Looking Back I wish we traded for Mack

[BillsFan1988]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Why would the Raiders care if Mack was on the Bills?  How would that hurt them?

 

 

 

Mack would not have made the Browns a SB this year.  Bears are better overall and they were not a serious contender this past season, it turns out.

I disagree I think u add Mack to Browns there much better then Mack on Bears. Imagine Garrett and Mack coming at u ? Plus Mayfield to me is light yrs ahead of Trubisky as a QB. 

20 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

One thing the OP has forgotten: At the time of the trade from Oakland to Chicago, the Bills were thinking they could have one of the worst teams in the NFL, while the Bears were thinking they could be a playoff contender with Mack.  What that means is the Bears believed they'd be offering the Raiders lower 1st round picks.  The Bills, on the other hand had serious deficiencies on offense & couldn't afford to risk what could be a top 5 pick, maybe even the #1 pick this year & another 1st rounder next year to get Mack.  As it turned out the Bears were who they thought they were & ended up in the playoffs, the Bills actually overachieved to get 6 wins and the 9th pick.  If the Bills had ended up with a top 5 pick or the top pick they would have been in a great spot to trade down for some serious picks, at 9 not so much.  So now the risk doesn't appear to be as severe, but at the time of the trade, the idea of giving up this year's #1 was viewed as too much for any one player who would do nothing to fill the serious voids on offense.  

Another miscalculation by our front office coaching staff not knowing what they have was better then the worse start team in the league.

[st pete gogolak]

Looking back, I wish we had DRAFTED Mack.

[kota]

Trading for Mack will hurt Chicago in the long run.  in a few years they will need to pay Trubisky.  You cannot give them both 100M dollar deals.  At that point Mack is out the door and you lost two first round picks.  he litterly has to give you a championship or it's not worth it.  

no defensive player is worth that kind of money.  Ask the Patriots.

[T master]

Sure he is a generational player that only comes along once in a lifetime a LT or a Jerry Rice type of player & it would be great to see him making plays in a Bills uni, but given the way the NFL has gone i would rather get 3 players that can help the team & do as much like we had in the 90's .

 

I would rather have Talley, Biscuit, & Conlan for 5 yrs on a reasonable contract than mack & 2 under achieving LB's to be taken advantage of by the likes of a really good offensive coach . Even though those  guys will get beat from time to time i think they would win more than lose but i have seen Mack & other great players get taken out of a game with great planning ...

Edited February 12, 2019 by T master

[BADOLBILZ]

 

Oh I'd definitely have traded two firsts for Mack as well if Oakland would have been willing to trade him within the conference.

 

If you aren't using your first round pick on a QB then it becomes the most overrated piece in the entire talent acquisition process.

 

That's not to say they aren't important but fans clutch to them like they are invaluable.......when in reality they just as often turn out to be Aaron Maybin or Donte Whitner or Shaq Lawson.........various levels of "meh"........as anything particularly impactful.

 

Mack would have been impactful on multiple levels..........great young player at the second most important position in football(pass rusher).........but also an underdog turned superstar character guy in the locker room........and a local legend who would have been a real "feel good" asset that fans could get behind.

 

Could have been a real feather in the cap of McBeane with the fanbase. 

 

The Bills have a bad rep for drafting poorly during the 2000's but they haven't been particularly bad in round 1.............it's just that they've had a tendency to pick a lot of low hanging fruit.   

[dave mcbride]

7 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Oh I'd definitely have traded two firsts for Mack as well if Oakland would have been willing to trade him within the conference.

 

If you aren't using your first round pick on a QB then it becomes the most overrated piece in the entire talent acquisition process.

 

That's not to say they aren't important but fans clutch to them like they are invaluable.......when in reality they just as often turn out to be Aaron Maybin or Donte Whitner or Shaq Lawson.........various levels of "meh"........as anything particularly impactful.

 

Mack would have been impactful on multiple levels..........great young player at the second most important position in football(pass rusher).........but also an underdog turned superstar character guy in the locker room........and a local legend who would have been a real "feel good" asset that fans could get behind.

 

Could have been a real feather in the cap of McBeane with the fanbase. 

 

The Bills have a bad rep for drafting poorly during the 2000's but they haven't been particularly bad in round 1.............it's just that they've had a tendency to pick a lot of low hanging fruit.   

Mack started out great this past season, but after his mid-October ankle injury, he was not the same guy the rest of the way (he missed two games too). He was still good and made plays late into the season (and he played well vs Philly in the playoffs despite the stats), but the stand-out physical dynamism wasn't there. He should be fine, of course, but that injury did hamper him a bit down the stretch. 

[MJS]

We can't force teams to trade with us. All 31 other teams would have been happy to capitalize on the dumb decision by the Raiders to let Mack go. As others have stated, if you are going to trade an elite player, you better trade him out of the conference and especially out of your division so he doesn't come back to bite you.

[C.Biscuit97]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Mack started out great this past season, but after his mid-October ankle injury, he was not the same guy the rest of the way (he missed two games too). He was still good and made plays late into the season (and he played well vs Philly in the playoffs despite the stats), but the stand-out physical dynamism wasn't there. He should be fine, of course, but that injury did hamper him a bit down the stretch. 

He commands a double team just by being in the field.  Injuries definitely hurt him but he is the main reason why their defense was 3 overall and had 36 takeaways.

 

its similar to when we got Mario.  Just his presence alone made the entire d line better.  It’s not a coincidence that Hughes, Kyle, and Dareus all had their best seasons when Mario was here.  That’s why a great pass rusher is so important.  They make the whole defense better.

[dave mcbride]

Just now, C.Biscuit97 said:

He commands a double team just by being in the field.  Injuries definitely hurt him but he is the main reason why their defense was 3 overall and had 36 takeaways.

 

its similar to when we got Mario.  Just his presence alone made the entire d line better.  It’s not a coincidence that Hughes, Kyle, and Dareus all had their best seasons when Mario was here.  That’s why a great pass rusher is so important.  They make the whole defense better.

I agree that he's great, and he had a very good season overall. His September numbers alone (when he was completely healthy) were all-pro worthy. I'm just saying that he had a decent stretch this season where he was clearly not 100 percent. 

[C.Biscuit97]

23 minutes ago, kota said:

Trading for Mack will hurt Chicago in the long run.  in a few years they will need to pay Trubisky.  You cannot give them both 100M dollar deals.  At that point Mack is out the door and you lost two first round picks.  he litterly has to give you a championship or it's not worth it.  

no defensive player is worth that kind of money.  Ask the Patriots.

Who cares about the long run?  They won 7 more games than they did last year and had a chance to compete for the SB.  If Mitch is legit to earn that money, it will be his team).  But imagine the Bears if they just took Mahomes. 

[BADOLBILZ]

10 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Mack started out great this past season, but after his mid-October ankle injury, he was not the same guy the rest of the way (he missed two games too). He was still good and made plays late into the season (and he played well vs Philly in the playoffs despite the stats), but the stand-out physical dynamism wasn't there. He should be fine, of course, but that injury did hamper him a bit down the stretch. 

 

Yeah and he wasn't going to make the Bills a contender last season either way considering how poor the offense was..........but I expect he will be a big producer over the next 5-7 years.........and often times the really good ones get better at avoiding those types of injuries as they mature.

 

I also LOVE the Bills results in round 2 in years where they haven't had a first round pick.

 

Something about not having a first rounder seems to clarify their judgement in round 2...........Thurman(HOF), Cowart(DPOY candidate), Darby(very nice CB) and Roscoe(meh)..........some of the best second rounders in franchise history(from a team that otherwise does not have a good track record in round 2).

 

I think there is something to it.......when you don't have a first rounder the pressure surrounding the draft is somewhat alleviated........the idea that they can somehow fill all needs is gone.........and they seem to draft BPA with that pick instead of need.  

 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Something about not having a first rounder seems to clarify their judgement in round 2...........Thurman(HOF), Cowart(DPOY candidate), Darby(very nice CB) and Roscoe(meh)..........some of the best second rounders in franchise history(from a team that otherwise does not have a good track record in round 2).

 

I think there is something to it.......when you don't have a first rounder the pressure surrounding the draft is somewhat alleviated........the idea that they can somehow fill all needs is gone.........and they seem to draft BPA with that pick instead of need.  

 

 

The same seemed to hold when they traded back in the 1st and took EJ as well.... they had two 2nds and picked Woods and Alonso (both good 2nd round picks and decent at worst NFL players). It is almost as though not having a first or knowing they'd reached a bit on a QB in the 1st clarified their thinking in round 2 and they just picked the best players.

[CookieG]

2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Elite pass rusher >>>> oline and receiver.  Those groups can be very easily found in the draft.  The Steeelrs rarely ever draft receiver high (I think JuJu, who we passed on, might be their highest drafted Wr in a long time) but they always can find guys.  

 

In in terms of nfl team construction, the hardest positions to find are qb, pass rusher, and cb.  The rest of the positions can fall into place after you have those other pieces. Mack wrecks teams by himself and he loves Buffalo.  I would have definitely given up the 9th this year and hopefully something like the 20th (fingers crossed) or so next year.  Honestly, it’s pretty much a no brainer.

 

I'll give a kinda shrug to all of this.

 

In the not too distant past, the Bills paid a DE the highest defensive salary in the league.

 

For 2 years, they led the league in sacks and probably had the best DL in the game. He himself had over 27 sacks in 2 years.

 

And they were fun to watch. 

 

Pressure comes from the left, QB moves right just to be sacked on the right side.

If the QB moves up in the pocket, he had one or two DT's waiting for him.

If the DT's bring pressure up the middle...the QB gets nailed by one of the DE's.

 

They complimented each other, they played well together.

 

As I said, leading the league in sacks for 2 straight years, a top 5 pass D and a top 5 D overall in one of those years.

 

Now, if these things are the end all that people profess they are...the Bills should not only have been in the playoffs, they should have been in the conference championship game, looking for a trip to the Dance.

 

But there was no trip to the Dance, there wasn't even a playoff spot.

 

Because the O sucked. And frankly, the O they had was better than what this team showed. And it definitely had less holes to fill, except at QB.

 

Now giving up 2 number 1 picks and $25 million a year in cap space to bolster a D that already gave up the fewest pass yards in the NFL...idk...its a brainer to me. I see it as overkill when the other side of the ball has been severely neglected.

 

I don't diminish the need for a pass rush...its an important part of the D, and an important part of a team, but it isn't the end all that people think it is.

 

If it was, the players on the '13 and '14 teams and probably the '04 team, should at least be sporting conference championship rings. As it was, none of those teams even saw the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, FeelingOnYouboty said:

 

That's pretty remarkable considering he was saddled with the worst HC of all time for a majority of that.

 

Tied the Steelers
Lost to the Saints by 3
Lost to the Raiders by 3
Lost to the Bucs by 3
Lost to the Ravens by 2

 

 

Hue was gone after week 8, but, yeah---he was easily and will always be the worst NFL HC of all time.  His 1-31 record will never ever be equaled.  Every poster on this board....heck any civilian off the street could have wandered onto the sideline, put on a headset and won more than a single game over two years on any NFL team.

3 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

2-5-1 under Jackson. 5-3 under Williams. 

 

It’s not unrealistic at all for somebody to argue that Jackson’s coaching and sitting of mayfield is a primary reason they weren’t in the playoffs. 

 

Not sayinf they were some sort of shoe in. But it’s debatable they could have at least made it for sure. 

 

 

It would have taken at least 10 wins.  I doubt it.

[Bill from NYC]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

The Bills have a bad rep for drafting poorly during the 2000's but they haven't been particularly bad in round 1.............it's just that they've had a tendency to pick a lot of low hanging fruit.   

Interesting......I took a very quick look and decided to rate the 19 1st round picks we had from 2000 until present. I came up with this in terms of rating players:

Excellent: 2

Good: 9

So-So: 2

Poor: 6

Of course these ratings are very subjective.

 

At face value it would seem that they weren't so bad but imo they were just horrible. Most of these "good" players did not help the Bills win football games. Imo, Josh Allen was their best draft selection of the century even if he doesn't develop as much as we want him to. This is how to build a team. Now, if only we can get him some blockers and some weapons we will have a shot.

 

Before drafting Josh we were a dog chasing its tail.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Bill from NYC

[BADOLBILZ]

33 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The same seemed to hold when they traded back in the 1st and took EJ as well.... they had two 2nds and picked Woods and Alonso (both good 2nd round picks and decent at worst NFL players). It is almost as though not having a first or knowing they'd reached a bit on a QB in the 1st clarified their thinking in round 2 and they just picked the best players.

 

 

It would be a very interesting subject for a member of the media to talk to former GM's about......IMO.

 

Most GM's end up ultimately being judged by their drafts and specifically their first round picks..........the pressure has to be enormous and the idea that a drafting philosophy can go off the rails after that selection would hardly surprise me.    

 

It could be the post-pick worry about that first selection made that leads to them trying to play catch up with subsequent picks.

 

Or it could be a loss of focus after the elation or disappointment of getting the player in round 1 that they had wanted all along or even one they didn't expect.

 

There just seems to be something that throws Bills GM's off that doesn't seem to happen when they don't have a first round pick(or when they use one on the outlier QB position, as you mentioned)     

 

As you know I've long been of the belief that you could just ALWAYS draft a QB in round 1 and come out better for it in the long run.

 

I know that's not a popular take(the hope around first round picks is intoxicating to fans) but a good portion of that is steeped in my belief that the pressure of planning to use that first round pick elsewhere has seemed to hurt the Bills.

 

And knowing the QB-centric approach is not going to happen.........I'm for a disciplined approach in early rounds.........premium $ positions only........and very open to trades for proven star players.    Doesn't solve all the problems but any good organization needs systems in place and I think the Bills approach has been too random/yearly.

 

 

[John from Riverside]

7 hours ago, BillsFan1988 said:

When u have a great player like this that wants to be in Buffalo wants to play for Buffalo and all it takes was 2 first rd pks and some cap space . Man we made a huge mistake not trading for Khalil .  Now we might spend this first on a DE that can't even play in the NFL. This class of DE's especially the ones projected to be on the board at #9 is not very good in my opinion. 

 

Just to think our defense finished #2 in the NFL but we only had 26 sacks on the season. Had we made that trade I think we had 50sks on the season and probably would of won 9 if not 10gms last yr. 

 

I realize Beane wants to build threw the draft but trading for Mack could of opened many doors for us especially in free agency.  I really believe players would look at the Bills as a prime destination.  We still would probably have close to 70mil to fill the holes. I'm pretty sure the Bills kicked the tires on Mack but weren't ready to pay the draft compensation required by the Raiders.

 

Looking back man I wish we traded for Mack.

 

Is that all? lol

[Knicks&Bills]

8 hours ago, bmur66 said:

Gotta have the cake before you put the icing on it

 

Mack is the cake ie the foundation 

[formerlyofCtown]

4 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

You enjoy your pressures.  I’ll take the guy who is in the discussion for DPOY every year he is healthy.  So would every non Bills fans.  

 

 

Not at the cost.  I would definitely take Mack for 9th overall.  We need a lot more on the other side of the ball.  I noticed you only responded to that point.  My point is that Jerry was actually more disruptive than him this past season.  Whether you or snyone else likes it or not its a fact.  Our D would be amazing with Mack opposite of Jerry.  Oir offense would still suck though.  Its also obvious that a lot of other teams felt the price was too much as well.

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

If we're going to play the hindsight game, we should've just drafted Mack in 2014 instead of Sammy...

[Logic]

I just don't think the Bills are/were in a place in their rebuild where it made sense to part with multiple 1st round picks.

The Bears were a dominant pass rusher away from "finished product" as far as team building goes. The Bills...not so much. To not have 1st round draft picks in EITHER of the next two drafts, when the team is in need of as much talent across the board as it is, would not have been a good thing. Additionally, you're looking at not only two 1st round rookies instead of Mack, you're also looking at two CHEAP LABOR PLAYERS instead of Mack, who would have commanded a huge salary.

Not only that, I think Beane wants to make darn sure he doesn't get the Bills into the same bad salary cap position they were in when he arrived. Paying Mack the highest contract ever awarded to a defensive player in league history could definitely qualify as a big step down that path.

All in all, I wouldn't have been MAD if the Bills had traded for Mack, but I'm not sorry that they passed. Priority number 1 for the Bills is to protect Josh Allen and get him weapons. Trading all those premium picks for Mack and giving him huge money would have significantly affected their ability to achieve the "help Allen" objective.

 

[C.Biscuit97]

5 hours ago, CookieG said:

I'll give a kinda shrug to all of this.

 

In the not too distant past, the Bills paid a DE the highest defensive salary in the league.

 

For 2 years, they led the league in sacks and probably had the best DL in the game. He himself had over 27 sacks in 2 years.

 

And they were fun to watch. 

 

Pressure comes from the left, QB moves right just to be sacked on the right side.

If the QB moves up in the pocket, he had one or two DT's waiting for him.

If the DT's bring pressure up the middle...the QB gets nailed by one of the DE's.

 

They complimented each other, they played well together.

 

As I said, leading the league in sacks for 2 straight years, a top 5 pass D and a top 5 D overall in one of those years.

 

Now, if these things are the end all that people profess they are...the Bills should not only have been in the playoffs, they should have been in the conference championship game, looking for a trip to the Dance.

 

But there was no trip to the Dance, there wasn't even a playoff spot.

 

Because the O sucked. And frankly, the O they had was better than what this team showed. And it definitely had less holes to fill, except at QB.

 

Now giving up 2 number 1 picks and $25 million a year in cap space to bolster a D that already gave up the fewest pass yards in the NFL...idk...its a brainer to me. I see it as overkill when the other side of the ball has been severely neglected.

 

I don't diminish the need for a pass rush...its an important part of the D, and an important part of a team, but it isn't the end all that people think it is.

 

If it was, the players on the '13 and '14 teams and probably the '04 team, should at least be sporting conference championship rings. As it was, none of those teams even saw the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

 

They beat Aaron Rodgers without scoring a td and shut down Peyton Manning during the best season of his career.  If they had an average Qb, they easily win 10+ games and have a shot at the SB.  

 

Onviiusly, it starts with qb but to dismiss how good Mario was because our qbs weren’t good enough is silly.

[GreggTX]

If the 2018 Bills had been a real heavyweight contender and were looking for that 1 win now guy to put them over the top, then the Mack trade would have made sense. However, we are still rebuilding and I'd much, much rather keep those 2 first round picks for now.

 

To me, the best teams have an elite QB and a roster with very few, if any, holes even if they don't have many probowl caliber guys. Let's get McCoy and Allen going first.

Edited February 12, 2019 by GreggTX

[C.Biscuit97]

Just now, GreggTX said:

If the 2018 Bills had been a real heavyweight contender and were looking for that 1 win now guy to put them over the top, then the Mack trade would have made sense. However, we are still rebuilding and I'd much, much rather keep those 2 first round picks for now.

And while I generally agree, I wonder if we draft to guys with those picks that could be packaged for Mack.  Obviously it’s a lot of money but I think people value draft picks too much.  

[Stank_Nasty]

8 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Not at the cost.  I would definitely take Mack for 9th overall.  We need a lot more on the other side of the ball.  I noticed you only responded to that point.  My point is that Jerry was actually more disruptive than him this past season.  Whether you or snyone else likes it or not its a fact.  Our D would be amazing with Mack opposite of Jerry.  Oir offense would still suck though.  Its also obvious that a lot of other teams felt the price was too much as well.

Hughes was more disruptive than Mack? And we are basing this all off of pressures, am I correct???....  man, I’ll have some of whatever you are smoking! 

 

Good lord. 

[KD in CA]

The Bills did trade for Mack....but some moron misspelled his name as W-a-t-k-i-n-s on the draft card.

[formerlyofCtown]

6 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

Hughes was more disruptive than Mack? And we are basing this all off of pressures, am I correct???....  man, I’ll have some of whatever you are smoking! 

 

Good lord. 

Disruptive for a DE would be getting into the backfield correct and that would be generating pressure. I would trade Jerry straight up for make as Mack is the better player, but facts are facts.  Im not gonna go back and and forth with people who think their opinion overrides fact.  Creating pressure is what a DE does.  Only 2 guys did that better than Hughes and one of them is DPOY it isnt Mack.  Now if QBs held the ball a bit longer or more pressure got generated from the other side it would show up as the golden stat youre looking for. 

[Freddie's Dead]

We should have drafted Mack.  When I heard all the picks we gave up, I figured it had to be Mack.  But no, Sammy.  Way to go Doug.

[Stank_Nasty]

4 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Disruptive for a DE would be getting into the backfield correct and that would be generating pressure. I would trade Jerry straight up for make as Mack is the better player, but facts are facts.  Im not gonna go back and and forth with people who think their opinion overrides fact.  Creating pressure is what a DE does.  Only 2 guys did that better than Hughes and one of them is DPOY it isnt Mack.  Now if QBs held the ball a bit longer or more pressure got generated from the other side it would show up as the golden stat youre looking for. 

I've been hearing the pressures argument for hughes as a bandaid for him for 3 years now. i'm over it. the good ones get home. PERIOD. 

 

he's a nice player. solid. i'm glad he's on the team..... he wasn't more disruptive than mack. I love how you use pressures as the ONE stat to measure disruptiveness and then act like everything else is opinion. convenient.

 

this really isn't worth the argument though because I actually really enjoy hughes for the most part. so.... you win I guess?

Edited February 13, 2019 by Stank_Nasty

[formerlyofCtown]

2 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

I've been hearing the pressures argument for hughes as a bandaid for him for 3 years now. i'm over it. the good ones get home. PERIOD. 

 

he's a nice player. solid. i'm glad he's on the team..... he wasn't more disruptive than mack. I love how you use pressures as the ONE stat to measure disruptiveness and then act like everything else is opinion. convenient.

 

this really isn't worth the argument though because I actually really enjoy hughes for the most part. so.... you win I guess?

?

[Wsam4031]

On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 7:35 AM, BillsFan1988 said:

It's not a difference maker group. Mack would add that element.  We're talking more hurries, sacks, picks & fumbles he's an absolute game wreaker.

Most of these interior players don't even have 10 career sacks in college.  The outside guys there stats are nothing special.  I just don't see special players Polite not special, Ferrell & Sweat i would stay away from these prospects.

Idk if this is true. I'm thinking the Bills offered 1 first and maybe a 2nd but they didn't offer 2 firsts . Conference or not the Raiders known we were worse then the Bears. 

They did they offered 2 1st and Hughes and the Raiders declined because they didn't wan tto trade him to an afc team. They had plenty of offers to choose from

[dubs]

I disagree. 

 

It’s one thing to pay a guy that you drafted that much money to resign. It’s completely different to give up two first round picks AND pay him that money. 

 

Mack is awesome, in retrospect should have drafted him, but I think giving up that much for this team would have been a mistake. 

[Alphadawg7]

On 2/12/2019 at 2:08 AM, BillsFan1988 said:

When u have a great player like this that wants to be in Buffalo wants to play for Buffalo and all it takes was 2 first rd pks and some cap space . Man we made a huge mistake not trading for Khalil .  Now we might spend this first on a DE that can't even play in the NFL. This class of DE's especially the ones projected to be on the board at #9 is not very good in my opinion. 

 

Just to think our defense finished #2 in the NFL but we only had 26 sacks on the season. Had we made that trade I think we had 50sks on the season and probably would of won 9 if not 10gms last yr. 

 

I realize Beane wants to build threw the draft but trading for Mack could of opened many doors for us especially in free agency.  I really believe players would look at the Bills as a prime destination.  We still would probably have close to 70mil to fill the holes. I'm pretty sure the Bills kicked the tires on Mack but weren't ready to pay the draft compensation required by the Raiders.

 

Looking back man I wish we traded for Mack.

 

 

Disagree.  Mack didn't help them when it mattered most, advancing in the Playoffs.  

 

Our achilles heal was NOT our D, it was the lack of talent on offense.  Our D was #2 in the league, and we dont just add Macks sacks to our sack total and assume all the Bills sacks still happen on top of Macks.  Thats not how it works.  

 

More importantly, lets say we did have 15 additional sacks.  How does that translate to 3 to 4 more wins?  Thats not even one more negative play per game.  Sacks are over rated stat, yes its key to bring pressure, but that sack is literally one play.  And in a 16 game season, you are talking about less than 1 more per game.  Yet we weren't losing because we didn't sack the QB one more time per game, we were losing because we were not scoring enough points.

 

Mack is a great player, but he didn't help the Raiders win, and while he had an impact for the Bears, the offense still failed to advance the team.  We need to invest those 2 first round picks in bringing balance to this team in getting our offense up to par.  Not taking a strong unit already and making it a little bit stronger.  

 

So love Mack, but I am glad we did NOT trade 2 firsts for him.  We have a ton of young talent on our D, its an ascending until already...spend the money and picks on helping the complete lack of talent around Josh on the offense.  Then use the cap space not used on Mack to keep our young players in the next few years.  

Edited February 13, 2019 by Alphadawg7

[BillsFan1988]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Disagree.  Mack didn't help them when it mattered most, advancing in the Playoffs.  

 

Our achilles heal was NOT our D, it was the lack of talent on offense.  Our D was #2 in the league, and we dont just add Macks sacks to our sack total and assume all the Bills sacks still happen on top of Macks.  Thats not how it works.  

 

More importantly, lets say we did have 15 additional sacks.  How does that translate to 3 to 4 more wins?  Thats not even one more negative play per game.  Sacks are over rated stat, yes its key to bring pressure, but that sack is literally one play.  And in a 16 game season, you are talking about less than 1 more per game.  Yet we weren't losing because we didn't sack the QB one more time per game, we were losing because we were not scoring enough points.

 

Mack is a great player, but he didn't help the Raiders win, and while he had an impact for the Bears, the offense still failed to advance the team.  We need to invest those 2 first round picks in bringing balance to this team in getting our offense up to par.  Not taking a strong unit already and making it a little bit stronger.  

 

So love Mack, but I am glad we did NOT trade 2 firsts for him.  We have a ton of young talent on our D, its an ascending until already...spend the money and picks on helping the complete lack of talent around Josh on the offense.  Then use the cap space not used on Mack to keep our young players in the next few years.  

It ain't just about sacks it's more about pressure and causing turnovers. We lost a few close gms that could of gone are way with Mack on our team.  I never said u add his sacks to our total either. With Mack and Hughes on opposite sides the Bills could easily gotten 50 as a team.  

[FearLess Price]

On 2/12/2019 at 6:48 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

My top 8 edge rushers all had double digit sacks in 2018.

 

Whos in your top 8. Theres a good possibility we draft ER in the 1st if the right one is there

[transplantbillsfan]

I remember that day vividly.

 

I was leaving work because I knew the Bills weren't up yet, then I got in my car and heard the Bills had traded up to #4.

 

As Goodell stated the pick, I was so excited because the Bills were going to pick the local UB product Khalil Mack...

 

and then Sammy glass Watkins was announced

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[Troll Toll]

Is he the guy that was neutralized by an old Jason Peters in the playoffs? Yeah, I’m all broken up that we didn’t give up 2 Firsts and $100 million for the guy.