Sandy Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 1 minute ago, vegas492 said: Vegas gets a ton of picks. Who did they end of taking? I've already looked into it. Bears crushed the trade. Josh Jacobs, the epitome of league average, is the best player they used the picks on. Bryan Edwards is also just a guy. Nothing else of note. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 1 minute ago, Sandy said: I've already looked into it. Bears crushed the trade. Josh Jacobs, the epitome of league average, is the best player they used the picks on. Bryan Edwards is also just a guy. Nothing else of note. They also got 20 million in cap space, which essentially equates to Carr's cap hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 The Mack trade shows that you can garner a bevy of picks, or acquire a HOF caliber player at one of the games most important positions and still suck. A trade between the inept. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 (edited) 35 minutes ago, vegas492 said: The Mack trade was not bad for them. Their miscalculation was at QB and HC. Not Mack. That defense was championship plus level for a few years. It was the offense that held them back. You put Mahomes over there, or Watson and I have little doubt that they would have been winning multiple playoff games. Mack is a great player. The only reason you give up what they did for Mack is to win it all. Therefore, the trade was a bust because of the draft capital they gave up to get him. Now they are trading him for substantially less than they gave up. I'm not sure how it could not be viewed as anything but a bad deal for the Bears. Edited March 11, 2022 by Old Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 1 minute ago, Old Guy said: Mack is a great player. The only reason you give up what they did for Mack is to win it all. Therefore, the trade was a bust because of the draft capital they gave up to get him. Now they are trading him for substantially less than they gave up. I'm not sure how it could not be seen as a bad deal for the Bears. So, Denver is on the clock... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 5 minutes ago, Old Guy said: Mack is a great player. The only reason you give up what they did for Mack is to win it all. Therefore, the trade was a bust because of the draft capital they gave up to get him. Now they are trading him for substantially less than they gave up. I'm not sure how it could not be viewed as anything but a bad deal for the Bears. I'm going to reserve judgement. I want to see all the picks given up, selections made, picks returned and cash payouts to Mack. Maybe I'll have time to do that today. I very much do not know how that will turn out. On the surface I'd say the Bears "won" the trade because LV did not draft well. Though by saying "won" means that one side has to "win". Could very well be a "wash" where neither team really won or lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgbeethree Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 7 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: So, Denver is on the clock... The Denver situation is slightly different based on them being for sale at the moment. You could and I would definitely argue that having a pro bowl quarterback increases the immeadite value/appeal of the team enough to monetarily be worth the move regardless of the outcome on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 22 minutes ago, Sandy said: I've already looked into it. Bears crushed the trade. Josh Jacobs, the epitome of league average, is the best player they used the picks on. Bryan Edwards is also just a guy. Nothing else of note. The Raiders made it to the playoffs, 3,000 yards rushing and 28 touchdowns in three seasons is literally the opposite of league average, and he’s still a Raider at 24 years old. Neither team was ready for Mack. The Raiders won the trade by the very act of getting literally anything for a player they shouldn’t have re-signed. The goal post stretching trying to defend the trade is absurd. The Raiders are the very clear winner if you follow the logic. 1. Neither team was in any position to have Mack on their roster or in position to get to Super Bowl contention while paying him. 2. The Raiders didn’t pay him. 3. The Raiders still have an above average (if you fight this definition you literally do not know what the word average means because Jacobs in his worst year was 15th in rushing yards and 9th in rushing touchdowns plus a #3 WR at worst, possibly future #2 WR, both under 25 years old, 4. The Raiders made the playoffs. 5. The Bears now have no Mack, plus no first round picks. You literally cannot even make the argument that the Bears won the trade. I’m not getting into how big of a win it was because it wasn’t much of a win, but it wasn’t some Pyrric victory either. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: The Raiders made it to the playoffs, 3,000 yards rushing and 28 touchdowns in three seasons is literally the opposite of league average, and he’s still a Raider at 24 years old. Neither team was ready for Mack. The Raiders won the trade by the very act of getting literally anything for a player they shouldn’t have re-signed. The goal post stretching trying to defend the trade is absurd. The Raiders are the very clear winner if you follow the logic. 1. Neither team was in any position to have Mack on their roster or in position to get to Super Bowl contention while paying him. 2. The Raiders didn’t pay him. 3. The Raiders still have an above average (if you fight this definition you literally do not know what the word average means because Jacobs in his worst year was 15th in rushing yards and 9th in rushing touchdowns plus a #3 WR at worst, possibly future #2 WR, both under 25 years old, 4. The Raiders made the playoffs. 5. The Bears now have no Mack, plus no first round picks. You literally cannot even make the argument that the Bears won the trade. I’m not getting into how big of a win it was because it wasn’t much of a win, but it wasn’t some Pyrric victory either. You're saying a team with its franchise QB in place (arguable yes I know but they believe in Carr) should not try and re-sign it's HOF caliber pass rusher? Who do you pay at this point as a GM? Just trade all your players with 1 year left and draft 20 new guys every year? There's no winner to the Bears-Raiders trade. The Raiders didn't draft a single needle-mover and the Bears didn't win a single playoff game. The Raiders would've been much better off paying Mack and having him and Crosby at this point. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 17 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: You're saying a team with its franchise QB in place (arguable yes I know but they believe in Carr) should not try and re-sign it's HOF caliber pass rusher? Who do you pay at this point as a GM? Just trade all your players with 1 year left and draft 20 new guys every year? There's no winner to the Bears-Raiders trade. The Raiders didn't draft a single needle-mover and the Bears didn't win a single playoff game. The Raiders would've been much better off paying Mack and having him and Crosby at this point. What about the money they saved which gives you flexibility to add other pieces you couldn't have otherwise added. Mayock and Gruden were terrible and in spite of that the Raiders still won this trade. Being lucky or unlucky (incompetent) in the draft really doesn't play in. What did the Bears to with the guy they spent so much on? Nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 17 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: You're saying a team with its franchise QB in place (arguable yes I know but they believe in Carr) should not try and re-sign it's HOF caliber pass rusher? Who do you pay at this point as a GM? Just trade all your players with 1 year left and draft 20 new guys every year? There's no winner to the Bears-Raiders trade. The Raiders didn't draft a single needle-mover and the Bears didn't win a single playoff game. The Raiders would've been much better off paying Mack and having him and Crosby at this point. Gruden being Gruden basically made the Mack extension an impossibility. Once those negotiations got personal, that was never going to happen and they had to get what they could. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 31 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: You're saying a team with its franchise QB in place (arguable yes I know but they believe in Carr) should not try and re-sign it's HOF caliber pass rusher? Who do you pay at this point as a GM? Just trade all your players with 1 year left and draft 20 new guys every year? There's no winner to the Bears-Raiders trade. The Raiders didn't draft a single needle-mover and the Bears didn't win a single playoff game. The Raiders would've been much better off paying Mack and having him and Crosby at this point. You’re wrong and you still can’t accept it and it’s annoying. We’re not talking about whether or not the trade should have been made. It was made. The Raiders won it. In literally every measurable, tangible metric, the Raiders won the trade. And no they don’t believe in Carr, and you know that. Neither does McDaniels. Nobody believes in Carr. They’re in purgatory. If they re-signed Mack with the intention of keeping Carr, remove Jacobs and Waller and every offensive player they signed. Take some of Carr’s OL away and he’s crying again like he did when the Seahawks got to him. You’re not winning a Super Bowl with a crying QB no matter how many Macks you have on defense because there isn’t a path to and through the Super Bowl that doesn’t include a QB who can do enough against 11 Macks when all enough is is more than Crying Carr can do. You’re wrong. You want me to show you how wrong you are? I am going to right now admit the following things: Julio Jones lack of TD production is happenstance. Not drafting WR, IOL, ILB, TE in the first round is a strong guideline, not a rule, and it’s not always a mistake to do so (although you should use extreme prejudice the better the first round draft pick). And I’ll admit the truth to 7 other things if I think of them, but this one I will not. The Bears made a bonheaded decision based on the HOPE of landing a QB on a rookie contract and they should never in a million years have made this trade. The Raiders objectively and subjectively won this trade for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. Literally the only reason you are arguing this is because of mule headed pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 And for… Did you literally just try to use the point that the Raiders didn’t win a playoff game in your favor? The Bears didn’t even make it to one and they HAD Mack. This is absurd. Let go of pride and just admit you’re wrong. The Raiders won the trade. What’s better, an above average running back and an above average #3 WR or neither of those things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said: They also got 20 million in cap space, which essentially equates to Carr's cap hit. But then we can talk about the jersey sales and how the bears marketing was based entirely around Mack and the defense, which could help them pay more stat researchers or buy better and more state of the art workout equipment, hire better coaches, etc. There's no end with this line of thinking. 50 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: The Raiders made it to the playoffs, 3,000 yards rushing and 28 touchdowns in three seasons is literally the opposite of league average, and he’s still a Raider at 24 years old. Neither team was ready for Mack. The Raiders won the trade by the very act of getting literally anything for a player they shouldn’t have re-signed. The goal post stretching trying to defend the trade is absurd. The Raiders are the very clear winner if you follow the logic. 1. Neither team was in any position to have Mack on their roster or in position to get to Super Bowl contention while paying him. 2. The Raiders didn’t pay him. 3. The Raiders still have an above average (if you fight this definition you literally do not know what the word average means because Jacobs in his worst year was 15th in rushing yards and 9th in rushing touchdowns plus a #3 WR at worst, possibly future #2 WR, both under 25 years old, 4. The Raiders made the playoffs. 5. The Bears now have no Mack, plus no first round picks. You literally cannot even make the argument that the Bears won the trade. I’m not getting into how big of a win it was because it wasn’t much of a win, but it wasn’t some Pyrric victory either. My apologies. A running back who has a 4.2 career ypc (3.9 ypc over the last two seasons) is below the average NFL running back (league average ypc is 4.4 over the last two years). He's going into his final affordable year. I don't think he deserves the 5th year based on his tepid play thus far - that price tag is way too high for production you could get from a pair of mid round picks any given year. So they traded Mack and the best thing they got was a below average running back. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 1 minute ago, Sandy said: But then we can talk about the jersey sales and how the bears marketing was based entirely around Mack and the defense, which could help them pay more stat researchers or buy better and more state of the art workout equipment, hire better coaches, etc. There's no end with this line of thinking Say what now 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.