Jump to content

Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade


MacReady

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, vegas492 said:

LOL!

Now is your time to gloat because we have no excuse for that offensive debacle.  

But remember one slip on your end and that game could have gone other way and you guys would be ones screaming what the hell is wrong with our offense because our defense dominated you as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah don't think we can rub anything in on the Bears, that defense straight up dominated us. Had they drafted one of the other 2 QBs that year, we wouldn't have even sniffed a win last night or even be talking about a potential NFCN title. That defense is absolutely the best in the league, the Mack trade is one of the big reasons why. Never understood why this thread exists. "Hahaha you trade for a HOF pass rusher." Are we potentially better off not doing it? Sure, but the Bears are better FOR doing it too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll never forget....

dll2000:  

Presence of Mack makes Amos "spatula hands" finally catch some INTs.  It made Fuller and Prince way better.  

You exchanged Matthews, Perry and Haha for Smiths and Amos and paid more.  Is that even much of an upgrade?  Not significantly. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Yeah don't think we can rub anything in on the Bears, that defense straight up dominated us. Had they drafted one of the other 2 QBs that year, we wouldn't have even sniffed a win last night or even be talking about a potential NFCN title. That defense is absolutely the best in the league, the Mack trade is one of the big reasons why. Never understood why this thread exists. "Hahaha you trade for a HOF pass rusher." Are we potentially better off not doing it? Sure, but the Bears are better FOR doing it too.

I just can't agree with the bold.  For one, they had 19 pressures, which isn't all on just bad QBing.  They consistently dominated the Bears OL play after play.  Any QB is going to have trouble when the pocket is shrinking in a hurry every play.  Two, it's weird to me how many people are selling the Green Bay defense as having been lucky to go against Trubisky, but ignoring the fact that Aaron looked just as rusty most of the night.  The Bears D is absolutely stacked with talent, but Rodgers left a lot of plays on the field.  Struggled early with accuracy, struggled late with decision making.  Even the TD drive was a bad throw to MVS, two short throws, and then a prayer to Graham.  Yes, the Bears probably have the league's best front seven, but Aaron also held the ball against a six man rush, routinely pulled it down instead of throwing it hot, and generally played right into their biggest strengths.  

Basically I'm just saying all the same caveats that apply to the Packers dominating a rusty Bears offense go the other way.  This isn't a game that should really be used as a perfect barometer for either team.  That being said, the Bears 100% made the right call trading for Mack, there's no need to be talking that down.  It seems to have worked out in the end for everyone involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Now is your time to gloat because we have no excuse for that offensive debacle.  

---Sure you do.  It's the first time in recent memory that you faced a great Packers defense.

But remember one slip on your end and that game could have gone other way and you guys would be ones screaming what the hell is wrong with our offense because our defense dominated you as well.

--If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd never go hungry.--Sherrilyn Kenyon

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Now is your time to gloat because we have no excuse for that offensive debacle.  

But remember one slip on your end and that game could have gone other way and you guys would be ones screaming what the hell is wrong with our offense because our defense dominated you as well.

 

Nah.. Bears are garbage and y'all got stonked. We could never lose to those trash players

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

I just can't agree with the bold.  For one, they had 19 pressures, which isn't all on just bad QBing.  They consistently dominated the Bears OL play after play.  Any QB is going to have trouble when the pocket is shrinking in a hurry every play.  Two, it's weird to me how many people are selling the Green Bay defense as having been lucky to go against Trubisky, but ignoring the fact that Aaron looked just as rusty most of the night.  The Bears D is absolutely stacked with talent, but Rodgers left a lot of plays on the field.  Struggled early with accuracy, struggled late with decision making.  Even the TD drive was a bad throw to MVS, two short throws, and then a prayer to Graham.  Yes, the Bears probably have the league's best front seven, but Aaron also held the ball against a six man rush, routinely pulled it down instead of throwing it hot, and generally played right into their biggest strengths.  

Basically I'm just saying all the same caveats that apply to the Packers dominating a rusty Bears offense go the other way.  This isn't a game that should really be used as a perfect barometer for either team.  That being said, the Bears 100% made the right call trading for Mack, there's no need to be talking that down.  It seems to have worked out in the end for everyone involved.

Yeah, it's being overlooked that GB's defense played better than Chicago's.

People don't want to admit it yet ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

You guys are selling Mack short. He may be the single most disruptive player in the NFL on defense. You take Mack off the Bears and I think there D is still top 10 but it isn't the #1 best defense in the NFL like it is now. 

but he's not more infinity...

the argument has never been about how good he is, it's how valuable he is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

but he's not more infinity...

the argument has never been about how good he is, it's how valuable he is.

I would say he is worth what the Bears traded I just don't think it was in the Bears best long term interest. I think a team like New Orleans, New England, Chargers, Packers a team with an aging known QB would have been money better spent. The Bears are young and ascending but they have squashed their ability to keep building essentially. 

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...