Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
flapgreen

***Chicago Bears Thread*** Coach of the year. AC of the Year.

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, flapgreen said:

I don't think anyone is ever sold on a second year qb, except for a handful of guys.  It goes without saying the team's success hinges on Trubisky.  What I love about Pace is that he's the first Bears GM in my lifetime who's taken a young qb and actually tried to build around him. He got his qb and now he's giving him every chance to succeed. There's no guarantees on anyone, but he's done his part. Let's hope he's right on Trubisky.   If he is, we're in for the best years of Bears football for most of our adult lifetimes. 

Which is good, since we're coming out of the worst.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, flapgreen said:

Ryan Pace: "When we look at this next draft, our first-round pick is Khalil Mack. Our second-round pick is Anthony Miller." Then in 2020, two second-round picks makes Pace confident.

Don't forget the massive overpay for Trubisky in these rationalizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, cjv123 said:

Don't forget the massive overpay for Trubisky in these rationalizations.

That remains to be seen...

 

Good article on profootball talk, Raiders botched this, 2 first rounders is a no brainer for Mack. . Players like Mack don't grow on trees....https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/03/khalil-mack-trade-super-bowl-prediction-peter-king/


look at the last 10 Raider first-round picks: Robert Gallery, Fabian Washington, Michael Huff, Jamarcus Russell, Darren McFadden, Darrius Heyward-Bey, Rolando McClain, D.J. Hayden, Amari Cooper, Karl Joseph. Seven of those players were top 10 picks in the first round. But would you trade Mack for any two of them? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I trade Mack for Rolando McClain's 2011 perp walk for simple and maximal entertainment

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cjv123 said:

Don't forget the massive overpay for Trubisky in these rationalizations.

Maaaaassive overpay for the franchise qb. Ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, flapgreen said:

The Pack's glory days are slowly coming to an end. You guys have had a lot of good years, hell for most of my life.  Time to hop in the backseat over the next couple seasons. ;)

Before I give you that one, I want to see what this new Packer regime will do.

#notgoingdownwithoutafight

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, flapgreen said:

So many of the older Bears fans have moved on from the boards. @RBM oldest member I know on here as a Bears fan.  @Mr.Pack probably the oldest Packers fan I know on here now. Both nice fellas. 

Grid left years ago. 

Grid leaving was a sad one. He and I had some good battles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:

Grid leaving was a sad one. He and I had some good battles.

Did he go to fft or just disappear? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, barackdhouse said:

How many sacks does that value get you? Can that value command a double team? 

I don't disagree that the Raiders did well value wise. I wonder if Gruden lost his locker room with this. 

Make all the quips you want, but like it or not, the salary cap matters. $23.5M/yr is a hard pill to swallow, but missing two potential difference makers at reasonable first round contracts will hurt as well. This is a double whammy on the salary cap. It won't hurt this year and maybe not next year, but this will come back to haunt Pace (not that Mack will bust, but he's going to have major cap issues in 2-3 years at the rate he's going). Speaking of which, didn't Pace already make a wacky move to trade up for Trubisky when he didn't need to? 

I'm not picking on your team. My team has been poorly run since conception. Charlie Casserly and Rick Smith were awful GMs. The book is not written on Pace, but he's not headed in the right direction. Same with Lynch in SF. Both are acting like their draft picks and salary cap are monopoly money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t get that take at all. There’s not much money tied up anywhere aside from Mack. It’s exactly what they should do while the offense is stocked for reasonable salaries for the next few years. 

Edited by ryno1980
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, ryno1980 said:

I don’t get that ale at all. There’s not much money tied up anywhere aside from Mack. It’s exactly what they should do while the offense is stocked for reasonable salaries for the next few years. 

That's how fans are. If their team does it, it's the best move ever. Instant Championship! If another team does it, well it's just a dumb move and their team still sucks. Typical stuff

Edited by flapgreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to the coaches show on WBBM earlier, they had Pace and Phillips on in addition to Swaggy Nagy.  Obviously it was a typical love fest, but interesting nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Make all the quips you want, but like it or not, the salary cap matters. $23.5M/yr is a hard pill to swallow, but missing two potential difference makers at reasonable first round contracts will hurt as well. This is a double whammy on the salary cap. It won't hurt this year and maybe not next year, but this will come back to haunt Pace (not that Mack will bust, but he's going to have major cap issues in 2-3 years at the rate he's going). Speaking of which, didn't Pace already make a wacky move to trade up for Trubisky when he didn't need to? 

I'm not picking on your team. My team has been poorly run since conception. Charlie Casserly and Rick Smith were awful GMs. The book is not written on Pace, but he's not headed in the right direction. Same with Lynch in SF. Both are acting like their draft picks and salary cap are monopoly money. 

Pace has managed the cap very conservatively over his first few years. It's why the Bears were one of the few teams with the space to sign Mack. In 2-3 years the cap will have been increased 20-30 mil... and they won't have two first rounders to sign... the Bears cap is in very good shape. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you thinking the Bears may be trying to move to fast with this rebuild I'll remind you that every year there's at least one team that goes from being terrible to a playoff team.  The NFL is different than other leagues when it comes to turnaround.  It's much easier for a team to make a drastic turnaround in the NFL than it is in other sports.

This does not guarantee the Bears will be a playoff team but it certainly increases their odds.  The addition of Mack actually takes a little pressure off of Trubisky in my opinion.  Trubisky no longer has to be really good to be a playoff team, they can probably accomplish that with average play from him.

This is the most exciting Bears roster in a very, very long time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Make all the quips you want, but like it or not, the salary cap matters. $23.5M/yr is a hard pill to swallow, but missing two potential difference makers at reasonable first round contracts will hurt as well. This is a double whammy on the salary cap. It won't hurt this year and maybe not next year, but this will come back to haunt Pace (not that Mack will bust, but he's going to have major cap issues in 2-3 years at the rate he's going). Speaking of which, didn't Pace already make a wacky move to trade up for Trubisky when he didn't need to? 

I'm not picking on your team. My team has been poorly run since conception. Charlie Casserly and Rick Smith were awful GMs. The book is not written on Pace, but he's not headed in the right direction. Same with Lynch in SF. Both are acting like their draft picks and salary cap are monopoly money. 

No one has any way of knowing that for sure.  Most people think that they didn't need to trade up and I'm one of them but it doesn't really matter anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, sublimeone said:

Pace has managed the cap very conservatively over his first few years. It's why the Bears were one of the few teams with the space to sign Mack. In 2-3 years the cap will have been increased 20-30 mil... and they won't have two first rounders to sign... the Bears cap is in very good shape. 

That is not a good thing. 1st rounders have a higher probability of succeeding, thus making their contracts a relative bargain. Having 1st round picks (and draft picks in general) is a key component to keeping your cap in working order. If you guys find yourself in need of plugging a roster hole, it is going to cost a LOT more than a 1st round contract would cost. 

22 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

No one has any way of knowing that for sure.  Most people think that they didn't need to trade up and I'm one of them but it doesn't really matter anymore.

Of course it doesn't matter anymore. I'm just pointing out an example of him playing fast and loose with draft picks and also calling his decision making into question. 

That being said, I thought the Allen Robinson contract was very reasonable compared to other WR contract this offseason. I mean, how did Watkins get a bigger contract?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter King (who I generally dislike) did a good analysis of the salary cap implications of this deal that I agree with. The Bears came out favorably. 

As a percentage of the cap his contract isn't killer at all. I think it's not really an issue.

My general observation is that 1sts are good to have to manage your cap AFTER you have a couple/few superstars on their team. As the Bears have NONE, it's okay that they splurged on Mack.

Edited by Andy Dufresne
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Make all the quips you want, but like it or not, the salary cap matters. $23.5M/yr is a hard pill to swallow, but missing two potential difference makers at reasonable first round contracts will hurt as well. This is a double whammy on the salary cap. It won't hurt this year and maybe not next year, but this will come back to haunt Pace (not that Mack will bust, but he's going to have major cap issues in 2-3 years at the rate he's going). Speaking of which, didn't Pace already make a wacky move to trade up for Trubisky when he didn't need to? 

I'm not picking on your team. My team has been poorly run since conception. Charlie Casserly and Rick Smith were awful GMs. The book is not written on Pace, but he's not headed in the right direction. Same with Lynch in SF. Both are acting like their draft picks and salary cap are monopoly money. 

You can afford 23.5M/yr when you don't give #### contracts out.  This is why Pace has been giving most players that were not sure things, one year deals.  He's playing the cap game as well as anyone in the league right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gustavo Fring said:

You can afford 23.5M/yr when you don't give #### contracts out.  This is why Pace has been giving most players that were not sure things, one year deals.  He's playing the cap game as well as anyone in the league right now. 

I'm not saying it's impossible to afford $23.5M/yr or that it is impossible to recover from trading away two 1st round picks... I'm just saying it is probably very difficult to do both. 

I like your team more than I like my own team, but I still don't like this trade and I don't like the pointless trade up to draft Trubisky. If I was a Bears fan, I'd be excited about this season, but I wouldn't be excited about Pace as my GM.

Pace has basically pushed all his chips in on Trubisky. The relatively cheap rookie deal is allowing him to look like he's better at managing a cap than he is. If Trubisky succeeds* and he has to re-sign him, he's going to be in trouble unless he hits on some of his later picks because he won't have those 1st round rookie picks from 2019 and 2020 to help keep the cap under control. Like look at this rookie contract (24th pick). Then compare that to this free agent contract or this or this

*and if he doesn't succeed, good luck signing a free agent QB or drafting one without a 1st. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Peter King (who I generally dislike) did a good analysis of the salary cap implications of this deal that I agree with. The Bears came out favorably. 

As a percentage of the cap his contract isn't killer at all. I think it's not really an issue.

My general observation is that 1sts are good to have to manage your cap AFTER you have a couple/few superstars on their team. As the Bears have NONE, it's okay that they splurged on Mack.

I agree with your general dislike for King and I find this article to be more of the same from him: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/03/khalil-mack-trade-super-bowl-prediction-peter-king/?utm_tags=nbcsemail1000

Of his 4 points:
1. an anecdote about the Patriots last drive of a super bowl and an anecdote about Oakland's drafting... :confused:
2. Oakland players are probably mad :shrug:
3. Yeah, people should think of salaries as a % of the cap... no **** sherlock.
4. Again talked about % and makes a pointless "what if" statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

I'm not saying it's impossible to afford $23.5M/yr or that it is impossible to recover from trading away two 1st round picks... I'm just saying it is probably very difficult to do both. 

I like your team more than I like my own team, but I still don't like this trade and I don't like the pointless trade up to draft Trubisky. If I was a Bears fan, I'd be excited about this season, but I wouldn't be excited about Pace as my GM.

Pace has basically pushed all his chips in on Trubisky. The relatively cheap rookie deal is allowing him to look like he's better at managing a cap than he is. If Trubisky succeeds* and he has to re-sign him, he's going to be in trouble unless he hits on some of his later picks because he won't have those 1st round rookie picks from 2019 and 2020 to help keep the cap under control. Like look at this rookie contract (24th pick). Then compare that to this free agent contract or this or this

*and if he doesn't succeed, good luck signing a free agent QB or drafting one without a 1st. 

Not even close in my opinion. 

This is going all in on a QB:

Washington Redskins trade 2012 1st rounder, 2013 first rounder, 2014 first round, 2012 2nd rounder to the St. Louis Rams for Robert Griffin III. 

Two of those first rounders above were top 10 picks.  With the addition of Mack, even with the Bears giving away 2 future first rounders, if they make the playoffs (or even just miss), those are middle-to-late round first picks.  You don't find too many generational players in the middle-to-late first round.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

I'm not saying it's impossible to afford $23.5M/yr or that it is impossible to recover from trading away two 1st round picks... I'm just saying it is probably very difficult to do both. 

I like your team more than I like my own team, but I still don't like this trade and I don't like the pointless trade up to draft Trubisky. If I was a Bears fan, I'd be excited about this season, but I wouldn't be excited about Pace as my GM.

Pace has basically pushed all his chips in on Trubisky. The relatively cheap rookie deal is allowing him to look like he's better at managing a cap than he is. If Trubisky succeeds* and he has to re-sign him, he's going to be in trouble unless he hits on some of his later picks because he won't have those 1st round rookie picks from 2019 and 2020 to help keep the cap under control. Like look at this rookie contract (24th pick). Then compare that to this free agent contract or this or this

*and if he doesn't succeed, good luck signing a free agent QB or drafting one without a 1st. 

The cheap rookie deal for the QB is part of the equation. It's why the Rams were able to pay Donald. It's what the Seahawks were able to do with a their defense and a cheap Russell Wilson rookie contract. There won't be an issue resigning Trubisky in 4 years because the cap will have grown another $30 mil. The bears can also get out of the contract in 4 years without any dead money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gustavo Fring said:

Not even close in my opinion. 

This is going all in on a QB:

Washington Redskins trade 2012 1st rounder, 2013 first rounder, 2014 first round, 2012 2nd rounder to the St. Louis Rams for Robert Griffin III. 

Two of those first rounders above were top 10 picks.  With the addition of Mack, even with the Bears giving away 2 future first rounders, if they make the playoffs (or even just miss), those are middle-to-late round first picks.  You don't find too many generational players in the middle-to-late first round.  

You aren't paying attention. I'm not saying he's all in because of what he paid for Trubisky (a head scratcher for sure, but that doesn't constitute being all in). He's all in on Trubisky because (1) he doesn't have any 1st round draft picks to replace him with a rookie and (2) he won't have the cap space to sign a FA to replace him.

You can't look at this as the Bears finding a generational talent for two 1st rounders because a 1st round contract looks like THIS, not THIS. The Bears paid two 1sts to get one year and exclusive negotiating rights with Mack. They paid a huge contract to keep him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sublimeone said:

The cheap rookie deal for the QB is part of the equation. It's why the Rams were able to pay Donald. It's what the Seahawks were able to do with a their defense and a cheap Russell Wilson rookie contract. There won't be an issue resigning Trubisky in 4 years because the cap will have grown another $30 mil. The bears can also get out of the contract in 4 years without any dead money.  

Exactly - that's why I'm saying he's all in. If Trubisky turns out to NOT be a cheap starting QB then Pace is up a river.

If Trubisky works out, it'll be ok... not great, but ok. Those 1st round picks have a lot of value if you hit on them. Not having them will be a limiting factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FF Ninja said:

You aren't paying attention. I'm not saying he's all in because of what he paid for Trubisky (a head scratcher for sure, but that doesn't constitute being all in). He's all in on Trubisky because (1) he doesn't have any 1st round draft picks to replace him with a rookie and (2) he won't have the cap space to sign a FA to replace him.

You can't look at this as the Bears finding a generational talent for two 1st rounders because a 1st round contract looks like THIS, not THIS. The Bears paid two 1sts to get one year and exclusive negotiating rights with Mack. They paid a huge contract to keep him. 

#1 is self evident

#2 Is not true. His contract is approximately 14% of the next three year's cap - assuming no cap increase. That's not egregious. Plus they can get out of his contract in 2022 if necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

Exactly - that's why I'm saying he's all in. If Trubisky turns out to NOT be a cheap starting QB then Pace is up a river.

If Trubisky works out, it'll be ok... not great, but ok. Those 1st round picks have a lot of value if you hit on them. Not having them will be a limiting factor. 

So your argument is that Pace should not have made this trade so that he can keep his first rounders to draft a QB in case Trubisky sucks? That sort of conservative thinking is good when you're rebuilding a team... but once you've selected a guy #2 overall, went out and found a bunch of weapons for him and built a top 10 defense... that's exactly the time to go all in.

Those first round picks have a lot of value... but one of those picks is Khalil Mack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

You aren't paying attention. I'm not saying he's all in because of what he paid for Trubisky (a head scratcher for sure, but that doesn't constitute being all in). He's all in on Trubisky because (1) he doesn't have any 1st round draft picks to replace him with a rookie and (2) he won't have the cap space to sign a FA to replace him.

You can't look at this as the Bears finding a generational talent for two 1st rounders because a 1st round contract looks like THIS, not THIS. The Bears paid two 1sts to get one year and exclusive negotiating rights with Mack. They paid a huge contract to keep him. 

(1) and (2) are completely irrelevant as the Bears didn't trade up for Trubisky to sign another free agent QB or take a QB in the first round within the next two years before his rookie deal is even up.  

Even if #2 was relevant, it's not like there is a perennial Kirk Cousins type QB on the open market to break the bank for...that was just ANOTHER oversight by the Redskins.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Andy Dufresne said:

#1 is self evident

#2 Is not true. His contract is approximately 14% of the next three year's cap - assuming no cap increase. That's not egregious. Plus they can get out of his contract in 2022 if necessary. 

When you roster 53 players, 14% on one guy is pretty big. Like I mentioned before, it is doable, but without those 1st round picks, any holes in your roster have to be plugged with expensive free agents. So you're not just spending 30% on two players, you are overspending on any other positions of need that come up in the following years, too.

Just now, sublimeone said:

So your argument is that Pace should not have made this trade so that he can keep his first rounders to draft a QB in case Trubisky sucks? That sort of conservative thinking is good when you're rebuilding a team... but once you've selected a guy #2 overall, went out and found a bunch of weapons for him and built a top 10 defense... that's exactly the time to go all in.

Those first round picks have a lot of value... but one of those picks is Khalil Mack. 

No, one of those picks isn't Mack. Because Mack is on a non-rookie contract. 

And no, what I'm saying is that this is a very risky move and I'm not sure you had to pay that much. Supposedly other teams were offering two 1sts, but is that true? How many teams could offer two 1sts AND had the cap space to sign him long term? Chicago will be a fun team to watch this year. I'd just be very worried about the future if I was you guys. 

6 minutes ago, Gustavo Fring said:

(1) and (2) are completely irrelevant as the Bears didn't trade up for Trubisky to sign another free agent QB or take a QB in the first round within the next two years before his rookie deal is even up.  

Even if #2 was relevant, it's not like there is a perennial Kirk Cousins type QB on the open market to break the bank for...that was just ANOTHER oversight by the Redskins.  

So you think even if he flops this year they should just keep trotting him out there for the next two years? That's a solid strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FF Ninja said:

So you think even if he flops this year they should just keep trotting him out there for the next two years? That's a solid strategy.

Yes, you have to give the guy more than two years.  They are not the Cleveland Browns here trying to hit a QB every year in the first round (and failing to do so).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FF Ninja said:

When you roster 53 players, 14% on one guy is pretty big. Like I mentioned before, it is doable, but without those 1st round picks, any holes in your roster have to be plugged with expensive free agents. So you're not just spending 30% on two players, you are overspending on any other positions of need that come up in the following years, too.

You keep talking about picks plural. They effectively gave up one 1st and used the other on Mack.  But then they gained position by moving the 2020 3rd up to a 2nd. 

So the net loss of draft capital is not that large, especially considering the elite player they gained. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

From what I'm seeing the majority of NFL experts are very much in favor of the trade the Bears made.  Not really seeing too many that think it was a poor move.

Actual experts or talking heads? Talking heads love splash moves. Just about every big move is initially lauded. Doesn't mean much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Andy Dufresne said:

You keep talking about picks plural. They effectively gave up one 1st and used the other on Mack.  But then they gained position by moving the 2020 3rd up to a 2nd. 

So the net loss of draft capital is not that large, especially considering the elite player they gained. 

No, that's definitely not effectively what happened. They effectively gave up two 1st round picks to get exclusive negotiating rights to sign a FA + 1 year of his services under a rookie contract. If they effectively used their 2019 1st on Mack then he'd be getting paid maybe $9M/year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FF Ninja said:

No, that's definitely not effectively what happened. They effectively gave up two 1st round picks to get exclusive negotiating rights to sign a FA + 1 year of his services under a rookie contract. If they effectively used their 2019 1st on Mack then he'd be getting paid maybe $9M/year. 

Okay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FF Ninja said:

No, that's definitely not effectively what happened. They effectively gave up two 1st round picks to get exclusive negotiating rights to sign a FA + 1 year of his services under a rookie contract. If they effectively used their 2019 1st on Mack then he'd be getting paid maybe $9M/year. 

I don't what's more comical - you trying to spin this as a bad trade for the Bears or Jon Gruden trying to defend his position of trading away his best player.  Keep up the good work. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gustavo Fring said:

I don't what's more comical - you trying to spin this as a bad trade for the Bears or Jon Gruden trying to defend his position of trading away his best player.  Keep up the good work. 

I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm saying it's extremely risky and after the dumb move Pace made last year I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. As for Gruden, he is also not getting the benefit of the doubt. Why did they cut Crabtree only to pay Jordy Nelson more? That's just one of the many head scratchers going on in Oakland. 

The smart move here would've been Oakland paying Mack what Chicago paid Mack. If they just couldn't find a way to do it, getting two 1st round picks from a team that will probably miss the playoffs the next two years was a pretty good consolation prize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FF Ninja said:

I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm saying it's extremely risky and after the dumb move Pace made last year I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. As for Gruden, he is also not getting the benefit of the doubt. Why did they cut Crabtree only to pay Jordy Nelson more? That's just one of the many head scratchers going on in Oakland. 

The smart move here would've been Oakland paying Mack what Chicago paid Mack. If they just couldn't find a way to do it, getting two 1st round picks from a team that will probably miss the playoffs the next two years was a pretty good consolation prize. 

Only if they turn them into something approximating Mack's value. Unlikely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Only if they turn them into something approximating Mack's value. Unlikely. 

smh... they will have those draft picks AND the extra cap space to approximate Mack's value. Why do people keep ignoring the draft capital or the salary cap? They are both factors here. Again, Oakland re-signing him would be ideal for them. I'm just saying the draft picks are a nice consolation prize.

They probably won't do it (approximate Mack's value), because look at what they've been doing so far this offseason - a bunch of nonsensical crap. But if Chicago finishes last in their division the next two years (very possible) then a good GM should be able to work with whatever two 1st round draft picks that equates to and find some FA talent with the extra cash.

Edited by FF Ninja
typing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm saying it's extremely risky and after the dumb move Pace made last year I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. As for Gruden, he is also not getting the benefit of the doubt. Why did they cut Crabtree only to pay Jordy Nelson more? That's just one of the many head scratchers going on in Oakland. 

The smart move here would've been Oakland paying Mack what Chicago paid Mack. If they just couldn't find a way to do it, getting two 1st round picks from a team that will probably miss the playoffs the next two years was a pretty good consolation prize. 

Fair enough - I don't see the extreme risk you are referring to.  I haven't looked at the actual numbers but I'd be willing to bet there are not too many first round talents who have accumulated 40.5 sacks in their first 4 seasons in the NFL.  Mack's presence alone is going to shake up the NFC North.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

smh... they will have those draft picks AND the extra cap space to approximate Mack's value. Why do people keep ignoring the draft capital or the salary cap? They are both factors here. Again, Oakland re-signing him would be ideal for them. I'm just saying the draft picks are a nice consolation prize.

They probably won't do it (approximate Mack's value), because look at what they've been doing so far this offseason - a bunch of nonsensical crap. But if Chicago finishes last in their division the next two years (very possible) then a good GM should be able to work with whatever two 1st round draft picks that equates to and find some FA talent with the extra cash.

 That isn't all you're saying but again... Okay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

 That isn't all you're saying but again... Okay. 

You're right. I've also been trying to explain the effect of draft picks on the salary cap as well as the risk involved with rolling with a 2nd year QB with zero contingency plan for years 3 and 4. It was too much for one class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FF Ninja said:

You're right. I've also been trying to explain the effect of draft picks on the salary cap as well as the risk involved with rolling with a 2nd year QB with zero contingency plan for years 3 and 4. It was too much for one class. 

No. We just disagreed with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.