Fallout of the Khalil Mack trade

[NYRaider]

49 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

fair enough. What would you have done differently if you were in Pace and Mayock's positions at the time?

Mayock wasn't with the Raiders at the time of the Mack trade he was hired the following offseason. But if I was in charge of the Raiders at the time I would've paid Khalil Mack, one of the only early draft picks we've had in 2 decades that has actually been an elite player. It made sense for the Bears at the time, Trubisky not working out killed you guys but I think the reason we traded him to you was because Gruden didn't think that you'd be very good but it back fired because the picks were mid to late first rounders. Jacobs has worked out well but you guys took Montgomery the same year in the third round who is probably just as good, if not better then Jacobs. In theory the trade provided a good return for Mack at the time but draft picks literally mean nothing if you're selecting players like Ferrell and Arnette.

Edited November 10, 2021 by NYRaider

[NYRaider]

51 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Just to say…Fields is the highest rated QB in the league for the past 2 weeks. Calling him terrible is a little short sighted.

carry on

59% comp, 4 TD, 8 INT this season

[Hunter2_1]

2 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

59% comp, 4 TD, 8 INT this season

The highest rated QB in the past 2 weeks.

Did you honestly watch the game vs Pittsburgh and think 'terrible QB'? Or maybe you didn't watch?

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, Hunter2_1 said:

The highest rated QB in the past 2 weeks.

Did you honestly watch the game vs Pittsburgh and think 'terrible QB'? Or maybe you didn't watch?

I did watch the game yesterday and actually have Fields in my super flex fantasy league. He has looked better over the last two games but overall I'd say he still looks limited as a passer especially when you look at what guys like Kyler Murray and Justin Herbert were able to do as rookie starters. If you look at the upper tier of NFL starting QB's Josh Allen is really the only one that didn't look very good as a rookie and then progressed into becoming one of the better players in the league.

[incognito_man]

OP also ignores the salary cap implications. One can reasonably include free agent signings and/or in-house extensions that equal the contract value of Mack in the "plus" column for Oakland Las Vegas as well.

Edited November 10, 2021 by incognito_man

[DannyB]

Honestly, I think the Raiders got the better deal.

Obviously the Raiders are inept and squandered the haul they got.

But if I had good front office people and coaches, I'd rather be on the Raiders side of things. If nothing else, it certainly didn't cost them a true championship run.

On the flipside, I never understood it from the bears perspective. They weren't primed for a run, had a lot of holes to plug, and had to pay him a boatload of money. He's been a good player but they are no closer to a title than the day they got him.

I thought the Raiders got the better end at the time and nothing has changed my mind, even if they did end up Raidering the whole thing up.

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

The Raiders might have originally gotten good value on paper, but trading a guy like Khalil Mack just sets a bad tone in the locker room. It says “you can be at a hall of fame pace and we will still treat you as expendable”.
 

It reminds me of the Jags and Dolphins who seem like they’d prefer to sell a player for high value rather than have good players. Eventually you need to make guys franchise cornerstones if you want to compete, so why not build around Mack? 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by ThatJaxxenGuy

[NYRaider]

1 hour ago, DannyB said:

On the flipside, I never understood it from the bears perspective. They weren't primed for a run, had a lot of holes to plug, and had to pay him a boatload of money. He's been a good player but they are no closer to a title than the day they got him.

The Bears went 12-4, Tribusky just wasn't good enough.

[DannyB]

3 hours ago, NYRaider said:

The Bears went 12-4, Tribusky just wasn't good enough.

Oh yeah, that pesky little tiny annoying detail of the franchise not having a single clue as to whether they had a viable starting quarterback or not. Damn! Usually they come in handy if you're trying to make noise in the postseason.

[CWood21]

On 11/10/2021 at 1:57 AM, Hunter2_1 said:

Just to say…Fields is the highest rated QB in the league for the past 2 weeks. Calling him terrible is a little short sighted.

carry on

I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that you use an exponentially small sample size to justify your argument of the fact that Fields was the best QB over that time 36-56, 61% completion percentage, 466 passing yards, 8.3 YPA, 2 passing TD, and 2 INT was the best QB.  That's some average numbers.

[AkronsWitness]

I feel like I havent heard anything about Mack since his first season in CHI where the entire national media was all over his......

[Hunter2_1]

40 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that you use an exponentially small sample size to justify your argument of the fact that Fields was the best QB over that time 36-56, 61% completion percentage, 466 passing yards, 8.3 YPA, 2 passing TD, and 2 INT was the best QB.  That's some average numbers.

It justifies my argument that he’s not a “terrible QB” just fine. Terrible QBs are like Sam Darnold the last 3 weeks. Terrible QBs do not play like Fields has the past two weeks

Im not even saying Fields is a good QB. And by you saying they are “average numbers” backs my ascertain up that he’s not terrible. So thanks Buddy 😄

[Ty21]

On 11/10/2021 at 3:50 AM, NYRaider said:

59% comp, 4 TD, 8 INT this season

Numbers on paper doesn’t speak to the situation. 

[Darbsk]

On 11/9/2021 at 9:56 PM, MrOaktown_56 said:

You sure about that? Ngakoue is 4 years younger than Mack and is out producing him. Crosby is 24 and is out producing him. The trade sucked, but we are definitely on top now.

If you purely go by subjective stats then technically I suppose they out perform Mack but actually watching the games it's clear that Mack is a far, far more complete and better player than both. That's not to say Crosby and Ngakoue are not good, they are but it's wrong to suggest or infer they are better than Mack IMO. Mack makes everyone else on D better. Maybe with some better contracts we could have had all 3..........but easily Mack and Crosby.

[Darbsk]

On 11/10/2021 at 7:17 AM, NYRaider said:

The Bears traded away multiple first round picks for a player and have had marginal success since. The Raiders are better then the Bears this season and despite losing Mack have a better pass rush this year as well. Maxx > Mack.

I see the point in the first part but Mack is definitely 100% a better all round player than Crosby. Sure, Crosby is putting up flashy QB pressure numbers but if you watch both play one is a complete player, the fulcrum of the D and one of the best overall players in the league. The other is having a great season but has several very real flaws in his game - and I love Crosby. 

Also, imagine what Mack could be doing with Gus Bradley coaching now, he'd have 10 sacks already probably and a handful of FFs and TFLs...........Mack and Crosby would surely be an awesome combination. 

One thing I think only one poster has mentioned is the mental and team chemistry ramifications on trading Mack too. He was our best player, a tone setter, a leader and near perfect example of a pro athlete honing his craft, never in any trouble and a great example for your young guys and rookies who no doubt looked up to him. When you trade that it must make other guys wonder what we're striving for...... you spend your whole career trying to draft a guy like Mack, a Hall of Fame talent and impeccable off field too, perfect draft pick then you trade that away for a handful of gambles....... crazy!