Jump to content
RaidersAreOne

Khalil Mack Holdout (Won't report week 2, to be fined $814,000 again)

Recommended Posts

you be lying if you knew if this holdout will end in preseason..Could carry on to regular season for all we know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Humble_Beast said:

you be lying if you knew if this holdout will end in preseason..Could carry on to regular season for all we know

I honestly don't believe for a second Khalil Mack misses games over this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mack will not miss a single preseason game. At least not from a holdout perspective.

I doubt he gives up 800k per preaseason game.  Worst case he plays out the season on his current contract and for all we know that has been the plan all along from both sides.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Humble_Beast said:

you be lying if you knew if this holdout will end in preseason..Could carry on to regular season for all we know

You do know that Mack is fined  30,000 a day and 800,000 for every preseason game he misses.

if Mack holds out till week eight  He’ll be fined almost $10 million.

 This holdout is a no-win situation for MacK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue working against Mack is historically defensive players receiving 100mil+ has not worked out well for those franchises after.  

There's only been a handful of these deals for defensive players & most more recent but it's still not a great track record even with a small sample size.

Albert Haynesworth with Washington did not work out at all.

Von Miller with Denver is still playing itself out but the team has been no where near championship level since and each year they've had to make personnel sacrifices and bring in cheaper talent to offset.

JJ Watt has been hurt each year since his big deal and the team has been solid but not very deep at key positions and are having to rely on a young a QB for their ultimate success.

Justin Houston has also dealt with injuries since his deal and the team has been turning its roster over since and now they're also are forced to turn to a young QB in hopes to stay relavent.

Suh with Miami did not result in even a playoff appearance and they were at the mercy of relying on guys like Tannehill and Cutler becuase of the money invested in Suh.

Marcell Dareus has already been traded from Buffalo to Jacksonville but again the Bills were not great and had to go with an affordable QB to make it work but still found themselves having to move on.

The noticeable trend for each of these scenarious is the teams have had to turn to young inexperienced/to little experience QBs with team friendly deals at the time or journeymen QBs.  We already have franchise QB signed to a big deal, and as great as Mack has been, a 1 man wrecking crew hasn't resulted in a great defense.  I love Mack but does signing him to a massive deal fix all of our defensive woes going forward?  This is unfortunately a dilema where the outcome may not be pretty either way it goes.  We'll either have to move on from a great player we drafted in order to put the rest of the defense together or keep our home grown product in hopes we can bring in guys that will out perform the deals we can afford.

In none of the players mentioned above do you have a 100mil QB tied to a 100mil defensive player to go along.  The cap just does not make it possible to fit 2 players like that while still putting a quality team around them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correlation doesn't establish causation there to me. There's not enough evidence IMO that those deals some how resulted in those franchises lack of success. Haynesworth is the clear outlier on that list, and to a lesser extent Dareus. But the rest are premier level players, injuries aside. Those organizations just flat out failed to acquire or develop talent. Particularly at QB. The contracts really dont have anything to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, StocktonSav said:

Correlation doesn't establish causation there to me. There's not enough evidence IMO that those deals some how resulted in those franchises lack of success. Haynesworth is the clear outlier on that list, and to a lesser extent Dareus. But the rest are premier level players, injuries aside. Those organizations just flat out failed to acquire or develop talent. Particularly at QB. The contracts really dont have anything to do with it.

I agree there are a couple outliers and injuries can skew the results because they are unpredictable but it's still a trend that cannot be ignored or overlooked.  But more importantly than the fact that teams have not benefited well after handing out those deals to 1 premiere defensive player, there is very significant correlation that none of those franchises had or was able also able to facilitate a premiere QB at the same time.  It's just not feasable to think you can have a 40-50% of your cap tied into 2 premiere players and think you can build a championship, or better yet, a playoff contending team around that.

It's a bitter pill to swallow when you have to decide which wagon you want to hitch your franchise to but in this league the components needed to win and be successful are a franchise QB and a solid team defense and not just 1 great defensive player on a below average defense.

Sadly on the flip side, the same case can be made about the 100mil franchise QB....there isn't alot of history to show that once they hit their pay day that the teams success does not start to dip. Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, Flacco all got their titles before they all became the higher paid players in the league.  Brady takes less then his market value so he is complete outlier. But they are the safer bet to keep you competitive rather than 1 great pass rusher or defender.

Edited by Madleg81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Madleg81 said:

I agree there are a couple outliers and injuries can skew the results because they are unpredictable but it's still a trend that cannot be ignored or overlooked.  But more importantly than the fact that teams have not benefited well after handing out those deals to 1 premiere defensive player, there is very significant correlation that none of those franchises had or was able also able to facilitate a premiere QB at the same time.  It's just not feasable to think you can have a 40-50% of your cap tied into 2 premiere players and think you can build a championship, or better yet, a playoff contending team around that.

It's a bitter pill to swallow when you have to decide which wagon you want to hitch your franchise to but in this league the components needed to win and be successful are a franchise QB and a solid team defense and not just 1 great defensive player on a below average defense.

Sadly on the flip side, the same case can be made about the 100mil franchise QB....there isn't alot of history to show that once they hit their pay day that the teams success does not start to dip. Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, Flacco all got their titles before they all became the higher paid players in the league.  Brady takes less then his market value so he is complete outlier. But they are the safer bet to keep you competitive rather than 1 great pass rusher or defender.

I get what you're saying. And for the most part I agree. But the situation is really a catch 22. Teams can struggle after they give their top guys a big payday. But a lot of that is the byproduct of teams being unsuccessful and/or inconsistent at ensuring there is a steady influx of young talent on cheaper rookie contracts to fill out the roster. Because of the salary cap model, teams just have to do it that way to be competitive. All good teams have a chunk of players that are underpaid. That's the reality. You can't pay everyone. But that inconsistency is exactly why you pay your own top guys. You never know when you'll strike gold again. When you have a great player you have to pay them what they're worth to keep them. And just hope you can keep filling out the roster. But that hope is better than starting from square one trying to find another one.

 

But yes, teams have consistently shown that having a good QB on rookie deal on a good team opens up a prime championship window. Look at LA and PHI. So your point is well taken with regards to Rodgers, Brees and Wilson. But the overlooked point with respect to them is that although they haven't won a super bowl since their big deals, they've been in contention. They've made the postseason consistently and given their teams a shot. That's all you can hope for most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, StocktonSav said:

I get what you're saying. And for the most part I agree. But the situation is really a catch 22. Teams can struggle after they give their top guys a big payday. But a lot of that is the byproduct of teams being unsuccessful and/or inconsistent at ensuring there is a steady influx of young talent on cheaper rookie contracts to fill out the roster. Because of the salary cap model, teams just have to do it that way to be competitive. All good teams have a chunk of players that are underpaid. That's the reality. You can't pay everyone. But that inconsistency is exactly why you pay your own top guys. You never know when you'll strike gold again. When you have a great player you have to pay them what they're worth to keep them. And just hope you can keep filling out the roster. But that hope is better than starting from square one trying to find another one.

 

But yes, teams have consistently shown that having a good QB on rookie deal on a good team opens up a prime championship window. Look at LA and PHI. So your point is well taken with regards to Rodgers, Brees and Wilson. But the overlooked point with respect to them is that although they haven't won a super bowl since their big deals, they've been in contention. They've made the postseason consistently and given their teams a shot. That's all you can hope for most of the time.

I'm totally in agreeance with you about the fact that when you strike gold you pay what price it costs at the time to keep that from getting away because there is no telling when that will happen again.  It basically comes down to how well a team is able to identify talent that compliments their best players and can thrive in the scheme in place to take advantage of the window we have with these players. It's not the players fault getting what they deserve and what the market has set for them, but it's up to the organization to fill out those holes the best way possible to maintain a competitve culture.

It's funny becuase franchises like Pittsburg, New England and maybe on a lesser level Green Bay face the same cap situation as every other team but they have a formula and structure that allows them to thrive consistantly while others seem like they are re-writing the playbook each year.  

I do hope we keep Mack even if the price will hurt adding big names down the line but that's up to the coaching, scouting and player development to surround our best assets with complimentary players that can play at a high level but don't necessarily have to come with a high price tag.

Edited by Madleg81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

You do know that Mack is fined  30,000 a day and 800,000 for every preseason game he misses.

if Mack holds out till week eight  He’ll be fined almost $10 million.

 This holdout is a no-win situation for MacK

Highly doubt we actually fine him, unless we have no intentions to actually resign him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blazer026 said:

Highly doubt we actually fine him, unless we have no intentions to actually resign him. 

We should absolutely fine him until he signs. If he signs relatively early in the process, then give the money back. But if this drags out long I hope we do fine him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I understand this is blasphemy, but if I'm Oakland... 

 

·I'm calling Baltimore to see if we could pry Mosley, +++. 

·I'm calling corner heavy teams that need a DE/Edge guy.

·Potentially Seattle.  Wagner? 

·San Francisco to see about a Ruben Foster package.  

I don't know anyones cap situation except ours and that's even vague.  If I'm The Raiders FO, I'm not assuming that things are just going to end in our favor with Mack signing a mega deal. 

 

I hope we are doing our due diligence.  

Edited by Totty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Totty said:

I understand this is blasphemy, but if I'm Oakland... 

 

·I'm calling Baltimore to see if we could pry Mosley, +++. 

·I'm calling corner heavy teams that need a DE/Edge guy.

·Potentially Seattle.  Wagner? 

·San Francisco to see about a Ruben Foster package.  

I don't know anyones cap situation except ours and that's even vague.  If I'm The Raiders FO, I'm not assuming that things are just going to end in our favor with Mack signing a mega deal. 

 

I hope we are doing our due diligence.  

Disagree.  I’m not doing any of that until I know he isn’t signing or coming back.  You start talking to teams and rumors get back to Mack and then he feels betrayed and decides to leave.  No need to put ourselves in that situation, especially this early in camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, daineraider said:

Disagree.  I’m not doing any of that until I know he isn’t signing or coming back.  You start talking to teams and rumors get back to Mack and then he feels betrayed and decides to leave.  No need to put ourselves in that situation, especially this early in camp.

Yeah that would turn him into Kawhi,  And I would understand his POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×