Jump to content

Who won the Mack Trade?


El Ramster

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RaidersAreOne said:

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.

I meant more with regards to their current roster, not necessarily against other teams.  They went 4-12 the previous year, so that generally indicates that they're devoid of talent.  Their leading rusher was Doug Martin who missed the entire year with injury.  Foster Moreau probably isn't a starting TE on other teams IMO, and I'd probably say the same thing about Hunter Renfrow.  And that's coming from someone who liked Renfrow as a high-floor mid-to-late WR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we just say no one won it?

Both teams were mediocre this year.

Raiders ultimately have to turn those picks into actual good NFL players for it to be worth it.

Mack wasn't bad by any means this year but he certainly didn't play like a player you'd give up 2 first round picks and a ton of money to acquire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

Both teams were mediocre this year.

Raiders ultimately have to turn those picks into actual good NFL players for it to be worth it.

  1. Agreed, but we were technically playing for a playoff spot until the last week and we only were in this situation due to the early returns from the Mack trade. You saw the Raiders firsthand with Mack for all those years and we were always so bad. Now we had the chance not to be so top heavy and spread some money/assets around and we were much more of a threat imo.

  2. Jacobs is already a top 10 RB. He would have broken the all-time broken tackles record set by Lynch if he didn't miss a few games (ended up 3rd all-time in a single season). Not to mention refer to the OP's link and see the players we ended up drafting due to the Mack trade. Those are good building blocks for a team who previous to Mayock, had little talent or potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said:
  1. Agreed, but we were technically playing for a playoff spot until the last week and we only were in this situation due to the early returns from the Mack trade. You saw the Raiders firsthand with Mack for all those years and we were always so bad. Now we had the chance not to be so top heavy and spread some money/assets around and we were much more of a threat imo.

  2. Jacobs is already a top 10 RB. He would have broken the all-time broken tackles record set by Lynch if he didn't miss a few games (ended up 3rd all-time in a single season). Not to mention refer to the OP's link and see the players we ended up drafting due to the Mack trade. Those are good building blocks for a team who previous to Mayock, had little talent or potential.

I mean yes you were technically competing for a playoff spot but you finished 7-9 which is basically the definition of mediocre.

I don't think the Raiders futility can really be put on Mack, just like the Rams futility before they had McVay can't really be put on Donald and why the Broncos futility post-Peyton Manning can't really be put on Von Miller.

If I was the GM of the Raiders, I would've paid him. He's what you dream your top 5 pick ends up turning into. 

And don't get me wrong - I'm not an advocate of being the Rams who have half their cap allocated to 5 players and who are going to go like 5-6 years without a first round pick. If you go look at my post history of what I was saying in the Ramsey trade thread you'll see I criticized them quite harshly for that.

That being said - If you get a truly elite talent at a premier position like DE I think you generally have to pay them because they are who you can build a future elite defense around.

Could it still work out for the Raiders if they end up hitting on all or most of the picks that they got from the trade? Yes. But it's still not a move I would've made and even in hindsight now I'm not sure if it was the best decision for them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raiders won, Bears lost. Said it from the beginning and nothing has changed my mind. Bears gave up way too much capital at a point where they were too from from being legit SB contenders. By the time their window is truly open, Mack will be mostly obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said:

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.

Aside from Jacobs this is being very generous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DannyB said:

Raiders won, Bears lost. Said it from the beginning and nothing has changed my mind. Bears gave up way too much capital at a point where they were too from from being legit SB contenders. By the time their window is truly open, Mack will be mostly obsolete.

I'm not going to disagree with anything you said about the Bears losing. I think the philosophy of giving up that much draft capital for any player that isn't an elite QB like a Mahomes, Jackson, etc is stupid. I endlessly criticized the Rams for what they did this year for an even lesser player than Mack.

That being said - For the Raiders to win they have to actually do something with those picks they acquired. If they don't ultimately end up as a SB contender at some point in the next 4-5 years how did the ultimately win the trade? In my mind it will just be that they both lost.

Edited by Bolts223
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said:

Aside from Jacobs this is being very generous.

You haven't watched Crosby have you?

Moreau is a very good blocker and a RZ threat. He had 5 TD's being the second TE on our depth chart and missed 4 games. He could certainly start on other teams and if we didn't have Waller, I would feel comfortable having him be our lead guy. Renfrow is a reliable slot dude already and have 17 catches on 3rd down alone. 605 yards and 4 tds isn't something to giggle at for a 5th rounder, also considering our attempts to WR's were in the bottom 2 iirc. Ingold is already one of the better lead blockers in the NFL and that's no joke. AJ Cole is a JAG but a major upgrade over the garbage we had last season in Johnny Townsend.

Edited by RaidersAreOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RaidersAreOne said:

You haven't watched Crosby have you?

I have. I realize he's good. I'm using Cincinnati (a pretty average/below average roster) as a barometer. He's not starting over Hubbard or Dunlap, and I'm still taking Carl Lawson over him on pass rushing downs. Not many, if any, of those guys would start on this team. Not too sure about other bad teams.

9 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Renfrow is a reliable slot dude already and have 17 catches on 3rd down alone. 605 yards and 4 tds isn't something to giggle at for a 5th rounder, also considering our attempts to WR's were in the bottom 2 iirc.

Renfrow we could have probably used the most. But our receiving core was pretty bad after AJ went down. 

10 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Moreau is a very good blocker and a RZ threat. He had 5 TD's being the second TE on our depth chart. He could certainly start on other teams and if we didn't have Waller, I would feel comfortable having him be our lead guy.

I'm still taking Eifert over him as a receiver. Uzomah is also a solid starter. 

11 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Ingold is already one of the better lead blockers in the NFL and that's no joke.

Not many teams deploy pure FBs anymore. We don't.

Like I said, saying nearly 8 rookies could start elsewhere in the NFL is generous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raiders won. 

No defensive player is worth what Mack is being paid...  You would always love to have a guy with Mack's talent, but not at that price tag.

5 hours ago, Ryan_W said:

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

It would be nice if people would stop pretending Trubisky was the only problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

I'm not going to disagree with anything you said about the Bears losing. I think the philosophy of giving up that much draft capital for any player that isn't an elite QB like a Mahomes, Jackson, etc is stupid. I endlessly criticized the Rams for what they did this year for an even lesser player than Mack.

That being said - For the Raiders to win they have to actually do something with those picks they acquired. If they don't ultimately end up as a SB contender at some point in the next 4-5 years how did the ultimately win the trade? In my mind it will just be that they both lost.

I guess I don't see it that way.

Just because they (probably) won't follow up a good decision with more good decisions doesn't negate that initial decision from being the right one.

Keeping and paying Mack would not have gotten them closer to a Super Bowl. Using the money and draft capital that they used on Mack more effectively, the Bears may have been able to build a better foundation for a SB run in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ITS_RAMMY_PLAYBOI said:

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. 

True. But the same was true about Mack last season. The ramifications won’t be felt until you pay Ramsey and how it impacts what the front office is able to build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's where you have to figure the contract into the trade.  Honestly, probably nobody won.

Mack has been as good for the Bears as he was for the Raiders, and that's obviously a game-changing element.  But they've also had o pay him accordingly, which just makes it harder to keep depth in house.  It wrecks your cap situation on the whole, to actually pay a guy like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...