The Khalil Mack Farce

This was all Gruden. Not sure exactly what he didn’t like about Mack but it’s pretty clear he did not want Mack in Oakland.

I get the argument on giving up 2 1st round picks but then it comes down what do you do with them. And on the flip side Chicago got back a #2 so it could be a high number 2 and compensate a bit.

Oakland accelerated being mediocre with this trade. What is puzzling they went and signed vets like Nelson and somewhat passed on draft and develop to a point then this. Again Gruden. The guy is the most overrated coach and has no concept of player evaluation. He had wet dreams about Conner Cook and now releases him and gives a 5th for McCarron.

Mack will make Chicago better. How much remains to be seen but on paper that LB groups looks outstanding. And based on how Gruden evaluates talent Jury is out
 
Bottom line. the Bears just got a top 3 pick player that has already proven himself to be worthy of that pick and dropped 15-20 spots in a draft 2 years from now, for a mid-low first round pick in 2019. That’s the value of getting that #2 back from Oakland. So it’s like giving up 1 1/2 # 1 picks.
 
I think the Bears overpaid. I wouldn't have done it.

That said, how this turns out all depends on what happens to each team this year and next. If the Bears stay mediocre and Trubisky is not "the man", then the Raiders might end up with a pair of top-half of the first round picks and this thing looks good for them. If the Raiders are bad the Bears will get a better 2nd Rd selection.

If Mack is what he's been up to now and Trubisky is the real deal the Bears may win 3-4 more games and these picks the Raiders got suddenly don't have as much value. I guess I'll have to reserve final judgement for at least a season.
 
I would do that deal and here is why. Mack is a top 5 talent and 95% chance neither of those picks match that talent. Oakland took a major step back imo. That #2 back from Oakland is really only a 10-15 pick gap from the other pick. And as far a cap you still have 4-5 years of control of Smith and Mitch T so you can get real creative.
 
Packinatl said:
I would do that deal and here is why. Mack is a top 5 talent and 95% chance neither of those picks match that talent. Oakland took a major step back imo. That #2 back from Oakland is really only a 10-15 pick gap from the other pick. And as far a cap you still have 4-5 years of control of Smith and Mitch T so you can get real creative.
Click to expand...
Would you have done it for the Packers? Just curious. I'm not sure what to think. I really wanted Mack in Green and Gold. The Packers OLB position is a possible dumpster fire, imo. Packers and Saints picks are going to be back end of the round. I understand the Bears picks being more tantalizing, as they stink every year.

The thing I can't imagine is paying Aaron what he just got and then having to give Mack that kind of money! It is literally insane the money being thrown around!
 
Wolfman said:
Would you have done it for the Packers? Just curious. I'm not sure what to think. I really wanted Mack in Green and Gold. The Packers OLB position is a possible dumpster fire, imo. Packers and Saints picks are going to be back end of the round. I understand the Bears picks being more tantalizing, as they stink every year.

The thing I can't imagine is paying Aaron what he just got and then having to give Mack that kind of money! It is literally insane the money being thrown around!
Click to expand...
Yes compensation wise. Problem as you said is cash flow due to Rodgers deal
 
The way I looked at getting Mack was comparing to the past. We got Favre, then we got Reggie, and then we got a Lombardi Trophy. Can we compare what could have happened with Mack joining Rodgers with the Brett/Reggie situation?

If you believe they could have caught magic in a deal like that, and still developed a solid supporting cast, I'll say that we blew it. If you think that wouldn't happen, I'll side with it's better he's with the Bears. It's a question of cap room available.
 
TW said:
The way I looked at getting Mack was comparing to the past. We got Favre, then we got Reggie, and then we got a Lombardi Trophy. Can we compare what could have happened with Mack joining Rodgers with the Brett/Reggie situation?

If you believe they could have caught magic in a deal like that, and still developed a solid supporting cast, I'll say that we blew it. If you think that wouldn't happen, I'll side with it's better he's with the Bears. It's a question of cap room available.
Click to expand...
I don’t think cap space was an issue. Cash flow was. Mack would have got $60m guaranteed. Now add in what Rodgers got and it’s a big issue. Even Rodgers alone you have to dip into the reserve. That GB SB team was better at DL, TE and maybe WR. more depth
 
GBP4EVER said:
According to Jason Wilde of the Wisconsin State Journal, the Packers did make an offer to the Raiders, but it was not one that included both of the first-round picks the Packers hold for 2019 after trading with the Saints (the Marcus Davenport deal netted them an additional first).
Click to expand...
Who on earth are they going to draft at the end of the round that would have anywhere near the impact Mack would have had?? If that’s what kept them from making the deal, then this one feels a little Ted Thompson-esque.

I understand the Bears threw in a 3rd and 6th as well. They gave up a LOT. I think it has to be more than just not being willing to give up 2 firsts. There was more. Gute is too on top of it and too aggressive to let that stop him.

However, I do wish the Packers had the Bears LB corp. We are nowhere near them in that department. Ted ignored it and went late picks way too long. LB is critical in a 3-4. That was beyond foolish, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top