Jump to content
Defense Wins Championships

Khalil Mack couldn't protect a 20-0 lead.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Mack isn't the reason that they won't make the playoffs.  Anyone saying that is a moron.  Because, today, Mac's cost them nothing but dollars.  However, his cost may prove problematic when they can't improve the team and continue to miss the playoffs.

I dont see how they cant "improve the team" because of him. Look, lets break this down because folks are acting as if this trade was something really tragic. 

If the Bears went 0-16 this year and had the #1 pick they'd probably be picking a pass rusher given that this is a dire need. Now say they pick Nick Bosa. Now they have their pass rusher. But now here's the thing. We dont know what Nick Bosa is in the NFL. Nick Bosa even if good may not be "Khalil Mack" good. Also, his prime could be a couple years away. 

Nonetheless, the Bears are going to be giving up a pick for a pass rusher correct? 

Now, say if they instead trade for Khalil Mack, as they did. What the Bears done was traded ONE 1st rounder, a 3rd rounder and a 6th rounder, in order to get Mack his prime and a 2nd round pick. 

Either way the Bears was going to go pass rusher with a 1st round pick given the dire need. Now they have not just a pass rusher, but arguably the most dominant pass rusher...and in reality only spent 1 2020 first rounder a 3rd and a 6th but still got a 2020 2nd rounder in return...just for the rights of getting him a year earlier than they would having to wait until 2019 to draft a Pass rusher that they're not sure would work out or even be anywhere near the level of Mack. 

The trade was smart. They essentially call Mack their 2019 1st round pick at the expense of their 2020 1st round pick, but they make up for it by having two 2nd round picks in 2020. 


Folks need to let it go. They made the deal and all Mack did was dominate and not miss a beat. We talked about all of the things he did with the sack, forced fumble, fumble recovery, 30 yard Pick 6 but we still dont mention the fact that he had 3 tackles and was part of the reason why Rodgers had the leave the game in the first place. 

The dude is a freaking monster and if the Bears cant build around him and Trubisky it won't be because of this trade, but the incompetency of the Front Office. No way did they mortgage their future with this trade. This was an excellent trade, a bad trade was giving up all of those picks and giving them to San Francisco in order to move up 1 spot in order to draft Trubisky and he wasn't even the best QB on the board. THAT's a terrible trade that could hurt their future given that Trubisky has still shown nothing. They traded away picks in order to get the best defender in the league. How is that not building this team? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thai Jet said:

I think Aaron Rodgers just answered your question.

You missed my point.  I wasn’t referring to paying a QB that money.  I was referring to paying a defensive player that money.  If we need to hear the excuse that “Mack is just 1 of 11 guys” then why pay him $23m?  Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers make their offense go pretty much regardless of the talent around them. 

Share this post


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

MAYBE it would have been more prudent on their part to see what they had in Trubinsky before mortgaging their future by giving up two years of #1's for a pass-rusher and giving him STARTER QB money.  Crazy stuff.....

Yeah the best defensive player in football would have been available via trade still. They really have no idea what they have in Trubisky. Not sure what they thought they were thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

You missed my point.  I wasn’t referring to paying a QB that money.  I was referring to paying a defensive player that money.  If we need to hear the excuse that “Mack is just 1 of 11 guys” then why pay him $23m?  Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers make their offense go pretty much regardless of the talent around them. 

Drew Brees is arguably better than both Brady and Rodgers, but Brees is a QB who's probably lost more games where his offense scored 30 or more points than anyone else in league history. Why? Because he's just a QB and doesn't play defense. Drew Brees has 12 seasons as a Saint, yet they've made the playoffs just 6 times, and only 1 time did they go to the playoffs in "back-to-back" years. And this is a Drew Brees who from 2008 to 2016 AVERAGED 5,000 yards per season with 35+ TD's. Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady are no where near that level of insanity....yet Drew Brees will always be overshadowed because of defenses he never had. 

You need more than a QB. There are 32 teams in this league, and only three of them have Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. And two of those three QB's only have one SB each in over a decades worth of playing.  

 

Stop underrating defensive players because of 2 quarterbacks. It makes no sense. There's 30 other starting QB's in this league that do not fit in the mold of Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers So making it seem like you "only pay a QB" that money as if the other 30 QB's are like Tom or Aaron kinda shows why your point doesn't hold water. 

You pay Aaron Donald when your QB is Jared Goff. You go get a Khalil Mack when your QB is Mitch Trubisky. I didn't see anyone complaining when the Packers were breaking records to get their hands on Reggie White. And I didn't see anyone complaining when they started going to Super Bowls either. They could have easily said, "we dont have to pay White that money...we have Brett Favre". lmao. 

This being overly-dependent on a QB is going waaaay too far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kalil Mack, in a half of Football, produced more than that entire list of players combined. 
That is sad and true. A bunch of circle jerks..

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Share this post


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

What is this new thing I'm seeing all over JN by various posters using "I seen" as a proxy for 'I saw' or 'I've seen'? Did JN recently get an influx of Arkansasians?

Assigning blame to one person in a sport that sees anywhere between 26-45 players suit up each game is kind of crazy.

At the same time though, it's equally crazy to give up two 1st round picks for the right to pay QB money to a non-QB when the team is not a SB contender. In fact, doing anything that would strap future spending or acquisition of assets to supplement your young potential franchise QB's development is bordering on negligence.

If the Packers paid the draft picks for Mack's services and then went on to pay him, you understand it and even applaud it, because they have the best player on the planet and are SB contenders and could be a Khalil Mack away from being virtual locks to at least play in the big game. The Bears or Jets or Bills or Cardinals or Chiefs or any other team with a rookie level QB? No way.

We're mocking DWCs questionable command of the written word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fantasy Island said:

Mack looked great last night.  If we had gotten him he would have made Adams look serviceable because is that good.  However, I was not aware that he also played on offense.  The offense lost that game.  

He did scored them a TD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rldev said:

I don't think anyone is actually criticizing Mack. We would all love to have him, but not at the expense of offensive investment. This game proves why you do not spend the kind of draft capital and cash on one defensive player. Because in the end, the team with the better offense won.

Yeah thats what I said. The guy was saying the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are missing the point in defending Mack. There is no more valuable position on the team than the QB & Aaron Rodgers proved that last night in spite of Mack's incredible game. 

The other point I see being made is that the loss should be put at Mitch Tribinsky's (?) feet. Which is true to an extent, however if you or the Bears organization who actually made the trade for Mack feel that way, how do you fix the issue? Unless he gets better, you just traded away what could have been his replacement in the 2 1st round picks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

I didn't see anyone complaining when the Packers were breaking records to get their hands on Reggie White.

They also didn't pay Reggie White QB dollars, and give up two first round picks to get him.  the issue is not signing Mack; the issue is the cost, especially when you don't have a top QB.  If the Raiders play this right, they might set themselves up for years to come.  Chicago, not so much....

Share this post


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

Mack looked great last night.  If we had gotten him he would have made Adams look serviceable because is that good.  However, I was not aware that he also played on offense.  The offense lost that game.  

I'm surprised K Mack looked as great as he did missing all offseason, and training camp. Just came in a few days before the season started.  His conditioning was pretty good for someone who been out that long.    I'm stoked the Bears lost( give me top five pick in  2019 draft) , and I'm still alive in my suicide pool.( had the packers yesterday). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bgivs21 said:

I think people are missing the point in defending Mack. There is no more valuable position on the team than the QB & Aaron Rodgers proved that last night in spite of Mack's incredible game. 

The other point I see being made is that the loss should be put at Mitch Tribinsky's (?) feet. Which is true to an extent, however if you or the Bears organization who actually made the trade for Mack feel that way, how do you fix the issue? Unless he gets better, you just traded away what could have been his replacement in the 2 1st round picks. 

The point isnt being missed. The comparison is poor. Folks are complaining about trading for Mack and comparing it to the QB position as if the Bears haven't shown that they've already invested in Trubisky as their franchise. Are they not able to trade for a player if it's not a QB? 

Mack was worth the trade and his performance proved it last night. How many Aaron Rodgers have been drafted with the dozens and dozens of 1st round picks since Aaron Rodgers has drafted in 2005? The answer is zero. A big fat 0. How many QB's have been drafted in the 1st round since 2005? 37 of them. Not one of them is as good as Aaron Rodgers. What are you guys talking about? 

The bottomline is you use picks to build your team, and building your team can also mean trading those picks for players that can fill a need on the other side of the football. 

You know why Aaron Rodgers doesn't have more SB wins or even appearances? Because the Packers secondary has been horrible since Woodson left, and they haven't found a replacement for the ageing Clay Matthews. In all of Aaron Rodgers "Greatness", he has YET to overcome that reality. 

 

It's not all about the QB. Folks need to stop believing that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

I seen so many fans literally crown Khalil Mack and Chicago while being up 20-0. 

And just like that.

Just like his playing days of Oakland; the best Khalil Mack could do was lead his defense to another loss (and weren't they top 10... without him?)

It's Super Bowl or bust for both of Khalil Mack and Chicago.

You don't trade away two 1st round draft picks for a 27 year old Defensive player along with paying him elite Franchise QB money worth $23.5 million dollars per year for anything less (than a SB title). 

How can Chicago improve their current team moving forward without two 1st round draft picks along with being forced to pay Khalil Mack $23.5M per?

What I seen tonight was an All-Time Great QB in Aaron Rodgers (who's worth every penny of his contract) actually lead his team to a victory from down 20-0...

All while a Khalil Mack led defense allowed it to happen and couldn't stop it. 

There is a difference between a winning Superstar (Aaron Rodgers) and an overrated individual sack master (Khalil Mack). 

You don't trade away two 1st round draft picks for an OLB/DE along with being forced to pay him $23,500,000 per year. You just don't.

And Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers just proved why. 

Not even Khalil Mack could stop the greatest Green Bay Packers 4th quarter Comeback of All-Time (the type of embarrassing loss Chicago may never recover from here in 2018). 

 

Quarterbacks win championships

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

They also didn't pay Reggie White QB dollars, and give up two first round picks to get him.  the issue is not signing Mack; the issue is the cost, especially when you don't have a top QB.  If the Raiders play this right, they might set themselves up for years to come.  Chicago, not so much....

Only way the Raiders come out ahead is if Arden Key, Pj Hall,Maurice Hurst , and Fadol Brown become the pass rushers the Raiders think they can become.  Raiders without a doubt traded away their best player on their team, but I expect the defense to improve because Paul Guenther is the best DC they have had in a long time.   It's a shame K Mack never had a chance to play for him, and they really didn't get anything back that can help them this year.

Share this post


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

They also didn't pay Reggie White QB dollars, and give up two first round picks to get him.  the issue is not signing Mack; the issue is the cost, especially when you don't have a top QB.  If the Raiders play this right, they might set themselves up for years to come.  Chicago, not so much....

No, there is no issue. Though Favre got most of the credit, even he would tell you what Reggie White meant to those teams and that organization when he was there. What they gave up for him was worth it. 

Paying a defensive player 24 million dollars isnt "QB money" anymore, when Kirk Cousins is making 30 million a year and has a guaranteed contract or a guy like Garappolo making almost 40 million this year. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Nope. Neither are Kyle Wilson, Dee Milliner, or at last check Calvin Pryor. 

I wonder if there is a self help group for ex Jets 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MACK GETS AN IFFY GRADE.

first half was vs Deshone Kizer who is a walking turnover. Will not be in league long.

in the 2nd half, GB ran 28 plays and scored 24 pts and Mack didnt have a tackle. 

thats just facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

Drew Brees is arguably better than both Brady and Rodgers, but Brees is a QB who's probably lost more games where his offense scored 30 or more points than anyone else in league history. Why? Because he's just a QB and doesn't play defense. Drew Brees has 12 seasons as a Saint, yet they've made the playoffs just 6 times, and only 1 time did they go to the playoffs in "back-to-back" years. And this is a Drew Brees who from 2008 to 2016 AVERAGED 5,000 yards per season with 35+ TD's. Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady are no where near that level of insanity....yet Drew Brees will always be overshadowed because of defenses he never had. 

You need more than a QB. There are 32 teams in this league, and only three of them have Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. And two of those three QB's only have one SB each in over a decades worth of playing.  

 

Stop underrating defensive players because of 2 quarterbacks. It makes no sense. There's 30 other starting QB's in this league that do not fit in the mold of Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers So making it seem like you "only pay a QB" that money as if the other 30 QB's are like Tom or Aaron kinda shows why your point doesn't hold water. 

You pay Aaron Donald when your QB is Jared Goff. You go get a Khalil Mack when your QB is Mitch Trubisky. I didn't see anyone complaining when the Packers were breaking records to get their hands on Reggie White. And I didn't see anyone complaining when they started going to Super Bowls either. They could have easily said, "we dont have to pay White that money...we have Brett Favre". lmao. 

This being overly-dependent on a QB is going waaaay too far. 

I’d argue this is on the coaching in NO, Belicheck would never put up with his teams consistently giving up that many points, yes it has occasionally happened to his teams like last years Super Bowl, but it’s not the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Websites, SEO & Social Media

Mile Social

Get Winning Picks

×