Bears trade Mack to LAC for 2nd & 2023 6th

[dll2000]

6 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Is this just your opinion or based on facts?

If it's just your opinion then whatever, feel free to think what you want and that's cool. If it's based on facts then I'd be curious to see where your getting this info from and see the data for myself because game tape and analytics say the complete opposite.

 

It comes from watching him play at Georgia and for Bears.  So the tape. 

I posit further as evidence that a great pass rusher gets his 5th year picked up.  Even a good one does.  Even by the bears.   It is second most valuable position in NFL though some argue corner is now. It is very valuable in any event.  

People say ‘analytics’ like they say “the science” as if it is all one thing and if you utter the term to describe something, it is the truth.  You can stand on the creditability of one thing and transfer that to another.  Also data collected itself is used to leap to all sorts of conclusions is often suspect.

Point is some is true and some isn’t, most of it is partially true.  Many clever people use data, analytics or science to suit their own ends. Mark Twain famously said there are lies, damn lies and statistics.  Same point.    Because the best liars tell mostly the truth, the very best liars tell the truth but out of context and application.  But that is all an aside and a musing I felt like saying as I thought it.   I am not accusing you of that.  Or even the sports analytical community.  

Back to my real point.  Bottom line is, Floyd is a real good football player, but just an okay pass rusher. He has good value and use because he is a great athlete who covers a lot of ground, can cover, tackle and can set an edge.  All traits of a great off ball LB.  He is valuable, but not great pass rusher valuable.

If he was a great pass rusher Rams don’t give up so much for a few months rental of Von Miller who is a great pass rusher.   They wouldn’t have felt they needed to.  

[Heinz D.]

16 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Don't talk about cap space to me. Not only did we already have an easy 60M in cap space to work with WITHOUT trading our best player (10th in the league), but they did NOTHING at all in free agency with the money at all to better the team. They sat on their *****. We may as well have waited until next year to trade him when he would've only costed us

We need more cap space. You're free to pretend we don't, that's fine...but from here on out I won't "talk" cap space with you. 

As to the bolded--Mack was our "best player", according to who, exactly? And "10th in the league"? What is that? What does that mean? 

Quinn was a far better pash rusher last year. Roquan Smith is the Bears best overall player. 

9 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Back to my real point.  Bottom line is, Floyd is a real good football player, but just an okay pass rusher. He has good value and use because he is a great athlete who covers a lot of ground, can cover, tackle and can set an edge.  All traits of a great off ball LB.  He is valuable, but not great pass rusher valuable.

If he was a great pass rusher Rams don’t give up so much for a few months rental of Von Miller who is a great pass rusher.   They wouldn’t have felt they needed to.  

Exactly. Floyd is a very good linebacker who can do some damage with situational blitzing. He's not a "pass rusher" or edge guy, in the way the NFL defines it.

With the Bears new defensive scheme, it's conceivable that Smith and Morrow could be good situational blitzers, too. Doesn't make them "Edge" guys...

[Sugashane]

17 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

@Sugashane Nah, I think I made my point pretty clear in my posts. And it's obvious that you got it too since you reacted so strongly to it and decided to try and deflect instead of refuting it. What does that say about you?

Stopped reading after this. 

Reacted so strongly? Lol.  Stop being so damn sensitive, again. Get on TRT or something man. For someone who claims not to care what anyone thinks you came back and immediately screamed for attention. You'll claim you didn't, but we all know - yourself included - you want it. Find it elsewhere. Lol

 

[Heinz D.]

12 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

There are several reasons to question the Mack trade:

1. Broncos got more for half a season of Von Miller.
2. Chargers retain flexibility with Mack's contract because it has no guarantees remaining.
3. Bears are paying Mack the most dead money for any non-QB in NFL history.
4. Bears could have easily waited and only paid 11.6M in dead money in 2023.

 

Has Von Miller been injured and ineffective the last two seasons?

Are the Chargers rebuilding? 

Does the extra second round pick not matter, at all? 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Heinz D.

[abstract_thought]

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

Has Von Miller been injured and ineffective the last two seasons?

Are the Chargers rebuilding? 

Does the extra second round pick not matter, at all? 

Miller had 14 sacks in 22 games leading up to the trade. Mack had 15 sacks in 23 games. Somehow the Broncos got more for half a season of Miller than the Bears got for multiple seasons of Mack. Why didn't the Bears get more in return? And why did they trade Mack before it became financially tenable?

[AZBearsFan]

5 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

Miller had 14 sacks in 22 games leading up to the trade. Mack had 15 sacks in 23 games. Somehow the Broncos got more for half a season of Miller than the Bears got for multiple seasons of Mack. Why didn't the Bears get more in return? And why did they trade Mack before it became financially tenable?

Miller’s trade got DEN more in return because DEN ate the rest of his contract. It says here that LA took on only $700k with the trade, with Denver paying the remaining $9M of Miller’s salary. Effectively, the Broncos bought more draft capital compensation in exchange for cap space. 

[dll2000]

12 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

Miller had 14 sacks in 22 games leading up to the trade. Mack had 15 sacks in 23 games. Somehow the Broncos got more for half a season of Miller than the Bears got for multiple seasons of Mack. Why didn't the Bears get more in return? And why did they trade Mack before it became financially tenable?

I think Mack trade was not about cap, but getting max draft value.  Every year his return on a trade goes down.  

The offseason market for Mack is what it is.  LA had best offer on table.  Next year maybe no one offers anything.

You could have gambled that Mack dominates in season and his value goes up to a team making a run.  But even then I think no one gives a first at his age 2nd was probably max.  Maybe you get that third with it.  But you are gambling that he doesn’t get hurt and returns nothing. 

[abstract_thought]

7 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

Miller’s trade got DEN more in return because DEN ate the rest of his contract. It says here that LA took on only $700k with the trade, with Denver paying the remaining $9M of Miller’s salary. Effectively, the Broncos bought more draft capital compensation in exchange for cap space. 

Bears could have done the same thing and eaten all of Mack's 2022 salary for 4M. Why didn't they?

[AZBearsFan]

1 hour ago, abstract_thought said:

Bears could have done the same thing and eaten all of Mack's 2022 salary for 4M. Why didn't they?

The Rams needed Denver to eat the $9M because it was the only way they could fit Miller under their cap, so they were willing to pay a premium in picks to make it happen. The Chargers have no cap problems whatsoever, so they probably weren’t willing to pay the higher draft capital to save ~$3M. And why would they? A $4M cap hit for them is incredibly manageable. There’s no incentive for them to pay a premium if they don’t have to do so, especially in February.   

[JAF-N72EX]

12 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

Miller’s trade got DEN more in return because DEN ate the rest of his contract. It says here that LA took on only $700k with the trade, with Denver paying the remaining $9M of Miller’s salary. Effectively, the Broncos bought more draft capital compensation in exchange for cap space. 

They ate the rest because Miller was on the last year of his contract and none of it was fully guaranteed anyway, meaning the 9M in dead money counted against the Broncos cap in 2021 with no possible dead cap in 2022.  Also, Miller's contract was already factored into the season and a large portion off it (base salary) was already paid out in game day checks for his 7 games played with the Broncos.

Mack on the other hand had 3 years left on his contract with 24M still owed to him in gtd money that count against the Bears cap in 2022 as dead money.

Taking a 750k hit in dead-money midseason in exchange for a 2nd and 3rd rd pick is a hell of alot better than taking a 24M hit for an entire season in exchange for a 2nd and 6th rd pick. And this was after Miller was coming off a season ending injury in 2020 while Mack was earning his 4th career All-pro (2nd team).

This was a robbery.

It would've made more sense to either trade Mack after June 1st (the same way the Bears traded for him in August 2018) or just waited until next year. If they traded Mack after June 1st then his dead-cap would have only been 11.7M while creating 16.3M in cap space. Which makes alot more sense now seeing as how they didn't so anything with the money in FA anyhow, whatsoever.
 

 

[JAF-N72EX]

20 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Stopped reading after this. 

I'm sure you did. And it's probably for the best too since your last disingenuous post was shot down pretty easily so there's no reason for you to dig yourself a deeper hole.

[abstract_thought]

1 hour ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Taking a 750k hit in dead-money midseason in exchange for a 2nd and 3rd rd pick is a hell of alot better than taking a 24M hit for an entire season in exchange for a 2nd and 6th rd pick. And this was after Miller was coming off a season ending injury in 2020 while Mack was earning his 4th career All-pro (2nd team).

Yes!

The Broncos paid a meaningless amount that they had already budgeted. They did it to push the deal through before Miller could leave in UFA. The Bears were under no pressure to trade Mack. They willingly paid the 24M in dead money when they agreed to trade him. Then the new regime blamed their lack of FA activity on a huge dead cap number they had created.

The Chargers got everything in this deal. They got a top 50 player in the league with a small base salary and no leftover guarantees. The Bears paid a huge cost to get rid of Mack. And all they got in return was a 2nd round pick.

Edited April 6, 2022 by abstract_thought

[JAF-N72EX]

On 4/5/2022 at 9:17 AM, dll2000 said:

It comes from watching him play at Georgia and for Bears.  So the tape. 

So it's based on your opinion of him in college and his time with the Bears and not based any facts or his last 2 years with the Rams. Got it.

Like I said, your entitled to your opinion. But you said most of his success (which include sacks) come from stunts and that he can't beat OLs off the LOS and that's 100% false (especially with the Rams). And that's not my opinion, that's a fact based on tape. Go back and watch the games. Perhaps your remembering wrong?

On 4/5/2022 at 9:17 AM, dll2000 said:

People say ‘analytics’ like they say “the science” as if it is all one thing and if you utter the term to describe something, it is the truth.  You can stand on the creditability of one thing and transfer that to another.  Also data collected itself is used to leap to all sorts of conclusions is often suspect.

Point is some is true and some isn’t, most of it is partially true.  Many clever people use data, analytics or science to suit their own ends.

So we should just defer to dll2000's opinions from now on instead of trusting analytics?

I asked you to provide proof of your claim and you couldn't do it. But analytics and game tape could. This is why there's a place for analytics because it's actually based on something much better than blindly putting stock into one person's word.

If you have a problem with someone using analytics then prove that wrong by providing something better than just your word.

And just to be clear here. When you said this about Floyd I initially thought to myself "I don't remember seeing that at all. Especially on the Rams defense. But, there might be some truth in this since he only saw Floyd with the Bears". So I figured I would give you the benefit of the doubt here and go back and watch every one of his sacks with the Bears and so far that doesn't seem to be true either (albeit not done yet). So far, only 2 of his first 11.5 sacks with the Bears in 2016 and 2017 came on a stunt. One in each year. The Rodgers sack fumble in week 7 in 2016, and one of his two sacks on Bradford in week 5 in 2017.

But I'm not finished yet either so we'll see.

 

 

[JAF-N72EX]

24 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

Yes!

The Broncos paid a meaningless amount to help the trade go through. They had already budgeted that cap space. And they willingly paid it to push the deal through before Miller could leave in UFA. The Bears were under no pressure to trade Mack. They willingly paid the 24M in dead money when they agreed to trade him. Then the new regime blamed their lack of FA activity on a huge dead cap number they had created.

The Chargers got everything in this deal. They got a top 50 player in the league with a small base salary and no leftover guarantees. The Bears paid a huge cost to get rid of Mack. And all they got in return was a 2nd round pick.

I honestly don't see how they all could've sat there in a meeting and came to the conclusion that this was somehow a good idea. I really don't. I usually like to look at these blockbuster trades and weigh the pros and cons from both sides before judging it, and in this case it's so one-sided that it blows my mind.

I just hope for the sake of this franchise that we find out later on that not everyone in the meeting agreed to this.

[beardown3231]

53 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

I honestly don't see how they all could've sat there in a meeting and came to the conclusion that this was somehow a good idea. I really don't. I usually like to look at these blockbuster trades and weigh the pros and cons from both sides before judging it, and in this case it's so one-sided that it blows my mind.

I just hope for the sake of this franchise that we find out later on that not everyone in the meeting agreed to this.

🌟 ~ kInG pOlES ~✨