The goal is to be a contender. Unless Trubisky becomes a top-end QB (in which case the Mack trade was probably a good thing), Mack isn't going to be enough. The Vikings are still better, and the Packers are too as long as Rodgers is healthy. Their best hope was to keep the picks and money and draft/spend well enough that the combined value of those picks and money were worth more than Mack. Odds are that wasn't going to happen, but they went from not-good odds to no chance. And they're screwed if something bad happens to Mack, the odds of which are no worse than the odds of elite Trubisky IMO.
Ok, maybe I wasn't clear as this isn't The Gang Dark Blue or The Gang Silver and Black. My desire for trading for Mack has nothing to do with the Raiders winning or losing with or without him or the Bears winning or losing without him. That he doesn't make the Bears contenders is irrelevant to the discussion--no defensive player can make a team a contender by himself--only a QB can do that. But what a player like Mack CAN do is elevate an entire defense--JUST as he's doing now in Chicago. I heard Tom Waddle this am on ESPN and he's saying that Mack has completely changed that team and "he doesn't even have his football legs under him". They already lead the league in sacks with 10. Again, it's not about him never having won in Oakland or him not elevating the Bears to contenders. It's about the JETS and elevating OUR defense. He would've made this defense dominant and it would have been up to the Offense to make us true contenders (and I trust Sam Darnold a hell of a lot more than Trubisky) --but one side of the ball would have been locked down. Did you see Tannehill sitting back in the pocket for 6-7 seconds routinely eyeing the field? That's not happening with a player like Mack. Don't fall for the 'he didn't win in Oakland and he's not going to contend in Chicago'. Don't be DWC. That's not the point. It's what he COULD have done for the Jets.
I was talking more about the Bears than the Jets since this isn't the Jets forum. It would have been a better deal for us because I trust Darnold more than Trubisky. But for us my concern with the trade wasn't now. Obviously Mack would've made the team better now. It's how things will look in two or three years from now.
A. You're ignoring the fact Bridgewater was on the team. Wasn't McCown or Darnold decision. B. My point is not that we'd be better off with a diff QB I was pointing to Mahomes to prove this "QBs don't develop if they don't play" mentality that is popular on this board is not true.
