NFC North / NFL Thread 2018-19

[HutchwasClutch]

How are folks seeing the Pack defense this year?  Hard for me to tell but was wondering how the homeowners are feeling?  Fantasy sites have them 18-22.

Much improved at cornerback, solid defense line.  Mostly suck however at LB, inside and outside and zero depth.   Not to mention Matthews declining, he and Nick Perry always injured.  That area needs to be addressed this weekend, hopefully in a trade (or two).   They have a glut of talented WR's and can't keep them all. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Someone remind me again ... why are the Raiders trading one of the league's best defensive players while he's in his prime and whom they have control over for three years?
(Hint: They're not).

Oops.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Two firsts and a massive contract is a lot for Mack but he's an elite player that fills the biggest need on a young defense that was top 10 last year and also added Smith.

The offensive side of the ball has been completely revamped with new talent and coaching.

As mentioned, it ultimately comes down to Trubisky and his development.

If the Bears are picking in middle of the 1sr or lower the next few years the pain of losing those picks is considerably lessened, especially when the draft is such a crapshoot anyway.

[DegenerateDish]

I’m shocked by what the Bears got back in that Mack trade. Holy hell, that 2020 second rounder will be a top 5 pick. Unbelievable, I have no idea what the Raiders are doing, this is highway robbery. That pick is huge, player control, tons of value, inexpensive, when the Bears have no 2019 or 2020 first rounder, if that is pick 33, my god, what a steal.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Mack reaches agreement.  6 years, $141 mil. $90 mil guaranteed, $60 million at signing.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I’m shocked by what the Bears got back in that Mack trade. Holy hell, that 2020 second rounder will be a top 5 pick. Unbelievable, I have no idea what the Raiders are doing, this is highway robbery. That pick is huge, player control, tons of value, inexpensive, when the Bears have no 2019 or 2020 first rounder, if that is pick 33, my god, what a steal.

Just a fantastic trade for the Bears. For the first time in a long time I'm legitimately excited about the season.

[DegenerateDish]

Just a fantastic trade for the Bears. For the first time in a long time I'm legitimately excited about the season.

For kicks and giggles, say in 2019 the Bears go 11-5, lose in division round. Hypothetically, we’ll say that nets pick 26 in the 2020 draft. I think the Raiders are going to stink the next two years. Let’s say they go 4-12 in 2019, and have the third worst record.

Basically then the Bears are pick swapping pick 26 for pick 35 in 2020. They’re then only giving up a third in 2020 and a 6 in 2019, AND getting back a 5 in 2020.

That’s asinine the Raiders did that, I’m blown away.

[GGGG]

Just a fantastic trade for the Bears. For the first time in a long time I'm legitimately excited about the season.

Better hope the quarterback is better than he showed last year.

[wadesworld]

Better hope the quarterback is better than he showed last year.

Yup. I’m not overly worried about the Bears being 11-5 in a year.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Better hope the quarterback is better than he showed last year.

Rex Grossman led the Bears to a Super Bowl granted with an elite defense. 11-5 isn't completely that far fetched.

But it's the Bears so 7-9 would be par for the course.

[Lennys Tap]

Very good news for the Bears. Bad news for the Pack and the Lions - they struggled to protect their QBs last year and this won't help.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Better hope the quarterback is better than he showed last year.

Yup. I’m not overly worried about the Bears being 11-5 in a year.

Sure.  Care to compare the coaching staffs and skill positions surrounding the QB last year vs. this year?

[DegenerateDish]

Looking over the Mack contract numbers, it’s crazy team friendly. He’ll get a ton in 2018 upfront, but they can walk away in 2022 with a $6.8 dead cap, and $0 in 2023 and 2024. It gives them a ton of overall flexibility.

Their 2019 cap space right now is $13 mil. They’ll cut Dion Sims this offseason and free up an additional $6. They need to really only re-up Goldman and Amos next year and make a decision on Bobby Massie, but they can be active in the free agent market next year.

[GGGG]

Sure.  Care to compare the coaching staffs and skill positions surrounding the QB last year vs. this year?

Go ahead. I’m sure it’s going to make a big difference.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Go ahead. I’m sure it’s going to make a big difference.

I asked if you wanted to compare. Not many rookie QBs would have put up numbers with the talent and play-calling Trubisky had last year.  Do you disagree?

[GGGG]

I asked if you wanted to compare. Not many rookie QBs would have put up numbers with the talent and play-calling Trubisky had last year.  Do you disagree?

I said you better hope he's going to be better.  If you are believing that the coaching and the talent around him is what's holding him back, well fine.  I think the jury is out on both that and him.

[DegenerateDish]

If Trubisky sucks, the Bears are going to suck with or without Mack, plain and simple. If Trubisky is good, the Bears have a chance to be really good.

I have no idea yet on him. I saw things Iliked last year, saw things I didn’t. Fox and Loggains didn’t necessarily do him any favors last year, due to injuries on the offense and poor plans/coaching for Loggains. Helfrich and Nagy are offensive guys, but are in new positions. They spent a ton on weapons for him this offseason. I need to see big steps forward this year, and if they aren’t contending by 2019, then Trubisky is the problem and not the solution.

If this gets brought back to Mack, if you’re the Bears, you make that deal any day of the week and twice on Sunday to get an in his prime, HOF tracking, premium elite edge rusher, with no offfield issues or previous injury concerns. A player of Mack’s caliber never hits FA, and the Bears stole him.

[GGGG]

If Trubisky sucks, the Bears are going to suck with or without Mack, plain and simple. If Trubisky is good, the Bears have a chance to be really good.

I have no idea yet on him. I saw things Iliked last year, saw things I didn’t. Fox and Loggains didn’t necessarily do him any favors last year, due to injuries on the offense and poor plans/coaching for Loggains. Helfrich and Nagy are offensive guys, but are in new positions. They spent a ton on weapons for him this offseason. I need to see big steps forward this year, and if they aren’t contending by 2019, then Trubisky is the problem and not the solution.

If this gets brought back to Mack, if you’re the Bears, you make that deal any day of the week and twice on Sunday to get an in his prime, HOF tracking, premium elite edge rusher, with no offfield issues or previous injury concerns. A player of Mack’s caliber never hits FA, and the Bears stole him.

I think this is a very good summary.  And I don't blame the Bears for making that trade at all.

I do not understand the Raider's point of view.  My guess is that they just wanted to get rid of the guy, but that's not usually a winning philosophy in today's NFL when the teams hold almost all the cards.

[Pakuni]

I do not understand the Raider's point of view.  My guess is that they just wanted to get rid of the guy, but that's not usually a winning philosophy in today's NFL when the teams hold almost all the cards.

As a Raiders fan I do not like the trade, but I do understand (though disagree) with the rationale.
Essentially, they didn't want to tie up about $45 million in annual cap space over the next three seasons on two players (Carr and Mack). Even with the cap projected at $190 million in 2019 and $200 million in 2020, that's still 24 percent and 22.5 percent, respectively, of your cap on two guys.
Also, I'm guessing they considered the fact that with Mack, their defense ranked 23rd, 26th and 22nd the past three years, so it wasn't going to get much worse without him (we'll find out).

I'd always figured that worse comes to worse, they just make Mack play out his rookie contract and tag seasons, and let him be unhappy about it.

[Jockey]

As a Raiders fan I do not like the trade, but I do understand (though disagree) with the rationale.
Essentially, they didn't want to tie up about $45 million in annual cap space over the next three seasons on two players (Carr and Mack). Even with the cap projected at $190 million in 2019 and $200 million in 2020, that's still 24 percent and 22.5 percent, respectively, of your cap on two guys.
Also, I'm guessing they considered the fact that with Mack, their defense ranked 23rd, 26th and 22nd the past three years, so it wasn't going to get much worse without him (we'll find out).

I'd always figured that worse comes to worse, they just make Mack play out his rookie contract and tag seasons, and let him be unhappy about it.

I read yesterday that “cash on hand” or rather a lack of cash on hand was the reason. They didn’t have the cash they needed to pay up front to make the deal.

[GGGG]

I read yesterday that “cash on hand” or rather a lack of cash on hand was the reason. They didn’t have the cash they needed to pay up front to make the deal.

How must you mismanage a NFL team to be so cash poor?

[Pakuni]

I read yesterday that “cash on hand” or rather a lack of cash on hand was the reason. They didn’t have the cash they needed to pay up front to make the deal.

I've heard that rumor, but most of the beat writers out there say it's not true. Who knows?
But I think the Raiders 100 percent wanted him back until the Donald deal happened and Mack's agent said he wanted that and more. Whether it was cash flow or not wanting almost a quarter of the cap tied to two guys, it definitely was more motivated by the financial side of things than what happens on the field. Bears got a helluva player. And I hope they go 0-32 the next two seasons.

[MU82]

We all try to do it, but predicting the NFL (aside from saying the Patriots will contend for the title every year) is never as easy as it seems on Sept. 1.

There are major surprises almost every year -- teams that are supposed to be very good suck, and teams that are supposed to suck are very good.

I'm no Bears fan, that's for sure, but I'd look at the 2017 Rams as inspiration. Jared Goff pretty much blew as a rookie and there were those who wondered if the Rams had screwed up royally with the pick. But he had a heck of a second season and combined with an excellent defense to help make the Rams one of the league's best teams.

What if Trubisky is this year's Goff and if Mack helps an already good defense become elite?

I agree with those who say it's all on Trubisky. If he progresses to play as well as a high-draft QB should, then they have the potential to be very good. If not, they're in trouble despite all they spent on Mack.

The same could be true of a lot of teams. I mean, my Panthers have as good a front 7 as there is in the NFL. If Cam plays like 2015 Cam, they can go back to the Super Bowl. If Cam plays like 2016 Cam, they are doomed. If Cam plays like 2017 Cam, they'll probably win 9-11 games but not seriously contend for the title.

[DegenerateDish]

The landscape of managing the cap has evolved. Unless you have Rodgers, Brees, or Brady, you’re almost better off going all in and betting on a QB on a rookie wage deal and loading up while you have that flexibility. Look at the Seahawks (Wilson), Eagles (Wentz), Rams (Goff) as examples of teams taking advantage of their QB’s being good and cheap and either re-loading (Seahawks) or loading up (Rams). The one glaring example is the Cowboys inability to take advantage of Prescott’s deal.

[dgies9156]

Folks, I hate to say this (maybe not, as I do have Bears season tickets) but the Bears are for real.

They've upgraded their offense and their Defense may be as good as the Urlacher led defenses that got them to the Super Bowl.

Trubisky remains to be seen but by all definitions, this team looks like a threat to the Packers and that scumball team from Minneapolis.