Absolutely. My only contention is that GB MIGHT have had a better record than the bares. But it is all conjecture. You know, the stuff that makes up 90% of the internet discussion boards. My original comment was more than likely GB would not be 6 games better but they might have been 3 games better (9-6-1) and da bares 3 games worse (9-7). It wouldn't have all been because of Mack. A healthier Rodgers would have been a factor as well.

Would I have wanted Gute to make the deal Chicago did and give away so much? No. But that is another issue for another thread. And this site does have space for a few more threads.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I guess I can't really remember a game last season where I thought dang if our defense was just a little better on the pass rush we'd have won. I felt the offense was big issue.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

If for no other reason, Aaron wouldn't have faced such a tenacious pass rush in week 1. He wouldn't have been hindered with an injury and would in all probability been more effective all year.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I don't think Mack would have put us over the edge. We couldn't even make the playoffs without him. Now if we got to the 2nd round of the playoffs, I'd be thinking ya on to something.

We were far more than a Mack from being contenders.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Can we delete posts I know we can edit.

Its not that I disagree with this its just that everything is connected. However, the only way to even think about which games he could have tilted in our favor is to play the what if game and for me one of the biggest what ifs with Mack directly involves our offense. What if we had gotten Mack and Rodgers hadn't gotten hurt in the first game. Sure there were more issues with our offense than just Rodgers injury but I have to think a healthy Rodgers would have certainly helped.

That's why anything that regarding what may have happened if we had gotten Mack is pure speculation. There is simply no way to know what may have happened.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Should have read everything before I made my last post sorry. Funny to think that maybe the most positive outcome of us getting Mack would have been on our offense and not our defense.

Can we delete posts I know we can edit.



I don't think he would have put us over either but as WPR said he may have made enough of a difference to win us the division. Of course had that happened would we be looking at McCarthy in training camp rather than MLF. If so many people would consider that a downside of us getting Mack.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Aaron didn't get hurt because of Mack. He got hurt because he's fragile and the Bears front seven is menacing.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

It's all good. Zero bought enough space to allow many many members to post similar comments. He's a genius.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Kiss ass.








😂 😂 😂

Originally Posted by: Cheesey