(09-01-2018, 10:17 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote:

(09-01-2018, 10:03 AM)Bullseye Wrote: Playing Devil's Advocate for the moment...name two Jaguars defensive first rounders over the years you would keep over Jalen Ramsey.

Well that's a hard question. On the surface, none.

But we would be in the Raiders situation here, where we only spent one pick on the guy years ago and now he's up to be paid. I'd throw the bank at him.

Flip that around, say we had the defense we have now but no Ramsey, so adding him would take us from a good secondary to the best. I would not give up 2 firsts and then have to pay him at the same time. 

I just feel its too much for any player who isn't Brady, Rodgers, prime Peyton, etc.

Okay...so the Raiders had Mack defensively and nobody else.  They had the choice to pay big bucks for him or trade him, and they chose to trade him.

Question is, what is Mack worth to the Bears?  in Chicago, he wouldn't be virtually alone on that defense the way he was in Oakland.  In their 3-4, assuming Roquan Smith is the stud most scouts assume, their worst LB of their four would be Danny Trevathan!  He would have a good young pass rusher opposite him in Floyd...and a decent front 3 in front of him.  Clearly from the Bears' perspective, they have the chance to make a quantum defensive leap by adding Mack.

Make no mistake, a team giving up 2 first round picks is paying a steep price for a player.

Were it for a non premium position, or for a guy past his prime, or for a guy with a history of off field issues, I'd be completely on board with those of you who say it is too expensive a price.

But in most instances, a player of Mack's pedigree never becomes available.  When he does, sometimes you have to bite the bullet.

---

(09-01-2018, 10:36 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote:

(09-01-2018, 10:08 AM)Bullseye Wrote: It's foolish long term if he isn't the player you envisioned.

If he does not produce at a Pro bowl level, then yes it's foolish long term.

But why is paying a big contract to a  player you drafted 3-4 years ago any more foolish than it is for a player for whom you are trading?

Even though you "know" the player you sign after previously drafting him, signing him to the new contract is no more a guarantee he will continue produce at a high level than trading for that same player or signing him as a free agent.

The Jaguars went from perpetual doormat to within 5 minutes of the Super Bowl on the strength of their defense.

The Vikings went from a team that missed the playoffs 5 out of the past 8 seasons to the NFC Championship game on the strength of their defense.

The Saints went from three straight 7-9 seasons to a last second miracle away from the NFC championship on the strength of their defense.

I can't blame the Bears for hoping for a similar turnaround (especially after drafting what they hope is a franchise QB) for signing a still in his prime All Pro caliber pass rushing OLB, to pair with their other young OLB in Floyd, rookie Roquan Smith, and NT Eddie Goldman.

They have the makings of a nasty defense there-at least a nasty front 7.

If they are going to have any hopes of overtaking Detroit and Green Bay, they have to find a way to get Stafford and Rodgers on the ground.  Cousins too, for that matter.

If they hit on this trade, Mack gives them the ability to put those guys on the ground and give them a chance to win those games.

I absolutely understand your POV on it and you make some good points. 

I'm just personally on the other side

Understood. 

The combination of two first round picks plus the contract is scary!  I certainly don't think you guys are crazy or even necessarily wrong for your views here.

I'm glad nobody in the AFCS made that deal though.

Aside from us not having to face him twice a year for the next 4-7 years, could you imagine the debates on this subject had the Jaguars pulled the trigger on a deal like this?  

---