And it's gonna be even worse if someone else does.
Originally Posted by: beast
Especially that someone. I didn't want to see the Packers give up that much but I can't say I'm glad the Bears did. The Bears may have handcuffed themselves as a team for a few years but that's not my concern. I don't really care how many games the Bears win or lose I just care how they will perform in 2 games each year and this will make them harder to beat.
So far, it's two firsts, but it's believed to be more. I think Mack would have been better for the Packers than the Bears. He's 27 and is gonna garner a large contract. That's not exactly ideal for a rebuilding team, then again, I suppose one could argue the Packers did just that in '93 with 92.
Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool
Better in the sense that the Packers are closer than the Bears so one player will have a bigger impact all around. I don't know that he would have better individual stats. The Bears have a pretty good cast surrounding him on defense. The question for them in the future is will they be be able to keep them around .
Nothing makes me want GB to have acquired Mack than to see him go to the bares. Now I am left hoping they squandered their picks and money. I know it's petty.
Originally Posted by: wpr
no... this is petty
http://therockandrollplayhouse.com/wp-content/uploads/171002161613-07-tom-petty-restricted-super-169-1080x619.jpg What you are feeling is natural. I hope they squandered their money as well. The thing is even if Mack turns out to be all he is supposed to be it may not help them in the long run. This year, sure since he is a plug and play but when his cap space and lack of first rounders come into play over the next few years they may be hoping he is the one man wrecking crew because they have no other men around him.
Brandt is right.
This next draft is gonna be DEEP in edge rushers. Why not get TWO of them for 10 years, and only have to pay them rookie contracts? The Bears are gonna get THREE prime years, and gave up TWO firsts for the privilege. On a rebuilding team like the Bears? HA.
Three years of paying HUGE money, then a decline.
Originally Posted by: nerdmann
Its 5 years really. 10 years combined but they each will only be cheap for 5 years. Still I know what you are saying. Not sure I agree with the 3 years prime part but even a declining Mack might be better than 90% of the first round picks.
Why not? ... Nah we need to cheer ... maybe we will have cutler part 2 🙂
I agree I dont see how he is worth 2 first rounds and a huge contract ... good for us 🙂 but then again we just paid for rodgers the highest paid guy in history - I just hope he plays as good as his past numbers as his paycheck suggest.
Originally Posted by: Dulak
We need to cheer for that because the alternative is too depressing. Like I said above I didn't want the Packers to give up that much to get him but I didn't want the Bears to either. I can only hope now that I was justified in into wanting the Packers to do it and my fears about acquiring Mack are realized.
Just to put it in perspective as to what was given up. The Bears gave up 2 first rounders and a player (rumored) For those who WILL say we should have given them our 2 first and Matthews. Maybe they wouldn't want Matthews depending who the bears player is maybe he is better or they wanted him more. What we offer has to be what they accept. My guess is the lynch pin in the deal was the 2 first rounders and even with Mack I would expect the Bears next two picks to be higher than the Packers two picks in 2019 or even if they split it into 1 each in 2019 and 2020.
The Bottom line is if the Bears gave up 2 first rounders and a player the Packers would have had to give up more and no one knows how much more.