Jump to content
Malfatron

Bears vs Vikings GDT

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

giphy.gif

Sure does look like B E A R S on the side of that box car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This debate about how the Bears screwed themselves in the future by giving up two 1st rounders is foolish. They gave up two 1sts for an hall of fame defender in his prime. I'd do that trade all day long. The draft is a crap shoot anyways. I can name many Packer 1st round busts off the top of my head like Randall, Harrell, Datone, Dix and I'd even add Nick Perry to that list. He had one good playoff game against the Skins and stoled money when he hit FA.

Players like Mack rarely hit FA, we can all admit that Gruden is a goof ball for not letting a Hall of Famer get his money. The only problem the Bears will have is not being able to pay everyone, they won't be able to afford Floyd, Danny T and other core guys when their contracts and rookie deals expire. Pace did an awesome job putting a deep roster of talent together, but that roster will be poached bigtime with teams flushed with  a lot of cap space. A lot of those talented rookies on the Bears won't see a 2nd deal because they have too many people to pay. The Bears have a 4 year window until they have to pay Mitch. And Fangio won't be there long he's already a head coach candidate, the Dolphins want to interview him. Success is a two-edged sword in the NFL.

Edited by St Vince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, St Vince said:

This debate about how the Bears screwed themselves in the future by giving up two 1st rounders is foolish. They gave up two 1sts for an hall of fame defender in his prime. I'd do that trade all day long. The draft is a crap shoot anyways. I can name many Packer 1st round busts off the top of my head like Randall, Harrell, Datone, Dix and I'd even add Nick Perry to that list. He had one good playoff game against the Skins and stoled money when he hit FA.

Players like Mack rarely hit FA, we can all admit that Gruden is a good ball for not letting a Hall of Famer get his money. The only problem the Bears will have is not being able to pay everyone, they won't be able to afford Floyd, Danny T and other core guys when their contracts and rookie deals expire. Pace did an awesome job putting a deep roster of talent together, but that roster will be poached bigtime with teams flushed with  a lot of cap space. A lot of those talented rookies on the Bears won't see a 2nd deal because they have too many people to pay. The Bears have a 4 year window 

Windows close faster than you think. Look at Jacksonville. I know this in the moment will make me sound like a bitter packer fan, but I’d argue that Chicago’s window, even with Mitch making  8m starts closing after this season. They  have no draft capital and only a projected 10m in cap space for next year. The only means for improvement they will have going forward in 2019 and beyond will be in the development of Mitch (who through 2 seasons had been very up and down) and late round picks (mega long shots). Throw in a 1st place schedule, a few injuries (the team was very healthy) and you’ll see them come down to earth.

Mack, although awesome and for 2018 really helped, was an instant high l. He’s a non qb making QB money. I get the argument players like him don’t hit FA, but giving up picks and money is a double whammy. Not having 2 firsts, means 2 high percentage swings on 4 years of cheap labor are gone + enough cap space to sign either a few guys or a high end player. For 2018 I’ll eat crow for not making the Mack move and him going to Chicago, but I still think it will not pan out long run for Chicago (they aren’t winning a super bowl this year and things will get harder going forward ) and am happy the packers didn’t trade 2 1s + to get him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mack deal was a massive steal for the Bears .. they will just use free agency to offset their loss of draft picks.  They added a defensive player of the year caliber guy who is in the prime of his career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

Windows close faster than you think. Look at Jacksonville. I know this in the moment will make me sound like a bitter packer fan, but I’d argue that Chicago’s window, even with Mitch making  8m starts closing after this season. They  have no draft capital and only a projected 10m in cap space for next year. The only means for improvement they will have going forward in 2019 and beyond will be in the development of Mitch (who through 2 seasons had been very up and down) and late round picks (mega long shots). Throw in a 1st place schedule, a few injuries (the team was very healthy) and you’ll see them come down to earth.

Mack, although awesome and for 2018 really helped, was an instant high l. He’s a non qb making QB money. I get the argument players like him don’t hit FA, but giving up picks and money is a double whammy. Not having 2 firsts, means 2 high percentage swings on 4 years of cheap labor are gone + enough cap space to sign either a few guys or a high end player. For 2018 I’ll eat crow for not making the Mack move and him going to Chicago, but I still think it will not pan out long run for Chicago (they aren’t winning a super bowl this year and things will get harder going forward ) and am happy the packers didn’t trade 2 1s + to get him 

As am I. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, malak1 said:

As am I. 

Agreed there

I just hate the arguments that in general after one season Chicago made a great move. They added an all pro player for cash and picks in his prime. They better get return in year one.

 In 2023 though will and either off the team or what Clay is now (overpaid and past prime), the two firsts they gave up will still be cheap players with a fifth year option (with about 12m less in cap hits). Having old players without good cheap talent is how teams get really bad.

 

It is easy to celebrate the move now, but in the long term, it is more likely then not after year 3 there will be buyers remorse. The deal essentially effects the Bears cap negatively through 2025 (last year of the 2020s 1st rounders deal assuming 5th year is picked up)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

Agreed there

I just hate the arguments that in general after one season Chicago made a great move. They added an all pro player for cash and picks in his prime. They better get return in year one.

 In 2023 though will and either off the team or what Clay is now (overpaid and past prime), the two firsts they gave up will still be cheap players with a fifth year option (with about 12m less in cap hits). Having old players without good cheap talent is how teams get really bad.

 

It is easy to celebrate the move now, but in the long term, it is more likely then not after year 3 there will be buyers remorse. The deal essentially effects the Bears cap negatively through 2025 (last year of the 2020s 1st rounders deal assuming 5th year is picked up)

Meh, in 2023 Mack will still only be 32. I'm not losing sleep over the trade either way, but at this point it looks like a great trade for Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a packers fan...great trade for chicago

gotta make those moves when you can.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As a fan I always look at these types of trades this way: You would have had to burn a First Rounder in the draft to get an edge anyway, so basically the Bears gave up a First, Third, and Sixth for a finished product guaranteed not to bust. I don't think they got raped in the deal. The issue was always the contract Mack wanted. We all know the drill by now. Teams with QB's on rookie deals going for broke. That was a better deal for the Bears than it would have been for the Packers based on that alone

Would I give up the Saints pick, and our Sixth Rounder plus our Third next year to wave a magic wand that guarantees our pick at 12 is a perennial Pro Bowler ? Yea.

Edited by cannondale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cannondale said:

As a fan I always look at these types of trades this way: You would have had to burn a First Rounder in the draft to get an edge anyway, so basically the Bears gave up a First, Third, and Sixth for a finished product guaranteed not to bust. I don't think they got raped in the deal. The issue was always the contract Mack wanted. We all know the drill by now. Teams with QB's on rookie deals going for broke. That was a better deal for the Bears than it would have been for the Packers based on that alone

Would I give up the Saints pick, and our Sixth Rounder plus our Third next year to wave a magic wand that guarantees our pick at 12 is a perennial Pro Bowler ? Yea.

There is one part missing to this post. The money they gave up in addition to the player. Mack is going to count against the cap going forward:

2019: 22.3 million

2020: 24 million

2021: 24.046 million

2022: 24.550 million

Now having said that before the season most Packer fans thought we were one play away so I would have made that trade for Green Bay to give up our 2 - 1st in 2019. Also, we probably don't get Rodgers banged up in week 1 if we aren't sliding our protections towards Mack. So there is that too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, {Family Ghost} said:

The Mack deal was a massive steal for the Bears .. they will just use free agency to offset their loss of draft picks.  They added a defensive player of the year caliber guy who is in the prime of his career. 

Not sure here. Don't we have 2 or 3 threads currently discussing how FA are almost as much of a crap shoot as drafting, but it costs more? Not sure the Bears will be able to get everything they need under their cap. Will it be possible to sign first/second round talent at an affordable price in FA? Rookie contracts are more important than people realize.

The top end of their draft is empty for the next couple of years, and with their success they will be drafting lower in each round. They had better be real good picks. This could affect their depth for a number of years, as we have seen in Green Bay with drafting lower for a number of years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Golfman said:

There is one part missing to this post. The money they gave up in addition to the player. Mack is going to count against the cap going forward:

2019: 22.3 million

2020: 24 million

2021: 24.046 million

2022: 24.550 million

Now having said that before the season most Packer fans thought we were one play away so I would have made that trade for Green Bay to give up our 2 - 1st in 2019. Also, we probably don't get Rodgers banged up in week 1 if we aren't sliding our protections towards Mack. So there is that too. 

I mentioned that the contract was always the issue. Also mentioned that it was a better deal for the Bears than the Packers based upon that money coupled with the QB situations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lodestar said:

Meh, in 2023 Mack will still only be 32. I'm not losing sleep over the trade either way, but at this point it looks like a great trade for Chicago.

32 is old for a pass rusher. That is what Clay is now. 1 guy over 30 was in in the top 30 for sacks this season (Bennett).

Jared Allen retired at 33, Ware 34. There are very few guys especially recently  (like Peppers,  Jason Taylor) who were still balling hard at that point.

Year 1-3 the deal will be nice. After that though, the cheap first round picks and extra cap probably look a lot better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point it looks like trading for Mack was a great move for CHI, and would not have been a good move for GB.  No reason why both cannot be true.  Anyone arguing that the Mack trade has not worked out in CHI's favor is in serious denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×