Will Oakland make the playoffs?

[topwop1]

22 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

And the Raiders got back the Bears 3rd.

Mack is a beast, but Bears seeing what the Raider fans saw. As great a player as he was, he was only one guy and it didn't add up in the win column for the Raiders. 

Now the Bears have a 26 million dollar cap hit on a DE. They lost 2 high draft picks and they have no solution at QB and question marks mounting about the coach and GM?

Now with limited draft resources and mounting salary cap pressure, where do they turn to find a QB? By time they figure this out, Mack will be in his 30's theoretically.

You make that kind of trade when you're confident you are a contender and need it to get over the top. Not when you have questions at QB.

Mack could be another footnote in Bears history of great defenders who played on teams that never got it together to do anything note worthy. We see this with the Bears every few year. A great defense takes them to the playoffs, then a regression back to average teams struggling to find a QB. 

 

Right, I still don't see how Bears got fleeced here.  I'm pretty confident that the team is happy they have Mack and wouldn't want a do over on that trade.

Yes it doesn't look good right now in hindsight because of the QB situation but you cannot say that the logic to make this trade was flawed at the time.  Bears made this trade and paid Mack the money he was looking for because they had a big need at pass rusher and could take advantage of the cap with having a rookie QB under contract.

Like others mentioned if Bears ended up with a Mahomes or Watson people would be praising Pace as a genius for this but unfortunately that's not the reality and it's looking like his gamble on Trubisky didn't pay off.

That being said this team would be in a much worse spot right now if not for the Khalil Mack trade.  He has elevated the defense back into being a top unit in this league and if the team can get just a slight improvement at the QB position going forward then they still have a good enough team overall to return for a playoff push in 2020.  They have a lot of work to do to correct it but I wouldn't bet against them.

[Mr Raider]

8 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

Right, I still don't see how Bears got fleeced here.  I'm pretty confident that the team is happy they have Mack and wouldn't want a do over on that trade.

Yes it doesn't look good right now in hindsight because of the QB situation but you cannot say that the logic to make this trade was flawed at the time.  Bears made this trade and paid Mack the money he was looking for because they had a big need at pass rusher and could take advantage of the cap with having a rookie QB under contract.

Like others mentioned if Bears ended up with a Mahomes or Watson people would be praising Pace as a genius for this but unfortunately that's not the reality and it's looking like his gamble on Trubisky didn't pay off.

That being said this team would be in a much worse spot right now if not for the Khalil Mack trade.  He has elevated the defense back into being a top unit in this league and if the team can get just a slight improvement at the QB position going forward then they still have a good enough team overall to return for a playoff push in 2020.  They have a lot of work to do to correct it but I wouldn't bet against them.

I think in a year or two it could very well turn out that the Bears would redo it if they could. Not because Mack isn't a great player, he obviously is, and not even because the defense didnt turn into a great overall unit, but because you gave up 2 first round picks that could have been used to add cost controlled, young players to add to the foundation of a team that turned out to be 2-4 years away from contending as opposed to being able to contend right now which is why you make the trade for Mack and pay him all that money in the first place. 

The gamble on Trubisky hasn't worked out... And that's the problem with the trade. You didn't gamble on Mack being able to sustain great play to put you over the top, he's held up his end, but it's still not going to lead to a championship (imo) in the next 3 years. And a large part of that could be because you dont have the chance at a potential top 10 pick to rectify the gamble that didn't pay off in Trubisky. Where do the Bears turn to find the QB that could turn them into contenders? Great overall defenses that can carry a good game manager to a super bowl have a short shelf life. Some key pieces will move on, Mack could start to slow down, and you lost 2 firsts and a 3rd that could have been used to potentially solve the QB play problem or add other key pieces. 

Sure if Mahomes or Watson are drafted were having a different conversation, but they weren't... And that's the problem with the trade. They put their eggs in Mitch being even average and letting a potential defense carry them to a super bowl, he hasnt shown the ability to hold up that end, so now while you have a great defense you can't capitalize on it because you don't even have average QB play. I hated losing Mack, but we got Josh Jacobs out of it, and he looks to be the leader in the race for OROY and could potentially be an elite back for the next 5-10 years, and i would argue he has been the main reason we're 4-4 right now. Mack is a better player, but add him to our team and take Jacobs off of it and I think we're likely a 2-6 type of team because our defense would still be poor. If the Bears finish the season and fork over another top 10 pick and an additional third that turns into a guy like Foster Moreau or Max Crosby like we found in the mid rounds this year and we find a Josh Jacobs type of talent with that top 10 selection our future overall will look fantastic. Not a guarantee, but we understood that we weren't a Khalil Mack at the salary he was going to command away from contending, and thats with a QB that has shown a real ability to play at a very high level. So we looked to acquire more chances at adding pieces to the overall team. Regardless of how good Khalil plays, if the Bears can't figure out the QB position they may very well wish they could take the trade back, not because Mack himself isnt a great player but because the resources they put into him via draft picks and money could have been used in better ways to build a long term ability to field a team that can compete for titles. 

If they land a franchise QB via a trade or in the second round, or free agency or whatever the trade may look better for them, but trades are rarely looked at in the light of just the context of was that specific player good, or did they preform up to the standards expected of them, at least not when you're giving up that much capital in assets and money invested... When you make a move like that you're expecting that move to put you in a position to compete for championships. That doesn't look to be the case as it stands right now. It pained me to see Mack go, I hated it because I knew he was a HOF talent. But I also thought it was the right decision with where we were at as a team. As long as Carr continues to play the way he has and we continue to draft young guys that can come in and produce I know the Raiders won't want to take the trade back, I'm just not sure the Bears are on a trajectory to say the same. 

[NYGiantsman10]

14 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Can you imagine AB in this O? Man that would have been incredible. Double him and you go one on one with Tyrell or Waller, and Jacobs wouldn't see as many stacked boxes either.

Oh well. Let the POS rot.

That's what is so crazy to me dude. The Raiders traded for Brown, they gave him a raise, they have a head coach that was a huge fan of his and compared him to Jerry freaking Rice and supported him constantly, both the head coach and QB were dying to throw him the ball, Raider fans showered love on him, the Raiders have a solid #2 receiver, a couple promising young TEs, a stud rookie running back, a behemoth offensive line

...and yet he lit that all on fire and made himself so radioactive the Patriots won't even keep him. Call God indeed. 

[BayRaider]

1 hour ago, topwop1 said:

Right, I still don't see how Bears got fleeced here.  I'm pretty confident that the team is happy they have Mack and wouldn't want a do over on that trade.

Yes it doesn't look good right now in hindsight because of the QB situation but you cannot say that the logic to make this trade was flawed at the time.  Bears made this trade and paid Mack the money he was looking for because they had a big need at pass rusher and could take advantage of the cap with having a rookie QB under contract.

Like others mentioned if Bears ended up with a Mahomes or Watson people would be praising Pace as a genius for this but unfortunately that's not the reality and it's looking like his gamble on Trubisky didn't pay off.

That being said this team would be in a much worse spot right now if not for the Khalil Mack trade.  He has elevated the defense back into being a top unit in this league and if the team can get just a slight improvement at the QB position going forward then they still have a good enough team overall to return for a playoff push in 2020.  They have a lot of work to do to correct it but I wouldn't bet against them.

You guys not being able to draft a QB in the 1st is gonna make the Raiders the winner of the trade here, not Mack not being a great player. He is. 

Bears are on a downward trajectory while the Raiders are upwards. Nobody has won the trade until somebody raises a lombardi but looking unlikely it’s the Bears at this point. 

This is why I tell people never analyze trades right away or draft picks right away. The early opinions on this forum is the only thing that irritates me at times. Like, why form a conclusion so soon?

[topwop1]

58 minutes ago, Mr Raider said:

I think in a year or two it could very well turn out that the Bears would redo it if they could. Not because Mack isn't a great player, he obviously is, and not even because the defense didnt turn into a great overall unit, but because you gave up 2 first round picks that could have been used to add cost controlled, young players to add to the foundation of a team that turned out to be 2-4 years away from contending as opposed to being able to contend right now which is why you make the trade for Mack and pay him all that money in the first place. 

The gamble on Trubisky hasn't worked out... And that's the problem with the trade. You didn't gamble on Mack being able to sustain great play to put you over the top, he's held up his end, but it's still not going to lead to a championship (imo) in the next 3 years. And a large part of that could be because you dont have the chance at a potential top 10 pick to rectify the gamble that didn't pay off in Trubisky. Where do the Bears turn to find the QB that could turn them into contenders? Great overall defenses that can carry a good game manager to a super bowl have a short shelf life. Some key pieces will move on, Mack could start to slow down, and you lost 2 firsts and a 3rd that could have been used to potentially solve the QB play problem or add other key pieces. 

Sure if Mahomes or Watson are drafted were having a different conversation, but they weren't... And that's the problem with the trade. They put their eggs in Mitch being even average and letting a potential defense carry them to a super bowl, he hasnt shown the ability to hold up that end, so now while you have a great defense you can't capitalize on it because you don't even have average QB play. I hated losing Mack, but we got Josh Jacobs out of it, and he looks to be the leader in the race for OROY and could potentially be an elite back for the next 5-10 years, and i would argue he has been the main reason we're 4-4 right now. Mack is a better player, but add him to our team and take Jacobs off of it and I think we're likely a 2-6 type of team because our defense would still be poor. If the Bears finish the season and fork over another top 10 pick and an additional third that turns into a guy like Foster Moreau or Max Crosby like we found in the mid rounds this year and we find a Josh Jacobs type of talent with that top 10 selection our future overall will look fantastic. Not a guarantee, but we understood that we weren't a Khalil Mack at the salary he was going to command away from contending, and thats with a QB that has shown a real ability to play at a very high level. So we looked to acquire more chances at adding pieces to the overall team. Regardless of how good Khalil plays, if the Bears can't figure out the QB position they may very well wish they could take the trade back, not because Mack himself isnt a great player but because the resources they put into him via draft picks and money could have been used in better ways to build a long term ability to field a team that can compete for titles. 

If they land a franchise QB via a trade or in the second round, or free agency or whatever the trade may look better for them, but trades are rarely looked at in the light of just the context of was that specific player good, or did they preform up to the standards expected of them, at least not when you're giving up that much capital in assets and money invested... When you make a move like that you're expecting that move to put you in a position to compete for championships. That doesn't look to be the case as it stands right now. It pained me to see Mack go, I hated it because I knew he was a HOF talent. But I also thought it was the right decision with where we were at as a team. As long as Carr continues to play the way he has and we continue to draft young guys that can come in and produce I know the Raiders won't want to take the trade back, I'm just not sure the Bears are on a trajectory to say the same. 

Good post. 

The way I look at it is that this Bears team would still have had Mitch Trubisky starting for them right now whether the Mack trade happened or not.  As bad as he has looked to this point he is only in his 3rd year and still has one year remaining on his rookie contract with a guaranteed cap hit of $9M so I'm not even sure that we can say they would look to draft a QB high in the 1st next year if they still had that pick from not making the Mack trade.

I wouldn't think the team made this trade oblivious to the notion that Mitch could very well not end up working out the way they had envisioned when they drafted him.  The draft is a complete crap shoot after all.  There have been countless examples of  "consensus" top QB prospects flaming out before so to think that they went into this trade thinking that Mitch was a sure fire slam dunk when it was not even agreed among pundits who the top-QB prospect was in his draft year is convenient for arguments sake but it is likely not reality. 

Like I said they saw an opportunity to upgrade their defense with a rare talent in Mack and a rookie QB on a cheap deal and went after it.  Can't blame them for trying. I believe this trade worked out well for both teams given where they were at when it was made and don't think either team got fleeced.

Edited November 5, 2019 by topwop1

[topwop1]

2 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

You guys not being able to draft a QB in the 1st is gonna make the Raiders the winner of the trade here, not Mack not being a great player. He is. 

Bears are on a downward trajectory while the Raiders are upwards. Nobody has won the trade until somebody raises a lombardi but looking unlikely it’s the Bears at this point. 

This is why I tell people never analyze trades right away or draft picks right away. The early opinions on this forum is the only thing that irritates me at times. Like, why form a conclusion so soon?

See my post above regarding drafting a QB in the 1st in 2020.

And if you believe that about not judging trades right away then what about for judging inexperienced QB's after a small sample size of games or judging a team's future based on a down season like the one the Bears are currently having.  I just find people are so quick to judge and overreact to things when it's convenient for them.  

Let's be fair and use common sense here.

 

[Mr Raider]

12 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

Good post. 

The way I look at it is that this Bears team would still have had Mitch Trubisky starting for them right now whether the Mack trade happened or not.  As bad as he has looked to this point he is only in his 3rd year and still has one year remaining on his rookie contract with a guaranteed cap hit of $9M so I'm not even sure that we can say they would look to draft a QB high in the 1st next year if they still had that pick from not making the Mack trade.

I wouldn't think the team made this trade oblivious to the notion that Mitch could very well not end up working out the way they had envisioned when they drafted him.  The draft is a complete crap shoot after all.  There have been countless examples of  "consensus" top QB prospects flaming out before so to think that they went into this trade thinking that Mitch was a sure fire slam dunk is convenient for arguments sake but it is likely not reality. 

Like I said they saw an opportunity to upgrade their defense with a rare talent in Mack and a rookie QB on a cheap deal and went after it.  Can't blame them for trying. I believe this trade worked out well for both teams given where they were at when it was made and don't think either team got fleeced.

Yeah, I don't think the Bears got fleeced, I wasn't really arguing that point. Mack put that defense over the top into the elite category. So I definitely see where you're coming from. They took a chance, and likely a calculated one that adding Mack to the defense they had would require Mitch to only be slightly above average to possibly win it all. And who knows, if the FG goes in last season maybe they're able to make it to the super bowl or even win it. That defense is (and definitely was last season) super bowl winning caliber. No argument from me. 

But ultimately it didnt, and now they're in a tough spot because finding even a good QB is so difficult. I just think the extra firsts, third, and cap space gives them the best chance of doing so. Though clearly they were hoping to not have to worry about that especially going into last season. 

I'll never blast a team for acquiring an all time talent, especially if its going to give you a unit that is overall elite. They saw an opportunity and went for it. Its commendable. I just think its possible a couple of years from now they'll wish they went about things in a different way and not because of Mack himself but because Trubisky was the guy they were really gambling on when making the move and he doesnt look like his play is going to allow the gamble to pay off. 

I still pull for Mack though. Seems like a great dude and obviously an all time talent so as soon as all the picks have been handed over I'll pull for you guys when it doesn't negatively effect the Raiders in anyway. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Mr Raider

[FinSting]

Raiders and Bills are similar, never know which team will show up. Either team could make it. And the Steelers. Colts are down to their 3rd QB compared to the start of 2019, might not end well for them. 

The Raiders had the Texans game though, that tough loss could be the deal-breaker for a playoff spot. 

Cracking up how rookie WR Hunter Renfrow is making impact plays, just like he did for Clemson. He was a sneaky good draft pick. 

[49erurtaza]

Outside of pats and Chiefs the AFC is very boring, I hope raiders make the playoffs. Would be fun to see.

[BayRaider]

1 hour ago, FinSting said:

Raiders and Bills are similar, never know which team will show up. Either team could make it. And the Steelers. Colts are down to their 3rd QB compared to the start of 2019, might not end well for them. 

The Raiders had the Texans game though, that tough loss could be the deal-breaker for a playoff spot. 

Cracking up how rookie WR Hunter Renfrow is making impact plays, just like he did for Clemson. He was a sneaky good draft pick. 

Ehhh I wouldn’t say we don’t show up certain weeks. Our offense shows up every week since Week 4. Since Week 4 we have the most yards per play of any offense and 5th in points per drive. Our offense has easily been 3rd-4th best in the league since Week 4. 

Our defense got dismantled on the road by Aaron Rodgers but that was to be expected. Our defense is a year away from being respectable. 

Edited November 5, 2019 by BayRaider

[FinSting]

3 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Ehhh I wouldn’t say we don’t show up certain weeks. Our offense shows up every week since Week 4.

Yes but scoring a mere 10 pts on the Chiefs' woeful defense was a bad outing. Mostly the Raiders scoring lots of points though, the Chucky factor is real. 

Really like how the Raiders are doing this rebuild, with lots of high draft picks. Would love to see them sneak into the playoffs this year. 

[BayRaider]

2 minutes ago, FinSting said:

Yes but scoring a mere 10 pts on the Chiefs' woeful defense was a bad outing. Mostly the Raiders scoring lots of points though, the Chucky factor is real. 

Really like how the Raiders are doing this rebuild, with lots of high draft picks. Would love to see them sneak into the playoffs this year. 

I put Weeks 2 and 3 on Carr. He was playing his scared football style and throwing 6 YPA both those games. 

Since Week 4 Carr has apparently found his confidence again and is slugging 8.6 YPA since then. 

[raidersedge]

Looking at Bills schedule they will make the playoffs for sure. I think Raiders, Chargers, Colts, Steelers, Titans, Jags, There is a bunch of team fighting that last spot. It will be interesting.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

I'm guessing this offseason Oakland will focus a lot on pooling their resources to improve their defense. Also, they need to find at least one consistently decent receiver. 

[tom cody]

They should be a contender for a playoff spot. I think them, the Bills, the Colts and Steelers will duke it out for the 2 AFC wild card spots.