DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Maybe the Raiders should trade Khalil Mack

Charles Robinson
‏
Verified account

@CharlesRobinson
Follow Follow @CharlesRobinson
More
What we know about the #Raiders today: Gruden is in charge of football operations, not GM Reggie McKenzie; owner Mark Davis vowed not to interfere with Gruden’s authority over football decisions. He didn’t with Khalil Mack trade. But that also puts Davis on the hook for this day.

What Raiders are feeling is exactly like how we would've felt trading Joe Thomas.

Even though I was on record of "understanding" it from the standpoint that I want him to be with a winner, but down inside it would've been devastating.

This is why I never trust Twitter rumors over actual quotes by the people the rumors are about.

I think that McKenzie has definitely lost power to Chuckie. There have been too many reports of this. (like these, for example)

Mark Davis Says Reggie McKenzie Plays 'different Role' With Jon Gruden Aboard - NBC Bay Area
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/c...-477870673.html

Barber: Raiders' Reggie McKenzie riding shotgun as Jon Gruden drives
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/sports/8245990-181/barber-raiders-reggie-mckenzie-riding

I have no doubt that McKenzie is being the good soldier ..... but if you look at all of the reports of Gruden calling the shots in personnel, and then McKenzie's less than enthusiastic reaction to the deal, along with reports that he didn't want to trade Mack, well, it's my belief that he didn't want to do this deal.

Well that would be totally different than "being blindsided by the trade".

I'm just saying that I saw an article that used those words.

None of this is surprising.

I think they all wanted to keep Mack, I think Chucky was always going to be an influential voice in terms of decision making, and I think a lot of it is overblown.

At the end of the day, this seems pretty simple:

1. They all wanted to keep Mack.
2. Mack wanted a $140M contract.
3. The Raiders were not willing to make him the highest paid defender in NFL history while turning down the largest trade offer for a defender in NFL history.

Frankly, Mack isn't worth the money. He's a great player, but not that great. He'll, Chandler Jones signed a 5 year, $83M contract last year and he's been more productive than Mack over the last few years: Including leading the NFL in sacks last year (Mack was tied 15th.)

No disrespect to Mack, but he's now got to play worth $23.5M and two first round draft picks.

I'm not sure any single NFL defender has ever played at a level to warrant that cost.

which is crazy because McKenzie had put together a pretty good roster, and now the HC is pretty much in control of everything.

my question(s) to the board is this: do you think this is gonna work?

was trading for bryant, who is now released, on McKenzie or Gruden?

I don't think I believe all these tweets about Mckenzie and Gruden not working together. Sounds like speculative BS to me.

I read articles that contained real quotes from McKenzie and basically it came down to Mack not being willing to work w/them on the contract.

The more I think about this, the more I think the Raiders got the better end of the deal. Not by a long-shot, but I think they win the trade.

I think some people are just looking at the Raiders. But, I'm looking at the Bears. They are the worst team in their division. They are miles away from competing for a playoff spot. They have traded away a lot in the last two years to get Trub [who I think stinks] and Mack. They are also overpaying for Mack.

Thus, moving forward...........they don't have a lot of high draft picks and Mack is taking up a significant portion of their cap.

The question begs to be asked: How do they build their team from here in order to make up all that ground in the NFC and even their own division?

I really think you should read that article.

Here's the one I posted above.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/raider...ther-final-hour

Here's another one.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/02/g...to-be-a-raider/

The fact is, both McKenzie and Gruden wanted Mack to stay in Oakland. They just couldn't come to terms with Mack. I've seen nothing of substance to say that they were divided on this. I don't feel either man is happy he's gone.

Now in regards to who is in control, I'd say you're right that Gruden is the head honcho. Just looking at the contract Gruden was given it's a pretty clear indication of that. But there is a point where Gruden has his limitations. I'd say the salary cap and contract negotiations are exactly where those limitations are. So to some extent these two men have to work hand in hand to achieve the things Gruden wants and sometimes even though Gruden may say what his desires are, they may simply not be able to be met.

In this case it's pretty clear to me that both these men were after the same thing. That is for Mack to stay. After trying to accomplish that, I'd say both men came to the conclusion that wasn't possible. To think that Gruden wanted to ship his best player out of town I find rather ludicrous. Ludicrous as in silly, not the rapper.

dunno bro.

nobody knows if the lions are gonna do anything this year. their defense looks trashtastic. cant get to the QB at all.

Minny looks good, but we still have to wait and see if Cousins is truly an elite QB or not.

the packers are tied to Rodgers staying healthy, like every year. and while talent wise there's no one touching Aaron...we dont even know if he's gonna stay healthy this year. also, serious questions on their defense.

Trub still looks like he has a ways to go, but their Oline and their running back are legit in the run game.

as far as who wins the trade, ill wait for that until after the season, unless mack gets injured.

we have seen it here plenty of times; having all those draft picks dont mean anything if they end up being garbage players.

or worse...not developed properly. we still dont even know if gruden still has it, or if he's in over his head.

That's fair. Like I said earlier. I don't think either team got bamboozled.

I just don't think Chicago is that good. And now they lost a lot of resources to improve in the form of draft picks and available cap money. Heck, they traded 4 picks away to get Trubisky.

And they traded w/SF, who later got Jimmy G for one second round pick.

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure I like what Da Bears are doing.

That's what a lot of people seem to be missing in the entire deal.

Now I'm not so sure we agree on the Raiders getting the better deal here. The Raiders were in a much better position to compete and Mack was a very important piece to that puzzle. So to me the loss of Mack was a huge blow to them. I mean if you're looking at this as a best case scenario in the event that "you had to trade Mack", then I agree. But as the best possible outcome for the Raiders I disagree. I think the best possible outcome would have been them having the ability to keep Mack.

On the other hand, I couldn't agree with you more about the Bears. They will need a lot of pieces of their puzzle to compete. Those draft picks they just lost mean a lot more to them than they do to the Raiders. They gave up a lot that could have made them competitors down the road for some ticket sales now that will have little impact on making them a playoff contending team.

If there's anything such as a lose/lose scenario by both parties, I think this fits that bill perfectly.

It's all on Gruden at this point. It's clear he's running the show. It started with cutting Marquette King (who he crushed on MNF).

They do not seem to be Masters of the Deal at all. I guess they must feel that a Butkus type gives them a solid base upon which to build out. But they have a longer time frame for a fix with more holes than before.

Even with Mack, I firmly believe that most NFL teams can neutralize one or two guys.

The Raiders are a mess. Jon Gruden is throwing their GM, Reggie McKenzie, under the bus right in front of everyone. Maybe we can hire him once he's fired (and replaced by a Bob LaMonte client), he worked with all the Packer Boys (Dorsey, Wolf, and Highsmith).

You keep championing that thought, but it's not been proven. I think that Mack's refusal to report to camp and work w/the Raiders on the contract was why they traded him.

The articles have already been posted that support that theory.

Your theory is like the National Enquirer version. Not sure if that rag is still on the racks of supermarkets or not? But, older folks will know what I'm talking about. LOL

Gruden has a lot of capital, with that contract.

so ironic that Gruden talked of the absurdity of the 90 million dollar guarantee for Mack ... and he received more

Oh, come on.

Gruden left a very cushy job, where he was making almost as much money, for the Raider job. He's almost definitely calling all the shots. If he's not, he and Reggie McKenzie need to go see a marriage counselor so they can be more aligned when answering questions:



https://twitter.com/mattschneidman/status/1036411682975694848

Once again, you are trying to mislead people by only posting one side of the story.

It's so old.

This actually makes some sense.

If the above is the case, it's just poor planning. They should have used the money they spent in free agency to keep Mack.

I find this situation very interesting:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...ign=Twitter_atn



https://twitter.com/BuckyBrooks/status/1036451774717034496

side note: i can absolutely see the Chargers coming out of the AFC West now.

Either them or KC I think. Chargers do some really dumb things and shoot themselves in the foot. But to he honest, I always kinda pull for them.

According to MMQB this morning ... the Jets and Bears were the two teams offering the most for Mack.

Browns, Packers, and Bills were the other 3 who were in the running, but didn't offer a 2nd first round pick

I think the Bears made a bad deal. I admit I don't know their roster well but their not a playoff team.

That said why give up the future to go nowhere?

Of course he has lost power. It was clear since Day One. Another example of a coach in charge of personnel decisions and it will most likely doom this team.

I'm guessing McKenzie will be gone in 2019, if not sooner. By his own accord or otherwise. And it's too bad because he did a really nice job building that team only to see it shot to hell by Gruden. Some of his moves have been laughable.

They have a good QB, so maybe Carr can mask some of the poor decision-making, but it's all there.

The Rams tried to get Khalil Mack. That would have been unfair.

Their D is going to be monstrous this year.

Gruden is out of touch with the game nowadays.. I'm curious to see how long he lasts

Unfair, lol yes definitely.

Right under the bus:



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...et-amari-cooper

yea, when he said that, i was surprised, especially it being week 1.

Some people are so sensitive. Carr needs to step it up. He sucked last year and was dreadful in week one.

This will never get old:



https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/09/19/jon-gruden-its-hard-to-find-a-good-pass-rusher/

The weird part is that Gruden has to know the value of a good defense. It's almost the entire reason his team in Tampa Bay was good (he had three Hall of Famers in Warren Sapp, John Lynch, and Derrick Brooks and two guys that are very close to hall of fame worthy in Simeon Rice and Ronde Barber).

Look how Mack has been an instant plug and play success for Chicago's D too.