- Joined:
- Aug 13, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,082
- Liked Posts:
- 1,782
We already know it was a win for the Bears. We won’t know if it’s also a win for the Raiders until we see how the draft picks they get pan out.
We already know it was a win for the Bears. We won’t know if it’s also a win for the Raiders until we see how the draft picks they get pan out.
- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,300
- Liked Posts:
- 2,527
- Location:
- NJ
My favorite teams
Not really though. It is already a "win" for the Raiders in the haul of draft capital alone as long as the draft holds up as one that produces quality players in any average NFL draft excluding the outlying crappy years where no GM anywhere had much of a chance at all.
They obviously went from elite pass rushing to below average (I don't know their pass rush stats post Mack but I know it wasn't good).
Their move will be to get to elite in some area through the draft capital. It doesn't look like they will get back to elite at pass rusher but
theoretically if they used their extra 1st round and 2nd round picks to draft the next Greg Olsen, Drew Brees, and Antonio Brown with their picks, they would have little to no sellers' remorse due to the explosion factor on offense. And one would think they HAVE to believe they can and will do something similar.
Whether they succeed in making the right picks is a commentary on their scouting including the scouts telling them BEFORE the Mack trade what will be there in the draft in terms of return on trade investment.
If the picks fail, it may not exactly be a commentary on the trade details but on the scouting department that informed them as to the potential of this upcoming draft.
(PS I already suspect the scouts are going to fail them due to scouts being historically unreliable in projection and due to the fact that Gruden noted he picked the Bears because he looked at our roster and thought Mack would make the least impact in Chicago than New York or Buffalo in terms of record turnaround. This seems objectively misguided. Even back in August, my normally pessimistic self CELEBRATED Mack and what that means for our record coming up).
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 57,904
- Liked Posts:
- 37,878
While Mack is elite, there is a fundamental question of whether paying a defender 24 million particularly as you embark on a rebuild is a good idea. You are paying a guy a lot of money in that situation with no actual playoff appearance in view. So before you can assess the trade, you have to first decide how close to the playoffs the Raiders were and whether it would make sense for them to give Mack 60 million guaranteed so he could ruin the Raiders draft position the next few years by dragging them to 6-8 wins instead of the 2-5 wins that would allow them to get a better draft pick.
Ironically, this was one of the knocks on Lovie. He was just good enough as a coach to continually knock us out of drafting in the top 10 because we got between 7-9 wins. As the article implies, if you aren't going to truly be competing as a perennial playoff contender, you are better of just blowing up the team and getting top 10 draft picks. Mack would have been a detriment to that. S
The hall the Raiders got for Mack was great. Look at Dee Ford who the Niners were able to acquire for a 2nd round pick and compare to the haul the Raiders got from us. Whether the Raiders use those draft picks appropriately and actually draft well doesn't change the fact the comp they received was more than adequate for a guy of Mack's caliber.
So on that basis, trading him made sense for them just as acquiring him made sense for us as we were actually trying to contend and we had a QB on a rookie contract. Pace was going into year 4 of his rebuild and desperately needed results. Gruden was going into Year 1 of his project and frankly didn't need Mack the next 2-3 years so paying him 60 million guaranteed would not only be a bit of a waste of money, it would negatively impact his rebuild by improving his draft position most likely.
Ironically, this was one of the knocks on Lovie. He was just good enough as a coach to continually knock us out of drafting in the top 10 because we got between 7-9 wins. As the article implies, if you aren't going to truly be competing as a perennial playoff contender, you are better of just blowing up the team and getting top 10 draft picks. Mack would have been a detriment to that. S
The hall the Raiders got for Mack was great. Look at Dee Ford who the Niners were able to acquire for a 2nd round pick and compare to the haul the Raiders got from us. Whether the Raiders use those draft picks appropriately and actually draft well doesn't change the fact the comp they received was more than adequate for a guy of Mack's caliber.
So on that basis, trading him made sense for them just as acquiring him made sense for us as we were actually trying to contend and we had a QB on a rookie contract. Pace was going into year 4 of his rebuild and desperately needed results. Gruden was going into Year 1 of his project and frankly didn't need Mack the next 2-3 years so paying him 60 million guaranteed would not only be a bit of a waste of money, it would negatively impact his rebuild by improving his draft position most likely.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,250
- Liked Posts:
- 17,127
- Location:
- Chicago
Yes and no.
I think you have to get more than one season out of Mack before it qualifies as win, but it is true you have to wait to see what Gruden does with his picks.
- Joined:
- Jun 20, 2010
- Posts:
- 38,284
- Liked Posts:
- 32,932
- Location:
- In the mod forum planning your ban
I agree remy. Raiders honestly didnt have a choice but to trade Mack. They got a new coach who was going to rebuild in his image and they had a good amount of contracts to renew. Raiders were (still are) a hot mess. It was either rebuild or go into cap hell. If these picks are good and Mack stays Mack it was a win win imo
r1terrell23
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 23, 2012
- Posts:
- 3,009
- Liked Posts:
- 1,622
The Raiders didn't do well yet.
1. They traded with us because they thought we'd suck and would pick in the top 10 instead of mid 20's.
2. You have to actually draft players who are good with those picks.
3. You destroyed your locker room and brought in guys who have been a cancers in their careers.
4. Mack can make a good defense elite and an average team a playoff team.
1. They traded with us because they thought we'd suck and would pick in the top 10 instead of mid 20's.
2. You have to actually draft players who are good with those picks.
3. You destroyed your locker room and brought in guys who have been a cancers in their careers.
4. Mack can make a good defense elite and an average team a playoff team.
- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,300
- Liked Posts:
- 2,527
- Location:
- NJ
My favorite teams
But draft picks are draft picks though. Unless it is one of those rare, weird talent-barren drafts where no GM really had much to work with, then Gruden has practically guaranteed himself a shot at upper level production at the positions he wants to target.
If the draft picks don't pan out for Gruden, that doesn't make the trade bad. In an alternate universe, San Diego could have traded ahead of IND to ensure/ get first dibs on the QB, and they drafted Leaf making sure IND was "stuck with" Manning. Is that trade bad? Or is the drafting bad?
Waetchter
Member
- Joined:
- Sep 21, 2018
- Posts:
- 55
- Liked Posts:
- 30
But weren't the Bears embarking on a rebuild with the Nagy hire? The Bears were 5-11 in 2017, the Raiders 6-10.
