This Is Rival Talk v1.0

[MacReady]

This is the Bears with Mack, too.  Bears can not compete against the likes of New England, the Saints, Packers, Chiefs... All that money and draft capital for one player was a colossal mistake.  Mitch Trubisky is so bad their backup is the better option.  

 

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

This is the Bears with Mack, too.  Bears can not compete against the likes of New England, the Saints, Packers, Chiefs... All that money and draft capital for one player was a colossal mistake.  Mitch Trubisky is so bad their backup is the better option.  

 

At the time though the Bears figured Trubisky would take a major jump...he just hasn't. If he does, signing Mack is an "executive of the year" type move. Luckily for us, Trubisky is still holding that team back. 

[MacReady]

Just now, packfanfb said:

At the time though the Bears figured Trubisky would take a major jump...he just hasn't. If he does, signing Mack is an "executive of the year" type move. Luckily for us, Trubisky is still holding that team back. 

It's not just about Trubisky though.  We are a perfect example of an alternative. 

We got the Smiths, Amos, Turner, Savage and Gary. 

We get MAYBE Amos or Turner if we'd traded for Gary. 

That's 5 players.  Mack is not worth 5 players. 

Z. Smith, P. Smith, Amos, Gary, Savage > Mack. 

[Leader]

10 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

This is the Bears with Mack, too.  Bears can not compete against the likes of New England, the Saints, Packers, Chiefs... All that money and draft capital for one player was a colossal mistake.  Mitch Trubisky is so bad their backup is the better option.

Not sure if this was intended more as a positive towards the backup or negative towards Trubisky......but for no known reason, I see Daniels as a Keenum look-alike.

Somewhat similar builds and it appears (although the sample size is small....) similar arms.

Biggest difference - which is a positive for opposing D's - is Daniels lesser mobility. Cant say he cant scramble (yet) but he certainly isnt the scrambling weapon Trubisky could be  -  which makes him (and the overall CHI offense) easier to plan against.

 

 

[packfanfb]

11 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

It's not just about Trubisky though.  We are a perfect example of an alternative. 

We got the Smiths, Amos, Turner, Savage and Gary. 

We get MAYBE Amos or Turner if we'd traded for Gary. 

That's 5 players.  Mack is not worth 5 players. 

Z. Smith, P. Smith, Amos, Gary, Savage > Mack. 

My point is (and given this debate is over a year old we'll never agree), the Bears were one player away IF Trubisky could play even at a game manager level. The Bears defense is the best defense in football. They are a Super Bowl defense and have been from the day they acquired Mack. They made that move with the belief that Trubisky (the No. 2 overall pick) would make a jump. Maybe he wouldn't be Mahomes or Watson, but at least a jump where he could be an NFL average QB. That's all the Bears needed. If Trubisky even played at a Matt Stafford level, the Bears would be the front runner in the NFC and probably would have been last year as well. Problem is...he hasn't really taken any step forward, half the time Trubisky still looks like a rookie and not in a good way. 

It's a different analysis from where GB is at and Minnesota. 

[MacReady]

Dolphins:
Don't really count.  They missed on a QB and then brought somebody in who was trying to break them down to build them back up.  Got rid of their  significant draft hits (Tunsil, Fitzpatrick).  Will have three first round picks in the upcoming draft, two of which are likely to be in the top ten. 

Bengals:
If they drafted Jonah Williams to play guard and not tackle, they're never fixing themselves.  Over the past ten years they have drafted a center, two tight ends, two receivers in the first round and they wonder why they are devoid of talent and 0-5.

Redskins:
They're not making terrible draft mistakes, just picked a lot of busts.  They've also dealt with injuries, but one of the biggest things that set them back was all that draft capital for a QB that didn't pan out.  They did not have first round picks for two straight years after moving up for RG3.

Broncos:
They've been stuck in that hell zone.  They built up a hell of a team with a hell of a great EDGE defender, but that's really hurt them in draft capital with only one top 19 pick in the past 8 years.  Taking a TE 20th did them no favors whatsoever, and reaching on a QB really hurt them as well. 

Falcons:
The Falcons did this to themselves by seriously ****ing over their defense.  They missed out on first round pick after trading up for Julio.  They drafted another WR in the first round.  They drafted a guard (injury or no, terrible decision) in the top half of the draft. 

This isn't to make a point about positional value in the first round, but draft capital in the first round. 

If you are constantly picking low in the first round or if you miss first round picks due to previous trades or if you make poor positional value decisions, you are going to tank unless you are the Patriots. 

This same thing happened to us.  It's the biggest reason I did not want to trade for Mack. 

Having first round talent on your team, even if they're labled a bust, is huge. 

[CWood21]

On 10/2/2019 at 11:25 AM, Outpost31 said:

I feel like somebody said that the Vikings would have been better off sticking with Keenum until they got their QBOTF through the draft and spending all that money supplementing their defense.

Every year that goes by that defensive core gets older.  Griffin and Wayne’s are free agents, as is Kendrick’s I think.  

They are one year away from a forced hard rebuild.  

Eric Kendricks just signed an extension, so he's not a FA anytime soon.  The problem isn't Kirk Cousins, and holding onto Case Keenum isn't the solution.  The problem is that OL is garbage.  Kirk Cousins is good enough to keep you in games, but he's not going to carry that franchise.  If you have a better OL, that Vikings' franchise has significantly more success than it's currently having.  Keenum needs to stop turning the ball over.  And they weren't going to be in a position to draft their QBOTF with how good their defense is.

[CWood21]

On 10/2/2019 at 11:29 AM, Outpost31 said:

This is the Bears with Mack, too.  Bears can not compete against the likes of New England, the Saints, Packers, Chiefs... All that money and draft capital for one player was a colossal mistake.  Mitch Trubisky is so bad their backup is the better option.  

 

The Bears mistake was putting all their eggs into Mitch Trubisky's basket.  Not Khalil Mack.  As @packfanfb alluded to, the Mack acquisition was supposed to push the Bears over the edge WITH a Tru jump.  The Trubisky jump never happened, which is why we're seeing the Bears struggle.

[CWood21]

On 10/2/2019 at 11:43 AM, Outpost31 said:

It's not just about Trubisky though.  We are a perfect example of an alternative. 

We got the Smiths, Amos, Turner, Savage and Gary. 

We get MAYBE Amos or Turner if we'd traded for Gary. 

That's 5 players.  Mack is not worth 5 players. 

Z. Smith, P. Smith, Amos, Gary, Savage > Mack. 

And what happens if those FA signings didn't turn out like they have?  You're using a nearly best case scenario.  We go on another FA splurge, and I'd argue that it's unlikely we'd be this productive in FA again.

[Golfman]

On 10/2/2019 at 12:43 PM, Outpost31 said:

It's not just about Trubisky though.  We are a perfect example of an alternative. 

We got the Smiths, Amos, Turner, Savage and Gary. 

We get MAYBE Amos or Turner if we'd traded for Gary. 

That's 5 players.  Mack is not worth 5 players. 

Z. Smith, P. Smith, Amos, Gary, Savage > Mack. 

 

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And what happens if those FA signings didn't turn out like they have?  You're using a nearly best case scenario.  We go on another FA splurge, and I'd argue that it's unlikely we'd be this productive in FA again.

Yes, but it also happens to the THE SCENARIO in this case. It is actually how it played out. You certainly can argue that another free agency splurge won't work out as well, but this case it did. 

The reality was we weren't one player away and neither are/were the Bears. Therefore, pushing all your chips in the middle for this ONE guy was a colossal mistake on the Bears part. As it would have been had the Packers won/lost the Mack sweepstakes. At least the Packers had the most important piece, QB in place. Makes it even dumber for the Bears who were betting on a guy who they now aren't sure deserve a 5th year option on his rookie deal. Mack will be 40 b4 they figure out the QB position. HYPERBOLE, maybe! 

Just not sure how you can slice this any other way.  

Edited October 7, 2019 by Golfman

[CWood21]

Just now, Golfman said:

Yes, but it also happens to the THE SCENARIO in this case. It is actually how it played out. You certainly can argue that another free agency splurge won't work out as well, but this case it did. 

The reality was we weren't one player away and neither are/were the Bears. Therefore, pushing all your chips in the middle for this ONE guy was a colossal mistake on the Bears part. As it would have been had the Packers made the push. At least the Packers had the most important piece, QB in place. Makes it even dumber for the Bears who were betting on a guy who they now aren't sure deserve a 5th year option on his rookie deal. Mack will be 40 b4 they figure out the QB position. HYPERBOLE, maybe! 

Just not sure how you can slice this any other way.  

As it's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, the problem wasn't splurging on Khalil Mack.  The problem was the fact that Mitch Trubisky has inexplicably managed to stay the exact same player he was as a rookie.  If he's even a halfway decent QB, the Bears are probably the heavy, heavy favorites to win the NFC North.  As currently constructed, they look like an 8-8 team that's being carried by their defense.  Their issue is putting all their eggs into the basket of Mitch Trubisky.  Not Khalil Mack.  Still doesn't change the fact that they didn't have the ability to replace Tru.  They're better off with Mack than they are without him.  Not having Mack doesn't suddenly help them find Trubisksy's replacement.

[Golfman]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

As it's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, the problem wasn't splurging on Khalil Mack.  The problem was the fact that Mitch Trubisky has inexplicably managed to stay the exact same player he was as a rookie.  If he's even a halfway decent QB, the Bears are probably the heavy, heavy favorites to win the NFC North.  As currently constructed, they look like an 8-8 team that's being carried by their defense.  Their issue is putting all their eggs into the basket of Mitch Trubisky.  Not Khalil Mack.  Still doesn't change the fact that they didn't have the ability to replace Tru.  They're better off with Mack than they are without him.  Not having Mack doesn't suddenly help them find Trubisksy's replacement.

It sure does! Furthermore, when you take a QB 2nd you've already put all of your eggs in one basket. Paying what they did for Mack insures those eggs are staying in that one basket for at least three more years. Like I said, they weren't one player away so it made no sense to trade for Mack. He's going to be a great player on a ****ty team, just like the Raiders. At least the Raiders had a decent QB in place. 

The more wins you have the lower you draft and lesser your chances of finding a franchise QB. You aren't getting a franchise QB in free agency, ask the Vikings, or Broncos or any other team that tried that route. Not having a first round pick for 2 years decreases those odds exponentially. 

Throw in your young, talented defense, many on first contracts, are going to need to get paid on second contracts and you're in deep dodo. 

[MacReady]

21 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And what happens if those FA signings didn't turn out like they have?  You're using a nearly best case scenario.  We go on another FA splurge, and I'd argue that it's unlikely we'd be this productive in FA again.

You’re right.  If we missed on all three free agents plus both first round picks, Mack would have been the better option.  Lol.  Five shots or one shot.  

[VonKarman]

13 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

You’re right.  If we missed on all three free agents plus both first round picks, Mack would have been the better option.  Lol.  Five shots or one shot.  

Not saying I prefer having Mack, but you are manipulating the information. First, Mack is not a shot, he was DPOY. Second, if you wanna make a comparison you should add the picks that have been used to move up or down (for example, 2 4ths to move up from 30 to 21). Those could be another 2 shots if I were to oversimplify the comparison (just as 2 1st round picks are).

You have a pretty good argument, but obsessing over some ****, repeating it ad nauseam and hiding some info to try to prove your point ain't gonna help you convince people.

[CWood21]

12 minutes ago, Golfman said:

It sure does! Furthermore, when you take a QB 2nd you've already put all of your eggs in one basket. Paying what they did for Mack insures those eggs are staying in that one basket for at least three more years. Like I said, they weren't one player away so it made no sense to trade for Mack. He's going to be a great player on a ****ty team, just like the Raiders. At least the Raiders had a decent QB in place. 

The more wins you have the lower you draft and lesser your chances of finding a franchise QB. You aren't getting a franchise QB in free agency, ask the Vikings, or Broncos or any other team that tried that route. Not having a first round pick for 2 years decreases those odds exponentially. 

Throw in your young, talented defense, many on first contracts, are going to need to get paid on second contracts and you're in deep dodo. 

Khalil Mack was traded to the Bears on September 1st, 2018.  Which QBs have been available?  The 2018 draft had already concluded, so the first time they could look to upgrade their QB situation would have been 2019 FA and the 2019 NFL Draft.  In the 2019 NFL Draft, Kyler Murray went 1st overall and Daniel Jones went 6th overall.  It's probably safe to assume that the Bears' defense would have kept them from picking in the top 5.  The only other QBs taken in the first 64 picks were Dwayne Haskins (15th overall) and Drew Lock (42nd overall).  Are either of those QBs clearly better than Mitch Trubisky?  No.  If you want to argue they can't be much worse, that's probably not an argument either one of us can prove.

And I really hope your argument of Mack on the Bears vs. the Raiders being a major hyperbole.  I'm not sure there's a single Raiders' defensive player that you'd take over the Bears.  The Bears have an elite defense.  Unfortunately, their offense is beyond mediocre.  The Bears weren't suddenly going to sink to a top-5 pick level.  Getting even halfway decent QB play, they're a 8-12 pick.   We've seen what the cost is to move up from that range into the top 3 to get a QB.  The Eagles and Rams gave up MULTIPLE premium picks.  Is it worth mortgaging your future away if you think Trubisky is the answer at QB?