Revisiting the Khalil Mack Trade

[Kepler]

8 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

then the young man got AIDS

Thanks for the closure

[KingOfTheNorth]

5 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

No, and that's why we dodged a bullet.

Also, our defense wasn't going to be as good as the Bears defense this year if we had Mack and they didn't.  I've for a long time now believed that safety is the most underrated position in football, and we have garbage there.  It's just like last year, those gifs of Matthews getting to the QB in under two seconds.  If you've got young/inexperienced corners or safeties, your pass rush can get there in two seconds and you can still give up plays. 

We've had better coverage this year, but not THAT much better. 

I don't think Mack is enough to get the Bears to the Super Bowl this year, and I don't think he's enough to get the Packers to the Super Bowl this year, but I do think he would have been enough to save McCarthy his job, wreck our cap space for this coming offseason, and leave us with no ability to upgrade at safety/OL/WR. 

 

All fair and reasonable points. It's just hard to ignore the overall impact Mack has had on the Bear defense. Everyone on the Bears defense is playing with more confidence because they know they have All Pro Khalil Mack with them. They have said as much in multiple interviews throughout the year. I would like to think that the same contagious confidence would have benefitted the Packers and we would be seeing multiple players performing better than they have in the past.

All that said, I am ok with this trade not going down. As you have said, a lot of the changes that have happened were necessary. And If we do get Mack it's fair to assume that many of these issues are left unchecked.

[MacReady]

Just now, KingOfTheNorth said:

All fair and reasonable points. It's just hard to ignore the overall impact Mack has had on the Bear defense.

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. 

Last year the Bears allowed 30 points or more twice.  That was against Rodgers and Wentz.
This year the Bears allowed 30 points or more three times already.  Brady, Ossweiler, Manning. 

I just don't think the impact of Mack is as great as advertised. 

The Bears defense was legit last year.  They're legit again this year.  They aren't legendary status after giving up two first round picks and the highest contract for a defender in NFL history. 

I'm not trying to say that Fack is even comparable to Mack, but Fackrell has one less sack than Mack.  I know Mack is better than his sack numbers, but at the same time... I just don't see this massive difference.  If the Bears had been a bad defense last year and became what they are now it would look worth it.  They are extremely comparable defensively right now to what they were last year. 

I just don't understand how so many people can have such little care for first round draft picks or cap space.

It is one single player accounting for at LEAST two players in cap space (good players, too, about 12 million each), and two first round draft picks. 

I'm sorry, but I cannot - I just cannot - justify one player taking up four players.  ESPECIALLY not for a team like the one we have.  Four okay starters is better than a top 10 starter at one position to me, and I cannot understand how others can't see that. 

I think there might be 10 non-QB players in NFL history that were worth 4 players on a roster, and Mack isn't one of them. 

[KingOfTheNorth]

14 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

The Bears defense was legit last year.  They're legit again this year.  They aren't legendary status after giving up two first round picks and the highest contract for a defender in NFL history.  

I can understand all the points you make and somewhat agree with them all. But I think you are underselling the importance of Mack on that defense.  In a league that has seen the Minnesota and Jaguar defense go from dominant to mediocre over the span of 1 year. You should give more credit to a Bears defense that has improved based on the addition of Mack. A solid defense last year, that improved to an elite defense this year. Maybe they aren't that far ahead statistics wise, but they have continued to improve while offenses around the NFL have also improved.

[MacReady]

Just now, KingOfTheNorth said:

I can understand all the points you make and somewhat agree with them all. But I think you are underselling the importance of Mack on that defense.  In a league that has seen the Minnesota and Jaguar defense go from dominant to mediocre over the span of 1 year. You should give more credit to a Bears defense that has improved based on the addition of Mack. A solid defense last year, that improved to an elite defense this year. Maybe they aren't that far ahead statistics wise, but they have continued to improve while offenses around the NFL have also improved.

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

The Bears have played:

16th scoring offense (without Rodgers for a half) and gave up .6 more points than the Packers average.
9th scoring offense (when the Seahawks sucked and allowed 9.4 less points than their average)
32nd scoring offense ( Cardinals, and still gave up .6 more points than their average)
10th scoring offense (Buccaneers, gave up 16.5 less than their average)
25th ranked scoring offense (with their backup QB Dolphins and gave up 10.7 more points than their average)
7th scoring offense (gave up 10.4 more points than their average)
26th ranked scoring offense (gave up 10.2 less than their average)
31st ranked scoring offense (gave up 5.8 less than their average)
18th ranked scoring offense (2.9 less points than their average)
23rd ranked scoring offense (5.2 less than average)
19th scoring offense (7.8 more points than their average)

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Outpost31

[squire12]

Whether or not DVOA is the thing to look at in ranking units, so use as you desire.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

CHI 2017 was 14th

CHI 2018 is currently 1st

[MacReady]

Just now, squire12 said:

Whether or not DVOA is the thing to look at in ranking units, so use as you desire.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

CHI 2017 was 14th

CHI 2018 is currently 1st

I'm not just saying this for the sake of my current argument: I've never liked DVOA.  To me, the only thing that matters are points.  That's literally all I have ever cared about.  Points are the only things that matter at the final whistle.  The Bears are worse on points than they were at this point last year.  If they're forcing more three and outs or yards or whatever this year than they were last year, that's fine, but they're doing worse on points allowed. 

I'm not saying that Mack isn't having an impact, and I'm obviously not saying it's better to not have Mack than it is, but his improvement based on everything is not worth four players in one offseason (which is what he would have cost us next year). 

 

[KingOfTheNorth]

2 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I'm not just saying this for the sake of my current argument: I've never liked DVOA.  To me, the only thing that matters are points.  That's literally all I have ever cared about.  Points are the only things that matter at the final whistle.  The Bears are worse on points than they were at this point last year.  If they're forcing more three and outs or yards or whatever this year than they were last year, that's fine, but they're doing worse on points allowed. 

I'm not saying that Mack isn't having an impact, and I'm obviously not saying it's better to not have Mack than it is, but his improvement based on everything is not worth four players in one offseason (which is what he would have cost us next year). 

 

If the Bears win the SB, he was absolutely worth it. I know you don't think they will and neither do I. But that's really the bottom line. It's SB or bust for them. The trade gave them a 2-3 year SB window that kicked in the minute they acquired Mack. Anything less and the Mack trade was unsuccessful, IMO. You don't give away that draft capital, and all that money, to be 1-2 round playoff team.

 

[malak1]

8 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I'm not just saying this for the sake of my current argument: I've never liked DVOA.  To me, the only thing that matters are points.  That's literally all I have ever cared about.  Points are the only things that matter at the final whistle.  The Bears are worse on points than they were at this point last year.  If they're forcing more three and outs or yards or whatever this year than they were last year, that's fine, but they're doing worse on points allowed. 

I'm not saying that Mack isn't having an impact, and I'm obviously not saying it's better to not have Mack than it is, but his improvement based on everything is not worth four players in one offseason (which is what he would have cost us next year). 

 

DVOA takes points in to account. It’s pretty easily a better metric.

[packfanfb]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

No, and that's why we dodged a bullet.

Also, our defense wasn't going to be as good as the Bears defense this year if we had Mack and they didn't.  I've for a long time now believed that safety is the most underrated position in football, and we have garbage there.  It's just like last year, those gifs of Matthews getting to the QB in under two seconds.  If you've got young/inexperienced corners or safeties, your pass rush can get there in two seconds and you can still give up plays. 

We've had better coverage this year, but not THAT much better. 

I don't think Mack is enough to get the Bears to the Super Bowl this year, and I don't think he's enough to get the Packers to the Super Bowl this year, but I do think he would have been enough to save McCarthy his job, wreck our cap space for this coming offseason, and leave us with no ability to upgrade at safety/OL/WR. 

 

So, basically your argument is the Packers with Mack would not have been as good this year as the Bears with Mack. So all of this jazz about the Raiders not wanting to deal him to us because they felt they'd get a better 1st round pick from the Bears (even with Mack on their team) was all BS....or the Raiders are just dumb for thinking that. That is....if your logic is correct. 

This whole thing is 100% hindsight not based on any hard data. If we get Mack before Week 1, the butterfly effect changes our entire season. More than likely, Rodgers never gets hurt. Wilkerson may not go down against the Redskins (because who knows what scheme we are in on that very play), HHCD is probably still here because we have a better record and going for a championship rather than dealing him, maybe we are "buyers" at the trade deadline because we have 9 wins and are winning the division (we could have added a WR or another S, etc.). 

With Mack we beat Minnesota at home. We likely beat the Rams. We may even beat the Lions (even if Crosby missed 5 kicks). Every single game we lost that we were winning/tied in the 4th quarter is somehow impacted by Mack, whether enough to turn that game into a win or not. 

For someone who loves McCarthy so much...you should be upset we didn't get Mack. Had we, 100% guaranteed McCarthy is still employed right now and probably next year as well. 

[MacReady]

Just now, packfanfb said:

So, basically your argument is the Packers with Mack would not have been as good this year as the Bears with Mack. So all of this jazz about the Raiders not wanting to deal him to us because they felt they'd get a better 1st round pick from the Bears (even with Mack on their team) was all BS....or the Raiders are just dumb for thinking that. That is....if your logic is correct. 

It's abundantly obvious that betting against Trubisky is better than betting against Rodgers.  I have acknowledged we would have been better with Mack.  So you're just angry and bickering here.  Packers with Mack = 10 wins.  Bears without Mack = still 8-10 wins. 

This whole thing is 100% hindsight not based on any hard data. If we get Mack before Week 1, the butterfly effect changes our entire season. More than likely, Rodgers never gets hurt. Wilkerson may not go down against the Redskins (because who knows what scheme we are in on that very play), HHCD is probably still here because we have a better record and going for a championship rather than dealing him, maybe we are "buyers" at the trade deadline because we have 9 wins and are winning the division (we could have added a WR or another S, etc.). 

And I could say if the Packers traded for Mack, Bakhtiari and Adams get hurt and we're terrible on offense.  Hindishging injuries/non injuries is stupid, and I really hate this counter argument that if we trade for Mack, Rodgers doesn't get hurt.  Rodgers injury lasted for like 5 weeks.  It's a stupid pointless point.  He wasn't injured against the Cardinals and he sucked. 

With Mack we beat Minnesota at home. We likely beat the Rams. We may even beat the Lions (even if Crosby missed 5 kicks). Every single game we lost that we were winning/tied in the 4th quarter is somehow impacted by Mack, whether enough to turn that game into a win or not. 

Yeah, and as I've acknowledged, this is exactly why it was better to not trade for Mack.  We completely kill our draft capital and cap space next year and wouldn't be good enough to win the Super Bowl with Mack this year.  Mack does not fix our offense.  It's that simple.  We'd lose in the Championship round again and have eff all to add to the team next year. 

For someone who loves McCarthy so much...you should be upset we didn't get Mack. Had we, 100% guaranteed McCarthy is still employed right now and probably next year as well. 

I have never said I love McCarthy and you were, before this, a fringe ignorable poster.  You and others like you like to put words into my mouth when I'm simply not saying the things you're accusing me of saying.  I have always - ALWAYS - acknowledged I do not like McCarthy and that he bothers me as much as he bothers anyone else here at times and that I have defended keeping him because of the wildly dangerous predicament it puts us in.  We are the wrong coaching hire away from Aaron's time here being remembered for a single Super Bowl win.  I have always said that I wanted to keep McCarthy on the basis of the Devil You Know, not ever proclaiming McCarthy to be an angel.  That is, has been and always was the crux of my argument.  Instead, you put words into my mouth just like everyone else does and it's so juvenile and obnoxious I can hardly stand it at times.  Then the Packers lost to the Cardinals and before he was fired, you'd see I had accepted his time had come to an end.  I wasn't celebrating because I'm aware of how dangerous this situation is and how everything hinges on this next hire.  Yes, the Devil You Know argument came to an end because that Devil had lost his minions, but that doesn't change the fact that we are in a very precarious situation, and it certainly doesn't mean I have ever loved McCarthy.  I never have.  I didn't like the hire, and in the Super Bowl year I was telling everybody we'd never win a Super Bowl because our offense sucked and our team wasn't disciplined.  Knowing how I viewed McCarthy then gave me confidence I could be wrong again.  So no, I have never ever ever ever ever loved McCarthy, and if you say I did again, in spite of your occasional ability to have an actual conversation, I'll stop responding to you because it's old and childish and juvenile, and that's coming from me. 

 

[Keg Man]

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 5:11 PM, Packerraymond said:

I'm not sure the exact number, but I'd bet our first pick probably has a 25% chance to be elite. It's no guarantee, Mack was guaranteed elite.

25% what's our record on the draft.  I know it's a new guy, but the draft is a crap shoot.  I agree with you here.  We blew it.

[Keg Man]

Part of Rodgers apparent bad attitude was on McCarthy for the same old and part of it is still here with a Packers organization that doesn't make these deals to get elite players.  We are not done with Rodgers' attitude.  It will not be fixed by getting a new coach.  He needs to see that the Pack will get elite guys for him to play with.  Most other teams somehow find a way.

 

Of course, if Mack did come here, his left hamstring would be hurt this year, right next year, or vice versa and he'd pull a groin in his third year.

[dafreak]

19 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. 

Last year the Bears allowed 30 points or more twice.  That was against Rodgers and Wentz.
This year the Bears allowed 30 points or more three times already.  Brady, Ossweiler, Manning. 

I just don't think the impact of Mack is as great as advertised. 

The Bears defense was legit last year.  They're legit again this year.  They aren't legendary status after giving up two first round picks and the highest contract for a defender in NFL history. 

I'm not trying to say that Fack is even comparable to Mack, but Fackrell has one less sack than Mack.  I know Mack is better than his sack numbers, but at the same time... I just don't see this massive difference.  If the Bears had been a bad defense last year and became what they are now it would look worth it.  They are extremely comparable defensively right now to what they were last year. 

I just don't understand how so many people can have such little care for first round draft picks or cap space.

It is one single player accounting for at LEAST two players in cap space (good players, too, about 12 million each), and two first round draft picks. 

I'm sorry, but I cannot - I just cannot - justify one player taking up four players.  ESPECIALLY not for a team like the one we have.  Four okay starters is better than a top 10 starter at one position to me, and I cannot understand how others can't see that. 

I think there might be 10 non-QB players in NFL history that were worth 4 players on a roster, and Mack isn't one of them. 

So Mack = Rodgers ?

[OneTwoSixFive]

21 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

I just don't understand how so many people can have such little care for first round draft picks or cap space

I know Mack was an elite pass rusher, but it seems to be in the nature of many posters that once you get an extra pick, you want to spend it...... like yesterday. Most times, I'd rather gain the benefit of a cheap first contract on what could be a very expensive player later on, than get more of a sure thing, but on a huge contract from the get-go (and a vet is older, of course).

It would be wrong to say I hated the idea of a Mack trade, but I did appreciate the impact of losing two first round picks further down the road, and I'm not sure how much weight others here attached to that.