Raiders receive 'Best Transaction' award at analytics conference for trading Khalil Mack to Bears - CBSSports.com
The Raiders trading away Mack was an intelligent move. Dee Ford for example had more sacks than Mack and was traded for a second round pick. Jaso-Pierre Paul was traded for a 3rd and 4th round pick and had more sacks than Mack as well.
If trading away for Mack was an intelligent move, it wasn't because Dee Ford or Paul on much different teams and defenses. The drop of Raiders from 30 plus sacks with Mack the prior year to 10.5 sacks this year, in spite of a much improved secondary, is due to the absence of Macks presence - someone who often required double-teaming (and sometimes even that didn't work). The impact of a player is not only in their direct play, but in the effect of their presence. AS the only defensive linemen of serious talent (the rest being marginal to terrible) he was a necessary start to rebuilding the defense.
A few additional points;
- If you think the raiders will find a talent better than Mack (5th pick) at the 27th pick (Chicago's pick), good luck.
- The so-called analytics is based on the value of losing a 5th rounder of extreme talent, plus risking a new pick at 27th, and the following year a swap of first and second round picks. RISK is just that: its a 50/50 risk that the player drafted will make it in the NFL, let alone that he will be a pro-bowl or MVP caliber.
- If they non-exclusive franchised tagged Mack, they would paid about the same as they had offered, and next year (which is this year) when Mack hit free agency they would have gotten 2 first round picks from the team that got him - no strings attached. However, that depended on the raiders making up there mind before July 15, 2018. And that requires a coherent strategy which, apparently, they didn't have.
- Everyone ripped the raiders, rightly, when their primary "logic" was that couldn't pay the money asked for not even for a franchise tag (which would have been less than 17.5 million). We now know that is B.S.
- The Raiders took a risk, and they paid for it. The 27th pick is NOT what they expected, nor the 24th pick for Cooper.
- None of this makes particular sense in turning around and paying the money they said they didn't have for a trade for A. Brown and free agent T. Brown, two aging players who won't be around for long but will be on a team that has barely begun to rebuild.
So no, I am not "impressed" by the analytics of the entire Gruden-Davis-McKenzie saga: the failure to revitalize Cooper, and failure to wisely handle Mack, or get full 1st round draft choice value. But I am impressed with Maycock, who got what Gruden-Davis were willing to lavishly pay for and to snag Williams, who I believe will be a gem choice as a second WR.
And should this translate into Maycock bringing in real quality talent for the 24th and 27th pick this year, and an unknown pick next year, an it is equal to what was lost (assuming Gruden will listen to him), at least the deal will have been no worse than breaking even. If Maycock hits on all three picks (the third being a swap), it will be a plus (although that is highly unlikely).
But we shall see.