Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade

[packfanfb]

22 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

I just don't think the impact is all that great.  I know the rules have changed to help offenses this year, but the Bears aren't exactly thriving on defense against good offenses. 

 

Problem is, I think you're under-selling the "impact" Mack actually makes on a game-by-game basis. Here is what Khalil Mack does: 

1. On Monday when an opposing offense goes over the game-plan for the upcoming game against Chicago, the first guy talked about is Mack. The last guy talked about is Mack. The game-plan for that Sunday is designed around minimizing Mack's impact on the game. So he's already impacted the game before Sunday even comes around. 

2. QBs play the game differently when Mack is on the field. They might get rid of the ball a half second earlier, etc. Mack impacts so many plays without ever putting a finger on the QB. 

3. Mack makes his teammates better. He draws chips and double-teams and frees up the players around him to make more of an impact on the game. 

4. He shows up in big moments. Like Von Miller and Aaron Donald and the other mega-superstar pass rushers, Mack usually makes his greatest impact when the game is on the line. 

This is why Mack is worth "4 players on a roster" as you put it, or in our case, he's worth the money that we are instead paying to Nick Perry and Clay Matthews. 

 

Edited December 6, 2018 by packfanfb

[Pool]

21 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

They haven't improved all that much is what I'm saying. 

Wrong

So far, the Bears have allowed 19.9 less points than their opponents have averaged.  They have played the average equivalent of the 20th best scoring offense (adding all rankings, divided by how many games they've played).  They have played 5 of the bottom ten offenses in the league.  They've played the two worst offenses in the NFL. 

20th best scoring offense? I can't even. Btw are you taking their offensive rankings before or after they played the Bears? Because ya know, playing against an elite defense tends to drop your scoring average.

Last year the Bears held their opponents to 47.7 less than what they averaged.  That was after playing the NFL equivalent of the 12th best offense.

Huh? Another example of your weird metric.

So in 2017, the Bears played the equivalent of the 12th best offense.  Held them to 47.7 less than what they averaged.
In 2018, the Bears have played the equivalent of the 20th best offense.  They've held them to 19.9 less than what they've averaged. 

The Bears are not markedly improved on defense from last year to this year.  In fact, based on their points allowed in relation to their opponent's rank in scoring, they're worse. 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Just so very very wrong.

Everything points to Mack making that defense better, but, in fact, facts do not back that up.  They were a great defense before he was added, they're still a great defense, but there is no glaringly obvious improvement, and all evidence points, however strangely, to the Bears defense being worse than it was without him. 

Again. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Did you watch any Bears games last year or this year? If you don't see a massive difference in the defense you really don't know much about football. Sorry but you just don't. This is a laughably bad Stephen Smith or  Skip  Bayless kind of take.

And I say again...

No non-QB right now is worth four even average starters, and that is what the Bears have given up for Mack. 

Mack was worth everything the Bears gave up and then some. 2 late 1st round picks for a low 2nd round pick and Mack. Every team in the NFL would have made that trade this offseason 10/10 times. Be realistic. And if you want to talk about a player holding a franchise back due to salary take a look at your boy A-Aron. He is not coming close to earning his paycheck while Mack is in spades.

 

For the record it is looking like not trading for Mack is the right move for the Packers. But if you had him and were winning....who knows? How much of a difference could he have made? Does Aaron not have the yips and play better? Would he have made enough improvement on defense to make the defense just good enough? That's a hard question to answer but as it stands now with the situation the Packers are in I do think you are better off with the cap savings and 2 1st round picks than you would be if you were in this current situation with Mack.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Pool
typo

[MacReady]

Just now, Pool said:

For the record it is looking like not trading for Mack is the right move for the Packers. But if you had him and were winning....who knows? How much of a difference could he have made? Does Aaron not have the yips and play better? Would he have made enough improvement on defense to make the defense just good enough? That's a hard question to answer but as it stands now with the situation the Packers are in I do think you are better off with the cap savings and 2 1st round picks than you would be if you were in this current situation with Mack.

Coming from a Bears fan everybody. 

The answer to those questions I think is no:

Aaron's issues have been going on since 2015.  Mack doesn't change that.
Mack helps our defense.  Doesn't make it a top 5 scoring defense still.  Not with our safety problems and youth/lack of health at CB.

[dafreak]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

Coming from a Bears fan everybody. 

The answer to those questions I think is no:

Aaron's issues have been going on since 2015.  Mack doesn't change that.
Mack helps our defense.  Doesn't make it a top 5 scoring defense still.  Not with our safety problems and youth/lack of health at CB.

Mack makes safety's better too, they are part of a defense...

[MacReady]

Just now, dafreak said:

Mack makes safety's better too, they are part of a defense...

Please.  Adrian Amos was one of the highest-rated safeties in the league last year and Eddie Jackson was a promising rookie.  A stark contrast from a middle of the road safety and a rookie safety who couldn't go 10 plays without making a huge mistake (Clinton-Dix/Jones). 

Yes, Mack makes safeties better.  How much polish can you throw onto a turd? 

 

[ThatJerkDave]

13 minutes ago, dafreak said:

Mack makes safety's better too, they are part of a defense...

But what if your safeties are... wait I have to look that up...

[dafreak]

4 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Please.  Adrian Amos was one of the highest-rated safeties in the league last year and Eddie Jackson was a promising rookie.  A stark contrast from a middle of the road safety and a rookie safety who couldn't go 10 plays without making a huge mistake (Clinton-Dix/Jones). 

Yes, Mack makes safeties better.  How much polish can you throw onto a turd? 

 

Great, then we agree...thanks...

[HeresAGuy]

It was, is now, and will be remembered as an excellent deal for Chicago.  Draft picks, even first rounders, need to stop being revered as sacred cows; in 2018 football, they’re not.  Mack as said earlier, is a guaranteed elite.  Not even one of the draft names mentioned in guaranteed elite.  It’s all upside and potential.  Change the name of Khalil Mack to Aaron Rodgers, in his prime.  Your team doesn’t have a qb, “but guys, this draft has josh Allen, sam darnold, baker mayfield, josh Rosen, and Lamar Jackson in it”.  That’s not a game ifid want to play.  Mack has already done to the defensive side of the ball what trading fir Rodgers would have done with the offensive side of the ball.  No one here was scared of the bears defense.   Now everyone is.  Pretty soon we are gonna be down to a 3-4  year window with Rodgers soon.  Hell yeah id take an all or nothing trade to risk it all for those four years at the behest of sucking a few years after that (I mean, we suck now.  “Draft and develop” didn’t work out for us.  Draft and develop is like weight training , it’s fine, but when you skip leg day ( free agency) , it looks silly, and we look silly.). 

[MacReady]

I'd be more forgiving of people if we hadn't gone through this same thing in the same division with Jared Allen ten years ago. 

 

 

[mikemike778]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Coming from a Bears fan everybody. 

The answer to those questions I think is no:

Aaron's issues have been going on since 2015.  Mack doesn't change that.
Mack helps our defense.  Doesn't make it a top 5 scoring defense still.  Not with our safety problems and youth/lack of health at CB.

 

What has happened isn't just Aaron - our offense has been getting weaker and weaker since then. QB, OL, WR (massively) and probably TE are all weaker then when Aaron was considered to be at his peak. Outside of QB, our offense just isn't very good and Aaron isn't at the superstar level where he can overcome it.

For the strategy in recent years to have worked (basically use every top draft pick on defence) - we really needed to have a genuine top defence who can win games for us with Rodgers playing game manager and our offense doing what it needs to help them out. 

With that in mind, maybe the answer is we should have done the deal, it depends whether or not Mack would have turned our defence into a genuine top defence. We still had enough quality on offense if the defence was light out. Its impossible to answer because as others have said , he makes everyone else better. 

 

[malak1]

4 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

I'd be more forgiving of people if we hadn't gone through this same thing in the same division with Jared Allen ten years ago. 

 

 

That’s not even a good argument. It’s not like the Chiefs went on a few Super Bowl runs as a result of the trade. That trade was a push at best, which does nothing for your argument.

[Mr Anonymous]

As this appears to be shifting into a "should have" or "shouldn't have" argument, let's not lose sight of the fact that the Packers did make a strong push to get Mack and very well might have been the runner-up offer. Remember, the reported clincher on the Raiders end was their estimation that the Bears' first rounder would be highest. It's kind of hard to harp on the Packers for that.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Mr Anonymous

[Joe]

Mack's impact on defense doesn't solve the issue with a milquetoast offense or a rash of injuries...

Exhibit A: The Giants game this past Sunday...

 

[Dubz41]

22 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

As this appears to be shifting into a "should have" or "shouldn't have" argument, let's not lose sight of the fact that the Packers did make a strong push to get Mack and very well might have been the runner-up offer. Remember, the reported clincher on the Raiders end was their estimation that the Bears' first rounder would be highest. It's kind of hard to harp on the Packers for that.

A little less thoughtful and a little more emotional please. It fits the thread better.

[Superman(DH23)]

On 12/6/2018 at 3:46 PM, Mr Anonymous said:

As this appears to be shifting into a "should have" or "shouldn't have" argument, let's not lose sight of the fact that the Packers did make a strong push to get Mack and very well might have been the runner-up offer. Remember, the reported clincher on the Raiders end was their estimation that the Bears' first rounder would be highest. It's kind of hard to harp on the Packers for that.

According to Schefter the Pack was never really in it.  They had made early inquiries but nothing ever materialized.  The top 3 were, of course the Bears, 49ers, Rams.  Bears were only team that offered 2 firsts.  Rams had offered a first and 3rd.  No idea what 49ers offered, but I trust that Schefter knows what teams were really in it.