- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,513
- Liked Posts:
- 24,032
- Location:
- USA
The Bears sucked because of the wrong choice at QB and the head coach....
Mack didn't prevent the Bears from winning.
Mack didn't prevent the Bears from winning.
alswank87
Active member
- Joined:
- Jul 15, 2021
- Posts:
- 756
- Liked Posts:
- 471
He’s a great player. His contract and the 1st round picks it cost to trade for him crippled us. Both can be true at once.
TL1961
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 24, 2013
- Posts:
- 33,581
- Liked Posts:
- 18,239
The Mack trade was a good move. No way it was “way too much “.
TL1961
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 24, 2013
- Posts:
- 33,581
- Liked Posts:
- 18,239
But they’re not
Les Grossman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jun 22, 2011
- Posts:
- 14,245
- Liked Posts:
- 12,826
Not even remotely true.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 59,654
- Liked Posts:
- 38,275
Let's imagine if we never traded for Mack
2018 - Without Mack the team wins no where close to 12 games so lets say they win 8 games and pick 10th.
2019 - They draft one of Brian Burns, Montez Sweat, Rashan Gary, Christian Wilkens. I will say Burns. Lets also say they sign a top FA from 2019 with the Mack money. I will go with Barr.
So no Mack in 2019 but we have a rookie Burns and Barr. Does that make us studs in 2019 with Trubisky still at QB. I say hell no so we still dont make playoffs and probably finish around the same spot ie 19th. We take Justin Jefferson but lose Kmet as that was the Raiders pick. So let's say we still have some Mack money and sign Austin Hooper or Hunter Henry.
2020 - So now instead of Mack and Kmet we have Burns, Barr, Jefferson and Henry. Still not winning a SB with Trubisky but let's say we are good enough to make playoffs. Think we still have to dump Trubisky and trade up for Fields or Mac Jones if we have to trade with someone else because too far back for Fields.
2021 - Ok so now Fields and Dalton have better WR weapons in 2021 and we finish slightly better but still ain't doing shit in playoffs with rookie Fields, Barr, Burns, Jefferson and Henry.
2022 - Here is where the problem arises. That team maybe shows enough that Bears don't fire Pace. If so then Bears are fucked. But let's say they still fire Pace and hire Poles and Flus. In 2022 we don't have Mack which means we don't get Brisker. It also means we likely don't trade off Burns or Jefferson because they are young enough for Poles to build with them. Also means we dont trade for Claypool. That also means we don't lose enough games in 2022 to get the first pick that eventually results in Caleb but let's say we win enough to still end up 10th instead of first and we pick Wright still. We then pick say Porter Jr with the Claypool pick since we don't have the 2nd from Panthers to get Tyrique.
2023 - We probably win enough to knock us out of contention for Odunze. Maybe event sneak into the playoffs with Jefferson, Burns, Porter Jr. for whole year but then probably don't trade for Sweat because we have to pay Burns. So let's say we draft 17th because we win 9 games.
So basically the 2024 Bears would be something like Fields, Jefferson, Burns, Barr, Henry, 17th pick and the 2nd from Sweat.
That is in contrast to Caleb, Moore, Odunze, Kmet, Brisker, Sweat and Tyrique. So Caleb alone makes this better for me but would love for someone to make the case being stuck with Fields is better than Caleb even with Jefferson and the extra draft picks. Take whoever you want at 17th and the 2nd we save by not having to trade Sweat.
2018 - Without Mack the team wins no where close to 12 games so lets say they win 8 games and pick 10th.
2019 - They draft one of Brian Burns, Montez Sweat, Rashan Gary, Christian Wilkens. I will say Burns. Lets also say they sign a top FA from 2019 with the Mack money. I will go with Barr.
So no Mack in 2019 but we have a rookie Burns and Barr. Does that make us studs in 2019 with Trubisky still at QB. I say hell no so we still dont make playoffs and probably finish around the same spot ie 19th. We take Justin Jefferson but lose Kmet as that was the Raiders pick. So let's say we still have some Mack money and sign Austin Hooper or Hunter Henry.
2020 - So now instead of Mack and Kmet we have Burns, Barr, Jefferson and Henry. Still not winning a SB with Trubisky but let's say we are good enough to make playoffs. Think we still have to dump Trubisky and trade up for Fields or Mac Jones if we have to trade with someone else because too far back for Fields.
2021 - Ok so now Fields and Dalton have better WR weapons in 2021 and we finish slightly better but still ain't doing shit in playoffs with rookie Fields, Barr, Burns, Jefferson and Henry.
2022 - Here is where the problem arises. That team maybe shows enough that Bears don't fire Pace. If so then Bears are fucked. But let's say they still fire Pace and hire Poles and Flus. In 2022 we don't have Mack which means we don't get Brisker. It also means we likely don't trade off Burns or Jefferson because they are young enough for Poles to build with them. Also means we dont trade for Claypool. That also means we don't lose enough games in 2022 to get the first pick that eventually results in Caleb but let's say we win enough to still end up 10th instead of first and we pick Wright still. We then pick say Porter Jr with the Claypool pick since we don't have the 2nd from Panthers to get Tyrique.
2023 - We probably win enough to knock us out of contention for Odunze. Maybe event sneak into the playoffs with Jefferson, Burns, Porter Jr. for whole year but then probably don't trade for Sweat because we have to pay Burns. So let's say we draft 17th because we win 9 games.
So basically the 2024 Bears would be something like Fields, Jefferson, Burns, Barr, Henry, 17th pick and the 2nd from Sweat.
That is in contrast to Caleb, Moore, Odunze, Kmet, Brisker, Sweat and Tyrique. So Caleb alone makes this better for me but would love for someone to make the case being stuck with Fields is better than Caleb even with Jefferson and the extra draft picks. Take whoever you want at 17th and the 2nd we save by not having to trade Sweat.
Last edited:
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,542
- Liked Posts:
- 3,733
by all means, continue your wet dream over ancient bears history
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 59,654
- Liked Posts:
- 38,275
You Lions fans are such hypocrited. If we should not concern ourselves with Bears ancient history then there is nonreason to concern ourselves with Bears ancient quarterback history like you wanted us too.
Can you at least try to be consistent. Either history matters or it doesn't. Which is it?
msadows
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 24,597
- Liked Posts:
- 19,920
So Dak and Ceedee are now taking up 95m of the cap the next 4 years.
How do they afford micah now? Are they really gonna commit 50% of the cap to 3 players?
Maybe the dream is still alive?!?
How do they afford micah now? Are they really gonna commit 50% of the cap to 3 players?
Maybe the dream is still alive?!?
EDPeezy
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 5, 2014
- Posts:
- 2,006
- Liked Posts:
- 989
It’s been obvious all off-season they’re bringing back their big 3 by the way they’ve spent. They hardly signed anybody. Jerry has been saving money so he can afford them. They’re not going to be able to pay guys like Bland.
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,542
- Liked Posts:
- 3,733
rookie QB'S starting a season opener are 0-14-1, there's a little history for you
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,542
- Liked Posts:
- 3,733
those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 13,547
- Liked Posts:
- 15,534
- Location:
- United Club
My favorite teams
Sam Darnold won his debut.
EDPeezy
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 5, 2014
- Posts:
- 2,006
- Liked Posts:
- 989
Mack was a very good player for the Bears but was’t worth what they paid. Short of maybe like a prime LT no defensive player is worth that much. I get it. You can argue that had they filled other needs better they still could have won. That’s sort of irrelevant though. Sure, teams can overcome bad spending and still win. That doesn’t justify the bad move though.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 59,654
- Liked Posts:
- 38,275
How many Super Bowls do the Lions have vs the Bears since we talking history?