Raiders Unload Mack: Good Move or Bad

Originally posted by Buchy:

No way in hell Mack was worth that, it's a good move by the Raiders and utter stupidity by the Bears.

The guy is 27, in three years they're going to be paying him like a franchise QB when he's a 30 year old edge rusher and they gave up the farm to get him. I don't know the full details of his contract in regards to if they have an out but it seems like a huge amount over 6 years that will see them paying him a fortune on the downward side of his career.

Edge rushers, especially the elite ones like Mack tend to have great careers well into their mid 30s.

Been watching NFL since 1981... First game was THE CATCH.. Just thought I'd share that.. but since 1981, I can only recall two OLBs that I would say ABOVE Khalil Mack..

1) LAWRENCE TAYLOR

2) DEREK THOMAS

so trading and giving up all those picks (IMO) are worth it...

MONSTERS OF THE MIDWAY IS BACK !!!

Originally posted by 9moon:
Been watching NFL since 1981... First game was THE CATCH.. Just thought I'd share that.. but since 1981, I can only recall two OLBs that I would say ABOVE Khalil Mack..

1) LAWRENCE TAYLOR

2) DEREK THOMAS

so trading and giving up all those picks (IMO) are worth it...

MONSTERS OF THE MIDWAY IS BACK !!!

a grown man wouldn't be so obsessed with nick name threads and making threads with madden type of trades. just saying...

Originally posted by TheGore49er:
it's good if Mitch looks good this year, that offense plays well, and they look like a decent team. if that offense sucks, Bears will go 4-12 even with Mack. and they will have to look for a QB again, and waste Macks first 3 years with that team.

although, some seem to be under the impression that Mack can make your whole team great, even though he couldn't even make the Raiders defense not look awful last year.

Excellent post!

Originally posted by dj43:

If the reports of Davis' financial inability to meet the trust fund requirements of the guaranteed money to Mack are true, it is "good" in that the Raiders go something now that they would not get if Mack played out his contract and walked away leaving them with nothing next year.

Is there verification for this?
I really don't believe it if there is no verification.

The money these teams generate and with the future value of the new stadium for the raiders and tv deals for the raiders and any team for that matter could easily get a bridge loan to cover any gap they would need.
If not thru a bank, there's other financial vehicles to aide in it. And mark davis has a net worth of $500 million. Obviously, not liquid, but as I said, easy to loan against equity positions from what I've delt with.

An attempt to break this down logically.

The Bears imo are going to have a tough time reaching 10 wins the next 2 years with the Vikings and Packers in the North. Which means they would have a tough time making it into the playoffs.

The Raiders were a, imo, 6-10/9-7 team, with Mack. Without him imo they're a 4-12/7-9 team.

So the Raiders gave up Mack for 2, more than likely top 20 picks, to go along with their more than likely 2 top 10 picks over the next 2 years.

I optimistically believe the Raiders can shore up their defense with the draft haul they received.

So I voted it as a good move for the Raiders.

As it stood they were at very best a fringe playoff team who didn't have the defensive personnel to withstand the offensive firepower of the top AFC teams.

I believe the thinking is they have a FQB and a top 10 line that can keep them in the top half offensively. But for them to truly compete for titles they need a top 10 defense and this trade gives them ability to aquire the talent. Rather then keeping Mack and signingn him to an extension, thus making it even more difficult to keep homegrown talent and acquire veterans/role players needed to fill out key starting or depth positions.

FWIW: The Raiders could trade both of their 2019 1st's as long as 1 is in the top 10, their 2019 2nd and another early-mid pick and probably grab Nick Bosa and they would still have the Bears 1st and 3rd round picks for 2020 to use to finish the defense. Which I believe would be a great compensation for Mack.

Bad move for the Raiders: they trade away their best player and will, very likely, just waste the draft haul they got for him

Bad move for the Bears. I dont think they were one edge rusher away from a super bowl. But they gave up a bundle, which limits their options to develop their team over the next two years.

It was a waste of resources but you don't want players who don't want to be on your team.

Raiders did the smart thing.

Think about it. The 49ers secured JG for a second round pick... Raiders received two firsts for Mack...

I you had to choose between the aforementioned, you choose JG. Unless you choose your pride instead in spite of the appearance of being foolish.

Originally posted by NinerLegionnaire:

An attempt to break this down logically.

The Bears imo are going to have a tough time reaching 10 wins the next 2 years with the Vikings and Packers in the North. Which means they would have a tough time making it into the playoffs.

The Raiders were a, imo, 6-10/9-7 team, with Mack. Without him imo they're a 4-12/7-9 team.

So the Raiders gave up Mack for 2, more than likely top 20 picks, to go along with their more than likely 2 top 10 picks over the next 2 years.

I optimistically believe the Raiders can shore up their defense with the draft haul they received.

So I voted it as a good move for the Raiders.

As it stood they were at very best a fringe playoff team who didn't have the defensive personnel to withstand the offensive firepower of the top AFC teams.

I believe the thinking is they have a FQB and a top 10 line that can keep them in the top half offensively. But for them to truly compete for titles they need a top 10 defense and this trade gives them ability to aquire the talent. Rather then keeping Mack and signingn him to an extension, thus making it even more difficult to keep homegrown talent and acquire veterans/role players needed to fill out key starting or depth positions.

FWIW: The Raiders could trade both of their 2019 1st's as long as 1 is in the top 10, their 2019 2nd and another early-mid pick and probably grab Nick Bosa and they would still have the Bears 1st and 3rd round picks for 2020 to use to finish the defense. Which I believe would be a great compensation for Mack.

I've heard privately Gruden is saying he thinks Oakland is in full rebuild mode. With Mack's contract concerns it was just best to net picks.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
I've heard privately Gruden is saying he thinks Oakland is in full rebuild mode. With Mack's contract concerns it was just best to net picks.

Objectively, they kinda are. They have a QB and Receiver... which makes them the Cardinals of old. They're going to need to upgrade several positions on that roster.

There's no RB, the O-Line sucks, the D line is nothing special, Mack is a very good pass rusher, DB's... well, when the DL is nothing special it's hard to truly evaluate that group.

They're probably going to spend those two additional picks in the trenches (DL and OL). I think it was a smart move. Will they find another Mack, probably not. Will they find a Deforest Buckner maybe... Will they get some help for their most valuable player up front... they better or...

I am shocked that there are people in this world that are trying to justify this as anything but a terrible move by the Raiders. Shocked.

It's an Oakland A's type of move.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
I am shocked that there are people in this world that are trying to justify this as anything but a terrible move by the Raiders. Shocked.

Nailed it!

Originally posted by WestCoastForever:
It was a waste of resources but you don't want players who don't want to be on your team.

Link to him saying he didnt want to be a Raider?