El Ramster Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/blog/oakland-raiders/post/_/id/23301/16-players-eight-teams-how-the-khalil-mack-trade-has-mushroomed-one-year-later%3fplatform=amp I’m going with the Raider nation. Khalil Mack in Chicago is what he was in Oakland. Just a guy. Super down year and elite players of his caliber shouldn’t know what that mean/is. Josh Jacobs is going to be a special boy for a while.. Renfrow is going to be a nice safety valve. Would Oakland do it again? What are your thoughts on this hot subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_W Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 I don't know if I could say either one when Chicago has a rusty anchor at QB dragging them down neither team ended up in the playoffs; guess you gotta flex something 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 I would do it again. Felt they won the deal at the time and that the Bears lost the deal at the time. This was the exact reason I was against trading for Ramsey if Jax was wanting similar value to what Mack saw... because I don’t view any player outside of MAYBE a QB to be worth two 1st round picks. That and a generational player at a top 3 position in the sport such as Aaron Donald, prime JJ Watt, Jonathan Ogden, etc. But that’s just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 As a Raiders fan, I hated giving up Mack. He was the elite, game-changing defensive player we hadn’t had for a long, long time. But considering his average production since then, a very strong first draft under Mayock, and the big chunk of cap room saved by not having to pay Khalil Mack, the deal looks much more Raider-friendly now than it did at the time. Happy with it from our side. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted December 30, 2019 Author Share Posted December 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said: I would do it again. Felt they won the deal at the time and that the Bears lost the deal at the time. This was the exact reason I was against trading for Ramsey if Jax was wanting similar value to what Mack saw... because I don’t view any player outside of MAYBE a QB to be worth two 1st round picks. That and a generational player at a top 3 position in the sport such as Aaron Donald, prime JJ Watt, Jonathan Ogden, etc. But that’s just me. Yeah but the Rams defense got way better with Jalen than it’s ever been. He made an immediate impact. I’m happy with Jalen moving forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 Without Mayock I feel like this trade would forever be an easy W for the Bears as Gruden most likely would have drafted some busts. However Mayock has proved in his first draft that he can find talent at all levels (8+ starters in his first draft). Jacobs has been a homerun selection and with next years pick being #19, we should be able to get another good immediate starter. Not to mention all the money we have from not paying him. We don't get Trent Brown without letting Mack go, and Trent is an elite RT who helped transform our line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 Pretty sure the 49ers won this trade when the Raiders opted to take the Bears offer instead. Worked out well for us. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENINCH Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 How early do DE/LB's start to fall off? He'll be 29 at the start of next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 14 minutes ago, TENINCH said: How early do DE/LB's start to fall off? He'll be 29 at the start of next season. 31 is kind of my scare zone, tbh, but like any position, there are definitely outliers, and if given the chance to go in just a rotational pass rushing role, they can extend out and be effective far longer in some scenarios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.10.E Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 Both teams. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted December 30, 2019 Author Share Posted December 30, 2019 42 minutes ago, Forge said: 31 is kind of my scare zone, tbh, but like any position, there are definitely outliers, and if given the chance to go in just a rotational pass rushing role, they can extend out and be effective far longer in some scenarios. I’ll say sooner for him. Dude seems to always be fighting against a injury every year. That always slows him down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 45 minutes ago, M.10.E said: Both teams. Exactly. There doesn't have to be a "winner" and a "loser". If it's a good deal, both teams can be winners and receive good value for what they gave up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 I'm meh on taking RBs in the first round regardless of how good they are. Still a bit too early to tell, but Mack definitely helped take the Bears defense to another level, even on this down year if want to call it. But accumulating draft picks and opening up cap space is always good....But the Bears getting the Raiders 2nd rounder is still a bit baffling to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 1 hour ago, RaidersAreOne said: Without Mayock I feel like this trade would forever be an easy W for the Bears as Gruden most likely would have drafted some busts. However Mayock has proved in his first draft that he can find talent at all levels (8+ starters in his first draft). Jacobs has been a homerun selection and with next years pick being #19, we should be able to get another good immediate starter. Not to mention all the money we have from not paying him. We don't get Trent Brown without letting Mack go, and Trent is an elite RT who helped transform our line. How many of those 8+ starters are because the Raiders are devoid of talent? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 58 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said: I'm meh on taking RBs in the first round regardless of how good they are. Still a bit too early to tell, but Mack definitely helped take the Bears defense to another level, even on this down year if want to call it. But accumulating draft picks and opening up cap space is always good....But the Bears getting the Raiders 2nd rounder is still a bit baffling to me. True but we get their 3rd this year. 49 minutes ago, CWood21 said: How many of those 8+ starters are because the Raiders are devoid of talent? I see Ferrell and maybe Mullen having a tough time cracking other teams starters. Jacobs, Crosby, Moreau and Renfrow would start on others (we run a ton of 2 TE sets so thats why I consider Foster a starter). Abram probably would but he was on IR all year. UDFA FB Ingold would definitely start on others and P AJ Cole maybe half the league. Edited December 30, 2019 by RaidersAreOne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.