Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade

[boratt]

Just now, Spartacus said:

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. 

Amukamara and Skrine 30

Hicks and Trevathan turning 30. 

Mack 28

 

Hicks, Amukamara and Trevathan are important pieces for them.... aging. They’re a really good defense but it won’t be forever. If they draft really well going forward, sure, they can replace guys. But it’s gonna take some really high quality draft picks over the next year or two or holes gonna start popping in their canoe 

[Norm]

Lock this thread. 

[MacReady]

10 minutes ago, Norm said:

Lock this thread. 

Even I agree with this.  Never bump something like this in season.

[Norm]

Just now, Outpost31 said:

Even I agree with this.  Never bump something like this in season.

It's like a secret **** on the bears thread like the Vikings and bears forum has. **** that noise

[Leader]

Here's the long and short of this trade analysis.......

The GBP lead the "post Khalil trade series" 2 games to 1 (and could easily have been 3-0 if we'd done a few things right in game 2 of last year).

Done. Moving on.

[PossibleCabbage]

5 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

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.

I mean, that's the problem with the Mack trade isn't it?  The best way to win a championship in the NFL is with a cheap QB so you can spend to build up the rest of the roster, but that only works if that QB on the rookie deal turns into the guy.  Trading away a sizeable portion of premium picks and spending big on an (admittedly elite) player is a good move if and only if Trubisky works out.  Trubisky is only cheap through 2020, after which point Mack turns 30 before the season.  So the window is not large.

[Packerraymond]

43 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

I mean, that's the problem with the Mack trade isn't it?  The best way to win a championship in the NFL is with a cheap QB so you can spend to build up the rest of the roster, but that only works if that QB on the rookie deal turns into the guy.  Trading away a sizeable portion of premium picks and spending big on an (admittedly elite) player is a good move if and only if Trubisky works out.  Trubisky is only cheap through 2020, after which point Mack turns 30 before the season.  So the window is not large.

There's no problems with the Mack trade other than I think they bet on the wrong QB. The trade itself is fine despite what anyone here thinks or says. If it took 2 1sts to get Reggie from the Eagles look how it would've turned out. No problems with trading for HOF pass rushers.

Let's not forget Gutey wanted to make this move too, just the Raiders thinking the Bears picks were better than ours.

It's not a long-term window move, but what is anymore? Good players make bank now in the NFL and your overall team suffers in the long run because of it.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like the Mack trade just compounds the problem of "betting big on the wrong QB" is all.  Since even if Trubisky is the worst QB in the league by a mile, they're still not going to be able to acquire a replacement during Mack's prime.

[Mazrimiv]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

There's no problems with the Mack trade other than I think they bet on the wrong QB. The trade itself is fine despite what anyone here thinks or says. If it took 2 1sts to get Reggie from the Eagles look how it would've turned out. No problems with trading for HOF pass rushers.

Let's not forget Gutey wanted to make this move too, just the Raiders thinking the Bears picks were better than ours.

It's not a long-term window move, but what is anymore? Good players make bank now in the NFL and your overall team suffers in the long run because of it.

We would all be talking about the Mack trade very differently had CHI taken Mahomes rather than Trubisky.

Trubisky is the Bortles of the NFC

Edited September 7, 2019 by Mazrimiv

[MacReady]

Although I do not like this thread, let’s stop the, “This trade is different if they had Watson/Mahomes” nonsense.  

Mid they drafted Watson or Mahomes, the entire complexity of the NFL changes.  The next year’s draft is different, wins/losses are different, Mack might not have been traded and he certainly would not have been traded to the Bears.

Nothing is the same in that scenario.  Bears only got Mack because they had Trubisky.  Literally.  Since we were in the running.  They chose Trubisky over Rodgers.  For all we know, Raiders would have chosen the Packers instead.  We would be in a worse situation right now with Mack than we are without him.

Z. Smith, P. Smith, Adrian Amos, Rashan Gary, Darnell Savage or Mack.

It’s that simple at this point.  

And we can judge this trade because the Bears did NOT make the trade with Watson or Mahomes.  They made it knowing that Trubisky is and will be their QB.

[Packerraymond]

15 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Although I do not like this thread, let’s stop the, “This trade is different if they had Watson/Mahomes” nonsense.  

Mid they drafted Watson or Mahomes, the entire complexity of the NFL changes.  The next year’s draft is different, wins/losses are different, Mack might not have been traded and he certainly would not have been traded to the Bears.

Nothing is the same in that scenario.  Bears only got Mack because they had Trubisky.  Literally.  Since we were in the running.  They chose Trubisky over Rodgers.  For all we know, Raiders would have chosen the Packers instead.  We would be in a worse situation right now with Mack than we are without him.

Z. Smith, P. Smith, Adrian Amos, Rashan Gary, Darnell Savage or Mack.

It’s that simple at this point.  

And we can judge this trade because the Bears did NOT make the trade with Watson or Mahomes.  They made it knowing that Trubisky is and will be their QB.

You can't use the the whole butterfly effect on the Bears an not us. Who knows what a Mack trade does to the Packers? There was an article in the Athletic that they interviewed a bunch of our players like Adams, Tramon, Martinez who all said the possibilities were hyping them up. 

With Mack we easily start 2-0 last year with wins over our division rivals, we never exhaust our roster playing a brutally hot and long overtime game and go into Washington coming off two huge wins and not exhausted. Who knows what 2018 turns into, football is as much a mindset as it is physical game. If the Pack goes into the bye 6-0 or 5-1 going into that brutal stretch, is there as much tension between Rodgers and Mac? Winning is the greatest deodorant. Not to mention the Bears probably were an 8-8 team at best without him. 

I also disagree Mack means no FA's. He counts 11m against the cap this year and has a positive cap gain if released after 4 years. His contract is big but not crippling. Probably means no EDGE guys, but I imagine Amos, Turner and another mid level FA would still have easily fit. I doubt we're in position to draft Gary if we had Mack, we'd have probably been in the 20s at best. 

Would we be better off? Depends on how Gary and Savage play, but I hate using hindsight to judge something. We certainly would've been a better 2018 team. I'll keep my stance that you can't go wrong trading for a HOF QB or pass rusher in their prime and say we're worse off for them picking the Bears. I'll say Gute recovered from it in 2019 about as well as a GM could.

 

[Shanedorf]

30 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

If the Pack goes into the bye 6-0 or 5-1 going into that brutal stretch, is there as much tension between Rodgers and Mac?

Yes. Remember, Rodgers ripped MM publicly after a 22-0 win.
 I think the decision to move on from MM was already well on its way inside of 1265. Murphy's hair-trigger after the AZ game hints that things were already in motion long before December. And I don't think it would have been a different decision even if GB was at 6- 0. It just would have been harder to sell. I believe the die was cast and Gute wanted his own HC and Murphy was on board with that decision regardless of the 2018 W/L column.

Edited September 7, 2019 by Shanedorf

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Yes. Remember, Rodgers ripped MM publicly after a 22-0 win.
 I think the decision to move on from MM was already well on its way inside of 1265. Murphy's hair-trigger after the AZ game hints that things were already in motion long before December. And I don't think it would have been a different decision even if GB was at 6- 0. It just would have been harder to sell
I believe the die was cast and Gute wanted his own HC and Murphy was on board with that decision regardless of the 2018 W/L column.

Rodgers likely is not injured in the opener and are sitting with a better record....as @Packerraymond noted above.  How much of the friction comes from MM running his system that partially relied on Rodgers being able to extend plays?

[Shanedorf]

Mack didn't injure Rodgers
The friction came from many places and as we've seen with AB, there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we aren't privy to
It was time for a change and I don't think Mack or no Mack had any impact on MM's fate

[Mazrimiv]

16 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Although I do not like this thread, let’s stop the, “This trade is different if they had Watson/Mahomes” nonsense.  

Mid they drafted Watson or Mahomes, the entire complexity of the NFL changes.  The next year’s draft is different, wins/losses are different, Mack might not have been traded and he certainly would not have been traded to the Bears.

Nothing is the same in that scenario.  Bears only got Mack because they had Trubisky.  Literally.  Since we were in the running.  They chose Trubisky over Rodgers.  For all we know, Raiders would have chosen the Packers instead.  We would be in a worse situation right now with Mack than we are without him.

Z. Smith, P. Smith, Adrian Amos, Rashan Gary, Darnell Savage or Mack.

It’s that simple at this point.  

And we can judge this trade because the Bears did NOT make the trade with Watson or Mahomes.  They made it knowing that Trubisky is and will be their QB.

CHI would have had Mahomes/Watson for only their rookie season prior to the Mack trade.  It would have changed nothing related to the trade.  Suggesting it would have is the exact nonsense you seem to so despise.

Edited September 7, 2019 by Mazrimiv