Jump to content

Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade


MacReady

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Pool said:

I just stuck to the meat of the trade. I probably should have included the 3rd rounder. I get that some of your posters here need to believe this trade will sink the Bears. It won't.That's reality. The Bears will be fine and the Mack trade was a huge home run for them. At this point it's abundantly clear that there's several posters here who just refuse to believe this. I'll just leave them to their delusions then and won't comment further. 

Why the hell would that 3rd round pick not be part of the meat of the trade?  That's right, it wouldn't fit your argument.  IF we made the assumption that the Raiders and Bears picked at EXACTLY the same slot next year as they do this year, the Raiders are getting an extra mid-to-late SRP (55th/56th) in value.  But the problem I have is your entire argument is based around the assumption that the Bears have nowhere to go but up, and the Raiders have nowhere to go but down.  And no, I don't think the Bears are going to sink.  But them regressing to somewhere in that 12-18 range isn't totally out of the question.  Let's not pretend like they were this elite team that manage to run into a hot Eagles team.  They stayed relatively healthy all year, had the 3rd best turnover differential, and they just lost their DC.

But back to the situation, the Raiders now have $73.5M in cap space AND 3 first round picks.  I'd be beyond surprised if they weren't better next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Because didn't you know what happens in 2019 will happen again in 2020?

Kind of childish don't you think? The probability of the Bears being good and the Raiders being bad is pretty high don't you think? Or are you going to act like I'm making some ridiculous assumption in thinking the Bears are good next year and the Raiders are bad? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Why the hell would that 3rd round pick not be part of the meat of the trade?  That's right, it wouldn't fit your argument.  IF we made the assumption that the Raiders and Bears picked at EXACTLY the same slot next year as they do this year, the Raiders are getting an extra mid-to-late SRP (55th/56th) in value.  But the problem I have is your entire argument is based around the assumption that the Bears have nowhere to go but up, and the Raiders have nowhere to go but down.  And no, I don't think the Bears are going to sink.  But them regressing to somewhere in that 12-18 range isn't totally out of the question.  Let's not pretend like they were this elite team that manage to run into a hot Eagles team.  They stayed relatively healthy all year, had the 3rd best turnover differential, and they just lost their DC.

But back to the situation, the Raiders now have $73.5M in cap space AND 3 first round picks.  I'd be beyond surprised if they weren't better next year.

I admitted I should have included the 3rd rounder. There's no narrative here. Just the facts. Fact is it was a good trade for the Bears. Am I minimizing losing those picks? Perhaps a little. But it is nowhere near the loss your making it out to be. You honestly think the Raiders will be that much improved next year? In a division with the Chiefs and Chargers? My guess is they win 1 or maybe 2 more games than this year. Those first round picks (2 of which will be what, 24th and later) will not all be good ones. Chances are at least 1 busts. The other 2 will be rookies on a bad team. Their not going to just miraculously turn it around. It's going to take time. Certainly more than one year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The inevitable regression of the Bears will be hilarious to watch. One good regular season (finally) and suddenly they are as annoying as Cubs fans. 

Hey little brother, go ask Vikings fans how quickly a fall from the top can occur. See you next season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pool said:

Kind of childish don't you think? The probability of the Bears being good and the Raiders being bad is pretty high don't you think? Or are you going to act like I'm making some ridiculous assumption in thinking the Bears are good next year and the Raiders are bad? 

Not really.  I have no friggin' clue how 2019 is going to shape up, since we've got an entire offseason where the Raiders have 3 picks in the top 32 and 5 in the top 96 as well as nearly $75M in cap space.  In the offseason, the Bears have ~$19M in cap space and their first pick doesn't come until 88th.  Given what we know, does it not seem reasonable that the Raiders won't be as bad as they were this year?  It seems fairly likely actually.  The Bears just lost their DC, they have a starting S, RT, and slot CB are pending FA and they've got closer to $13M in effective cap space.  It isn't crazy to think they're going to regress.  Do I think the Bears are going to fall off in oblivion?  Absolutely not.  I think they're going to regress.  The Packers should be more talented and the Vikings shouldn't have the internal conflict going on with how to play offense.  This division could be won with a 10-6 record.  Even if we assume a small regression with the Bears (say 21st as a Wild Card team) and some improvement for the Raiders (say 10th), you're talking about a difference of an early-to-mid 2nd round pick (41st/42nd pick).  That argument you're making changes drastically there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pool said:

I admitted I should have included the 3rd rounder. There's no narrative here. Just the facts. Fact is it was a good trade for the Bears. Am I minimizing losing those picks? Perhaps a little. But it is nowhere near the loss your making it out to be. You honestly think the Raiders will be that much improved next year? In a division with the Chiefs and Chargers? My guess is they win 1 or maybe 2 more games than this year. Those first round picks (2 of which will be what, 24th and later) will not all be good ones. Chances are at least 1 busts. The other 2 will be rookies on a bad team. Their not going to just miraculously turn it around. It's going to take time. Certainly more than one year.

The question you should be asking is, what will the Bears defense look like minus Fangio and possibly Donatell, and less picks in the draft to shore up the loss of some key free agents?   "Same" is not a valid answer, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pool said:

I admitted I should have included the 3rd rounder. There's no narrative here. Just the facts. Fact is it was a good trade for the Bears. Am I minimizing losing those picks? Perhaps a little. But it is nowhere near the loss your making it out to be. You honestly think the Raiders will be that much improved next year? In a division with the Chiefs and Chargers? My guess is they win 1 or maybe 2 more games than this year. Those first round picks (2 of which will be what, 24th and later) will not all be good ones. Chances are at least 1 busts. The other 2 will be rookies on a bad team. Their not going to just miraculously turn it around. It's going to take time. Certainly more than one year.

I appreciate you admitting to that, it seems like there are a few Bears fans who conveniently ignore that pick as it's not part of the equation.  And nobody is saying it wasn't a good trade for the Bears right now.  We've only got 1 season of evidence to go by, and based on what happened this year it was obviously a success.  But the question wasn't really would this be a win solely on the 2018 season.  How does that trade affect the Bears in 2019?  2020?  Beyond that?  That's where the question lies, which is what @Outpost31 is trying to argue.  When you lack your FRP in two straight years, and you have a limited amount of available cap space there's only a finite number of ways to improve your roster.  Any significant improvement on the Bears' roster is going to come from internal improvement, i.e. Mitch Trubisky in particular.  

Unlike the Bears, the Raiders have 3 of the top 32 picks and 5 in the top 96 along with nearly $75M in cap space.  Their improvement are going to come externally.  This year, the Raiders ended up with the 4th overall pick after a record of 4-12.  The Broncos who are picking 10th finished with a record of 6-10.  That isn't a HUGE improvement like you make it out to be.  The Chiefs should be good, I don't think there's any doubt they're going to magically regress.  The Chargers, on the other hand, probably will regress.  They won 12 games this year.  The previous 8 seasons they averaged 7.4 wins per season.  We're not talking about them going from a top 5 pick to a Super Bowl contender.  We're talking about them going from being a bottom 5 team to a team drafting in that 8-12 range.  Not really a huge jump in faith.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

All I gotta say is one person will look silly in this thread this time next year, and it won't be me.

Don't know how anyone can downplay the loss of 2 first round picks.  

Bears aren't winning 8 games next year.  

This will hurt them 2-3 years from now, just not sure it really hurts them in 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

This will hurt them 2-3 years from now, just not sure it really hurts them in 2019.

It certainly doesn't help them.  How good would the Chargers be this year without Derwin James?  Or even how good would the Packers be without Jaire Alexander?  The notion that FRPs can't make an impact is a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I appreciate you admitting to that, it seems like there are a few Bears fans who conveniently ignore that pick as it's not part of the equation.  And nobody is saying it wasn't a good trade for the Bears right now.  We've only got 1 season of evidence to go by, and based on what happened this year it was obviously a success.  But the question wasn't really would this be a win solely on the 2018 season.  How does that trade affect the Bears in 2019?  2020?  Beyond that?  That's where the question lies, which is what @Outpost31 is trying to argue.  When you lack your FRP in two straight years, and you have a limited amount of available cap space there's only a finite number of ways to improve your roster.  Any significant improvement on the Bears' roster is going to come from internal improvement, i.e. Mitch Trubisky in particular.  

Unlike the Bears, the Raiders have 3 of the top 32 picks and 5 in the top 96 along with nearly $75M in cap space.  Their improvement are going to come externally.  This year, the Raiders ended up with the 4th overall pick after a record of 4-12.  The Broncos who are picking 10th finished with a record of 6-10.  That isn't a HUGE improvement like you make it out to be.  The Chiefs should be good, I don't think there's any doubt they're going to magically regress.  The Chargers, on the other hand, probably will regress.  They won 12 games this year.  The previous 8 seasons they averaged 7.4 wins per season.  We're not talking about them going from a top 5 pick to a Super Bowl contender.  We're talking about them going from being a bottom 5 team to a team drafting in that 8-12 range.  Not really a huge jump in faith.

That's the thing. They have a ton of room for improvement from within. Nagy, Trubisky, Smith, and Daniels off the top of my head. These Bears aren't regressing to a 6 win team like @Golfman thinks or an 8 win team like @Outpost31 thinks. 9 wins + for sure barring significant injury. I mean, 2 of their losses this year came with Trubisky out. 12 wins next year could be a regression to the mean for them. Am I saying that will happen? No, but it very well could. They are set to compete until Trubisky's contract is up. What else can you ask for? It is (as I am sure you very well know) very hard to maintain long term success in the NFL. Bears in 2019 and 2020 will be absolutely fine and competing for the division and more. After that, who knows? Everything shifts so quickly in this league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

All I gotta say is one person will look silly in this thread this time next year, and it won't be me.

Don't know how anyone can downplay the loss of 2 first round picks.  

Bears aren't winning 8 games next year.  

Your team has managed despite busting on several first round picks has it not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pool said:

Your team has managed despite busting on several first round picks has it not? 

Have you not paid attention to our last two seasons?  If we couldn't overcome missing on those first round picks with Aaron effing Rodgers, what makes you think the Bears can survive with Mitch effing Trubisky?

And we actually HAD first round picks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pool said:

That's the thing. They have a ton of room for improvement from within. Nagy, Trubisky, Smith, and Daniels off the top of my head. These Bears aren't regressing to a 6 win team like @Golfman thinks or an 8 win team like @Outpost31 thinks. 9 wins + for sure barring significant injury. I mean, 2 of their losses this year came with Trubisky out. 12 wins next year could be a regression to the mean for them. Am I saying that will happen? No, but it very well could. They are set to compete until Trubisky's contract is up. What else can you ask for? It is (as I am sure you very well know) very hard to maintain long term success in the NFL. Bears in 2019 and 2020 will be absolutely fine and competing for the division and more. After that, who knows? Everything shifts so quickly in this league. 

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.

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...