Khalil Mack Anyone?

[McMichael]

I wouldn't completely dismiss it as some are doing....it is possible imo although its gotta be a very small chance.

Would be an amazing way to start the year though.....Id go buy his jersey right away probably lol can't beat a jersey with "mack" on the back

 

[BSQ]

tay, nailed it. If we're going to move heaven and earth to bring in a player it must be a QB. Did we learn nothing with the expensive, failed Suh experiment? Spend the biggest money on the biggest game changer.

 

[Bowzer]

But... “knock on wood” what if Tanny got hurt again this year.. and we had no 1st round pick?

 

[Burnt Reynolds]

send them Osweiller and a 4th. He's had a great camp.

 

[The Ghost]

But... “knock on wood” what if Tanny got hurt again this year.. and we had no 1st round pick?

That would be the risk you take and surely the scenario the Raiders would like to see happen, in a theoretical situation of course.

I am fairly certain my best offer to Oakland for a trade and Mack for a contract would both get rebuked so i am not pretending this could happen.

 

[mike_vee]

tay, nailed it. If we're going to move heaven and earth to bring in a player it must be a QB. Did we learn nothing with the expensive, failed Suh experiment? Spend the biggest money on the biggest game changer.

i would agree with what you just said about Suh or any DT. but a LB/DE would change the whole D. and usually a defence needs a building block and that would be one hell of a block to build on if we had Mack.
i think we all can remember that we had a pretty darn good D when we had Zach Thomas playing LB. who else did we have that you can say was oh my god good? Jason Taylor? ok we have Wake, Jones, and Howard. my point is if we had a game changing LB like Mack we would definitely be a top 5 defence. are we one player away? maybe not but one player like Mack would definitely speed the process up.

 

[Coach_Rob]

I am curious to know if you guys (who like me don't mind wasting their time with meaningless speculation) would offer more for Mack or Roquan Smith. In a hypothetical situation.

Roquan Smith could reach his full potential and not have the impact of Mack. But Mack is 6 years, 2 months older and will be making CONSIDERABLY more money.

I don't think the Bears need to entertain the thought of trading Smith as it's a different situation than Mack's. Eventually whatever hold ups there are with guarantees will be ironed out. But for now, he's officially a hold out and officially part of this unofficial trade speculation.

Certainly this is an example of an apples to oranges comparison.

Smith is a better scheme fit, much younger and would cost about a 1/3 the money over the next half decade.

Mack is Mack. He's in a conversation with guys like A. Donald, V.Miller and a pre-injury TJ Watt. HOFers. That said, he's a better fit for a 3-4 team.

I like the team we have, I love the way the needs have been addressed and non needs have been bolstered. Seems like the chemistry isn't something I'd necessarily want to F-with either. But it is a business, no player would complain about adding talent (except maybe the player(s) involved in the deal).

So, to make it perfectly clear, I'm both for and against either potential trade.

I would go with roquan with our D. the kid is a stud. and doesn't cost as much.... yet

 

[DolfanDuBbZ~]

You don't run a top tier DT from Davie and then replace it with a DE. Either your program is about building, youth and depth...or it isn't.

 

[dlockz]

IDK, i'm not a cap guru, but if they could have fit Suh in the cap they would be able to figure out how to fit Mack in.

Problem is we are still paying Suh under the cap 9 mill this year and another 13 million next year.