4 Teams With Serious Interest in Khalil Mack

[napo55]

Really no point in discussing injury regarding getting Mack vs. drafting one or two 1st rounders. It's apples to apples. Either a player has an injury history or they don't. Any player can get hurt at any time so.... :thinking:


Odd that it seems those saying to get Mack is safer than Pace drafting another guy in the next 1st Rd or 2 is "safer", as if Pace has drafted guys with recurring injury histories? Unless someone wants to complain about the later round guys who fell due to non-career affecting injuries...like Jackson? Fitts is a late Rd flyer so no crying there. Anyhow, we digress.


I've yet to hear any response to my question...what's OAK's cap status and how likely are they to even be able to come close to Mack's financial expectations??

I'm hearing it's expected he'll stay, but can they pay? Big cuts needed in OAK to get the cap cash? - - further...what about these other teams supposedly making calls??

Oakland is hurting for cap space in 2018 (-12.5 million for the total roster and +6.8 m for the top 51.) San Francisco is at 34 m and the Bears at 23.8 m. But Oakland is in much better shape in 2019 at +44.6 m, with the Bears at 34.3 m and SF at 17.7 m.

So what does this all mean? Beats me.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

What is there to explain



In response to a poster saying there is risk in drafting Mack and that there are pros and cons I pointed out there are pros and cons to keeping those drafts picks. The con being you could easily draft a bust like Pace did with White.

Like what do you want me to do in this situation? Pretend like the draft is not a risk just to make you feel warm and fuzzy? If people are going to continually harp on the 1st round picks then it is perfectly reasonable to point out Mack is a surer thing than 1st round pick who could easily be a bust. It is like some of yall are hurt by the truth.

I think people are making the mistake of using Pace´s 1st round picks or Kevin White in this argument because then the other side calls it White or Pace bashing.

The better argument is using Bears 1st round history since Urlacher (2000, so that the other side has 1 Hall of Hamer on their side of the argument) and ask, "Which back to back 1st round picks would not be worth trading for Mack (seeing that he is on the right path to get to the Hall of Fame himself)?

Urlacher and David Terrell (or Cade McNown in 1999)?

This gives the other side a possible answer solely because of Urlacher, but everyone knows that pass rusher is more important, and makes more money, than middle linebacker (quick: Von Miller or Luke Kuechly?)

Rex Grossman and Tommie Harris?

Although Grossman had some really nice games, he also had the Bad Grossman persona. Tommie Harris was special though the injury bug came with him into the NFL and eventually took away his talent.

Greg Olson and Chris Williams?

Although Greg Olson was and is really good, he is not in the Urlacher/Mack level. Chris Willliams ... need I say more?

Kyle Long and Kyle Fuller?

Is getting two guys named Kyle (quick: name another Kyle) really worth it? Although they fill two important needs, they are not worth what Mack would bring if he keeps up his play.

White/Floyd/Trubisky/Smith?

White´s injuries have kept him out for most of his career; Floyd has looked good, not great, and has a case of the injury bug; Trubisky is an unknown (some have already written him off, which is stupid though he has to have a upward arrow this year) and Smith has all the potential in the world which means absolutely nothing until he shows it in the NFL.

So ... someone who has their current production as worthy of making it to the Hall of Fame eventually is well worth the risk of two 1st round picks because Hall of Fame worthy players do not come around that often and because the 1st round has, at best, a coin toss´ chance at success, not Hall of Fame success but rather starting 5 years in the NFL success.

2000 9 Brian Urlacher ^ Linebacker/Safety New Mexico
2001 8 David Terrell Wide receiver Michigan
2002 29 Marc Colombo Offensive tackle Boston College
2003 14 Michael Haynes Defensive end Penn State [v]
2003 22 Rex Grossman Quarterback Florida [v]
2004 14 Tommie Harris † Defensive tackle Oklahoma
2005 4 Cedric Benson Halfback Texas
2006 — No pick — — [w]
2007 31 Greg Olsen Tight end Miami
2008 14 Chris Williams Offensive tackle Vanderbilt
2009 — No pick — — [x]
2010 — No pick — — [x]
2011 29 Gabe Carimi Offensive tackle Wisconsin
2012 19 Shea McClellin Defensive end Boise State
2013 20 Kyle Long † Offensive tackle Oregon
2014 14 Kyle Fuller Cornerback Virginia Tech
2015 7 Kevin White Wide receiver West Virginia
2016 9 Leonard Floyd Linebacker Georgia
2017 2 Mitchell Trubisky Quarterback North Carolina
2018 8 Roquan Smith Linebacker Georgia

 

[IBleedBearsBlood]

I think he is worth a first and a second.

Double digit sack guy who has never missed a game. They don't come around very often.

2 firsts is a tough price because you are giving up, between 2 players, up to 10 years of cap controlled salary.

Giving up 2 players yes, but the percentage is really low on those 2 players actually being all stars. Even average at best. We’ve seen it with our own draft picks time after time. You give up 2 picks for Mack, it’ll be as you get one great player and another guy that didn’t make it in the NFL.


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk

 

[IBleedBearsBlood]

Just don't forget that it's two first rounders and $22+ mil per year for 4-5 years.

You gotta pay great players. It’s what you do.


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk

 

[Visionman]

You gotta pay great players. It’s what you do.


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk

Its not happening, people.

 

[IBleedBearsBlood]

Its not happening, people.

Happening or not, doesn’t change the fact you pay high for great players.


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk

 

[Visionman]

Happening or not, doesn’t change the fact you pay high for great players.


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk

And it doesn't change the fact a team can only handle so many of those contracts under the salary cap and still field a quality team...and sometimes not even one.

Sometimes, paying those types of players hurts more than it helps.

 

[dweebs19]

And it doesn't change the fact a team can only handle so many of those contracts under the salary cap and still field a quality team...and sometimes not even one.

Sometimes, paying those types of players hurts more than it helps.

what other big money player do the Bears need to have under the cap?

 

[Midway Fields]

Did we trade for him yet?

 

[Visionman]

what other big money player do the Bears need to have under the cap?

The correct question is, which of our current players are going to likely require big money to sign in the next 4-5 years? Those are the guys we may have to part with to have Mack. Not to mention the draft picks and FAs we won't be able to pick up to replace those guys if you let them walk.

This isn't Madden. You guys act like there are only positives to getting a guy like Mack. But most GMs see it differently...for a reason...

 

[dweebs19]

The correct question is, which of our current players are going to likely require big money to sign in the next 4-5 years? Those are the guys we may have to part with to have Mack. Not to mention the draft picks and FAs we won't be able to pick up to replace those guys if you let them walk.

This isn't Madden. You guys act like there are only positives to getting a guy like Mack. But most GMs see it differently...for a reason...

ok...and which player are they?

 

[iueyedoc]

what other big money player do the Bears need to have under the cap?

Goldman's deal is the big one the stands out like a huge zit. They need to get that done. After this season Howard and Whitehair will need to be considered. Amos is due a decent raise.

 

[remydat]

Really no point in discussing injury regarding getting Mack vs. drafting one or two 1st rounders. It's apples to apples. Either a player has an injury history or they don't. Any player can get hurt at any time so.... :thinking:

Odd that it seems those saying to get Mack is safer than Pace drafting another guy in the next 1st Rd or 2 is "safer", as if Pace has drafted guys with recurring injury histories? Unless someone wants to complain about the later round guys who fell due to non-career affecting injuries...like Jackson? Fitts is a late Rd flyer so no crying there. Anyhow, we digress.

It is safer because Mack has proven production and a proven health record in the NFL. It doesn't mean he will still be good or still stay healthy but the probability of his remaining good and remaining healthy is higher than that of a draft pick who has no record of production and health in the NFL.

Further the comment wasn't about whether Pace should be aware of injury. Pace had no way of knowing White was going to be injured for 3 years but that is precisely the reason why Mack is a lower risk. Shit happens in the NFL and it is a violent sport so all the more reason to lock in someone with a more stable history in the NFL if you can.

 

[gpphat]

The correct question is, which of our current players are going to likely require big money to sign in the next 4-5 years? Those are the guys we may have to part with to have Mack. Not to mention the draft picks and FAs we won't be able to pick up to replace those guys if you let them walk.

This isn't Madden. You guys act like there are only positives to getting a guy like Mack. But most GMs see it differently...for a reason...

None, most deals are friendly later in the contract where cutting a player would be cap friendly. In 4-5 years Mack will be 31-32 and hopefully by then the Bears could have drafted his replacement.

 

[remydat]

I think people are making the mistake of using Pace´s 1st round picks or Kevin White in this argument because then the other side calls it White or Pace bashing.

The better argument is using Bears 1st round history since Urlacher (2000, so that the other side has 1 Hall of Hamer on their side of the argument) and ask, "Which back to back 1st round picks would not be worth trading for Mack (seeing that he is on the right path to get to the Hall of Fame himself)?

Urlacher and David Terrell (or Cade McNown in 1999)?

This gives the other side a possible answer solely because of Urlacher, but everyone knows that pass rusher is more important, and makes more money, than middle linebacker (quick: Von Miller or Luke Kuechly?)

Rex Grossman and Tommie Harris?

Although Grossman had some really nice games, he also had the Bad Grossman persona. Tommie Harris was special though the injury bug came with him into the NFL and eventually took away his talent.

Greg Olson and Chris Williams?

Although Greg Olson was and is really good, he is not in the Urlacher/Mack level. Chris Willliams ... need I say more?

Kyle Long and Kyle Fuller?

Is getting two guys named Kyle (quick: name another Kyle) really worth it? Although they fill two important needs, they are not worth what Mack would bring if he keeps up his play.

White/Floyd/Trubisky/Smith?

White´s injuries have kept him out for most of his career; Floyd has looked good, not great, and has a case of the injury bug; Trubisky is an unknown (some have already written him off, which is stupid though he has to have a upward arrow this year) and Smith has all the potential in the world which means absolutely nothing until he shows it in the NFL.

So ... someone who has their current production as worthy of making it to the Hall of Fame eventually is well worth the risk of two 1st round picks because Hall of Fame worthy players do not come around that often and because the 1st round has, at best, a coin toss´ chance at success, not Hall of Fame success but rather starting 5 years in the NFL success.

I think it obvious that the point was more general ie draft picks are an unknown, Mack is more certain and just threw in the Pace stuff because his draft history is more relevant than other GMs and frankly just to watch the Pace nuthuggers get all pissy.

I certainly wouldn't take White and Floyd over Mack and whether I would take Floyd and Trubs, or Trubs and Smith is a huge unknown primarily based on how good Trubs ends up being but even if Trubs is a stub that still has little bearing on things because we aren't in the market for QB over the next couple of years. If getting a QB were on the table going forward then I would be more hesitant to give up 1st round picks for Mack but we presumably got our QB.

The main hole left to fill is really pass rusher and I certainly think Mack is likely to be better than any pass rusher + other player that we can get the next two years. So why the hell not. We can continually be looking to next year hoping and praying we can draft a stud or we can simply try and get a known stud now. I think the latter makes more sense as I am not seeing a lot of massive holes on this team quite honestly beyond pass rusher.

 

[remydat]

Giving up 2 players yes, but the percentage is really low on those 2 players actually being all stars. Even average at best. We’ve seen it with our own draft picks time after time. You give up 2 picks for Mack, it’ll be as you get one great player and another guy that didn’t make it in the NFL.


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk

This is a good way to think about it. Just assume you drafted DPOY type talent and the other 1st round pick was a bust. In the last 18 years as Jojo so astutely pointed out there is really no combo consecutive 1st round picks I would take over Mack save Urlacher and Terrell and only because of Urlacher as Terrell adds no value to that equation. You could maybe make the argument for Gross and Harris or Harris and Benson but again that is driven primarily off of Harris and I still prefer Mack in that situation.

So don't get people's fixation on draft picks as if they are slam dunks. The Bears history of drafting is all the more reason to get Mack if you can.

 

[iffybiz]

Oakland is hurting for cap space in 2018 (-12.5 million for the total roster and +6.8 m for the top 51.) San Francisco is at 34 m and the Bears at 23.8 m. But Oakland is in much better shape in 2019 at +44.6 m, with the Bears at 34.3 m and SF at 17.7 m.

So what does this all mean? Beats me.

What it means is that the Raiders came into this hoping he’d play under his contract this year, they can’t afford to give him a raise this year. Next year they have the money to do a long term deal.
The fact his agent knows this and they are still pushing for a new deal makes you think they want out.
There is after all a way around this, Mack signs an extension not a new contract. The fact that this hasn’t been done makes you think that one or both sides aren’t sure they want to do a long term deal


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[remydat]

The correct question is, which of our current players are going to likely require big money to sign in the next 4-5 years? Those are the guys we may have to part with to have Mack. Not to mention the draft picks and FAs we won't be able to pick up to replace those guys if you let them walk.

This isn't Madden. You guys act like there are only positives to getting a guy like Mack. But most GMs see it differently...for a reason...

Which current Bears player would you rather have than Mack? The only guys that come to mind are Trubs if he ends up being a Franchise QB. And Trubs will need a big contract just as Mack's contract is winding down so not much overlap. Smith even if he is an All-Pro won't matter as by the time he is due big money Mack's contract will be expiring as well. So let's go through some options.

Hicks - Not a free agent until 2021 and will be 32 so not going to get big money.
Goldman - Free agent this year but unlikely to get more than 10 million a year.
Howard - Free agent in 2019 but RBs don't typically get big money particularly ones that aren't great in passing game as well.
Floyd - Free agent in 2019 and is only a year younger than Mack. No way I choose him over Mack unless Floyd blew the fuck up and became a DPOY of year candidate while Mack bombed.

So really there is no one on this roster whose contract poses a huge issue for the Bears if we got Mack. The Bears are uniquely lined up to be able to fit him into our current cap structure over the next 3-5 years. The only real cost would be us not going after any big name FAs the next couple of years which we probably shouldn't be doing anyway if we addressed pass rush.

 

[dabears70]

Because of shit like this is why.

Hahaha Remy is a moron and bashes anything Bears any chance he gets.

 

[ZOMBIE@CTESPN]

what other big money player do the Bears need to have under the cap?

Goldman and Amos extensions would take a big chunk of cap

But never know if we do trade what type of trade package we are offering. If it’s just draft picks or combo of picks and a player(s). Pick plus one of these guys Goldman, Floyd, Howard would be only players I can see Oakland would be interested in