How does the Mack trade look now

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

It looks like the Bears would be a contender with a real QB. GM got an elite player in Mack, but ultimately failed to build a strong enough team. 

[Darbsk]

8 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

We don't know what Pace's draft board looked like but Montez Sweat and Ben Banogu were the only two pass rushers left available, within range, who fit Fangio's scheme so it's more than likely that he picks one and neither of them would have even come close to having the same impact as Mack has had. Not to mention, taking Banogu at 17 would have been insanely high reach, IMO. 

Not to be pedantic but if the Raiders keep Mack then I really doubt we take a reach on Clelin Ferrell in the top 5, (though with Mack we very likely might have picked a bit lower too) so either Ferrell or one of the other high higher rated prospects could have been there (if for example a team picks Ferrell instead of the edge they picked after Ferrell had gone).

So many parts to this butterfly effect 😁😁😁

[MSURacerDT55]

Mack is still better than anyone the Raiders got from that trade, easy.....

[Mr Raider]

13 hours ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

Mack is still better than anyone the Raiders got from that trade, easy.....

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. Mack failed to crack 9 sacks last season, he quite possibly could have under 10 this year, he's still a great player, but I'm not sure he's the ultra elite edge he was in 2015-2018. Plus it's not exactly fair to compare a 7 year vet to a bunch of first and second year players and simply say whos better now and that's all that matters. Josh Jacobs has been one of the best backs in the league since last season, and he's still getting better. His best years are in front of him. I'm not sure they are in Mack's case. 

Not to mention to decide who won the trade you can't simply look at who the best single player is in a trade that involved multiple high picks and some later ones. One team may get the best overall player, but if another team gets 2 or 3 really good players plus sign a guy or two with the extra cap space that team can easily be viewed as the winner of the trade without getting the best single overall player. 

The Raiders didn't make the trade with the idea they will get one player that will become a better player than Mack. They made the trade with the idea that 2 or 3 great to solid drafted players and a couple of free agent signings would be more beneficial to making the overall team better than Khalil Mack and Mack alone. You don't trade a player like Mack if the idea is simply to find a player better than him. Mack is one, fantastic football player, but I do believe our team today is better with the resources we got from Mack's trade than we would have been with just Mack. I'm not sure the Bears can say they are a better team today with Mack alone then they could have been with the extra 2 first round picks, the later picks, and the cap space. 

[JAF-N72EX]

16 minutes ago, Mr Raider said:

I'm not sure the Bears can say they are a better team today with Mack alone then they could have been with the extra 2 first round picks, the later picks, and the cap space. 

I can.

[JAF-N72EX]

19 minutes ago, Mr Raider said:

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that. Mack failed to crack 9 sacks last season, he quite possibly could have under 10 this year, he's still a great player, but I'm not sure he's the ultra elite edge he was in 2015-2018. Plus it's not exactly fair to compare a 7 year vet to a bunch of first and second year players and simply say whos better now and that's all that matters. Josh Jacobs has been one of the best backs in the league since last season, and he's still getting better. His best years are in front of him. I'm not sure they are in Mack's case. 

Not to mention to decide who won the trade you can't simply look at who the best single player is in a trade that involved multiple high picks and some later ones. One team may get the best overall player, but if another team gets 2 or 3 really good players plus sign a guy or two with the extra cap space that team can easily be viewed as the winner of the trade without getting the best single overall player. 

The Raiders didn't make the trade with the idea they will get one player that will become a better player than Mack. They made the trade with the idea that 2 or 3 great to solid drafted players and a couple of free agent signings would be more beneficial to making the overall team better than Khalil Mack and Mack alone. You don't trade a player like Mack if the idea is simply to find a player better than him. Mack is one, fantastic football player, but I do believe our team today is better with the resources we got from Mack's trade than we would have been with just Mack. I'm not sure the Bears can say they are a better team today with Mack alone then they could have been with the extra 2 first round picks, the later picks, and the cap space. 

None of the defensive players that the Raiders have drafted have even come close to being even average at this point.

[JAF-N72EX]

16 hours ago, Darbsk said:

Not to be pedantic but if the Raiders keep Mack then I really doubt we take a reach on Clelin Ferrell in the top 5, (though with Mack we very likely might have picked a bit lower too) so either Ferrell or one of the other high higher rated prospects could have been there (if for example a team picks Ferrell instead of the edge they picked after Ferrell had gone).

So many parts to this butterfly effect 😁😁😁

That's true and I didn't even think about that. They are so many different ways that this all plays out if the trade doesn't happen. We can argue hypotheticals all day long but noone of really knows. 

Edited November 24, 2020 by JAF-N72EX

[Mr Raider]

10 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

None of the defensive players that the Raiders have drafted have even come close to being even average at this point.

The one defensive player we drafted with a pick attached to the Mack trade? How many rookie corners come into the NFL and look great in their first 6 games (he's missed time with a broken wrist)? That's absurd. Josh Jacobs was drafted with one of the first round picks and is already clearly a pro bowl caliber player with potential to be an all pro IMO. That's equal to the Khalil Mack of this year and last IMO. And if you're simply talking about drafted since Mack left period That's flat out wrong. Crosby had 10 sacks as a rookie, has 6 so far this year, Mullen was great for a rookie and has taken a big step this year being a good corner overall regardless of experience, certainly better than an average player. And Abram has his flaws and has made mistakes but he's also flashed a lot and is better than average considering he's played 10 NFL games total. 

The defense as a whole hasn't been good. No doubt about it. But we currently have 6 starters that are rookies or in their second year (both starting DE's, both starting corners, our starting SS, and a starting DT). Most players aren't league average or better as rookies. That's why development is so key. You can't simply compare Mack to guys playing their first 20ish games and say well they aren't great yet, the trade wasn't made with the idea being the guys picked needed to be finished products within their first year or year and a half. 

[JAF-N72EX]

6 minutes ago, Mr Raider said:

The one defensive player we drafted with a pick attached to the Mack trade? How many rookie corners come into the NFL and look great in their first 6 games (he's missed time with a broken wrist)?

Alot of them do. Alexander, Lattimore, Jaylon Johnson...just to name a few.  The CB position doesn't have a huge learning curve.

[Mr Raider]

1 minute ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Alot of them do. Alexander, Lattimore, Jaylon Johnson...just to name a few.  The CB position doesn't have a huge learning curve.

I strongly disagree with the idea the CB position doesn't have a huge learning curve. I could name just as many that struggled as rookies D'Angelo Hall, Stephon Gilmore, Byron Jones, Xavien Howard, Denzel Ward, Darius Slay, Josh Norman, Nnamdi Asomugha, Charles Woodson, Jason McCourty. There are numerous articles that can be found with a quick google search that show data that suggest CB actually has one of the steepest learning curves (along with QB and TE) and also show most players at all positions typically see substantial improvement from their rookie year to their second year, even all time greats. 

Here's one such article that uses data, notice CB typically don't make a huge positive impact year one and see a huge spike year two..

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2027100-which-position-presents-the-biggest-leap-for-nfl-draft-prospects.amp.html

[FrantikRam]

I said at the time and I'll keep on saying it: Raiders won this trade.

Chicago got one successful season out of Mack, but are several key pieces away from being a contender. The Raiders are better now and better positioned for the future.

It wasn't just about the players - I happen to think Mack is a good player, not worth that money - it's about the cap space.

People will always want to say something like "yea but if the Bears had a QB..." -  Mack is a big part of why they don't have a QB. When you're a GM and you have a Trubisky, you cannot afford to spend that much money on a defensive player. For one thing, if a Philip Rivers is in FA, you can't go after him. For another, if you're defense is that good, you're likely going to be an average team and miss out on a potential top QB in the draft. The only way Trubisky was going to have a shot was with an elite supporting cast, and part of the reason he doesn't have that is the amount of money tied up in the defense and having mediocre draft picks moving forward.

[MacReady]

You can't say Raiders got, Bears got. 

It's not that easy, and it's not remotely fair.

The Raiders got all those draft picks MINUS 14, 12, 27, 27, 27, 26, 24 million cap hits.

That's an extra player they can afford against the cap for two years, then two extra players they can afford against the cap for the next five years.

Mack is going to be 30 years old at the end of this year.  The Bears and Raiders have the exact same number of playoff wins while the Raiders have a capable QB, a healthy cap, two first round picks...

[candyman93]

If Chicago had competent QB play, I’d say they won.

[FrantikRam]

28 minutes ago, candyman93 said:

If Chicago had competent QB play, I’d say they won.

 

But Mack is part of the reason they don't.

Id guess that a big part of why the Raiders didn't want to pay Mack is because Carr and their offense, as well as the rest of their defense, were all unknowns.

Carr is better than Trubisky anyways, but the Raiders have a good OL, great RB and now have good WRs - all achieved AFTER trading Mack, using a combination of the picks and cap space.

No matter how good Mack is, he's not more valuable than a QB, and if you gave Trubisky this supporting cast, he likely looks like an average QB

[FrantikRam]

On 11/24/2020 at 2:04 AM, JAF-N72EX said:

None of the defensive players that the Raiders have drafted have even come close to being even average at this point.

 

That doesn't matter though - the Raiders supporting cast for Carr is really really good and they weren't able to do that until they traded Mack, and they used the draft picks and cap space saved to do that.

The Bears weren't good enough to make that trade and it shows now. By the time they're able to overhaul their offense, it's likely that their defense will be average. Just a bad trade from the start and they shouldn't have done it.