The Khalil Mack thread -- now a Bear for $155million

[rmontro]

You know, I was okay with the Packers not getting Mack.
But I'm not okay with him ending up in our division.

 

[Dantés]

How tough would it be to know your team just made the biggest defensive player acquisition of the offseason and still be certain deep down that your team sucks?

 

[C-Lee]

How tough would it be to know your team just made the biggest defensive player acquisition of the offseason and still be certain deep down that your team sucks?

You're one of my favorite posters on this forum.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Good/Bad news is we play the Bears in Week 1. Will Mack be ready to play by then and if he is, will he want to show the World just how great of a player he is? Bulaga better be ready to go!

 

[Raptorman]

The Good/Bad news is we play the Bears in Week 1. Will Mack be ready to play by then and if he is, will he want to show the World just how great of a player he is? Bulaga better be ready to go!

How much practice does one need to rush from the edge? All he has to do is be in the game and you have to account for him.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How much practice does one need to rush from the edge? All he has to do is be in the game and you have to account for him.

You are correct, this isn't an offensive player that needs to get in sync with the other 10 players, but what we don't know is if Mack is in "Football Shape". If I am Ryan Pace I am not investing that kind of resources into a guy and saying "No big deal if he isn't quite ready to go yet, throw him out on the field." Do I expect to see him on Sunday night next week, sadly yes, but it wouldn't surprise me if he isn't ready to go in 8 days either.

 

[Ogsponge]

Ah, and the hopes and dreams of so many come crashing down. I have been so amused by this thread. This was never going to happen for the Packers and I am glad it didn’t as it sounds like the price is going to be enormous. And that is not even taking into consideration the price of the contract

 

[thisisnate]

disagree with the hindsight heavy assertion that "this was never going to happen for the packers"
if reports are to be believed, we did make an offer and were very much in the mix
under ted thompson, no, this was an impossibility
i don't think that holds weight with gute as gm now

 

[Ogsponge]

disagree with the hindsight heavy assertion that "this was never going to happen for the packers"
if reports are to be believed, we did make an offer and were very much in the mix
under ted thompson, no, this was an impossibility
i don't think that holds weight with gute as gm now

I am not saying they were not trying. I am saying the overall cost of this happening for the Packers was going to be too high. That is why it was never going to happen, not because Gute wasn’t interested or trying.

 

[Raptorman]

I am not saying they were not trying. I am saying the overall cost of this happening for the Packers was going to be too high. That is why it was never going to happen, not because Gute wasn’t interested or trying.

Yup, the Packers would never spend that kind of money on the defense.

 

[thisisnate]

stupid expensive i agree
but at least from what i read, we did make an offer
not we were just thinking about it
no idea if that's true or not though

 

[Dantés]

Yup, the Packers would never spend that kind of money on the defense.

No, never. It's not like they paid Clay Matthews a deal worth 10% of the total cap. Oh wait, what's that? You don't know what you're talking about? Ok, yeah, that makes more sense.

 

[RRyder]

It is also mind numbingly frustrating when someone labels a move, that hasn't even played out yet...."Horrible".

So pretty much the exact same thing as labeling a move the hasn't played out yet as great?

Discussing moves that haven't played out yet and whether they're good or bad is pretty much what literally everybody is discussing in the offseason

 

[RRyder]

I’m bummed that the Packers will have Mack in division and not on their team, but the early rumbling seem to indicate that Chicago is paying more than I would have liked for the Packers to pay.

It's an odd move for the Bears. They're still, on paper at least, the worst team in the division after trading for him and have handed out some huge contracts this offseason.

Sure this is the NFL and they could make a leap but this seems like a big gamble without much of a pay off imo

 

[Dantés]

It's an odd move for the Bears. They're still, on paper at least, the worst team in the division after trading for him and have handed out some huge contracts this offseason.

Sure this is the NFL and they could make a leap but this seems like a big gamble with much of a pay off imo

Trubisky on a rookie deal means they don't have to be as concerned about a sky high cap number for Mack. And he's young enough that they can tell themselves it's still worth it even if their serious window for contention is still 2-3 years away.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's an odd move for the Bears. They're still, on paper at least, the worst team in the division after trading for him and have handed out some huge contracts this offseason.

Sure this is the NFL and they could make a leap but this seems like a big gamble with much of a pay off imo

Agreed, but look how well it worked for the Rams last year and they continued this year where they left off.

As Dantes pointed out, when you have a starting QB on a Rookie contract, you can splash bigger money on Free Agents. Helps to also have a number of consecutive years where you are picking at the top of each round as well. Which makes me wonder what they have been doing over in Cleveland all these years.

 

[sschind]

I don't quite get a move like this from the Chicago perspective. Mack is obviously a guy you can build around... but they're probably having to give up a ton of picks for him while the rest of their roster is overall not very good. Giving up a bunch of high picks for a 27 year old star seems to me like a "win now" type of move, but the rest of the Bears' roster is not in the kind of shape it needs to be to "win now." Least that's how it looks to me.

I disagree. I get the feeling that if the Bears were in any other division half the fans here would be ******* them for the playoffs. Its only the hatred that keeps the "The Bears still suck" alive. Their defense will be tough. Maybe not vikings tough but beating them just got a heck of a lot harder. For them it all hinges on Trubisky and the other free agents they signed on offense. Howard and Cohen are the best RB duo in the division so if Trubisky can "not suck" and Robinson comes back from his injury they could be very tough for the next couple of years. Once the negative affects of signing Mack kick in however it could mean a downswing.

Maybe even 4 times a year with the Defense that the Vikings field.

Mack will definitely help the Bears a lot but they still have a long way to go and if Trubisky doesn't turn out to be the QB they hoped he would, well.....I'm not worried about Mack that much being on the Bears. Ian Rapoport posted this:

Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet
The price of trading for Khalil Mack was described to me late last night as 2 first-round picks and a player. There was only one team willing to do that. That is what may be going to the #Raiders in exchange for Khalil Mack.

5:57 AM - 1 Sep 2018

What worries me most about Mack being on the Bears is it just got a lot tougher to win 2 games a year. Trubisky will be what he will be and the addition of Mack won't affect that much. The problem is we only face Trubisky for half the game. The other half just got a lot harder to win.

QUOTE="Pokerbrat2000, post: 784732, member: 7261"]Well the Bears won't be looking like the Bears of 2017. They will have added the following players in the last 8 months:

Allen Robinson, Trey Burton, Taylor Gabriel, Cody Parkey, Roquan Smith, James Daniels, Anthony Miller and ... Khalil Mack.[/QUOTE]

That's a pretty damn good off season if you ask me. Like I said above its the rivalry hatred that has so many Packer fans dissing the Bears

Yeah if trubisky gets better which I think he will they are a young team they will get good but they the bears will always suck lol we might have a tough division.. but also two 1st rounders and player plus the contract.. that’s a lot of money... it’s all good in my books gute didn’t go crazy.. Gilbert looks good anyways!

Let the rationalization begin If he gets any meaningful playing time I hope he looks as good against the other teams starters as he did against the guys on the list today.

How tough would it be to know your team just made the biggest defensive player acquisition of the offseason and still be certain deep down that your team sucks?

Almost as tough as it would be to know the team you hate the most has made significant upgrades but you hate them so much you can't admit it.

You are correct, this isn't an offensive player that needs to get in sync with the other 10 players, but what we don't know is if Mack is in "Football Shape". If I am Ryan Pace I am not investing that kind of resources into a guy and saying "No big deal if he isn't quite ready to go yet, throw him out on the field." Do I expect to see him on Sunday night next week, sadly yes, but it wouldn't surprise me if he isn't ready to go in 8 days either.

Yes he will be there and he will need to be accounted for but will he be able to hold up for the entire game. Sadly I think the answer to that is yes. Still, I'm glad we face them in week 1 rather than week 2.

Ah, and the hopes and dreams of so many come crashing down. I have been so amused by this thread. This was never going to happen for the Packers and I am glad it didn’t as it sounds like the price is going to be enormous. And that is not even taking into consideration the price of the contract

I'm glad it never happened as well but I think it may have been a lot closer than you think to happening. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out Gute offered 2 first rounders and a player but in the end the Bears 2 likely to be higher higher picks won out. I know one report said no one else offered that much but I have a hard time believing that if Gute was willing to give up the two first rounders he wouldn't have been willing to throw in Matthews since there is a good chance Matthews would have to have been released to make cap room.

I didn't want the Packers to get him, or I should say I didn't want the Packers to give up that much to get him, but I am not happy the Bears did. If my reasons for not wanting the Packers to get him are justified then I'm not worried about the Bears other than the fact he will always be a force to be reckoned with and the individual games will be tougher to win.

Oh well, at least its all overt now but the crying. I just hope the crying sounds come from south of me rather than north.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So pretty much the exact same thing as labeling a move the hasn't played out yet as great?

Discussing moves that haven't played out yet and whether they're good or bad is pretty much what literally everybody is discussing in the offseason

You are correct, there are those who judge things before the actual proof of their verdict is out. I for one acknowledged earlier in a post the fact that I don't know how things will turn out with Graham. I guess its all in the wording of peoples opinions.

 

[RRyder]

Trubisky on a rookie deal means they don't have to be as concerned about a sky high cap number for Mack. And he's young enough that they can tell themselves it's still worth it even if their serious window for contention is still 2-3 years away.

Agreed, but look how well it worked for the Rams last year and they continued this year where they left off.

As Dantes pointed out, when you have a starting QB on a Rookie contract, you can splash bigger money on Free Agents. Helps to also have a number of consecutive years where you are picking at the top of each round as well. Which makes me wonder what they have been doing over in Cleveland all these years.

I get your guys points but I still see the Bears struggling in the pass rush department so I dont really swe it as a move that drastically improved them or gets them over a hump.

Mack alone doesnt mean a team will have even an average pass rush, as we saw with the Raiders last year, and now have limited options for helping improve

If any "bad" team were to have traded for him it probably should've been the Browns to pair him with Garret or the Jets (because who doesnt like to get on page one?)

 

[Dantés]

I disagree. I get the feeling that if the Bears were in any other division half the fans here would be ******* them for the playoffs. Its only the hatred that keeps the "The Bears still suck" alive. Their defense will be tough. Maybe not vikings tough but beating them just got a heck of a lot harder. For them it all hinges on Trubisky and the other free agents they signed on offense. Howard and Cohen are the best RB duo in the division so if Trubisky can "not suck" and Robinson comes back from his injury they could be very tough for the next couple of years. Once the negative affects of signing Mack kick in however it could mean a downswing.



What worries me most about Mack being on the Bears is it just got a lot tougher to win 2 games a year. Trubisky will be what he will be and the addition of Mack won't affect that much. The problem is we only face Trubisky for half the game. The other half just got a lot harder to win.

Well the Bears won't be looking like the Bears of 2017. They will have added the following players in the last 8 months:

Allen Robinson, Trey Burton, Taylor Gabriel, Cody Parkey, Roquan Smith, James Daniels, Anthony Miller and ... Khalil Mack.

That's a pretty damn good off season if you ask me. Like I said above its the rivalry hatred that has so many Packer fans dissing the Bears



Let the rationalization begin If he gets any meaningful playing time I hope he looks as good against the other teams starters as he did against the guys on the list today.




Almost as tough as it would be to know the team you hate the most has made significant upgrades but you hate them so much you can't admit it.



Yes he will be there and he will need to be accounted for but will he be able to hold up for the entire game. Sadly I think the answer to that is yes. Still, I'm glad we face them in week 1 rather than week 2.




I'm glad it never happened as well but I think it may have been a lot closer than you think to happening. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out Gute offered 2 first rounders and a player but in the end the Bears 2 likely to be higher higher picks won out. I know one report said no one else offered that much but I have a hard time believing that if Gute was willing to give up the two first rounders he wouldn't have been willing to throw in Matthews since there is a good chance Matthews would have to have been released to make cap room.

I didn't want the Packers to get him, or I should say I didn't want the Packers to give up that much to get him, but I am not happy the Bears did. If my reasons for not wanting the Packers to get him are justified then I'm not worried about the Bears other than the fact he will always be a force to be reckoned with and the individual games will be tougher to win.

Oh well, at least its all overt now but the crying. I just hope the crying sounds come from south of me rather than north.

You’re right— if any team in the NFL deserves the benefit of the doubt without proving ****, it’s the mighty Chicago freaking Bears. Lol.

 

[Dantés]

I get your guys points but I still see the Bears struggling in the pass rush department so I dont really swe it as a move that drastically improved them or gets them over a hump.

Mack alone doesnt mean a team will have even an average pass rush, as we saw with the Raiders last year, and now have limited options for helping improve

If any "bad" team were to have traded for him it probably should've been the Browns to pair him with Garret or the Jets (because who doesnt like to get on page one?)

I think Vangio will be able to maximize Mack. I’m guessing he helps a ton. I still think they’re a middling club. I don’t like Trubisky. But I’m sure Mack’s impact will be felt.

 

[Starr To Dowler]

It's an odd move for the Bears. They're still, on paper at least, the worst team in the division after trading for him and have handed out some huge contracts this offseason.

Sure this is the NFL and they could make a leap but this seems like a big gamble without much of a pay off imo

I think you're right, but look at it from their point of view. They're probably sick and tired of being manhandled by Aaron Rodgers twice a year, and playing Matt Stafford twice more is no walk in the park either. Now that Minnesota has a legitimate quarterback, Chicago is facing excellent quarterbacks at least 6 times a year in their own division. The way they're looking at it, they probably think that getting a blue-chip edge rusher to build their pass rush around is the only way they can ever hope to compete in the Norris.

In my opinion there should be better options than Barclay available.

Aaron Rodgers' collarbone certainly hopes so. Our offensive line suddenly feels to me like an even bigger liability than it did an hour ago.

 

[Raptorman]

No, never. It's not like they paid Clay Matthews a deal worth 10% of the total cap. Oh wait, what's that? You don't know what you're talking about? Ok, yeah, that makes more sense.

Most Matthews was ever paid was was $15 million in 2017, 8.61% of total cap space. Packer currently have 57% dedicated to offense, 40% to defense.

 

[gbgary]

not in this case. waiting gives other teams time to finagle their rosters/contracts to sweeten up their offer. Mack's importance will cause a bidding war.

when i posted this i had no idea the deal had already gone down. ugh...ted! *face-palm*

so Mack will be attacking our questionable right side twice a year. guess we know where Lewis will be stationed in those games. the Ripkowski cut won't help either in the pass blocking dept either.

 

[Jerellh528]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1035973285853491200

Solid trade for bears imo