Fallout of the Khalil Mack trade

[MrOaktown_56]

1 minute ago, Blue said:

I feel like you're ignoring my other point, which is that I don't think you did blow the picks 100%. I think the Raiders did alright with their selections--but alright is not good enough when you're trading a player of Mack's caliber, imo.

I also don't agree that they weren't going anywhere with Mack. This is a better team with Khalil Mack, and it's not like they spent the money they saved on not paying him on players who helped them win more games. As for "aging," he was 26 going on 27 when they made the trade. It's absurd to claim he was in any way "declining" at that point. If this was truly a concern, they still had him on a 5th year option and a franchise tag for another two years. If they felt he was declining at that point, then they still have the option to tag and trade him and pick up Ngakoue anyways. Maybe they don't get the same value that they got IRL, but they also get a superstar player for an extra two years.

I slightly miscommunicated my point. By the time the Raiders would have completed the defensive rebuild (this year), Mack would be aging. Which he is. He's not as good as he was in his Oakland prime. 

Also, you forget that he essentially forced his way out. There was no way to get him back on the field. So the Raiders did what they had to do. Do I agree with the move 100%? Maybe not. But I understand the logic as to why. The NFL is an ebb and flow league. When you are not good, you rebuild. When you are a player or so away, you go all in.

Do I in a vacuum prefer vets to picks? 100%. 

But I also realize that a team going nowhere would rather have the young draft capital.  Which I do think we didn't use well. I wanted us to trade up for AJ Terrell, which would have made the Mack trade look a hell of a lot better. 

[Blue]

1 minute ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

I slightly miscommunicated my point. By the time the Raiders would have completed the defensive rebuild (this year), Mack would be aging. Which he is. He's not as good as he was in his Oakland prime. 

Also, you forget that he essentially forced his way out. There was no way to get him back on the field. So the Raiders did what they had to do. Do I agree with the move 100%? Maybe not. But I understand the logic as to why. The NFL is an ebb and flow league. When you are not good, you rebuild. When you are a player or so away, you go all in.

Do I in a vacuum prefer vets to picks? 100%. 

But I also realize that a team going nowhere would rather have the young draft capital.  Which I do think we didn't use well. I wanted us to trade up for AJ Terrell, which would have made the Mack trade look a hell of a lot better. 

My understanding is that Mack was holding out for a new contract and the Raiders wouldn't do it. So, maybe there's something I'm not aware of or misunderstood there. I don't think he was gonna sit out the season, personally.

[MrOaktown_56]

Just now, Blue said:

My understanding is that Mack was holding out for a new contract and the Raiders wouldn't do it. So, maybe there's something I'm not aware of or misunderstood there. I don't think he was gonna sit out the season, personally.

It was part of it, but Glazer said he also just didn't want to play for Gruden. So that factored in as well.

[Blue]

Just now, MrOaktown_56 said:

It was part of it, but Glazer said he also just didn't want to play for Gruden. So that factored in as well.

Well, yet another sign hiring Gruden was a poor decision.

[MrOaktown_56]

Just now, Blue said:

Well, yet another sign hiring Gruden was a poor decision.

No argument there.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

It was a bad trade at the time and it still stands as a bad trade

[CWood21]

6 hours ago, Blue said:

Technically we knew the final result of this trade last year, but with Damon Arnette's release, I would love to revisit one of the worst trades in NFL history just to emphasize how badly Jon Gruden screwed up.

Did Gruden mess up the trade?  Or did he mess up the player evaluation?  If the Raiders walk out with Marquise Brown/Montez Sweat, Justin Jefferson, and Cameron Dantzler, I think we'd be having a very different discussion.

[Trojan]

11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Did Gruden mess up the trade?  Or did he mess up the player evaluation?  If the Raiders walk out with Marquise Brown/Montez Sweat, Justin Jefferson, and Cameron Dantzler, I think we'd be having a very different discussion.

He messed up the trade. Khalil Mack was our HOF pace player on a proud franchise that's been talent starved for almost 2 decades. You pay that guy a second contract.

[Jakuvious]

29 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Did Gruden mess up the trade?  Or did he mess up the player evaluation?  If the Raiders walk out with Marquise Brown/Montez Sweat, Justin Jefferson, and Cameron Dantzler, I think we'd be having a very different discussion.

I hate that kind of trade evaluation, though. It can reward or punish blind luck. Like, if the Chiefs today trade Patrick Mahomes for a 6th rounder, and that 6th rounder turns into literally Tom Brady 2.0, that was a bad trade to make in the first place even if it eventually became a net positive.

It was a bad trade at the time, because the likelihood of getting the impact a player like Mack can create with what they received was not high. If they had pulled a miraculous slew of draft picks out of it, that does not mean the initial trade in value was a good idea.

[Blue]

44 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Did Gruden mess up the trade?  Or did he mess up the player evaluation?  If the Raiders walk out with Marquise Brown/Montez Sweat, Justin Jefferson, and Cameron Dantzler, I think we'd be having a very different discussion.

We'd be talking about how he only missed on Marquise Brown and Cameron Dantzler? Sure, I guess.

[JAF-N72EX]

41 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

I hate that kind of trade evaluation, though. It can reward or punish blind luck. Like, if the Chiefs today trade Patrick Mahomes for a 6th rounder, and that 6th rounder turns into literally Tom Brady 2.0, that was a bad trade to make in the first place even if it eventually became a net positive.

It was a bad trade at the time, because the likelihood of getting the impact a player like Mack can create with what they received was not high. If they had pulled a miraculous slew of draft picks out of it, that does not mean the initial trade in value was a good idea.

And just to pile on to this point. By Cwood's train of thought (which is based strictly on hindsight and "what-if's")...then what-if Mack went on to have 25 sacks and won DPOY every single year. As you said, it can reward or punish on either side of the spectrum.

I'm almost NEVER on board with trading away a once in a generational talent. And I know the label "once a generation" is largely subjective but the majority of players are called that for a reason (as was Mack) and the odds of replacing them and the impact they have can on a team are astronomically low. This is where I think alot of fans, and even some GMs, tend to over-value draft picks. I'm guilty of doing it myself at times....and coincidentally...the Mack trade was one of them times and I was wrong.

I have alot to say on this subject but I feel I've already covered most of it several times over the past few years so I'll just repost my same thoughts on the trade from another thread. And @Blue, just to add a small correction to what the Raiders really received. (not that it makes it any better cause if anything it makes it worse).

The Raiders also packaged our 5th round pick with Osemele to move into the 4th round (140) from the Jets, and then packaged the 140 pick with their 35th pick (early 2nd rd) to move down and get 38(2nd) and 109(early 3rd) from the Jags. And then they traded those two picks to move down again to get 40(2nd) and 159 (5th). Plus a ton of other moves that were somehow connected to the trade.

Really what the trade turned into was: 
Bears: Khalil Mack, Cole Kmet, Arlington Hambright
Raiders: Josh Jacobs, Damon Arnette, Trayvon Mullen, Bryan Edwards, A.J. McCarron, Isaiah Johnson, Foster Moreau, and Quinton Bell.

I'll be honest, I didn't care for the move at the time simply because I didn't believe in Trubisky, nor did I believed that we were only a pass rusher away from being a contender -- which IMO is the ONLY time a team should make trade like this one -- and I felt like we needed those draft picks in the future to fill several other holes on the roster as well. Besides, the Cutler trade (along with several other FO mistakes over the years) will always and forever have me second guessing big moves like these.

However, I underestimated just how much of an effect a player like Mack would have on the team. He took over what was already a good defense in 2017(just injured) and he helped make them great and that's exactly what great players do....they help take their team to the next level. I always say, good players help a team remain level, but great players help elevate them. 

Without Mack, this defense would've still been good but nowhere near how historically great they were in 2018 and there is no way in hell we get a 1st round bye and are just a missed FG away from going to the NFC championship game. <--Reading back, this was obviously a mistake on my part, so disregard it. For some reason I thought we had a bye in 18 when I typed this in 2020 but the general point remains)

Looking back on the 2018 season we likely go 9-7 (possibly even 8-8) that year instead of 12-4. And if everything else around the league stayed the same we barely eke into the 6th round spot in the playoffs by taking Philly's spot (also 9-7) by winning the tie-breaker and, coincidentally, keeping them out of the playoffs entirely and we end up playing the Cowboys on their turf in the WC round instead of Philly in the divisional round at home.

The 2018 playoffs would have looked like this:
1: Chiefs (12-4), Rams (14-2) 
2: Patriots (11-5), Saints (13-3)
3: Texans (11-5), Cowboys (10-6)
4: Ravens (10-6), Vikings (9-6-1)
5: Chargers (12-4), Seahawks (11-5)
6: Colts (10-6), Bears (9-7)

Plus, we would also have to factor in that none of those 4 losses in 2018 would have made any difference either since they were not lost because of the defense so you would have to look at the amount of games that were won solely because of the defense and look at what our record would likely have been in 2018 without Mack.

This is my count.

WK1 vs GB = L No change 
WK2 vs SEA = L Defense won this game.
WK3 vs ARI = L Defense won this game.
Wk4 vs TB = W No change. We still win this game.

**Wk5 Bye week. At this point, without Mack the Bears would likely be 1-3 instead of 3-1**

WK6 vs MIA = L No change
WK7 vs NE = L No change
WK8 vs NYJ = W No change. We still win this game.
WK9 vs BUF = W No change. This is debatable. We probably still win this game because BUF -- even though the defense won this game and the offense was trash. 
WK10 vs DET = W No change. We still win this game.
WK11 vs MIN = L Defense won this game.
WK12 vs DET = W No change
WK13 vs NYG = L No change
WK14 vs LAR = L Defense won this game.
WK15 vs GB = W No change. We still win.
WK16 vs SF = W No Change. We still win
WK17 vs MIN = W No change. We still win.

 

This brings up another point. For the sake of argument, using this schedule, lets pretend that we do go 9-7 in 2018 instead of 12-4.

If we don't trade for Mack in '18 then Pace no doubt goes into the '19 draft looking at pass rushers, but how many EDGE players were available by the time we picked that would have had as much of an impact as Mack? Spoiler...there were none. 

But in order to look at this as objectively as we can, we would also have to change the draft order too, so lets do it. 

With the Mack trade, we had the 24th pick of the 2019 NFL draft with a 12-4 record. Without Mack we would have had the 17th pick with a 9-7 record.

Now let's look at who would have been available at pick 17 or later and see if they any these EDGE rushers would have had the same impact on the team that Mack has had because I'm drawing a blank. 

Here is a list of all players drafted in rounds 1 and 2 in 2019 starting with pick 17. 

TM  Player          POS AGE

NYG	Dexter Lawrence	DT	21
MIN	Garrett Bradbury C	24
TEN	Jeffery Simmons	DT	22
DEN	Noah Fant	    TE	21
GNB	Darnell Savage	S	22
PHI	Andre Dillard	T	23
HOU	Tytus Howard	T	23
OAK	Josh Jacobs	RB	21
BAL	Marquise Brown	WR	22
WAS	Montez Sweat	DE	23
OAK	Johnathan Abram	S	22
LAC	Jerry Tillery	DT	22
SEA	L.J. Collier	DE	23
NYG	Deandre Baker	CB	22
ATL	Kaleb McGary	T	24
NWE	N'Keal Harry	WR	21
ARI	Byron Murphy	CB	21
IND	Rock Ya-Sin	CB	23
JAX	Jawaan Taylor	T	21
SFO	Deebo Samuel	WR	23
CAR	Greg Little	T	21
BUF	Cody Ford	T	22
TAM	Sean Murphy-Bunting CB	22
OAK	Trayvon Mullen	CB	21 
DEN	Dalton Risner	T	24
DEN	Drew Lock	QB	22
DET	Jahlani Tavai	LB	22
GNB	Elgton Jenkins	C	23
NWE	Joejuan Williams CB	21
CLE	Greedy Williams	CB	21
SEA	Marquise Blair	S	22
NOR	Erik McCoy	C	22
IND	Ben Banogu	LB	23
MIN	Irv Smith	TE	21
TEN	A.J. Brown	WR	22
CIN	Drew Sample	TE	23
PHI	Miles Sanders	RB	22
HOU	Lonnie Johnson	CB	22
HOU	Max Scharping	T	23
KAN	Mecole Hardman	WR	21
PHI	JJ Arcega-Whiteside WR	22
DAL	Trysten Hill	DT	21
IND	Parris Campbell	WR	22
LAC	Nasir Adderley	S	22
LAR	Taylor Rapp	S	21
ARI	Andy Isabella	WR	22
KAN	Juan Thornhill	S	23
SEA	D.K. Metcalf	WR	21

 

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. 

So MAYBE Pace and his scouts knew more about what the projected draft was going to look like and they knew that pass rushers would be hard to find when they wanted to get one-- even with a 1st or 2nd round pick. 

[jrry32]

8 hours ago, Tk3 said:

Agreed. The Rams have the right approach. Convert several "unknowns" each year into 1 known commodity

I don't remember the Mack situation specifically. If you're 100% sure he's going to walk, then getting that pick package is better than letting him walk, especially if you are not a contender.

But if its just "I'm new here and want to make my mark on this team, and bring in MY guys", it's usually not big-braining to sell a superstar for a couple of picks, no matter how good they are

The Rams have the right approach if you have a FO that drafts well outside the first round. That's the key. You have to be able to find contributors. Not every FO can do that.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I hate that kind of trade evaluation, though. It can reward or punish blind luck. Like, if the Chiefs today trade Patrick Mahomes for a 6th rounder, and that 6th rounder turns into literally Tom Brady 2.0, that was a bad trade to make in the first place even if it eventually became a net positive.

It was a bad trade at the time, because the likelihood of getting the impact a player like Mack can create with what they received was not high. If they had pulled a miraculous slew of draft picks out of it, that does not mean the initial trade in value was a good idea.

That's not really what I was going at.  Right now, there's two very different discussions being wrapped up into one single discussion and trying to put a bow on it.  The original argument being posed (back when the Mack trade was officially done) was Khalil Mack or 2 FRPs+ more valuable.  And there's more then just the value of those draft picks, you're also talking about the ~$15M (ballpark number) in cap space that by not signing Khalil Mack to a long-term deal you free up to do as you please.  That's where the original discussion started years ago.

If you look at the deal today, I don't think anyone in their right mind would take the Khalil Mack package over Khalil Mack.  But if the package turned out to be multiple impact players, we definitely wouldn't be having this same discussion.  Which goes back to my original point, you can't fairly evaluate the concept of this deal since you saw a worst case scenario outcome here.  So the two questions that need to be asked are is Khalil Mack more valuable than 2 FRPs+ AND did the Raiders' effectively evaluate the players?  The answer to the latter is clearly no.  The answer to the former is probably still TBD.

[NYRaider]

Have the Bears been good since the Mack trade?

[JAF-N72EX]

29 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Right now, there's two very different discussions being wrapped up into one single discussion and trying to put a bow on it.  The original argument being posed (back when the Mack trade was officially done) was Khalil Mack or 2 FRPs+ more valuable.  

Yes. Absolutely. Mack is a game changer. And the likelihood of finding a better or similar replacement in the draft is shot in the dark.

Your very own team (Packers) were trying to trade for him but the Raiders thought the Bears would still be a bad team in 2018 and that they would get a better pick.

20 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

 But if the package turned out to be multiple impact players, we definitely wouldn't be having this same discussion.

But what's the likelihood of gaining MULTIPLE players who have the same amount of impact as Mack has?

Hell, you're a Packers fan who have watched them spend ALOT of draft capital over the last 10 years and they are still just as bad now as they were then. That alone should tell you you're logic here is false.

41 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So the two questions that need to be asked are is Khalil Mack more valuable than 2 FRPs+ AND did the Raiders' effectively evaluate the players?

Yes on the first question. The 2nd is ultimately irrelevant.