Smiths they just signed had 114 between the two of them."

After reading this, explain to me how this isn't a "significant" upgrade?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

I'm calling out a bad argument until you own it.

Saying someone isn't some level of "good" because they became a free agent is silly.

Own what exactly? When did I ever say because a player reaches free agency that this means they are not good?

All I said is that it's pretty interesting that the Ravens decided that Smith wasn't a part of their long term plans when they clearly have a need at the edge spot and more than enough cap space to burn.  Don't you think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

Again, I'm not bashing this signing, I like Zadarius Smith and Preston Smith too actually,  I'm just saying I don't see the "significant" upgrades that some of you are talking about.

You didn't watch enough GB games, then.  Perry was hurt and invisible.  Clay played hard, but was ineffective.

We just got two tier 2 edge kids that are still 26 years old, in their prime.  They aren't going to be Mack, few are.  But we are significantly better on the edge today than we were last year.

Yah you gotta overpay in free agency.  You know this first hand with the Mack deal.  You got elite.  We got two "good" ones.  We each had to pay.  Difference is...we still have the draft picks.  And...your GM was very wise to get that pick back for next year.  I noted it at the time, it was a great "get" on Chicago's part.

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...