It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 11:27 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:08 am
Posts: 227
pizza_Place: Lou Melnati's
Believe it or not, its actually not too early to speculate how the Khalil Mack trade will be remembered. It will most likely be remembered as a failure to the overall success of the Chicago Bears.

At the time, it was a move that DESERVED to be applauded. Because it was the right move based on the teams circumstances going into the 2018 season. Leonard Floyd was still a question mark and had just broken his hand. Pace and Fangio probably sat down and realized they didn't have a SINGLE pass-rusher heading into Week 1. Aaron Lynch? Get real. Bears knew they had to do something. So they did it. They sold the farm for Mack.

But here is where the legacy goes sour. When you make a move like that, you damn well better have a plan for the other side of the ball. The plan was Mitch (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky. The man they had sold the draft farm for the year before.

It is obviously a safe bet at this point to assume that (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky will probably not be in Chicago past 2020. Paces whiffed. His plan at QB failed. And when your QB plan fails, sadly it makes ALL other plans fail. Like handing out the richest contract for a defensive player in NFL HISTORY.

The Mack traded will be remembered in these 4 ways:

1. It was a good move based on the circumstances. They HAD to make the move. Pace should be applauded for fixing a bad situation.

2. Pace CREATED the bad situation that forced the Mack trade. Anyone with a brain at the time called the trade "desparation". I got roasted by meatheads for saying it, but it was. Look at Leonard Floyd today. He won't be a Bear past 2020 either. Without Mack, 12-4 NEVER happens last year. Pace made the Mack move to give the Bears a shot in 2018...and probably to save his own ass. But what he didn't realize at the time of the Mack trade, was that he had already sealed his own fate two April's before that when he selected (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky.

3. It strangled the Bears draft capital in the immediate future. Lots of good players (including an influx of talented young QBs have been drafted over the last 2 years and Pace could only sit there and watch).

4. The QB Plan Failed. Which cancelled the Mack trade.

*Obviously, it's slightly too early to say that a NEW QB plan can't save the Mack Trade. But 2 things are working against the Bears and Mack:

1. It's the Bears. QB Purgatory since 1986.

2. It's Ryan Pace. Does anyone really trust him to get the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION IN SPORTS right based on his track record? I sure as hell don't


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92044
Location: To the left of my post
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade. He needs another dominant season to make it a great trade.

Your point on draft capital is wrong. It lost the Bears two total picks but improved a 3rd to a 2nd. Mack is young enough to be better than hypothetical rookie draft pick last year for the next 4 years.

So in terms of draft capital the big loss is one first round draft pick. I'll take it for a dominant player.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
he sold more tickets and merch than what they paid for him. how in the fuck could that be called bad?

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:08 am
Posts: 227
pizza_Place: Lou Melnati's
IkeSouth wrote:
he sold more tickets and merch than what they paid for him. how in the fuck could that be called bad?


Let me make this as simple as possible for some of our "special" posters.

You don't make a trade like that and pay that kind of money unless the plan is to win a Super Bowl with that player

So....unless we win a Super Bowl with Mack on the roster ...it will be remembered as a failed trade.

Period


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:51 am
Posts: 785
Location: Chicago, IL
pizza_Place: Favorite Pizza Place
JeffGeorgeWorshipPodcast wrote:
IkeSouth wrote:
he sold more tickets and merch than what they paid for him. how in the fuck could that be called bad?


Let me make this as simple as possible for some of our "special" posters.

You don't make a trade like that and pay that kind of money unless the plan is to win a Super Bowl with that player

So....unless we win a Super Bowl with Mack on the roster ...it will be remembered as a failed trade.

Period


I think Mack's first season with the Bears (last year) is the closest he will ever come to winning a SB with us. I would say its highly unlikely that we win a Super Bowl with Mack still on our roster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 5049
Location: What buisness is it of yours, where I'm from
pizza_Place: Tombstone
Disagree. You have to assume that the assets the Bears gave up to get Mack would have produced a player or players picked by the Bears that exceed Mack’s level of ability to make your idea work.


And going off of the Pace era’s inability to produce results thru the draft with early picks.. I’m going to go ahead and say Mack is better by a wide margin than anyone they would have picked in that span.


So, disagree here. Mack is a top-3 talent on the defensive side of the ball in the NFL currently and should still be for the next few years (removing injury from the equation). That’s incredibly important and difficult to come across.

_________________
If the rule you followed lead you to this, of what use was the rule?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:36 pm
Posts: 6715
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Making the playoffs in consecutive years is extremely difficult to do unless you have one of the truly elite QB's in the league. Wait til you see what happens to the 49ers next year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 1:34 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
JeffGeorgeWorshipPodcast wrote:
Let me make this as simple as possible for some of our "special" posters.

Agreed. Here;

Image

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade. He needs another dominant season to make it a great trade.

Your point on draft capital is wrong. It lost the Bears two total picks but improved a 3rd to a 2nd. Mack is young enough to be better than hypothetical rookie draft pick last year for the next 4 years.

So in terms of draft capital the big loss is one first round draft pick. I'll take it for a dominant player.

You're ignoring the astronomical contract given to Mack for average production.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
I appreciate Brick’s years-long insistence now that two 1st rounders are really just one first rounder.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41377
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
The 2nd rounder the Bears got back from the Raiders is significant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Caller Bob wrote:
The 2nd rounder the Bears got back from the Raiders is significant.

Sure. It’s not nothing. But saying “Raiders only gave up one first round pick for Mack” has been Rick’s line since the trade happened and it makes me laugh every time. It’s a ridiculous interpretation of the trade.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:15 pm
Posts: 11485
pizza_Place: Dino's
JGWP has Bears' apologists on the run!

_________________
Sex isn't dirty, sex isn't a crime. It's a loving act between two or more consenting adults.

-Hank Kingsley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92044
Location: To the left of my post
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade. He needs another dominant season to make it a great trade.

Your point on draft capital is wrong. It lost the Bears two total picks but improved a 3rd to a 2nd. Mack is young enough to be better than hypothetical rookie draft pick last year for the next 4 years.

So in terms of draft capital the big loss is one first round draft pick. I'll take it for a dominant player.

You're ignoring the astronomical contract given to Mack for average production.

Mack through two years has been worth the contract.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade. He needs another dominant season to make it a great trade.

Your point on draft capital is wrong. It lost the Bears two total picks but improved a 3rd to a 2nd. Mack is young enough to be better than hypothetical rookie draft pick last year for the next 4 years.

So in terms of draft capital the big loss is one first round draft pick. I'll take it for a dominant player.

You're ignoring the astronomical contract given to Mack for average production.

Mack through two years has been worth the contract.

Hard to say. He played above his contract last year and below it this year.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92044
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
I appreciate Brick’s years-long insistence now that two 1st rounders are really just one first rounder.

Your yearlong insistence on not understanding the point is appreciated.

Mack is better than what hypothetical first round pick would have been. That is why the first round pick from last year doesn't hurt. I would much rather have Mack than Montez Sweat.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92044
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade. He needs another dominant season to make it a great trade.

Your point on draft capital is wrong. It lost the Bears two total picks but improved a 3rd to a 2nd. Mack is young enough to be better than hypothetical rookie draft pick last year for the next 4 years.

So in terms of draft capital the big loss is one first round draft pick. I'll take it for a dominant player.

You're ignoring the astronomical contract given to Mack for average production.

Mack through two years has been worth the contract.

Hard to say. He played above his contract last year and below it this year.

No. This year he performed well enough to justify it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:15 pm
Posts: 11485
pizza_Place: Dino's
Caller Bob wrote:
The 2nd rounder the Bears got back from the Raiders is significant.


Nas wrote:
Giving away 2 late first round picks won't hurt the Bears. WE'RE BACK!

:lol: Now it's significant.

_________________
Sex isn't dirty, sex isn't a crime. It's a loving act between two or more consenting adults.

-Hank Kingsley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade. He needs another dominant season to make it a great trade.

Your point on draft capital is wrong. It lost the Bears two total picks but improved a 3rd to a 2nd. Mack is young enough to be better than hypothetical rookie draft pick last year for the next 4 years.

So in terms of draft capital the big loss is one first round draft pick. I'll take it for a dominant player.

You're ignoring the astronomical contract given to Mack for average production.

Mack through two years has been worth the contract.

Hard to say. He played above his contract last year and below it this year.

No. This year he performed well enough to justify it.

No chance. The Packers alone have two guys named Smith who both outperformed him.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I appreciate Brick’s years-long insistence now that two 1st rounders are really just one first rounder.

Your yearlong insistence on not understanding the point is appreciated.

Mack is better than what hypothetical first round pick would have been. That is why the first round pick from last year doesn't hurt. I would much rather have Mack than Montez Sweat.

Mack is better than a single first rounder. Mack plus his contract extension is worse than the draft capital received in return if he’s going to perform like he did this year and it’s not close. He was closer to liability than asset this year given his contract.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:39 am
Posts: 650
pizza_Place: Burts place
JGWP ending the year strong. Has MANY on the run.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92044
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade. He needs another dominant season to make it a great trade.

Your point on draft capital is wrong. It lost the Bears two total picks but improved a 3rd to a 2nd. Mack is young enough to be better than hypothetical rookie draft pick last year for the next 4 years.

So in terms of draft capital the big loss is one first round draft pick. I'll take it for a dominant player.

You're ignoring the astronomical contract given to Mack for average production.

Mack through two years has been worth the contract.

Hard to say. He played above his contract last year and below it this year.

No. This year he performed well enough to justify it.

No chance. The Packers alone have two guys named Smith who both outperformed him.

Shocking you don't have the Packers punter as better too.

You've had a strange obsession with Mack since the trade. No real reason to debate you on him now. I'm glad he is on the Bears.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade. He needs another dominant season to make it a great trade.

Your point on draft capital is wrong. It lost the Bears two total picks but improved a 3rd to a 2nd. Mack is young enough to be better than hypothetical rookie draft pick last year for the next 4 years.

So in terms of draft capital the big loss is one first round draft pick. I'll take it for a dominant player.

You're ignoring the astronomical contract given to Mack for average production.

Mack through two years has been worth the contract.

Hard to say. He played above his contract last year and below it this year.

No. This year he performed well enough to justify it.

He was the highest paid defensive player in the NFL. He's not in the conversation for best 15 defensive players this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92044
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I appreciate Brick’s years-long insistence now that two 1st rounders are really just one first rounder.

Your yearlong insistence on not understanding the point is appreciated.

Mack is better than what hypothetical first round pick would have been. That is why the first round pick from last year doesn't hurt. I would much rather have Mack than Montez Sweat.

Mack is better than a single first rounder. Mack plus his contract extension is worse than the draft capital received in return if he’s going to perform like he did this year and it’s not close. He was closer to liability than asset this year given his contract.

So you can factor in a contract extension but I can't point out that Mack is better than whoever they would have drafted? Ok.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I appreciate Brick’s years-long insistence now that two 1st rounders are really just one first rounder.

Your yearlong insistence on not understanding the point is appreciated.

Mack is better than what hypothetical first round pick would have been. That is why the first round pick from last year doesn't hurt. I would much rather have Mack than Montez Sweat.

Mack is better than a single first rounder. Mack plus his contract extension is worse than the draft capital received in return if he’s going to perform like he did this year and it’s not close. He was closer to liability than asset this year given his contract.

So you can factor in a contract extension but I can't point out that Mack is better than whoever they would have drafted? Ok.

Mack w/ extension vs. 1st round + free agents signed with cap space given to Mack

is the correct assessment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92044
Location: To the left of my post
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade. He needs another dominant season to make it a great trade.

Your point on draft capital is wrong. It lost the Bears two total picks but improved a 3rd to a 2nd. Mack is young enough to be better than hypothetical rookie draft pick last year for the next 4 years.

So in terms of draft capital the big loss is one first round draft pick. I'll take it for a dominant player.

You're ignoring the astronomical contract given to Mack for average production.

Mack through two years has been worth the contract.

Hard to say. He played above his contract last year and below it this year.

No. This year he performed well enough to justify it.

He was the highest paid defensive player in the NFL. He's not in the conversation for best 15 defensive players this year.

Says who?

Statistically he was down.in sacks.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92044
Location: To the left of my post
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I appreciate Brick’s years-long insistence now that two 1st rounders are really just one first rounder.

Your yearlong insistence on not understanding the point is appreciated.

Mack is better than what hypothetical first round pick would have been. That is why the first round pick from last year doesn't hurt. I would much rather have Mack than Montez Sweat.

Mack is better than a single first rounder. Mack plus his contract extension is worse than the draft capital received in return if he’s going to perform like he did this year and it’s not close. He was closer to liability than asset this year given his contract.

So you can factor in a contract extension but I can't point out that Mack is better than whoever they would have drafted? Ok.

Mack w/ extension vs. 1st round + free agents signed with cap space given to Mack

is the correct assessment.

Having Mack is the better option then.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:15 pm
Posts: 11485
pizza_Place: Dino's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade.

:lol: Sure, for his bank account.

_________________
Sex isn't dirty, sex isn't a crime. It's a loving act between two or more consenting adults.

-Hank Kingsley


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:39 am
Posts: 650
pizza_Place: Burts place
Furious Styles wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Mack could retire tomorrow and it was a good trade.

:lol: Sure, for his bank account.


RAIDERS!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Kirkwood wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I appreciate Brick’s years-long insistence now that two 1st rounders are really just one first rounder.

Your yearlong insistence on not understanding the point is appreciated.

Mack is better than what hypothetical first round pick would have been. That is why the first round pick from last year doesn't hurt. I would much rather have Mack than Montez Sweat.

Mack is better than a single first rounder. Mack plus his contract extension is worse than the draft capital received in return if he’s going to perform like he did this year and it’s not close. He was closer to liability than asset this year given his contract.

So you can factor in a contract extension but I can't point out that Mack is better than whoever they would have drafted? Ok.

Mack w/ extension vs. 1st round + free agents signed with cap space given to Mack

is the correct assessment.

Having Mack is the better option then.

If he gets back in shape and produces like year 1. The excuses for Mack this year with his shitty production has been Cutler-esque


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group