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

[Jet_Engine1]

I seen the Bears havin' the ball 3rd and 1 deep in Chicagos territory with a 3 point lead and about 2:40 left on the clock. Bears had used their final TO. And they go empty set and throw for the first...and fail. 

Stupid. You run for it there all day. Howard and Cohen were eating the Pack Ds lunch on that drive. You run it, and get the first OR burn more clock, get to the 2 minute warning, and then kick the Football. 

 

Complete stupidity. 

 

And Mack was responsible for 2 TOs and a score. And this idiot is blaming hkm for the loss? Kyle Fuller would  disagree. 

GTFO. LOL

[Defense Wins Championships]

18 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

I generally agree w the OP’s sentiment on this but his username is a bit ironic. 

I will always have a passion and a burning desire/love for the defensive side of the ball. 

But as a defensive minded Football fan I know enough to know that you never trade away two 1st round picks along with $23.5 million dollars per season for no 27 year old defensive player who throughout 4 years never won a damn thing. 

I rather continue to improve our defense moving forward (a Fowler Jr. type of FA outside/edge pass rusher) while building around our QB position with a 2019 1st round Franchise LT in order to protect Sam Darnold's blindside, possibly a Le'Veon Bell in order to make it easier for Sam Darnold along with either a 2020 1st round WR/Center/LG etc etc. 

Khalil Mack wouldn't make any of the above possible...

[Defense Wins Championships]

Sorry for creating this thread with a knee jerk reaction (maybe we can merge with the other Khalil Mack thread) I just got excited and carried away immediately after watching Khalil Mack's defense blow a 20 point and then 4th quarter 17 point lead. My apologies. 

[14 in Green]

8 minutes ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

Sorry for creating this thread with a knee jerk reaction (maybe we can merge with the other Khalil Mack thread) I just got excited and carried away immediately after watching Khalil Mack's defense blow a 20 point and then 4th quarter 17 point lead. My apologies. 

You started in on the NFL thread in the first half, and kept going nonstop. You said midway through the second half you couldn't wait to start this thread. There was nothing knee jerk about it. You don't have to apologize, just own it.

[jgb]

1 hour 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). 

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and in many respects, I agree. However the characterization that Chicago was "forced" to pay him $23.5M/year or to do anything is way off base.

[jgb]

20 minutes ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

I will always have a passion and a burning desire/love for the defensive side of the ball. 

But as a defensive minded Football fan I know enough to know that you never trade away two 1st round picks along with $23.5 million dollars per season for no 27 year old defensive player who throughout 4 years never won a damn thing

I rather continue to improve our defense moving forward (a Fowler Jr. type of FA outside/edge pass rusher) while building around our QB position with a 2019 1st round Franchise LT in order to protect Sam Darnold's blindside, possibly a Le'Veon Bell in order to make it easier for Sam Darnold along with either a 2020 1st round WR/Center/LG etc etc. 

Khalil Mack wouldn't make any of the above possible...

A very weak argument. You're basically saying that every Jet after 1969 is useless. Football is a team sport. Barry Sanders isn't a bum because he never won a ring.

[Defense Wins Championships]

12 minutes ago, jgb said:

A very weak argument. You're basically saying that every Jet after 1969 is useless. Football is a team sport. Barry Sanders isn't a bum because he never won a ring.

Not what I'm saying at all. 

But what I am saying is that you don't trade two 1st round draft picks away for a 27 year old Defensive player while paying him $23.5 million per season at the same time; especially when your offense is horrible to begin with. 

That's what I'm saying. 

 

[jgb]

3 minutes ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

Not what I'm saying at all. 

But what I am saying is that you don't trade two 1st round draft picks away for a 27 year old Defensive player while paying him $23.5 million per season at the same time; especially when your offense is horrible to begin with. 

That's what I'm saying. 

 

Yeah I get it that you disagree but I don’t see why we need regulations and rules with pay caps, either. All the better than some teams make these kinds of “mistakes.”

[Defense Wins Championships]

The Los Angeles Rams did it right (imo). 

They already had a stout defense in place and never had to trade away two 1st round picks away in order to re sign (their own) Aaron Donald. The Rams also have an elite offense in place with a top tier QB/RB duo in Goff/Gurley and just added an elite offensive weapon in Brandin Cooks.

Good luck to Chicago on improving their offense/defense/team over the next two years and by the time they can truly improve Khalil Mack will be 30 years old...

The Raiders will now build around a young Derek Carr with three (3) 1st round draft picks over the next two years along with a lot more available salary cap space (without Mack). 

The joke will be on Chicago.

 

 

[14 in Green]

7 minutes ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

The Los Angeles Rams did it right (imo). 

They already had a stout defense in place and never had to trade away two 1st round picks away in order to re sign (their own) Aaron Donald. The Rams also have an elite offense in place with a top tier QB/RB duo in Goff/Gurley and just added an elite offensive weapon in Brandin Cooks.

Good luck to Chicago on improving their offense/defense/team over the next two years and by the time they can truly improve Khalil Mack will be 30 years old...

The Raiders will now build around a young Derek Carr with three (3) 1st round draft picks over the next two years along with a lot more available salary cap space (without Mack). 

The joke will be on Chicago.

 

 

It took a few hours, but this is a good, well thought out post. Where was this guy all night in the SUNDAY GAME THREAD and the beginning of this thread?

[BornJetsFan1983]

2 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). 

 

Hard to argue with that

[JoJoTownsell1]

In Mack's defense, Nagy did his best Andy Reid impression in the second half and gave the game away.

[Tony MaC]

I think most would look at that game and say that Mack lived up to his top dollar (for a defenseman) contract and was a key part of putting Chicago in position to win despite other factors- like their still developing QB not doing much in the second half, a bad coaching choice as noted above, a dropped pick by Fuller and A-Rod being A God- lead to their defeat.

In fact if he gave an effort like he did in GB on the regular I'm pretty sure the Bears would be happy with the guy they paid such a hefty price for because he'd be living up to expectations. And honestly the Bears would be a more dangerous and competitive team if that happened, just because it wasn't the ultimate X-factor that lead to a victory today doesn't mean it wont be in the future.

Also, despite the high price to both acquire and maintain him for the long haul I don't think the expectation was for Mack to literally uplift the team to a championship on his lonesome. He was just supposed to be a very big part of reaching that goal along with Mitch and others.

TL;DR, I think Mack met expectations last night, just not the lofty one's set by the OP.

 

 

[Villain The Foe]

5 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). 

 

This is poorly thought out. 

How many teams have an Aaron Rodgers that can bring back a team from a 20-0 deficit? 

How many teams have a Kahlil Mack that can actually provide to that 20-0 lead by causing a strip sack fumble recovery and an INT for a pick 6....and that was after he was harassing Rodgers to the point that he had to actually leave the damn game?

 

I have a question for you. How many NFL teams have a QB that would be able to pull off that performance that Aaron put on last night? You're not just comparing Mack to some general team's offense and QB, you're talking about a guy who's going to go down as one of the greatest ever in Aaron Rodgers. 

Maybe someone should ask, "Why the hell couldnt Trubisky throw a TD last night or the rushing game put up more points? Trubisky had a 20-0 lead in the 3rd Qtr and couldnt help his defense by scoring TD's but instead 1 lousy field goal. 

 

Kahlil Mack has accounted for more TD's than the QB of the bears. If Trubisky was the QB for the Packers last night down 20 points in the 3rd Qtr do you think you'd have made this poorly thought-out thread? 

What you said is just as ridiculous as if someone said "See, this is why Macc should have given Ryan Fitzpatrick a long term deal" When we know that the Saints defense is as poor as Aaron Rodgers is great. 

 

Pump the breaks, Kahlil Mack was worth that trade, the bears won that trade and the only reason why they were even in the damn game is because of Kahlil. Mack's the reason for those turnovers, Mack contributed more to those points than Trubisky, Mack's the reason Aaron was out of the game and Mack's the reason why Kizer had a disastrous night. 

You put Mack on the field for 16 games and more often than not, the reason why they lose any games will be because the offense couldnt capitalize. 

That performance was "JJ Watt in his prime" but with Super Saiyan gold hair under his Bears helmet. Dude is playing at  legendary status. The closest defender they have at stopping Aaron Rodgers IS Kahlil Mack, hence the reason for the trade. They have a much better chance stopping Aaron with Mack then they do expecting an overdrafted, over-rated Trubisky to actually play like the QB they need him to be. If Trubisky just threw 1 TD this wouldn't even be a conversation.

It's not like the Bears is aasking Mitch to be...."Aaron Rodgers", but rather to just "do your damn job". If he did that, along with Mack's performance the Bears would have beaten the Packers. 

 

I hope this thread wasn't serious. 

[jamesr]

Those grapes must have been real sour.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Gastineau Lives]

6 hours ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

He did absolutely nothing during the 2nd half once Aaron Rodgers returned. 

And Chicago's offense shouldn't of had to do anything while up 20-0 and up 17 points during the 4th.

If Khalil Mack was "Lawrence Taylor" or an elite player worth two 1st round draft picks he doesn't allow a 20 point second half comeback (to begin with) along with doing nothing at all in order to prevent the biggest Green Bay Packers 4th quarter comeback of All-Time (Franchise history). 

It's Super Bowl or bust for Khalil Mack and Chicago as a franchise.

You can never blame Chicago's offense again.

Mack is being paid elite Franchise Quarterback money and cost his team two 1st round picks. 

If Mack needs to depend on Chicago's "Quarterback"? Well, then; he isn't who Chicago thought he was...

"It's Super Bowl or bust..." What does this even MEAN?

Shouldn't OF had?

Can't blame the offense? The offense scored 16 ******* points against a bad defense.

If there was EVER a defensive player that almost won a game single-handedly it was Mack.

Why is Quarterback in quotes?

And I have a feeling Mack is EXACTLY who Chicago thought he was. I'm sure he exceeded their wildest dreams last night. But go ahead and pin the loss on him.

You are the buttfumbliest and longest winded new poster I've seen in a while and that's saying something.

 

[Jetster]

22 minutes ago, Gastineau Lives said:

"It's Super Bowl or bust..." What does this even MEAN?

Shouldn't OF had?

Can't blame the offense? The offense scored 16 ******* points against a bad defense.

If there was EVER a defensive player that almost won a game single-handedly it was Mack.

Why is Quarterback in quotes?

And I have a feeling Mack is EXACTLY who Chicago thought he was. I'm sure he exceeded their wildest dreams last night. But go ahead and pin the loss on him.

You are the buttfumbliest and longest winded new poster I've seen in a while. I'm going to ******* hate you.

 

Not only that, Mack probably got a bit tired after DOMINATING the 1st half without having 1 day of CAMP! Are you kidding me? He probably just ran out of gas from not being in football shape. He's gonna be a monster for Chicago & they won't be playing Arod again except in Chicago. 

This defense will beat up a lot of teams this year. New coach, new offense, Bears are a dangerous team in 2018. Surely no walk over.

[jack48]

6 hours ago, detectivekimble said:

How many points did the Bears offense score?  16?  That ain't beating anyone.

the final TD was not a great play by Rodgers. It was a terrible jpb hy the Bears secondary.  A;most unfathomable. Great comeback effort, though.  The winning TD was not Rodgers magic, though.  75 yards through the center of the Beare defense, playing protect, no less?

[Ghost]

Aaron Rodgers. 

[BrickTamland]

Fantastic for the sport that rodga is healthy

[mphtrilogy]

7 hours ago, David Harris said:

Well our GM agrees with you.

Rodgers and Mack are two of the best in the biz. Elite QB play trumps everything.

id happily pay mack that contract but you need those rookie contracts usually to lock up young contributors on their rookie deals if all goes right:

 

Nothing on Mack’s level but some pass rushers should shake loose next off-season

And this is why it’s an exciting season coming up folks... here we go...

[JetFaninMI]

7 hours ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

Sorry for creating this thread with a knee jerk reaction (maybe we can merge with the other Khalil Mack thread) I just got excited and carried away immediately after watching Khalil Mack's defense blow a 20 point and then 4th quarter 17 point lead. My apologies. 

Well if it was anyone else but Rodgers some might agree with you. The Bears couldn't put any more points on the board that's why they lost. Mack played extremely well for a guy who basically just joined a new team and learned a new defense on the fly. I wouldn't have given the Raiders what the Bears did but they felt Mack was worth it and he played a great game for them. Mack didn't lose this game the Bears offense did.

[SoFlaJets]

What made me chuckle was the irony of a post by a guy who goes by the name of Defense Wins Championships pretty much confirming that in 2018, it no longer does.

[rldev]

8 hours ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

Not what I'm saying at all. 

But what I am saying is that you don't trade two 1st round draft picks away for a 27 year old Defensive player while paying him $23.5 million per season at the same time; especially when your offense is horrible to begin with. 

That's what I'm saying. 

 

Thier offense should not be horrible. They invested a lot of resources in the offense this offseason. Jordan Howard and Tarik Cohen are an excellent 1-2 rb punch. It will be up to Trubisky.

[dbatesman]

8 hours ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

I seen so many fans literally crown Khalil Mack

seems dubious

[Losmeister]

like alotta brains around here...

 

small sample size....

 

one thing...  Mitch ******* trubisky...     smh

[rldev]

1 hour ago, JetFaninMI said:

Well if it was anyone else but Rodgers some might agree with you. The Bears couldn't put any more points on the board that's why they lost. Mack played extremely well for a guy who basically just joined a new team and learned a new defense on the fly. I wouldn't have given the Raiders what the Bears did but they felt Mack was worth it and he played a great game for them. Mack didn't lose this game the Bears offense did.

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.

[Villain The Foe]

2 hours ago, Gastineau Lives said:

"It's Super Bowl or bust..." What does this even MEAN?

Shouldn't OF had?

Can't blame the offense? The offense scored 16 ******* points against a bad defense.

If there was EVER a defensive player that almost won a game single-handedly it was Mack.

Why is Quarterback in quotes?

And I have a feeling Mack is EXACTLY who Chicago thought he was. I'm sure he exceeded their wildest dreams last night. But go ahead and pin the loss on him.

You are the buttfumbliest and longest winded new poster I've seen in a while and that's saying something.

 

Exactly. If there was ever a defender that singlehandedly put his entire team in position to win, but gets wrongfully blamed for the loss...it's Mack. 

Funny how folks talk about how you dont give up those picks for a non-quarterback, yet dont say a freaking word about the bears QB performance in the 2nd half of that football game. 

The biasness is at an all-time high. When a defender provides not just turnovers, but touchdowns, he should be the last person blamed for a loss, especially when his performance was a bigger contributor to the offense than the QB heading the actual offense. 

Folks are salty about what was given up in the trade, but know damn well based on last nights performance he's already showing to be worth it. 

[Barry McCockinner]

The idea that Khalil Mack is overrated based on last nights game is so incredibly foolish and illogical that I fear for the children.

 

 

[ZachEY]

22 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Funny how folks talk about how you dont give up those picks for a non-quarterback, yet dont say a freaking word about the bears QB performance in the 2nd half of that football game.  

I don't think anyone is blaming Mack.  In the Mack thread I expressed DWC's novella in a sentence, "Kahlil Mack is an absolute monster, and the Bears are 0-1."

The reason you don't give up all those picks for a non-QB is because, ultimately, the good QB won the game, as happens in so many games.  Mack's dominant performance was not enough to stop Rodgers all game, and was not enough to overcome Trubisky's 2nd half.  Now, not every game Mack plays will be that dominant, and not every game Trubisky plays, will he disappear for the entire half, but the point that many of us made, and continue to make, is that you've sacrificed just about everything you've got to improve the team, and last night, you got as good a performance out of Mack as you can ever dream of getting, and it wasn't enough.

Bears will win games, Mack will make big plays, but this team could finish last in the division, and have no #1s for 2-years to try and get out of that spot.

[Villain The Foe]

2 hours ago, TeddEY said:

I don't think anyone is blaming Mack.  In the Mack thread I expressed DWC's novella in a sentence, "Kahlil Mack is an absolute monster, and the Bears are 0-1."

The reason you don't give up all those picks for a non-QB is because, ultimately, the good QB won the game, as happens in so many ways.  Mack's dominant performance was not enough to stop Rodgers all game, and was not enough to overcome Trubisky's 2nd half.  Now, not every game Mack plays will be that dominant, and not every game Trubisky plays, will he disappear for the entire half, but the point that many of us made, and continue to make, is that you've sacrificed just about everything you've got to improve the team, and last night, you got as good a performance out of Mack as you can ever dream of getting, and it wasn't enough.

Bears will win games, Mack will make big plays, but this team could finish last in the division, and have no #1s for 2-years to try and get out of that spot.

No, not "a good QB won the game". One of the best QB's to ever put on an NFL uniform won the game. 

We cant water down who the QB is yet talk about how you cant give up those draft picks unless its a QB. 

The fact is the most important position outside of QB is a pass rusher. If you can give up 2 first round picks while getting him and a 2nd round in return you do it. Why? Because you can asked for much more than just 2 first round picks for a guy like Aaron Rodgers. 

If the Bears didn't have Mack they wouldn't have been been in the game with a 20-0 lead.

 

You know who wished they had Mack? Drew Brees. Why? Because he can put up 40 point games and lose to guys like Ryan Fitzpatrick because the defense couldnt stop a nosebleed. 

 

[Lupz27]

9 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). 

 

He actually did, but Fuller dropped the easy INT of a glancing deflection by Mack at the line of scrimmage on the Packers last scoring drive, the INT would have led to 3 kneel downs, Mack did all he could.

[Lupz27]

If you want to argue a team with a sh*t QB like Trubisky has no business making a play for Mack I’ll buy that, but ANY team who thinks their QB is good you make this trade the Bears made, and never look back, the Jets, and Rams were also in on Mack, if the Rams got Mack forget it damn.

[ZachEY]

4 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

No, not "a good QB won the game". One of the best QB's to ever put on an NFL uniform won the game. 

We cant water down who the QB is yet talk about how you cant give up those QB unless its a QB. 

The fact is the most important position outside of QB is a pass rusher. If you can give up 2 first round picks while getting him and a 2nd round in return you do it. Why? Because you can asked for much more than just 2 first round picks for a guy like Aaron Rodgers. 

 If the Bears didn't have Mack they wouldn't have been been in the game with a 20-0 lead.

 

 You know who wished they had Mack? Drew Brees. Why? Because he can put up 40 point games and lose to guys like Ryan Fitzpatrick because the defense couldnt stop a nosebleed. 

  

In this case, yes.  One of the best ever won the game.

However, is your expectation that Mack will also continue on his trajectory of a sack, forced fumble, fumble recovery, interception, and defensive TD each game?  Or, do you think that will come back down to earth as well?

If/When the Bears don't make the playoffs this year, what then?

[ZachEY]

4 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

If you want to argue a team with a sh*t QB like Trubisky has no business making a play for Mack I’ll buy that, but ANY team who thinks their QB is good you make this trade the Bears made, and never look back, the Jets, and Rams were also in on Mack, if the Rams got Mack forget it damn.

That's exactly what most are arguing.

Yes, if there's a team that's already a playoff team, looking to make a final push over the top, then yes, you can afford to do this.  Though I'm still not certain I would.  But the Bears could finish last in their division.  At the very least, I don't think anyone has them ahead of GB or MN.  What then?