Jump to content

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


Defense Wins Championships

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Jets Recent First Defensive Rounders:

Jamal Adams

Leonard Williams 

Darron Lee

Calvin Pryor

Dee Milliner 

Kyle Wilson

Mo Wilkerson

Sheldon Richardson

Quenton Coples

All of them put together havent made the impact Kalil Mack does.

 

Nuthn from nuth LEEEEAves NUTHN

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TeddEY said:

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?

No, that's not my expectation. But I also dont expect folks to act like it was his fault after he has a sack, forced fumble, fumble recovery, interception and a defensive TD. And lets not say that folks weren't blaming him when they clearly said "Mack's defense squandered away a 20-0 lead". It's literally blaming him as if Mack didn't put more points on the board than the QB. 

Folks were simply looking for a reason to support why they thought the trade was a bad one....but this example was a poor one. 

EDIT: Lets also cut it out with the "playoffs" talk. Drew Brees is a legendary QB and has missed plenty of playoff appearances and I dont see folks blaming him and his 5000 yards and 80 TD's as how he "should have done more because he's the QB". It's a team sport. If they dont make the playoffs, I HIGHLY DOUBT that it would be because they traded for Mack and he didn't put the team on his back. This isnt the NBA folks, lets stop acting like it. 

 

C'mon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

Jets Recent First Defensive Rounders:

Jamal Adams

Leonard Williams 

Darron Lee

Calvin Pryor

Dee Milliner 

Kyle Wilson

Mo Wilkerson

Sheldon Richardson

Quenton Coples

 

LOL. All of them put together havent made the impact Kalil Mack does. I'd send any two of them out of town for Mack....too bad most of them are already out.of the league or languishing as journeymen. 

 

 

Kalil Mack, in a half of Football, produced more than that entire list of players combined. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

No, that's not my expectation. But I also dont expect folks to act like it was his fault after he has a sack, forced fumble, fumble recovery, interception and a defensive TD. And lets not say that folks weren't blaming him when they clearly said "Mack's defense squandered away a 20-0 lead". It's literally blaming him as if Mack didn't put more points on the board than the QB. 

 Folks were simply looking for a reason to support why they thought the trade was a bad one....but this example was a poor one. 

 EDIT: Lets also cut it out with the "playoffs" talk. Drew Brees is a legendary QB and has missed plenty of playoff appearances and I dont see folks blaming him and his 5000 yards and 80 TD's as how he "should have done more because he's the QB". It's a team sport. If they dont make the playoffs, I HIGHLY DOUBT that it would be because they traded for Mack and he didn't put the team on his back. This isnt the NBA folks, lets stop acting like it. 

  

 C'mon. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

Yes, Khalil Mack can put up some great individual sack numbers but no; he is not this game changing, impactful type of dominant franchise leader that some make him out to be. 

I'm sorry but you do not give up two 1st round draft picks along with paying a 27 year old Defensive player $23.5 million dollars per season who...

has a career losing record of 28-38 (including 4 years with Oakland, 1 playoff loss and last night's loss) and a career losing percentage of (.424%).

You just don't. 

Who even during his Defensive Player of the Year campaign could only manage a combined 0 sacks during his teams Wild Card loss.  

And I have news for you people. Khalil Mack is not the only pass rusher in this league as 8 players had more sacks than Khalil Mack in 2016 and 14 others had more sacks than Khalil Mack just last year of 2017. 

God forbid a team gave up two 1st round draft picks while paying $23.5 million per year for a QB with a losing record of 28-38, a career losing percentage of .424%, 1 winning season when in comparison to 3 losing season(s) and an 0-1 postseason record (wild card loss) after 4+ years of play... 

The Raiders are the real winners of this trade as they'll now have three 1st round draft picks in order to build around Derek Carr over the next two years while the Bears will have zero chance of ever becoming better than the likes of Green Bay, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Los Angeles Rams and Atlanta (just to name a few). 

LOL You just can't control yourself can you? :elmer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

It matters because IF Trubisky was as good as say Wentz, or Goff this trade is a no brainer, and Mack would make a HUGE difference to those teams towards winning a Super Bowl with the exact same roster as the Bears have if you just swap Trubisky for a healthy Wentz, or Goff.  And again the Bears think Trubisky is their Wentz, or Goff that’s where they are wrong the Mack trade with that thinking is 100% the right move.

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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....

Link to comment
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). 

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...