Jump to content
Malfatron

Bears vs Vikings GDT

Recommended Posts

To me the Mack trade for Chicago was good for them in that it helped to make them relevant again, but bad in that it may have set the ceiling for the Bears as a playoff capable team but one that lacks all the pieces to win the super bowl.

In a league where the 6 highest paid QB's all missed the playoffs, and there is speculation that it is due to the amount of cap space they require and how it keeps their organizations from fielding a complete team, I have to think that the Bears will have a hard time stacking success going forward.  

Talented rosters that don't change much get stagnant because teams develop strategies to deal with their system, even if the inevitable fall off in performance due to wear and tear on key players isn't imminent.  We will see, but I don't fear that the Bears will dominate the division going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

We will see, but I don't fear that the Bears will dominate the division going forward.

Agree. We get our house in order - things will work out fine between us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

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.

I don't think anyone is denying it worked out this year. The reality is short of a Lombardi it is a bust for them. You don't make that deal unless you think he is the piece for the trophy. 

Look at their IR list. This year, health wise was an anomaly for any team. The likelihood it happens next year with no influx of new talent is very doubtful. 

In a normal year you lose 3-4 front line players to injury for the year. They lost Long who is back now and that is it. God forbid it's Mack next year.  

Edited by Golfman

Share this post


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

I don't think anyone is denying it worked out this year. The reality is short of a Lombardi it is a bust for them.

No, that is not the reality.  Using that logic, giving Rodgers his last two contracts has been a mistake for GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

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.

Agree.

Face it - CHI - based on years of downward trends was able to clear roster / cap space - and build (FUND) a new roster. We - a more mature roster - with the highest paid QB in the land - tighter CAP margins - werent in that position.

We'd already reached (in a figurative sense) the point where it was necessary to carve out roster space by dumping players. Now - since it was CMs and probably Cobbs last years with GB - perhaps those transactions would / should have been made - but going forward you have two of the highest paid players to deal with. So that "addition by subtraction of overall body count" process would have to be maintained or be ongoing.

Macks a good player. Probably / maybe wins DPOY. Thats fine and good for CHI. Not taking anything away from them - but we played like dog**** all year and could (should) have beaten them twice. So I dont see the water before us as too far to bridge across. We'll kick their *** again next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In comes a Bears fan, with I’m sure will be perceived as bias.

The Mack trade was a great trade. The Bears have the best edge rusher in football for 3 more great years on top of the year he just had. Did they pay him a lot? Sure. Did they trade a lot? Sure. But that’s what you do: draft, sign and trade for players and pay them accordingly.

The trade will only get the Bears in trouble financially if Trubisky turns into a really good QB. Now I know it’s easy to call him mediocre, but the strides from week 1 to week 17 have been enormous. The ~20 yard completion to White on Sunday would have been a sack where Trubisky curled up in the fetal position week 1. If he doesn’t pan out, he gets a Bortles-deal in a few years to add on additional seasons to prove it (3 years, $50M). 

Speaking of financials, the Bears aren’t in trouble. They’ll likely cut Long/restructure Long’s deal and lessen Hicks’ cap hit by converting money into guaranteed money in the offseason. Besides Amos and Callahan (and maybe Massie), they don’t have major free agents to retain come the offseason. They’ll have about $25M in cap room assuming those contract changes, not the $10M someone mentioned a page or two back. They have some really good players are good deals too- Leno, Fuller, Goldman, and the aforementioned Hicks. Their best players are all under 28- Hicks, Mack, Goldman, Fuller, Jackson, Smith, Floyd, Trubisky, Cohen, Miller, Leno, Whitehair.

I noticed that a few of you discussed the lack of draft capital. You would be right, however, the Bears have two things in their favor: 1) Pace has absolutely crushed the middle rounds, late rounds, and UDFA’s- Cohen, Jackson, Howard, Amos, Nichols, Callahan. 2) the Bears big needs, at least for 2-3 years out, are the following- RT, CB, SS, RB, OG. I can argue that besides CB, those positions aren’t premier positions. They aren’t positions teams typically take in the first round anyhow. I’ll add a 3rd “thing” and that’s Gruden inexplicably gave the Bears a 2nd rounder in 2020 in exchange for Mack, which will get the Bears two 2’s in 2020, a round where Pace has found Whitehair, Daniels, Miller and Goldman.

From the outside looking in, the “Mack trade was bad” crowd comes off as not just dumb but borderline jealous, and I’m not looking to start an argument, but it does. “He’ll only be good for another few years!” Yeah, who would want Khalil Mack at an AP level for another 3 seasons? “They gave up a lot of picks!” Like I said, they also got a 2 back and flip flopped their 3 and 5 with OAK, meaning those picks will be higher, and lastly Pace has struggled with 1’s. Floyd never panned out to be great and White’s issues are well known. “I’m happy we didn’t trade two 1’s” yet then it’s acknowledged how rough GB has drafted in the 1st, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beardown3231 said:

From the outside looking in, the “Mack trade was bad” crowd comes off as not just dumb but borderline jealous

In fairness, that's only because the argument is dumb, and borderline jealous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

No, that is not the reality.  Using that logic, giving Rodgers his last two contracts has been a mistake for GB.

Not at all. What draft capital did we give up in addition to re-signing Rodgers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I don't think anyone is denying it worked out this year. The reality is short of a Lombardi it is a bust for them. You don't make that deal unless you think he is the piece for the trophy. 

Look at their IR list. This year, health wise was an anomaly for any team health wise. The likelihood it happens next year with no influx of new talent is very doubtful. 

In a normal year you lose 3-4 front line players to injury for the year. They lost Long who is back now and that is it. God forbid it's Mack next year.  

Mack missed two games, Jackson missed two games, Robinson missed three games, Lynch missed three games, Trubisky missed two games, Miller missed a game, Shaheen missed ten games, Callahan missed three games (IR), Amukamara missed a game, and Long missed eight games (IR). 

They went 30-5 in those games.

Edited by beardown3231

Share this post


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

Not at all. What draft capital did we give up in addition to re-signing Rodgers?

It doesn’t sound like the Packers’ FO took advantage of keeping that draft capital though, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

In comes a Bears fan, with I’m sure will be perceived as bias.

The Mack trade was a great trade. The Bears have the best edge rusher in football for 3 more great years on top of the year he just had. Did they pay him a lot? Sure. Did they trade a lot? Sure. But that’s what you do: draft, sign and trade for players and pay them accordingly.

The trade will only get the Bears in trouble financially if Trubisky turns into a really good QB. Now I know it’s easy to call him mediocre, but the strides from week 1 to week 17 have been enormous. The ~20 yard completion to White on Sunday would have been a sack where Trubisky curled up in the fetal position week 1. If he doesn’t pan out, he gets a Bortles-deal in a few years to add on additional seasons to prove it (3 years, $50M). 

Speaking of financials, the Bears aren’t in trouble. They’ll likely cut Long/restructure Long’s deal and lessen Hicks’ cap hit by converting money into guaranteed money in the offseason. Besides Amos and Callahan (and maybe Massie), they don’t have major free agents to retain come the offseason. They’ll have about $25M in cap room assuming those contract changes, not the $10M someone mentioned a page or two back. They have some really good players are good deals too- Leno, Fuller, Goldman, and the aforementioned Hicks. Their best players are all under 28- Hicks, Mack, Goldman, Fuller, Jackson, Smith, Floyd, Trubisky, Cohen, Miller, Leno, Whitehair.

I noticed that a few of you discussed the lack of draft capital. You would be right, however, the Bears have two things in their favor: 1) Pace has absolutely crushed the middle rounds, late rounds, and UDFA’s- Cohen, Jackson, Howard, Amos, Nichols, Callahan. 2) the Bears big needs, at least for 2-3 years out, are the following- RT, CB, SS, RB, OG. I can argue that besides CB, those positions aren’t premier positions. They aren’t positions teams typically take in the first round anyhow. I’ll add a 3rd “thing” and that’s Gruden inexplicably gave the Bears a 2nd rounder in 2020 in exchange for Mack, which will get the Bears two 2’s in 2020, a round where Pace has found Whitehair, Daniels, Miller and Goldman.

From the outside looking in, the “Mack trade was bad” crowd comes off as not just dumb but borderline jealous, and I’m not looking to start an argument, but it does. “He’ll only be good for another few years!” Yeah, who would want Khalil Mack at an AP level for another 3 seasons? “They gave up a lot of picks!” Like I said, they also got a 2 back and flip flopped their 3 and 5 with OAK, meaning those picks will be higher, and lastly Pace has struggled with 1’s. Floyd never panned out to be great and White’s issues are well known. “I’m happy we didn’t trade two 1’s” yet then it’s acknowledged how rough GB has drafted in the 1st, too.

And all of this is contingent upon having the same kind of luck with the lack of injuries you had this year. What are the chances that happens going forward? 

I'll wait for your answer. 

Share this post


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

Not at all. What draft capital did we give up in addition to re-signing Rodgers?

You're playing both sides. You can't say in one post that the Mack trade was good for Chicago and in another say that the Bears gave up too much draft capital. This was an A+ knock it out of the park home run trade for the Bears. Accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Golfman said:

And all of this is contingent upon having the same kind of luck with the lack of injuries you had this year. What are the chances that happens going forward? 

I'll wait for your answer. 

It’s above. I wouldn’t say the Bears haven’t had injuries this year, unless your thought is “only two main pieces ended up on IR” and IR is the only way you measure injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beardown3231 said:

Mack missed two games, Jackson missed two games, Robinson missed three games, Lynch missed three games, Trubisky missed two games, Miller missed a game, Shaheen missed ten games, Callahan missed three games (IR), Amukamara missed a game, and Long missed eight games (IR). 

They went 29-5 in those games.

You are talking about the difference of a guy missing a game or two vs. the season or most of the season. Given what you just wrote, you actually confirmed my point. The chances of the same luck next year is damned near zero. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Golfman said:

And all of this is contingent upon having the same kind of luck with the lack of injuries you had this year. What are the chances that happens going forward? 

I'll wait for your answer. 

We don't need to make any changes moving forward. This team is competing for the SuperBowl THIS YEAR which was not expected. They will only lose Callahan or Amos next season and will be competing for the Super Bowl again next year as well unless something drastic happens.

Share this post


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



×